Quantcast

Comments about ‘Doug Robinson: When did Missouri turn into North Korea?’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, Aug. 26 2014 7:00 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Esquire
Springville, UT

So called Law and Order, driven by racism. In some ways, in parts of the country, there really hasn't been that much progress.

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

Yes... Missouri is turning into North Korea....

Didn't you hear... they now practically worship their diminutive leader as if he were God. The people are starving and freezing the winter. Did you hear about Missouri's nuclear weapons program? And the prison camps for political dissidents... brutal in Missouri.

It's TOTALLY becoming North Korea!

Brio
Alpine, UT

What a total over-reaction by reporter Doug Robinson. Comparing what has been happening in Missouri under difficult temporary conditions to being in North Korea is absurd.

First of all, just because the first amendment exists, it doesn't put reporters above the law. If they don't follow police directives during rioting conditions, then yes, they will be detained and/or arrested, depending on their attitudes (belligerent or not) and other extenuating conditions.

Secondly. there were hundreds of reporters in that area. The ones having any issues at all with police was relatively small. In North Korea, there wouldn't have been any reporters allowed to cover any civil disobedience. In fact, any protesters there are usually shot.

How does Robinson know that when the police came prepared to deal with worst possible conditions, that they exasperated the situation? That's simply his opinion and nothing more. That might've actually helped the situation.

"2 bits" sarcasm makes some good points. He points out that the worst police conditions in America are multiple times better than the best conditions in North Korea. No legitimate comparison... unless some reporter is just trying to create more news.

Hutterite
American Fork, UT

The press have been bullied in Ferguson, that's for sure. But 'North Korea'? That's a bit hyperbolic, don't you think?

Midvaliean
MIDVALE, UT

It is big news. Other commenters here thing Doug is over the top on his comparison. But I disagree. The moment we cannot hold our government to be accountable, is the moment we lose it all. And that moment has many pieces that seem to be falling together quite nicely over the last few decades. The police in Missouri represent a national police culture that has spiraled out of control. Our perceptions of what they need (ie military gear) are perpetuated by the propaganda these groups produce. I wasn't pleased at all to see a Armored Personal Carrier in the Midvale Harvest Days parade last weekend. They lead their war gear down the street and I felt scarred, not pride at what our Unified Police Department has become.
Let us lead the world in doing right, which as we all know, isn't the easiest thing to do.

Irony Guy
Bountiful, Utah

The "conservatives" on this thread are awfully quick to give up their first amendment rights, aren't they?
What happened to their constant bleating about the Constitution?

VIDAR
Murray, UT

The Bill of rights purpose is to protect citizens from the government. Our founders knew we needed to put limitations and restrictions to protect citizens. They knew the police in particular needed these limitations and restrictions put on them.
It seems the police do everything they can to circumvent and bend the bill of rights.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

I guess hyperbole, hysteria, and over-reacting reporters on behalf of other reporters still falls under protection of "Freedom of the Press".

Handcuffing, and detainment of reporters for 45 minutes is now equivilant of North Korea and news-worthy?

While the shooting and death of an unarmed teenager is not?

Oh the Humanity!

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

@Irony Guy,
Who on this thread (conservative or not) gave up their first amendment rights???

I re-read all of them, and not one said to give up your first amendment rights!

=============

Were you just being rhetorical... or pre-emptive with that comment? EXPECTING some to suggest giving up your first amendment rights at some time during the day? Because it hasn't happened YET (from what I can see). Maybe you are seeing something I'm missing in the comments so far.

===================

I think we still believe in and support the Constitution... INCLUDING the first amendment (and the 2nd... and the rest). And it applies to ALL people.

Wait a minute... are you assuming if people don't support looting and violence... they are anti-first amendment??? Because just as there are limits on using 2nd amendment rights for violence, there are also limits on using the first amendment for violence against your neighbors as well... but that doesn't mean you are giving up your first amendment rights or you don't support the Constitution, if you don't support looting... Molotov cocktails... etc....

TheProudDuck
Newport Beach, CA

The people like Esquire who are making this a racial thing, are irresponsible and wrong.

Black men get shot by police at roughly five times the rate white men do. Racism, right? Well, dig a bit deeper.

One's odds of getting shot by police will generally increase in tandem with one's involvement in a lawless lifestyle. Black men commit serious violent criminal offenses -- a good proxy for involvement in lawless lifestyles -- at roughly six to eight times the rate of white men.

A reasonable conclusion from that fact, which virtually no American liberal has bothered to look into (because cognitive dissonance) is that American police officers are actually *slower* to shoot people in tense encounters, when the subject is black.

Given the disparate consequences for shooting a black person versus shooting a white person (compare the calls for the police officer's head in Ferguson versus the non-story of the shooting of a "white Hispanic" by a police officer in Salt Lake County), this is exactly what a rational person should expect. People respond to incentives. There are more negative consequences to a cop who shoots a black person than to one who shoots a white person.

TheProudDuck
Newport Beach, CA

LDS Liberal, why is "unarmed" relevant to anything?

If it turns out that the officer in Ferguson just lost his temper during an encounter with an unruly member of the public and shot someone who didn't need shooting, then he needs to be punished.

If the officer reasonably perceived himself in danger of being overpowered by a gigantic, aggressive "teenager" (an adult, actually), then he did nothing wrong.

A person who a police officer allows himself to be physically overcome by, stops being "unarmed." He has full access to the officer's weapon, and can use it, or not, depending on his preference. A police officer is not going to put himself at the mercy of a person he's trying to arrest. If it is true (as several witnesses are reported to have stated) that Brown advanced on an officer who, gun drawn, ordered him to stop, then he was a fool, and his death, while tragic, is entirely his own fault.

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

@LDS Liberal,

Like people have pointed out... You say all that matters is that an UNARMED child was shot. Well that isn't all that matters (in the law).

The LAW needs to know... Did the officer KNOW he was unarmed and not a threat??? If he did.... then the law will hold him responsible. But how sure was he that the child was NOT a threat?

If he was just out hunting for black children to kill that day... pretty sure he's going to jail. But if he was being charged... he pretty much has to assume it's a threat and respond. And no... that doesn't make him a racist.

When someone or something that can kill you is charging you... you have to shoot and assume you missed until it is obvious the threat is over. My father was charged by a huge bear when I was young and he used all 6 bullets in his sidearm with no evident affect, the bear falling at his feet. Was that overkill? When they checked every bullet hit the bear and should have been fatal.... but it took all 6 to stop the bear.

joe5
South Jordan, UT

Doug Robinson needs to extend his umbrage to Abraham Lincoln who suspended habeas corpus and incarcerated journalists until the end of the civil war. Their crime was that they disagreed with the war in general or how Lincoln was managing the war. But Lincoln perceived them as agitators stirring up the public and putting public safety at risk. These long-term "inmates" were rarely charged with crimes nor brought to a speedy trial. They were just thrown in jail and the key was thrown away.

To answer Doug's question, I guess it does sound like America.

Tekakaromatagi
Dammam, Saudi Arabia

@irony guy:
the Pc dogmatists on this site are sure ready for me to give up my first amendment rights too, - like freedom. of religion.

The problem with ferguson. is th a the police. had too much military hardware. It may have gone to their head.

The people in ferguson do share a little in the fault. they had allowed this to happen by not exercising their right to vote which is a right which is increasingly under threat.

The Educator
South Jordan , UT

A lot of this can be attributed to being a red conservative state. These states are prone to violence and anarchy. Just look at the civil war and the reluctance from the radical right to desegregate. So many low information voters!

In many ways, the civil war has never ended...

John Jackson
Sandy, UT

I don't believe journalists should have any more rights or privileges than anyone else. That said, that they were arrested and harassed at all seems out of line, regardless who they were. If the police are so quick to arrest anyone, if they are treating anyone that way, it isn't a good thing.

george of the jungle
goshen, UT

The cop to serve and protect, or control and punish.

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

@george of the jungle,

Re: "The cop to serve and protect, or control and punish"...

Answer: It's all of the above.

They serve an protect (they are protecting the innocent people in the neighborhood from having their homes looted or burned, and from being attacked by mobs of violent people protesting violently on the streets). They haven't done ANYTHING to the peaceful protesters. Just the ones that are looting, carrying Molotov cocktails and guns.

But they also control and punish. When you rob someone... their role is to punish. When you riot, loot and burn neighborhoods... they control.

Is that OK?

Midvaliean
MIDVALE, UT

@2 bits
No it is not OK for the cops to punish. The rule of law states you are inocent until proven guilty. The judge will levy a punishment that is appropriate. We do not need "judge Dredd" roaming the streets. The police are NOT to punish. They are to obey the law and bring people into be judged if deemed necessary. WE CANNOT have cops who think it is their job to punish.

Open Minded Mormon
Everett, 00

‘Doug Robinson: When did Missouri turn into North Korea?’

======

Perhaps --

27th, October 1838
with Executive Order 44

signed by,
Conservative Governor -- Lilburn Boggs

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments