Bangkok Herps

As I said, you have been misinformed, or, you are not properly comprehending the information on Obamacare.

As to gun control, I'm 60 years old, and have been around firearms all of my life, never personally had a problem. However, my stepfather and my mother ran a small store in a rural, small town. He carried a .38 revolver, and had positioned a .357, with the hopes he would never have to use them. Unfortunately, one day three idiots show up to rob them. He killed one, and the other two were captured and put in prison, and by the way they were all three black. The police said that they believed he saved his, and my mother's life. I suppose you think it was his fault for running an honest business, that served the community, mostly black, but he must be a racist for shooting a black man, even though he was armed with a shogun. Personally, I'm happy the 2nd Amendment permits the ownership of firearms. One person chose to do something that saved his life, and unfortunately one idiot chose to do something, that cost him his.

Of course they said that. As other threads on this forum have made evident, there are plenty of police who will say anything to justify taking a "bad guy's" life. Heck, it's not like he even needs to actually believe that he saved his mother's life - in America, we've idolized money to such a degree that it's perfectly accepted to take life for the sake of the money alone, even if the insurance was probably going to cover it.

But let's try working with facts. There are about 350,000 robberies and over 2,000,000 burglaries in the United States every year. You want to hazard a guess as to what % of those involve the robbers killing multiple non-violent, non-resistant, stranger victims? Small-time crooks robbing small-time stores don't waste time killing people they don't need to and casually adding murder raps to their scorecard except in extremely rare situations.

I'd be interested - that man who your stepfather killed, how many other storeowners and their families had he killed to that point? If we're making a reasonable deduction here, we should be working with data, right?

But, like I said, people always write their own justifications.

United States already has the highest incarceration rate in the developed world. And research has shown that once you incarcerate over 2% of any particular community, increased incarceration actually increases crime:

* You increase the number of children going up without fathers, which dramatically increases crime rates

* You increase the number of people spending their time in the prison system, among hard-core criminals

* Most of all, you decrease the legitimacy of law enforcement and the justice system in the culture of the community. Once it seems like everyone you know has been getting locked up, getting locked no longer acts as a deterrent and law enforcement in general appears unfair and not worth respecting.

As far as what gun control would do to decrease gun violence, I already expressed that in detail, which was of course ignored:

I think there should be significantly stricter gun-control, primarily to reduce three major factors behind gun deaths:

1) Middle-men buying guns legally to then be resold illegally, without repercussions

2) Quick and easy access to guns increasing the deadliness of crimes of passion and attempted sucide

3) A huge unreguated gun supply providing a critical mass making it easy for guns to be present in crime, both because it's so easy for criminals to acquire guns with the huge supply, and because guns are often brought into the situation by non-criminals, which both increases the likelihood of criminals acquiring guns and increases the likelihood of criminals using guns when they otherwise wouldn't.

However, even more than gun control, one the biggest things we need in America is a different attitude towards guns. They aren't tools for keeping you safe, they make you less safe, as has been proved over and over again. Now, that doesn't mean that I think they should be banned - we allow cars even though driving in a car doesn't make us safe either. But we should regulate them as such - guns should be registered just like cars are, and we should be working to take measures that make them safer.

* Why should a driving license take far more work to acquire than a gun license?

* Why is there constant safety research to improve cars while gun death research is completely ignored, and even attempts to research are blocked by Congress under lobbying from the NRA?

* And too many traffic tickets and you can lose your driver's license, but it takes a felony before you lose your inherent right to own a gun?

I'm not going to try and stop you from owning a gun. But we should work to take measures that will make that gun less likely to be used in a crime or violence. And you should realize that the gun is a tool that makes life slightly more dangerous for you and your family and your neighbors, not less. That's true for accidents, murders, and suicides - all three are less likely if you don't have your own gun present, and there's a ton of research behind that. We can try to have a logical conversation about this, or we can continue with the constant emotionalism and immaturity that seems to only infect the American gun debate. If we as Americans were reasonable about this issue for even a single political cycle, it would change a lot.

Here are the gun death rates by state. But keep claiming that the problem is just "bad neighborhoods full of bad people" and "the occasional nutter".

It's all those bad areas full of evil Black people in Alaska and Wyoming and Montana that are leading to so many gun deaths.

I swear, I've never seen a place, even online, where racist claims expressed as casually and as ignorantly as they are here.

You made this about race more than I.

No doubt about it, there are some back wood, alcohol drinking, teeth optional, hillbilly, freeman survivalist hate the IRS gun toting types living in Alaska and Wyoming, but common . . . . . that is not the US or how the vast majority of how the US is. Not even close.

Number of homicides in 2012:

Alaska - 34 - (12 of which were firearm deaths)

Wyoming - 15 - (9 of which were firearm deaths)

I have lived in LA, Atlanta and Memphis.

I have also lived in some other really nice areas with almost zero crime rate. In fact, I have a house in one area where I can only recall maybe 2 murders since the early 2000s (one was a drunk vacationer from Memphis of all places, and a crazy local boy that raped and killed a young women on vacation).

Let's talk about LA, Memphis and Atlanta.

All three cities have areas that have virtually no crime. These suburbs are heavily patrolled and it keeps the rift raft out. You, however, can go a half mile or a mile outside of these suburbs and it is a war zone. People are getting raped, mugged and shot all the time. Literally night and day.

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/tables/table-20/table_20_murder_by_state_types_of_weapons_2013.xls

Los Angeles is a dense urban area of 10,000,000 people. Wyoming and Alaska are 800,000 people spread out over enormous states. Comparing urban populations to state populations for any sort of social statistic is ridiculous - the number of human interactions in one versus the other will differ by more than an order of magnitude.

The fact that Alaska and Wyoming have among the highest gun death rates in the USA (comparing state-to-state, like-to-like) despite their low population densities, should really be cause for concern.

Also, when you're trying to compare like-to-like, compare rates, not totals. California is the biggest state, so it has a big total, but by rate compared to population it has among the least gun deaths in the entire country.

As far as Los Angeles goes, don't be ridiculous. I lived in LA for 14 years, most of that time in Inglewood, South Central, and Gardena (on the edge of Compton). I never once saw a gun on the streets except when the cops were pulling it. That doesn't mean that there's no gun crime - there are tragic shootings, and there is regular crime like there is in every urban area, and they happened in my neighborhood - but calling it a "war zone" is ridiculous.

And you know one of the best ways to reduce the deadliness of street crime in Los Angeles? How about reducing the accessibility of guns?

Someone recently showed that there were 14,000 knife assaults in England last year. They lead to 300 deaths. You know the difference between England and the USA? In the USA, those would have been 14,000 gun assaults, not knife assaults, and there would have been 5,000 dead, not 300.

Here are some more helpful charts:

Gun ownership by state:

Deaths due to firearm by state:

Sort of seems...logical....and....obvious....doesn't it?

If someone breaks into my house in australia, even if he has a gun, it is very unlikely I will be shot because he knows I will not have a gun. In all probability just tied up while he takes what he wants. Police can deal with it later.

In US because people have guns a break and enter can have a gun death so easily.

In australia there are very few deaths from police pulling over drivers as they know the driver is very unlikely to have a gun, its usually a chat and a ticket and on your way. In the US because police must assume the worst they must consider ebery driver to be armed with a gun so it makes the police more aggressive and trigger happy so as a general rule, in a gun culture, more are shot.

Says a lot about society when even police are so scared they would rather shoot someone instaed of themselves being shot, simply because a person has a right to own a gun.

That mindset needs to change so that the norm is for the public not to have guns then the police are not prone to shoot.

If you dont have that then the police will continue to shoot for the slightest thing. A product of their own own freedom.

Not to mention how easy is is for accidental shootings by kids.

A product of their own wrongly perceived freedom that the rest of the world can see but the US is blinded by idiocy.

Yes, I'm sure a wife or daughter are on board with that, while being raped, when you're tied to a chair.

Gun advocates love bringing in ridiculous scenarios to support their claims. So how many wives and daughters are raped in Australia in situations where husbands were sitting right there and could have shot the perp if they had only had a gun in their closet?

Try and rationalize 30,000+ gun deaths a year with scenarios that rarely ever happen.

United States already has the highest incarceration rate in the developed world. And research has shown that once you incarcerate over 2% of any particular community, increased incarceration actually increases crime:

* You increase the number of children going up without fathers, which dramatically increases crime rates

* You increase the number of people spending their time in the prison system, among hard-core criminals

* Most of all, you decrease the legitimacy of law enforcement and the justice system in the culture of the community. Once it seems like everyone you know has been getting locked up, getting locked no longer acts as a deterrent and law enforcement in general appears unfair and not worth respecting.

As far as what gun control would do to decrease gun violence, I already expressed that in detail, which was of course ignored:

I think there should be significantly stricter gun-control, primarily to reduce three major factors behind gun deaths:

1) Middle-men buying guns legally to then be resold illegally, without repercussions

2) Quick and easy access to guns increasing the deadliness of crimes of passion and attempted sucide

3) A huge unreguated gun supply providing a critical mass making it easy for guns to be present in crime, both because it's so easy for criminals to acquire guns with the huge supply, and because guns are often brought into the situation by non-criminals, which both increases the likelihood of criminals acquiring guns and increases the likelihood of criminals using guns when they otherwise wouldn't.

However, even more than gun control, one the biggest things we need in America is a different attitude towards guns. They aren't tools for keeping you safe, they make you less safe, as has been proved over and over again. Now, that doesn't mean that I think they should be banned - we allow cars even though driving in a car doesn't make us safe either. But we should regulate them as such - guns should be registered just like cars are, and we should be working to take measures that make them safer.

* Why should a driving license take far more work to acquire than a gun license?

* Why is there constant safety research to improve cars while gun death research is completely ignored, and even attempts to research are blocked by Congress under lobbying from the NRA?

* And too many traffic tickets and you can lose your driver's license, but it takes a felony before you lose your inherent right to own a gun?

I'm not going to try and stop you from owning a gun. But we should work to take measures that will make that gun less likely to be used in a crime or violence. And you should realize that the gun is a tool that makes life slightly more dangerous for you and your family and your neighbors, not less. That's true for accidents, murders, and suicides - all three are less likely if you don't have your own gun present, and there's a ton of research behind that. We can try to have a logical conversation about this, or we can continue with the constant emotionalism and immaturity that seems to only infect the American gun debate. If we as Americans were reasonable about this issue for even a single political cycle, it would change a lot.

With exception of the occasional nutter that goes of the reservation every year or two, the vast majority of gun violence is very isolated and limited to bad neighborhoods full of bad people. Cracked out gang banger with nothing to lose don't think twice about shooting up a house full of people.

Here are the gun death rates by state. But keep claiming that the problem is just "bad neighborhoods full of bad people" and "the occasional nutter".

It's all those bad areas full of evil Black people in Alaska and Wyoming and Montana that are leading to so many gun deaths.

I swear, I've never seen a place, even online, where racist claims expressed as casually and as ignorantly as they are here.

Do you want a list?

It's obvious that that may here have little to no knowledge of firearms/firearm training.

If you can't see it, then you are likely one of them.

How may guns have you owned?

Have you had any self-defense training? If so, how many hours?

Can you disassemble and reassemble a variety of firearms?

How much time do you spend at the range?

Can you name the various parts that comprise a semi-auto pistol?

Or a semi-auto rifle?

Do you even know that basic rules of firearm safety?

Are you familiar with the Tueller drill?

Have you ever reloaded your own brass?

It's also obvious that this discussion is veiled America-bashing.

My advice is that if you don't own a firearm and don't wish to do so, especially if you don't reside in the US, perhaps you should stick to subjects you have a clue about.

4 - but does an over/under count as two?

Safety training, not self-defense

yes

depends on what time period of my life you're talking about

yes

yes

yes

familiar, but never trained in it

yes

So do I get to play now? I think there should be significantly stricter gun-control, primarily to reduce three major factors behind gun deaths:

1) Middle-men buying guns legally to then be resold illegally, without repercussions

2) Quick and easy access to guns increasing the deadliness of crimes of passion and attempted sucide

3) A huge unreguated gun supply providing a critical mass making it easy for guns to be present in crime, both because it's so easy for criminals to acquire guns with the huge supply, and because guns are often brought into the situation by non-criminals, which both increases the likelihood of criminals acquiring guns and increases the likelihood of criminals using guns when they otherwise wouldn't.

However, even more than gun control, one the biggest things we need in America is a different attitude towards guns. They aren't tools for keeping you safe, they make you less safe, as has been proved over and over again. Now, that doesn't mean that I think they should be banned - we allow cars even though driving in a car doesn't make us safe either. But we should regulate them as such - guns should be registered just like cars are, and we should be working to take measures that make them safer.

* Why should a driving license take far more work to acquire than a gun license?

* Why is there constant safety research to improve cars while gun death research is completely ignored, and even attempts to research are blocked by Congress under lobbying from the NRA?

* And too many traffic tickets and you can lose your driver's license, but it takes a felony before you lose your inherent right to own a gun?

I'm not going to try and stop you from owning a gun. But we should work to take measures that will make that gun less likely to be used in a crime or violence. And you should realize that the gun is a tool that makes life slightly more dangerous for you and your family and your neighbors, not less. That's true for accidents, murders, and suicides - all three are less likely if you don't have your own gun present, and there's a ton of research behind that. We can try to have a logical conversation about this, or we can continue with the constant emotionalism and immaturity that seems to only infect the American gun debate. If we as Americans were reasonable about this issue for even a single political cycle, it would change a lot.

The funniest part is that you're acting like this knowledge should be pre-requisite for someone participating in a conversation about gun ownership.

Yet most people like you (and I assume you yourself) would never suggest that this knowledge be pre-requisite for, you know, owning a freaking gun.

stay home, would not have happend

what they want? europe to pay social welfare for everybody

while MUSLIM countries, their own religion, their brothers, don't want them ?

time for IS to finally invade SA

Terrible story but what are the other Islamic (oil rich) countries doing to help their brethren?

How many refugee"s are they taking? I believe the answer starts with a "Z"

always quick to blame the UK and Europe for not accepting an overwhelming number of immigrants from the hotbed of terrorism but whatabout all the oil rich Arab Nations surrounding Syria? How many refugees are Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, The UAE and the rest of them, accepting into their own countries and helping?

It's sad that a little boy died but the future consequences of allowing all of these people into our country unchecked (and then all of their families in the future) will be much graver for us all.

Little dose of reality:

The vast majority of Syrian refugees have been taken in by the bordering Muslim nations:

If you can read a map, it's easier to get to other countries on the Mediterranean than to those distant non-bordering Arab countries. And Syrians don't have anything more in common with the UAE than they have with Greece - we're all human and we all should be looking out for each other. It's ridiculous to blame our lack of compassion on someone else's lack of compassion.

The number of refugees is NOT overwhelming. English-speaking nations (specifically the UK, USA, Australia and New Zealand) have taken in barely any refugees compared to other nations. Right now the world leader in taking in refugees is Turkey, before that it was Pakistan. If each nation simply took in 2.4 refugees per 1,000 population, every refugee in the world would be covered. 0.24% of the population doesn't sound "overwhelming".

Indeed. The other Islamic countries are of course delighted to see hundreds of thousands of muslim immigrants join the 50 million already in Europe. This is a demographic conquest of Europe. Muslim armies have repeatively invaded and occuppied Europe over the centuries. Spain was occuppied for 700 years and Greece for 400. 150,000 Turkish soldiers got all the way to Vienna before being defeated. In most cases they were turned back by European armies. For the last 5 decades they have been conquering Europe through immigration; both legal and illegal. Europe has been betrayed by its own corrupt and incompetent " elite" class which has ignored the desires of the European people and allowed this invasion to happen. Don't expect Arab oligarchs to lift a finger to stop what their ancestors armies tried to do by force of arms. They despise us for our weakness and stupidity. I can't blame them really. If Europe wants to commit demographic suicide; why should they protest or prevent them from doing so?

Ridiculous fear-mongering. The UK is not in any danger of becoming majority-Muslim and never will be. If we want something other than cultural suicide, we should be attracting others to our cultural way of life rather than pushing them away.

That's for sure.

Truly depressing to be watching "Christian Europe" freaking out because they might actually have to really practice Christian Charity and live up to the ideals that they vocally proclaim constitutes their civilization and elevates it from the rest. It's now one the moments or epochs that the rhetoric is tested and it's determined whether the rhetoric determines behavior or is just a fig leaf for venality and fear.

Yep. The more of us acting like Christians, the more people would actually want to be Christians and take on our cultural values. The more we act like , the more they'll want to combat us. It's not a difficult concept.

And the other Islamic countries are doing what?

Providing support for the majority of the refugees:

http://www.mercycorps.org/articles/turkey-iraq-jordan-lebanon-syria/quick-facts-what-you-need-know-about-syria-crisis

Well perhaps you need to look harder.

3.8 million refugees from Syria (95 percent) are found in the following five countries. Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq and Egypt:

Lebanon is host to 1.1 million refugees registered with UNHCR, which amounts to about 26 percent of the country's population

Jordan hosts 618,615 registered refugees, which amounts to 9.8 percent of the population.

Turkey is hosting 1.6 million refugees, which amounts to 2.4 percent of the population.

Iraq hosts 225,373 registered refugees, which amounts to 0.67 percent of the population.

Egypt has 142,543 registered refugees, which amounts to 0.17 percent of the population.

In Syria, about 190,000 people have been killed and 10.8 million people are in urgent need of humanitarian assistance inside the country.

More than 10 million Syrians, or 45 percent of the country's population have been displaced.

Exactly. The sustained ignorance on this point is overwhelming.

Umm how many non Arab refugees have these states taken when other parts of the world were in trouble ?> How about zero ?

Completely false. The Rohingya come to mind immediately.

A photo of the Houston Sheriff's Department Deputy assassinated in the past few days.

No storm trooper here. He was dressed in his uniform.

Sounds like a personal problem as I have never had scrapes or problems with cops.

Another cop got shot and killed today in Chicago.

No cop got killed in Chicago. He was killed in Fox Lake, a good hour outside of Chicago and over on the Wisconsin border. It's closer to Milwaukee than it is to Chicago, but that doesn't fit the "narrative" as well.

So far this year 25 cops have been killed while on duty...exactly the same as last year, and lower than recent averages. I believe the peak was 67 cops killed during the Bush administration in 2006...but we weren't talking about any rash of cop-killings back then, it was just ignored.

That video only shows one hand in the air at the time he is shot.

The DA's office has said that the second video clearly shows both hands in the air, and it was standing still in place. What he said or was holding in his hand is irrelevant - he was not an immediate threat.

His arms went up....

I have seen fights where crazy people run at you and throw their arms up, screaming...you want a piece of this? They keep coming...

Video without voice is worthless. The police may have told him several times to get down and put his hands flat on the ground. That's pretty much routine. If a man throws his hands up...especially while shouting and presumed to have a weapon...It still does not clearly show he is not a threat.

People are told to get down... The only time hands go in the air is when they are told to get out of the car/house with hands in the air. This man was squirrly. If I was him, and the man did not follow orders to get on the ground, but threw hands up...and possibly had a weapon...I would give him two or three warnings... If he still came at me ..without getting down (so I could cuff him)...I would be quite unsure. Not saying I would shoot..but I just lost control of the situation.

Not trying to defend the police...just cannot believe it was an assassination...a planned murder. Police do have to follow procedures. I simply want to wait and hear the whole thing out. The cop may have become confused..it which case...it was a wrongful killing/procedure....but not a cold blooded murder.

I don't believe it was a planned murder, but can't be sure. (One friend of mine who was a cop says that sometimes the process can get so aggravating that even when the suspect gives up and its "over", it's not over. He was referring to beating up suspects after they've surrendered, though, not killing anybody.) I think it was more likely an accident - officer had his finger on the trigger and was getting a bit itchy, and he flinched at the wrong time. Clearly manslaughter.

According to The Guardian we're up to at least 788 people killed by cops so far this year in America. Since there's no reporting mechanism for police killings, that's certainly an undercount - some have slipped through the cracks, been kept quiet, or simply been covered up. So many horrific decisions are being caught on video (the murders of Dillon Taylor, Sam Dubose, James Boyd, John Crawford III, Tamir Rice, Walter Scott, Gilbert Flores, etc.)....imagine how bad it was before everyone had cell phone cameras and the police knew they could make up any story they wanted to explain the more suspect of the 1,000 killings/year?

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2015/jun/01/the-counted-police-killings-us-database

p.s. - the videos of the killings themselves are what is linked in each of those names - fair warning.

“The use of violence and weapons has to go through steps to end violence from both sides. It depends on mutual understanding and trust.”

Seize those representatives and bring them before a court of law. Only force beat the German RAF, Irish IRA, Italian Red Brigades, Spanish ETA and only force has kicked back HAMAS to their corner. Don't go for the crap of talks with groups that have only one agenda: independance and after that expansion.

Just completely wrong and ahistorical. I suggest, at a bare minimum, you read Malcolm Gladwell's chapter on the use of force in insurgencies in "David and Goliath". He focuses on the IRA - the Brits came into Catholic neighborhoods with overwhelming force at the very beginning, and THAT, more than anything else, is what launched the next 30 years of violence. Gladwell does a good job of showing why reliance on force DOESN'T work for combating local insurgencies, and the true limits of power.

The RAF finally died because their supporters on the Soviet side dissolved, not because of overwhelming German force.

Because of the reliance on force, the Spain-ETA conflict was the longest ongoing conflict in Europe (52 years!). Franco was not afraid of using force and violence on them in the early years, and that only escalated the conflict. It didn't end until several attempted cease-fires and peace negotiations culminated in an (apparently) lasting one now.

The constant attempts to ground everything on force in Palestine is why that's a 70-year-old intractable conflict no closer to being solved today as it was when it started. Do the Israelis feel safe today? Are they happy with where things are at? Why do you suggest they continue trying to do the same thing that's failed to work for 70 years?

Those are quite awful examples to try to use to show why using force "works". Most of those conflicts lasted 4 decades or more, and force showed itself to be as useless or worse at the end as it was in the beginning.

The other issue that doesn't fit your "profiling against Black people is justified" excuse is the fact that the vast majority of warrants and arrests of Black people were not for "crimes".

Internal Ferguson documents proved that the focus of police activity was NOT public safety and was NOT catching criminals. The focus of police activity was to make money for the city coffers. That is shown time and time again in the internal emails and policies.

So when you see that Black people were disproportionately targeted, and you know that police activity was just focused on making money...you see how much more unjust the whole situation is. Black people were targeted because they were vulnerable to targeting, NOT because they were committing crimes that required a police response. The courts adjudicated the cases as they did because they were trying to get as much money for the city as possible, NOT because they were interested in dealing out justice or keeping the city safe.

The vast majority of warrants issued in Ferguson were for failing to pay a fine on time, or for missing a court date. The vast majority of the initial infractions that led to those arrests were parking tickets, traffic tickets, minor housing violations, and made-up police judgement calls for things like "Manner of Walking", "Failure to Comply", and "Failure to Obey". The vast majority of the 3 warrants/household that Ferguson was giving out last year were for infractions that would almost never warrant jail time in normally-run communities. Over and over Black people were arrested in situations that clearly violated their 1st and 4th Amendment rights.

If the 9,000 warrants that Ferguson issued last year were for actual crimes, then maybe you could try to make a case. But they weren't. Most of them were for things that would never warrant jail time in other places, and 95% of the warrants that had started with simple parking and traffic infractions were made against Black people in the community.

That's why it seems so oppressive.

Wake the <deleted> up. Every police force in the US is constantly under pressure to get out and write ticket or issue citations to help get money for city to meet operating budgets. This happened in all communities, not just black communities and perhaps even more so in white communities.

The instruction is not make up violations of city ordinances. The message is enforce city ordinances. I can say unequivocally and without any doubt whatsoever that after being on the force for a while, cops do not want to and avoid writing tickets and citations. They hate the paperwork and it is hassle. They are given quotas because otherwise some of the very good and more senior cops in small communities would not write and tickets or citations.

Failure to appear for traffic fines will get a warrant for your butt whether you are white, black, green, yellow, purple or alien. So why then is not Holder and Obama investigating all white smaller communities where the cops are given the exact same directives about tickets and citations? simple. Because there would be the same findings and then they could not use that as a race directed issue.

Again, simply false. There were 9,000 warrents in a town of only 21,000 people (counting kids). There was more than 1 warrent per household. That is NOT the norm anywhere in America.

Read the report. Ferguson city officials BRAGGED that there were only 6 municipalities out of 89 in the region who were getting more than $1 million in income from court fees, and they were pulling in $2 million and growing.

"Failure to appear for traffic fines will get a warrant for your butt whether you are white, black, green, yellow, purple or alien."

False.

I got a red-light ticket that I never answered because I was out of the country. I never appeared in court. Never told them why I didn't go because I didn't even know they sent it. Later on, they made the ticket larger because I didn't show up for the court date I didn't know I had. I mailed in the payment...and that was that. I never got a warrent.

That was NOT an option in Ferguson. They forced people to show up to court to resolve even mundane fines, made it almost impossible to contest the fines, impossible to remove the fine by fixing the problem, and impossible to do community service or anything else in place of a fine. They charged the highest fines in the region and, against Supreme Court precedent, failed to take into account those who were too poor to pay the fines. They made it extremely difficult to resolve your ticket, the only information available online was false, and until the report started they charged numerous unconstitutional fees and add-ons to the original fees that other communities in the area simply did not charge.

Again, read the freaking report unless you want to keep spout stuff that is totally at odds with the information in the report. I already quoted extensively from the relevant portion in another thread - the stuff going down in Ferguson was not anywhere near the norm.

"I can say unequivocally and without any doubt whatsoever that after being on the force for a while, cops do not want to and avoid writing tickets and citations. They hate the paperwork and it is hassle."

Then why is it that cops in the report state that there were contests to see who could give the most tickets out in the single stop, and that police were sometimes giving as many as 14 tickets out in a single traffic stop? That happens everywhere in America? I've never gotten more than ONE ticket in a single stop, even when I was doing more than one thing wrong. In fact, in most of my stops even where I was speeding or made an illegal turn, I was let off without a ticket.

As for the actual shooting, witnesses both from the crowd and the police have been stating that the shots were fired from about 125 yards away, nowhere near the protesters themselves.

St. Louis County Police Chief Jon Belmar, said police did not return fire and asserted the gunfire came from the middle of the crowd of protesters.

"I don't know who did the shooting, ... but somehow they were embedded in that group of folks,"

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/12/us-usa-missouri-shooting-protest-idUSKBN0M80CJ20150312

He was randomly spectulating directly after the shooting, and it turned out to be wrong.

Of course, you already know that. I already know that. The truth has been repeated in the media so many times that everyone reading this thread already knows that you're wrong. Even JD, posting right after you, admits that it's not true...so why are you trying to claim it? Just to win an internet battle...that you can't win because everyone already knows you're wrong?

The actual truth, from the SAME source, but with time to get an actual report of evidence. There's even a helpful map to show you how wrong you are.

The shots rang out from a hill overlooking the station shortly after midnight Wednesday, at the end of a protest against the Ferguson Police Department.

Officers saw "muzzle flashes ... about 125 yards away," Belmar said.

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/03/13/us/ferguson-protests/

And again, also from Belmar, well AFTER the false information earlier reported that you keep quoting:

Belmar said that three or four shots were fired from across the street from where about 75 protesters and 40 police officers were gathered. He said that the shots did not come from the group of protesters who were gathered near the police station.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2015/03/12/two-police-officers-shot-seriously-injured-in-ferguson/

The other issue that doesn't fit your "profiling against Black people is justified" excuse is the fact that the vast majority of warrants and arrests of Black people were not for "crimes".

Internal Ferguson documents proved that the focus of police activity was NOT public safety and was NOT catching criminals. The focus of police activity was to make money for the city coffers. That is shown time and time again in the internal emails and policies.

So when you see that Black people were disproportionately targeted, and you know that police activity was just focused on making money...you see how much more unjust the whole situation is. Black people were targeted because they were vulnerable to targeting, NOT because they were committing crimes that required a police response. The courts adjudicated the cases as they did because they were trying to get as much money for the city as possible, NOT because they were interested in dealing out justice or keeping the city safe.

The vast majority of warrants issued in Ferguson were for failing to pay a fine on time, or for missing a court date. The vast majority of the initial infractions that led to those arrests were parking tickets, traffic tickets, minor housing violations, and made-up police judgement calls for things like "Manner of Walking", "Failure to Comply", and "Failure to Obey". The vast majority of the 3 warrants/household that Ferguson was giving out last year were for infractions that would almost never warrant jail time in normally-run communities. Over and over Black people were arrested in situations that clearly violated their 1st and 4th Amendment rights.

If the 9,000 warrants that Ferguson issued last year were for actual crimes, then maybe you could try to make a case. But they weren't. Most of them were for things that would never warrant jail time in other places, and 95% of the warrants that had started with simple parking and traffic infractions were made against Black people in the community.

That's why it seems so oppressive.

A crime is any illegal activity. Misdemeanor and felony are the terms you should be using.

Wrong. Growing your grass too long is not a misdemeaner or a felony. A parking ticket is not a misdemeanor or a felony. Most traffic tickets are merely infractions, not misdemeaners or felonies. Being too poor to pay a fine is not a misdemeanor or a felony. If you look up a report on crime in America, these things will not be listed.

The other issue that doesn't fit your "profiling against Black people is justified" excuse is the fact that the vast majority of warrants and arrests of Black people were not for "crimes".

Internal Ferguson documents proved that the focus of police activity was NOT public safety and was NOT catching criminals. The focus of police activity was to make money for the city coffers. That is shown time and time again in the internal emails and policies.

So when you see that Black people were disproportionately targeted, and you know that police activity was just focused on making money...you see how much more unjust the whole situation is. Black people were targeted because they were vulnerable to targeting, NOT because they were committing crimes that required a police response. The courts adjudicated the cases as they did because they were trying to get as much money for the city as possible, NOT because they were interested in dealing out justice or keeping the city safe.

The vast majority of warrants issued in Ferguson were for failing to pay a fine on time, or for missing a court date. The vast majority of the initial infractions that led to those arrests were parking tickets, traffic tickets, minor housing violations, and made-up police judgement calls for things like "Manner of Walking", "Failure to Comply", and "Failure to Obey". The vast majority of the 3 warrants/household that Ferguson was giving out last year were for infractions that would almost never warrant jail time in normally-run communities. Over and over Black people were arrested in situations that clearly violated their 1st and 4th Amendment rights.

If the 9,000 warrants that Ferguson issued last year were for actual crimes, then maybe you could try to make a case. But they weren't. Most of them were for things that would never warrant jail time in other places, and 95% of the warrants that had started with simple parking and traffic infractions were made against Black people in the community.

That's why it seems so oppressive.

Yet, there may be a smidgen of truth to the assertion that Ferguson police may have some profiling history. Well, in a majority black community where the crimes are committed by the majority black community you would be more inclined to both arrest and profile the majority black community.

That you would connect that assertion to the Ferguson report suggests that either you did not read it or you did not understand it.

Your excuse does not match the facts. It isn't just that Black people were getting profiled and pulled over. It isn't just that the police were disproportionately using force (especially tasers and dogs) against Black people by a wide margin. It wasn't even just the internal acceptance of racist emails in city channels that suggested background to those facts.

There was a ton of data that can't be explained by your suggestion.

Why were Black people who had been pulled over more than twice as likely as White people to be searched, even though White people were significantly more likely to have contraband found on them?

Why did serious, provable traffic crimes (like DUIs) show no racial disparities, while vague, minor, unproveable crimes (like "Manner of Walking" and "Failure to Obey") showed by far the largest racial disparities, with White people 600% to 800% less likely to be charged with them?

Why did speeding tickets proven with radar guns only show a comparatively minor racial disparity, while speeding tickets proven only with the officer's judgement showed a 50% greater racial disparity?

Why were Black people 70% less likely to have their cases dismissed and 300% less likely to have their cases voided after those cases had already reached the courts?

Why did White people never once get dogs sic'd on them (even though a young Black boy guilty of nothing other than hiding scared in an abandoned house did), and almost never got tasers used on them, even though White people were involved in some serious, violent incidents (like the giant bar fight related in the report), where they refused to obey the officers, committed serious violence to the point of biting someone's ear off, and required physical intervention by multiple offices to be gotten under control? Meanwhile, Black people who demonstrably showed no threat (as proven by taser videos), who had not been charged with any other crime, or who were sitting in a police car or confined alone inside a jail cell had tasers used on them repeatedly, when it has been clearly shown that they could not have posed a physical threat to anyone.

It's not just the profiling. There was a lot in the report that suggested specific bias that had no advantage to public safety.

You do realize, ArjunaDawn, that the Black Panther case happened until BUSH'S watch and the that BUSH White House dropped criminal charges against them before Obama was even sworn in. Of course you do - it's been posted a dozen times in the last two weeks. So why aren't you using that as an example of the ridiculous pro-Black bias of the Bush Administration?

Because it would be ridiculous. Bush's AG dropped criminal charges, Obama's AG dropped civil charges, both of them thought it was a relatively meaningless case that lacked significant elements (like an actual claimant testifying that they had been denied their voting rights), and no body cared except for the right-wing fringe with their constant desire to drum up a Black vs. White story in order to continuing enacting the celebrated Southern Strategy and pick up those racist votes.

I never quite understood how Obama got the nomination. I have nothing against him, but he seemed relatively untested and unconnected in the political world. The Clintons, on the other hand, are political animals, They work as a pair and they know the political landscape. Obama is sort of out their alone and gets targeted more easily.

Giuliani is quite out of line and if he tried that with more seasoned politicians he'd find himself muzzled, I think.

Why don't you know how Obama got the nomination?

Hillary Clinton and John Edwards were well into tossing Obama into the dust bin, until Edwards was caught with a mistress when he had a dying wife at home.

With the big states already casting their votes on a candidate forced to withdraw, Obama collected delegates from states no one cared about, and then, his handlers at Goldman Sacs spilled the beans on Edwards whom they knew they couldn't control, and Hillary who none of them trust

That doesn't make any sense at all. You're just rewriting history.

The primaries started with Obama winning Iowa by a safe margin, with all the candidates at full strength. John Edwards was considered dead in the water by many commentators at that point, since he had sort of gone all-in on winning Iowa and had little strength in the upcoming states.

Hillary came back by barely beating Obama in New Hampshire (they split the delegates evenly), showing that it was still a real race. Edwards finished a distance 3rd with only 4 of the 22 delegates and no one gave him a chance after that.

Nevada came third and was extremely close, with Hillary getting slightly more of the popular vote but Obama getting one more delegate. John Edwards didn't get a single delegate in Nevada.

South Carolina was next, which Obama won easily, as expected. Clinton and Edwards picked up the crumbs, but Edwards was still a distant third. Doing so poorly in the South, fairly close to where he had served as in the US Senate, was the last straw - if he couldn't even beat Obama in Iowa or Clinton in South Carolina, he wasn't going to beat anyone in this race.

To this point, Obama had 63 delegates, Clinton had 48 delegates, and Edwards had only 26 delegates. Edwards suspended his campaign at that point, now having finished in 3rd for every contest, and was a non-factor for the rest of the race.

After that, Obama and Clinton battled to nearly a draw on Super Tuesday, with Obama getting just slightly more delegates than Clinton. Obama and Clinton pulled every single delegate on Super Tuesday, with no other candidates getting anything. Edwards' withdrawal was over and done...he had lost.

The real deciding time was the February 9th-12th races. Obama dominated in Louisiana, Nebraska, Virgin Islands, Washington, Maine, Democrats Abroad, DC, Maryland, and Virginia. With big delegates margins in every one of those states and lots of positive states still to come, it was really over by February 12th except for the press wanting to keep the news cycle flowing and Hillary hoping that Obama would be sunk by some giant scandal. But with a 100+ delegate margin and the Democrat's split-delegate system, there was really no chance for Clinton to catch up at that point.

Other than the National Enquirer (who no one takes seriously), no one had "spilled the beans" on John Edwards until June, long after the race was decided. Until then he had still been considered a valid potential VP candidate, but he had already lost the race way back in January.

Your weird narrative about John Edwards had nothing to do with anything. In fact, Edwards had sided with Obama more often than not in the debates, so saying that he and Clinton were "putting Obama into the dust bin" doesn't even make sense. If anything, it was Obama and Edwards joining forces to pull down Clinton, the establishment candidate and expected victor heading into the race.

......and where is Al Sharpton on all of this,,,,,,seems mighty quiet not calling it a justifiable act of bravery by one or two of

the outstanding residents of Furguson

Sharpton condemned the shootings almost immediately:

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/03/12/sharpton-no-protester-i-know-would-condone-ferguson-cop-shooting/

I don't like Sharpton, but there's absolutely no reason to bring up his name here, except that he's a favorite name for those with a certain agenda.

There is every indication the police officers were shot with a high powered rifle equipped with a scope. a scary scenario

Can you link to the story? I hadn't heard that claim yet.

Having a lifetime of experience shooting rifles both with and without scopes, I don't see how you could say that it was done with a scope. In that situation, with that lighting, you could make those shots from just about any distance scope or no scope.

I hadn't even heard that they knew a rifle was used...though that is usually something you should be able to tell from recovering the bullet. Actually, this story stating that "neither officer was seriously hurt" would make me lean away from a rifle...most average-caliber rifles would still do a ton of damage and very easily kill at 125 yards...while a handgun at that distance could easily result in less serious wounds.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-14/ferguson-police-no-closer-to-making-arrests/6319154

This White Caucasian Hater somehow became an administrator of justice... the irony is beyond belief... and he has the nerve to label police in Ferguson MO. as Racists.. There is no greater racist in America than AG Eric Holder... \\\

As college student, Eric Holder participated in ‘armed’ takeover of former Columbia University ROTC office...

Holder-Columbia-montage.jpg

http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/30/as-college-sophomore-eric-holder-participated-in-armed-takeover-of-former-columbia-university-rotc-office/

I am afraid that your positions are becoming more and more worrysome. To state as clearly as possible:

1) You believe that saying bad things about people can incite others to murder

2) You are spouting incredibly hateful statements about liberals, Black people, Ferguson's residents, President Obama and Attorney General Holder, etc.

If you really believe statement #1, then why do you so vigorously engage in statement #2?

Either you don't really believe that mere statements can incite others to violence, or you are trying to encourage violence of the worst kind against the people in this country that you don't like.

Is this something that you just haven't thought through, or are you knowingly hoping for a particular outcome?

I find it amazing that expats in Thailand are talking about Miami Gardens, an area I have lived near and have worked in and around since the 70's

Anyone who knows Miami knows that some areas are more dangerous than others but, also have their good areas.

Most of Miami gardens is fine,

However,

Their chief of police a 45/ year old black man, was just arrested for solicitation of prostitutes off an ad in the Miami back page

The girls were black the cops arresting him were black, and he likely will have a black prosecutor and a white defense lawyer and a Hispanic judge

Welcome to Miami

Did you have any reason whatsoever to post that other to engage in a bit of race-baiting?

The actual story I highlighted about Miami Gardens mentions the Chief of Police, mentions that he is Black, and portrays him as sort of a distant loser who just let his department go out of control. I have no idea what relevance your comment has to this thread in the least.

Here's the story again, so you can actually reply to something that was said instead of running with your own outside and unrelated agenda.

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/548/cops-see-it-differently-part-two

Look, look, we're STILL talking about Officer Wilson, even though the thread has nothing to do with him.

Because people who want to remain ignorant are afraid to acknowledge that there is 102 pages of clear corruption, abuse, and discrimination just sitting in front of them, waiting to be read in the report which this thread is actually about.

What you do not understand is that all the 'facts' and situations you are talking about do not matter to most all Conservatives, Republicans, Libertarians and many millions of others in America - we recognize the truth of the matter. BECAUSE Holder's and obama's actions in this onslaught are nothing more than an extension of their agenda to create a crisis and proceed to take control ... Create a stir, blacken the names of anyone who is NOT OF THEM ... and otherwise act as dictatorial prosecutors using any and every avenue .... having little or nothing to do with justice. Black Racists - obama and Holder must extend control - it is their mania ... Send in Federal police forces to take control - create a crisis over an issue that never was.

Destroy the police department of Ferguson is their agenda.. .

Quote one inflammatory statement in that report that you believe would insight someone to murder. Tell us exactly what part of the report you think the shooter read that would lead them to decide that killing random police officers (not even from the same department) was a reasonable reaction.

And please, try and connect Attorney General Holder to the police officers (of non-White background, remember) who were killed in New York. Try that.Q

Quote anything that Obama said about Ferguson that should lead to murder.

What about that anti-Muslim right-winger who assassinated the two cops in Virgina? Are you going to somehow connect that incident to Holder as well?