Charlotte NC, Police shoot and kill man seeking help after wreck

[BluesStringer]

Wow, finally a post short enough for me to read and have the time to respond to. If you're quoting the 5th amendment, and somebody has to be wrong, then it has to be wolf_fire cause it sure as heck ain't me. He was the one who said that the police have the right to ask you questions (which is a post you liked). That is the only thing the 5th amendment would pertain to in this context. And according to the SCOTUS, as long as you are read your Miranda rights, it's open season as far as questions go. And technically it's open season before that, they are just inadmissible in court. I simply said they can get in your face with an attitude when they ask you those questions. Our 5th amendment doesn't mention anything about what attitude those questions must be asked with. So please, work on finding a law that actually debunks what I said.

Next

 

[Kasper]

As for the information pertaining to this thread. As never read the specific article in the OP. I had already read 3 different articles and just happened to come across the thread so I figured I'd weigh in. I referred to Ferrell as the "victim" because none of the initial articles I had read said anything about his captain saying it was unjustified. So based on the facts that were presented, I quoted victim because without it, it means that the other party is by default the guilty one. The quotes were simply implying that I did not really believe or disbelieve that the person being referred to as the victim really was the victim. That is all. I was trying not to let the media or interest groups influence the way in which I labeled certain individuals.

Ok AndeyHall I see where the problem is coming from we all are going by the links posted in this thread by the op and you were going from the 3 different articles you had read and weighed in by posting your opinion. That is why we all are wondering what the hell is AndeyHell thinking. Now that I know you are going from 3 different articles then the ones linked to by the OP I can see why you might be backing this officer. Please save yourself the hassle and read the full post before weighing in on it. Also please post links to what articles you have read so that we can read them to and inform an opinion from them.

So now that you know why BluesStringer is giving you a hard time just admit to him that you posted without reading the OP post and the links that were in it or provide links to the articles you read before posting in this thread. So that you two can get-along.

Also I like what you had to say about how you treat people I wish I could be more like you when it comes down to it but I am not I treat people the way they treat me.

 

[AndeyHall]

Is this your way of agreeing that the 5th amendment isn't relevant to what I said and that I wasn't in fact wrong in what I said?

 

[BluesStringer]

So now that you know why BluesStringer is giving you a hard time just admit to him that you posted without reading the OP post and the links that were in it or provide links to the articles you read before posting in this thread. So that you two can get-along.

I appreciate your concern, but it's really not about the mix-up between which respective articles we've been reading. Not sure if you've picked up that Andey is a short time away from becoming a cop. My problem is that what I see is the archetypal "always-take-the-cop's-side-even-when-innocent-people-die-at-their-hands" attitude before he's even been sworn in on full display in him, especially in the last few days for some reason. Just imagine after he has been sworn in how thoroughly indoctrinated with that code of silence BS he will easily succumb to once he's surrounded daily by career practitioners of it. It's not so much that I think he will actually become a jack booted thug, I have little to go on to predict that. It's that I am seeing signs that he will look the other way from abuses and constitutional violations just like LEOs across giant swaths of the state of CA did during the Dorner manhunt, or like LEOs from every local agency in the Boston area, as well as federal LEOs did, during the Marathon bomber hunt. Those are just the most visible events. It happens on a smaller scale every hour of every day of every year in this country, and Andey seems indifferent to it.

Some folks say I could catch more bees with honey than with vinegar. Problem is, no bee that took an oath to protect and defend my Constitution has ever stung me, and being the freedom-and-Constitution-loving Patriot that I am, I have no interest in "catching" them at all. And the fact is, citizens are the bees in that saying, and cops are the ones with the power to catch us and do with us what they will. That "honey/vinegar" thang should be directed at them, and if they heeded it, it would go a long ways towards solving the public relations nightmare that the code of silence has wrought them.

So there ya go. And Andey, please allow me to introduce you to a gang of your soon-to-be brethren:

Link Removed

Blues

 

[AndeyHall]

I appreciate your concern, but it's really not about the mix-up between which respective articles we've been reading. Not sure if you've picked up that Andey is a short time away from becoming a cop. My problem is that what I see is the archetypal "always-take-the-cop's-side-even-when-innocent-people-die-at-their-hands" attitude before he's even been sworn in on full display in him, especially in the last few days for some reason. Just imagine after he has been sworn in how thoroughly indoctrinated with that code of silence BS he will easily succumb to once he's surrounded daily by career practitioners of it. It's not so much that I think he will actually become a jack booted thug, I have little to go on to predict that. It's that I am seeing signs that he will look the other way from abuses and constitutional violations just like LEOs across giant swaths of the state of CA did during the Dorner manhunt, or like LEOs from every local agency in the Boston area, as well as federal LEOs did, during the Marathon bomber hunt. Those are just the most visible events. It happens on a smaller scale every hour of every day of every year in this country, and Andey seems indifferent to it.

Some folks say I could catch more bees with honey than with vinegar. Problem is, no bee that took an oath to protect and defend my Constitution has ever stung me, and being the freedom-and-Constitution-loving Patriot that I am, I have no interest in "catching" them at all. And the fact is, citizens are the bees in that saying, and cops are the ones with the power to catch us and do with us what they will. That "honey/vinegar" thang should be directed at them, and if they heeded it, it would go a long ways towards solving the public relations nightmare that the code of silence has wrought them.

So there ya go. And Andey, please allow me to introduce you to a gang of your soon-to-be brethren:

Link Removed

Blues

Ah! So because I gave a counter argument to what everyone else was saying based on what I had read that happened to be on the side of the cop, you decided to make an overall judgement on my moral character. This is making WAY more sense now! So do I have some sort of trend that you've been keeping track of where I regularly take the side of the cop, or is this a one time thing, but you just assume it's my regular behavior? I'll go ahead and answer that question for you, because I know for a fact that this is probably the first time ever that in a story like this that I even considered the cops side of the story. The unfounded concerns you have about my character are the exact reasons I decided to go in to law enforcement. I have seen bad cops in action, and I have experienced first hand the perception that it can give to the people who are supposed to be able to trust them. I started my academic career doing something far totally different than anything close to law enforcement; something that probably would have wound up making me a lot more money. But I've spent many days asking my Savior what it is He thinks I should be doing with my life. So here I am. I have had my experiences with law enforcement that are not good ones by any means, and they made me bitter towards them for a good long while. But rather than sitting behind a computer screen and rant about this chip on my shoulder, I decided that I could actually do something about it. I could do my part in making sure that there's at least one more officer out there who will never give that type of negative impression that I have had given to me. So if my lack of concern for your constitutional rights is what you're worried about, then I can tell you that my Bible is my first and foremost book of laws that I follow, my Constitution is the second, and my duties as a law enforcement officer will always come in last place next to those 2 things.

 

[Kasper]

So if my lack of concern for your constitutional rights is what you're worried about, then I can tell you that my Bible is my first and foremost book of laws that I follow, my Constitution is the second, and my duties as a law enforcement officer will always come in last place next to those 2 things.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
— The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

Ok now I am going to get on you because I believe the Constitution should come first then your Bible. Because the Constitution gives you the right to believe in what ever god you want to believe in or not. If I don't believe in your God or the bible as you do, I do not want you judging me based on your religious beliefs. I can understand why you would want to hold your bible above everything else to show your faith but I think that because the Constitution gives you the right to worship that it should come before your bible. Because without the Constitution your religious beliefs could be banned in favor for some other religious beliefs.

 

[BluesStringer]

Is this your way of agreeing that the 5th amendment isn't relevant to what I said and that I wasn't in fact wrong in what I said?

No, of course not, but if this were an "official" questioning, I have little doubt that your report would say, "Then Blues admitted that I was right all along! Case closed!" Pfft.

Ah! So because I gave a counter argument to what everyone else was saying based on what I had read that happened to be on the side of the cop, you decided to make an overall judgement on my moral character.

Now you're saying that what you read was "on the side of the cop," but all you will tell us is your own synopsis of what these mysterious 3 articles said. I already questioned your timeline about when these articles that are completely divergent from the ones in this thread that we're talking about, you said a "week ago" and the ones in this thread were six days before you said that. Ultimately, the publish-date of the (apparently) five articles are the same.

And what was your "counter argument" anyway? After referring to the innocent dead man as a "victim" with quotation marks, you asked five questions which I will now answer since you've dulled my senses enough to lower myself to this sophistry between now and then. I will speak in the first-person since the real first-person is freakin' dead and can't speak for himself. I will also address you as the cop doing the questioning since you said somewhere in this mess that EVERYTHING is relevant whenever a cop uses deadly force, so I assume that you meant to imply that these would be questions the cops will be asking....umm....themselves? Because you do understand that Mr. Ferrell is dead, right?

1) What was he doing out at 2:30 in the morning?
A) None of your damned business Officer. I'm 24 years old and stopped answering for my comings and goings when I cut the apron-strings from dear ol' Mom. I take offense at your nosiness about such trivialities considering that I am dead because one of your brothers dumped 10 rounds in me for seeking his help.

2) What caused the wreck?
A) No one will ever know, Officer. I was alone in the car, and I'm dead.

3) What's the toxicology report?
A) Is there any level of impairment that might be shown in that report that would justify my murder by cop, cop? And what if the report comes back saying I was 100% sober? However many minutes or hours after the accident, how is the toxicology report relevant to me now being dead when all I was doing was trying to get some help?

4) Why did the 911 caller say he was trying to kick the door in if he was just trying to get help?
A) If the caller really said that, it was a lie. She opened the door and I didn't try to force my way in when the door was open. She saw a large black man and slammed the door before I could beg for the help I was seeking. If she really did say I was trying to kick her door in, she is partially responsible for me being dead right now. Why didn't she just listen to my pleas for help and call an ambulance instead of you guys, one of whom murdered me?

5) If he wasn't under the influence of any substances, why was he running at the officers? I'm sure they were yelling demands at him. Anyone knows not to charge an officer.
A) Sure Officer, and your brothers taught me a good lesson which ensured that I will never make the same boneheaded mistake again - by murdering me.

This is making WAY more sense now!

Unfortunately, no it's not.

I'll go ahead and answer that question for you...

Was it your non-professor professor who taught you this common interrogation tactic, or the 100 cops you've met since that terrible night in jail that apparently changed your life?

...because I know for a fact that this is probably...

"Know for a fact that this is probably?" Is that kind of literary license taught in cop-reporting school, or does double-speak just come naturally to you?

But I've spent many days asking my Savior what it is He thinks I should be doing with my life. So here I am.

The Lord works in mysterious ways, no doubt. Every calling by the Lord is a test. I sincerely pray, both for you and everyone you come in contact with during your career, that you pass that test minute-by-minute, hour-by-hour, day-by-day etc. until you retire after a faithful and honorable career.

I have had my experiences with law enforcement that are not good ones by any means, and they made me bitter towards them for a good long while. But rather than sitting behind a computer screen and rant about this chip on my shoulder, I decided that I could actually do something about it. I could do my part in making sure that there's at least one more officer out there who will never give that type of negative impression that I have had given to me.

If ya can't beat 'em, join 'em, huh? Interesting strategy, but as it applies to the story in this thread, I am hardly the lone poster who found your take troubling. I'm not sure how many felt like I did/do that it was indicative of how you might perform your duties after hitting the streets, but still, you have gotten more than a couple of challenges from more than just me.

So if my lack of concern for your constitutional rights is what you're worried about...

It ain't my rights I'm concerned about at all. The odds that I will ever share a jurisdiction with you are nil. In fact, my concern about how you protect and defend citizens' rights is a smaller concern than how you will handle seeing other cops abusing citizens, or planting evidence, or writing false reports, or extorting money from drug dealers, or any number of other crimes that cops engage in on a daily basis in this country. Will you step in to stop it? If you will, will you report it to your superiors? If you will, and those superiors take the typical stance of LE management by sweeping it under the rug, will you work your way up the chain of command until someone takes your report seriously? And if you will do that and still hit a brick wall, will you be a witness for the abused citizen and tell the unmitigated truth about what you witnessed or otherwise have knowledge of?

My cynicism about cops is not something so shallow as to be focused only on one individual, especially an individual who isn't even sworn in yet. My belief is that corruption and abuse is a systemic problem, and it's a meat-grinder for rookies who don't have the maturity or life experience to know how to resist it. So many of them are simply assimilated into the "brotherhood" and turning a blind eye to the abuses and corruption becomes "just the way it is" for so many of them. If you manage to buck the odds throughout your career, what I said here won't matter a wit, and I'll be long-dead, so you're welcome to take it all with a giant rock of salt. As for me, I gotta go take my Geritol and get some sleep. Good night.

Blues

 

[SR40c]

Thirty years ago... the bad cop was the rare exception. Today, I firmly believe the good cop is now the rarity.

 

[wolf_fire]

I started reading your post and had an epiphany about 3 sentences in...your posts are WAY goo damn long. I never really had it, but I have just run out of the time and patience to argue with your long winded posts. And by your condescending name referring to my age (Junior) perhaps I should get my face out of this forum (or at least this thread and any of your posts) and quit listening to the rants of some narrow minded, hypocritical geezer so that I actually have time to get out in the world and get some experience. And on that same token, by the length of your posts and by the volume of likes you said you give out, that indicates to me that you obviously spend so much time here reading these threads and writing counter posts that you have zero time to get out in the world to know anything about it, and that you see the world only through the eyes of this forum. You can respond if you want, but just letting you know that even if I had the time to read such a long winded, exhausting rant about absolutely nothing, I would give you the pleasure of reading it anyways.

But just as a final FYI, perhaps I misplaced the word "authority" with "right", so let me reword: the police have the complete authority to get all up in your face with an attitude when they want to ask you questions. Now as wolf said in slightly different wording, you have every right to tell them to go ******* themselves. And if they do it with such an attitude I completely recommend doing so. But unless you can find me some particular law that states that the police have to ask you questions with a specific attitude, then you are wrong that I am wrong, and also hypocrite.

In any of your "LE" classes, have you learned anything about verbal judo? If this is your true perspective on how to deal with a person that you are interacting with as a LEO, then I would have to say you haven't even heard of the term verbal judo. You are correct, there is no law governing your attitude, but there are volumes of teaching resources on how LEO's should act and behave to make interacting with the public that they are serving go better.

Since, I'm rather positive that you have not heard of verbal judo, which is interesting since I was taught it when training for our Sheriff's Reserve program (yes, a voluntary LE outfit), I've posted this link so you can teach yourself not to raise to the level of a jack booted thug when interacting with folks.
Link Removed

 

[AndeyHall]

In any of your "LE" classes, have you learned anything about verbal judo? If this is your true perspective on how to deal with a person that you are interacting with as a LEO, then I would have to say you haven't even heard of the term verbal judo. You are correct, there is no law governing your attitude, but there are volumes of teaching resources on how LEO's should act and behave to make interacting with the public that they are serving go better.

Since, I'm rather positive that you have not heard of verbal judo, which is interesting since I was taught it when training for our Sheriff's Reserve program (yes, a voluntary LE outfit), I've posted this link so you can teach yourself not to raise to the level of a jack booted thug when interacting with folks.
Link Removed

Way to read that one post and and not follow up on the rest. So no, that's not my true perspective. Here ya go, this was somewhere right around what you quoted me on (which I don't believe I ever recall saying was the way I felt about how situations should be handled).

Link Removed

 

[AndeyHall]

Ok now I am going to get on you because I believe the Constitution should come first then your Bible. Because the Constitution gives you the right to believe in what ever god you want to believe in or not. If I don't believe in your God or the bible as you do, I do not want you judging me based on your religious beliefs. I can understand why you would want to hold your bible above everything else to show your faith but I think that because the Constitution gives you the right to worship that it should come before your bible. Because without the Constitution your religious beliefs could be banned in favor for some other religious beliefs.

So because I put my Bible first, that automatically means I'm blinded by my religion and am no longer tolerant and accepting of other people's beliefs?

 

[AndeyHall]

No, of course not, but if this were an "official" questioning, I have little doubt that your report would say, "Then Blues admitted that I was right all along! Case closed!" Pfft.



Now you're saying that what you read was "on the side of the cop," but all you will tell us is your own synopsis of what these mysterious 3 articles said. I already questioned your timeline about when these articles that are completely divergent from the ones in this thread that we're talking about, you said a "week ago" and the ones in this thread were six days before you said that. Ultimately, the publish-date of the (apparently) five articles are the same.

And what was your "counter argument" anyway? After referring to the innocent dead man as a "victim" with quotation marks, you asked five questions which I will now answer since you've dulled my senses enough to lower myself to this sophistry between now and then. I will speak in the first-person since the real first-person is freakin' dead and can't speak for himself. I will also address you as the cop doing the questioning since you said somewhere in this mess that EVERYTHING is relevant whenever a cop uses deadly force, so I assume that you meant to imply that these would be questions the cops will be asking....umm....themselves? Because you do understand that Mr. Ferrell is dead, right?

1) What was he doing out at 2:30 in the morning?
A) None of your damned business Officer. I'm 24 years old and stopped answering for my comings and goings when I cut the apron-strings from dear ol' Mom. I take offense at your nosiness about such trivialities considering that I am dead because one of your brothers dumped 10 rounds in me for seeking his help.

2) What caused the wreck?
A) No one will ever know, Officer. I was alone in the car, and I'm dead.

3) What's the toxicology report?
A) Is there any level of impairment that might be shown in that report that would justify my murder by cop, cop? And what if the report comes back saying I was 100% sober? However many minutes or hours after the accident, how is the toxicology report relevant to me now being dead when all I was doing was trying to get some help?

4) Why did the 911 caller say he was trying to kick the door in if he was just trying to get help?
A) If the caller really said that, it was a lie. She opened the door and I didn't try to force my way in when the door was open. She saw a large black man and slammed the door before I could beg for the help I was seeking. If she really did say I was trying to kick her door in, she is partially responsible for me being dead right now. Why didn't she just listen to my pleas for help and call an ambulance instead of you guys, one of whom murdered me?

5) If he wasn't under the influence of any substances, why was he running at the officers? I'm sure they were yelling demands at him. Anyone knows not to charge an officer.
A) Sure Officer, and your brothers taught me a good lesson which ensured that I will never make the same boneheaded mistake again - by murdering me.

I never said the article I read was on the side of the cop. That's just you putting words in my mouth. What I said is that there was not enough information in the articles I read that could make me so certain that this cop was guilty when everyone else was so certain (which for the most part was a certainty driven by media bias and the NAACP). For example, the article in the OP says that Kerrick "knocked on the door", when the 911 caller says that he was trying to kick in the door. I would imagine that had the news articles been worded in an unbiased manner, you wouldn't have had quite the public outrage that you first had. Now don't go saying that I'm now back to thinking the officer is innocent because I now think he's not. This post refers only to the information I originally read.

Was it your non-professor professor who taught you this common interrogation tactic, or the 100 cops you've met since that terrible night in jail that apparently changed your life?

I'm sorry I meant to preface my jail experience with your liver disease disclaimer: "this is not trying to make you feel sorry for me."

But seriously...you get to indulge in your personal issues in explaining why you spend so much time on here, yet when I do to explain just part of the reason why I choose the life course that I do, and I'm trying to make people feel sorry for my "life changing" experience? Talk about "double-speak"...

"Know for a fact that this is probably?" Is that kind of literary license taught in cop-reporting school, or does double-speak just come naturally to you?

What's wrong with this statement? For example, I'm certain that there is slightly greater than a 0% chance that you will even try to listen and understand what I'm saying. So I could say that I'm 100% sure that there's about a 0% chance that you'll listen to what I say; or I know for a fact that you probably won't listen to what I say. What I know for a fact is the probability. They are not to be confused with being the same probability.

The Lord works in mysterious ways, no doubt. Every calling by the Lord is a test. I sincerely pray, both for you and everyone you come in contact with during your career, that you pass that test minute-by-minute, hour-by-hour, day-by-day etc. until you retire after a faithful and honorable career.

If ya can't beat 'em, join 'em, huh? Interesting strategy, but as it applies to the story in this thread, I am hardly the lone poster who found your take troubling. I'm not sure how many felt like I did/do that it was indicative of how you might perform your duties after hitting the streets, but still, you have gotten more than a couple of challenges from more than just me.

So I tell you all the reasons why I'm picking this line of work, most of them faith based and some from personal experience, and "can't beat 'em, join 'em" is what you pulled from that? As I said above, you won't listen to anything I say and you pull from it what you want to pull from it. Selective observation.

It ain't my rights I'm concerned about at all. The odds that I will ever share a jurisdiction with you are nil. In fact, my concern about how you protect and defend citizens' rights is a smaller concern than how you will handle seeing other cops abusing citizens, or planting evidence, or writing false reports, or extorting money from drug dealers, or any number of other crimes that cops engage in on a daily basis in this country. Will you step in to stop it? If you will, will you report it to your superiors? If you will, and those superiors take the typical stance of LE management by sweeping it under the rug, will you work your way up the chain of command until someone takes your report seriously? And if you will do that and still hit a brick wall, will you be a witness for the abused citizen and tell the unmitigated truth about what you witnessed or otherwise have knowledge of?

My cynicism about cops is not something so shallow as to be focused only on one individual, especially an individual who isn't even sworn in yet. My belief is that corruption and abuse is a systemic problem, and it's a meat-grinder for rookies who don't have the maturity or life experience to know how to resist it. So many of them are simply assimilated into the "brotherhood" and turning a blind eye to the abuses and corruption becomes "just the way it is" for so many of them. If you manage to buck the odds throughout your career, what I said here won't matter a wit, and I'll be long-dead, so you're welcome to take it all with a giant rock of salt. As for me, I gotta go take my Geritol and get some sleep. Good night.

Blues

So I'm still baffled as to why you think what you think about how I will be in my career. I made a statement about something the police can do when questioning you. You then became so concerned about that statement as if it reflected on my behavior. I then responded by saying that that is not by behavior or my attitude at all, and it is also behavior that we are taught is unacceptable, but rather I was just simply stating what police officers CAN do. You claimed I was wrong. I have yet to see any particular post that debunks my statement. I have seen plenty of replies about how that is not how I SHOULD behave in the line of duty, all of which I have more than agreed with. I then go on to try and explain to you why I am going into this particular line of work, and you somehow pass it off as a "can't beat 'em, join 'em" reasoning. Well Blues, I'm not really sure what else I can say because apparently you're going to go to your grave with the idea that I'm some excessive force promoting, abusive, jack booted thug cop. That's all well and good with me cause I haven't lost a single minutes sleep over it yet and I doubt I ever will.

 

[Kasper]

So because I put my Bible first, that automatically means I'm blinded by my religion and am no longer tolerant and accepting of other people's beliefs?

well from my experiences everyone with a bible tells me their God is the true God and if I do not accept him I will go to hell. So yes to me people who put their bible before the US Constitution are usually blinded by their faith in their religion. As I said before the Constitution give us the right to believe in a god or not with out having to hear will will be going to hell.

 

[SR40c]

Sounds like a fine young man was killed because of an ignorant homeowner and a trigger happy storm trooper. I hope the cop goes to prison and the homeowner gets sued.

 

[AndeyHall]

well from my experiences everyone with a bible tells me their God is the true God and if I do not accept him I will go to hell. So yes to me people who put their bible before the US Constitution are usually blinded by their faith in their religion. As I said before the Constitution give us the right to believe in a god or not with out having to hear will will be going to hell.

Just because I may not agree with what you believe doesn't mean I won't be tolerant of it. And yes, that is what I believe. But the US Constitution doesn't grant you the right to go to Heaven. So just because I tell you that if you don't accept Him then you're going to hell doesn't mean I'm denying you any of your constitutional rights. If you don't wanna listen and you want to follow some other religion, then there's nothing I can do about that but I'm not going to discriminate against you because of it, and I don't know of any other true Christian who might do so. I never said I was a member of Westboro Baptist.

 

[BluesStringer]

Ok now I am going to get on you because I believe the Constitution should come first then your Bible. Because the Constitution gives you the right to believe in what ever god you want to believe in or not. If I don't believe in your God or the bible as you do, I do not want you judging me based on your religious beliefs. I can understand why you would want to hold your bible above everything else to show your faith but I think that because the Constitution gives you the right to worship that it should come before your bible. Because without the Constitution your religious beliefs could be banned in favor for some other religious beliefs.

Ridiculous. From beginning to end, utterly ridiculous. The Constitution doesn't "give" any rights at all, it acknowledges and protects *natural rights* which many, including the Framers, understood/understand as deriving from God.

You certainly have no obligation to believe in God, but if you're going to comment on what The Constitution is and/or does, it would behoove you to get at least that much right.

I never said the article I read was on the side of the cop. That's just you putting words in my mouth.

Andey, Andey, Andey, such a silly response when all you had to do is read your own words which I quoted and replied directly to:

Ah! So because I gave a counter argument to what everyone else was saying based on what I had read that happened to be on the side of the cop...

My powers are obviously increasing if I can reach through the interwebs and force you to type stuff you didn't mean ("just me putting words in your mouth" in case you're metaphorically-challenged too).

Whatever, what I'm concerned about now is that you completely ignored the answers I gave to your five questions. Why is that Andey? I attempt to stay on topic about an innocent dead man who was murdered by a cop, and you avoid it in favor of minutiae.

What I said is that there was not enough information in the articles I read that could make me so certain that this cop was guilty when everyone else was so certain (which for the most part was a certainty driven by media bias and the NAACP). For example, the article in the OP says that Kerrick "knocked on the door", when the 911 caller says that he was trying to kick in the door.

Well, as I have proven above, that's not what you said in relation to my previous response that you're now taking issue with, but as hard as you're making it, I'm going to try to stay on-topic here.

No one in this thread but you has claimed that they read anything approaching what you say the 911 caller is quoted as saying about "kicking the door in." Unless and until you can provide a link to an article (just one out three would suffice), can I ask you to limit your comments only to what this thread is based on? It is not mine or anyone else's fault that you muddied the waters in this thread with information that none of us can verify you are relating accurately. I'm not accusing you of lying, I'm saying that unsourced quotes and synopses are just bad form and don't contribute anything but confusion to the thread.

I would imagine that had the news articles been worded in an unbiased manner, you wouldn't have had quite the public outrage that you first had.

The information that we've been going on was written unbiased. Ferrell was killed by a cop, the cop's department issued a statement that it was an unauthorized use of force, the DA is pressing charges and Mom's heart is broken. What's biased in what we've been reading, as uncharacteristic as it may be for any media outlet to be unbiased? We still haven't established in any verifiable way that the 911 caller said a word about Ferrell trying to "kick the door in," so why would we just accept that whatever you read was written in a biased manner? Link to it or drop it, please.

I'm sorry I meant to preface my jail experience with your liver disease disclaimer: "this is not trying to make you feel sorry for me."

But seriously...you get to indulge in your personal issues in explaining why you spend so much time on here, yet when I do to explain just part of the reason why I choose the life course that I do, and I'm trying to make people feel sorry for my "life changing" experience? Talk about "double-speak"...

Umm....Where did I accuse you of trying to garner sympathy for anything? What did I say that you are now accusing me of engaging in "double-speak" about? You said, "I'll go ahead and answer that question for you..." and I answered with a reference to a common interrogation tactic of...well...cops answering questions for subjects and accepting their own answers as originating from the subject. I asked where you learned that tactic and didn't say a word about sympathy. I've asked you this before, but, non-sequitur much?

What's wrong with this statement? For example, I'm certain that there is slightly greater than a 0% chance that you will even try to listen and understand what I'm saying. So I could say that I'm 100% sure that there's about a 0% chance that you'll listen to what I say; or I know for a fact that you probably won't listen to what I say. What I know for a fact is the probability. They are not to be confused with being the same probability.

Hmm....Ever heard of East Anglia University? I'm sure the above formula would come in handy for those employing the "hide the decline trick." If the reference is unfamiliar to you, you're probably too young. (Not a knock on your age, just a statement of, not fact, but of probability.)

Whatever, I found the "I know for a fact that it probably" was this or that funny, so I commented sarcastically about it. Are you over it and ready to actually discuss the murder-by-cop that we're discussing now?

So I tell you all the reasons why I'm picking this line of work, most of them faith based and some from personal experience, and "can't beat 'em, join 'em" is what you pulled from that? As I said above, you won't listen to anything I say and you pull from it what you want to pull from it. Selective observation.

Actually Andey, I did listen and acknowledge your statement of faith in a prayerful manner. It's rather baffling why you lumped two different thoughts of mine together and only acknowledged my reply to one of them, and you didn't even accurately understand the thought that you did acknowledge. I have an idea, since this personal sparring is getting repetitive and boring, how about we actually discuss the murder-by-cop that this thread is about?

So I'm still baffled as to why you think what you think about how I will be in my career. I made a statement about something the police can do when questioning you.

In another thread, yes you did. If you're wondering why I have tried to avoid and/or steer the discussion away from that statement in this thread, it's called "sticking to the topic." You ought to try it sometime. If you want to whine on incessantly about my response(s) to that statement, I suggest you do it in the thread where you made it, because this is the last time I'm going to acknowledge anything about it or what wolf_fire said in still another thread in this thread. Fair 'nuff, Andey?

Besides that Andey, I didn't state what "I think about how you will be in your career," I asked specific questions about what you would do in specific sets of circumstances. You apparently think a set of questions is a *statement* rather than honest, genuinely interested questions. You're wrong if that's what you think. So take another stab at actually replying, or leave this drivel as your only whiny reply to honest questions, doesn't matter to me.

Blues

 

[AndeyHall]

Ridiculous. From beginning to end, utterly ridiculous. The Constitution doesn't "give" any rights at all, it acknowledges and protects *natural rights* which many, including the Framers, understood/understand as deriving from God.

You certainly have no obligation to believe in God, but if you're going to comment on what The Constitution is and/or does, it would behoove you to get at least that much right.



Andey, Andey, Andey, such a silly response when all you had to do is read your own words which I quoted and replied directly to:



My powers are obviously increasing if I can reach through the interwebs and force you to type stuff you didn't mean ("just me putting words in your mouth" in case you're metaphorically-challenged too).

Whatever, what I'm concerned about now is that you completely ignored the answers I gave to your five questions. Why is that Andey? I attempt to stay on topic about an innocent dead man who was murdered by a cop, and you avoid it in favor of minutiae.



Well, as I have proven above, that's not what you said in relation to my previous response that you're now taking issue with, but as hard as you're making it, I'm going to try to stay on-topic here.

No one in this thread but you has claimed that they read anything approaching what you say the 911 caller is quoted as saying about "kicking the door in." Unless and until you can provide a link to an article (just one out three would suffice), can I ask you to limit your comments only to what this thread is based on? It is not mine or anyone else's fault that you muddied the waters in this thread with information that none of us can verify you are relating accurately. I'm not accusing you of lying, I'm saying that unsourced quotes and synopses are just bad form and don't contribute anything but confusion to the thread.



The information that we've been going on was written unbiased. Ferrell was killed by a cop, the cop's department issued a statement that it was an unauthorized use of force, the DA is pressing charges and Mom's heart is broken. What's biased in what we've been reading, as uncharacteristic as it may be for any media outlet to be unbiased? We still haven't established in any verifiable way that the 911 caller said a word about Ferrell trying to "kick the door in," so why would we just accept that whatever you read was written in a biased manner? Link to it or drop it, please.



Umm....Where did I accuse you of trying to garner sympathy for anything? What did I say that you are now accusing me of engaging in "double-speak" about? You said, "I'll go ahead and answer that question for you..." and I answered with a reference to a common interrogation tactic of...well...cops answering questions for subjects and accepting their own answers as originating from the subject. I asked where you learned that tactic and didn't say a word about sympathy. I've asked you this before, but, non-sequitur much?




Hmm....Ever heard of East Anglia University? I'm sure the above formula would come in handy for those employing the "hide the decline trick." If the reference is unfamiliar to you, you're probably too young. (Not a knock on your age, just a statement of, not fact, but of probability.)

Whatever, I found the "I know for a fact that it probably" was this or that funny, so I commented sarcastically about it. Are you over it and ready to actually discuss the murder-by-cop that we're discussing now?



Actually Andey, I did listen and acknowledge your statement of faith in a prayerful manner. It's rather baffling why you lumped two different thoughts of mine together and only acknowledged my reply to one of them, and you didn't even accurately understand the thought that you did acknowledge. I have an idea, since this personal sparring is getting repetitive and boring, how about we actually discuss the murder-by-cop that this thread is about?



In another thread, yes you did. If you're wondering why I have tried to avoid and/or steer the discussion away from that statement in this thread, it's called "sticking to the topic." You ought to try it sometime. If you want to whine on incessantly about my response(s) to that statement, I suggest you do it in the thread where you made it, because this is the last time I'm going to acknowledge anything about it or what wolf_fire said in still another thread in this thread. Fair 'nuff, Andey?

Besides that Andey, I didn't state what "I think about how you will be in your career," I asked specific questions about what you would do in specific sets of circumstances. You apparently think a set of questions is a *statement* rather than honest, genuinely interested questions. You're wrong if that's what you think. So take another stab at actually replying, or leave this drivel as your only whiny reply to honest questions, doesn't matter to me.

Blues

All I've got time to say right now is:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/17/justice/north-carolina-police-shooting/index.html?c=&page=1
Here's your link where you can hear her say that he was kicking in the door. The article, however, says he "knocked" on the door. I call that bias.

As per the comment where you said that I supposedly said the article was in favor of the cop...what I said but was not conveyed properly because of my lack of punctuation (forgive me I do this all from a phone so I don't always do it properly), was that I gave an argument, which was based on the articles I read, that was in favor of the cop. My argument was in favor of the cop, no the article. Sorry.

 

[AndeyHall]

Ridiculous. From beginning to end, utterly ridiculous. The Constitution doesn't "give" any rights at all, it acknowledges and protects *natural rights* which many, including the Framers, understood/understand as deriving from God.

You certainly have no obligation to believe in God, but if you're going to comment on what The Constitution is and/or does, it would behoove you to get at least that much right.

See this is the kind of crap that starts getting on people's nerves Blues. You know good and well that your response to him was just preaching to the choir. Most everyone on this forum knows that the constitution doesn't give us anything. That's still just the way we word it. Yet every time someone slips up and words it that particular way, you get all beside yourself because that gives you the opportunity to be a condescending prick and tell us all about how the constitution doesn't give us anything. I don't think you could be a member of this forum and not know that because I'm pretty sure you bring it up in about every damn thread that even mentions the constitution. For God (or god with a little g depending on your beliefs) sakes, we get it!

 

[Kasper]

Just because I may not agree with what you believe doesn't mean I won't be tolerant of it. And yes, that is what I believe. But the US Constitution doesn't grant you the right to go to Heaven. So just because I tell you that if you don't accept Him then you're going to hell doesn't mean I'm denying you any of your constitutional rights. If you don't wanna listen and you want to follow some other religion, then there's nothing I can do about that but I'm not going to discriminate against you because of it, and I don't know of any other true Christian who might do so. I never said I was a member of Westboro Baptist.

By telling me I am not going to heaven you are taking away my right to not believe in your God or religion. I could careless about what you believe in You are not going to hear me say you are not going to haven if you don't believe in my god or anything else that would question your beliefs in your God or religion. Your bible tells you to go forth and spread God's message and that is what I have a problem with. I have the right to believe in or not believe in a god with out having to hear that I am make a wrong choice. Yes the stance I am taking by saying you should place the Constitution above you bible rubs you the wrong way but without the Constitution your religion could be banned and anyone practicing it killed or it could swing the other way and anyone like me who does not believe in it will be killed. Our founding fathers thought of that and put it in the Constitution so that the citizens could have the right to worship any God they wanted or could not worship.

Also I was not saying you could not be tolerant of it just that I feel it is something that should have no effect on your job duties. What you consider as heaven and what I consider to be heaven are not the same so telling me the Constitution will not get me into heaven is again depriving me of my constitutional right.

So lets agree to disagree.

 

[BigSlick]

All I've got time to say right now is:
911 call: A plea for help before police shoot North Carolina man - CNN.com
Here's your link where you can hear her say that he was kicking in the door. The article, however, says he "knocked" on the door. I call that bias.

As per the comment where you said that I supposedly said the article was in favor of the cop...what I said but was not conveyed properly because of my lack of punctuation (forgive me I do this all from a phone so I don't always do it properly), was that I gave an argument, which was based on the articles I read, that was in favor of the cop. My argument was in favor of the cop, no the article. Sorry.

Andy, hopefully you will learn an important lesson that things are not always what they appear to be. I hope you never have take the life an innocent person due to a mistake in judgment and above all else to honor the Constitution and protect the rights of American citizens. To hell with department policy. We are all human and therefore prone to mistakes. When you make a mistake, apologize then learn from it. Hopefully you will be a better man going forward. Don't take the position that because you will have a badge that you are never wrong. People hate that kinda **** and sooner or later it will bite you in the ass.