ihateaaron

Nope. Warrior!

Commander Shepard: 15 Hertt: 22 Lord Emperor: 19 Rhizoctonia: 18 Master Master Master Master Master Master Samus: 28 The Warrior: 34 Wolfpacks: 18 Yehom: 37

You nailed one of the issues right there. It is in the media's best interest to play these stories over and over because they drive ratings up. There is no morality involved in the process now, just ratings.

So your in favor of cops not having guns? I dont understand how civilian gun control is a factor in a cop commiting a unjust murder. because humans are not robots, they have feelings, emotions that can change who they are, their morals at any point in time. It's like a time bomb, some will eventually explode, some may never. The possibility will ALWAYS be there. This cop for example, could have been the angel of them all when he first started, over years in service things he'd seen, situations he had gone through would have caused his moralities to change and thus ended up here. We'll probably forever go over this argument (Americans vs other nations who have strict gun laws) and I honestly can't think of a way to solve it that will actually work. But my opinion is that guns should only be used in times of war or for simple sport and not for personal defense. You are correct. Emotions play a huge role in how scenarios play out. It is impossible to remove them from any scenario, so the best we can do is figure out how to deal with them correctly. I would imagine that this cop was not always a "bad guy". He probably joined the police force with the intention of making his city a better and safer place. His experiences most likely changed his perceptions, and from those experiences he made an incredibly poor (in my opinion) decision. As the facts come out we will get a better idea. The defense will paint the picture of who they want him to appear to be, and the prosecution will paint him in the light they want him seen in. He will probably be somewhere in the middle. I will disagree with your last statement that guns should not be used for personal defense. A person with proper training, practice, and awareness who is carrying a firearm for defense can be the difference between one injury/death and dozens. The statistics point out that guns were used a reported 2.5 millions times to stop a crime last year. That's reported. 2.5 million crimes. That is over 6800 per day used in self defense. I think that is reason enough to disagree with your statement. The other reason I think that the view is skewed is the statistical number of guns used in crimes. In 2012, there were an estimated 1,214,462 violent crimes. There are 300,000,000 guns in America. That means that less than one half a percentage of all (legally owned) guns in America could have been used in a violent crime assuming that all violent crimes were committed with guns, and that a different gun was used in each crime. It is somewhere near 25% of violent crime is committed with some sort of a weapon. That is a gun, knife, or other object. Yes there are problems. Yes there is plenty of room for improvement. But, I do not agree that taking my guns away makes me safer. I have used mine on two occasions as a civilian for self defense, or defense of another. In both cases I was glad that I was able to stop a criminal act. In the one case I would not have been able to help the other person without it.

It has already been said, but this is not a gun law issue. This is an issue of a bad police officer, and more to the issue, a bad person. Statistically speaking: "* Based on survey data from the U.S. Department of Justice, roughly 5,340,000 violent crimes were committed in the United States during 2008. These include simple/aggravated assaults, robberies, sexual assaults, rapes, and murders.[13] [14] [15] Of these, about 436,000 or 8% were committed by offenders visibly armed with a gun.[16]." https://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp Gun violence makes up about 8% of the violent crime in America. Is that bad? Yes. Is that as bad as people are screaming it is? No. This case has almost nothing to do with gun laws. There is no realistic way you can disarm the police force in America. It will not happen. There would have to be a full scale removal of guns from the country, and we all can make a pretty good guess as to where an attempt at that would lead. What happened here is a travesty, but, it is not a gun law issue. This is a case of a bad person abusing the power and tools he had at his disposal. Does it happen? Yes. Is it common? No. I posted before about the number of encounters the police in America have with civilians on a daily basis, and the number of those encounters that ended in some form of violence. It is less than 1% of police encounters that end in violence. And if you look at police brutality, it is far less than 1% of those encounters. This is looking at a pool of over 40 million encounters. That tells me that the police are doing there job pretty effectively, and for the most part, by the book. Is there anything where there is not outliers? Can you think of anything that you can analyze where there is not something that falls on the outskirts? I can't. And with the numbers backing it, I think the police and gun laws here are actually pretty effective. In fact, most states that have recently added the ability for citizens to conceal carry have noticed a drop in the crime rate. Because an armed victim is not as much a victim. As for this particular case (to stay on the topic), this guy is a disgrace. He is thankfully being put through the system so he can get the sentence he deserves. From all I can see he made a decision to take a life, and now he will pay for it.

It is an interesting scenario. When someone is messing around in your neighbors yard, and you know they have not necessarily been on good terms with you, there will be a reaction. It could range from mild annoyance to confrontation. Now add in world politics, ego, a couple of powerful military forces, and a long history. Now all you need is a spark. I am not a fan of either side in this conflict. I want to see the Ukrainian people given the freedom they desire and deserve, and I feel that it is a worthy cause. But I have no desire to see more bloodshed.

I agree with you on the manslaughter thing in principle. I do not have all the evidence in front of me though. I have heard that he had a medical condition that could have caused complications. But again, I do not have all that information. The Grand Jury looked at the evidence and decided that there was not enough evidence to show that a crime might have been committed. That is not a police group, that is regular citizens assigned to look at cases like this. They had all the evidence and decided to not bring charges. Could they have gotten it wrong? Of course. Without a doubt things could have been messed up. However, with a group of people looking from outside the police force at all the evidence, and then deciding not to charge him, I have to believe there are things we do not know. Or the Grand Jury really screwed things up. One of the things about the NY case that has really bothered me is the Mayor. He was one of the first people to jump in and condemn the police. Loudly. But the whole situation was caused by his, as quoted by many NY residents, "excessive" cigarette tax. The high taxes on cigarettes has created a huge black market for them. The whole confrontation does not happen if the tax is not so high that people are willing to break laws to avoid it. In the end, I do tend to give the police the benefit of the doubt. In almost every instance, except for one lone officer, all of my police encounters have been handled professionally, if not nicely. Does that have to do with my race maybe? It could. Could that be because I offer them the same respect I would hope to receive in return? That definitely factors in. Every police officer I know, and that is actually quiet a few, treat everyone as respectful as they are being treated. Do they profile? Without a doubt, but profiling has been proven effective time and again. Do they get profiling wrong? Yep. But everyone profiles. First impressions. You see a person and make a snap judgment on them before you really know them. It happens with every person I know. It is human nature, and part of the whole self preservation thing. It is important to know that because officers will make a decision on someone based on how they appear, how they react towards the officer, and what area they are in. Is that always fair? No. But looking on the other side of it, if you give everyone the benefit of the doubt, then a lot less police go home every night. There are terrible people out there (no matter where in the world you are) and I am just hoping that the number of good police that are out there can help keep them at bay. And, as someone pointed out before, less than 1 percent of police officers do something to dishonor the uniform. Less than 1 percent. That is a lot better odds of meeting a good cop than a lot of other professions. There is plenty of room for improvement. Until we have the issues down to zero, there can always be improvement. And I am all for hearing ways to make that happen. I strongly feel that discussions like this help to educate both sides. Personally I have learned a few things just from this thread, and the opinions put out there. I really appreciate the thoughtful responses, and the general idea that we can just talk through this. We may not change the world, but perhaps we can get some meaningful ideas started to get things rolling.

I believe that the last example would give you the best idea of the unarmed scenario. If an unarmed person turns the police officer has a fraction of a second to identify the object in their hand, and determine the threat level. If if registers as a weapon to an officer, or a threat, they have less than a second to react and shoot. Hesitation kills in their line of duty. I did that for a little while, and every encounter can be deadly. Another point I want to make really quick. There is a lot of mention of the excessive number of incidents of police brutality, and the fact that it is happening so often, brings up a point I made in another thread. In the US last year there was over 40 million interactions between police and civilians. That is a lot of interactions. A very small number of those incidents involved reported brutality or potentially unjustified shootings. I don't have the exact numbers, but it points to the fact that our current instant news and judgment era has created a mountain out of a mole hill. Is there a problem? Yes. There should be zero cases of police brutality, and zero cases of unjustified shootings. But human error and split second decisions have to be accounted for. Being a police officer is one of the most stressful and intense jobs in the world. I prefer open combat to police work. In open combat you are almost always assured to be facing an enemy. In police work every encounter could be your average citizen in need of assistance, or some dude drugged out of his mind looking to kill you. That means being on edge all the time. There is no excuse for police to use excessive force, but there is also no need for the general public to make snap decisions on levels of force used without all of the evidence present. They deserve the same due process that is guaranteed to everyone else. To me the Ferguson case was pretty clear cut. The physical evidence was in line with the officers statement, and the statements of witnesses who were not discredited. The NY case is a lot more muddy. Did the officer do something wrong? Yes. He violated NYPD policy and used a chokehold that is prohibited by their own guidelines. He was punished immediately for the improper technique used. Did he commit a crime? That is harder to define. The man was resisting arrest, had medical conditions, and ended up dead. That is not the final result that I expect that they wanted. But, did the officer go in with intent to harm or kill the man? I can say with a lot of confidence that he did not. He may have acted with poor instincts in that situation, but I do not think that his intention was to cause harm to the man. Another point of fact that has been skipped, and I have not had a chance to read through the reports and do any searching, but I heard that the lead officer that day with the group who took the man down was an African American woman. If people want to scream that the whole incident was racially motivated, what are they saying about her? I get called a racist a lot. I am a white male, tall, bald, and have a goatee. People assume I am a hate mongering piece of crap. You know what? They just judged me by my appearance. The same thing they claim to hate having done to themselves or others. You wanna know the most ironic part of it? My best friend is a black guy from Texas. He is gay. Jon is a brother to me, and he knows I would do anything to help him whenever he needs it. I have done some crazy stuff to help him out, and he has done the same level of insanity for me. The constant shouting about race does not help to work through the issues. Recently there has been incidences of white officers shooting back people, and black officers shooting white people. Those who are shouting the loudest are shouting about white officers killing black men. It should be looked at as an officer shooting a man. The media immediately making it about race only fans flames that need no help. There is a racial divide in the country, but I do not think it will ever be fixed if the focus is always on race and not on healing. There is a small issue with police brutality and excessive force. Like the racial divide, it will not be fixed unless we get focused on the right things. Communication and building relations are where we need to be focused. Removing the fear of police from kids, and removing the fear of not going home at night from he police's minds. We need to get back to person accountability and respect. A lot of problems would be solved with just a little bit of respect for ourselves and for one another.

Statistics are just another tool in the box. They should not be the center of any conversation. Except in Statistics class.

Agreed. There is a general, and well earned, distrust for government in the US. And control is a central theme, but it is hard to address without getting into conspiracy theories or getting labeled. And for the record, if it was my wife or kids, it would not matter what I have with me. You will have to kill me to get to them. I do not expect every person to carry. The great thing is that it is a right, you have it, but you also have the choice to exercise that right. Or not. As for the guy, he wound up in the hospital with some bruising and a few fractures, and I moved out of that neighborhood before he came back. It was shortly after that incident when two low level Russian mafia members exacted revenge on a neighbor behind us, and I decided the neighborhood sucked more than the rent was good. TheWanderer: I enjoy good conversation about issues like this. Rather than people screaming rhetoric at the top of their lungs, lets sit down and have a civil conversation. It doesn't mean we will agree on the issue, nor does it mean there is nothing to gain. Perhaps with rational talks we can at least reach an understanding. (that is not necessarily directed at you, but more of a general statement). As a "well traveled" person, I have been to other free countries, and some not so free. There is a difference that is hard to explain between what some people define as free, and what is defined as freedom in America. Yes it borderlines and occasionally crosses into the realm of arrogance, but there is also a profound sense that all people deserve freedom. Even those born into countries under strict dictatorship deserve the right to live and die free. My hope is that you never have the need for a gun as well. I have never had to fire mine in anger, and I am both proud and profoundly happy about that. Even the lowest form of human is a life. It is not my place to be their judge or executioner. However, I will not allow for, or stand by for, a person who willfully harms another for their own gains. That is one of those things that will always make me willing to fight.

You are correct in that the statistics do not paint the whole picture. They do help to clarify some things. I was pointing out that the presentation of the media that gun deaths and gun sales were directly related, and that people are dying in record numbers is false. There are many underlying issues that are not being addressed. Mental health, poor upbringings, lack of morals, a society that glorifies violence, and a general lack of respect and personal responsibility have created a societal paradigm that has put us where we are. In my opinion the first step is to reinstate a level of responsibility for our own actions and respect for other people. If a person takes responsibility for their actions and thinks about how their actions will affect others, the world is a different place. If we, as a whole, could make that the norm... It's a whole new world. On the topic of the police shootings. Master Samus. That is another tragedy. I have some very strong feelings on this topic, but will keep most of that quiet. For what it is worth, I think there are people, both in the media and public figures, who are not helping this situation by continuing to stir the pot. There is some things going on that make me think that someone is using this for political gains, and a few who are using it for financial gains. There is no reason in the world to murder a person. But to do it to someone because of their job... That makes even less sense. I will leave that there. Back to the wonderful world of statistics. Cars kill more people than guns. It is just what it is. A car is a tool that gets me from point A to point B, or in some cases serves some other purpose. A gun is a tool just the same. Non of my guns have ever killed anyone. But they have ended violent situations without bloodshed, and have served to protect my family. Case in point, and one of the reasons I will always be an advocate for gun ownership in the US, is this: I left for work one morning shortly after I got out of the military. On most mornings I had to cross the street to get to where I parked my car. On this particular morning as I was crossing the street I noticed some people in the street about a half block down. Watching the situation I realized that there were six guys stomping the crap out of someone in the middle of the street. It appeared to me that they were intent upon doing severe damage to the guy, and possibly could take it to the level of death. I made the decision to approach and see if I could end the situation. When I was about 30-35 feet away (10 meters - ish) I shouted to get there attention and asked what was going on. Two guys continued to kick the guy on the ground and four turned towards me. Two of the four that began to approach me proceeded to pull out pocket knives. I am not a tiny guy, but by no means am I some sort of giant, nor am I incapable of defending myself. In this situation though, I was severely out matched by the numbers and weaponry. I opted to draw my pistol and let them know that with no uncertainty I would defend myself. At this point they turned and ran. As soon as they were going I called for police and medical and assisted the guy on the ground. Looking at that scenario, without my gun I had two options. Option one; call 911 and get the police in route. The average response time in my neighborhood at that time was just over 9 minutes. That is an eternity when you are getting stomped on the ground. I personally believe that this guy would not have been alive if I had waited for the police to arrive. Option two; confront the attackers without a means to defend myself. Obviously hindsight is 20/20 and I have no doubts how that would have ended. I would most likely not been willing to step in and do something without the ability and sense that I would be able to adequately defend myself. And I believe that in that scenario this guy would most likely be dead, or at least would have suffered injuries that would have stayed with him forever. Again, I do not have the statistics in front of me, and it looks like I will be doing some statistic diving over the next couple of days, but for every crime committed with a gun, (not just homicides, but every crime) I think the number of crimes prevented is 2.5 in the US. And as cliche as it may sound, the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun (and the ability to properly use it). I am not saying that gun violence is not a problem, I am just of the belief that the gun is not where the problem lies. My guns have never done anything I have not made them do. It is a tool, and nothing more. It is the person who picks up that tool that can either use it for legal and intended purposes, or use it to do things that I would prefer not happen via any tool.

This is going to be a heated and controversial conversation no matter how it is brought up. The current round being started by the murder of two police officers is only going to give the issue a little extra fire. To the point made earlier. Gun ownership has never had to be legalized in the Unites States of America. It has been a right since the foundations of the constitution were laid. The founders of the country believed that it was important enough to follow only freedom of speech. That says a lot. Gun ownership in the US is higher than anywhere else I know of. There are statistics thrown around by a lot of people that are either incorrect, or intentionally skewed to support their sides case. But taking a look at it myself this is what I can see. The ATF statistics show that in 2007 there were 3,922,613 firearms in the US. In 2010 there was 5,459,240. That is an increase of just over 39%. With those numbers and the rhetoric I see in the news all the time it would suggest a similar increase should be seen in homicides that involve firearms. Heading over to the FBI statistics page I found the following data. in 2007 there was 10,129 homicides involving firearms of any type. In 2010 that number dropped to 8,874, which is a decrease of just about 14%. In 2011 the number of homicides involving a firearm continued the downward trend and landed at 8,583. I do not have the numbers available to me at the moment for gun ownership, but there is multiple reports stating that gun ownership is still on the rise. All of these numbers show that legal gun ownership is not directly linked to the homicide rate with firearms. If I get the time I will see if I can find the numbers for how many of the homicides were committed with illegal guns, or by people who could not legally own a gun. I put all of this out here as a reminder to not blindly follow the media for either side. The media is taking sides, pushing agendas, and attempting to sway those who fail to do their own research. It is no longer an acceptable method of research to turn to the media of any form. To the point of the purpose of a firearm. Yes they were designed for more efficient killing. They have been around since about 1000AD when the Chinese first started using what is credited as being the origin of the current firearms. Firearms have distinct purposes. Some are designed to hunt, so for self defense, some are made for the joy of just target shooting. They have as many purposes as there are classifications. The fact that they are efficient at what they are designed for is not the problem in my opinion. It has more to do with who is using this tool in a manner which violates the laws surrounding the use of them. No matter what laws you make, or the level of enforcement, the only people that will be affect by the laws are those who willingly follow them. Meaning that I will be affected because I legally own all of my firearms, but Johnny Gang Banger with his illegal weapons cash will be unaffected because he doesn't give two craps about what laws are out there, or that he is in violation of them. More restrictive gun laws will not stop the majority of firearm related incidents. Also, when I get the chance I will dig up some of the statistics that I have seen that show a sharp drop in crime, especially violent crime, in areas where concealed carry license issuance has increased. An armed citizen is harder to rob, and not knowing who is armed means a roulette wheel spin every time.

Not me.

I for one would have loved to see the rant. The media is one of those topics that can get me going right now. I can watch the news for just a few minutes and tell you who is pulling for which special interest or where the money is flowing from. It is no longer about actually presenting the facts, it is about getting the ratings and making the money flow.

I understand that. Sometimes the format comes across as unfriendly to an opinion. I have dealt with that. Know your stance, and don't be afraid to state it, and back it up. The funny thing is, the reality is rarely inline with either of the extreme parties. Even though they are the loudest.

We don't have to agree to have conversation. So feel free to speak your opinion. I may not agree with it, but that doesn't make it wrong, or mine right.

The Zimmerman case was bullshit, it was funny how the media posted images of Trayvon as an innocent little kid... probably photos that were five years old. The kid ended up being a thug, and the fact that a half Hispanic, half white man shot at him probably was the reason why so much crap was raised about it. African Americans tend to highly distrust whites and hispanics, at least from my experience here in California. Also, I have to correct you, division raises cash for the American political machine, not solely Democrats. It's called division of labor, and it has been going on in this nation long before 1776. As a side case, I also find it ironic that here in Southern California when a homeless, mentally ill black woman was forcefully arrested by a California Highway Patrol officer for wandering barefoot all over a freeway did not cause any sort of stir at all here. No rioting, no looting. The local media played it down while the national news tried to make it into a big story but failed. I did find it funny, though, that the woman's family, after abandoning her to the streets, came out of the woodwork and demanded "justice". Justice pretty much means a fat paycheck. The CHP officer was just doing his job. It's illegal to walk on freeways. She was a danger to herself and to traffic (for people swerving and slowing to avoid hitting her) and refused to cease her actions. I'm guessing no riots because an unarmed kid wasn't killed, but hey that's just me. What about the case where the unarmed white male was shot by a black officer in Utah? No riots. It was a case very similar to the Mike Brown case, but it garnered almost no media attention. Are there problems that happened here. Yes. No doubt. When a person dies during a police encounter there is always room for improvement. Most police departments review their policy after every police involved shooting. They are constantly looking for ways to improve their process. Every time an officers fires their weapon, or has person significantly injured or killed in an arrest, the media puts them under a microscope. Some even go as far as to try and ruin the officers lives. Do you think they want to endure that? To address a point that I have seen stated many times. The phrase "an unarmed kid" keeps being thrown around. Was he unarmed? Yes. Is that the whole story? Not by a long shot. Was Mike Brown a kid? I don't think so. He was 18, which makes you legally an adult. He had all the rights of an adult, and at his age I was in the military getting ready to head overseas. Did the US send a child to war? Mike Brown physically assaulted the police officer. Have you ever been punched in the face by someone? It hurts, and I don't like it. Most people don't. Have you ever had a physical altercation with someone larger than you? It is scary. I have had to take down larger people, and it is always a scary proposition. Physical size makes a difference. That is why there is weight classes in most fighting sports. If you watched the UFC before they had weight classes, there was some fights where guys had little to no chance of winning due to size disparity. There are a lot of factors being ignored when you just say that the officer shot an unarmed kid. Try looking at the entire picture and making an argument from there. I am all for a good discussion, and hoping that good discussion will create change, but the rhetoric being spewed by the media is making that nearly impossible.

He was a repeat offender known to the arresting officers. Mostly non violent offenses, but he did have a history. Not that it makes a difference on how he should be handled, but it is human nature to escalate more quickly with people you know are going to cause you more issues. It also does not make the officers wrong for escalating. They knew he was a large man who had a history of resisting. Every time a person resists arrest there is a significant chance of injury for both the subject and the arresting officer(s). The one thing I can promise you is that the officers all want to go home at the en of the day, just like everyone else. Their safety has to be taken into consideration when talking about any A couple points for talking on this case. First, the Grand Jury did not find enough evidence to bring a case against the officer. And from the evidence presented this is the correct finding. The only evidence we have in the case is the video and witness statements that have been presented in the press. From those we can gather what information we can and compare it against the standards. Why do I say there should be no criminal charges? The officer applied a chokehold that many are calling "illegal". The chokehold is not illegal. It is against New York Police policy. There is a distinct difference. If I violate work policy I can be administratively punished, up to and including firing depending not he offense, but that does not necessarily mean I have committed a criminal offense. I could have just been late too many times, or told my boss to kick bricks. In this case the officer violated policy, but did not commit a crime. The coroner labeled the death a homicide. That means the officer murdered him! No. The media has been quick to label it that way. But that is not true. Homicide is by definition "the killing of one human being by another". Yes it can mean murder, and often times that is how our society views it, but from he medical examiners point of view he determines whether the death was caused by a person or not. The investigators determine whether or not there was motive that would indicate murder. While his death was a homicide, the press calling it "the murder of an unarmed black man" is nothing more than twisting terms and inciting hate and anger. The Media in these cases is using sensationalism to sell headlines, and we as a society are eating it up. So it will continue. That is a point I was making to someone. The tax is creating a market where some numbers show over 60% of the cigarettes sold are being illegally brought in. Over 60%. That tells me there is a major issue here. The Police are obligated to enforce the laws, and while some discretion is allowed, when the city officials want a crack down, they have little choice in how they will handle these violations. I am almost certain that the officials in City Hall wanted a crackdown on these people smuggling in the cigarettes, and the officers chose the people they knew to be repeat offenders, and that is where they felt they could make the biggest impact. His death is a tragedy. There is no arguing that. Very rarely do I feel like the world is a better place when a death is involved. No matter what the history, this guy was not so bad as to be better gone. That being said, it was stated above very well. Don't do illegal things. If you willfully violate the law your chances of an encounter with the police increases dramatically. To ignore the fact that the people involved in these recent issues had criminal histories is not fair, and being used to manipulate the general population. The media is using all its tricks to get your clicks. By putting a picture of Treyvon Martin from several years before the incident, the media portrayed him as being an innocent child. Which was not the case. He did not deserve to die, but he was not as innocent as portrayed. In the Mike Brown case the media did the same thing. They put up pictures of him from years before, or where he looked like a model student headed to college. They ignored the pictures of him waving wads of cash, holding guns, and smoking marijuana. It better fit the story line that was going to get more people upset and willing to read their story. The news has become a business entity entirely. It is no longer about reporting the news, it is about reporting what will get you to watch, read, or click. Facts be damned.

To clarify, and I do agree with you, these are not the only issues. There is a long list off issues. Is there really a place to start, or do we just go after all of it at once? I mean really, how can we fix it. That should be where our energy is focused. Not on hating people.

And just for the record, I do not believe that the police are perfect by any means. There are bad apples. I have family and friends in all levels and areas of law enforcement, and they will all tell you that there a jerks and losers that make it into the ranks. They try to police themselves, but there is also a sense of brotherhood, and lets be honest, if they do not look out for each other, then the media would eat them alive. There would not be a hope for any law enforcement agency. In my opinion, the best way to get things righted is to start by eliminating the need for police interactions. The less reason you have for police to bother you, then less likely there is to be an incident. I understand that there is still disparities in who gets stopped, and who gets arrested, but there are other factors as well. We have societal issues that run deep. One of the best written articles I saw on the whole Ferguson event was by a Black Pastor from the Mid-West somewhere. He said that the issue is not the police, it is not the color of the skin, it is that these kids are growing up in families without their fathers. You have something like a 70% rate of one parent homes in these gang infested areas. That generates a culture where these kids look for someone to create a family to fill that void. Gangs, violence, drugs, and all the other crap is exponentially higher in these communities. It comes down to people not accepting responsibility for their actions. And it has created a vicious cycle that is creating a new generation of the same issues.

New York is a different story to some extent. It was said somewhere above, but he was going to be arrested because he was violating the law. He knew he was violating the law. He was doing it to make money. Again, his death is not okay. I never like to see someone hurt or killed while being taken into custody. But remember, he was not some innocent bystander either. It is almost never a black and white issue, especially in the cases where the media gets going. I am not sure that I would have done a choke hold on the guy, but I will tell you this. I once had a guy who was about 6'7" and 325 pounds that had to be taken into custody. It took three of us to get his drunken butt on the ground and zip tie cuffed. He was face down and started complaining that he was not able to breath. We attempted to adjust his position but could not alleviate his issue. I cut his ties and he sucker punched me. Do you think I hesitate now when people tell me they can't breath? Yes. I have a distinct lack of trust for anyone who says that. Does that make it right. No. Thankfully I never had anyone die like that while in custody, but remember that there is always more to the story, especially when it concerns what the media reports in Police related incidents. The sensational news gets the ratings, so the real news just gets tossed to the side.

I apologize the the wall o text/rambling post above

I see a lot of responses from people who seem to have no law enforcement experience saying "why didn't he just..." Personally, I did law enforcement in the military for 2 years. It is slightly different than your average patrol beat, but has some of the same elements. There are a lot of factors to consider with any encounter. Yes non lethal methods can be an option, but they are not always reasonable, or the most available option. In all my training there has always been an emphasis on escalating appropriately. This means your actions as a law enforcement officer escalate depending on the actions of the person(s) you are interacting with. A couple of examples. First: I was standing a gate security post at one of my bases. There was a traffic accident involving an injury just past the gate and the investigating officers asked that we shut traffic down to that road from the gate for their safety while they conducted the investigation. While waiting for proper signage to arrive I positioned myself to block traffic, with a reflective vest on in the middle of the day, and proceeded to direct drivers where they could go. I offered directions around if they needed it. After about ten minutes a vehicle came through the gate. The driver decided that he wanted to take the road that was shut down. He first attempted to just go around me, and when I moved and gave verbal instructions to change direction he aimed his car towards me. His vehicle did not even begin to slow until I had my gun out of the holster and coming up at him. He stopped with his bumper against my thigh. There was a lot that happened in that scenario. It took less than 10 seconds. I had to go from directing traffic, to correcting illegal behavior, to defending myself from a potentially deadly assault with a vehicle. In this case I could assume that he was merely trying to intimidate me so he could take the path he wanted, but if I am wrong, I am going to be hurt or dead. I responded with an escalation of force that mirrored his escalation. Had he not applied the brakes I would have had to fire my weapon. I am grateful that I did not have to. Second: Standing another watch on a pier that has 4 ships when a call comes on the radio about a military involved shooting just off base. Details are sketchy, but they know it was a military member who shot a military member, the shooter was in a dark colored Honda Civic, and was last seen headed towards the base. The shooting happened less than a mile off base, and over ten minutes before the radio call. This meant the shooter was potentially on the base already before we could initiate a lock-down and inspect incoming vehicles at the main gate. At this point the base went on lock down. No vehicles were being allowed on, and all vehicles matching the description attempting to leave were being searched. A few minutes after we go to a state of full lock down I notice a car that is parked just up the road from the pier. Headlights on, pointed in our direction. It appears to be a Honda Civic. After confirming with the senior person on watch that it potentially matched the description we radioed it in to the patrol units. Literally as we finished the call in the car started slowly rolling towards our gate. At about 100 yards our senior member advised the rest of our crew to get into their defensive positions and be ready. The two of us were obligated to stand at the gate mostly exposed. As the vehicle was about 30 yards away he accelerated slightly and pointed his car towards the gate. This put his headlights directly in our faces. Both myself and the senior officer drew our weapons and gave verbal warnings. The vehicle immediately stopped. The headlights were shut off, and his hands came out the window. The driver quickly explained that he was there to pick up his friends, who just happened to be sitting on the pier behind us waiting for the lock down to end. Again, I am thankful that the situation was able to be resolved without bloodshed, but it only took a matter of seconds for the entire scenario to play out. In either situation a moment of hesitation could have potentially put me in a position where I would no longer have been able to defend myself if needed. I could go on, but I think that lays enough background. So why do I relate these stories? In the Ferguson case, which I have watched closely, there has been a lot of misinformation and assumptions made. If you want the full story, or as close as we are going to get to it, take the time and read through the Grand Jury documents. Yes there is a lot, but there is a lot in there that will help clarify some of the misinformation out there. One of those things being the fact of whether or not his hands were up. Yes there were witnesses to the shooting. Yes some said he had his hands up. Read the Grand Jury documents. Those witnesses were all discredited by the physical evidence, or admitted that they did not actually see the incident, but just repeated what they were told by someone who said they saw it. Those people that the media went straight to. Yes, they lied. Yes, they helped to create far more tension and anger then there needed to be. For those asking if he really needed to shoot him so many times, or why didn't he just use a (insert non lethal instrument here). Read the Grand Jury documents. Officer Wilson was struck in his car multiple times. Brown attempted to take his gun and then began to run away. Officer Wilson exited his car and ordered Brown to stop. Brown then turned around and charged at Officer Wilson. He had already been assaulted, and Brown had already attempted to take his weapon. Witnesses said Officer Wilson shouted stop at least four times before he fired the first shot at Brown as he charged. Officer Brown fired four shots in rapid succession, all of which were aimed at center mass. Brown halted, and then charged again, and as Officer Wilson fired two more shots, Brown's head came down. Obviously there is some potential wiggle in the exact happenings, and I have not made it through all the documents, but that is the account put together with Officer Wilson's testimony, the autopsy reports (there were multiple), witness statements, and physical evidence gathered at the scene. It is the most complete look at the whole scenario. It is a tragedy that a young man lost his life that day. I would not wish that upon anyone, not the dead, not his family, not his friends. But I also feel for Officer Wilson. He had to make a decision to take a life, and that will be with him for the rest of his life. On the topic of Police use of force. I have seen so many people ramble and rant on about how the police are always going way over board, using excessive force all the time, every encounter with the police means you are going to get killed. How many of these cases do you see or hear about? I can think of maybe a handful this year. But to be generous lets say there is 1000 reported. Do you know the number of Police to civilian interactions there are every year? According to the Department of Justice, approximately 17% of the American population had a direct interaction with a Police Officer in 2008. That is a huge chunk of the population. There were over 40 Million interactions in 2008. That means that the VAST majority of interactions with the Police go unnoticed because it is just a quick blip on your radar after violating a minor law. The cases where excessive force is used are not okay. I am all for doing whatever it takes to eliminate it altogether. However, the Police are not the only problem. There is a lot of issues that need to be addressed in the general public. Among them a general sense of entitlement and lack of respect for the laws of our local and larger government establishments. We can argue until we are blue in the face about what Officer Wilson could have done better, how to implement less than lethal force, whether or not it was a racial issue, what Officer Wilson's motives were, and whatever point we decide to look at next. In the end, non of the "what ifs" and "if onlys" can change what happened. What we need to do is look at this objectively and see what created the situation, not the results. And I am not talking about the stop for jaywalking or robbery. I am talking about the popularization of the "thug" lifestyle. The sense of entitlement that people in our country have. This sentiment I see scattered about that this is not my problem because it's not my: neighborhood, skin color, income level, etc. This is all of our problem. It is up to us as individuals, and as a society, to correct the moral failings that have helped to create this mess. Otherwise we are all just going to end up victims or criminals.

I am organizing a search party to go looking for Danvey! My fear is the road overcame him!

Lol, I am not useful in this department either