My dad taught me that there are two things you may say to a police officer: Yes sir and no sir. (Back in the day before women officers, obviously.) I think that advice has gotten me away with a couple warnings instead of tickets. And I haven't been choked or shot, either.

over the weekend I have read that the the "illegal choke" (which was not illegal and possibly not even a choke hold) hold lasted only 19 seconds (others stated 32 seconds)

one of several "sources" (source is "" as it is a blog.)

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/adam-kaufmann-pantaleo-grand-jury-thinking-article-1.2032999

Thanks for that link, ed.

As I listened this morning to reports of looting and vandalism in NYC supposedly in response to this incident, I was reminded again of a byline that a local reporter used to use on his weekly opinion piece. He called it his HDDTTWAR (How Dumb Do They Think We Are Really?!) column. Truly, HDDTTWAR that these acts that violate the law are just reactions to someone else trying to enforce the law?

sorry...it's been days since I said I wouldn't comment so please forgive me this one. I'll go back to just moderating again.

i heard that in response to the looting in Ferguson and now NYC, that President Obama is issuing a Presidential Proclamation that from this point forth, it will be called "unauthorized shopping" because "looting" has such negative connotations...

HDDTTWAR? Pretty dumb apparently, judging from the decay of society in general since the 60's...

This thread proved to be mis-titled. The officer proved not to have done anything wrong in the first place.

Street justice is less just than the justice that it is kicking against.

Yes, the fabric of society has deteriorated within living memory.

There were protest last night in St. Louis in support of Vonderrit Myers, who was shot and killed after firing three shots at a police officer. His supporters still say he was carrying a sandwich, apparently a 9mm sandwich judging by the bullet holes in the police car.

The protesters interrupted the Missouri Botanical Gardens "Garden Glow" a Holiday event, in which the gardens are lit up, and music is playing. It's beautiful, peaceful and romantic, and thankfully my wife and I went Saturday and not Sunday to be terrorized by protestors.

We were, however, at a family party just a few blocks away.

I do not understand how acting like lunatics at a Holiday event is supposed to bring justice or heal the community. The divisions in this area are getting deeper by the day.

This made me cringe.

I think the players are loosing sight of the fact that they are paid professional athletes.

I'm sure my boss would let me show up for work wearing a t-shirt like this too because it's my civic right to voice my opinion at work.

yea...right.

You're right, Truffle. Our bosses would be thrilled we showed up at work wearing slogans in support of our favorite cause célèbre. Probably would pin a medal on us or something.

Of course this is only a personal opinion but that's another reason why I no longer keep up with the NFL and their games.

they have more leverage and leeway because they are harder for their organization to replace and bring in more money than you and I do to ours.

The old adage about children is applied to the adults who play the game, often to the detriment of their own physical and mental health, to amuse the masses: They should be seen and not heard.

Can the same be said for Hollywood types?

In an inflated, over-exaggerated show of value, I'd have to agree. Do I think they're worth what they're paid? Nope. But then brawn and dazzle have long over-ridden brains and hard work, haven't they?

This is a perfect catch 22 especially when you take into account the last discussion we had in the cooler on a club owner who shot off his mouth in an anti-racial manner.

Bottom line: imho, there's a time and a place and, as I've advocated here, a manner in which to voice your opinions and work towards change. None of these fit my opinion of that time and place nor do any of these people sway me to see their side of the argument. I don't think I'm in the minority that doesn't like bullying and having things thrown in my face, even on tv.

I don't think I'm in the minority that doesn't like bullying and having things thrown in my face, even on tv.

While I stand with you in the minority, I believe that the masses would prefer someone else to do the thinking for them (it may tax their small brain which is currently taxed by whatever is on the many celebrity channels). That would explain the popularity of the network opinion shows (both sides)

if someone does my thinking for me, that makes my life that much less complicated...gives me more time for Farmville and Candy Crush and other such important tasks...

heck yeah, that certainly doesn't take much thinking...

If we're contemplating the actual thread question, then I assume most on here would agree with the Boston Tea Party. In fact I bet many on here probably joined a recent movement touting that name. I also bet that most of those people think 2 wrongs only equal a right when it serves to benefit them.

If you were to review the Boston Tea Party you will find that the "demonstration" if you will was against the Tea Act. The protestors did not randomly burn building, commit assault and steal in states that were thousands of miles away from where the local act took place in some cases to obtain donations to their cause.


Not a member of the new movement of the similar name but from what I have read it stands for Taxed Enough Already and is not what the media has played it out to be

I was not trying to compare the Boston Tea Party to the Ferguson situation and for the record I never condone violence.

Yes, the Boston Tea Party was about the Tea tax, but was also the result of a much larger struggle for the British to maintain control over the Colonies. This tax was just the straw that broke the camel's back.

I was just trying to point out that the ideals of this Boston Tea Party movement (defiance against an overbearing government) are often reverenced and touted among some current groups who feel they are being mistreated by their government. Ironically, members of those same groups are often quick to dismiss or admonish someone else who uses these same ideals for causes that don't fit their beliefs.

Unfortunately, in some extreme situations the only way for a minority group to be heard is through civil disobedience, which we have seen with the Boston Tea Party and through the Civil Rights Movement. So there are cases when two wrongs do make a right. It's just sad that some believe the only "right" is their belief, but I'm sure no one here is that close minded.

"It's just sad that some believe the only "right" is their belief, but I'm sure no one here is that close minded."
I would agree with this statement but there is another "Choose your battle" which when appropriately applied will get more of the masses to support the Movement.

What's really sad is when some equate pillaging and burning for greed and self-gratification with civil disobedience as a protest against governmental or societal civil disobedience.

Donning willful blinders is a form of close-mindedness.

well, if we're just talking about the big picture of the threads title--i mean, we do have a culture that glamorizes sometimes having to take the law into your own hands. Movies, TV, just general folklore and our past is full of rebels and it often says it's ok to do bad things as long as it's to bad people.

I guess you could argue that the responding action isn't really "wrong". But often (again, talking in general terms and not just the specifics in Ferguson) people who are acting in defiance see their opposition as the bad guys. Everyone is a hero in their own movie kind of thing.

Or even sadder when someone doesn't have reading comprehension

ull Definition of CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE
: refusal to obey governmental demands or commands especially as a nonviolent and usually collective means of forcing concessions from the government
See civil disobedience defined for English-language

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/civil%20disobedience

Could be that some of the "protesters" have a problem with some of the words in the definition '"nonviolent" is in the full definition.

So, we're not trying to compare ... until we try to draw the two incidents into a direct comparison, through an obvious implication that Ferguson is somehow a milestone in the civil rights movement? And, a milestone is what we're trying to make Ferguson.

Does the lawlessness of Ferguson fit into the civil rights movement or does it not? If it does not then the civil rights movement has no place in this thread and a new and different thread may be opened for civil rights discussion and debate.

And then we project about reading comprehension.