i didn't even bring up the rabbit and the beads!Quote:
Originally Posted by Great-Kazoo
i didn't even bring up the rabbit and the beads!Quote:
Originally Posted by Great-Kazoo
That is really bad!. ...just more salt in the wound of a difficult loss; my heart goes out the families of the fallen
Seriously. At least we know what to do when we can't figure out the stupid seashells.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave_L
I prefer this "good answer." (NSFW)Quote:
Originally Posted by Aloha_Shooter
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOUBKbd-M9M
Wow hope the Chief read the letter from his own officer, it's not rocket science hope he get the point before some officer gets hurt or worse killed. Amazing just to let something like that happen. I bet the Chief isn't from Colorado I will be shocked if he was and let that BS happen to the memorial. I bet he wouldn't let someone come to his house and pour red paint all over his house or car without calling the police.
How is it possible that this many people can't think past the tip of their nose?
The police took the best possible course of action in my opinion.
There were protesters that were already upset with the actions of police over an issue that did not, in my opinion warrant that kind of outrage. As such, any police who moved to stop this paint throwing would have gotten an over reaction from this crowd beyond whatever action the police were trying to take; and some heads would have more than likely gotten knocked around.
The nightly news would then have been full of interviews with idiots saying, "See how we treated in da streets?" and "The police used over-whelming force in a situation that clearly did not call for such." and "We just wanted our voices to be heard, not get abused by no police!"
Then there'd be calls to organize another event that is three times as large, and maybe there'd be some jokers putting together some malitov cocktails in their garage, getting ready to go to battle with the police the next time around.
Instead, the news last night was full of interviews with people saying what a shame it was to see the memorial disgraced, followed by footage of morose fire fighters washing off all the paint for their brothers at the police department. Story after story was about what pieces of shit the protesters were; and you know who was hating on the police after the protest? Not a damn person. The police gave the protesters enough rope to hang themselves and they marched right into the noose and over the edge while the whole community watched and shook their collective heads.
The only people hating on the police were those who claim to support the police, but really just wanted to see some heads get knocked around. The same people that completely disregard the fact that after they watch the 2 minute news clip of some protester being arrested, then turn off the tv and go to bed, those same cops they claim to support have to go right back out into a community newly enraged at the police.
If letting some assholes, act like assholes is going to prevent more unwarranted ill will toward the police, then let it happen. If there is an officer reading this who'd prefer to see footage of the fire department cleaning some officer's blood off the street after they were ambushed while eating lunch, instead of washing red paint off of the memorial, I'd like to hear from them.
People are worried about the decision to stand down cultivating a period of increasing lawlessness, and I don't think those fears are reasonable. Increased community outrage and protesting is what cultivates increased lawlessness, not letting a protest lose steam while at the same time losing community favor. I know this is an emotional thing for this group (those dumb protesters trashed a memorial for officers that had nothing to do with what they were upset about), but the responses on here just make us look silly as a group. I'll take two days of headlines about people being upset with the chief over a week of headlines about riots any day. Stay safe police, sorry these idiot protesters disrespected your fallen brothers, but I'd rather you be alive to be pissed about it than not.
EDIT: I did read the letter to the chief from the officer, and I agree that the chief needs to at least address this issue publicly. As well as making it clear that the police elected to turn the other cheek, ONCE, and everyone else is officially reminded of the law, should they see fit to openly disrespect said law a second time.
This mind set is very similar to allowing the looting and arson in Ferguson, Missouri. Let them express themselves and leave them alone.
How much illegal behavior should be allowed before actions are taken to stop those that break the law.
State statues are very specific that an officer can make an arrest under several circumstances and one is for an illegal act in his presence. Would it be different if those protesters wore white hoods and performed acts breaking the law?
Should the police take action and stop this group if they began to loot and began to destroy cars and burn nearby buildings. What if your house were there and they began to break your windows and burn your home. What is the point where police should take immediate action and stop the illegal behavior?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irving
I disagree here. Allowing looting at Ferguson would have been inappropriate as that "protest" had already gotten out of control at that point.Quote:
Originally Posted by thebolt
This depends on the situation. Will you turn yourself in every time you go 1 mph over the speed limit, cross a street not in a cross walk, or demand that someone be persecuted for the current magazine law?Quote:
Originally Posted by thebolt
For the first sentence, see above. As far as wearing hoods, it depends. If the protesters were wearing white hoods, but still protesting the same thing, then no it wouldn't be different. If the protesters were wearing white hoods and protesting segregation, I doubt anyone would have been told to stand down.Quote:
Originally Posted by thebolt
I think it is obvious that police should have, and would have taken action against this group if they were looting or burning down houses. They didn't though, and my gripe with this thread is that so many are projecting similarly unlikely scenarios. I'm having a difficult time understanding how my point of view is foreign to everyone else. The protesters were protesting against the police specifically, and specifically the actions of the police. Anything the police would have done would be blown out of proportion and caused further conflict, warranted or not. If this protest was about fracking, and protesters got sidelined into defacing property, I don't believe that police would have been told to stand down. Again, because the focus of the protest would not have been aimed at the police in that situation, and the situation would be less likely to boil over. I'm confident that had any person, or property that was not that memorial been specifically targeted, the police would not have stood down. By letting the protesters deface that memorial, the police let the movement give itself a black eye and lose steam. I feel like I need to make myself clear again by stating that I'm just as upset about the defacing of the memorial as anyone here. I think this entire protest is stupid, and anyone involved or sympathetic to that cause has brain damage.Quote:
Originally Posted by thebolt
We can talk about the "what if's" all day long, but as long as there isn't another protest, then it doesn't matter. The protesters look bad, and the police look good. This is a huge protest fail.
I think Stu is saying that, in regards to requiring immediate police action, there's a difference between a large group and an individual. With large groups (especially given the tension between police and the other side) its not always insightful to have a show of force by a group that is at the heart of the protest. In this sole instance, it was better to let them act like idiots and arrest them after the risk of a riot breaking out subsided. Compare that to finding a lone individual throwing paint on something where confronting them wont escalate it beyond vandalism (or at least the odds are low it'll escalate).
The protestors put them in a bad spot. Another reason I respect what cops do. They get put into a lot of patience-trying situations. The reason this seems to set so many people off is this isn't the first time this has seemingly happened. The looting and riots in Ferguson, the protestors blocking busy roads by laying down, etc. it comes across that in large groups, you can generally do what you want and the police are too worried about the image it might paint if they step in.
This needs to be addressed that it won't be tolerated. Next time, they might do more than just throw paint and not expect police intervention. Right back in the same boat because they let it happen the first time. Normal citizens saw they still got arrested for what they did so cops were calculated nd still got the criminal. Guarantee others saw that the cops stood by idly while laws were broke right in front of them and are getting ideas. They don't pay attention that te people were apprehended after.
Some people just want to watch the world burn. Give warnings and act on them and someone will still claim to be a victim which means more protests. I'm glad I don't live in a big city.
ETA: I'd like to think that if someone was in danger or someone else's (not city property) was being trashed, they would have stepped in.
Robert White "grew up" in the Washington D.C. pd. If I was a resident of Denver I'd be most concerned about what qualifications he brought in that made him the best candidate. It didn't take long for many of the street officers to become less than enthralled with him. Whether we agree with his decision on how to handle this appalling incident or not, it's just another step in widening the gap in what the officers think of him. Most of the guys I know on DPD were much more in favor of former chief Whitman (now Capt of the Metro unit until his upcoming retirement).
I strongly agree with both Dave_L's and Irving's last statements.