Politics 2014

[tinnitus photography]

it was a joke. but i've got work to do and am not VC's cliff notes function.

 

"painfully long" is an interesting way to look at it. unfortunately, sound bites dominate our media. read it tonight if you need some time.

[uncool2pillow]

You claim it's worth reading. You then say, with little to base your claim other than your assumptions about Hixter, that he read maybe 15% of it, not half. But you now refuse to give any reason to read it other than it's important. Sorry if I don't indulge you.

[Mr. Heartbreak]

Here's an interesting take I saw on Facebook. Not as long as the other article.

 

No matter who you think was right and who you think was wrong, if you have white sons, please picture this.

 

Imagine a society in which the majority of police officers are black men and they regularly shoot unarmed young white males. They may have reasonable cause; they may not. The officers may have been in fear for their lives. They may not. Eyewitness accounts will be wildly conflicting. Evidence will be vague or spotty at best, or completely contrary to the testimony given at worst. In almost every case, the killing would be ruled as justifiable homicide.

All you would know is that a lot of young white boys are dying. Their bodies laying in the streets for hours with their blood running into the gutter. Imagine a society in which every time your phone rings, your heart pounds, and you wonder, as you reach for the phone: Is this the call that I dread? The thought makes me cringe in horror. I would tell my sons, don't go here, don't go there. Do this. Don't do that. No matter what, don't ever do that. Cause if you have sons, and their skin is white, and white-skinned boys are dying, you don't give a shit who's right and who's wrong. You just want your kid to stay alive.

This is your reality, every minute of every day.

 

Now imagine what kind of white response there would be if it was black cops doing the shootings. National outrage? Rioting in the streets? Hell to pay? Worse?

Kinda puts things into a whole different perspective, doesn't it.

[LouieB]

I hate to jump in here on this because like everyone else I have fairly mixed feelings about this, but this all just makes me wonder; don't police officers have any alternative than taking out a gun and shooting someone?  What happened to mace, tazers, night sticks, etc.  Is deadly force the only alternative when a problem ensues? 

 

LouieB

[Hixter]

I hate to jump in here on this because like everyone else I have fairly mixed feelings about this, but this all just makes me wonder; don't police officers have any alternative than taking out a gun and shooting someone?  What happened to mace, tazers, night sticks, etc.  Is deadly force the only alternative when a problem ensues? 

There are many non-firearm options available to police and they are employed far more frequently than firearms, but the suitability of each device depends on the situation.

 

Tasers are great, but they are not always successful in stopping a suspect due to failure to penetrate clothing. Some people (especially large people high on drugs) don't seem to be fazed by tasers and I think (but I'm not certain) that they have a minimum distance, so they aren't useful in tight spaces. They are also capable of killing a person, i.e. they are less lethal, but not less than lethal weapons.

 

Nightsticks are not ideal for use in a confined space like a vehicle and they are also likely to cause severe injury or death.

 

Mace can be useful to subdue a suspect, but it's best in situations where multiple officers are involved, as the spray is rather indiscriminate and the officer can easily find him/herself blinded as well.

 

In a case like the Ferguson shooting, it was an unexpected confrontation that escalated into a life-or-death struggle when the suspect reached for the officer's gun; he had seconds to react in the confines of his vehicle. If you read his testimony, the officer was not carrying a taser. I don't remember the specifics, but his testimony basically said that he couldn't reach for his mace/nightstick because he was using that arm to block the suspect's punches. He also said that his handgun failed to fire two or 3 times when he pulled the trigger.

 

Anyway, read his testimony to see what he had to say about the circumstances and perhaps it will explain why circumstances sometimes rule out the use of certain defensive measures.

[tinnitus photography]

You claim it's worth reading. You then say, with little to base your claim other than your assumptions about Hixter, that he read maybe 15% of it, not half. But you now refuse to give any reason to read it other than it's important. Sorry if I don't indulge you.

it's a piece about how the way StL's surrounding towns are divvied up, geographically, and how their town govt's and courts are designed to basically live off poor people via draconian traffic violation enforcement. 

 

sounds gripping, right?

 

 

it's pretty eye-opening and depressing. and call it an assumption, but if all Hixter felt worth mentioning was the travails of the first women profiled in the piece, he certainly didn't get half way through it.

[calvino]

One of the lawyers in T.P's linked piece is a good friend of my wife and I --- it is a f'd up system in that area and I assume this type of policy is in place through out the country.

 

I have a brother-in-law who is attorney working for the St. Louis Circuit Attorney's office - he doesn't deal with this side of thing (he goes after deadbeat parents) , but he agrees the whole system is a mess , with regards to race and the legal system in St. Louis.

 

We celebrated our Thanksgiving down in So. Illinois this past weekend --- it wasn't pleasant - anybody who thinks racism isn't an issue anymore is this country needs to eat with my in-laws.

[NoJ]

The first time I was in southern IL and the Shawnee Nat'l park (1990), I had culture shock. It was like a time warp.

[uncool2pillow]

Let's see if we can find a bit of common ground:

 

1. Living in the St. Louis area as an impoverished person of color sucks. The legal, educational, and economic systems are stacked against you.

2. Some police abuse their authority.

3. It's clear that the Ferguson P.D. reacted to the initial Brown protests in about the worst possible way.

4. None of us were in the grand jury room, and there was a lot of contradictory testimony but there seems to be ample evidence on the record to justify no indictment of Wilson.

5. The media will soon forget about what happened in Ferguson and there will soon be another event that we will all view from the lens or our politically predisposed instincts. I am frustrated at myself for too often being sucked into these pointless discussions.

[KevinG]

You claim it's worth reading. You then say, with little to base your claim other than your assumptions about Hixter, that he read maybe 15% of it, not half. But you now refuse to give any reason to read it other than it's important. Sorry if I don't indulge you.

 

The problems I had about Hixter is that he refused to read the article, but yet felt it necessary to comment on it.  Which he seems to do quite a bit.  He seems to refuse to read evidence that people present and have predetermined ideas about articles and authors based upon small wording in articles that he does not like.  Just some flat out close mindness IMHO.  But whatever, the more and more he does that, the less I value his opinion.  

 

 

Let's see if we can find a bit of common ground:

 

1. Living in the St. Louis area as an impoverished person of color sucks. The legal, educational, and economic systems are stacked against you.

2. Some police abuse their authority.

3. It's clear that the Ferguson P.D. reacted to the initial Brown protests in about the worst possible way.

4. None of us were in the grand jury room, and there was a lot of contradictory testimony but there seems to be ample evidence on the record to justify no indictment of Wilson.

5. The media will soon forget about what happened in Ferguson and there will soon be another event that we will all view from the lens or our politically predisposed instincts. I am frustrated at myself for too often being sucked into these pointless discussions.

 

Seems about right to me.  

[Winston Legthigh]

Is this the story that will make us forget about Ferguson?

 

http://gawker.com/horny-old-man-may-one-day-forget-night-with-teen-twins-1663995301/all

 

Or this?

 

http://gawker.com/creed-singer-scott-stapp-is-broke-and-living-in-a-holid-1663876906

[Hixter]

it's a piece about how the way StL's surrounding towns are divvied up, geographically, and how their town govt's and courts are designed to basically live off poor people via draconian traffic violation enforcement. 

I just read the piece -- all 55 pages of it. First of all, I don't see how it has any bearing on the Ferguson incident, so I'd hardly call it 'essential' reading when discussing the case.

 

I'm no fan of overzealous police departments who set up speed traps, but let's face it: if you don't speed, you don't get ticketed. I feel sorry for poor people who have a difficult time paying their fines and court fees, but they chose to speed, they chose to drive on a suspended license, the chose to not insure their vehicle, they chose to not wear a seatbelt, they chose not to pay their fines and, most importantly, the chose not to appear on their court dates.

 

The people who live in the area can and should effect change in their communities by electing police chiefs who will change the way their departments operate, although it may be a tough sell because it would require the revenue generated from fines to be replaced with increased taxes. I imagine that most citizens manage to steer clear by obeying the law while owning and operating a vehicle and they would rather the money be taken from offenders rather than every taxpayer. But maybe I'm wrong about that.

 

The problems I had about Hixter is that he refused to read the article

No, I didn't refuse to read the article. I read about half of it, it became tedious and when I saw how much remained I decided to stop reading because it didn't seem to have any bearing on the shooting of Michael Brown. I stated that I'd only read a portion of the article and commented on that portion only. What's wrong with that?

 

He seems to refuse to read evidence that people present 

Sometimes it's more of a demand than a presentation and I'm not going to read anything that I don't want to read. It shouldn't upset you and I promise that I won't be upset if you choose not to read a 50-page article from that I link to.

[Atticus]

Is this the story that will make us forget about Ferguson?

 

http://gawker.com/horny-old-man-may-one-day-forget-night-with-teen-twins-1663995301/all

 

Or this?

 

http://gawker.com/creed-singer-scott-stapp-is-broke-and-living-in-a-holid-1663876906

 

the Creed guy thing is sad.  I loathe that band like dental surgery but he is clearly not well.  

[tinnitus photography]

I just read the piece -- all 55 pages of it. First of all, I don't see how it has any bearing on the Ferguson incident, so I'd hardly call it 'essential' reading when discussing the case.

 

I'm no fan of overzealous police departments who set up speed traps, but let's face it: if you don't speed, you don't get ticketed. I feel sorry for poor people who have a difficult time paying their fines and court fees, but they chose to speed, they chose to drive on a suspended license, the chose to not insure their vehicle, they chose to not wear a seatbelt, they chose not to pay their fines and, most importantly, the chose not to appear on their court dates.

 

The people who live in the area can and should effect change in their communities by electing police chiefs who will change the way their departments operate, although it may be a tough sell because it would require the revenue generated from fines to be replaced with increased taxes. I imagine that most citizens manage to steer clear by obeying the law while owning and operating a vehicle and they would rather the money be taken from offenders rather than every taxpayer. But maybe I'm wrong about that.

 

No, I didn't refuse to read the article. I read about half of it, it became tedious and when I saw how much remained I decided to stop reading because it didn't seem to have any bearing on the shooting of Michael Brown. I stated that I'd only read a portion of the article and commented on that portion only. What's wrong with that?

 

Sometimes it's more of a demand than a presentation and I'm not going to read anything that I don't want to read. It shouldn't upset you and I promise that I won't be upset if you choose not to read a 50-page article from that I link to.

55 pages. 

 

really, did you count how often you had to page down? what about the font size and the embedded images and videos?

 

as for essential reading, this is the politics thread right, not the michael brown thread? it basically talks about the underlying tension and intimidation that occurs on a daily basis. what about the manually rigged red light, you are OK w/ that too? how about judges and prosecutors playing multiple roles? 

 

 

but i must commend you on acquiescing to my demand to read that article. well done. 

[tinnitus photography]

https://twitter.com/lisabloom

 

the prosecution was a joke.

[froggie]

mot that anyone cares, but we got got a new government in Victoria down here yesterday. screw you liberals. and abbot, your time will come as well

[KevinG]

So I have been thinking about this for awhile now and I just can't seem to wrap my head around it.  Thought I would try the grand old VC knowledge base to help.  We all know the President announced his plan, via executive order, to help/solve the immigration problem in this country.  We have discussed the merits of the plan, ad nauseam.  It is not the merits I am questioning.  It is the way he did it and the GOP's response.  

 

So my question is do you think that the President's action was justified and legal?  Or does it overstep the bounds of the office and warrants, as some have said.  Is the action worthy of impeachment, censure, shutting down the government, defunding parts of government or agencies, or not inviting/allowing the President to give the State of the Union address in front of congress?  

 

For my two cents, I think the action was legal and within the bounds of the law and also has precedent.

 

I have heard many say that it is illegal and there should be consequences, but I haven't heard a reason why it is illegal and how the response is justified.  

 

Just wondering what the thoughts are.  

[bleedorange]

 

For my two cents, obliviously, I think the action was legal and within the bounds of the law and also has precedent.

 

Freudian slip?

[KevinG]

Freudian slip?

 

stupid spell check!  But other then my poor spelling, do you have any thoughts about this.  I really want to know.  The Right are decrying this as an illegal action, but I have yet to see any evidence that it is.  

[NoJ]

I'm pretty sure the Right thinks Obama's very existence is illegal.

[bleedorange]

stupid spell check!  But other then my poor spelling, do you have any thoughts about this.  I really want to know.  The Right are decrying this as an illegal action, but I have yet to see any evidence that it is.  

 

I'm pretty sure the Right thinks Obama's very existence is illegal.

 

I think NoJ is right. I haven't thought too much about this, but it doesn't seem like there is anything illegal here. But I don't know what the Right is claiming. Maybe Obama's plan is too sensible?

[KevinG]

I think NoJ is right. I haven't thought too much about this, but it doesn't seem like there is anything illegal here. But I don't know what the Right is claiming. Maybe Obama's plan is too sensible?

 

I did find this article about the 17 states now planning to sue the President over his immigration plan.  

 

http://www.bigcountryhomepage.com/story/d/story/texas-leads-17-state-coalition-challenging-preside/21756/-vkWe7tE30Ko1L6JJvFIIw

 

It does spell out the reasoning, namely the Take Care Clause (article II, section 3, clause 5 of the US Constitution).  Which says that the President must enforce all laws must be faithfully enforced regardless of his opinion of the that law.  

 

But according to what I have read on that clause the President has discretion on how on how and when to enforce these laws and interpretation of the laws as well.  The way I see it, and I am no constitutional scholar, is that the executive action on immigration is much like a local police chief not prosecuting speeders that are only going 5 miles over the limit, or not prosecuting minor drug offenses.  He is not changing the law, he is not making anyone who came here illegally a citizen, he is just saying DHS should focus their efforts on more serious offenders of immigration laws.

 

Needless to say, like the bible, the constitution can seem to be overly vague and it can be interpreted to fit ones ideology pretty easily.  

[NoJ]

Call me crazy but I think misleading a country into an endless war is a crime and yet, lil Georgie and his cabal remain free. Whats with that?

[lost highway]

I'm pretty sure the Right thinks Obama's very existence is illegal.

 

There's some weird stuff going on with public opinion on the right (I could take apart the left on a host of other issues).  It's like this:

 

Anything Obama does that you don't like is destroying the constitution.  You don't need to know how, if it's bad, it must be illegal.

Conversely, anything a police officer does, if legal, is good.  It's as if there's no need to change any law because they're automatically good.  Choke a guy to death?  Court says it's okay, then we're done here.  Obama does something I don't like, then it's illegal.

 

There's an authoritarian (neo-fascist?) thread in what is supposedly a libertarian leaning faction.

[Hixter]

Just read that the City of San Antonio plans to annex my neighborhood next year. We've voted against annexation in the past, but this time they'll just do it involuntarily. Our property taxes are expected to rise 25% above the already inflated rate, but we'll receive no new services. What a bargain!

 

The Beast is hungry and when the Beast is hungry, it must feed.