LMAO Louisiana voters like Obama more than Bobby Jindal....... hehheheheh
@ about 2 years ago
Troy, MI, USA
Jindal's Indian right? Not the woo woo woo kind though?
@ about 2 years ago
North Royalton, OH, USA
@ about 2 years ago
Winder, GA 30680, USA
no, the kind that was a biology major but when asked if he believes in evolution says hes not a scientist.
@ about 2 years ago
On the personality scale, I find it amazing that Jindal has come this far in politics. I think the same thing of our own governor...I can't stand to listen to the guy speak.
@ about 2 years ago
Lakeland, MN, USA
Maybe he's a lot smarter than you, Josh. "Do the math. Most mutations are harmful. Harmful to beneficial occur at a ratio of about 10,000 to 1. In other words mutations will tend to drive a species to extinction before
@ about 2 years ago
it has a chance to naturally evolve unless it has a truly enormous population size of a quadrillion, a body size less than 1 cm, and a generation time less than 3 mos."
That's a bold claim. He should write his findings in a peer reviewed journal.
Here you go, Einstein. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/01/peer-reviewed_p055221.html Stop pushing your un-scientific, debunked religion. At least stop masquerading it as science.
you've irreparably damaged your brain from listening to too much Kent Hovind.
you're an idiot
I was talking about the mathematical impossibility of evolution, not "intelligent design." Obviously this discussion is beyond your capability. Maybe you should find a thread to post about your homosexual fantasies.
Was there a thread deleted?
@ about 2 years ago
I was commenting directly about the article you posted.
maybe you should back up your position with fact
Yes, h2o's thread where you outed yourself as a sociopath
@ about 2 years ago
O look, another story on social media about excessive force
I must be self justifying, self loathing, envious
Or not living in reality for pointing out that another one has surfaced.
Same thing when the next one comes out later this week
And another next week.
And another the week after that.
These frequent, isolated incidents could in no way be indicative of a more systemic problem.
Couldn't be. That would be a rash judgment on a system I couldn't possibly understand.
Oh how awesome. Anyone who gives the Police the benefit of the doubt is labeled a sociopath. Love it! I take ignorant comments like that from the far left like you as complements.
These frequent, isolated allegations are later thoroughly examined at all levels. And the vast majority of Officers are exonerated. But who cares about that?
I feel like I've said this a million times but I'll say it again. There are bad cops that do bad things sometimes criminal. Those cops should pay the price for their crimes. As should anyone else.
And many do.
But that does not mean that every allegation is valid. By a long shot.
Most allegations made by criminals against the police are bull####. Just a way for a scumbag to get back at the people who interfere with their scumbaggery.
These videos that surface usually show officers doing a tough job correctly. Correctly doesnt always equal pretty. Reality is sometimes downright ugly.
But instead of placing the blame on the individual who initiated the action, you blame the ones responding. The reaction gets the attention but not the action.
And ignorance plays a HUGE part in how people like you think. You don't know what its like to be in that situation. Watching Law & Order doesn't count.
But thats what you base your judgements on. What TV told you or what you think should happen.
The whole "shoot him in the leg" mentality.
I agree not every allegation is valid. You have no argument from me there.
But that's no reason to downplay allegations where the circumstances and video evidence support said allegations.
It's a joke. You're a joke. Not because you have a different opinion but because you refuse to accept that anyone else has a different one.
^oh the hypocrisy!
You think they're always wrong. That's you. Great. I don't agree but that's what I expect from people like you. My differing opinion gets me labeled a sociopath. No other way of thinking allowed in your little mind.
Although society tends to side with my way of thinking.
You are the one who is going around calling anyone who disagrees with you ignorant...just saying.
The thing is I'm not telling you you're wrong for having your opinion. That's your opinion. Based on everything you know. Mine is different. Can you accept that?
No, you're saying we're ignorant for having our opinion.
Which is functionally the same as saying we're wrong.
Can you accept that?
You're not doing a very good job at trying to claim the high ground...
BTW, I haven't watched L&O in years
I also happen to spend quite a bit of time in the local federal prison
But there's no way my opinion could be anything other than ignorance.
You make too many assumptions.
about what liberals could possibly know or understand.
And I'm entitled to laugh at these stupid, self-serving generalizations.
And I do.
How much time exactly are you spending at the federal penitentiary…5 to 10?
How exactly was that excessive use of force? What's to say he doesn't have a gun in his left hand? They attempted to taser him in order to gain compliance. It was unsuccessful. Are police to treat drug usage and
drinking as a "medical emergency" now? Go buy a clue.
The door was open and they could see his non gun holding left hand.
He was somewhat slouched over.
That's a tasing!
angelus, you obviously don't understand anything that goes along in the natural world, when a bad mutation happens, the creature dies, you observe it every day, and when you don't observe it its because it aborted itself
the guy who died in the prison is a perfect example of this. you said he died of a preexisting condition, which was sickle cell. sickle cell is an evolutionary defect that only exists because the defect protected against
death from malaria. its the evidence staring you in the ####ing eyes.
a standalone mutation has trouble replicating itself unless its the only game in town or for whatever reason makes the most live longer. like sickle cell anemia.
^what the #### is joshie talking about?
Skal, that where you're wrong. I don't think you're ignorant BECAUSE of your opinions. I just think you're ignorant on several topics. And your opinions confirm it.
That's not at all hypocritical, because he believes it.
That was a failed tasing. You obviously don't know what your looking at.
Sickle cell is no more evidence of evolution than someone with blue eyes is, Josh. Mutations are not cool. They don't give you superpowers.
Mutations are killing us ."The author cites research showing that the human race is currently degenerating at 1 – 2 % per generation due to accumulation of mutations. At a 1% decline in fitness per generation, there is a
sharp reduction in fitness after 300 generations (about 6,000 years). One of the most interesting revelations in Genetic Entropy is Dr. Sanford’s and other workers’ analysis of the Biblical account of life expectancies.
In a statistical regression analysis of declining life spans since Noah (lived 950 years), after 32 centuries since Noah the life expectancy has declined to about 70. The remarkable aspect is that this curve, which shows
a sharp drop-off after Noah and a more gradual decline about 1,000 years ago, is that it is very similar to theoretical curves presented by other researchers that show genetic degeneration. Either Moses faithfully
recorded the events (and ages) recorded in Genesis, or he was a skilled statistician who made up data with a remarkable fit to an exponential curve!"
It was a failed tasing.
But still an attempt.
@plc - what evil said.
Btw, which social media story should we talk about today?
The Atlanta hawk in nyc or the nurse in LA?
Why do these keep coming in?
How about Megan Sheehan?
So many choices.
We are way overdue for a school shooting, Skäl. Unless one happens this week, plc will have a field day with you.
Not sure I draw the connection, evil
Sorry, if not unless. Use of force required thereby showing the merits of using such force in other situations.
I don't think any rational person would object to a use of force to neutralize a school shooter.
Situations are apples and oranges
I ask you again, when are we going to talk about law abiding citizens? You keep bringing up these savages that set these actions into motion then complain about the result.
Interesting choice of words.
I think that choice of words says everything about the mentality that leads to these results.
They aren't people, they're savages.
@Evil - the obvious counterpoint is here: odmp.org
Yes. Savages. Concentrate on the use of that word. Nothing else. Nothing else at all.
When you act in an uncivilized manner, what else should you be called? Liberal? LOL!
I'm not trying to run away from it. But the statement was oh so much bigger than that one word. But you want to ignore the rest and concentrate on the use of a word. Telling.
Because that word captures the mentality that leads to these results perfectly.
These aren't people, they're savages.
Instead of talking about word selection, maybe we should discuss something bigger. What exactly is your issue? That these or other officers aren't held responsible for what you perceive to be illegal actions?
Ok. I consider them savages. You dont. Can we move on now?
Did I ever say they were illegal actions?
(there was a question mark at the end)
how is "criminal" defined?
@ about 2 years ago
Cerritos, CA, USA
Sigh...Skäl I was implying that this is the logic plc would use. Sorry
Doc, do you have anything to add? Would you be willing to actually discuss what you consider the issue to be?
@Evil - I figured. :)
@PLC - There were a lot of question marks.
And no answers. Yet.
@PLC - "aren't held responsible for what you perceive to be illegal actions?" I never said they were illegal actions.
There's one. Faulty premise in the question.
Bigger issue - There appears to be something systemic (possibly a mentality that these are all savages) that allows these stories to continue to pop up in the social media. And there will be more.
The suspects (or "savages" as you like to call them) are not completely blameless in any of these events.
It was a question. I'm trying to figure out what your issue is. Is your issue that these allegations of excessive force keep popping up on social media?
But is the response always proportional to the threat?
Race is a huge factor in most of these cases - would a white person doing the exact same thing get the exact same response (i.e. Snookie resisting arrest)
Yes, I call them savages. They are not completely blameless. But that appears to be looked over as blame is shifted to the officers. I don't understand that part of it.
On many of those stories that pop up, the official report doesn't quite match what happens on video that later comes out.
are you implying that this only happens to black people or that the only stories publicized are when blacks are involved. Which sells papers?
If a suspect's account doesn't match a video of an incident, is that not suspect?
Why should an officer's account that doesn't match be viewed any different (ie. SC shooting)
Who determines whether or not the response is appropriate? Should we have a system that reviews the circumstances on their entirety and determine appropriateness?
I think we do. And when that determination is made, shouldn't we respect that with the understanding that they are much more knowladgeable about the case than us?
As you know, we do.
plc I wish you would say that to Pink once in awhile.
Are they independent?
Can we have confidence in an internal review process when it has been shown repeatedly that stuff gets shoved under the rug?
(Tulsa "deputy", this http://bit.ly/1FM3nk3)
How is this an example of a tainted internal review?
You also use the word repeated. How many of these internal investigation are conducted on a daily basis? How many are shoved under the rug? Do cases that do not get shoved under the rug publicized?
The Tulsa reserve deputy was a much better example.
The NJ just is an example of shoving something under the rug. No way that would happen to cover after an incident (ie. the SC shooting)
Garbage in, garbage out
Can we make these determinations based solely on what's publicized? I have a hard time with that.
I did use the word repeated. They get publicized when the press finds out about them.
Open your eyes.
How many of these recent high profile cases were investigated by multiple agencies? Do they all have questionable integrity?
Personally I have confidence in the review process. It, like anything else in the world, is imperfect. But I won't judge the majority based on a tiny number of bad cases.
I have a hard time with that too. Using the SC shooting as an example, the initial publications around the shooting (including the official word on the matter) differed completely from the video that came out later.
But even if we do, where does it end? Who is the ultimate truth finder? Can he be truly trusted? Is he not human? What determines true independence?
The officer in the SC shooting was fired and arrested. He's currently sitting in jail.
Thanks only to video.
The report was falsified.
My eyes are wide open. If you think the press publicized everything without regard to "selling papers" I don't know what to tell you.
Of course they want to sell papers.
Controversy and corruption sells.
But the media doesn't deteome corruption. They only sensationalize alleged corruption. Because it sells.
The media absolutely can uncover corruption.
The powers that do determine corruption all too often say a different story. That part is rarely covered by the media. That doesn't sell. So we're left with people who only sees the allegations and goes on that alone.
Factual results be damned.
The vast majority of these social media injustices are found to be smoke with no fire. As determined by the ones with the most information available. Why is that so hard to accept?
If you don't agree, you claim corruption or bias. Without basis.
The Feeguson case is a prime example of this.
What do you mean by "the powers that be", plc?
What group, exactly?
when you say that these so called injustices are found to be smoke amd mirrors, for example. Exactly who is making this finding?
Did you read above? There's no one body that investigates every case. In the Furgeson case local, state and federal investigators determined the case there. Are they all biased?
Same with The Seqn Bell case.
Brunswick, OH, USA
investigators don't determine the case, plc. If you are saying these analyses are fair and the outcomes represent justice, it is important to know who is the decision maker.
investigators aren't decision makers.
who decided the Brelo murder?
youre an idiot angilius, life expectancy has only increased since biblical times. "fitness" that doesn't even mean anything.
Who do you think is the decision maker?
Although u didn't say anything about investigators.
Although I didn't.
"There's no one body that investigates every case. in the Ferguson (sp) case local, state and federal investigators determined the case there."
- plc, just a few comments above
investigators don't decide justice in these cases.
Since you assert fairness and justice in exoneration of police activities, plc, you must know who the decision maker is.
I'm asking you who you benieve the decision maker is. You said the investigator isn't. Who is?
I'm sorry but you made an assertion, not me. Please answer my question.
Since you assert that decisions are fair, you must know something about who makes the decision and how it's made.
I thought I did answer that. And you disagreed. What is year ion would you like me answer? Who is the decision maker? That depends on what we're talking about.
For the most part, the initial decision is made by the DA (at different levels). Whether to file charges or not. After they investigate. So yes, the investigator does make the decision.
This is at all levels. From local to federal.
If the local DA, the state DA AND the DOJ all say the officer did nothing wrong and won't prosecute after they have investigated, do we accept that? I do. Do you?
At lower levels, the police officers make the decision to arrest or not to. Using their discretion for the most part.
Beyond that, judge/jury make decisions. As they did in the Zimmerman case. Did you accept that decision? I did.
The DA conducts an investigation and makes a decision based on the results of that investigation. Do you agree?
Yeah I guess and since they were black homeless people... Jesus Christ! I can see roughing them up and locking them up because they're black homeless people but not pumping them full of holes?
Strongsville, OH, USA
remove "not" or replace question mark with exclamation mark
Anyone else while we wait?
In cases involving a murder or other serious charge, there is an intermediate step too, where the DA brings their case to a grand jury. The gj, not the DA, decides whether the case goes to trial.
Hudson, WI, USA
Sorry I was way sick last night.
The DA decides whether or not it goes before a GJ. But yes, a GJ decides whether or not there's enough to proceed. But they do not decide guilt or culpability.
Hope you feel better.
GJ are used in any felony case.
But still. The investigator does make decisions that will stop the case based on the results of the investigation.
My point being that they have more information than us and we should respect their decisions. We don't have to agree. But we should respect their unbiased informed decisions.
And who does the DA represent?
he doesn't represent anyone. His job is to prosecute cases as he sees fit according to the law. If the incident doesn't rise to the level of a crime, in his opinion, based on the law, the case dies.
Of course he represents someone, plc. Who is it?
No. He doesnt represent anyone. He represents the law. You can not like my answers, but my answers they are. If you disagree, spell it out. You still havent made a point. Only attacked mine.
What is your point? Does the investigator make the decisions? Who does he represent?
It seems like you're implying he represents the people. He doesn't. He represents the law and is obligated to follow the laws. Not the whim of the people or the public opinion.
"investigators don't decide justice in these cases." Your quote. Do DA's not investigate? Do they not decide justice in these cases? Do you stand by that statement? It's yours.
Do you know who the decision maker is, if not starting at the Police then the DA at then the courts through GJ/Trial?
Did you know that a case can be completely adjudicated without ever being brought before citizens? It can go straight from Police to DA to Judge to final disposition? No GJ. No jury.
The DA represents the law...typically the police officers side of the argument. This could potentially create a conflict of interest when a police officer is the suspect.
Atlanta, GA 30340, USA
Not the Police Officers side. The Laws side. Both represent the law and are tasked with enforcing it. When a Police officer is alleged to have broken the law, the DAs still represents the law.
What would be an alternative? A special prosecutor will still be on the side of the law.
A Police Officer breaking the law does not represent the law side of the argument. Only when the PO makes a lawful arrest does he do so.
When an officer (or anyone else) is alleged to have broken the law, the arresting officer of that person is the one representing the law.
When a PO (or anyone else) is alleged to have committed a crime, the DA investigates and decides on how to proceed. If to proceed at all.
The DA can and often does decide that based on his investigation, no crime occured. Or that there isnt sufficient evidence that one did. And will drop all charges.
The DOJ investigated to michael brown shooting and determined that no federal crime occurred. The local prosecutor presented the evidence to a grand jury who decided not to proceed with charges.
You can agree or disagree. That was the decision. Based on information you and I are not privy to. Shouldn't we respect the system?
unless you feel you understand the law better than the prosecutor or the case better than the grand jury. Which could be possible. I would like to know how.
The DA represents the government. Technically the people, sure, but the government as proxy. Specifically, she works for the Executive branch of the government.
The Executive branch is, of course, the one in charge of executing the laws.
The police are also part of the Executive branch. They are in charge of executing the laws too.
Police work with the DA to aid the investigation the DA makes...
in order to decide whether to bring a case to the gj.
Do you see any problems there?
You may say no, I think in Ferguson the DA did his job and was fair, because after all he took the case to the gj.
i don't have a problem with the system as its constructed. Would you recommend a better way?
Are you saying the only way you'd agree with a DA is if they present the case to a GJ? Many cases don't make it that far. The DA makes that determination on his own. Based on his investigation and the law.
So how is the investigator not the decision maker?
In an ideal, theoretical world, the DA has no bias and charges against leo's proceed exactly as described.
That's not the real world.
Every attorney knows that conflicts of interest, of which such investigations are a good example, are a strict no no under rules governing attorneys.
However for government attorneys these investigations of their own are allowed.
So the government attorney investigates a police officer, relying on evidence provided by police officers. Whose interests, in reality, does the investigator represent?
How can anyone even figure that one out?
Is there a better system? Of course this situation could be improved. But let's move on from there.
In cases garnering big media attention, the DA will of course feel pressure to bring the case. She will need to do that. But in cases that involve a serious crime, the case must forest be brought to the gj.
gj hearings are conducted in secret. Proceedings are only released of the outcome is a trial.
There is no opposing counsel present, just the DA, judge, and jury.
The DA can show up and basically pick his nose for awhile...not make an effort, in effect. The jury can only vote on what is presented to it.
See any problems there?
It may interest you to know that for noon-police officers, rate of gj votes to go to trial are something like 90%. For police officers that number is flipped on its head.
I'm not saying that these percentages are necessarily wrong. But it would be a logical outcome of actual bias by the investigators bringing these cases.
Skal, nothing is perfect.
Doc, have you ever been in a grand jury?
Also, you claimed that the investigator doesn't make the decisions. Do you still stand boy that's?
do you still stand by that?
You claim bias with no factual knowledge of bias. Just a gut feeling. That fact is that the vast majority of officers are good decent people. People who choose to go into precarious situations.
People who are second constantly second guessed by people who never have and never will be in the situations they are critiquing. For the most part.
So oftentimes, what appears to be illegal or excessive to the untrained eye is completely legal and acceptable in the eyes of the law.
That doesn't necessarily equal bias. That just means the system is working.
To imply some widespread bias in favor of officers is irresponsible and ignorant of the facts. Just as implying no bias ever exists is equally ignorant.
You say we can do it better. How? What would you recommend?
A prosecutors dream is to successfully prosecute a police officer for a crime. It's a feather in their cap and a resume builder. It proves their impartiality. When they can, they do.
If a DA sees a valid case against an officer he throws the book at them. Fortunately this doesn't happen often. Most charges against the police are baseless. Usually made by people with an axe to grind.
BTW, there is no judge inside a GJ. But there is a stenographer, who records everything. A DA who went in and just chewed gum or picked his nose wouldn't be a DA for long.
What recent major police brutality case was wrongly dismissed due to bias?
You are making baseless claims in the face of obvious conflict of interest. I am not arguing facts of individuals and cases or implying that any one case was wrongly decided.
Where's the "obvious conflict of interest"?
I asked you if you had any problem with a few different situations, above. You said no.
That's your opinion. I just wanted to be sure you understood the bedrock problems with the system as it exists...anyone who doesn't have a problem with it is
Let's get back to one point that you've been dodging. Do you still stand by your statement that the investigator is not the decision maker?
either an idiot or is in denial. I put you in the latter category in this case, but at any rate there is no argument left.
Anyone who disagrees with your opinion is an idiot or in denial? That tells a lot about you.
Is the investigator the decision maker?
I commend you. You speak so strongly about a subject you've shown to have very little knowledge of. Speaking from pure emotion.
If it feels right to you, it must be right.
Reality isn't so
What you're saying is that there's a huge problem that should be addressed but you can't actually substantiate this huge problem with real life cases.
It's best you stop now. You never really had a argument.
That died with your "investigator doesn't make decisions" claim.
evil, how would you change or improve the present system?
@ about 2 years ago
Spotsylvania, VA 22553, USA