I said I would drive through the line and if they don't move from in front of the car, they could end up being shoved out of the way or falling forward onto the hood of my car. And yes, I'd turn over and have a good nights rest later that evening

You're not quite getting it-you're still talking about running people over as if its a reasonable (or even legal) thing to do. 

People decided that blocking a major interstate was a good idea, and I defied their act civil disobedience. A win/win situation in my eyes. I support anti-police brutality protests, but standing in the middle of the street and making people late isn't acceptable. Glad they got charged and arrested.

Then where was your outrage when peaceful protesters were being assaulted and arrested? I'm guessing you didn't exactly care when that happened. At least on this forum, you've never defended the free speech of protesters or police brutality protests even as a concept. Please don't try to have fake support for something to sound reasonable. 

It's very hard for me to take anyone seriously that thinks standing on the interstate is a good idea.

Woah woah woah, scroll back up. You accused me of twisting your words and misunderstanding you. When did I say that standing in the interstate was a good idea? Tell me. Right there, see it? You're twisting my words. 

And I'm talking to someone who wants to run over protesters because they're inconveniencing him, and I'm still managing to take you seriously.

 

You're not quite getting it-you're still talking about running people over as if its a reasonable (or even legal) thing to do. 

Then where was your outrage when peaceful protesters were being assaulted and arrested? I'm guessing you didn't exactly care when that happened. At least on this forum, you've never defended the free speech of protesters or police brutality protests even as a concept. Please don't try to have fake support for something to sound reasonable. 

Woah woah woah, scroll back up. You accused me of twisting your words and misunderstanding you. When did I say that standing in the interstate was a good idea? Tell me. Right there, see it? You're twisting my words. 

And I'm talking to someone who wants to run over protesters because they're inconveniencing him, and I'm still managing to take you seriously.

Standing in the middle of the interstate isn't a legal or reasonable thing to do. I need to get to work and I'm not going to lose my job and plunge into a financial crisis as a result. I would have done exactly what the driver in the video I linked did. Not necessarily slam on the accelerator and TRY to murder people, but give them a little nudge so they know to get out of the way. Let me ask you this, what would you do in that situation? Would you just remain there and wait the hour and a half it took for the police to move them off the interstate? 

Officers don't just walk up to people and start assaulting them. They'll do that if the protesters have previously broken laws, and officers haven't arrested them yet. If a protester, or anyone, is arrested for NO reason then I support the protest of that arrest; And I would hope that the person that was falsely arrested would take it to court. I also don't think you've been in this forum long enough to conclude that I've never defended free speech. This is one of the very few times I actually support the police rather than the demonstration. 

You're not saying it, you're implying that it's reasonable. You're defending the fact that they're standing in the street and I'm supposed to just sit there and wait. Wrong answer my friend, wrong answer. 

Yes, absolutely. As I said before, I'm not going to get fired just because some fools want to stand in the street. I need to get to work and support my wife and kids. I'm not going to lose that over something like this. (I'm not married, just giving an example). What if an ambulance was trying to race someone to a hospital? That ambulance can't even move. That person is probably dying at that point. 

Edited August 22, 201510 yr by TheDivineHustle
Fixed some iPhone auto-correct typos.

If I were an ambulance driver and my vehicle was blocked by "protesters" on the highway, I would slow down and continue moving forward slowly until they realized I wasn't stopping, jumped out of the way, and let me save a damn life.

I wonder how the BLM protestors would feel if they found out that, because they were blocking highways and roads, a black person became late for work and therefore lost their job. Or a black person needed to go to the hospital and they died as a result of the ambulance being delayed. That would be very ironic

Standing in the middle of the interstate isn't a legal or reasonable thing to do. I need to get to work and I'm not going to lose my job and plunge into a financial crisis as a result. I would have done exactly what the driver in the video I linked did. Not necessarily slam on the accelerator and TRY to murder people, but give them a little nudge so they know to get out of the way. Let me ask you this, what would you do in that situation? Would you just remain there and wait the hour and a half it took for the police to move them off the interstate? 

I'm not saying that standing in an interstate is a legal reasonable thing to do, but running people over isn't any better. And yes, I know you said "a little nudge", but that's not how you started off. I'm going by your original statement, because that you said you would do based on emotion, not what you changed it to after I questioned you on it. What would I do? I wouldn't run people over to be on time. I'm not wired to use violence to get what I want.

Officers don't just walk up to people and start assaulting them. They'll do that if the protesters have previously broken laws, and officers haven't arrested them yet. If a protester, or anyone, is arrested for NO reason then I support the protest of that arrest; And I would hope that the person that was falsely arrested would take it to court. I also don't think you've been in this forum long enough to conclude that I've never defended free speech. This is one of the very few times I actually support the police rather than the demonstration. 

So when peaceful protesters were being tear gassed and journalists were being assaulted and detained, and when officers were walking around pointing lethal weapons at unarmed peaceful protesters, show me where your posts were that defended them. I'm guessing you didn't care when that happened, am I wrong? And you're saying "police do this, or police don't do this", as if the police in Ferguson have perfectly been playing by the rules since the shooting. 

You're not saying it, you're implying that it's reasonable. You're defending the fact that they're standing in the street and I'm supposed to just sit there and wait. Wrong answer my friend, wrong answer. 

 No, I'm not implying it. You're twisting my words, the exact thing that you accused me of. In case you missed it, this is what I actually said.

"Am I OK with civil disobedience? Yeah, if the grievance is valid. I understand why they were arrested and so do they. Almost every single successful non-violent political movement  has used civil disobedience, this is nothing new. I'm more angry about the conduct of the Ferguson Police that lead to these protests than the actual protests themselves."

Yes, absolutely. As I said before, I'm not going to get fired just because some fools want to stand in the street. I need to get to work and support my wife and kids. I'm not going to lose that over something like this. (I'm not married, just giving an example). What if an ambulance was trying to race someone to a hospital? That ambulance can't even move. That person is probably dying at that point. 

 See but you're making up hypotheticals. Was there actually an ambulance stuck in traffic? You have no idea. The protesters honestly might have gotten out of the way if there was an ambulance with lights and sirens, we don't know, because it didn't happen.

Blocking traffic isn't legal or reasonable, which is why they were arrested. But you're the guy saying he would run people over to be on time for work. That's also not reasonable or legal, and you would probably be arrested for that and charged with hit and run. Good luck "supporting your family" in prison.

 

 

I'm not saying that standing in an interstate is a legal reasonable thing to do, but running people over isn't any better. And yes, I know you said "a little nudge", but that's not how you started off. I'm going by your original statement, because that you said you would do based on emotion, not what you changed it to after I questioned you on it. What would I do? I wouldn't run people over to be on time. I'm not wired to use violence to get what I want.

So when peaceful protesters were being tear gassed and journalists were being assaulted and detained, and when officers were walking around pointing lethal weapons at unarmed peaceful protesters, show me where your posts were that defended them. I'm guessing you didn't care when that happened, am I wrong? And you're saying "police do this, or police don't do this", as if the police in Ferguson have perfectly been playing by the rules since the shooting. 

 No, I'm not implying it. You're twisting my words, the exact thing that you accused me of. In case you missed it, this is what I actually said.

"Am I OK with civil disobedience? Yeah, if the grievance is valid. I understand why they were arrested and so do they. Almost every single successful non-violent political movement  has used civil disobedience, this is nothing new. I'm more angry about the conduct of the Ferguson Police that lead to these protests than the actual protests themselves."

 See but you're making up hypotheticals. Was there actually an ambulance stuck in traffic? You have no idea. The protesters honestly might have gotten out of the way if there was an ambulance with lights and sirens, we don't know, because it didn't happen.

Blocking traffic isn't legal or reasonable, which is why they were arrested. But you're the guy saying he would run people over to be on time for work. That's also not reasonable or legal, and you would probably be arrested for that and charged with hit and run. Good luck "supporting your family" in prison.

 

I never said that I'd intentionally try to kill people. You talk about me putting words into your mouth and you're doing exactly that to me as we speak. I've been saying I'd nudge them a bit since my first post. You don't just stand in the middle of the street. You don't know the people behind the wheels in the cars that drive by. Some of those people would seriously hit you and keep going. Depending on the type of day I'm having, I can easily be one of those people. Sure I'd go to jail, but you'd probably be dead. Not a very smart exchange in my opinion. Just get out of the street and we won't even get to that point. It's not that hard of a concept, really. 

"I'm not wired to use violence to get what I want". If you're in my way, then I'm going to do what's necessary to get you out of my way, violence isn't any exception. If I have to punch someone in the face to accomplish what I need to accomplish, then that's what I'll do. Would I want to hurt someone? Of course not, I hate using violence, but I'll do what I have to do.

Again, the police don't just walk up to you and start assaulting and spraying you. The protesters were probably blocking the street, not obeying officers commands, being disruptive, all types of shit. If you don't do what the police tell you to do, then you'll be sprayed. Just the way it works. When an officer tells me to do something, I do it U.S. Army double time. If what they told me to do was wrong, I'll take them to court. Don't fight the police in the street, it won't end well for you.

Yes, I'm making up hypotheticals because hypotheticals can become reality. What if there was an ambulance? Just as you can assume there wasn't, I can assume there was. it works both ways and I really don't see why you're still defending them. There's no sense to it.

 

 

 

 

I never said that I'd intentionally try to kill people. You talk about me putting words into your mouth and you're doing exactly that to me as we speak. I've been saying I'd nudge them a bit since my first post. You don't just stand in the middle of the street. You don't know the people behind the wheels in the cars that drive by. Some of those people would seriously hit you and keep going. Depending on the type of day I'm having, I can easily be one of those people. Sure I'd go to jail, but you'd probably be dead. Not a very smart exchange in my opinion. Just get out of the street and we won't even get to that point. It's not that hard of a concept, really. 

"I absolutely would have broken through the line, and I wouldn't have any problem going to sleep that same night."

If you were saying that you would just nudge people, why include the second part? The second part implies that you would cause bodily harm to people, and you wouldn't have any remorse.

"Sure I'd go to jail, but you'd probably be dead."

Wait, I thought you were just going to nudge people? Now you're saying they'd probably be dead?

So you get pissed off that someone is making you late, so you run them over with your car, get arrested, and go to jail. Just so we're clear, that's the kind of person you are. Not a self-righteous motorist, but a dangerous criminal. I'm not saying it, you're saying it. And I love how again, you accuse me of putting words in your mouth, and then you say something even more outrageous.

Again, the police don't just walk up to you and start assaulting and spraying you. The protesters were probably blocking the street, not obeying officers commands, being disruptive, all types of shit. If you don't do what the police tell you to do, then you'll be sprayed. Just the way it works. When an officer tells me to do something, I do it U.S. Army double time. If what they told me to do was wrong, I'll take them to court. Don't fight the police in the street, it won't end well for you.

You're still saying "the police don't do X" as if they're one cohesive force that always play by the rules. There were multiple cases of police assaulting and arresting peaceful protesters in Ferguson alone, let alone over the years. That's a fact that overrules your perception of what cops do during protests.

Yes, I'm making up hypotheticals because hypotheticals can become reality. What if there was an ambulance? Just as you can assume there wasn't, I can assume there was. it works both ways and I really don't see why you're still defending them. There's no sense to it

I'm defending them because you're telling me that you would murder them with your car. I don't support blocking traffic, I'm pro-not running people over.

And there was no talk of an ambulance until you brought it up out of the blue, and now you're saying that I'm assuming that there's not? Huh? You're inventing ambulances to make a hypothetical point about the dangers of a protest I've already told you that I don't support.

Edited August 23, 201510 yr by Riley24

Looks like this thread has run its course.

So, let me get this straight: this so called "civil rights" movement is "protesting" what they perceive as their lack of rights...by depriving random, innocent motorists of their freedom of movement and right to travel? A movement that supposedly wants civil rights is trying to get them by denying other people their rights? How does that make any sense? 

So, let me get this straight: this so called "civil rights" movement is "protesting" what they perceive as their lack of rights...by depriving random, innocent motorists of their freedom of movement and right to travel? A movement that supposedly wants civil rights is trying to get them by denying other people their rights? How does that make any sense? 

Don't try to comprehend retardation. It's unfortunate that some people have it, and hopefully they get the help that they desperately need. It doesn't make any sense at all, but they don't possess the mental capacity to comprehend that. They're fighting for "freedom and civil rights" by inconveniencing Americans that have nothing to do with anything. There was actually a woman that supported the protest of the Michael Brown shooting but she came up to the line pissed, because she had somewhere she needed to be. This isn't sending a message to law enforcement, it's sending a message to the American people. The message is that some Americans really don't understand what freedom actually is, and don't understand the concept of proper protesting. This is why people were honking and breaking through the line. 

http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/08/22/minister-slams-black-lives-matter-why-are-you-not-cleaning-your-own-community

http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/08/22/minister-slams-black-lives-matter-why-are-you-not-cleaning-your-own-community

Fox News....really? Every time they cover issues of race or religion, they bring on someone of that race or religion to tell the (generally old and white) audience that whatever the issue is, its directly and solely the fault of everyone else in their ethnic group. Black people being killed by police? Bring on a black correspondent to tell us its black people's fault, and that they need to pull their pants up. Muslim terrorist attack? Bring on a Muslim correspondent to tell us how horrible Muslims are.

The only exception is when they bring on Police Union leaders and former commissioners, sheriffs, and chiefs to tell us that there's absolutely nothing wrong with policing in America. They're a joke of a news network, and they're actively fueling the race issue.

Fox News....really? Every time they cover issues of race or religion, they bring on someone of that race or religion to tell the (generally old and white) audience that whatever the issue is, its directly and solely the fault of everyone else in their ethnic group. Black people being killed by police? Bring on a black correspondent to tell us its black people's fault, and that they need to pull their pants up. Muslim terrorist attack? Bring on a Muslim correspondent to tell us how horrible Muslims are.

The only exception is when they bring on Police Union leaders and former commissioners, sheriffs, and chiefs to tell us that there's absolutely nothing wrong with policing in America. They're a joke of a news network, and they're actively fueling the race issue.

Old and white? Are you basically generalizing that most right wing people are old and white? Just take a look at the republican candidates vs the democratic candidates for 2016. The GOP has a far more diverse group of people. I hope that you don't take CNN seriously either. I saw this one clip of Christ Matthews ask Katy Tur "Are there any black people there?" while she was at a Donald Trump event.

Edited August 23, 201510 yr by MayhemMercenary

Old and white? Are you basically generalizing that most right wing people are old and white? Just take a look at the republican candidates vs the democratic candidates for 2016. The GOP has a far more diverse group of people. I hope that you don't take CNN seriously either. I saw this one clip of Christ Matthews ask Katy Tur "Are there any black people there?" while she was at a Donald Trump event.

No, I'm saying that Fox News viewers tend to be old and white, which is actually true. (http://www.thewire.com/business/2014/05/fox-newss-old-viewership-is-getting-even-older/371792/) But as it also points out, all network news channels attract an older audience. Just look at Pavelow, yourself and I. Did any of us actually watch this clip on Fox News? No.

This is just my own commentary, but the GOP field is only diverse because of the same mentality that exists on Fox News. Notice how Rubio and Cruz, the two Hispanic candidates, aren't supporting any policies that would help Hispanic Americans. Ben Carson isn't tackling any issues that affect black Americans. Diversity doesn't mean anything if you're not bringing anything new to the table, which none of them are.

And I've got no love for CNN, they're an establishment news network that seems to side with whatever the current administration is, because they're under the impression that the most reliable source is always the government. That's why they played such a huge role in selling the Iraq war to the American people. Also, MSNBC is a joke. They have a few progressive hosts that get forced to apologize every time they say something slightly outlandish, even if its true. No balls.

And I actually heard about Chris Matthews saying that lol. Funny that everyone's up in arms about political correctness but they freak out when someone asks a question about the diversity of a Republican candidate in a red state, but phrases it in a non-PC way. Not only that, but it was about Trump's rally, the guy who is only a successful candidate because of his ridiculous comments an disdain for political correctness.

 

Fox News....really? Every time they cover issues of race or religion, they bring on someone of that race or religion to tell the (generally old and white) audience that whatever the issue is, its directly and solely the fault of everyone else in their ethnic group. Black people being killed by police? Bring on a black correspondent to tell us its black people's fault, and that they need to pull their pants up. Muslim terrorist attack? Bring on a Muslim correspondent to tell us how horrible Muslims are.

The only exception is when they bring on Police Union leaders and former commissioners, sheriffs, and chiefs to tell us that there's absolutely nothing wrong with policing in America. They're a joke of a news network, and they're actively fueling the race issue.

At least they provide another side to the story unlike the overwhelming majority of news sites. 

 

Besides have you read the BLM proposals? They will literally have police officers killed by suspects, suicides, and undo years of case law that works well, but BLM are using that as a diversion. 

 

Besides have you read the BLM proposals? They will literally have police officers killed by suspects, suicides, and undo years of case law that works well, but BLM are using that as a diversion. 

Did....you read them? I don't see sacrificing cops on the list....

http://www.businessinsider.com/black-lives-matter-has-a-policy-platform-2015-8

Did....you read them? I don't see sacrificing cops on the list....

http://www.businessinsider.com/black-lives-matter-has-a-policy-platform-2015-8

Then you're not familiar with common use of force policy and case law. They're wanting to be more strict on when deadly force can be used but it's still subjective.  And not allowing someone to talk to an officer for a set amount of time is partly due for his own psychological well being. 

Then you're not familiar with common use of force policy and case law. They're wanting to be more strict on when deadly force can be used but it's still subjective.  And not allowing someone to talk to an officer for a set amount of time is partly due for his own psychological well being. 

I'm sorry but...we're talking about the same list, right? None of those things kill officers. What case law are you referring to?

But yeah, the whole point of the movement is that they're asking for policy changes, so it's not an argument to say "well the actions of the police are justified by policies". They know that. That's the problem, and why they're asking for policies to be changed. Their list is very practical and do-able, and a lot of departments are currently ushering in one or more of those changes. They're asking for those changes nation-wide, that's the only difference. 

And limiting use of force doesn't necessarily make an officer less safe. The kind of brutality and killing we're seeing isn't being done to people that are a legitimate lethal threat. They're asking that the safety of citizens has to be made more of a priority, which is literally the job description of the police. Their policy positions are very mutually beneficial.  

Edited August 29, 201510 yr by Riley24

I'm sorry but...we're talking about the same list, right? None of those things kill officers. What case law are you referring to?

But yeah, the whole point of the movement is that they're asking for policy changes, so it's not an argument to say "well the actions of the police are justified by policies". They know that. That's the problem, and why they're asking for policies to be changed. Their list is very practical and do-able, and a lot of departments are currently ushering in one or more of those changes. They're asking for those changes nation-wide, that's the only difference. 

And limiting use of force doesn't necessarily make an officer less safe. The kind of brutality and killing we're seeing isn't being done to people that are a legitimate lethal threat. They're asking that the safety of citizens has to be made more of a priority, which is literally the job description of the police. Their policy positions are very mutually beneficial.  

Graham v. Connor and Tennessee v. Garner. Those have established use of force guidelines and when lethal force is allowed on EVERY CITIZEN. It's absolutely asinine to make an exception for black people, or any other ethnic, racial, or gender group. 

 

And limiting the use of force WILL get officers killed. It's already getting them killed because officers are too scared to act because the media will ruin their lives.

 

And that's the problem. There IS NO DEFINITIVE guideline for use of force. Every officer will perceive a threat differently, and there is no archetypal classification of a threat. A suspect that is 6'6 275lbs may not be considered a serious threat by the officer that is 6'3 250lbs. But that same suspect may be considered a threat by the officer that is 5'9 180lbs. Then you can consider things like accessibility of a weapon, presence of drugs or alcohol, the physical condition of an officer, knowledge of suspect, reason he is considered a suspect, etc. And it's already established that courts will look at Use of Force cases from the viewpoint of an officer, that has a half a second or less to make the decision to pull the trigger. 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

And why don't these "activists" go through an abbreviated academy? Why don't they learn what is taught to officers. What the force continuum is. When use of force is justified. Why you're shooting. How you're shooting. Because I'd be willing to bet that 99% of these activists don't even know what the case laws are that are the backbone to state statutes or departmental policies regarding use of force. Or what a basic force continuum is. If you don't know about those, then shut up and sit down because it's awfully hard to change something when you don't even know what you're trying to change.

Edited August 30, 201510 yr by Pavelow

Graham v. Connor and Tennessee v. Garner. Those have established use of force guidelines and when lethal force is allowed on EVERY CITIZEN. It's absolutely asinine to make an exception for black people, or any other ethnic, racial, or gender group. 

 

And limiting the use of force WILL get officers killed. It's already getting them killed because officers are too scared to act because the media will ruin their lives.

 

And that's the problem. There IS NO DEFINITIVE guideline for use of force. Every officer will perceive a threat differently, and there is no archetypal classification of a threat. A suspect that is 6'6 275lbs may not be considered a serious threat by the officer that is 6'3 250lbs. But that same suspect may be considered a threat by the officer that is 5'9 180lbs. Then you can consider things like accessibility of a weapon, presence of drugs or alcohol, the physical condition of an officer, knowledge of suspect, reason he is considered a suspect, etc. And it's already established that courts will look at Use of Force cases from the viewpoint of an officer, that has a half a second or less to make the decision to pull the trigger. 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

And why don't these "activists" go through an abbreviated academy? Why don't they learn what is taught to officers. What the force continuum is. When use of force is justified. Why you're shooting. How you're shooting. Because I'd be willing to bet that 99% of these activists don't even know what the case laws are that are the backbone to state statutes or departmental policies regarding use of force. Or what a basic force continuum is. If you don't know about those, then shut up and sit down because it's awfully hard to change something when you don't even know what you're trying to change.

Holy fuck, finally someone speaking some sense here.