MekongMouse wrote:

The Add Jay wrote:He broke the cops window and was beating him up.

According to the Darren Wilson, the guy who murdered him. Reliable source.

He taunted the police officer.

This sentence shows just how deeply rooted your devotion to authority is. Who gives a shit? People taunt people. Cops have the power to be vindictive so do.

He beat up a shop owner.

Wrong! He shoved a shop owner once. Nobody was beaten up.

He shot him once and told him to stop but he didnt.

Again, according to the man who shot him.

You wanna listen to th2 msm and its stirring the pot rhetoric be my guest. I'm more upset about the shooting of the homeless man living in the woods getting gun downed cause he didnt have a permit. Then some wanna be thug who beat up a shop keeper and robbed a store.

I didn't hear about that story, but it sounds like more police brutality. I don't listen exclusively to the mainstream media, but it is certainly more reliable than the far right media. And, also, Fox News has the biggest market share of any cable news network in the US, so let's not forget what mainstream encompasses.

Satiated Parrot wrote:It seems many people here really want to believe that the cop was too heavy-handed. Remember, though, that a grand jury decided there wasn't enough evidence to even CHARGE the cop. And this decision was made after around 25 witnesses provided evidence. Don't you think that suggests a low likelihood that the cop acted outside his scope of authority?

The Add Jay wrote:

MekongMouse wrote:

The Add Jay wrote:He broke the cops window and was beating him up.

According to the Darren Wilson, the guy who murdered him. Reliable source.

He taunted the police officer.

This sentence shows just how deeply rooted your devotion to authority is. Who gives a shit? People taunt people. Cops have the power to be vindictive so do.

He beat up a shop owner.

Wrong! He shoved a shop owner once. Nobody was beaten up.

He shot him once and told him to stop but he didnt.

Again, according to the man who shot him.

You wanna listen to th2 msm and its stirring the pot rhetoric be my guest. I'm more upset about the shooting of the homeless man living in the woods getting gun downed cause he didnt have a permit. Then some wanna be thug who beat up a shop keeper and robbed a store.

I didn't hear about that story, but it sounds like more police brutality. I don't listen exclusively to the mainstream media, but it is certainly more reliable than the far right media. And, also, Fox News has the biggest market share of any cable news network in the US, so let's not forget what mainstream encompasses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Boyd_shooting

There was protesting but it didnt make any major headlines. Go view the video...fucking awful beyond words. As compared to the Thuqq stealing dutchmasters from a immigrant stationary store owner so he can save 2 bucks for a dime bag of weed.

MekongMouse wrote:

Satiated Parrot wrote:It seems many people here really want to believe that the cop was too heavy-handed. Remember, though, that a grand jury decided there wasn't enough evidence to even CHARGE the cop. And this decision was made after around 25 witnesses provided evidence. Don't you think that suggests a low likelihood that the cop acted outside his scope of authority?

Nope: http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/ferg ... en-wilson/

Satiated Parrot wrote:

MekongMouse wrote:

Satiated Parrot wrote:It seems many people here really want to believe that the cop was too heavy-handed. Remember, though, that a grand jury decided there wasn't enough evidence to even CHARGE the cop. And this decision was made after around 25 witnesses provided evidence. Don't you think that suggests a low likelihood that the cop acted outside his scope of authority?

Nope: http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/ferg ... en-wilson/

"Nope" to what? My comments on the lack of indictment or the number of witnesses? What portion of this article are you referencing?

MekongMouse wrote:

Satiated Parrot wrote:

MekongMouse wrote:

Satiated Parrot wrote:It seems many people here really want to believe that the cop was too heavy-handed. Remember, though, that a grand jury decided there wasn't enough evidence to even CHARGE the cop. And this decision was made after around 25 witnesses provided evidence. Don't you think that suggests a low likelihood that the cop acted outside his scope of authority?

Nope: http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/ferg ... en-wilson/

"Nope" to what? My comments on the lack of indictment or the number of witnesses? What portion of this article are you referencing?

Nope was directed towards your only question. I don't think a grand jury failing to indict a cop means anything because cops are never indicted. The article I linked had statistics on this.

Jacket wrote:Disclaimer: The purpose of this thread is to ask a simple question. If you just want to read the question then skip to the last line of this post. If you feel uncomfortable answering the question in public, I'd just like you to contemplate it for yourself, since I think that it is something we all should give some thought to. I'd actually discourage anybody from answering untruthfully in such a case. It is a case in which it is better not to say anything than to delude oneself with one's own lies if the truth is too much to bare (or to discuss in public).

However, if you'd be so kind and indulge in the ramblings of a man who has been assured throughout most of his life that he's "lost it" then carry on reading. Thanks for your time.

This is going to sound strange to some, but one thing that I absolutely love about Cambodia is that it brings out the worst in people. Most of us have grown up in christian/humanist first world countries. We've enjoyed the benefits of living in a society that will protect us and in which we will succeed as long as we follow the rules and don't step out of line. If we get sick we will get treatment. If we can't find a job we get unemployment benefit. If somebody harms us we can call the cops. Over all, even if you take some risks, there's always a safety net. When you fall you might break your legs, but you're probably not gonna die from it. Cambodia takes all of that away. If you are self reliant in Cambodia (by that I mean that you don't get an allowance or a pension from back home) you really and truly are self reliant. Everybody's too caught up in their own struggle to give half a shit about your problems. It's the jungle and if you don't fend for yourself, nobody else will.
This changes things. In a caring society you have reasons to act responsibly and kindly toward everybody else. These reasons aren't even based in religion or philosophy. Instead they are based on pragmatism. If you don't act in an anti-social manner you will enjoy the benefits from living in a christian/humanist modern first world country. If you do choose to act anti-socially then society will stomp on you with a vengeance. It's a deal. Your part is to care about society whilst society is keeping an eye out for you, the "upstanding citizen".
So what happens if you have a society in which your well-being is of absolutely no concern to anybody except yourself? If the collective doesn't concern itself with the well-being of the individual, the individual doesn't have any pragmatic reason to care about the collective's well-being, rules or norms. As the individual loses a motivation to follow the collective's moral code it becomes it's own arbiter in deciding what is the right and what is the wrong thing to do. You want to go out and have unprotected sex with prostitutes? Go ahead! You'd like to sell drugs for a living? That's your choice! You want to ride your motorcycle whilst being drunk? What's keeping you? You want to buy a gun and become some sort of wannabe gangster? The only person that holds you back is yourself.
The freedom that is being granted to you by society by disenfranchising you, means that you can truly be yourself. Despicable people will act despicably whilst decent people will act decently. You can be the most vile son of a bitch anybody has ever had the misfortune of bumping into, or you can be an example of ethical behavior and empathy. The dude who's acting like an asshole here, but doesn't do so in his home-country has always been an asshole. The difference is that he is upfront about it now. So this leads me to the question(s).

Where do you draw your own line?/What is your moral code?