The facts are these.
A black man mixed it up with an officer, causing harm to the officer and causing his weapon to discharge during a scuffle.
This black man walked away from the officer’s vehicle, then turned and charged the officer.
The officer, already injured, fired his service weapon to end the threat to himself.
I would say it was unfortunate that a man died here, but in fact it is fortunate that man died. The officer is alive today because that man died. He very well could be dead right now.
At the end of the day, the message to me is this.
I don’t like officers having to use lethal force, but sometimes it is reasoned and necessary.
The message to Rand Paul is that officers need to be under even more scrutiny after this event. F—k you Rand Paul.
Where’s your demand that blacks be under even more scrutiny?
Where is your condemnation of the lack of respect officers get when performing their duty?
Where is your demand that blacks demilitarize?
Yes, throwing Molotov cocktails is an armed attack. Breaking into businesses, looting them, and setting fire to them are militaristic acts of aggression.
What the hell is wrong with you Mr. Paul?
What went wrong here? The Police?
How many people have been killed by the police so far? As far as I know, one.
How much destruction of the black community have the officers carried out? The answer is none.
How much destruction has the black community carried out? The answer is quite a lot.
Who takes the black community seriously here?
Who asks them to comport themselves as decent human beings?
You Mr. Paul? No!
That’s something that wouldn’t even occur to you.
The officers do what they are supposed to do, and you criticize them.
The black community goes off on a wild destructive tangent, and public officials wet their pants trying to placate them.
What the sam hell is wrong with this picture?
Can you figure it out Mr. Paul? Evidently not!
You’re unfit to lead.
Individual cop? Most likely not based on what we now know.
What was wrong was the response - all around.
Ferguson is being used as a a fulcrum by Communist and ghetto thugs to justify the need for mayhem and 'revolution' which plays to justifying a Domestic Civilian Security Force, just as strong, just as powerful and just as well funded as the U.S. military.
Sow chaos. Incite violence, mayhem and bloodshed. Never letting a crisis go to waste - justify the solution, which Obama has already stated as a goal: a Civilian Security Force for domestic use.
One day today's justified 'solution' will end up used on American citizens who are not fomenting mayhem like the ghetto thugs, but who are demanding redress like the rallies against ObamaCare, or TEA Party rallies.
Because that is what the Civilian Security Force is actually intended to be used against. That is whom this current federal regime continually declares to be an enemy and threat to the country.
I'm not a Ron Paul fan by any stretch, I loathe the guy on many issues, and his son's Libertarianism and seeming willingness to compromise with the Oligarchy in Washington on many issues - is disgusting and disappointing.
That said - IN GENERAL, his question is valid. Is it a requirement in terms of platform of principles for Conservatives to be automatic supporters of law enforcement in an age where we are witnessing their militarization and training by the feds and their union bosses to see American citizens as a threat to the country?
I think these are legitimate questions to ask. The ridiculous militarized display by the county cops in St. Louis sighting in weapons on American citizens gathering BEFORE night fell is beyond anything we should tolerate if we value liberty at all.
Amen to your summary! Well done.