Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I said nothing of the sort. The police resort to this argument that they can't release video or whatever because it could jeopardize the investigation. That is BS and we all know it. When the city is burning and the cops are holding onto evidence that could clarify what happened, there is no excuse for not releasing it. The fact of the matter is that people will accept the truth no matter how awful more peacefully than if they feel they are being lied to. As I said in the larger point, Tulsa vs. Charlotte.
Really? Like they accepted the truth that Michael Brown had his Hands UP? That is a chant that was even used last night. Truth doesn't matter to RIOTERS. LOOT and fun with a rampage is what matters.
The Tulsa Police did the right thing and did it fast - it was easier because they had 2 dash cam cameras, 2 body cameras and a Helicopter camera. They showed all that to the family and the family said 'no protest' - and people knew they actually meant it. That's not the case in Charlotte - Scott's daughter was live streaming "cops shot my daddy 4 times 'cause he was holding a book" - she had been upstairs asleep and had no idea what happened. She didn't even bother to go to the hospital - she (and her brother) were (and are) only interested in inflammatory language. None of that will 'change' after she sees the videos (which don't show as much as Tulsa) and reads the witness statements.
In other news, I saw on a local channel that the CMPD is going to show the video to his family and then release it.
The last I heard the police chief said that he'd show it to the family, but didn't have any intention of releasing it to the public, saying something to the effect of not wanting a family's worst day to be made public. Maybe he's changed his mind.
North Carolina has also passed a law restricting the public release of police videos, but it has not yet taken effect.
I understand the stakes are high, but if you're never made a mistake while on the job (whatever line of work you're in), then you may speak from a position of authority. We ask cops to deal with lots of unstable and volatile situations, some of them involving life and death. We ask surgeons to do the same thing.
We need to start taking the license away from doctors that are habitually sued also.
If I make a mistake at work that harms someone else I know without question I am going to get fired. Its happened many times.
Quote:
To expect any one, in any line of work, to be 100% perfect and always made the right decision.....while we judge from the comfort of our arm chair, with hours to ponder the validity and advisability of any one particular action, is expecting far to much of any human, to say the least.
There is also a difference in making a mistake and making a mistake and lying about it. We had someone get fired recently where they only hurt themselves. What they did was questionable but they lied about it. They got fired for the lie.
There is a far higher bar set where law enforcement is concerned. We have to absolutely trust that the law is presenting the truth in all aspects. When someone representing the law is allowed to lie by getting away with it, it damages the entire system.
Quote:
We should hope that with any profession where the job demands you carry a gun, that we hire only the best and brightest. However, my fear with the current climate with law enforcement, why would anyone wish to subject themselves to a career where if you make a single mistake, you could perhaps lose your job, your pension, be tried and convicted of murder and live your live out in prison, or perhaps even lose your life.
Timothy Loehman. There are far, far fewer incidences like this if we do not hire the likes of him and right or wrong with fewer instances it doesn't become the issue it is.
The cops in Baltimore intentionally ignored the rules leading to the death of an individual. The police officer that jumped Eric Garner didn't choke him with a banned choke hold by error either. Both were allowed to continue being cops.
Quote:
I'm not sure even the best and brightest would ever consider a job offer with circumstances like they currently are. Reason, logic and even the specific facts of the act doesn't even seem to matter to the current rioting crowd....they want blood, fire, mayhem and some free **** from looting, and the facts of the matter be damned. Why on earth when a black cop kills a black man are they shooting about what a devil "whitey" is....or hurting random white people ? I guess that's another sign of racism, when you with intent harm/injure/kill random people depending on the color of their skin.
I've argued many times that if we have to pay more to get a better grade of individual, put it on the ballot. I'll vote for it as long as there is accountability attached.
And I never claimed you did. I simply pointed out that while the protest began legally (roads were not being blocked and were peaceful), they became illegal when looting, property damage and people being shot in the street began to occur.
If you read the post of yours that I quoted - you were stating that we "don't know if he had a gun or not". I responded to that offering strong evidence to support the fact that he DID have a gun. How is that not relevant to the conversation being had? Further I never said you did argue that he didn't have a gun. You basically said "I don't know" and I offered some evidence that bolsters one version of the story. Nothing more.
This isn't designed to prohibit anyone's free speech or right to protest, but to provide order to it. And as what I posted clearly stated, according to the supreme court, IT IS CONSTITUTIONALLY PERMISSABLE to require permits.
More ...
The Supreme Court of the United States has held that the First Amendment protects the right to conduct a peaceful public assembly.[3] The right to assemble is not, however, absolute. Government officials cannot simply prohibit a public assembly in their own discretion,[4] but the government can impose restrictions on the time, place, and manner of peaceful assembly, provided that constitutional safeguards are met.[5] Time, place, and manner restrictions are permissible so long as they “are justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech, . . . are narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and . . . leave open ample alternative channels for communication of the information.”[6]
The bolded sections tell you exactly what you are denying. Permits ARE permissible (constitutionally and HELD UP BY THE SUPREME COURT) and can be regulated. Permits are there to help regulate a protest or any event so it isn't complete chaos. Permits are issued to control the time, place, and manner of the assembly.
I don't care what you did in NY or wherever you said you protested, its irrelevant in Charlotte. Again, government can require permits, and Charlotte DOES.
The Constitution over rides any state laws. They can require a permit if I plan on blocking the streets....such as a protest march.....but they can NOT require a permit just to protest.
Why not quote me? And even if I say we do not know something, that doesn't mean it didn't happen.
I DID quote you.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
