Ferguson decision is in -- NO INDICTMENT

[Deborah K]

Global jihadists tweet in bid to recruit Ferguson protesters
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/11/2...it-ferguson-protesters/?cmpid=cmty_twitter_fn

hmmmm.....no psyops there....

 

[twomp]

Unfortunately, the Constitution grants to the government the power to enforce law and punish criminals. Too much private behavior has been codified as criminal activity, but Michael Brown's assault and robbery of the shopkeeper would not fall into that category. His parents should be ashamed, and actually, they should be glad their son did not get the justice he deserved.

The problem with saying there should be no police and that people should defend themselves is that it removes objectivity from justice. A tooth for a tooth is one thing, but if you knock out my tooth, I might feel you deserve to lose a couple of teeth and have broken nose, too. See how that escalates? That's why the Consitution calls for a standard and an objective third party. That's not exactly what we have, but it's what the Constitution calls for. A right to own a weapon and defend property is guaranteed. So is equal protection under the law. You don't get to pick what rights you want and not respect those same rights for others.

Consistency sucks for you doesn't it? Mike Brown hits a cop. Cop gets a red cheek. Cop decides Mike Brown should die. That's not considered "escalating" to you? Oh let me guess, he was wearing a badge so it makes it okay.

 

[phill4paul]

hmmmm.....no psyops there....

None at all. Nor the KKK. Nor anonymouse. There's some data banking going on. Of that I am sure.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Unfortunately, the Constitution grants to the government the power to enforce law and punish criminals. Too much private behavior has been codified as criminal activity, but Michael Brown's assault and robbery of the shopkeeper would not fall into that category. His parents should be ashamed, and actually, they should be glad their son did not get the justice he deserved.

The problem with saying there should be no police and that people should defend themselves is that it removes objectivity from justice. A tooth for a tooth is one thing, but if you knock out my tooth, I might feel you deserve to lose a couple of teeth and have broken nose, too. See how that escalates? That's why the Consitution calls for a standard and an objective third party. That's not exactly what we have, but it's what the Constitution calls for. A right to own a weapon and defend property is guaranteed. So is equal protection under the law. You don't get to pick what rights you want and not respect those same rights for others.

I am not an anarchist either, I am a Constitutionalist, but I really want to chase something down here.

When you say the Constitution calls for an objective third party, are you referring to the jury or the judge?

 

[phill4paul]

Unfortunately, the Constitution grants to the government the power to enforce law and punish criminals. Too much private behavior has been codified as criminal activity, but Michael Brown's assault and robbery of the shopkeeper would not fall into that category. His parents should be ashamed, and actually, they should be glad their son did not get the justice he deserved.

The problem with saying there should be no police and that people should defend themselves is that it removes objectivity from justice. A tooth for a tooth is one thing, but if you knock out my tooth, I might feel you deserve to lose a couple of teeth and have broken nose, too. See how that escalates? That's why the Consitution calls for a standard and an objective third party. That's not exactly what we have, but it's what the Constitution calls for. A right to own a weapon and defend property is guaranteed. So is equal protection under the law. You don't get to pick what rights you want and not respect those same rights for others.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?278107-Are-cops-constitutional

Is a tooth for a tooth any better than state sanctioned homicide? No. A free society doesn't need Fedcoats. Nor does it need locals, whom undercover of jurisprudence, receive special dispensation.

 

[Deborah K]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?278107-Are-cops-constitutional

Is a tooth for a tooth any better than state sanctioned homicide? No. A free society doesn't need Fedcoats. Nor does it need locals, whom undercover of jurisprudence, receive special dispensation.

No, but a privately paid-for security force is just as corruptible as publicly funded one.

 

[Henry Rogue]

I would strongly disagree with this. As long as there are people who choose to do what they want, to anyone they want, there will be a need for law enforcement.

As long as there is a state monopoly on law enforcement, the enforcers will choose to do what they want, to anyone they want.

Frederick Bastiat

The claims of these organizers of humanity raise another question which I have often asked them and which, so far as I know, they have never answered: If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? The organizers maintain that society, when left undirected, rushes headlong to its inevitable destruction because the instincts of the people are so perverse. The legislators claim to stop this suicidal course and to give it a saner direction. Apparently, then, the legislators and the organizers have received from Heaven an intelligence and virtue that place them beyond and above mankind; if so, let them show their titles to this superiority.

They would be the shepherds over us, their sheep. Certainly such an arrangement presupposes that they are naturally superior to the rest of us. And certainly we are fully justified in demanding from the legislators and organizers proof of this natural superiority.

 

[Occam's Banana]

The problem with saying there should be no police and that people should defend themselves is that it removes objectivity from justice.

How do police inject "objectivity" into justice? As far as I have ever seen, police do nothing but replace the (alleged) "subjectivity" of the people with the "subjectivity" of the police themselves (and of the elites who control and direct them).

 

[Christian Liberty]

I agree with you. Which is why I'm not an anarchist. Although, in my world, people are free to live as such if they wish. Just don't do harm.

In an an-cap society arbitrators resolve these types of issues, but they don't have authority beyond when people, or the PDAs that are representing them, agree to allow them to broker a solution to a dispute. They don't get a monopoly on justice.

 

[FloralScent]

If it were the mere existence of cops causing the rampant abuses wouldn't places like Iceland, who also has cops, be having similar problems?

http://www.pri.org/stories/2013-12-03/iceland-grieves-after-police-kill-man-first-time-its-history

What's the difference?

 

[phill4paul]

No, but a privately paid-for security force is just as corruptible as publicly funded one.

A privately paid for security force can be held accountable by the judicial system without the inherent problems of being a part of the same system. The current one is nepotism by departments.

 

[green73]

No, but a privately paid-for security force is just as corruptible as publicly funded one.

Even if that were true, the private security firm doesn't have a monopoly. Unlike gov't police, they actually have to do a good job to succeed.

 

[orenbus]

 

[Occam's Banana]

No, but a privately paid-for security force is just as corruptible as publicly funded one.

Actually, it isn't. It may indeed be corruptible - but it won't be anywhere near as corruptible.

The use of force is expensive - it has costs. Any thing or action (such as using force) becomes cheaper for you when you can make other people pay for it. When force-using security agencies are "publicly funded," it becomes MUCH cheaper and easier for them to use force. And (ceteris paribus) the cheaper something is, the more of it will be produced.

IOW: Publicly (i.e, involuntarily) funded security agences make corruption and illegitimate uses of force less expensive. So (other things being equal) you will end up getting more corruption and illegitimate uses of force. Corruption and illegitimate uses of force would be relatively much harder for privately (i.e., voluntarily) funded security agencies to afford. This is not, of course, to say that privately funded security agencies will be immune from corruption and the like - just that such things will be (significantly) more untenable and less prevalent.

 

[euphemia]

it calls for either or both. It might not be what we have, but that's what it calls for.

To address an earlier point, consistency is working very well for me. We don't really know what transpired that day because eyewitness accounts differ dramatically. It was likely more than hitting a cop, and Darren Wilson wasn't the first person Brown hit that day, now, was he? At what point does someone who takes what he wants by violence get stopped?

I think a lot of people drink the kool-aide and make the leap that all cops are bad because of the racial component here. Does anyone know the statistics of blacks (because that's what we're talking about here) killing other blacks? Whites killing other whites? Why is Michael Brown such a special case? Do police not ever shoot white people? Sounds like a little too much mainstream media to me. The rioting this week is nothing more than the result of media creating news, instead of simply reporting it.

 

[orenbus]

I'm convinced Don Lemon is an idiot.

This is the same guy that was debating against 2nd amendment rights not understanding the basic differences between semi-automatic and automatics, being called out on it and him trying to act like it's just semantics. Half the time he's seriously does not know what the hell he's talking about. Of course TYT pushes an agenda, but it's so blatant here and TYT calls out Don Lemon on it and the CNN producers that are talking into his ear piece not having an even basic understanding of historical events during the 60s.




Edit: here we go with Don Lemon on not knowing the difference between Automatic and Semi-Automatic weapons, what an idiot! How the hell is this guy allowed on TV??!!??!

 

[otherone]

We don't really know what transpired that day because eyewitness accounts differ dramatically.

A trial would help.

 

[Deborah K]

Even if that were true, the private security firm doesn't have a monopoly. Unlike gov't police, they actually have to do a good job to succeed.

Competing security firms are just as vulnerable to bribery as the gov't. The problem I have, and have always had with anarchy, is that human behavior is not going to change just because a methodology changes. I agree that in theory it is the ideal, but I don't believe at this juncture in our behavioral development, that it is practical. At least, not a grand scale. It's just my flea bitten opinion.

 

[otherone]

The problem I have, and have always had with anarchy, is that human behavior is not going to change just because a methodology changes.

The state is composed of humans.

 

[orenbus]

Driver Plows into Ferguson Protest Crowd in Minneapolis



Edit: Close up video at below link
Star Tribune videographer Mark Vancleave shot video of the altercation during a solidarity rally Tuesday near the Minneapolis Police’s 3rd Precinct building at Lake Street and Minnehaha Avenue S.

Car plows through protesters during Ferguson rally in south Minneapolis
http://www.startribune.com/local/minneapolis/283891941.html?page=all&prepage=1&c=y#continue

The driver who lurched into a south Minneapolis intersection packed with Ferguson protesters was “attempting to flee from the mob” when he ran over and slightly injured a 16-year-old girl as others were atop the hood of his car, police said Wednesday.

The driver, Jeffrey Patrick Rice, 40, was questioned moments after the incident late Tuesday afternoon on eastbound E. Lake Street at Minnehaha Avenue S. Police said Wednesday that the case “remains under investigation.” Rice, of St. Paul, was not arrested, and no charges have been filed.

Rice’s mother said in an interview that he was coming home from work and “didn’t even know what was going on” when he encountered the crowd of several hundred blocking the intersection.

The girl who was run over by the horn-blaring Subaru station wagon was taken by emergency responders to Regions Hospital for treatment of minor injuries, police said.

“The victim’s vehicle was damaged by a large group of people,” reads the report released early Wednesday by police. “While [the driver] was attempting to flee from the mob, he struck a pedestrian. State accident report filed.”

The report released Wednesday morning listed Rice as a “victim” and the injured girl under the “other” category. Later in the day, police changed the listing of Rice to “suspect.” They did not provide additional information or immediately respond to a request for comment.

Rice’s driving history in Minnesota includes three drunken-driving convictions, with the most recent coming in 2003. He’s also been convicted of driving with an open liquor bottle, and driving after his license was canceled and also in violation of restrictions placed on his license. The most recent of these convictions came in early 2008.

Much of the incident, unfolding within a few steps of the Police Department’s Third Precinct headquarters, was captured on a Star Tribune video. Additional aerial video from KSTP-TV, Channel 5, shows that Rice had paused behind a vehicle stopped in front of it, and then steered to the right around that vehicle and drove slowly into the crowd that was blocking the intersection. There were three people on the hood of his car as he knocked down the girl.

After the girl went to the pavement, the crowd erupted in screams, and some people violently pounded on the windshield and windows while the car was stopped momentarily. Rice then started again and knocked down a few more people, the TV video shows.

Gea Ebrahem said she was one of the protesters who was hit after Rice resumed moving. She said she moved in front of the car to join others who were trying to pull the girl to safety and try to lift the tire off the teen.

“My head was in front of the bumper,” said Ebrahem, 24. “I ended up at the bottom of everybody.”

The people who were on the hood of the car, she continued, “didn’t jump on the car because they wanted to. They got hit, and it was a natural reaction [to get onto the hood].”

Despite the momentary yet dramatic mayhem, Ebrahem said, “I just want people to know that the rally was peaceful.”

Soon after, Rice pulled over and called 911, police spokesman John Elder said Wednesday. No one else was hurt, according to police.

City officials said Wednesday that organizers did not need a permit to hold their protest, despite concerns about the potential disruption of traffic.

Elder said police were “actively investigating” the incident, before turning the case over to the Hennepin County attorney’s office “for consideration of charges.”

Police withheld the identity of the girl because she is a juvenile.

On Monday, before the Missouri grand jury’s decision not to indict Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson for fatally shooting teenager Michael Brown, Minneapolis Police Chief Janeé Harteau made an effort to strike a balance between free speech and keeping the public safe.

“We believe it is very important for the public to be heard on this matter as part of the democratic process, and we realize the law enforcement community needs public support to be effective,” the chief said. “We ask for everyone’s help in maintaining a safe and secure city while respecting private property.”