It was a joke... And I didn't say anything about Christians.... Did I? I attended the church of Satan the other week... Is that a Christian thing also? LOL
What does this have to do with Muslims?
Break the law, pay the price.
So, will you defend any other occupiers or just these white christians, since you brought up Christians?
quote
Originally posted by Darth Fiero:
What does Church have to do with this? Did I miss where these occupiers were protesting against the government because of the government's persecution of God and Jesus Christ? Why are you always bagging on Christians? Would you be defending these guys if they were Muslims?
[This message has been edited by jaskispyder (edited 03-10-2016).]
You might want to check your facts there on Ferguson and Baltimore with regards to the law enforcement presence.
I watched it live on TV. Buildings being looted and burned, law enforcement was no closer than several blocks away.
When the mob did make contact with the police, the most that was being done by the police was them launching tear gas into the crowd and attempting to arrest a few stragglers that got separated from the group. I never saw them make ANY attempt to stop the looting or burning of buildings while there was still a sizable crowd around them. Not once.
[This message has been edited by Darth Fiero (edited 03-10-2016).]
It was a joke... And I didn't say anything about Christians.... Did I? I attended the church of Satan the other week... Is that a Christian thing also? LOL
What does this have to do with Muslims?
Break the law, pay the price.
So, will you defend any other occupiers or just these white christians, since you brought up Christians?
What does Church have to do with this? Did I miss where these occupiers were protesting against the government because of the government's persecution of God and Jesus Christ? Why are you always bagging on Christians? Would you be defending these guys if they were Muslims?
First off, fix your post so it doesn't look like you were quoting me as saying those things YOU said.
I would also like to know what Church has to do with this since YOU brought it up. That's what I was asking. Why are you turning it around on me? I didn't say anything about church or Christians until YOU BROUGHT IT UP FIRST. So why did you bring it up, Jask?
I explained EXACTLY why I said it. If you are offended, too bad, so sad. I said church, you said Christian. You turned this into something that was a joke into much more. Get a sense of humor or thicker skin.
quote
Originally posted by Darth Fiero:
I would also like to know what Church has to do with this since YOU brought it up. That's what I was asking. Why are you turning it around on me? I didn't say anything about church or Christians until YOU BROUGHT IT UP FIRST. So why did you bring it up, Jask?
Did you talk to the police to learn what their plan of action was, or just watch TV and make assumptions? How many years of law enforcement experience do you have? Did you volunteer to tell them how to resolve the issue? If so, did they accept your expertise?
quote
Originally posted by Darth Fiero:
I watched it live on TV. Buildings being looted and burned, law enforcement was no closer than several blocks away.
When the mob did make contact with the police, the most that was being done by the police was them launching tear gas into the crowd and attempting to arrest a few stragglers that got separated from the group. I never saw them make ANY attempt to stop the looting or burning of buildings while there was still a sizable crowd around them. Not once.
I explained EXACTLY why I said it. If you are offended, too bad, so sad. I said church, you said Christian. You turned this into something that was a joke into much more. Get a sense of humor or thicker skin.
Why are you interjecting a joke into a serious discussion? Seems like a deflection tactic you frequently accuse other people of doing in threads on this forum.
And when you say "Church", I think there's little doubt the meaning (and particular faith) you are assigning to that word based on the other postings you've made about religion on this forum. I think we all know what you meant by it.
I watched it live on TV. Buildings being looted and burned, law enforcement was no closer than several blocks away.
When the mob did make contact with the police, the most that was being done by the police was them launching tear gas into the crowd and attempting to arrest a few stragglers that got separated from the group. I never saw them make ANY attempt to stop the looting or burning of buildings while there was still a sizable crowd around them. Not once.
They installed a curfew and made several arrests I believe in Ferguson. Lots of law enforcement presence. The two situations were handled differently I'm sure due to many dynamics, I don't think it's reasonable to expect Law Enforcement to use the same tactics with a stand-off as compared to protests/riots.
I don't like seeing people getting shot and killed by law enforcement and think sometimes they are too quick to use lethal force but there are times when it is justified.
I guess I just noticed a different tone and more understanding in regards to the law breakers in this incident than most posted on this forum. Sometimes it's easier to relate and sympathize with the victims and other times it seems damn near impossible. Human Nature? Nature vs nurture? Who knows, interesting none the less IMO.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 03-10-2016).]
Did you talk to the police to learn what their plan of action was, or just watch TV and make assumptions? How many years of law enforcement experience do you have? Did you volunteer to tell them how to resolve the issue? If so, did they accept your expertise?
I've got a close family member who was in law enforcement (and on the parameter swat team, no less). I'm sure I know more about police procedures then you do, unless you were in law enforcement yourself or have a very close family member who is/was.
Again, you cited poor quality aerial video and made conclusions based on that video concerning the Lavoy shooting. No problem doing that at all, according to you.
I made conclusions about live TV coverage - HD quality video shot from the air AND on the ground. But you say I shouldn't make any conclusions based on what I saw and I should know what law enforcement's plan of action was - yada yada.
I've got a close family member who was in law enforcement (and on the parameter swat team, no less). I'm sure I know more about police procedures then you do, unless you were in law enforcement yourself or have a very close family member who is/was.
Again, you cited poor quality aerial video and made conclusions based on that video concerning the Lavoy shooting. No problem doing that at all, according to you.
I made conclusions about live TV coverage - HD quality video shot from the air AND on the ground. But you say I shouldn't make any conclusions based on what I saw and I should know what law enforcement's plan of action was - yada yada.
Ummmm you do realize that they record the live TV feeds right? We all have access to the same video I believe.
The installed a curfew and made several arrests I believe in Ferguson. Lots of law enforcement presence. The two situations were handled differently I'm sure due to many dynamics, I don't think it's reasonable to expect Law Enforcement to use the same tactics with a stand-off as compared to protests/riots.
I don't like seeing people getting shot and killed by law enforcement and think sometimes they are too quick to use lethal force but there are times when it is justified.
I guess I just noticed a different tone and more understanding in regards to the law breakers in this incident than most posted on this forum. Sometimes it's easier to relate and sympathize with the victims and other times it seems damn near impossible. Human Nature? Nature vs nurture? Who knows, interesting none the less IMO.
Yes the two situations were handled very differently.
The occupiers at the refuge weren't destroying the insignificant government buildings they were occupying nor were they threatening harm to the public. It was 30 some miles from the nearest town, literally in the middle of nowhere. The government could have waited them out until they gave up and it probably would have been resolved without any loss of human life. But that didn't satisfy the governor and other government officials. They wanted to force an end to the situation that, up until that point, was peaceful.
In Ferguson and Baltimore, people's property and lives were in imminent danger in the riots and the police stayed several blocks away and WATCHED it happen. They didn't move in and attempt to protect life and property until most of the mob had left. The police were attacked by the rioters in those events but they didn't respond with lethal force. I seem to recall at least once incident where shots were fired at police as well. But no lethal force employed by the government in this situation at all.
Ummmm you do realize that they record the live TV feeds right? We all have access to the same video I believe.
Good, go find the video and post the links here showing the police and FBI guarding the buildings the rioters were looting and burning. I'd like to see them.
So, you admit you are not in law enforcement. Did you stay at a Holiday inn?
LaVoy's own words said he expected to die. He moved his hands down, near where his gun is held after disobeying multiple demands by officiers. That is what I agree with. He paid the price for his actions.
You are the one saying cops are not doing anything about rioters... But you admit you know nothing about the procedures law enforcement use. Hmm. Ok.. Right.
quote
Originally posted by Darth Fiero:
I've got a close family member who was in law enforcement (and on the parameter swat team, no less). I'm sure I know more about police procedures then you do, unless you were in law enforcement yourself or have a very close family member who is/was.
Again, you cited poor quality aerial video and made conclusions based on that video concerning the Lavoy shooting. No problem doing that at all, according to you.
I made conclusions about live TV coverage - HD quality video shot from the air AND on the ground. But you say I shouldn't make any conclusions based on what I saw and I should know what law enforcement's plan of action was - yada yada.
[This message has been edited by jaskispyder (edited 03-10-2016).]
But you admit you know nothing about the procedures law enforcement use. Hmm. Ok.. Right.
Was your dad a Sheriff's deputy and on the parameter swat team? If he was, did he regularly talk to you about his training and experiences as an LEO? Did you get shot at while assisting your dad in a situation that occurred right across the street from your house? Were you called into court to testify against the shooter since you were involved in that situation?
I did. Not saying that makes me an expert but I bet I know more than you do.
Did you stay at a Holiday inn also? You know nothing about me, but unlike you, I am not making claims about what cops should be doing. You are not in law enforcement, you are not an expert, or even qualified to tell us if law enforcement is doing anything right or wrong based on watching TV.
You could go to school to learn more, but you think that higher ed degrees are useless. LOL!
quote
Originally posted by Darth Fiero:
Was your dad a Sheriff's deputy and on the parameter swat team? If he was, did he regularly talk to you about his training and experiences as an LEO? Did you get shot at while assisting your dad in a situation that occurred right across the street from your house? Were you called into court to testify against the shooter since you were involved in that situation?
I did. Not saying that makes me an expert but I bet I know more than you do.
Yes the two situations were handled very differently.
The occupiers at the refuge weren't destroying the insignificant government buildings they were occupying nor were they threatening harm to the public. It was 30 some miles from the nearest town, literally in the middle of nowhere. The government could have waited them out until they gave up and it probably would have been resolved without any loss of human life. But that didn't satisfy the governor and other government officials. They wanted to force an end to the situation that, up until that point, was peaceful.
In Ferguson and Baltimore, people's property and lives were in imminent danger in the riots and the police stayed several blocks away and WATCHED it happen. They didn't move in and attempt to protect life and property until most of the mob had left. The police were attacked by the rioters in those events but they didn't respond with lethal force. I seem to recall at least once incident where shots were fired at police as well. But no lethal force employed by the government in this situation at all.
You said you have a close family member in the Police force, maybe ask him/her what the difference is to their "rules of engagement" (for lack of a better term) when dealing with a mass of people protesting/rioting and a small group of armed people occupying and making threats.
Good, go find the video and post the links here showing the police and FBI guarding the buildings the rioters were looting and burning. I'd like to see them.
Why? To help prove the point that things were handled differently for good reason?
Did you stay at a Holiday inn also? You know nothing about me, but unlike you, I am not making claims about what cops should be doing. You are not in law enforcement, you are not an expert, or even qualified to tell us if law enforcement is doing anything right or wrong based on watching TV.
You could go to school to learn more, but you think that higher ed degrees are useless. LOL!
Deflect much? Where did higher ed degrees or hotels enter this discussion?
You're right, I don't know anything about you except what you post here. You also know nothing about me except for what I post here. You didn't like the answer I gave, so you tried to deflect with snide comments and jokes.
I'm not in law enforcement (past medical issues disqualify me), but I had a close family member that was. And he passed as much knowledge about the position and training he received to me as he could. Not as good as actually doing it myself, but as close as I'm ever going to be able to get to it, given my medical history. But does it really make a difference to you? If I was or had been in law enforcement and I disagreed with your world view, I'm sure you'd still try to find a way to discredit my opinion. With more snide comments and jokes, no doubt.
Did my dad return fire to the shooter as he was attempting to escape in his vehicle? NO. There's a good reason for that which my dad explained to me later. He knew there was a child that lived in the house that the shooter was attempting to rob but didn't know if that child had been kidnapped and was in the car. He also knew if he shot and killed the shooter, who was driving the car; that car could have gone out of control and hit kids playing down the street. He also didn't fire because there was a house beyond his target, and if he missed, he could have hit someone inside. I know all these things he was trained to do because he passed that information along to me.
Again, I'm no expert, but I know more than you think I do.
[This message has been edited by Darth Fiero (edited 03-10-2016).]
Why? To help prove the point that things were handled differently for good reason?
Why do I want you to provide video proof? Because you are alluding that there is video that exists that shows police doing something different than what I saw unfolding in real-time. So go find the video that proves what I'm saying about the riots is wrong. I want to see the video showing Ferguson and Baltimore police stopping the looting and burning of businesses in those two riots.
Police acted differently in response to the riots because they didn't want to commit political suicide. That's it. There were exponentially more crimes and damage caused by the rioters than by the Oregon occupiers. But each incident was treated very differently, with responses that, I felt, were sometimes 180 degrees out of phase for what they should have been in each case - given the situations.
[This message has been edited by Darth Fiero (edited 03-10-2016).]
And? Did they carry weapons, run road blocks (nearly run over an officer) and say, "today is a good day to die"?
The answer to your very narrowly worded question would be "no."
If the question was if the OWS (as one example) damaged public property and threatened people, the answer would be "yes." Did "they" carry weapons? As a group, no; however, the group was much larger. While "they" didn't carry weapons, "some" did. http://nypost.com/2011/12/2...n-possession-charge/
So... you have a post of someone from OWS that was arrested for gun charge. Ok. So... This was tried in Oregon and look what the outcome was... LaVoy could be alive. Were people arrested at OWS? Yup... just like what the state police were trying to do in Oregon... hmmm
similar situation, similar response by law enforcement. OWS and Oregon were treated equally. Oregon folks thought they were above the law ... LaVoy thought this.
quote
Originally posted by Formula88:
The answer to your very narrowly worded question would be "no."
If the question was if the OWS (as one example) damaged public property and threatened people, the answer would be "yes." Did "they" carry weapons? As a group, no; however, the group was much larger. While "they" didn't carry weapons, "some" did. http://nypost.com/2011/12/2...n-possession-charge/
Hey, you are the one making claims... I also know many LEO officers and criminal justice educators... but I don't make the claims you do. I have a few friends who are doctors... I guess that would qualify me to give out medical advice, by your standards. BTW, not a deflect... just using your "standards" and applying to another situation.
I didn't deflect... I find it funny that you make wild statements.. you act as if you went through the training, the hands-on experience, the education. I am sure you have heard the "I am not a doctor, but I stayed at a Holiday Inn" commercial... that is your attitude... you know more than anyone else because you know an someone.
Your "experience" means nothing to me... or anyone else who has actually obtained the proper certificates and degrees to be in the LEO field. A ride-along and a family member as an LEO means little. Prove me wrong... to stop into your local police office and offer to head out on an arrest with them. Be sure you are packing and have the proper equipment... let's see how far you get.
Unlike you, I don't make these types of wild claims and I don't try to second guess those who have the experience, training and education in the area of law enforcement.
quote
Originally posted by Darth Fiero:
Deflect much? Where did higher ed degrees or hotels enter this discussion?
You're right, I don't know anything about you except what you post here. You also know nothing about me except for what I post here. You didn't like the answer I gave, so you tried to deflect with snide comments and jokes.
I'm not in law enforcement (past medical issues disqualify me), but I had a close family member that was. And he passed as much knowledge about the position and training he received to me as he could. Not as good as actually doing it myself, but as close as I'm ever going to be able to get to it, given my medical history. But does it really make a difference to you? If I was or had been in law enforcement and I disagreed with your world view, I'm sure you'd still try to find a way to discredit my opinion. With more snide comments and jokes, no doubt.
Did my dad return fire to the shooter as he was attempting to escape in his vehicle? NO. There's a good reason for that which my dad explained to me later. He knew there was a child that lived in the house that the shooter was attempting to rob but didn't know if that child had been kidnapped and was in the car. He also knew if he shot and killed the shooter, who was driving the car; that car could have gone out of control and hit kids playing down the street. He also didn't fire because there was a house beyond his target, and if he missed, he could have hit someone inside. I know all these things he was trained to do because he passed that information along to me.
Again, I'm no expert, but I know more than you think I do.
Why do I want you to provide video proof? Because you are alluding that there is video that exists that shows police doing something different than what I saw unfolding in real-time. So go find the video that proves what I'm saying about the riots is wrong. I want to see the video showing Ferguson and Baltimore police stopping the looting and burning of businesses in those two riots.
Police acted differently in response to the riots because they didn't want to commit political suicide. That's it. There were exponentially more crimes and damage caused by the rioters than by the Oregon occupiers. But each incident was treated very differently, with responses that, I felt, were sometimes 180 degrees out of phase for what they should have been in each case - given the situations.
I think maybe you may have misunderstood my point. You want to see video showing the police stopping the looting and burning? I didn't dispute that happened. My point is that some of this "looting and burning" happened and often does in riot/protest situations. The Police do what they are trained and ordered to do for the most part. In fact there are lots of people who have made the case that in Ferguson the Police violated citizen rights and even may have helped contribute to the violence/looting. These situations are very fluid and have different dynamics it's always easy to second guess IMO.
However you posted the video of the stoppage and shooting of Finicum. I assumed that meant you saw something you felt was wrongdoing by the law Enforcement agents. No?
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 03-10-2016).]
The whole thing was screwed up right from the beginning. The part that I don't understand is all of the shots fired into the car after he was killed. I lost count.
How do you know any shots were fired after Lavoy? The video does not show any indication that bullets were flying through. The sounds that I heard could have been from launchers that deliver the CN gas, could have been the gas canisters deploying the agent, it could have been the canisters hitting the truck or it could have been all three. So each canister deployed would have made the sound of three shots? They would not come out "we are hunkered down" so more gas was used till they came out. Nothing unusual and nothing controversial given the events that lead up to that point.
[This message has been edited by Rickady88GT (edited 03-10-2016).]
After this happened, I went and read up about the Ruby Ridge incident. The subject of that investigation was a piece of trash, no doubt, but that was no reason for the government to issue "kill orders" that subsequently ended up resulting in the death of the subject's wife and son; as well as the death of a law enforcement official. This situation resulted in a jury later absolving the prime suspect of the investigation of most of the criminal charges against him, mainly due to the ensuing government cover-up.
The ends don't always justify the means. They didn't need to force an end to the Oregon standoff in the way they did it. And what they did by backing them into a corner ended up costing a life. It could have costed more if the "occupiers" decided to riot like the star citizens in Ferguson and Baltimore did.
Many lessons can be learned here; but like past events, they will be ignored by the government and law enforcement.
From your article: "Dozens gathered in protest Sunday in front of the Fort Pierce police sub-station."
Dozens? Wow... dozens!
I think more people protested for LaVoy.... including you. So, to say "nobody protested" is incorrect.
So, are you going the protest for this man? I assume you believe the cops are lying and this guy is completely innocent, like LaVoy.
Yet another strawman, there is a difference between forum post and raging in the streets. Also if I see video that the injured cop ran in front of the vehicle to fire rounds and was struck in his attempt to shoot the suspect, then yes I will have a issue.
Yet another strawman, there is a difference between forum post and raging in the streets. Also if I see video that the injured cop ran in front of the vehicle to fire rounds and was struck in his attempt to shoot the suspect, then yes I will have a issue.
Hmm. Police were not guilty in one killing, but in the LaVoy case, it is tin-foil hat conspiracy and corruption by police.
Haven't seen the video, and yet another strawman. Never said conspiracy, just questioned the use of lethal force.
You do quite well with strawman deflection, and not so well explaining why you celebrate the death of one man and not another.
Hint... Political Affiliation
You truly believe LaVoy was murdered... But hey... that would be a strawman... because that is all you say (or can say, as facts don't support your opinion). The results of the investigation have cleared the state police in LaVoy's case.
Political Affiliation? You know nothing of who I support or vote for... strawman... you make assumptions based on how you see the world through the tin foil slits, as evident in the LaVoy case. But hey... don't let facts get in the way of your agenda. LaVoy was a clear case of suicide by cop. How many more chances should he have been given, on top of the many, many he already had? The guy decided that was the day he was going to die and selected his weapon of choice.... the state police. The video and LaVoy's words/actions support that CLEARLY. I know... I know.. you don't see it. You blindly support LaVoy, so why not this other guy? blinders....
[This message has been edited by jaskispyder (edited 04-26-2016).]
The OSP justified firing into Finicum's truck because it was coming straight for them. Nobody protested.
Why are people protesting this other case?
Well I would think the small group of protesters are upset because there are reports of witnesses seeing something different than the Official Police version. I think if that's the case it certainly should be investigated just as the finicum case was.
Were any peoples rights to protest illegally infringed upon in the Finicum case? Are you sure you're not just upset because you think the finicum death was unjustified but many others don't, yet many people seem to assume that when a black man is killed by police there is a good chance that it was unjustified? Might have something to do with the history, facts amd statistics if so.
You truly believe LaVoy was murdered... But hey... that would be a strawman... because that is all you say (or can say, as facts don't support your opinion). The results of the investigation have cleared the state police in LaVoy's case.
Political Affiliation? You know nothing of who I support or vote for... strawman... you make assumptions based on how you see the world through the tin foil slits, as evident in the LaVoy case. But hey... don't let facts get in the way of your agenda. LaVoy was a clear case of suicide by cop. How many more chances should he have been given, on top of the many, many he already had? The guy decided that was the day he was going to die and selected his weapon of choice.... the state police. The video and LaVoy's words/actions support that CLEARLY. I know... I know.. you don't see it. You blindly support LaVoy, so why not this other guy? blinders....
Well I would think the small group of protesters are upset because there are reports of witnesses seeing something different than the Official Police version. I think if that's the case it certainly should be investigated just as the finicum case was.
Were any peoples rights to protest illegally infringed upon in the Finicum case? Are you sure you're not just upset because you think the finicum death was unjustified but many others don't, yet many people seem to assume that when a black man is killed by police there is a good chance that it was unjustified? Might have something to do with the history, facts amd statistics if so.
Close, but no cigar. It upsets me that the politically correct crowd calls for and celebrates one man's death. Because his political affiliation is contrary.
It upsets me that another mans death calls for action in the streets.
They should both be equal and not viewed through the lens of political correctness.
Close, but no cigar. It upsets me that the politically correct crowd calls for and celebrates one man's death. Because his political affiliation is contrary.
It upsets me that another mans death calls for action in the streets.
They should both be equal and not viewed through the lens of political correctness.
Calls for and celebrates? I'm not sure who you are referring to but I can see why that would upset anyone.
Action in the streets? I think it was reported as "dozens" in this case and in others I would suggest that it was because it hit a nerve with the populous.
You can try and frame it whatever way you want but unless you are suggesting that protests were kept at bay by someone or some entity in the Finicum case then I guess his death really didn't effect enough people to bother to protest. Sorry, I know sometimes it's hard to accept others don't share your views but it happens all the time whether you are right or wrong.
IMO you seem to have blinders on regarding the Finicum case but that's ok it obviously speaks to you personally. 
