The Governor of Missouri.Originally Posted by jlw
I find Aljazeera to be a very good source for unfiltered news.
Another source, but I think Aljazeera broke the story. http://www.businessweek.com/news/201...-ferguson-clay
Cody
The Governor of Missouri.
I find Aljazeera to be a very good source for unfiltered news.
Another source, but I think Aljazeera broke the story. http://www.businessweek.com/news/201...-ferguson-clay
Cody
That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state;
What's the difference?
Cody
That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state;
Winner!
Indeed, perception of credibility=politics. I do not want to step on the toes of anyone who I respect here, but the same logic that says "you point a gun at cops, don't be complaining if you get blown up" and "you hold up people at a gas station, don't complaint if a CCW'er ventilates you" also says "if you go to a scene armored up to the teeth, and then tear gas god, the press and everyone, don't be surprised if John and Jane public start throwing fits about militarized police".
This Ferguson thing seems to be going FUBAR in part because the community has issues, and in part because cops are gassing and arresting Wa Post reporters. Bad press would naturally be expected to follow that action.
OMMV.
Last edited by Totem Polar; 08-14-2014 at 04:07 PM.
Judges don't necessarily write all of the facts; rather, they publish the facts that support their arguments. You'll notice this often in the various SCOTUS majority opinions and dissenting opinions. Yes, he had a criminal history: a minor conviction for sale of marijuana at 16. That was his only conviction. No assaults, no resisting arrest, etc. etc. etc. The reason they knew he was "carried a handgun frequently" was because they were made aware that he had a CCW permit. And, finally, having a loaded long gun in the home? Like many people here do for self-defense? Those three things do not add up to "high risk warrant" which required the county to assemble a SWAT team, in my opinion, especially in a country where a good chunk of the homes contain people who own firearms.
He was a college kid who, like many college kids, smoked weed. He happened to sell in decent-sized quantities (though an ounce really isn't all that much). Not exactly Scarface, in my opinion. Add in some sort of history of violent behavior or, hell, reliable information that he had a proclivity to become violent? Sure. But, as per the officers' own testimony, the above three facts were why they deemed it high risk. And honestly, I'm not seeing that.
The officers had a warrant: I never disputed that. What was at issue in that case was whether they were authorized to conduct a no-knock warrant and, if they weren't, whether or not they could be held liable for their actions. The officers claim they knocked. The bystanders claim they did not. I disagree with the court's reasoning that, without authorization, an officer should be able to make a determination that such a tactic is reasonable, use that tactic, and still retain qualified immunity. I think that falls outside of the scope of the warrant they were assigned, and is therefore an illegal search. If such a standard is law, what's the point of requiring authorization for no-knocks? But, honestly, that's thread drift. Sorry for bringing it up.
"How would it be better to try to arrest a person in the wide open environment of a college campus versus the confined location of a person's home? Explain that to me, please. Let's go from a place where it is pretty much just him to a place where hundreds of unrelated people milling about. You don't think wading into a crowd on campus and snatching somebody up won't be cause for a stir? One of my favorite sayings: 'What's the worst that could happen?'"
My initial response would be: why would you make a bunch of loud noises in the early morning, at the home of a guy who it's plain seems to have armed himself for self-defense, and not expect a reasonable possibility that he'd do... exactly what it seems he had prepared to do (respond to an intruder)?
When I was in college, I watched the city's police department cut in front of me in line at the Chik-Fil-A, get one of the employees' attention, "hey, we need to talk to you, please come over here, etc." They talked to him, placed him in handcuffs, and led him off. They did so in a dining area with a couple hundred people around. Did they take an unnecessary risk?
There are cops pointing hot weapons at people there. Firearms safety rules are being blatantly ignored.
Wow. Just… wow.
.
If you disagree then refute.
"wow just wow" is not a refutation; it's a non-sequitur at best.
I trust Aljazeera's US reporting more than I do the big domestic news agencies like CNN, NBC, Fox or the various major newspapers.
"For a moment he felt good about this. A moment or two later he felt bad about feeling good about it. Then he felt good about feeling bad about feeling good about it and, satisfied, drove on into the night."
-- Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy --
Perhaps. It is also an expression of amazement; which was my intention.
.
