johnclark1102

Today will always be a somber day in American history. I was in Mr. Rice's class at Chattahoochee High School in Atlanta watching the events unfold on television. I was still just a kid then, only 15 years old and I didn't fully understand the gravity of what I was watching. Today, as I put on my uniform, step into the flight deck of a commercial airliner, and welcome people aboard the 4 flights I'll be flying today, I understand. I will never forget.

Most reputable airlines wouldn't hire you with any felony convictions. The FAA also lists a pre-requisite for obtaining the ATP (Airline Transport Pilot) certificate that a candidate must "be of good moral character". All applicants for any pilot certificate also have to specifically disclose if they've ever been convicted for violation of any Federal or State statutes relating to narcotic drugs, marijuana, or depressant or stimulant drugs or substances. I've also heard of several instances where a pilot is convicted of something and the FAA issues an order of revocation of their ATP certificate on the basis of "good moral character". The most common issue pilots face is alcohol and substance abuse problems, which the FAA also requires by law must be reported within 60 days of any conviction.

Arrogance? I'm hardly arrogant, I'm responsible. I simply understand right from wrong, familiarized myself with the law, avoid any situations which may put me in a potentially unlawful position, keep good friends, and stay out of trouble. I work as a commercial airline pilot and I've previously been hired as an Auxiliary State Trooper by the state of Florida, and as a Reserve Deputy for the third largest Sheriff's Office in the United States. Both my career and my volunteer obligations require that I never be convicted of a crime, and it's really not that hard to prevent that from happening.

"Let's not forget that anyone can become a felon overnight." Really? I've been alive for almost 29 years, that's almost 10,585 "overnights" that I've been through and I have not become a felon yet. But here's the thing, you don't become a felon unless you commit a felony crime. If he only committed a minor felony, society won't hold it against him "forever". Two of my best friends in college were convicted of a felony. They both committed a crime. They've both served their time and been released, and they've got jobs and are going on about their lives. But, to be associated with law enforcement in any way, you must not have any felony convictions and usually no recent misdemeanor convictions and you generally have to prove that you've turned your life around (hold a professional job for a number of years, honorable military service, etc) Every agency I've ever looked at working for has the same hiring standards, so it shouldn't have been a surprise for your friend. It took me 3 minutes to find the requirements for the NYPD's hiring and selection, which clearly indicate that any felony conviction or any conviction of an offense which indicates lack of good moral character will result in disqualification. http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/html/careers/application_overview.shtml If your friend couldn't be bothered to do 3 minutes worth of research, then he doesn't belong anywhere near a law enforcement position.

LCCop made a Wingman for the CVPI. I haven't seen the SuperVisor anywhere though. '?do=embed' frameborder='0' data-embedContent>>

A lot of my local LEO's carry glass breaking end caps on their batons.

If it's the shooting that took place a day or two ago where the suspect was armed with a knife, the same logic applies. Knife = Deadly Force, therefore, Police Response = Deadly Force That was also the St. Louis Metropolitan PD I believe, (City of St. Louis).

Yes, but I would imagine that's not really relevant to the point I think you're trying to make. The St. Louis County and City police officers both look like they have Tasers, but they were not involved in the shooting. The City of Ferguson has it's own police department. A quick Google search shows some Ferguson officers with Tasers and some with out, so there's probably no way to know whether Officer Wilson had one or not, short of asking him. And before you try to make the point, NO, Officer Wilson probably could not and should not have attempted to Tase Mr. Brown. Based on the facts and forensic evidence that have been presented since the shooting, Mr. Brown had passed the level of force where a Taser would have been appropriate. Police are trained to use a level of force above what the suspect is using, and if Officer Wilson reasonably believed that Mr. Brown posed a lethal threat, then using a Taser would have been inappropriate and could have resulted in Officer Wilson being further injured or killed. Wilson had his firearm drawn following the physical fight with Brown. In order for him to switch to a Taser when Brown turned around and began charging him again, Wilson would have had to holster the firearm, move to the other side of his duty belt to un snap and draw the Taser, flick the safety switch off, and then try to line up a shot and fire. Practicing that motion myself, it takes me about 3 seconds to make those movements, and I'm not in pain, under duress, or impaired by an adrenaline rush. It also takes me about 3 seconds to run 30 feet, the distance that some people have estimated Brown was from Wilson when the shots were fired. So, if Wilson had attempted to switch to a Taser, it's likely that Brown could have closed the distance before Wilson had the opportunity to use the Taser, and Brown could have assaulted Wilson again and killed him this time. Even if Wilson would have been able to draw a Taser and get on target, Taser's are not 100% effective. Probes miss, baggy clothing can render it ineffective, Tasers fail, some people are able to fight through the charge, especially if the probes did not make good contact. There are numerous reasons why Tasers fail, and those are the reasons that a Taser is only trained to be used under low risk situations where a Taser failure would not result in increased risk to anyone.

I don't imagine anyone here would be able to tell you what's going through someones mind when they do something like this, since I doubt any of us here are criminals who think it's acceptable to assault people.

As a Jew, and a descendant of people who fled Germany and others who survived the camps, I'm shocked that you fail to understand the intricacies of what really happened in World War 2. What we are seeing in Ferguson is nothing like what happened under Nazi rule, and to imply otherwise only showcases your ignorance. But hey, everyone is entitled their opinion and has a right to voice it, even if someone else thinks it's wrong. I also have to point out the irony of you calling other people "kool aid drinkers". For that analogy to be remotely accurate, you'd have to admit that you are drinking it too, just simply drinking a different flavor than the rest of us. Of course, the analogy doesn't apply because those of us siding with the police are basing that decision on facts, logic, and reason, while people siding with the criminals are basing their decisions on distorted information, manipulated images and video, political ideology, emotion, and in some cases flat out lies. Also, there have not been any legitimate instances of the police attacking anyone or otherwise violating the law. Nothing of the sort has been reported by a reputable source, or that hasn't been dis-proven. Their actions have all been well within the law and reactionary in nature. Are you watching any of the real, unedited video footage that's been put out there? The criminals in the crowd of looters and rioters are shooting innocent people, shooting at aircraft, shooting indiscriminately at the crowds of people around them. Those of us paying attention and with the mental capability to process factual information are very well aware of the fact that the rioters are not with the protesters. Unfortunately, the protesters message is being destroyed by the actions of the criminals hiding among them. The police have to respond to the crimes that are being committed in this city, and the actions of the criminals dictate the response from the police.

Many articles point out that Houston was one of the last major US cities to pass such legislation, and the "bathroom" debacle was the talking point for the super religious, "family values" crowd. The arguments against this legislation were so narrow minded and singularly focused it was ridiculous, ill informed, and simply incorrect. Here's what the actual legislation says: Notice how the language of the actual ordinance protects EVERY HUMAN BEING. Everyone deserves basic human rights and equal treatment. The opponents of this ordinance chose to focus on one single aspect, distorting it with their bias and opinion, failing to realize that it protects everyone including them. Contrary to some of the more ridiculous talking points I've heard, this ordinance does require that all bathrooms become unisex and it does not pave the way for children to raped and victimized by sexual predators... As a Houston resident, I'm proud to live in a city that recognizes the value of humanity and equal rights for all. You know, that thing that was mentioned several hundred years ago around the time this country was founded, all men are created equal, or something like that. Seems like most of us have forgotten that part of our heritage and our country's intended core values.

Yup. I grew up in the south so for me, police use all blue and fire/ems use all red. That's just how it's been most of my life so that's what I'm used to I guess.

Like you said, this introduces the evidence many people have been waiting for. Factual, irrefutable proof that Mr. Brown was NOT shot in the back as some "witnesses" claim. Another important point raised by this autopsy, is that all the entry wounds appear to be on the FRONT of his arm. If his hands were raised in the air, the bullets would not have struck the front of his arm unless he had his arm contorted into an unnatural position. The autopsy results suggest that Mr. Brown had his arms down at his sides, which support the officer's narrative that Brown was running towards him. The more factual evidence comes out, the more the eye witnesses are discredited. Yet another in a long line of countless examples where "witnesses" are not as reliable as they should be. A lot of times, in cases all over the world, witnesses don't actually know what they saw and they can only provide part of the story. That's why facts and evidence are essential information prior to judgement being rendered, and it's why the media and the people who spread this nonsense in the early days following this incident are partly responsible for the damage and destruction that has ensued in Ferguson. I think that graphic is filled with misleading information, distorted statistics, and biased claims laden with opinion.

True, we won't know what actually happened until the investigation is complete and the findings, supported by evidence, have been released. But, based on the evidence and information that has already been disclosed, the events described in that version of the story seem more likely to be closer to the truth than any statement made by any of the other "eye witnesses" on the street.

Whoops, typo. Thanks for the correction.

This. There is a big difference between "overweight" and "fat". What standards are they referencing with this article, because the article doesn't ever cite a specific set of standards they are using for reference. For example, I'm 6'2" and 230 lbs. I'm "overweight", but that's largely because I have a big build (broad shoulders and big legs) and some decent muscle mass. According to the US Army's standards, a male in my age range that is 6'2" tall would be considered "overweight" at 206 lbs: http://usmilitary.about.com/od/army/l/blmaleweight.htm But according to the American cancer society, a male in my age range that is 6'2" tall would be considered "overweight" at as low as 194 lbs: http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/dietandphysicalactivity/bodyweightandcancerrisk/body-weight-and-cancer-risk-adult-bmi What standards is the FBI using to reach their 80% conclusion? An older source indicated that the FBI's own standards for "desirable weight range" for a male that is 6'2" tall would be 156-215 lbs. So, with a quick google search we have 3 different weight limits of what is defined as "overweight". Facts are everything.

I watched the videos. They are full of false information and opinion, not facts and logic. You are the one repeating the "media script" by believing everything you see in these biased media video reports. Info Wars is not a credible media source. They are as bad as TMZ as far as I'm concerned. That video lost all credibility with me when the narrator kept saying the riot police had "snipers". At one point the image on screen was an officer holding an AR rifle, and another image appeared to be a pepper ball gun. Neither of those weapons is a "sniper rifle", so once again we have an instance of ignorant reporters that don't know what they are talking about spreading false information and opinions to a public that is largely too ignorant to know they are being lied to. And everyone keeps getting hung up on the media crew that was caught in the tear gas and the images of the police disassembling their equipment, making allegations that the police are acting as censors. Well, the facts are the police helped that news crew disassemble their equipment, then loaded it and the reporters into the Bear Cat and transported them to a safer location. The news crew was from Al-Jazeera, and thanked the officers for helping them. You'll notice that none of the reports alleging police censorship or the confiscation of the equipment will back that claim up with any facts and will never show the rest of the video, the video that shows the police loading the equipment and the reporters into the Bear Cat; media bias and lies at its finest. http://fox2now.com/2014/08/14/despite-reports-swat-team-helped-al-jazeera-reporters-did-not-take-their-equipment/ As for the militarization of our police forces, everyone claiming that doesn't really seem to know what "military" technology is or understand how we got to this point. I would be worried about this topic if the police were armed with automatic rifles, grenades, or weaponized aircraft, or if the police made a habit of using these weapons in daily patrol operations. The fact is, the majority of the equipment people claim to be too "militarized" is actually equipment that is available to the civilian populous. A central focus of the "militarized police" argument seems to be the riot gear that was used. What we've seen of the riot gear, are helmets, shields, semi automatic AR rifles, pepper ball guns, and tear gas. All of this has been industry standard for decades. This is not the first time we've seen this equipment used in a riot or crowd control situation and I really don't understand why people are acting like this is something new. Law enforcement in this country is purely reactionary; always has been, always will be. The civilian population is armed, so the police are armed. Civilians buy rifles, police get rifles. Civilians complain about excessive force, police equip tasers. Civilians buy "armor piercing" ammunition, police start wearing external body armor with trauma plates. Civilians start having mass shootings, taking hostages, robbing banks with automatic rifles, the police start buying light armored vehicles to respond to those threats. The system keeps escalating after the actions of the civilian populous when the police must respond to a new threat. Every piece of equipment the police have today is a direct response to equipment available to the civilian population, and the police need these tools in order to maintain order when the civilian population gets out of control.

I agree, and I'm sure countless people do. Our society has completely lost it's way and our values have shifted for the worse. I wish we could fix the mentality in this country and go back to the days where integrity and personal responsibility were the norm, instead of today's "it's not my fault" and "I deserve this and that" mentality.

You need 3DS Max. It's a powerful 3D modeling program, but it's also extremely expensive.

After reading the police report, it appears this was the initial reason for the stop with Michael Brown. This was one of the biggest questions left unanswered for me in this entire incident, why did the police make contact with Mr. Brown in the first place? The report indicates that the responding officer arrived at the convenience store within minutes of the robbery (the officer was on another call directly behind the store), got a description of the suspects and then continued down the street, knowing that they had just left the store and would still be near by. It's not unreasonable to believe that when the officer attempted to make contact with these 2 males matching the suspect descriptions from the robbery, that Mr. Brown would assault the officer in the same manner he assaulted the store clerk. That may also explain why the fight reportedly began in the police cruiser when the officer attempted to exit his car. I'm glad to finally see some additional facts about this incident be released as the investigation continues.