Ferguson Mo problems

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm in the "business" of speaking out when I see what I perceive as illegitimate use of governmental power and violations of people's constitutional rights.

Other people on the contrary don't appear to believe in the 1st Amendment or the right of citizens to know what public employees are doing on the job.

My goodness Cmort, they are covering this mess 24/7's. How much more info ya need?

See my new post. Would love you opine?
 
If it's contrary to policy, he can kiss his qualified immunity goodbye. That gets real expensive, real fast.

Of course that doesn't get the agency off the hook, since then they're open to a claim of failure to supervise.

I think if you scroll back, I said just that about the policy issue. As for the failure to supervise, those claims are rarely successful. You're grasping at straws that haven't been revealed. Take a step back and wait for the facts to come out.
 
I think if you scroll back, I said just that about the policy issue. As for the failure to supervise, those claims are rarely successful.
They're successful enough.

More and more, the courts are coming down hard on law enforcement agencies which unlawfully impede lawful recording of and reporting on public police activity.
 
Bottom line folks; no amount of rage emotion, crying, complaining, political discourse can argue with science. The forensics will be telling & clear up the matter once and for all.

We had an incident here in AZ where a Chandler PD officer shot @ female suspect. On the surface it looked BAD. So bad the county atty. charged him with manslaughter. Well, the forensics said otherwise & he was acquitted & rightfully so! Point? Don't race to judgement until ALL the facts are out.

It is a shame for both sides in this MO incident that it is so politicized that nothing is getting done.
 
Bottom line folks; no amount of rage emotion, crying, complaining, political discourse can argue with science. The forensics will be telling & clear up the matter once and for all.
I've said that from day one.

I don't trust the cop OR Brown's defenders.

The outcome of this case is going to be determined by forensic evidence.
 





Gentlemen,

This story in Ferguson is likely to be around for some time to come, with twists and turns that will be interesting to discuss. However, y'all have to keep racial issues out of the discussion, period. Positive or negative, well meaning or not, it don't matter. Racial issues is banned from discussion.

There have been several warnings issued and posts deleted. I'm here to tell ya that Admin won't put up with it for long and will simply forbid discussion of Ferguson altogether.



 
Here's a wealth of information on the subject:
PINAC
It's also been discussed repeatedly on Ace of Spades Blog and Instapundit.

The courts are starting to take a VERY dim view of police impeding lawful recording of their activities.

No, I mean actual Court opinions, not websites run by people sitting in their mom's basement with a bunch of empty Code Red Mountain Dew bottles and week old pizza boxes. Don't give me Wikipedia either. As a aside, take a camera into a court and see where you get . . .
 
What would the grounds be for the civil suit? Truth is a defense for libel, and it wasn't slanderous. It wasn't a good idea, but actionable? Seems unlikely. After all, the news media garnered his address from publicly available information. The pictures of Wilson I've seen came from his dad's Facebook page. Nothing here to sue for . . .

Are you kidding? The New Black Panther Party marching though the town chanting "who do we want? Officer Wilson. What do we want? Him dead!"

In a country where dunkin donuts gets sued because somebody spills hot coffee in their laps or mcdonalds gets used because somebody is fat?

You're REALLY gonna sit here and say the broadcasting of the cops address and video of his home isn't dangerous?

Publishing the names and addresses on an interactive map of pistol permit holders wasn't "slanderous" either. How many people here had a problem with it? And the paper is getting their asses sued off
 
Last edited:
Are you kidding? The New Black Panther Party marching though the town chanting "who do we want? Officer Wilson. What do we want? Him dead!"

In a country where dunkin donuts gets sued because somebody spills hot coffee in their laps or mcdonalds gets used because somebody is fat?

You're REALLY gonna sit here and say the broadcasting of the cops address and video of his home isn't dangerous?

Publishing the names and addresses on an interactive map of pistol permit holders wasn't "slanderous" either. How many people here had a problem with it? And the paper is getting their asses sued off

I'm not going to engage you. I read your other posts.
 
No, I mean actual Court opinions, not websites run by people sitting in their mom's basement with a bunch of empty Code Red Mountain Dew bottles and week old pizza boxes. Don't give me Wikipedia either. As a aside, take a camera into a court and see where you get . . .
Seems you just have no refutation. They do cite court cases, as do the two other sites I mentioned.

And YOU said "site". Apparently getting what you asked for wasn't what you expected...
 
I forecast a rise in the cost of ammunition and firearms in the ensuing days.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top