United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Two Officers Shot in Ferguson After White House Declares Open Season on Cops
Source:
[None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Mar 12, 2015
Author: sara noble
Post Date: 2015-03-12 08:20:15 by tpaine
Keywords: None
Views: 36384
Comments: 162
www.independentsentinel.com www.independentsentinel.com Officer Cries In Pain On One Video Ferguson “protesters” gathered outside the Ferguson police station following the resignation of Chief Jackson. Shortly after midnight, someone shot two police officers. No one knows who fired, but it appeared the shots were fired directly at the officers. The DOJ released a scathing report accusing Ferguson police of racism knowing it would reignite the nearly-burned out furor in Ferguson. A 32-year-old officer from nearby Webster Groves was shot in the face and a 41- year-old officer from St. Louis County was shot in the shoulder, St. Louis County Police Chief Jon Belmar said at a news conference. Both were taken to a hospital, where Belmar said they were conscious. He said he did not have further details about their conditions but described their injuries as “serious.” They weren’t even Ferguson police officers. You can hear the officers screaming in pain on this video. There were about 60 to 70 protesters and their behavior prompted the police to send officers in riot gear. St. Louis County Police Chief Jon Belmar told reporters, “I’ve said many times we cannot sustain this without problems and that’s not a reflection of those expressing their first amendment rights. But this is a very dangerous environment for our officers to work in.” At least three shots were fired and the wounds were “very serious”, Belmar said. Some said the shots seemed to come from a house but there was no house nearby and others said they might have come from a small hill. Prior to the shooting, “protesters” were chanting to show they weren’t satisfied with the resignation of Chief Jackson. Others were angry and potentially dangerous. They smell blood in the water. One protester said it was mostly peaceful until the shots rang out. Mostly peaceful?!? If the participants were in the Tea Party, would it be described as mostly peaceful? The acting head of the Justice Department’s civil rights division released a statement saying the U.S. government remains committed to reaching a “court- enforceable agreement” to address Ferguson’s “unconstitutional practices,” regardless of who’s in charge of the city. What about the rights of the police who they are endangering with their race baiting? MSNBC’s Ed Schultz wants Ferguson police disarmed. The riots/protests were funded by George Soros among others and engineered by Barack Obama and Eric Holder. The video of the shooting via Matthew Keys: After the shooting, the leftists chanted this allegedly: after the shooting The chanting was utter nonsense. The only ones losing their freedom are the police and the normal people in Ferguson being subjected to these Soros-communist funded riots/protests which are based on a lie. They still have the hands up, don’t shoot posture. This was one of the “chants”: And another – “hands up, don’t shoot, stop this shit, we’re bullet proof”. Don’t expect any words of comfort from the White House or calls to families of the officers. One confused protester thinks the cops are “trigger happy”. CNN
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-45) not displayed.
.
.
.
#46. To: sneakypete (#45)
(Edited)
You broke it. : )
Italians: be gone! Fixed?
Is it busted forever?
I dunno. Neil might know a trick. Otherwise, it's just this thread that's borked. Or Stone could just delete Murron's comment.
(come on - really.) But, but, but Holder volunteered his services/assets to help in the investigation of this incident to ensure justice is served!! Oh wait, never mind.
“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
Italians: be gone! Easy there, buster. I happen to be a wop... and damn proud of my greasy dago heritage.
Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
It's those BOLD italicans that bug me the most. Some here just don't know their place.. --- They need to be wopped.
We need one of those huge CLOSE tag bombs that used to be so popular on TOS.
("We sing about God because we believe in Him. We are not trying to offend anybody, but the evidence that we have seen of Him in our small little lives trumps your opinion about whether or not He exists". ~ Jeff Foxworthy)
I can forgive you but I can never forget the searing memory. ‹/sniff›
It's an old saying from TOS, circa 2000. If people didn't close their tags (usually italics), people would keep posting (as I did above) trying to close those tags so the page would be fixed. Since the Italic peoples are an ancient tribal group of Italy (and had their own Italic language), people would make jokes like "Italians be gone", "I hate those Italians", etc. It's like the changeover of "this is huge and serious" into "this is hugh and serous" over at TOS. Admittedly, it's not all that funny.
I knew it was satire... I actually found it funny. Unlike most of weak, pathetic, libtard America, I can laugh at racial remarks said in satire and ignore the ones that aren't... all the protesters at Oklahoma University, come to mind. People with such weak pathetic fragile egos... they crumble at free speech.
Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
Unlike most of weak, pathetic, libtard America, I can laugh at racial remarks said in satire That's awful white of you.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
This shooting could have turned out much worse.
"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." (1 Peter 1:23)
If America wants to be "equal" with me, they better suck it up and grow thinker skin.
Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
Is bold type showing up in most of these posts? Maybe TCs malware videos:)
"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." (1 Peter 1:23)
It can be fixed by admin editing the offending comment and removing the stray bold tag.
HUH? What 'offending comment' did I post?
("We sing about God because we believe in Him. We are not trying to offend anybody, but the evidence that we have seen of Him in our small little lives trumps your opinion about whether or not He exists". ~ Jeff Foxworthy)
I'll suggest that Pinguinite isn't saying you comment was offensive, in the literal term... but he/she is suggesting that your comment is the "offender" that caused the corrupt text to be continued down this thread. He or she is saying you are guilty of Aggravated Font Change in the 1st degree. A LF Class B Misdemeanor. Sentence, already served.
Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
As much as I disagree with GI on many important issues, in this case s/he is correct. It's not offending in the literal sense, only "offending" in the context of the font spillover that damaged the thread display. Some how, a comment ended up with a stray Bold & Italic HTML codes that got through the normally tight HTML clean-up code that runs right before comments are posted. My hat's off to you if you managed that, and it's something to figure out. But at the moment I posted the fix solution, "offending comment" was the first descriptor that came to mind, so that's what I called it. I think I was in a bit of a hurry at the time. I wrote that even without knowing in who's comment the stray HTML code was introduced. Cheers...
Say what... can't be true. lol
Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
Say what... can't be true. lol Well, I was surprised to see you getting so hard lined about smoking rights, even to the point of telling neighbors they can go pound sand if they don't like smoke entering their homes. Why this wouldn't apply to say, marijuana smoke along with tobacco is a puzzle to me though. Seems you would object to all of your neighbors complaining about your smoking, but submissively give in to the demands of legislatures voted into power by the exact same neighbors that would put the exact same prohibition on a sheet of paper and call it a "law". Is that right?
No. I don't feel I'm hard lined about a smokers rights. I loath smoke like any other ex smoker. I'm hard lined at the rights of legal activity INSIDE your home. I feel that if you are doing something legal inside your home, you shouldn't be restricted at all. Obviously, living in row housing, apartment buildings, condos and trailer parks causes a closer habitat to your smelly and loud neighbors. If you might be bothered by what your neighbor LEGALLY does INSIDE their home, then buy a single family home with a large lot. Look, by code, there is a brick or cinder block firewall between the two homes. There is no reason the complainer can't seal up every hole inside his house... to keep the smokers smoke out. Telling a person they can't smoke in their own home is a slippery slope. It's the kind of slippery slope that has allowed big brother government to not only feel like they must exist or citizens can't survive... but the pathway that allows governmrnt rights and loss of citizen freedoms. You can't possibly be against intrusive government and in the same breath support a court action telling a homeowner that they can't smoke in a house he's lives in for 50 years. I feel the burden is on the smoke hating complainer for change... or even to move.
Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
You are apparently avoiding the point of my question, but... okay....
It would if recreational marijuana was legal in the state in question. When you learn the difference between illegal and legal activity, well then your puzzle is solved. No where in the constitution does it give you the right to break constitutional laws inside your home. Drug laws are constitutional.
Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
Apparently, ballistics is a forgotten police science in Ferguson. I hope this incident is remembered next time some tea party type brings up "2nd amendment" solution nonsense.
You still miss my point. Perhaps your time in law enforcement has biased your perspective. For you, there's apparently a strong distinction between "legal" and "illegal" activity. But at the same time, you state that you have a moral right to tell everyone in your community to go fly a kite if they all came to you to tell you you can't smoke in your house. But these people are also voters. If they *vote* to make smoking in your home illegal, would you then adhere to the "law" they enacted and comply with their demand, and agree that you no longer have a moral right to smoke in your house? In one case, you refuse to adhere to the will of the people, and in the other, you would acquiesce to it. Does your moral right to do as you please in your own home change *solely* because of the degree of the formality taken by the majority of your neighbors to decree what is and is not legal activity?
If my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle. No law prohibiting smoking, inside your own home, would ever stand the test of constitutionality. When you compare it to marijuana, it isn't "smoking it" that's illegal in your home.... IT'S POSSESSING IT. it's a banned substance in most states, and that's a constitutionally tested law. Yes, smoking marihuana, IN PUBLIC, is also against the law, in most states...but the inside of your home isn't public, now is it. Your analogy, is ridiculous, at best.
Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
Okay, let me get this straight. Drug laws are constitutional. Tobacco is a drug. Marijuana is a drug. A ban on tobacco would be unconstitutional. The ban on marijuana is constitutional. Neither marijuana nor tobacco is mentioned or referred to in any way in the Constitution. Laws are enacted by the will of the people as a whole. You have a moral right to reject the will of the people with regard to tobacco, but not the will of the people with regard to marijuana. Is there any item listed here that is incorrect?
Tobacco is not classified as a drug. I stopped reading your reply at the word "tobacco" I don't entertain spin. Reword and resubmit your response
Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
Had you continued reading, you would have seen: No, this is not about "spin". Not by me, at least. This is about trying to understand your logic. I'm a bit puzzled that you have exhibited both a sense of freedom to do in your home what you please with regard to tobacco, but not with regard to marijuana. But okay, I'll reword: * Drug laws are constitutional. * Tobacco is not classified by law as a drug, and legislatures are constitutionally banned from classifying it as a drug, and therefore cannot ban tobacco. * Marijuana is classified by law as a drug, though legislatures are free to classify it as a non-drug if they so choose. * A ban on marijuana is constitutional because legislatures have decided to classify it as a drug. * Neither marijuana nor tobacco is mentioned or referred to in any way in the Constitution. * Laws are enacted by the will of the people as a whole. * You have a moral and Constitutional right to reject the will of the people with regard to tobacco, but no moral or Constitutional right to reject the will of the people with regard to marijuana. All in all, I find your position very arbitrary. Your moral foundation of what is right and wrong is based simply on what laws have been passed, and laws passed are simply the result of popular sentiment (or all too often, just lobbying by special interests). This includes what is and is not considered a drug. The medical establishment does indeed classify nicotine and alcohol as drugs. Slavery was once found to be Constitutional, but that didn't make it right. If tobacco was classified as a drug by statute, and then banned (something that actually could happen in the future if popular sentiment goes that far) would you then suddenly agree it's morally reasonable for a man to be prohibited by court order to not smoke tobacco in his home? Is your moral compass simply in tune with laws, and nothing else? It seems from your postings that's precisely the case. I would say today's police officers have lost touch with the people they are supposed to serve and protect for that exact reason. And I think we're called to be more than that.
Pointed summary and conclusion.
Picking and choosing which constitutionally tested laws you will obey is worse than a slippery slope... It's a dangerous ideal. It will decay society (look around you, we are seeing it now and it's magnified in Ferguson). It's no different than officers that picks and chooses what laws they will enforce. This concept I'll never waiver on... there are many laws I don't like. I'll obey them or I'll move to another state, like I did with the Adolf Cuomo's SafeAct. Aside from that very essential ideal, we live in a free society. If we aren't breaking the law inside our castle... we need to be left alone. Regardless how much my activity inside my home bothers you. Obey my lawful activity freedom or MOVE like I did.
Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
A slippery slope is what we are already on. You claim drug laws have been "constitutionally tested" and yet the only drug that appears in the constitution is alcohol. Congress has never been constitutionally authorized to ban any other drug. But courts have invented this "living document" doctrine by which they claim some law is "constitutional" even though it clearly is not. Because of that, more and more rights are trashed every year, such as the 4th Amendment, and it's the police that are the tools of the state which are used to violate these rights. Those on the police force become mindless, robots of the state, and essentially religious fanatics of sorts, enforcing any and every statute against a peaceful people because "the law is the law", or worse, with civil asset forfeiture, themselves become greedy, legalized looters of law abiding citizens. By your own ideals, tobacco can one day be banned along with marijuana and the ban can be called "constitutional", and you'll have no choice but to accept that as law inside the home of every American. That will always be a real possibility, and your stated belief that such a think is impossible probably is a lot like the founders belief that the numerous articles in the Bill of Rights couldn't possibly be violated. But that's the USA today. And you think my position is a slippery slope? No it's not. A slippery slope is what the US has been on for a long time. My ideals are staying put right where they are. Thanks for playing....
Even if that were true, two wrongs don't make a right. Pick and choose what laws you'll follow AT YOUR OWN RISK... I can respect that. Respect the fact that you won't ever get my blessing.
Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
Even if that were true, two wrongs don't make a right. The D of I says when a gov becomes tyrannical and no longer serves the interests of the people, it's the moral right and duty of the people to overthrow it. If cops break into your home to get you to stop smoking, or if cops take all your money without charging you with a crime, both under the color of law.... There is a limit to what should be morally tolerated.
By whose standards?
"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." (1 Peter 1:23)
Neither is happening. Like I said, pick and choose what laws you will follow AT YOUR OWN RISK. Good luck.
Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
Comments (86 - 162) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Italians: be gone!
#47. To: Murron (#43)
#48. To: TooConservative (#46)
(Edited)
#49. To: tpaine (#48)
(Edited)
Yeah, I tried. I think it's twisted in a HTML knot with unclosed B and I and SPAN tags mixed together. You can confuse a browser if you do enough of those.
#50. To: TooConservative (#49)
#51. To: tpaine, Pinguinite, A K A Stone, Murron (#50)
#52. To: Liberator (#18)
Do you think ANY serious, honest investigation will be forthcoming in this case??
#53. To: tpaine (#48)
#54. To: GrandIsland (#53)
#55. To: TooConservative (#51)
(Edited)
Stone could just delete Murron's comment
The D&R terrorists hate us because we're free, to vote second party
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#56. To: TooConservative, ALL (#47)
You broke it. : )
#57. To: Murron (#56)
#58. To: GrandIsland (#53)
Easy there, buster. I happen to be a wop...
#59. To: TooConservative (#58)
Admittedly, it's not all that funny.
#60. To: GrandIsland (#59)
Unlike most of weak, pathetic, libtard America, I can laugh at racial remarks said in satire
#61. To: TooConservative (#21)
(Edited)
#62. To: sneakypete (#60)
#63. To: GrandIsland, TooConservative (#62)
#64. To: TooConservative, tpaine, A K A Stone, Murron (#51)
I dunno. Neil might know a trick.
#65. To: Pinguinite, TooConservative, tpaine, A K A Stone (#64)
It can be fixed by admin editing the offending comment and removing the stray bold tag.
#66. To: Murron (#65)
HUH? What 'offending comment' did I post?
#67. To: GrandIsland, Murron (#66)
#68. To: Pinguinite (#67)
As much as I disagree with GI on many important issues
#69. To: GrandIsland (#68)
#70. To: Pinguinite (#69)
(Edited)
Well, I was surprised to see you getting so hard lined about smoking rights, even to the point of telling neighbors they can go pound sand if they don't like smoke entering their homes. Why this wouldn't apply to say, marijuana smoke along with tobacco is a puzzle to me though. Seems you would object to all of your neighbors complaining about your smoking, but submissively give in to the demands of legislatures voted into power by the exact same neighbors that would put the exact same prohibition on a sheet of paper and call it a "law". Is that right?
#71. To: GrandIsland (#70)
#72. To: Pinguinite (#71)
(Edited)
Why this wouldn't apply to say, marijuana smoke along with tobacco is a puzzle to me though.
#73. To: TooConservative (#14)
I'd like to know more about the firearms used. If it was rifle ammo, then maybe the shots rang out from the Grassy Knoll, as the protesters said. If the slugs are from a pistol, most likely it came from the protester ranks.
#74. To: GrandIsland (#72)
#75. To: Pinguinite (#74)
But these people are also voters. If they *vote* to make smoking in your home illegal, would you then adhere to the "law" they enacted and comply with their demand, and agree that you no longer have a moral right to smoke in your house?
#76. To: GrandIsland (#75)
#77. To: Pinguinite (#76)
Tobacco is a drug.
#78. To: GrandIsland (#77)
Tobacco is not classified as a drug. I stopped reading your reply at the word "tobacco"
Is there any item listed here that is incorrect?
#79. To: Pinguinite (#78)
* You have a moral and Constitutional right to reject the will of the people with regard to tobacco, but no moral or Constitutional right to reject the will of the people with regard to marijuana.
#80. To: Pinguinite (#78)
All in all, I find your position very arbitrary. Your moral foundation of what is right and wrong is based simply on what laws have been passed, and laws passed are simply the result of popular sentiment
#81. To: GrandIsland (#80)
Picking and choosing which constitutionally tested laws you will obey is worse than a slippery slope... It's a dangerous ideal.
#82. To: Pinguinite (#81)
A slippery slope is what we are already on.
#83. To: GrandIsland (#82)
#84. To: Pinguinite (#83)
There is a limit to what should be morally tolerated.
#85. To: Pinguinite (#83)
If cops break into your home to get you to stop smoking, or if cops take all your money without charging you with a crime, both under the color of law....
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]