poncho
Well-Known Member
Shop keepers board up their businesses in anticipation of officer Wilson's verdict.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTSm4rLZS-M
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTSm4rLZS-M
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Ferguson: Calm Before The Storm
- Thread starter poncho
- Start date
What they should do is bring in a few family/friends; all with 12 gauge autos and a few cases of buckshot.
Zaac
Well-Known Member
What they should do is bring in a few family/friends; all with 12 gauge autos and a few cases of buckshot.
Odd how pro-life Christians are always advocating violence that could take a life.
It is ILLEGAL in just about every state in the US to shoot someone for looting. You shoot to protect yourself. But you can have charges brought against you for shooting looters.
That's what the police are for.
Zaac
Well-Known Member
Your advice would land shop owners in jail in Missouri, if I'm not mistaken.
Why are home owners locking and loading? Have homes been looted too?
PreachTony
Active Member
I take it you have a police officer with you at all times, Zaac. That's the only way the police can actually stop crime. Otherwise, they are responding to crimes and then trying to bring the perpetrators of the crime to justice. The police are not there to keep you safe. If that were so, each household would have an officer assigned to it 24-7.
I agree that you shouldn't shoot someone for looting, but there is nothing wrong with using the weapon to scare someone away.
gigabyte71
Member
The job of the police is not to stop crime. And SCOTUS has already ruled that police have no Constitutional duty to keep you safe. Their job is to catch criminals, not to protect.
gigabyte71
Member
I didn't see anyone advocate shooting anyone. Criminals are far less likely to commit a crime if they fear there may be a gun on the other side waiting for them. Liberals don't like to admit this, but statistics show that the higher gun ownership in an area, the lower the crime rate.
Where did you ever get such a ridiculous idea. Neither you nor Scotus gets to decide what their job is. These are decisions made at the local level and it has always been understood that our police are to protect and to serve.
gigabyte71
Member
Well, as always, you know everything, but open your 'mouth' and prove you don't. Even before the SCOTUS ruling, the purpose of the police is the execute the laws of the land, not protect the people.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=0
You do not get it. The scotus ruling does not mean that the police's job description is determined by scotus. You are reading to much into it. And what I know is what has always been. Even before the scotus ruling and after their job description is determined locally. The history of the police in this country has always been to "protect and to serve". No amount of liberal revisionism will change that.
gigabyte71
Member
Your the one that doesn't get it. Just because police do things doesn't mean that it is their job. Their duty has never been 'to protect and serve', unless you mean to protect and serve their government masters.
Facts are facts, regardless of what the people are of the opinion of. When you scream liberal revisionism, you sound just like the democrat when they start spouting off about gun violence. Your both just ignoring facts.
I will agree that there cannot be a police officer guarding every home 24 hours a day.. IMHO - overall the police are doing the best job that they are able under the conditions they serve.
That I think is going overboard.
gigabyte71
Member
Arguing with you is like arguing with an Obama supporter, by chance are you one of those. That motto doesn't change the FACT that they don't have a Constitutional responsibility to protect a person.
Don't confuse what people do with what they are supposed to do. I'm not saying there aren't cops who protect and serve, I am saying that they don't have a Constitutional responsibility to 'protect.'
No one I know of said they did in this thread. What I am saying is that lack of requirement under the constitution in no way means that it cannot be so or that it is not what is practiced.
By the way do not argue with me as I am not arguing with you. I will engage in a discussion or even a disagreement. If you want to argue I am sure Zaac will oblige you.
The Christians you speak of are pro-birth, not pro-life. Probably 98% if not 100% of them are pro capital punishment and against programs that help the poor, the elderly and those in need.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Concerning the OP:
I have no idea what will happen either way. I hope and pray the response will be peaceful no matter what the grand jury finds. gigabyte71
Member
Your memory must not be very good, so I quoted the start of this, because your words "Ridiculous idea" about my statement that their job is not to "protect."
Which part of the designation 'Law Enforcement Officer' indicates in any way that they are to PROTECT? See your original response to me where you said that my claim that the job of police is to catch criminals, not protect.
I will say this one more time and then I will leave you to it. You do not get to decide it is not part of their job. Just because the constitution may or may not require police to protect does not determine that it is not part of their job.
There is one thing that determines whether or not protection is to be part of the police officers job and that is the local authorities. Nothing else, not the Scotus, not you not anyone else.
Now what has been practiced and what continues to be practiced is that police officers job descriptions, as I have shown, is that protection is part of their duties. Now I have been clear and provided evidence. Do with it what you will.