And I suppose you think the natural order of things would've just provided you with crappy '80s hair metal anyways? :p

Their lack of regard for law harms all of society. Our failure to accept this reality -- largely in part due to an overall lack of willingness to condemn unacceptable behavior -- has been an enormous part of our societal downfall. And no, before anyone asks, I have zero problem extending this to drunk drivers & such either. The oft-maligned "war on drugs" failed because it was fought with lightweight half-measures, a tactic destined to failure.


Not worth the price afaic, surrender is never an option when you've never actually bothered to fight.

Jon's goal is never to have a discussion, it's to shut down discussion and troll legitimate conversations with his extremist (on virtually everything) viewpoint.

When have I ever not being willing to discuss just about anything? And with anything short of absolute honesty? My advocacy of increasing the number of capital crimes on the books is as sincere as anything I've ever said here (or anywhere else for that matter), it's far from anything new. And I couldn't be more serious. We have a population surplus in this country, eliminating the lowest common denominators is a step that we should have taken several decades ago afaic. You may not agree, you may not like the position, but there's nothing in it but sincere candor.

For you to even mention the word "troll" is fucking comical considering what a b.s. post that was. I don't expect a lot out of you but at least try to avoid outright lying. Such a thing used to be beneath you but increasingly you seem intent on proving otherwise.

Jon, is this a real belief, or just for effect? What about people who drive up our medical insurance rates by being overweight or not doing enough to prevent consuming more health care?

We can't educate everyone all of the time. That's too much. People make poor decisions, whether it's in abusing drugs or drink, or in consuming mass quantities of soda or processed food. Our pleasure receptors respond to stuffing ourselves with something.

And wouldn't nicotine be a controlled substance if cigarettes were invented tomorrow? First-time smokers get high - after a few dozen packs that tends
to mitigate. My parents were huge smokers. When I went away to college, I de-toxed from that shit. When I'd visit later on, the contact high was very unpleasant - I'd get headaches very quickly from being in their house.

I don't think the good-old days were necessarily that good. Maybe being part of a group that faces a lot of discrimination leads me to that conclusion. I agree with you that we need to do more to encourage community, but I don't think the good-old days necessarily existed for that many people.

I couldn't be more serious. Not sure what search phrase would work on this but my advocacy of making repeat drug offenses capital crimes is long standing. I've held that position since before the internet was even around.




Are either of those again the law? (edit to add) Have either of those been the subject of enforcement, however mild, for decades?


"Good" is relative I suppose. But "exponentially better than what we currently have" is something I believe with every fiber of my being. I've wept for bringing a child into a world as f'ed up as this one, it's a guilt that I doubt I'll ever be able to find relief from (at least not in this life). I carry that guilt despite a belief that a lot of what has destroyed the quality of life in this country was set in motion before I was even born, much less could vote or do anything even microscopical substantial about it. Perhaps one of the few things that allows me to live with that -- however narrow run it may be at times -- is to have the courage to be honest, to be candid, popularity of that opinion be damned.

Laws need to evolve to reflect the times. Studies indicate that texting while driving is far worse than driving when just over the legal threshold of alcohol. So new laws are being enacted. Would you advocate the death penalty for some stupid teenager who drove while texting? Or would it be better to suspend her license for a year and require a class in driving safety?

There are 319 million people in the United States, and 319 million different belief systems about what laws are important and what laws aren't.

For me, it's all about harm. Drive drunk if you want. Text if you want. But if you cause an accident and you were texting or drunk, you have to take full responsibility for the accident, perhaps do some time, and make full restitution. But that's just one opinion.


I believe you're being honest about this. I wouldn't say you're trolling. But you have to understand when you present an opinion that's quite unpopular, perhaps calling for the execution of a loved one who, in his or her heart, was not trying to cause anyone harm... it's not going to go over well.

I recognize where my own thoughts about right or wrong don't mesh with the majority (religion and smoking, in particular). I try to keep that in mind when discussing controversial topics. Not that I don't mind being honest or candid, but that I have to recognize that sometimes being honest or candid would work against my cause.

But, really, the older I get, the less certain I get about anything related to values.

I've got relatives who've done time for drug charges (one on relatively minor charge, one pretty damned serious stuff). Changes exactly nothing about what I believe the right approach is/would be.

And, well, popularity has never been one of my trademarks. Also has no impact on my belief. If I'm in the majority more the better, but it just doesn't impact me a great deal either.

I appreciate your acknowledgement that, whatever I'm doing here, it's not intended as trolling or some other such b.s. accusation. You're welcome to doubt my judgement, my wisdom, whatever but of all things nobody here should ever doubt my sincerity. Hence my lengthy response to your question I guess.

I may occasionally post here out of boredom but I ain't that bored. If I didn't mean it, I wouldn't bother. Hell, even friggin Candy Crush is a better use of time than that sort of thing.

Jon,
Not to completely de-rail the thread but this last tangent between you and Jim/Solecimsic has me thinking.

You and I have shared a few PM conversations on differnet topics and generally I feel that I am probably the closest to any other member here of aligning with you philosophically. (Though I readily admit we veer far apart on a few issues)

Despite what some allege here and elsewhere the one thing I respect is your sincerity and, when analyzed objectively, consistency between your view points. That is even when I think you are up a tree I can see why you are up that tree and how you got there. That is an increasingly rare trait today and one I respect.

Having said all that, and with all due respect I am curious to get your thoughts on this. You are a "lawful good" and you believe nearly any punishment is fitting if it prevents the crime. I can understand and respect that, even without agreeing. You take a hard edge stance against drug abuse, again understood and accepted even if I disagree. Jim hinted at the question and you noticeably side stepped it (IMHO) ... and instead of starting a simple debate you can answer with "one is illegal and the other is not" let me ask this philosophically. "If tomorrow through whatever special session was necessary to enact emergency federal law, a law was passed that made tobacco a federal controlled substance and made possessing, consuming, smoking, whatever illegal...what would you do."

This isn't a trap question and I acknowledge the addictive nature of nicotine (took me a long time to kick it myself)..I'm just curious philosophically how you would rationalize and sort that one.

Again not accusatory, just curious. I personally think marijuana and tobacco are synonymous legally speaking and cant segment the belief that use of one should result in capitol punishment and the other be "totally cool". Again I get the "one is legal the other isnt" argument but frankly I am stronger minded than that simpleton argument and you are too...so help me understand, if you will, how you segregate the two.

Thanks

Hey it looks like they shot Brown ONLY six times, including twice in the head. One bullet hit him in the top of the head suggesting his head was bent forward when the bullet hit him.

One theory on the early tear gassing from tonight is they wanted to disperse everyone before autopsy findings came out.

edit: sorry meant to add UNARMED Brown. Four times in the arm. Twice in the head. All from the front.

Tobacco a federally controlled substance? Woo hoo! About time. Oh wait...you were speaking hypothetically. :)

I don't know if it was a sidestep earlier as much as what you noted -- different situations, etc -- but eh, that's cool.

I'll give you a direct answer: I'd look to move out of this place a.s.a.p. Or maybe I'd just off myself, having been given a final push to the door. Hypothetical answers but it's a hypothetical question, that's as good as I can give you.

The disconnect you're experiencing with the legalistic nature of my point of view may (*taking a stab here, if I'm wrong then I'm wrong, no harm intended) stem from not looking at the big picture from quite the same angle I do.

I see a country that has eroded in values for basically my entire lifetime. "Accepting the unacceptable" is my frequent shorthand. We've got,what, 50-60 years of law enforcement attention paid to the substances we commonly group under "recreational drugs today"? Yeah yeah, all of them were around before that but I'm talking about them being a point of emphasis for lack of a better phrase. Wiki tells me that Nixon was the first to declare them "public enemy number one" in 1971, so 40+ years for the "War On Drugs" if you want to use that benchmark.

There's no question that it's been a point of emphasis at least in terms of lip service. I don't believe there's an American citizen who doesn't consciously know they're breaking the law when they light up/snort/shoot/whatever. It's a willful act, consciously undertaken voluntarily. This isn't speeding, which can be an act of carelessness. It's not even entirely analogous to drunk driving, at least some small percentage of drunk drivers are genuinely surprised when they discover they're legally drunk (not claiming many, but surely some small portion legit thought they were legally sober). This is straight up do/don't - yes/no - lawful/unlawful stuff we're talking about.

And the damage in surrender -- greater than all the lost brain cells, all the side effects, all the emotional & physical destruction connected to it -- is the message it sends: keep breaking the same law long enough & we'll just eventually give up.

Go back to what I said a few paragraphs ago, about what I've witnessed in my lifetime. If I hit the lottery tomorrow, aside from Vegas as a destination I'd strongly be looking to get the flock out of the country altogether. I'm genuinely ashamed of what depths "my" nation has sunk to in recent years/decades. The "proud to be an American" moments are so rare for me in my adult life I could just about name them (an even more far flung aside that I'll forego here). We've surrendered, abandoned, trashed, set aside and otherwise done away with so much of value ... the thought of capitulating yet again, and in doing so emboldening the forces of collapse even further, it's anathema to me.

If they shoot people in the back they have to plant a weapon and some drugs. So it's a chicken and egg conversation.

National Guard being called up. They will protect the command center.
Looting moving Northeast to Dellwood.

Or they're just following what was laid out in the Declaration of Independence.

You gotta separate "have the right" from "what is right". There's quite a bit that doesn't fit both criteria, and they're totally distinct from each other.

Well then there's the rub.

As "what is right" is a subjective term that an individual (in your case) puts on it, whereas "have the right" is something that is determined through the law and courts. In theory those would have been derived "from the people" although in most recent cases people means corporations. There are many definitions of "what is right" and not all of them carry the same priorities from person to person. Therefore you make the argument that "what I think is right" is how all things should be applied. It's entirely self centered, arrogant and in the case of a group discussion not useful. However, instead of being marginalized here, like your belief system is in real life, (and that's why you feel so sad, disheartened, angry and disillusioned) you are focused on. It's because of a combination of curiosity that the rest of us want to try and understand like the way a scientist examines dinosaurs, idealism, (like you could be changed), and disgust.

So when are we going to start executing corporations, banks, and businesses?

You come across as someone who thinks that their own belief system is far and away better than anyone else. It's an insult to pretty much every other person that you try and converse with, because after all, you only see the rest of us as dogshit beneath your righteous boot.

From the NYTimes:

I'm aware that cities use traffic stops to generate revenue, but I had no idea the percentages were this high.

And that's why I called him a troll yesterday - although maybe that wasn't the perfect term. It's more what you said above, that virtually all of his expressed viewpoints aren't useful for the purpose of group discussion (because they all boil down to "what I think is right" and are hostile to any compromise or accommodation or anything) and serve only to derail meaningful and substantive dialogue on issues as people react or get sidetracked. They're just not constructive, just noise.

So call that what you will.

I won't call Jon a troll because to me a troll is doing something on purpose to get a reaction. Hell, I should know. :) Jon's not doing that. He's expressing his often bigoted, exclusionary, fear-based, violent and closed-minded beliefs honestly. It boils down to this - if someone does anything that Jon doesn't approve of, they should be executed with extreme prejudice. At least he's consistent. I understand his opinions are often not constructive, but that's who he is and he's the one who has to live with all that fear and hate.

Fair enough - I suppose the "to get a reaction" part is where the definition is imperfect.

As expected, John Oliver hits it out of the park.

And the character assassination continues as it "leaks" from St. Louis County that the kid had marijuana in his system.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/p...in-his-system/

oh God, it appears Michael Brown had marijuana, the non-habit forming drug that makes you sleepy and hungry and giggly, in his system

— Degenerate Gandhi (@Bro_Pair) August 18, 2014

Can't assassinate what wasn't there to begin with.

You don't know and I don't know enough about his character to really make that statement, but the point is that it doesn't matter. A cop shot him at least six times while he was unarmed. That's the only story that matters right now, no matter what kind of CYA narrative the Ferguson cops and St. Louis Co. is trying to build to distract folks from the actual crime that was committed.

Does the author of that tweet assumes that mj is not habit forming for anyone and that all user's reactions are sleepy, hungry and giggly?

I do not see any reasons why he was lethally shot, let alone six times.

I don't particularly think this was a good kid. But what is being released from the police department, and how, is entirely bullshit. The videotape of him in the store? It was highly edited - go watch the full version and tell me whether what the PD put out was reflective of the entire situation. The "kid was a suspect in a robbery" info release? That's a pretty blatant attempt to influence the jury pool since the officer did not know this and therefore is inadmissible in court. This pot information? Straight up character assassination. And it doesn't explain why the officer fired at least 6 shots, including (likely) the last two to the head to an unarmed subject who wasn't close enough to get powder burns.

He does. A quick look at the NIH web site supports that assertion.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21462790

Note: I irrationally hate weed and weed culture, but the fact that this kid had pot in his system is a lot less troubling than if he had been legally drunk.

I agree with your Note but not with the blanket statement that all reacts in the same way. I have personally witnessed extreme allergic reactions, acute sickness and violent behaviors of those consuming or inhaling the weed.

Does this conversation immediately after the shooting change anything? A supposed witness says he and the cop were fighting, Brown ran away, then started running at the cop when he was shot.

http://www.ijreview.com/2014/08/1686...uson-shooting/

Also, I believe the coroner who did the family's report said that just because there wasn't any residue on the body doesn't mean there isn't any on his clothes, as they did not get to examine the clothes. If he's leaning in and is shot through his shirt at close range, I'm sure there's a chance no powder gets on him.

Also, is 6 shots really excessive? Unless I'm missing something, cops don't normally shoot to scare or slow you down, they shoot to kill you. If the person hasn't given up yet, it stands to reason that you shoot until you don't have to any more.

I confess I get violent when consuming weed. The bag of Doritos never survives the encounter. I'm so ashamed!

The whole assertion that somehow six shots is excessive is ridiculous in itself. If you're a cop and you have a kid who has already attacked you take another run at you, you're not going to take time after each shot to see if he stopped. You're going to keep shooting until you see him go down, which given that he was under the influence and also likely full of adrenaline, he's not going to go down quick if you're hitting him in the arms.

If you don't want to have bad things happen to you, don't do bad things. If he never robbed the store and didn't get high on an illegal drug, he would have been in a totally different frame of mind and this never would have happened. It really is that simple.

Ferguson PD didn't just get corrupt, they've had lots of practice. For them, this is just business as usual re: character defamation. They know what the local public sentiment is re: "these kinds of people" and they're getting out in front as any true believer would.

The thing they're underestimating is how bright the spotlight is on this.

Actually, you shouldn't be shooting at all. Police officers have other methods of subduing unarmed suspects. It's called use of force continuum.

And that's even accepting their version of events, which has been contradicted by every single witness (whose accounts are notoriously unreliable, but still...).


Check your privilege. If you think it's that simple, you're either bigoted or absolutely clueless what it's like out there. People didn't just make up things like "driving while black" for the fun of it.

I'm not saying whether the police officer is in the right or wrong yet. That still has to be decided and I'm sure that we'll have lots more information that goes into that final decision.

As for the law, it really is that simple. Smoking drugs is illegal. Stealing is illegal. Aggression towards an authority figure is illegal. If this kid does none of the above, there's no way a Ferguson police officer shoots him. No way at all. That's not privilege, that's common sense. My seven year old knows that already for the love of God.

I know enough from seeing that video. That wasn't the first time he's stolen something and wasn't the first time he's bullied someone.

You can keep calling him unarmed, but the fists of a 6'4, 300 lb adult can still do serious damage.


Real life isn't like the movies. People can be shot multiple times and continue on with adrenaline. The fact that he was still bullrushing someone shooting at him until he was hit in the head is proof.


There's been a blatant attempt to influence everyone (including a potential jury pool) by assassinating Officer Wilson's character. Difference between Officer Wilson and Michael Brown is that Officer Wilson has been trying to serve his community while Michael Brown sees fit to steal from it.


Actually you're wrong. 6'4, 300 lbs adult attacking a smaller cop, already bashing his head good enough to send him to the hospital, and trying to take his gun = deadly force authorized. Especially if he's gearing up for round 2.

Yeah, but your 7 year old is growing up in a winery... so that's super privileged.:D

Seriously.

So we have factual proof that any sort of drug use got him shot? And we have factual proof that because he stole something, he got shot? Despite the PD saying the officer didn't know he was a suspect?

Easy on the assumptions big guy.

Hopefully the cop goes to jail and gets booted off the force. He is a terrible police officer.

No, that's not what I said at all. I specifically stated that the right/wrong involved with the shooting has not been decided yet.

If this young man would have steered clear of illegal behavior (we know he commited a robbery and we know now that he smoked illegal drugs), he would have been tens if not hundreds of times less likely to end up in the situation that he ended up in. I have absolutely no fear of being shot by police. Why? Because I don't break the law.

Hell, I've even been wrongly pulled over before when I didn't do anything wrong (I've heard this never happens to white people, but this cop in mid-Missouri didn't get the memo). Guy was a prick about the whole thing and threatened to take me to jail. I shut my mouth and let him be a jerk. That's how it works whether you like it or not. I made the decision to avoid confrontation. That's how it works sometimes, even when you're in the right.

It's actually the opposite as far as the theft right? The cop had no idea it was him - probably just a generic description. So as a matter of fact, if he didn't match that generic description (which, let's be honest, was probably along the lines of "large black male") he would have been fine. So in fact, completely the opposite of what MBBF was saying.

This is how the government slowly takes away your civil liberties and rationalizes eavesdropping and spying on you. "Hey - if you aren't doing anything wrong, I guess you won't mind if we watch while you browse the internet or talk on the phone to your girlfriend!"

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness includes being able to fuck up and not get fatally shot six times because of it.

Which is why I applaud protesters who point out that this isn't how things should be. Because it's abusive and oppressive.

So that happened to you once. Imagine if that situation became a regular occurrence. You are so damn myopic (not just in this case, but just about everything you post about) it isn't even funny.

I'm not really sure what eavesdropping and spying has anything to do with this. Unless the cop had just been following him around with the express purpose of waiting for him to do something so he could shoot him.

My point was that he never would have acted the way he did if he hadn't committed a robbery and wasn't on drugs. If he's a kid walking down the street sober and with nothing to hide (regardless of whether the cop knows that), the scenario would have been a complete 180 and likely not ended in his death.