SkyDekker

We don't know that. He claims he is.

Emphasis mine. You do realize the definition of that is pretty fluid these days; yes? That by their interpretation and in the name of "fighting the war on terrorism" many people in government, Comey included, have the idea there is a blanket "warrant" that spans the globe and includes everything. No real permission required (since to a great extent the material has already been collected) although they occasionally go through the motions. That's not an FBI or Constitution issue, that is a political issue.

Right, yet you have no problem commenting on and presenting links to media stories that are in favour of LEO. I think we'll be going in circles from here on out. Have a good one.

I doubt it.

So pendantic.

lol Yes like maybe agree with everything Russia does. Maybe you can vote for a President with unknown foreign ties, has praised Russia's "President" and agrees with his strong leadership. Leadership that generally includes executing those whom do not agree with you. Yes, that's a great choice. Very smart!

Transcript of his speech, so you can put it in context an then be rightfully outraged

But does it? Who the fuck cares? He already indicates it matches his original belief, so it must be true. And now the Trump foundation is under investigation. But that is just politics, Clinton is a criminal. America has collectively lost it mind. Brexit fever is contagious. Okay, so Trump and both Clintons are sleazy sociopaths, and only an idiot would trust any of them. If one side points out what scum is the other side, I could not agree more. I am not sticking up for either. The enemy of my enemy is often every bit as bad - or worse. This election if rather a matter of 'name your poison.' Right. Which doesn't address the point made at all.

Assuming you meant pedantry, I don't think differentiating between somebody tweeting themselves and somebody quoting somebody else in a tweet as a minor detail. It also highlights, as I said in my post that likely context is missing. But please do get all outraged over 140 characters without context.

This discussion isn't about the difficulty of the job. An engineer's response to a bridge collapsing isn't: do you know how difficult it is to build a bridge correctly. Clearly you don't want to actually discuss the issue. You just want people to agree with you. That article is a prime example of what fuels this negative perception of the police in the US. In response you have completely ignored it, until specifically asked and then you mocked it. Then you blame the media on this negative perception.

But does it? Who the fuck cares? He already indicates it matches his original belief, so it must be true. And now the Trump foundation is under investigation. But that is just politics, Clinton is a criminal. America has collectively lost it mind. Brexit fever is contagious.

It was not Comey's tweet. It was a tweet by the FBI social media department highlighting comments Comey made during his address at this convention. I have a feeling there is some context missing.

Sorry, I am missing how this relates to the article you linked? But this does somewhat relate to the article I linked, where an officer was fired for not killing somebody in a situation he had identified as suicide by cop.

Agreed, typo on my end. Agreed, including fax machines. But that doesn't make her statement less true. It is not the job of an editorial to educate people on this program. All agreed. Notwithstanding that and the point the writer is making, law enforcement looks very similar to military now. With that looks appears to come a different mindset and certainly a different perception by civilians. No that doesn't mean it all came from 1033. But stating that because it didn't all come from 1033, therefor there were no changes isn't true either. The gist of the point remains. As such it is a flat out lie yes. In context of how they were shot, it isn't really a lie. All were shot before it became clear that a real firearm was involved. Writer stated it poorly and wrongly, but for the point being made it makes no real difference. Which is coming after decades of facts being fabricated by the police. The general idea being that non of this police conduct is new, the recording of it is what is new.

Maybe, but it is the impression you give off.

I can explain it how I understand it to work for you. Non-white, shoot the motherfucker. White, help him and pray for him.

So is turning the other cheek.

You haven't addressed anything in my post. Trump has made claims regarding his wealth and his charitable donations. Should he just be believed on his word or should he provide some evidence to back up those claims? If he should provide some evidence, wouldn't tax returns by the best source?

So you don't think Trump has to back up his claims. Duly noted.

Here is another real confidence builder: http://www.post-gazette.com/local/region/2016/09/11/Weirton-fired-officer-who-did-not-fire-at-man-with-gun/stories/201609090080

I have agreed with this in the past and I still agree with it. But it comes with "another side of the coin". When you boast of your wealth and the amount of money you have supposedly donated to charity you are setting yourself up to provide proof. If Trump had never done so, I would be the first to say there is no reason for him to provide his tax returns. But since he has made all these claims, there is nothing wrong with demanding he provide some evidence to support them. Specially since there is evidence that he is lying about his charitable donations.

They started peaceful and they were met by police in military style gear. The writer did continue on to state that the protests devolved. Editorializing the police response had some blame regarding that. IN essence what is stated there is correct. 1033 Did transfer ownership of excess military equipment to civilian law enforcement agencies. The value I am finding is $5.1 million. Author uses $5.6 billion. Really nothing to get outraged over. Not sure what is meant by tankers, also not really relevant. The Humvees and more is certainly correct. Alton Sterling was pinned down when he was shot and did not have control of his weapon at that point. Philando Castille was legal to carry a firearm and had informed the "officer" that he was armed as he was supposed too. When asked to provide his ID he moved and was subsequently shot. Tamir Rice was 12 years old and the 911 caller had indicated the gun was probably fake. The officer raced in, startled the kid and shot him. Could have been handled much, much better. Garner was left to die with none of the officers standing around him even trying to perform CPR or offer any help. Nobody lifted a finger after killing him. No help whatsoever. I think the writer did you a favour by not spelling it all out. Garner and Brown are prime examples of what the problem is. The actions may have been justified, but how things are handled matters. When somebody is obviously dying, you try and help. That is part of your job. You don't just choke him out and then leave him there. Other than showing you simply don't care about that human life, it is extremely disrespectful. Can't believe you still don't get this. Nobody believes those "facts" because many times once video of the incident comes to light, the "facts" as presented by police aren't really the "facts", they are the story made up to minimize LEO exposure to wrongdoing.

So the only way a mother would be upset about her son dieing is if he was innocent? Do you think Wilson should have been tried? The quoted paragraph didn't mentioned innocent or guilty. Again, that is your heaping tablespoon of assumptions leading to your outrage. What I think about the situation has no bearing on whether the paragraph is factual. I think the shooting was justified. I think the aftermath was handled as poorly as it could have been. I think one of the drivers of that is the clear racism present within that police organization. Subsequent reports have indicated that.

I read the editorial and even though I don't agree with all the aspects of it, what parts of it are factually incorrect? Parts that are at least material to the story. You do realize that in many cases it is the police who actively try and keep those facts from the media? Chicago is a prime example.

Right and in the story you quoted, the one you are so upset about, the story was about the man who was with Brown's mother when the decisions was announced not to prosecute Wilson. The part you mentioned was just background information and written to indicate why the mother might have been upset. In that context it makes perfect sense. Right...