cincydooley wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:


Assualt Rifle - A weapon that can switch between automatic or semi-automatic, these weapons are usually used by Military personnel and have special optics.

Oh goodness. "Have special optics?" You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you?

Be honest with us. Have you actually held an AR 10/15 before? The truth now, if you will.

 whembly wrote:
Let's get back ontopic...

Should we have a "national conversation on violent rhetoric" like we had over Sarah Palin's non-involvement in the shooting of Gabby Giffords???

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Let's get back ontopic...

Should we have a "national conversation on violent rhetoric" like we had over Sarah Palin's non-involvement in the shooting of Gabby Giffords???

Actually, that sounds like a good idea. The ideas appear to be similar. A nutjob takes idiots seriously, and commits a heinous crime.

Be honest with us. Have you actually held an AR 10/15 before? The truth now, if you will.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Let's get back ontopic...

Should we have a "national conversation on violent rhetoric" like we had over Sarah Palin's non-involvement in the shooting of Gabby Giffords???

Actually, that sounds like a good idea. The ideas appear to be similar. A nutjob takes idiots seriously, and commits a heinous crime.

Don't fall into that "guilt by association" trap, because it is unfair to people whose intentions really are peaceful.

 Asherian Command wrote:


An AR-10 / AR-15 is not an assault Rifle. or an Assualt Weapon it is a Civilian weapon. Completely legal to own and to have.

It is only semi-auto. Not Fully Automatic.

Which if I remember right automatic weapons are banned in the united states.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:


An AR-10 / AR-15 is not an assault Rifle. or an Assualt Weapon it is a Civilian weapon. Completely legal to own and to have.

It is only semi-auto. Not Fully Automatic. Which if I remember right automatic weapons are banned in the united states.

Of which I'm entirely aware. I'm not the one that seems to be confusing it.

 zombiekila707 wrote:
I'm not a "big" fan of cops (especially when they give me a ticket I don't deserve) but how debased some people are to "like" his facebook post is literally the most disgusting thing ever. Those cops didn't do anything wrong at all and it disturbs me that this happened and some people praise this guy!

Really sad...

 Asherian Command wrote:

Don't fall into that "guilt by association" trap, because it is unfair to people whose intentions really are peaceful.

Funny how people do that. And say if you are part of this group because of this one persons actions you are also allowing those actions to happen. I.E. GamerGate, Muslims, Christians, any group who has had a crazy person go off the deepend.

 Asherian Command wrote:

 zombiekila707 wrote:
I'm not a "big" fan of cops (especially when they give me a ticket I don't deserve) but how debased some people are to "like" his facebook post is literally the most disgusting thing ever. Those cops didn't do anything wrong at all and it disturbs me that this happened and some people praise this guy!

Really sad...

That is what happens once there has been a distrust between the people and police and it has slowly started to posion the well and people no longer trust the police and only see them as evil doers and no different from a gang member.

Which is what is happening.

It makes me think we might be going back to the twenties era of police work :/

 whembly wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

Don't fall into that "guilt by association" trap, because it is unfair to people whose intentions really are peaceful.

Funny how people do that. And say if you are part of this group because of this one persons actions you are also allowing those actions to happen. I.E. GamerGate, Muslims, Christians, any group who has had a crazy person go off the deepend.

There's a pendulum "effect" here when having these "national discussion".

I.E., it's hard to have a discussion on radical Islam because folks get defensive about it for some reason... moreso than whenver the Westboro Baptists folks rear their heads...

Those people are sad fools who are vermin in the streets the guy was a piece of gak thug who has no interest in helping the american people. Dude just because there are some disgusting people in the world doesn't mean that we are heading into the Dillinger era again. Most people like cops some thugs and criminals who would want anarchy are the only ones liking that post.

A fan named Meghan asked:

Hello Mr. Mike Rowe. I’m a big fan and also happen to work in the lower Haight as well as live in Alameda. I have to ask with everything that is going on in Ferguson, how do you feel about the protests in SF as well as the looting/rioting in downtown Oakland?

Here’s how Mike responded:

Hi Meghan

Last week, those very protests blocked off one of the major arteries, and as a result, I was 90 minutes late to a holiday dinner in Alameda. I apologized for my tardiness, and was told by my hostess not to give it a second thought. “It’s a small price to pay,” she said, “given all that’s at stake.” Another guest, already well into the eggnog, wondered aloud if a heart attack victim waiting for an ambulance stuck in traffic might hold a different view?

Within moments, everyone was talking about Garner and Brown, and the conversation got very political very quickly. A liberal guest said, “Look, I wasn’t there, but it seems pretty clear that both men would still be alive had they been white.” A conservative guest replied, “I wasn’t there either, but it seems pretty clear that both men would still be alive if they hadn’t resisted arrest.”

This annoyed the liberal, who asked the conservative why Republicans wanted a “police state.” This annoyed the conservative, who asked the liberal why Democrats wanted “total anarchy.” Things continued to escalate, and within moments, fingers were pointing, veins were bulging, and logical fallacies were filling the air. Ho! ho! ho!

For once, I kept my mouth shut and listened as a roomful of decent people tore each others throats out. It was remarkable, because no one disagreed on the big points. No one disagreed that black lives mattered just as much as white lives. No one disputed that racial bias in law enforcement should be exposed and eliminated. In fact, no one disagreed about the basic facts surrounding each case. The breakdown happened over relevance and context.

My conservative friends were focused on the fact that both men died while resisting arrest, and were therefor responsible for their own demise. They wanted to discuss the killings in light of the incredible risk that all police officers agree to assume.

My liberal friends were focused on the fact that both men were unarmed, and were therefor victims of excessive force. They wanted to discuss the killings in the context of historical trends that suggest bias plays a recurring role in the way cops treat minorities.

By dessert, it was clear that both sides wanted law and order. But the conservatives were convinced that order is only possible when citizens treat cops with respect. Liberals, on the other hand, were arguing that order can only occur when cops treat everyone the same. And round and round we went. The chicken and the egg.

Later, on the drive home, I called a friend of mine back in Baltimore. He’s black, successful, and hard-working. He also resents the way he’s gotten swept into the zeitgeist of Ferguson. In his words, “I’m a pawn in someone else’s agenda, and I’m sick of it. I know what bias looks like in my life. I’m tired of being represented by two petty criminals who died resisting arrest.”

I hadn’t thought about it like that, but he’s got a point. The vast majority of black Americans have never broken the law. And yet, millions of lives are now entwined with the death of Brown and Garner. That’s not fair, but it’s hardly breaking news. Minorities are constantly stereotyped and the impression lingers. Looters and arsonists run amok, and Black America suffers the association. Now I’m trying to get my head around the fact that two cops are dead in Brooklyn, assassinated by a lunatic in “retaliation” for Ferguson and Staten Island. Unbelievable.

How much worse can it get for the millions of law-abiding minorities, struggling to be seen as individuals? How much worse can it get for the thousands of honest cops, trying to protect a citizenry that doesn’t seem to appreciate their daily sacrifice?

A few days ago, people were marching in the streets, literally calling for the execution of police. (“What do we want? Dead Cops!”) Others are standing by today, waiting to lionize the assassins who answer the call. These are not the champions of justice; these are the enemies of civilization, and it’s up to sensible people on both sides of the aisle to close ranks and shout them down. If we want to live in a nation of laws, we need to support the humans sworn to uphold them. They’re a lot of really great cops out there who have promised to do that very thing, including the one in my family. We’d be screwed without them.

To answer your question Meghan, I support peaceful protests, and I’m all for rooting out bad cops. But let’s not stop there. If we’re serious about saving lives, and eliminating the confrontations that lead to the demise of Garner and Brown, let’s also condemn the stupidity that leads so many Americans to resist arrest. I don’t care if you’re white, black, red, periwinkle, burnt umber, or chartreuse – resisting arrest is not a right, it’s a crime. And it’s never a good idea.

Mike

PS. In lighter news, it’s come to my attention that CNN will attempt to air a new episode of SGDI, tonight at 9pm Eastern. (Assuming we can get through a whole day without a riot, an earthquake, a terrorist attack, and ebola outbreak, or a Zombie Apocalypse).

Mike

 daedalus wrote:
Man, that guy always manages to be remarkably well spoken.

 daedalus wrote:
Man, that guy always manages to be remarkably well spoken.

 Asherian Command wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

Please read for gods sakes just read what I've wrote. You do not need it on 24/7. You have need of it, when you have need of it.

So, after the first round punches through your torso, you know you need your vest.

Sounds good.

NO its called information. I highly doubt an officer will head into a firefight without his vest.

In a place like Grand Rapids Michigan. A Crme rate that is incredibly low. The police do not wear.... Vests. Wow. its like they are competent! Because they are in a college town.... So they expect not to get shot at by snipers.

You all make out that police in rural areas have to fight the bloody mob every day in the thousands of cases. Can I say that is not what is happening most crime like that is incredibly rare.

Saying it happens all the time. It is stupid it doesn't.

Most crimes like that happen seldom and the police prepare accordingly.



But if you go to a place that has a history by all means wear the bloody vest.

Its the officers call like I have said many times so far.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

Please read for gods sakes just read what I've wrote. You do not need it on 24/7. You have need of it, when you have need of it.

So, after the first round punches through your torso, you know you need your vest.

Sounds good.

NO its called information. I highly doubt an officer will head into a firefight without his vest.

In a place like Grand Rapids Michigan. A Crme rate that is incredibly low. The police do not wear.... Vests. Wow. its like they are competent! Because they are in a college town.... So they expect not to get shot at by snipers.

You all make out that police in rural areas have to fight the bloody mob every day in the thousands of cases. Can I say that is not what is happening most crime like that is incredibly rare.

Saying it happens all the time. It is stupid it doesn't.

Most crimes like that happen seldom and the police prepare accordingly.



But if you go to a place that has a history by all means wear the bloody vest.

Its the officers call like I have said many times so far.

So what about the Cop who is doing his normal patrol and then he gets immediately called to a shootout?(all the time)

What about the cop who pulls someone over for a moving violation but the driver is a wanted criminal who immediately shoots the cop as he approaches the window?(this has happened on multiple occasions)

You don't have time to consider "do I need my vest?". You have to get on scene as fast as possible. Things can happen super fast while on patrol, again you have no time.

You wear the damn thing all the time because you might need it at a moments notice.

 curran12 wrote:
How does that address cops being attacked for pulling over someone for speeding, or being ambushed, at all?

 djones520 wrote:
Ok, to look more at the resisting arrest thing.

Michael Brown attacked the police officer. This can't really be disputed. The police officer was injured. Michael Browns first gun shot injury was consistent with close range to the firearm, indicating he was trying to grab the weapon. The shots that killed him were consistent with the eye witness accounts that he was charging the police officer.

The Garner case, getting choked out and while resisting arrest. Excessive use of force? Don't think that is anything we can be disagreed with. The issue though was that force had to come into the situation.

Anytime "force" has to be brought into it, based on the "resisting of arrest" you are opening the door for violence that can be fatal. Whether or not justified, once peaceful measures are no longer an option, death becomes a possibility.

This is the fault of the person being arrested. The police officers may still have some culpability, but the one being arrested forced the situation to be elevated in these cases. So how are they the victim? Had they simply followed the law, they would still be alive. Is this disputable?

Everyone of these situations start somewhere. There is always a point where you can point at and say "this is where it all went wrong." That point was were the resisting arrest came into play.

 djones520 wrote:


The Garner case, getting choked out and while resisting arrest. Excessive use of force? Don't think that is anything we can be disagreed with. The issue though was that force had to come into the situation.

Anytime "force" has to be brought into it, based on the "resisting of arrest" you are opening the door for violence that can be fatal. Whether or not justified, once peaceful measures are no longer an option, death becomes a possibility.

This is the fault of the person being arrested. The police officers may still have some culpability, but the one being arrested forced the situation to be elevated in these cases. So how are they the victim? Had they simply followed the law, they would still be alive. Is this disputable?

Everyone of these situations start somewhere. There is always a point where you can point at and say "this is where it all went wrong." That point was were the resisting arrest came into play.

 Asherian Command wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Ok, to look more at the resisting arrest thing.

Michael Brown attacked the police officer. This can't really be disputed. The police officer was injured. Michael Browns first gun shot injury was consistent with close range to the firearm, indicating he was trying to grab the weapon. The shots that killed him were consistent with the eye witness accounts that he was charging the police officer.

The Garner case, getting choked out and while resisting arrest. Excessive use of force? Don't think that is anything we can be disagreed with. The issue though was that force had to come into the situation.

Anytime "force" has to be brought into it, based on the "resisting of arrest" you are opening the door for violence that can be fatal. Whether or not justified, once peaceful measures are no longer an option, death becomes a possibility.

This is the fault of the person being arrested. The police officers may still have some culpability, but the one being arrested forced the situation to be elevated in these cases. So how are they the victim? Had they simply followed the law, they would still be alive. Is this disputable?

Everyone of these situations start somewhere. There is always a point where you can point at and say "this is where it all went wrong." That point was were the resisting arrest came into play.

There are some cases where there have been officers who arrested someone who was completely compliant and he was charged with resisting arrest and destruction of public property because his blood got onto the police officers uniforms.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 djones520 wrote:


The Garner case, getting choked out and while resisting arrest. Excessive use of force? Don't think that is anything we can be disagreed with. The issue though was that force had to come into the situation.

Anytime "force" has to be brought into it, based on the "resisting of arrest" you are opening the door for violence that can be fatal. Whether or not justified, once peaceful measures are no longer an option, death becomes a possibility.

This is the fault of the person being arrested. The police officers may still have some culpability, but the one being arrested forced the situation to be elevated in these cases. So how are they the victim? Had they simply followed the law, they would still be alive. Is this disputable?

Everyone of these situations start somewhere. There is always a point where you can point at and say "this is where it all went wrong." That point was were the resisting arrest came into play.

Depending on where you look around online, there are stories and accounts that state that the first officer on scene had arrested Garner several times previously. Now, we know that he's recently out of jail, etc.... Why does this officer NEED to go see Garner? Is the officer going over to him, because due to prior history, he "knows" that Garner is doing something wrong?

I know we've talked in the past about how selling loose cigarettes should be a ticket offense, not an arresting one... but, IF all the prior history adds up, if the first officer never goes up to Garner to "harass" him about an imagined or perceived offense, Garner is probably still alive today.

 djones520 wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Ok, to look more at the resisting arrest thing.

Michael Brown attacked the police officer. This can't really be disputed. The police officer was injured. Michael Browns first gun shot injury was consistent with close range to the firearm, indicating he was trying to grab the weapon. The shots that killed him were consistent with the eye witness accounts that he was charging the police officer.

The Garner case, getting choked out and while resisting arrest. Excessive use of force? Don't think that is anything we can be disagreed with. The issue though was that force had to come into the situation.

Anytime "force" has to be brought into it, based on the "resisting of arrest" you are opening the door for violence that can be fatal. Whether or not justified, once peaceful measures are no longer an option, death becomes a possibility.

This is the fault of the person being arrested. The police officers may still have some culpability, but the one being arrested forced the situation to be elevated in these cases. So how are they the victim? Had they simply followed the law, they would still be alive. Is this disputable?

Everyone of these situations start somewhere. There is always a point where you can point at and say "this is where it all went wrong." That point was were the resisting arrest came into play.

There are some cases where there have been officers who arrested someone who was completely compliant and he was charged with resisting arrest and destruction of public property because his blood got onto the police officers uniforms.

The issue of bad charges, and police misconduct aren't waved off. That is still a real thing. But so is actual resisting arrest, as happened in both of these cases that have caused nationwide issues.

 Asherian Command wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

Please read for gods sakes just read what I've wrote. You do not need it on 24/7. You have need of it, when you have need of it.

So, after the first round punches through your torso, you know you need your vest.

Sounds good.

NO its called information. I highly doubt an officer will head into a firefight without his vest.

In a place like Grand Rapids Michigan. A Crme rate that is incredibly low. The police do not wear.... Vests. Wow. its like they are competent! Because they are in a college town.... So they expect not to get shot at by snipers.

You all make out that police in rural areas have to fight the bloody mob every day in the thousands of cases. Can I say that is not what is happening most crime like that is incredibly rare.

Saying it happens all the time. It is stupid it doesn't.

Most crimes like that happen seldom and the police prepare accordingly.



But if you go to a place that has a history by all means wear the bloody vest.

Its the officers call like I have said many times so far.

So what about the Cop who is doing his normal patrol and then he gets immediately called to a shootout?(all the time)

What about the cop who pulls someone over for a moving violation but the driver is a wanted criminal who immediately shoots the cop as he approaches the window?(this has happened on multiple occasions)

You don't have time to consider "do I need my vest?". You have to get on scene as fast as possible. Things can happen super fast while on patrol, again you have no time.

You wear the damn thing all the time because you might need it at a moments notice.

unless you are mentally disabled I think you can ask that question and weigh it in your mind. And answer it for yourself.

Otherwise you are not fit to be an officer.

 djones520 wrote:
Resisting arrest IS a crime.

Is that in dispute?

You say that it is because they have done to little to explain arresting and shooting black people.

Well what about the other way around? There has been a number of unarmed white men killed in the last few months. Shortly after Ferguson a police officer (who happened to be black) shot an unarmed white man in a 7-11 in Utah. There was hardly any coverage of it at all.

In September police conducted a drug raid on a house based on bad information, shot the man who lived there, and then as he laid on the ground he was again shot twice in the head and back.

These instances are occurring, yet the media coverage is nearly non-existant compared to these other cases.

As for the "view" that they are more likely to be stopped and arrested... well that is because the numbers are there to support it. A black teenager is 9 times more likely to commit murder then a white teenager, per the FBI. So yes, young black men are going to be more likely to encounter the police, because they are more likely, by significant numbers, to commit a crime.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Resisting arrest IS a crime.

Is that in dispute?

You say that it is because they have done to little to explain arresting and shooting black people.

Well what about the other way around? There has been a number of unarmed white men killed in the last few months. Shortly after Ferguson a police officer (who happened to be black) shot an unarmed white man in a 7-11 in Utah. There was hardly any coverage of it at all.

In September police conducted a drug raid on a house based on bad information, shot the man who lived there, and then as he laid on the ground he was again shot twice in the head and back.

These instances are occurring, yet the media coverage is nearly non-existant compared to these other cases.

As for the "view" that they are more likely to be stopped and arrested... well that is because the numbers are there to support it. A black teenager is 9 times more likely to commit murder then a white teenager, per the FBI. So yes, young black men are going to be more likely to encounter the police, because they are more likely, by significant numbers, to commit a crime.

And doesn't that just make you feel safe, knowing those cops are still on the force. isn't it just so comforting knowing that cops killing the wrong man, or breaking into the wrong house and executing the owner, is considered justified. How will you feel if they mistake you for someone and come after you?

Do you have a link for the 9times claim? I goggled for it but didn't find it, did you make that up?