bullets13

I'm doing a police ridealong with TVC tonight. His SUV has three ports for cellphone chargers. The technology they have is way out of control. Militarization at its finest.... ;)

For the record, I'm not trying to make anything a black/white thing. The article in itself made it a "black" thing, which is why I'm asking questions directed to black posters.

But can you really blame them? They're being persecuted and prosecuted in the press for killing a guy that's been portrayed as a perfect kid who would never do anything wrong, which was a big part of the outrage when it seemed there was no way he'd ever have a problem with a cop.

Do you mind if I ask how old you are? I spend a lot of time driving in PA in the middle of the night (I go fishing there), and I see a lot of black males hanging out and walking around, and I see a lot of police cars driving around, but I can't remember an instance where I've seen a car pulled up talking to anyone where it would appear that they were hassling them. I also go on a couple of police ridealongs a year and I've never heard on the radio or responded to any calls of any officer stopping a pedestrian for simply walking around. So I know it's not a something that happens constantly. I've also driven through the main drag there at 2 AM on many occasions and there were people spilled out into the streets, loud music, public drinking, etc, about 2 blocks from the police station, and no police were out hassling them, even though misdemeanors were being committed in the middle of the street. That being said, if there's a curfew on the seawall, and a group of black males is hanging out there anyway, if a white cop pulls up and tells them to leave is that considered hassling?

No, it is not a crime. But a much higher percentage of people out at that time of night are up to no good. Especially in high crime areas. If I'm wandering down 4th street in BMT at 2 AM, I'm not going to be surprised if an officer asks me what I'm up to.

Correct. But if Brown THOUGHT the cop knew he was a suspect, it could explain why he might have gotten aggressive towards the cop.

If my understanding of the situation is correct, he wanted the DA gone, and when she wouldn't resign he denied funding to a program she was involved in? If that's the case, then it sounds like the indictment is warranted. On the flip side, if Obama denied a legit program funding because he had a beef with a republican involved with the program, there would be outrage, and someone would soon post a westernjournalism article all about how crooked it was.

It's these sort of inaccuracies that show that we need to wait before casting judgement. If people were saying he was shot ten times and it was more like half that, it's also possible that they're incorrect on how the whole thing went down. Did he get shot close to the car and end up 35 feet away? Did he raise his hands after he'd already been shot 5 times? Or did it really go down the way that the twitter folks are saying? They've already been a wrong a few times, so it's kind of hard for me to take their word as gospel.

Another false fact early on.

Your very first post is from a guy reporting as fact that he was shot ten times. Reports being released now say 4-6 shots were fired. That may seem insignificant, but it's a very good example of inaccuracy in the "facts" that are being reported. The guy who twittered that got the "shot ten times" from a "witness" or someone who talked to a "witness". Which certainly calls into question how accurate "witness" accounts actually are in this case.

Kind of like the media?

Most important part of the talk: if you don't commit crimes and don't roam the streets in the middle of the night, very few cops will try and find a reason to stop you, regardless of your race.

Lets get an honest portrayal of the victim. I personally have no idea what happened when Brown was confronted by the policeman. But the media and protesters have made this all about the "innocent victim" with "no criminal record" who's "about to go to college." When you look at it like that, it's hard to believe that he would get into an altercation with a cop, and makes it much more believable that the cop might have shot him down without provocation. BUT when you see a video of him assaulting a store clerk while stealing something, and then find out it happened minutes before he got into the altercation, it changes things a bit. A) It shows us that he's not the perfect kid who would never do anything wrong, and B ) it gives a very reasonable explanation as to why he might get into an altercation with a cop, as he might very well think he's about to be arrested. What's bad is that there are those who choose to ignore these facts, because they're absolutely positive that a white officer with 6 years on the force with no problems got up that morning and decided to shoot him a black guy. To me this video at least should be enough for people to step back and wait and see what evidence comes out before making judgement, especially since the main witness was involved in the same robbery. The cop may very well be in the wrong, but I'm believing more and more that Brown did initiate a confrontation with the cop. Now whether or not the amount of force used was appropriate is in doubt, but I'd sure like to hear more evidence before I give a verdict. This video is a perfect example of why we should wait... Because 24 hours ago he was a perfect kid who'd never done anything wrong in his life, and now it's been shown that he committed a felony just minutes before he was shot.

I believe so. HS sports has been the greatest or only reason for many kids to try and succeed in the classroom. It's a great experience for kids, and teaches many life lessons. I don't believe sports should be cut anymore than I believe fine arts should be cut. Now I will say, one area that sports could be cut to save money is the amount of coaches involved. A HS program can get by without needing all of the following: head coach, offensive coordinator, defensive coordinator, a qb coach, RB coach, wr coach, o-line and d-line coaches, conditioning coaches, etc. throw in the jv coaches, freshman coaches, etc., and that's a lot of money spent on coaches. Also, I know that some of the middle schools in the district have 5 or 6 coaches who's function at the school is to coach sports and PE. It seems like some positions could be cut throughout the district in that area to save money, without really hurting the students.

No matter which one you think is smarter, both get significantly dumber when you put them in a social situation with a large group of their peers.

I see what you're saying. I wouldn't be bothered by a statistical link or something like that, but I wouldn't mind seeing an end to blatantly false or misleading links used to bash the other side.

It should be a reputable link. Links that are proven false time and time again play a major factor in a lot of the conflict on here. But of course, that is just one man's opinion.

You and I have had some back and forth, but it's always been respectful. And I know that you've taken some insults from people, and I give you a lot of credit for the way you've handled it. The only issue I have is that most of the "true" news that you post on here is either not true at all or uses partial truths to paint the left in a bad light. For instance the last article you posted that I actually took the time to read said that "Liberals were mad" about a restaurant charging a fee to help make up for the minimum wage hike. The intent of the article was to make liberals look bad for being upset about this, and I agreed with you that they should not be upset. But in the article, they quoted a grand total of ONE liberal that was "mad", and in truth all he said was that he thought the restaurant was overreacting to the hike, and really didn't sound that mad at all. So when you say you're posting "true" articles that the "left leaning" media won't show us, you need to make sure they're really true. There's a reason that most of these issues aren't showing up on Fox, and that's because it's not really news at all.

I think it would beneficial to the site to only allow links from Fox and CNN. I generally ignore them, but I've never clicked on a link to Western Journalism or similar sites and not been able to see a serious flaw in the article, whether it be an intentional misquote to inflame readers, a misrepresenting of numbers, a blanket statement assigned to a group of people with only one or two examples, etc. the sites that hoops used to make his point the other day, as well as some sites that have been used to make Obama look good do the same thing. So I would like to see talking points that are derived from news links actually come from news sources. Because while Fox and CNN are both slanted, they don't blatantly make things up to ignite their readers. There is at least some modicum of journalistic integrity to those sites. It's just a thought, but that's my personal suggestion to improving the political forum.

Hardcore conservatives and liberals have been brainwashed by their parties into thinking that their way is the only way. The staunchest of these groups go to the point of "defending" their side's belief at all costs, no matter how good a point the other side makes. At times, it's easier to resort to insults or changing the subject than it is to actually admit that the other guy made a good point or proved you wrong, and that's a common tactic on this site from people on both sides of the argument. Another mitigating factor is the sheer number of biased opinion pieces that are being passed off as factual in an attempt to create talking points. Again, people on both sides are guilty of posting misleading articles, which usually leads to one side rallying around the talking point, and the other side proving it false rather than discussing the point, which also leads to conflict. I much prefer general topics being introduced with discussion about the issue over fake news articles that are critical of one side or the other being used to misrepresent the truth.

I honestly believe that if citizens ever have to take up arms and overthrow the government, most police officers will be with them, not against them, and likely using the "toys" that some are concerned about them having.

Alfred's family is rallying in support of Hadnot because his admission of selling drugs to Wright does not fit the narrative that the family wants to believe, which is that he was murdered and that it was covered up by local cops (almost believable, given the local gossip), state cops (much less believable), and national cops (not believable at all).

You know, I'm not a minority, but I've never had a problem with a cop. And it sure seems like the vast majority of "innocent" people that are killed by cops committed some sort of crime that led up to the confrontation. I'm not saying that someone committing a crime should be executed by a police officer. But I AM saying that those who don't commit crimes, regardless of ethnicity, have very little to worry about.

Like one person is dead tonight from the protests?

If the guy who was with him is telling the truth, it sounds like murder. But there should be dashcam and body mic evidence