OrangeDragon wrote:I honestly suspect the whole hesitance with the autopsy is about the rioting. If the autopsy clears the officer, what do you think announcing that before the situation is under control would do?

And police are trained to fire center mass, and center mass only. For a whole host of reasons. The headshot is likely where being hit by a previous round caused him to collapse, bringing his head down to where the shots were being fired.

http://www.pfoa.co.uk/110/shooting-to-wound

OrangeDragon wrote:

Rain Dog wrote:The real story ---- beyond the ongoing racial divide (See Zimmerman et al) i how militarized the police have become.

Excellent article on that topic here:

http://thiscantbehappening.net/node/2414

An excerpt:

"The other major narrative relevant to the confrontation between the African American community and the Ferguson PD is the increasing militarization of community police. Radley Balko examines this is his book, The Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America’s Police Forces. In this narrative, police become less community-oriented and more like a cohesive unit in a war zone. Citizens take on the attributes of the enemy. Camaraderie among cops is like being “battle buddies.” It’s reinforced in the minds of cops that civilians just can’t understand what they have to endure. This dynamic gets really impacted and weird when you add a post-9/11, War On Terror psychology of “first-responders” fighting a dirty war where anything goes and when you also put such amazing amounts of surplus war weaponry from the invasion and occupation of Iraq into their hands."

But that whole argument fully ignores how militarized criminals have become.

Lets remember a time when US police weren't militarized:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout

The patrol officers were armed with standard Beretta 92F and Beretta 92FS 9mm pistols and Smith & Wesson Model 15 .38 caliber revolvers, while officers including James Zaboravan also carried a 12-gauge Ithaca Model 37 pump-action shotgun. The officers' weaponry could not penetrate aramid body armor worn by Phillips and Mătăsăreanu, which covered most of their bodies and provided more bullet resistance than standard-issue police Kevlar vests. The robbers' heads were the only vital organs that were unprotected, but most of the LAPD officers' service pistols had insufficient range and poor accuracy at long distances. Additionally, the officers were pinned down by the heavy spray of gunfire coming from the robbers, making it difficult to attempt a headshot.

OrangeDragon wrote:

frank lee bent wrote:scientists' work is subject to criticism and review so any conspiracy by them is doomed prima facie.
governments, esp when in the hands of business and business media organs on the other hand, are natural conspirators.

see the work of Bernays.

no, surely peer review is part of the conspiracy. thousands of scientists coming to the same conclusions, all because they were bribed to do so, and not a single whistleblower with professional integrity in the lot.

only the rare few scientists in unrelated fields (or non scientists in some cases) being paid for by selling their DVDs to the millions who buy into conspiracy theories are brave enough to speak the truth!

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

Rain Dog wrote:
Certainly there are times when heavier weaponry is needed. I thought that is what Swat teams were for.

Bringing tanks and armored vehicles to protests --- even some with a few bad seeds --- holds democracy and freedom of speech in contempt.

OrangeDragon wrote:

Rain Dog wrote:
Certainly there are times when heavier weaponry is needed. I thought that is what Swat teams were for.

Bringing tanks and armored vehicles to protests --- even some with a few bad seeds --- holds democracy and freedom of speech in contempt.

those were SWAT teams. as shown by the shooting that started it all, patrol officers only have sidearms and a shotgun (sometimes an AR-15 instead of a shotgun if they've qualified on one.. but like the shotgun it's locked into the car and takes time to get out, thus wouldn't be carried without some prior planning and need). those armored cars are all part of SWAT, and sometimes gang units which are even more intense than SWAT. i get that the media frequently doesn't make the distinction... saying things like "the _____ police department" instead of "the swat team of the _______ police department". that's because this outrage sells and media is there to sell, not report.

as for holding the 1st ammendment in contempt, only if they impede them. their presence as monitors of a public activity does not violate anything. in all of the cases they only intervened when the protesters engaged them with violence of failed to comply with public safety laws (neither of which freedom of speech gives you a right to do).

OrangeDragon wrote:

StroppyChops wrote:

OrangeDragon wrote:odd, i thought all of the climate change deniers had shut up out of humiliation or just died off...

Interestingly, the global warming enthusiasts who were so right have gone quiet too, or have changed their religion to global warming (yes, there IS a difference politically).

The scientists haven't... most have gone quiet because they see no need to keep trying to preach it. those who understand, understand... those who want to wear foil hats and break up clouds with their orgone beams will never listen long enough to understand.

and beaker... do you suggest I go study for 8 years in the discipline of climate science then to be ABLE to form an independent position on it after spending another 4-6 doing my own independant research?


is that how you've formed your independent opinion on it? if not, you're just buying what someone else told you as well... the difference is difference in the value of the people telling us.

and to answer you... i was questioning global warming for a VERY long time. up until about the last 3 years actually. the scientific evidence provided finally swayed me. i wasn't ever questioning some grand conspiracy of scientists... only that the science wasn't complete enough. i now believe it to be... and pointing to man made increases in planetary temperature. meanwhile i'm well aware of the tea party spin machine using things like air/surface temperature charts to prove their points, while leaving out ocean temperatures. and so on...

The Add Jay wrote:

OrangeDragon wrote:

StroppyChops wrote:

OrangeDragon wrote:odd, i thought all of the climate change deniers had shut up out of humiliation or just died off...

Interestingly, the global warming enthusiasts who were so right have gone quiet too, or have changed their religion to global warming (yes, there IS a difference politically).

The scientists haven't... most have gone quiet because they see no need to keep trying to preach it. those who understand, understand... those who want to wear foil hats and break up clouds with their orgone beams will never listen long enough to understand.

and beaker... do you suggest I go study for 8 years in the discipline of climate science then to be ABLE to form an independent position on it after spending another 4-6 doing my own independant research?

is that how you've formed your independent opinion on it? if not, you're just buying what someone else told you as well... the difference is difference in the value of the people telling us.

and to answer you... i was questioning global warming for a VERY long time. up until about the last 3 years actually. the scientific evidence provided finally swayed me. i wasn't ever questioning some grand conspiracy of scientists... only that the science wasn't complete enough. i now believe it to be... and pointing to man made increases in planetary temperature. meanwhile i'm well aware of the tea party spin machine using things like air/surface temperature charts to prove their points, while leaving out ocean temperatures. and so on...

Climate Change is a threat but Syria and Iraq Caliphate? pshhh That is so 12th century dude. LolOLoLoloLoL

beaker wrote:

OrangeDragon wrote:

StroppyChops wrote:

OrangeDragon wrote:odd, i thought all of the climate change deniers had shut up out of humiliation or just died off...

Interestingly, the global warming enthusiasts who were so right have gone quiet too, or have changed their religion to global warming (yes, there IS a difference politically).

The scientists haven't... most have gone quiet because they see no need to keep trying to preach it. those who understand, understand... those who want to wear foil hats and break up clouds with their orgone beams will never listen long enough to understand.

and beaker... do you suggest I go study for 8 years in the discipline of climate science then to be ABLE to form an independent position on it after spending another 4-6 doing my own independant research?


is that how you've formed your independent opinion on it? if not, you're just buying what someone else told you as well... the difference is difference in the value of the people telling us.

and to answer you... i was questioning global warming for a VERY long time. up until about the last 3 years actually. the scientific evidence provided finally swayed me. i wasn't ever questioning some grand conspiracy of scientists... only that the science wasn't complete enough. i now believe it to be... and pointing to man made increases in planetary temperature. meanwhile i'm well aware of the tea party spin machine using things like air/surface temperature charts to prove their points, while leaving out ocean temperatures. and so on...

Please name just one scientist who warned about global warming but has decided the he was wrong, just one from your knowledge not regurgitated from some web site

OrangeDragon wrote:

beaker wrote:

OrangeDragon wrote:

StroppyChops wrote:

OrangeDragon wrote:odd, i thought all of the climate change deniers had shut up out of humiliation or just died off...

Interestingly, the global warming enthusiasts who were so right have gone quiet too, or have changed their religion to global warming (yes, there IS a difference politically).

The scientists haven't... most have gone quiet because they see no need to keep trying to preach it. those who understand, understand... those who want to wear foil hats and break up clouds with their orgone beams will never listen long enough to understand.

and beaker... do you suggest I go study for 8 years in the discipline of climate science then to be ABLE to form an independent position on it after spending another 4-6 doing my own independant research?


is that how you've formed your independent opinion on it? if not, you're just buying what someone else told you as well... the difference is difference in the value of the people telling us.

and to answer you... i was questioning global warming for a VERY long time. up until about the last 3 years actually. the scientific evidence provided finally swayed me. i wasn't ever questioning some grand conspiracy of scientists... only that the science wasn't complete enough. i now believe it to be... and pointing to man made increases in planetary temperature. meanwhile i'm well aware of the tea party spin machine using things like air/surface temperature charts to prove their points, while leaving out ocean temperatures. and so on...

Please name just one scientist who warned about global warming but has decided the he was wrong, just one from your knowledge not regurgitated from some web site

Can you not read? I'm not saying global warming isn't real... and i never said any scientists who believed/supported global warming have changed over. Why would I have one committed to memory? So far as I'm aware the change has been going fully in the opposite direction.