Let's keep it civil and clean about this. This is an intense situation that may reach to the level of Trayvon Martin/Zimmerman ordeal.
I'm literally 10 minutes away from Ferguson, MO.
We still don't have all the facts as to what happened.
But, first, let me say that I feel for Mike Brown's (18 years of age) friends and family. Any loss of life is very sad and no parents should have to bury their kid.
Here's good summary of what has happened:
Timeline
Around 12 p.m., Saturday: A police officer encounters two people, including Brown, on the street near an apartment complex in Ferguson.
One of the men allegedly pushed the officer back into his squad car and a struggle begins, authorities state.
One shot is fired from the officer's gun inside the police car.
The struggle spills onto the street and Brown is shot multiple times. Police say there were "more than just a couple" of shots that struck Brown.
Shell casings show that the bullets are from the officer's gun.
Michael Brown Age: 18
Ethnicity: African American
Recently graduated high school, and family said he was about to start college
Was not carrying a weapon
The Officer The officer was employed by Ferguson police department.
Has not been named or identified.
Ferguson Police Chief Thomas Jackson said he would announce the officer's name sometime Monday or Tuesday. [whembly: reportedly being delayed now] The officer been placed on administrative leave pending investigation.
The Investigation Police said they are not sure whether Brown was the individual who pushed the officer, and are not sure what the struggle was about. They are also not sure whether the other individual with Brown was armed.
Witness Piaget Crenshaw said she saw Brown facing the cop and holding his arms up just before he was shot.
St. Louis County police are investigating the shooting.
The Justice Department has said they are reviewing the matter.
The Aftermath Residents of Ferguson, Mo., were outraged by the shooting and have been protesting at the police station, demanding a full investigation.
A candlelight vigil for Brown was held Sunday evening. After the vigil, violence erupted as crowds looted and vandalized stores and vehicles, resulting in 32 arrests and confrontations with police.
The NAACP condemned the shooting. "We're outraged because yet again a young African-American man has been killed by law enforcement," said John Gaskin, who serves on both the St. Louis County and national boards of directors for the NAACP.
The Rev. Al Sharpton called the shooting "very disturbing" and said he planned to go to Ferguson to meet with the family.
We've had rioting Sunday night and last night (Monday) in the region and the situation is still very tense.
Here's some pictures, tweets and vines (spoilered 'cuz it's ginormous):
Spoiler:
[youtube]
Police rolled out armored vehicles to contain the violence.
Looters are taking hair extensions from a beauty supply store. Children as young as ten are taking part in the looting.
There are reports the violence and looting has now spread to neighboring Dellwood.
AutoZone, Taco Bell and other businesses vandalized.
Several businesses were vandalized and looted during the rioting.
But not this one…
St. Louis Ink Tattoo Studio
Anonymous Hacker group is paying attention:
Last night, a mall 30 minutes away got tense:
Protesters are chucking bricks from an Interstate 270 overpass a Major Highway. Police have shut down the interstate in north St. Louis County.
Police are moving people out of Ferguson.
Still last night before dark... Police are getting shotguns and rifles out of their trunks in Ferguson.
Tension is spreading... Police block entrance to the Washington University campus in St. Louis (way far away from Ferguson):
Organized looters moved SOUTH into the City of St. Louis last night. Ten to 15 cars simply pulled up and broke into the store.
Check how far south this is...
Thanks for resposting this thread. As a reminder to everyone, no matter what the content matter being discussed, Dakka's rules still apply. Please refrain from any remarks that would violate such (especially "isms" such as racism, sexism, etc) and hit the yellow triangle if any such posts are made, rather than engaging over them. Thanks.
I found out about the 270 thing last night right before driving home from my PFS game in Illinois. I head down 64 so it wasn't a big deal to me personally.
Soulard was crawling with cops though, saw two groups of two police cars patrolling slowly, and the streets deader than usual, even for a Monday. Generally you see a handful of pepole outside a bar smoking, or walking home late or something, but there was just no one outside. Soulard with the streets completely empty of people before 2 AM is kind of unsettling.
Leonette Hilliard, a middle school English teacher, wrote a note to the store and taped it onto the side wall saying, “Corporate neighbor: I am sorry this act of robbery and violence has happened. Please return soon.”
She taped it across graffiti saying “187 county police,” the 187 being a slang reference to murder. Hilliard said she comes to the store to two or three times a week and has been doing so for about 15 years.
“This just doesn’t represent who we are as a community and I wanted just to say something to do something that was productive,” she said.
Well, the last thing the area needs is for businesses to get cold feet and start pulling out. We don't need New East St. Louis in the middle of northern STL. Hopefully this blows over soon.
I'm generally pissed off about this whole situation. On the one hand, you've got a situation which is being investigated (but apparently not quick enough for some people) in which, most reports that I've seen have suggested that the police officer was in the "right" but again, we don't know all the details so I can't really comment or form an opinion on that myself.
On the other hand, you have a whole community of morons who think that this sort of gak is OK when things don't go their way. It's completely cool for their "own" people to kill, rape, and steal from each other, but if someone else, especially "The Man" does it, it's time to break gak and commit MORE crimes.
Rioting seems a little... premature here. I mean, you look at the LA Riots, and Crown Heights, and there were all significant precursors to the actual rioting. Perhaps St. Louis is a hotspot of racial/police tension.
Truthfully I keep expecting a situation like this to unfold any day now in Albuquerque, where the police are truly out of control.
Ouze wrote: Rioting seems a little... premature here. I mean, you look at the LA Riots, and Crown Heights, and there were all significant precursors to the actual rioting. Perhaps St. Louis is a hotspot of racial/police tension.
I've never felt it, personally. There is a lot of division between the parts of town someone like me "just doesn't go", and the rest of it. I've even had to stop in at places in the former and there's never been any issues.
Police tension, on the other hand... I could probably see that one. I'm guessing the TM stuff probably is still fresher in people's minds than it should be.
Protesters gathered outside the St. Louis County Justice Center on Tuesday morning to demand justice in the case of Michael Brown, 18, shot by a Ferguson officer on Saturday.
About 250 protesters had gathered by about 10:30 a.m. Police closed off Carondelet Avenue near the Justice Center, and officers waited inside with riot gear at hand and plastic ties to use as handcuffs should they be needed.
Protesters walked with their hands up in a "Don't shoot" pose that has been used by protesters since Brown's shooting. Some witnesses said Brown was surrendering like that when he was shot.
"Hey hey, ho ho, racist cops have got to go," some in the crowd chanted. They also complained that there aren't enough African-American police officers and in the prosecutor's office.
Clayton police cars were inching along, trailing protesters as they snaked through the streets that surround the county police headquarters and courthouse.
Anthony Shahid said marchers are now going to St.Louis County Prosecutor Bob McCulloch's office.
"I don't trust Bob McCulloch," Shahid shouted on the steps of the county police headquarters. "His father was killed by a black man."
- Kim Bell, 10:15 a.m.
From the same page, further down:
Officer's name won't be released today
St. Louis County and Ferguson police say they do not plan to release the name today of the officer who shot Michael Brown.
The name of a Ferguson officer has been circulating on social media with claims that he shot Brown. Ferguson police said that officer was not the officer involved in the shooting.
- Joel Currier 10:15 a.m.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ensis Ferrae wrote: I'm generally pissed off about this whole situation. On the one hand, you've got a situation which is being investigated (but apparently not quick enough for some people) in which, most reports that I've seen have suggested that the police officer was in the "right" but again, we don't know all the details so I can't really comment or form an opinion on that myself.
The most current explanation that I've found is that the eyewitness reports and the official police report are different on the topic of whether the shooting was justified.
I'm sorry, but the people who are using this situation as reason to justify attacking & looting against other innocents are complete scum. I hope they get what they deserve, whether it be fines/criminal charges/community service...
Sure, organise & protest peacefully and let the system know that the community isn't going to quietly tolerate the possibility of a bad cop making a poor decision and killing a possibly innocent young man.
But to ruin others people's lives because you feel wronged and that everyone else has it coming to them, "because reasons?" Gakkers...
Ensis Ferrae wrote: I'm generally pissed off about this whole situation. On the one hand, you've got a situation which is being investigated (but apparently not quick enough for some people) in which, most reports that I've seen have suggested that the police officer was in the "right" but again, we don't know all the details so I can't really comment or form an opinion on that myself.
On the other hand, you have a whole community of morons who think that this sort of gak is OK when things don't go their way. It's completely cool for their "own" people to kill, rape, and steal from each other, but if someone else, especially "The Man" does it, it's time to break gak and commit MORE crimes.
Don't worry. Al Sharpton is coming. That should calm down the situation.
Glad no one was hurt, especially with throwing rocks off the freeway. Evidently reports there had been fighting in a mall as well.
The problem here is that it's not that simple. It's not a single group of people moving in unison for a single cause directed by a leader. It's a bunch of people moving in every direction, claiming it's for that cause, whether true or not. It's like if we judged Christianity based solely upon the actions of the WBC or the OWS crowd based upon what it blew up into when the crazies and rabble rousers got involved.
There's merit to showing your feelings on the matter. There's not merit to destroying your own community. It's not the same people doing both.
Four-year-old Aubrey Glover struggled with a broom even taller than her to sweep broken glass in the parking lot of a burned-out convenience store the morning after a riot in Ferguson.
Her mother, Erica Hampton, 31, woke up Aubrey and her brother, Jaden, 10, early that morning in their north St. Louis County home and said they were going to do some cleaning up.
"Tearing up buildings and trashing places is not the way to solve anything," she told them. They brought large white trash bags and brooms.
She called her sister, Dede Patteron, 29, who lives near the street where 18-year-old Michael Brown was shot and killed by a police officer on Saturday. Patterson's young children have slept in the bed with her the past few nights while they heard shouts from the crowds outside.
"I didn't even explain it to them," Patterson said. She wasn't sure what to tell them. "It was just too much." The QuikTrip is where her 9- and 7-year-old walk to for snacks. "My kids can't ever come to the store anymore."
"Let's go clean it up," her sister said to her. "Let's go."
Patterson agreed: "What I seen I didn't like. ... It's not going to bring him back."
There is an urgency to do something, anything, to make the terribleness of the past week less so. For Hampton, who will complete her master's degree in counseling in December, she wanted her children to see her picking up trash around the destroyed building.
"This what you do for your community," she told them.
There is anger here, not just about the shooting, but toward the vandals who destroyed their businesses in their neighborhood. Toward those who have changed the conversation from trying to find out what happened and seek justice to the criminal reaction of some.
"They are judging us by this," Patterson said, waving her arms around the parking lot.
Shamika Williams, 36, stood in the lot with two of her three daughters. They had seen Brown's body lying in the street in broad daylight when he was killed. Their mother has been at protests, wanting to add her voice to those calling for a change in the way residents are treated by law enforcement.
"I don't want them growing up getting mistreated. I don't want them growing up afraid of the cops," she said. "Why can't we protest? Why can't we grieve? Let us get this out of our system."
The stories she's heard and things she's seen make her glad she doesn't have a son. "If I had a boy, I'd be afraid to let him walk the street."
Beyond anger and grief, there is weariness in this area.
How many times have we seen this scene? How long will we march in streets?
"It seems like this has been going on a while," said Kenyana Shaw, 25, of St. Louis. "I can't imagine if this happened to my son."
A small child stood next to a young, black man speaking angrily to an older man in a parking lot. When I told him I wanted to speak to parents in the area, he became even more upset.
He shook his head and started walked away from me but kept talking. He said he knew what it was like to be Michael Brown. He knew how it felt to be stopped walking down these streets, automatically a suspect.
There was anguish in his voice: "They hate us! Their daddies, their granddaddies hated us and now they hate us!"
There is fear.
A woman who owns a hair braiding salon said she told her children to stay inside all day. She only came to check on her store and planned to lock up and stay home. Her older boys had been friends with Brown.
"I'm so scared," she said.
There were still parents pushing baby carriages down the debris-scattered street, past cracked and broken storefront windows, past graffiti that said "kill the police" and "RIP."
Randy Casson, 37, stood in a small group with his 11-year-old son, who partially hid behind his father's legs. His son's eyes were sad. His face somber.
Casson tried to explain to him that the people who rioted had not learned a better way to express themselves. That they were angry and lashing out in the wrong way.
"It seems like the police and the people are about to go to war," Randy, Jr. said.
I couldn't help my immediate response.
"Oh, baby, no. That's not going to happen. Why do you think that?"
Posted by Jim Hoft on Tuesday, August 12, 2014, 1:19 PM
BREAKING ALERT—–
FAA WARNING –
Airspace restriction over Ferguson, Missouri–
All commercial pilots in the country are getting this notice.
Notice to Airmen: Airspace restriction over Ferguson.
FYI: Ferguson, Missouri is located right next to Lambert International Airport in St. Louis, Missouri.
A local commercial pilot and former military aviator informed The Gateway Pundit that there is a no fly zone and this is extremely uncommon.
anything happens to minority = racist even if it was another minority doing it.
Reminds me of DWB nonsense, the cop can't see what you look like until they pull you over for doing something illegal in the first place.
Regardless of how this happened the people looting/rioting are just using it as an excuse to do stuff they want to do. Some guy stilling pringles and a tallboy of miller lite from a convenience store is not sending a message about what happened, or asking for an investigation. It's just an exploitive moron stealing things.
Um... dudes. I think you'll see how stubborn Missourians can be.
Just heard over local news cast:
Officials are telling county police officers to reset all of their passwords to their social media and email accounts. They believe the county police department was hacked by Anonymous.
Of course without tracer bullets being used there is no way for an aerial target to know it had been shot at unless it had been actually hit. The cops didn't say their helicopter was hit, so their statement is basically falsitudinous.
The last time I heard about looting in NZ (and first) was about a guy with a mental disability that compels him to steal light fittings. This was after the Christchurch earthquake.
Must be scary to be in an area where your lively hood could be destroyed.
What usually happens during these violent protests? Didnt it happen after Martin Luther King was shot as well? (I seem to remember learning about that many many years ago).
Of course without tracer bullets being used there is no way for an aerial target to know it had been shot at unless it had been actually hit. The cops didn't say their helicopter was hit, so their statement is basically falsitudinous.
You mean it was just "stuff was going 'boom boom' while we had helicopters in the air therefore the rioters had AA firepower"?
Swastakowey wrote: The last time I heard about looting in NZ (and first) was about a guy with a mental disability that compels him to steal light fittings. This was after the Christchurch earthquake.
Must be scary to be in an area where your lively hood could be destroyed.
What usually happens during these violent protests? Didnt it happen after Martin Luther King was shot as well? (I seem to remember learning about that many many years ago).
Actually, it didn't happen in STL. There were protests, but by my understanding, we actually have had a proud and remarkable tradition of not rioting here that's sadly been broken now.
Why take a chance on a rotary aircraft when one slug can cause up to 45K in damages if it hits the spar of the main rotor blade or hit the drive shaft of the tail rotor. WHY take a chance at all if rioters are shooting just pistols at first then go up to rifles.
Of course without tracer bullets being used there is no way for an aerial target to know it had been shot at unless it had been actually hit. The cops didn't say their helicopter was hit, so their statement is basically falsitudinous.
You mean it was just "stuff was going 'boom boom' while we had helicopters in the air therefore the rioters had AA firepower"?
How can a helicopter crew hear a gun shot? How can a helicopter crew see a bullet?
There is no way a helicopter crew can know they have been shot at unless there are bullet holes in the aircraft when they land.
There are no statements that there were bullet holes in the helicopters, only that the crowd had been shooting at them.
Of course without tracer bullets being used there is no way for an aerial target to know it had been shot at unless it had been actually hit. The cops didn't say their helicopter was hit, so their statement is basically falsitudinous.
You mean it was just "stuff was going 'boom boom' while we had helicopters in the air therefore the rioters had AA firepower"?
How can a helicopter crew hear a gun shot? How can a helicopter crew see a bullet?
There is no way a helicopter crew can know they have been shot at unless there are bullet holes in the aircraft when they land.
I just figured it came from cops on the ground. "We heard people shoot while our helicopter was in the air!"
Unrelated: one of the Oklahoma City or Oklahoma County LE helicopters was shot at not too long ago. Nobody knew it until, like you said, they found a bullet hole in the helicopter while inspecting it.
Of course without tracer bullets being used there is no way for an aerial target to know it had been shot at unless it had been actually hit. The cops didn't say their helicopter was hit, so their statement is basically falsitudinous.
You mean it was just "stuff was going 'boom boom' while we had helicopters in the air therefore the rioters had AA firepower"?
How can a helicopter crew hear a gun shot? How can a helicopter crew see a bullet?
There is no way a helicopter crew can know they have been shot at unless there are bullet holes in the aircraft when they land.
There are no statements that there were bullet holes in the helicopters, only that the crowd had been shooting at them.
I am sure people can draw their own conclusions.
Can see the result of bullet holes in the aircraft
Can also see individuals firing at you.
Good to see the St. Louis Ink guys defending their business. According to this article they share a storefront with a gun store. Defending it was the responsible thing to do. If the mob had cleared out the gun store that would have been bad news.
Some people ask why a civilian would ever need an AR-15. This is a pretty good example.
Of course without tracer bullets being used there is no way for an aerial target to know it had been shot at unless it had been actually hit. The cops didn't say their helicopter was hit, so their statement is basically falsitudinous.
You mean it was just "stuff was going 'boom boom' while we had helicopters in the air therefore the rioters had AA firepower"?
How can a helicopter crew hear a gun shot? How can a helicopter crew see a bullet?
There is no way a helicopter crew can know they have been shot at unless there are bullet holes in the aircraft when they land.
There are no statements that there were bullet holes in the helicopters, only that the crowd had been shooting at them.
I am sure people can draw their own conclusions.
Can see the result of bullet holes in the aircraft Can also see individuals firing at you.
Which there apparently weren't, as I pointed out twice.
Can see people waving hands, sticks, even guns in the air, if you are lucky and sharp-eyed, and claim it to be people shooting.
Where is the video footage? Shouldn't police helicopters gather evidence using their on-board equipment? Perhaps locked in the same vault as the name of the policemen who shot the unarmed teenager multiple times who was seen by a witness surrendering.
Of course without tracer bullets being used there is no way for an aerial target to know it had been shot at unless it had been actually hit. The cops didn't say their helicopter was hit, so their statement is basically falsitudinous.
You mean it was just "stuff was going 'boom boom' while we had helicopters in the air therefore the rioters had AA firepower"?
How can a helicopter crew hear a gun shot? How can a helicopter crew see a bullet?
There is no way a helicopter crew can know they have been shot at unless there are bullet holes in the aircraft when they land.
There are no statements that there were bullet holes in the helicopters, only that the crowd had been shooting at them.
I am sure people can draw their own conclusions.
Can see the result of bullet holes in the aircraft
Can also see individuals firing at you.
Which there apparently weren't, as I pointed out twice.
Can see people waving hands, sticks, even guns in the air, if you are lucky and sharp-eyed, and claim it to be people shooting.
Where is the video footage? Shouldn't police helicopters gather evidence using their on-board equipment? Perhaps locked in the same vault as the name of the policemen who shot the unarmed teenager multiple times who was seen by a witness surrendering.
Justification on taking the "chance" then. None of the "birds" have Kevlar paneling or armor seats for the pilots and passengers.
I've also seen "hands going up" when the targets gets shot to. Question remaining at this point is
Was he surrendering before getting shot
or
Getting shot and having the arms going up from impact
Eye witness says one thing and police reports says another. Let the investigation reach its conclusions
Frazzled wrote:So when does DHS roll in with their assault tanks and black helicopters?
The DHS? I thought this is why local law enforcement was stockpiling APCs and stuff.
Spoiler:
Maybe they'll call in Roy Scheider and Blue Thunder.
blaktoof wrote:anything happens to minority = racist even if it was another minority doing it.
Rather, I suppose it might be a combination of history + ratio of blacks to non-blacks (both in victims as well as cops) + commonly lack of consequences for the officers involved (doesn't actually apply solely to white-on-black brutality, but would obviously be interpreted differently in this situation, compounded with the aforementioned ratios).
As for the rioting, I'm fairly sure this has less to do with exploitation but rather with built-up anger leading to cessation of an objective analysis of the situation. This is how mob mentality works, and in this case the only thing on people's mind is a desire to vent frustration.
Get a large enough group of humans together, rile up their emotions, and watch them go crazy. Have you never been to a concert or read about stuff like the Reichskristallnacht? It's a part of human nature.
Four-year-old Aubrey Glover struggled with a broom even taller than her to sweep broken glass in the parking lot of a burned-out convenience store the morning after a riot in Ferguson.
Her mother, Erica Hampton, 31, woke up Aubrey and her brother, Jaden, 10, early that morning in their north St. Louis County home and said they were going to do some cleaning up.
"Tearing up buildings and trashing places is not the way to solve anything," she told them. They brought large white trash bags and brooms.
She called her sister, Dede Patteron, 29, who lives near the street where 18-year-old Michael Brown was shot and killed by a police officer on Saturday. Patterson's young children have slept in the bed with her the past few nights while they heard shouts from the crowds outside.
"I didn't even explain it to them," Patterson said. She wasn't sure what to tell them. "It was just too much." The QuikTrip is where her 9- and 7-year-old walk to for snacks. "My kids can't ever come to the store anymore."
"Let's go clean it up," her sister said to her. "Let's go."
Patterson agreed: "What I seen I didn't like. ... It's not going to bring him back."
There is an urgency to do something, anything, to make the terribleness of the past week less so. For Hampton, who will complete her master's degree in counseling in December, she wanted her children to see her picking up trash around the destroyed building.
"This what you do for your community," she told them.
There is anger here, not just about the shooting, but toward the vandals who destroyed their businesses in their neighborhood. Toward those who have changed the conversation from trying to find out what happened and seek justice to the criminal reaction of some.
"They are judging us by this," Patterson said, waving her arms around the parking lot.
Shamika Williams, 36, stood in the lot with two of her three daughters. They had seen Brown's body lying in the street in broad daylight when he was killed. Their mother has been at protests, wanting to add her voice to those calling for a change in the way residents are treated by law enforcement.
"I don't want them growing up getting mistreated. I don't want them growing up afraid of the cops," she said. "Why can't we protest? Why can't we grieve? Let us get this out of our system."
The stories she's heard and things she's seen make her glad she doesn't have a son. "If I had a boy, I'd be afraid to let him walk the street."
Beyond anger and grief, there is weariness in this area.
How many times have we seen this scene? How long will we march in streets?
"It seems like this has been going on a while," said Kenyana Shaw, 25, of St. Louis. "I can't imagine if this happened to my son."
A small child stood next to a young, black man speaking angrily to an older man in a parking lot. When I told him I wanted to speak to parents in the area, he became even more upset.
He shook his head and started walked away from me but kept talking. He said he knew what it was like to be Michael Brown. He knew how it felt to be stopped walking down these streets, automatically a suspect.
There was anguish in his voice: "They hate us! Their daddies, their granddaddies hated us and now they hate us!"
There is fear.
A woman who owns a hair braiding salon said she told her children to stay inside all day. She only came to check on her store and planned to lock up and stay home. Her older boys had been friends with Brown.
"I'm so scared," she said.
There were still parents pushing baby carriages down the debris-scattered street, past cracked and broken storefront windows, past graffiti that said "kill the police" and "RIP."
Randy Casson, 37, stood in a small group with his 11-year-old son, who partially hid behind his father's legs. His son's eyes were sad. His face somber.
Casson tried to explain to him that the people who rioted had not learned a better way to express themselves. That they were angry and lashing out in the wrong way.
"It seems like the police and the people are about to go to war," Randy, Jr. said.
I couldn't help my immediate response.
"Oh, baby, no. That's not going to happen. Why do you think that?"
Well out of 53 officers only 3 are black so odds are higher the officer wasn't himself black.
Lynata did an excellent job explaining the effect of being in a mob.
I agree that rioting is universally stupid, but I also have to acknowledge that without the unrest in the wake of the shooting, none of us may have ever had it brought to our attention.
I agree that rioting is universally stupid, but I also have to acknowledge that without the unrest in the wake of the shooting, none of us may have ever had it brought to our attention.
At the same time though, once all the details of the initial shooting come out, what is the possibility that the officer was doing his duty completely by the book, and did nothing wrong? Is this even really national/international news worthy?
I mean, I completely understand why people in LA rioted after the Rodney King verdict, I get why people rioted in Chicago in 68. To an extent, I "get" why people in Vancouver rioted when the 'Nucks lost the Stanley Cup... But this... I don't fething understand why it's "cool" to feth up your own, and others' communities and riot over this.
Is there a long history of tension between the cops and the minority community there? Is the history there the same as MO? Did the cops shoot an unarmed teen after OJ was release? Riots don't happen overnight or over a single incident, but usually from a series of incidents and problems over a long period.
Is there a long history of tension between the cops and the minority community there? Is the history there the same as MO? Did the cops shoot an unarmed teen after OJ was release? Riots don't happen overnight or over a single incident, but usually from a series of incidents and problems over a long period.
I got the "vibe" that LEO are not from Ferguson because a majority of the population is black?
Because the most logical course of action to resolve tension is to loot and burn stores in your neighborhood.
Oh, wait. No it isn't.
These pieces of garbage are selfish opportunists that couldn't give two happy feths about resolving any "tension" in the community. I hope those store owners pick up shop and don't reopen their stores.
Of course without tracer bullets being used there is no way for an aerial target to know it had been shot at unless it had been actually hit. The cops didn't say their helicopter was hit, so their statement is basically falsitudinous.
You mean it was just "stuff was going 'boom boom' while we had helicopters in the air therefore the rioters had AA firepower"?
How can a helicopter crew hear a gun shot? How can a helicopter crew see a bullet?
There is no way a helicopter crew can know they have been shot at unless there are bullet holes in the aircraft when they land.
There are no statements that there were bullet holes in the helicopters, only that the crowd had been shooting at them.
I am sure people can draw their own conclusions.
Can see the result of bullet holes in the aircraft
Can also see individuals firing at you.
Which there apparently weren't, as I pointed out twice.
Can see people waving hands, sticks, even guns in the air, if you are lucky and sharp-eyed, and claim it to be people shooting.
Where is the video footage? Shouldn't police helicopters gather evidence using their on-board equipment? Perhaps locked in the same vault as the name of the policemen who shot the unarmed teenager multiple times who was seen by a witness surrendering.
Perhaps the cops on the ground saw it happening and told the choppers. Maybe the guys in the choppers could actually tell people were shooting at them by seeing for themselves. I'm sure those on the boards that were in the military could say pretty well how someone could tell they were being shot at.
cincydooley wrote: Furthermore, the amount of justifying that seems to be going on in the media is absurd. There's no "justification" to a riot or looting.
Try to loot in my cul de sac and you'll get about 8 rifles open up on you. We don't have looting here.
cincydooley wrote: Furthermore, the amount of justifying that seems to be going on in the media is absurd. There's no "justification" to a riot or looting.
Try to loot in my cul de sac and you'll get about 8 rifles open up on you. We don't have looting here.
Anonymous released the address of Jon Belmar the County Police Chief earlier today.
It was the wrong address.
A police family in Florissant, Missouri (north of Ferguson) was evacuated from their home today after Anonymous hackers wrongly ID’d the man as the shooter of Michael Brown.
JΞSTΞR ✪ ACTUAL™ @th3j35t3r
Follow
Florissant Police family evacuated from home due to threats after '#Anonymous' wrongly ID him as the #Ferguson cop. http://bit.ly/1nNmWLn
feth... this is near where I live! (I can get there in less than 5 minutes).
Earlier this evening, protesting groups showed up again at that QT. Here's the standoff:
Ariel view:
Plus, on the news cast, there's a large protest groups at Old Jamestown Mall... geez. That's 10 minutes west of my house.
whembly eye's are peeled on the telly and scanner lines.
Jihadin wrote: Forget the rotary wing in New Orleans were getting shot at that one time...
I have a friend who was in the LANG back then, and she was telling me how even her 5 ton (that the bulk of the platoon was riding in back) was getting shot at
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, whembly... if they are really as close to you as all that... I'd load up EVERY gun in the house, just to be prepared
"Pregnant woman claims she was pushed over at a protest by police"
People need to learn that if they are pregnant or have kids not to go to potentially violent herd behaviour areas. Why people take kids to protests I can never figure out.
I can't help but think that seeing soldiers, some of whom are pointing their m4 at me would have much of a calming effect. Riot gear is one thing but but this is like gas to a fire. Soldiering and policing are not the same thing.
NSFW Language...shouldn't be linked to from Dakka. --Janthkin
Is it just me, or with all the rioting that's happening (I would say recently, but I just recently started paying attention, so I dunno), a sign that something just ain't right?
If it's with People, Cops, Government, or what, I dunno.
Also, I thought with the other thread title that someone went Disney Princess all over some cops.
whembly wrote: The FAA flight restrictions are for low flying aircrafts (aka choppers)
Nothing at all unusual about that, the FAA does it pretty often. The last thing you want is police helicopters, news helicopters, and whatever random idiot decided to fly by and take a look all packed into a fairly small area, it's just begging to have a collision and get even more people killed.
cincydooley wrote: Furthermore, the amount of justifying that seems to be going on in the media is absurd. There's no "justification" to a riot or looting.
Try to loot in my cul de sac and you'll get about 8 rifles open up on you. We don't have looting here.
whembly wrote: The FAA flight restrictions are for low flying aircrafts (aka choppers)
Nothing at all unusual about that, the FAA does it pretty often. The last thing you want is police helicopters, news helicopters, and whatever random idiot decided to fly by and take a look all packed into a fairly small area, it's just begging to have a collision and get even more people killed.
Perfectly understandable... but, the communication strategy by the powers that be is left... wanting.
whembly wrote: Perfectly understandable... but, the communication strategy by the powers that be is left... wanting.
How is the communication lacking? It's right here: http://tfr.faa.gov/save_pages/detail_4_2599.html and if you're a pilot you're expected to check for notifications like this before taking off. It doesn't need to be broadcast to non-pilots because it has absolutely no effect on you unless you're planning to fly through or near that area.
whembly wrote: Perfectly understandable... but, the communication strategy by the powers that be is left... wanting.
How is the communication lacking? It's right here: http://tfr.faa.gov/save_pages/detail_4_2599.html and if you're a pilot you're expected to check for notifications like this before taking off. It doesn't need to be broadcast to non-pilots because it has absolutely no effect on you unless you're planning to fly through or near that area.
I meant in general... sorry.
One example is that the police department were willing to release the name of the officer today. But, since there's been credible threats, that's not going to happen anytime soon.
I completely understand why they changed their minds, but the PR aspect of the STL PD handling this is taking some serious criticisms here...
whembly wrote: Perfectly understandable... but, the communication strategy by the powers that be is left... wanting.
How is the communication lacking? It's right here: http://tfr.faa.gov/save_pages/detail_4_2599.html and if you're a pilot you're expected to check for notifications like this before taking off. It doesn't need to be broadcast to non-pilots because it has absolutely no effect on you unless you're planning to fly through or near that area.
Flight Operations will ensure all pilots are aware.
whembly wrote: ^ feth.. now you know why some of us cherish our 2nd Amendment right.
I know why people love the second amendment. I'm one of them.
Also, why do we always hear about shootings and riots happening like this? Isn't a shooting like a weekly occurrence in some cities? Where is the exposure to those victims?
"A police officer encounters two people, including Brown, on the street near an apartment complex in Ferguson."
"One of the men allegedly pushed the officer back into his squad car and a struggle begins, authorities state."
This is really all the explanation I needed. If a police officer approaches you and anything is alleged other than "one of the men allegedly did everything the officer said" than I think you probably need shot.
Anybody that thinks looting and rioting is ok, as a form of protest needs their head checked. Anyone caught looting and rioting probably needs shot.
Anybody that opens their mouth to an officer to say anything other than "yes, sir/maam/officer." probably needs beaten with a nightstick, and then probably shot.
That community has only made it worse for themselves, causing damage to infrastructure that will only make the place worse to live in.
It is not your right as an American citizen to question a police officer who is essentially a representation of law which makes order in this country for 99% of us. The police are not your enemy, if you see them as such then you are probably a criminal or need your head checked and maybe also need beaten with a nightstick, tased, and/or shot.
There are bad apples here and there in law enforcement. But entirely too many cases of "this man/women was acting like an idiot and then an officer responded excessively". If you are acting like an idiot towards law enforcement you probably deserve whats coming to you.
Obey the law, work, advance your life, and maybe if you ever work hard enough to become a lawyer or politician you can open your face politely to suggest how to make things better and people will listen.
"Did you hear? The police shot M. Brown?".
"Oh yeah? Lets go down the local market break in all the windows, steal everything, and maybe set the place on fire."
It is not your right as an American citizen to question a police officer who is essentially a representation of law which makes order in this country for 99% of us. The police are not your enemy, if you see them as such then you are probably a criminal or need your head checked and maybe also need beaten with a nightstick, tased, and/or shot.
There are bad apples here and there in law enforcement. But entirely too many cases of "this man/women was acting like an idiot and then an officer responded excessively". If you are acting like an idiot towards law enforcement you probably deserve whats coming to you.
Obey the law, work, advance your life, and maybe if you ever work hard enough to become a lawyer or politician you can open your face politely to suggest how to make things better and people will listen.
Considering the only reason you have rights as an American Citizen is because people said "Feth You!" to the British Government, this is actually kind of hilarious.
whembly wrote: ^ feth.. now you know why some of us cherish our 2nd Amendment right.
I know why people love the second amendment. I'm one of them.
Also, why do we always hear about shootings and riots happening like this? Isn't a shooting like a weekly occurrence in some cities? Where is the exposure to those victims?
It's not an issue when a brown person kills a brown person.
Is more or less the dynamic, whether people are consciously aware of it or not.
There's also the fact, I guess, that police "should no better". They're not random thugs- they're our trained protectors, thus when they act a fool it's more noteworthy.
whembly wrote: ^ feth.. now you know why some of us cherish our 2nd Amendment right.
I know why people love the second amendment. I'm one of them.
Also, why do we always hear about shootings and riots happening like this? Isn't a shooting like a weekly occurrence in some cities? Where is the exposure to those victims?
It's not an issue when a brown person kills a brown person.
Is more or less the dynamic, whether people are consciously aware of it or not.
There's also the fact, I guess, that police "should no better". They're not random thugs- they're our trained protectors, thus when they act a fool it's more noteworthy.
In the Travyrn Martin (Sorry about spelling) Case, it wasn't a police officer, so while police-being-idiots can be a thing, it wasn't in that case. Also, while no info has been provided, if one of the kids pushed the cop into the car, that's not the policeman doing a bad job either, that's a kid being a "smart guy".
As for the color issue, shouldn't a life being ended prematurely, no matter the color of skin of either people involved, be tragic?
Dreadclaw69 wrote: So we have looters, Anonymous, and Al Sharpton..... this has the potential to get real interesting real fast
Kilkrazy wrote: How can a helicopter crew hear a gun shot? How can a helicopter crew see a bullet?
There is no way a helicopter crew can know they have been shot at unless there are bullet holes in the aircraft when they land.
There are no statements that there were bullet holes in the helicopters, only that the crowd had been shooting at them.
I am sure people can draw their own conclusions.
Didn't the Police in London have footage from the helicopter of rioters firing at their helicopter during the riots there some years back?
If there was no doubt it would be available on the BBC news website. Since you are proposing it I think you should do the searches.
However it is not clear how the possible existence of footage of shooting at helicopters in London explains the lack of footage of shooting at helicopters in Ferguson.
In the Travyrn Martin (Sorry about spelling) Case, it wasn't a police officer, so while police-being-idiots can be a thing, it wasn't in that case. Also, while no info has been provided, if one of the kids pushed the cop into the car, that's not the policeman doing a bad job either, that's a kid being a "smart guy".
Thing is, I don't normally see it being the style of college bound kids who come from inner city situations and actually have the chance to escape them to do things like assault police officers.
Even then, why was he shot from yards away? Is it standard MO for police to shoot someone not wielding a weapon from 35 feet away? I'm genuinely asking here. It doesn't seem... well, right to me.
As for the color issue, shouldn't a life being ended prematurely, no matter the color of skin of either people involved, be tragic?
Jihadin wrote: I thought I heard something in the past few days about a weapon discharge inside the police cruiser....
Official police story is (or was) that Brown was in the car attacking the officer when the first shot was fired. This is, of course, contradicted by every statement given by a witness.
Jihadin wrote: I thought I heard something in the past few days about a weapon discharge inside the police cruiser....
Official police story is (or was) that Brown was in the car attacking the officer when the first shot was fired. This is, of course, contradicted by every statement given by a witness.
Further, how do you go from a car attacking a police officer to being shot 35 feet away. I don't think I could climb out of however I was in a car fighting someone trained to be able to cope with physical assault to being 35 feet away shot in the span of time it would take for someone to shoot me. No one has made any indication said victim has any prior record, and I think that would be easy enough to dredge up.
Gun Powder residue and entry hole in the vehicle would side with LEO version of the events.
snip from Fox
Authorities have been vague about what led the officer to open fire, saying only that the shooting -- which is being investigated by the St. Louis County police at the smaller city's request -- was preceded by a scuffle of some kind with a man in which the officer's weapon discharged once inside a patrol car.
Investigators have refused to publicly disclose the race of the officer, who is now on administrative leave. But Phillip Walker said he was on the porch of an apartment complex overlooking the scene when he heard a shot and saw a white officer with Brown on the street.
Brown "was giving up in the sense of raising his arms and being subdued," Walker told The Associated Press. The officer "had his gun raised and started shooting the individual in the chest multiple times." The officer then "stood over him and shot him" after the victim fell wounded.
Dorian Johnson offered a similar account, telling KMOV-TV that he and Brown were walking home from a convenience store when a police officer told them to get out of the street and onto the sidewalk. Johnson said they kept walking, which caused the officer to confront them from his car and again after getting out of the vehicle.
Johnson said the first time the officer fired, he and Brown got scared and ran away.
"He shot again, and once my friend felt that shot, he turned around and put his hands in the air, and he started to get down," Johnson said. "But the officer still approached with his weapon drawn and fired several more shots."
"We wasn't causing harm to nobody," Johnson said. "We had no weapons on us at all."
Walker said that he did not see a scuffle or the circumstances that preceded the first gunshot.
This witness mention one shot (Brown)
Johnson mention seven shots
St. Louis County Police Chief Jon Belmar said the officer’s gun was fired once inside the car during a struggle with Brown, hitting no one, and that the officer then fired multiple times at the 18-year-old as he ran away. Police say Brown tried to take the officer’s gun.
So the gun was fired in the car, and he was then shot in the back as he ran away? Again, is it standard procedure to shoot at someone unarmed running away?
At one point, members of the crowd held up their hands, saying, “Don’t shoot me!” as police officers with barking dogs tried to keep order. St. Louis County Police Chief Jon Belmar said the officer’s gun was fired once inside the car during a struggle with Brown, hitting no one, and that the officer then fired multiple times at the 18-year-old as he ran away. Police say Brown tried to take the officer’s gun.
“That doesn’t sound like Michael,” Johnson said. “I know he would never do anything like that. I just don’t believe he’d do anything that would cause this whole situation.”
On May 22, Brown walked across the stage inside Viking Hall, accepting a diploma with 114 other classmates. His gown was green. His sash was red.
In his graduation picture, Brown holds an expression of someone who’d just finished an endurance race. He had voiced relief to a number of friends that day, including Raquan Smith.
Because this is a "news" article that is reporting just the facts.
Do we know why the officer stopped them in the first place?
Presumably there will be lots of forensic evidence. A cartridge case and powder traces inside the car, multiple cartridges outside the car, powder traces on the victim consistent with having been shot once (or twice?) at close range.
This is really all the explanation I needed. If a police officer approaches you and anything is alleged other than "one of the men allegedly did everything the officer said" than I think you probably need shot.
Anybody that thinks looting and rioting is ok, as a form of protest needs their head checked. Anyone caught looting and rioting probably needs shot.
Anybody that opens their mouth to an officer to say anything other than "yes, sir/maam/officer." probably needs beaten with a nightstick, and then probably shot.
Thats... disturbing to say the least. That kind of belief among some members of the police is acutely one of the issues. "I'm right, do not question me, do what I say". This is why we fight for policing by consent in the UK.
Obey the law, work, advance your life, and maybe if you ever work hard enough to become a lawyer or politician you can open your face politely to suggest how to make things better and people will listen.
Or, you know, live in a democratic, free and open society.
I don't know how much use that is. We have an interesting clash again. Seems to be happening more and more in the US. Half the population believing "The officer was doing his job. All police are perfect" the other half "He was a young boy, promising young football player, never did anything". Someone is wrong, but it seems more often than not it is a more nuanced situation, but both sides stick to a belief in a black and white answer to the issue (For the record, the same is true int he US, just we have far less shootings due to them not being armed by the police and far fewer incidents due to the smaller population).
Rismonite wrote: This is really all the explanation I needed. If a police officer approaches you and anything is alleged other than "one of the men allegedly did everything the officer said" than I think you probably need shot.
Anybody that thinks looting and rioting is ok, as a form of protest needs their head checked. Anyone caught looting and rioting probably needs shot.
Anybody that opens their mouth to an officer to say anything other than "yes, sir/maam/officer." probably needs beaten with a nightstick, and then probably shot.
...
It is not your right as an American citizen to question a police officer who is essentially a representation of law which makes order in this country for 99% of us. The police are not your enemy, if you see them as such then you are probably a criminal or need your head checked and maybe also need beaten with a nightstick, tased, and/or shot.
There are bad apples here and there in law enforcement. But entirely too many cases of "this man/women was acting like an idiot and then an officer responded excessively". If you are acting like an idiot towards law enforcement you probably deserve whats coming to you.
Obey the law, work, advance your life, and maybe if you ever work hard enough to become a lawyer or politician you can open your face politely to suggest how to make things better and people will listen.
The officer "had his gun raised and started shooting the individual in the chest multiple times." The officer then "stood over him and shot him" after the victim fell wounded.
The former sentence could be justifiable, depending. The latter (if true) pretty clearly crosses the line into murder.
cincydooley wrote: Furthermore, the amount of justifying that seems to be going on in the media is absurd. There's no "justification" to a riot or looting.
Try to loot in my cul de sac and you'll get about 8 rifles open up on you. We don't have looting here.
You got Nike stores in your cul de sac, do you?
No, we do have Girl Scout cookies. Protect the munchies!!!!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: For a minute there, I thought those pictures of police officers were US Marines ready to roll back into Iraq!
Yea...why are police wearing camo?
If 40K has taught us anything they should be wearing garrish colors.
Rismonite wrote: It is not your right as an American citizen to question a police officer who is essentially a representation of law which makes order in this country for 99% of us. The police are not your enemy, if you see them as such then you are probably a criminal or need your head checked and maybe also need beaten with a nightstick, tased, and/or shot.
There are bad apples here and there in law enforcement. But entirely too many cases of "this man/women was acting like an idiot and then an officer responded excessively". If you are acting like an idiot towards law enforcement you probably deserve whats coming to you.
A couple of things:
A) your entire argument is entirely authoritarian, would make Orwell spin in his grave, and is patently disgusting.
B) Black people are disproportionately targeted by police officers in Ferguson; should they just accept this state of affairs where they are unfairly targeted by the police, because if they consider this unfair then they should be beaten with a nightstick, tasted and shot?
LAtimes wrote:Blacks make up 65% of Ferguson's population, yet they accounted for 93% of arrests after traffic stops, 92% of searches and 80% of traffic stops in the city last year, according to a racial profiling report by the Missouri attorney general.
When stopped by police, blacks in Ferguson were twice as likely as whites to be arrested -- even though police found contraband for 34% of whites stopped, versus 22% of blacks -- said Scott Decker, a criminologist on a team contracted by the attorney general's office to compile the data.
This is really all the explanation I needed. If a police officer approaches you and anything is alleged other than "one of the men allegedly did everything the officer said" than I think you probably need shot.
The officer "had his gun raised and started shooting the individual in the chest multiple times." The officer then "stood over him and shot him" after the victim fell wounded.
The former sentence could be justifiable, depending. The latter (if true) pretty clearly crosses the line into murder.
B) Black people are disproportionately targeted by police officers in Ferguson; should they just accept this state of affairs where they are unfairly targeted by the police, because if they consider this unfair then they should be beaten with a nightstick, tasted and shot?
LAtimes wrote:Blacks make up 65% of Ferguson's population, yet they accounted for 93% of arrests after traffic stops, 92% of searches and 80% of traffic stops in the city last year, according to a racial profiling report by the Missouri attorney general.
When stopped by police, blacks in Ferguson were twice as likely as whites to be arrested -- even though police found contraband for 34% of whites stopped, versus 22% of blacks -- said Scott Decker, a criminologist on a team contracted by the attorney general's office to compile the data.
This is really all the explanation I needed. If a police officer approaches you and anything is alleged other than "one of the men allegedly did everything the officer said" than I think you probably need shot.
Can you really be charged with just resisting arrest?
d-usa wrote: This is the Internet, don't ask questions like that!
I would actually be surprised if you could, but I would also not be that surprised...
I'm no LEO, nor lawyer, but I'd suspect that there are VERY limited circumstances where you could be arrested for "only" resisting arrest. One of those times being when police are clearing an illegal demonstration/gathering/riot/protest (because while we all know that there's a 1st amendment right to have demonstrations/protests/gatherings, there are certain procedures that are to be done to ensure public safety)
I just can't believe the amount of derping is going on around here.
This story is still in its early stages... and the one thing we can say for sure is that much of what is being reported as breaking news or insider scoops or eyewitness accounts is going to turn out to be wrong.
Noneof the physical evidence is available yet...
And eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable... unless its offered in court under oath and cross-exams. And that goes for both sides.
The “narrative” being adopted by activists and by the media already is getting sickening...
Not sure about the US, but in the UK, it is possible, but unlikely. For example in a case where an officer had good reason to believe you had committed an offence, but later it was shown you did not:
If evidence shows that a person is innocent of crime for which they have resisted arrest, are they still guilty of the second charge of resisting arrest?
For example, if the police arrest someone for damaging a bus stop and they physically resist the arrest, is the individual still likely to face court for resisting arrest even though CCTV of the bus stop shows the person wholly innocent?
Before I attempt to answer this post I should reiterate that this blog is not a place for giving individual legal advice. SashaAutonomous seems to be asking about a specific incident and should contact a criminal solicitor for more detailed advice.
SashaAutonomous raises a common concern, and I can see that it may seem unfair on the face of it, but it is possible to be guilty of offences relating to resisting or obstructing arrest, even if you are not guilty f the offence for which you were arrested. The key question is whether the arrest was lawful.
There are a number of offences which might apply if you are obstructive when a police officer arrests you. First, it is an offence to "resist or wilfully obstruct a constable in the execution of his duty". It is also an offence to assault a constable in the execution of his duty. You won't be found guilty of these offences, however, if the police officer is acting outside his powers; in that event he is not acting "in the execution of his duty". Secondly, there is a more serious offence of "assault with intent to resist arrest". Again, however, in order to be guilty of this offence it must be proved that the person attempting to carry out the arrest had the right to do so.
In order for an arrest to be lawful, the conditions set out in section 24 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984(PACE) must be met. Section 24 provides that a constable may arrest anyone who has committed an offence, is in the act of committing an offence or is about to commit an offence. He may also arrest anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting of these things. In order for this condition to be met the constable must honestly believe in the person's guilt, and that belief must be reasonable on the basis of the facts known to him. Evidence which shows that the arrested person did not in fact commit the offence may be relevant to the question of whether the constable had reasonable suspicion, but it will not be determinative.
Section 24 also states that the power of arrest may only be exercised if the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that it is necessary to arrest the person for a number of specified reasons. Those reasons are:
(a) to enable the name of the person in question to be ascertained (in the case where the constable does not know, and cannot readily ascertain, the person's name, or has reasonable grounds for doubting whether a name given by the person as his name is his real name);
(b) correspondingly as regards the person's address;
(c) to prevent the person in question
• causing physical injury to himself or any other person;
• suffering physical injury;
• causing loss of or damage to property;
• committing an offence against public decency; or
• causing an unlawful obstruction of the highway;
(d) to protect a child or other vulnerable person from the person in question;
(e) to allow the prompt and effective investigation of the offence or of the conduct of the person in question;
(f) to prevent any prosecution for the offence from being hindered by the disappearance of the person in question.
The basic idea being that the police are not perfect, and sometimes they do arrest the wrong person, or the evidence points to the wrong person. This should not open them up to violence just because that person did not commit a crime. The matter of wrongful arrest is a different issue, and amusing that the police should always arrest the right person is a dangerous path, both from the point of view of expecting them to be perfect, and the point of view of "If they are being arrested they must have done something wrong".
Statewide, the disparity index is worse for blacks, at 1.59, is higher than in Ferguson.
Frankly, I can name off several areas that DWB is a thing... and Ferguson isn't one of them.
No, it means that there is DWB in Ferguson but it is worse in other parts of the state. The black drivers anywhere don't care if they are less worse off than black drivers in other places because it doesn't help them. They care that they are worse off than white drivers or the population as a whole.
Interestingly enough, the "Contraband Hit Rate" for arrests of white drivers is significantly higher than for black drivers. This is an indication that black drivers are being far too often due to racial bias.
Statewide, the disparity index is worse for blacks, at 1.59, is higher than in Ferguson.
Frankly, I can name off several areas that DWB is a thing... and Ferguson isn't one of them.
No, it means that there is DWB in Ferguson but it is worse in other parts of the state.
That's what I said.
The black drivers anywhere don't care if they are less worse off than black drivers in other places because it doesn't help them. They care that they are worse off than white drivers or the population as a whole.
True... and it's an issue, don't get me wrong.
Interestingly enough, the "Contraband Hit Rate" for arrests of white drivers is significantly higher than for black drivers. This is an indication that black drivers are being far too often due to racial bias.
Yeah.. .that's an indication of a possibility. Keep that in mind.
No, it means that there is DWB in Ferguson but it is worse in other parts of the state. The black drivers anywhere don't care if they are less worse off than black drivers in other places because it doesn't help them. They care that they are worse off than white drivers or the population as a whole.
Interestingly enough, the "Contraband Hit Rate" for arrests of white drivers is significantly higher than for black drivers. This is an indication that black drivers are being far too often due to racial bias.
The reason that it's lower than the state average is not because Ferguson is better, but because the surrounding areas are so much worse. Places nearby like Chesterfield or St.Peters(my home town). Have indexes at around 3 and are at under 4% African American. If you are an African American driving in those towns, you are 3 times as likely to be pulled over, twice as likely to be arrested, and half as likely to have had any contraband on you in the first place.
edit:
The whole St. Louis area is a messy conglomeration that should be one incorporated city-county area. St Louis has a problem with racial profiling as a whole. Don't let the small number for Ferguson fool you because you can drive 5 minutes in any directions and go from that 1.3 to a 3.
Hordini wrote: Has there been any research done on how often police are actually able to tell the race of the person driving the vehicle before they pull them over?
I have no idea exactly...
I do know that it (profiling) has been investigated numerous times over the years.
Hordini wrote: Has there been any research done on how often police are actually able to tell the race of the person driving the vehicle before they pull them over?
Not saying it's universally true, but when there's a car that looks like these, it's a pretty safe bet you can tell the race of the driver:
Hordini wrote: Has there been any research done on how often police are actually able to tell the race of the person driving the vehicle before they pull them over?
Not saying it's universally true, but when there's a car that looks like these, it's a pretty safe bet you can tell the race of the driver:
Spoiler:
Anyone who drives thoe monstrocities deserves to be pulled over and arrested.Why ruin perfetly good cars with such ugly tires?
DarkTraveler777 wrote: A Charmin Car? So do car people make joke cars like we make joke armies or did that guy get corporate sponsorship from a TP company?
Neither.... I remember a dude on Fort Carson who had a "Nerds" car (nerds candy, not nerdy people) They definitely take this gak seriously, but they also don't get corporate sponsorships... I highly, HIGHLY doubt that Bank of America is going to sponsor a car like that either Also, at/around Fort Campbell, there was a Kool-Aid car, which if it weren't for the stereotypes, probably wouldn't be so damn funny to see
There were reports that people were trying to spread the looting in another mall on the Illinois side, St. Claire Square in Fairview Heights. Luckily, nothing has happened yet. Hopefully it's stays confined to North County.
So Nerds guy, BoA guy, Kool-Aid guy and Charmin guy all just really like those products? That is awesome. Especially the Charmin guy. That takes some balls to drive around in a toilet paper car.
BRB! Gonna go trick out my ride with Preparation H branding.
Kilkrazy wrote: If there was no doubt it would be available on the BBC news website. Since you are proposing it I think you should do the searches.
However it is not clear how the possible existence of footage of shooting at helicopters in London explains the lack of footage of shooting at helicopters in Ferguson.
Well it answers your question as to how the police in the helicopter would know that they are under fire seeing as you were disbelieving of the notion.
Because the MO police have not released any footage, which is evidence in an active investigation and public dissemination may be prejudicial to any court proceedings, does not mean that they were unable to tell that they were under fire or do not have video of it
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rismonite wrote: "A police officer encounters two people, including Brown, on the street near an apartment complex in Ferguson."
"One of the men allegedly pushed the officer back into his squad car and a struggle begins, authorities state."
This is really all the explanation I needed. If a police officer approaches you and anything is alleged other than "one of the men allegedly did everything the officer said" than I think you probably need shot.
Anybody that thinks looting and rioting is ok, as a form of protest needs their head checked. Anyone caught looting and rioting probably needs shot.
Anybody that opens their mouth to an officer to say anything other than "yes, sir/maam/officer." probably needs beaten with a nightstick, and then probably shot.
That community has only made it worse for themselves, causing damage to infrastructure that will only make the place worse to live in.
It is not your right as an American citizen to question a police officer who is essentially a representation of law which makes order in this country for 99% of us. The police are not your enemy, if you see them as such then you are probably a criminal or need your head checked and maybe also need beaten with a nightstick, tased, and/or shot.
There are bad apples here and there in law enforcement. But entirely too many cases of "this man/women was acting like an idiot and then an officer responded excessively". If you are acting like an idiot towards law enforcement you probably deserve whats coming to you.
Obey the law, work, advance your life, and maybe if you ever work hard enough to become a lawyer or politician you can open your face politely to suggest how to make things better and people will listen.
"Did you hear? The police shot M. Brown?".
"Oh yeah? Lets go down the local market break in all the windows, steal everything, and maybe set the place on fire."
d-usa wrote: There is quite a few posts in this thread that seem to have some very thinly veiled racist undertones. Stay classy Dakka.
I've had to remove several people from my Facebook over the past couple days due to this reason.
Yeah... I also want to reiterate that Ferguson is as American as apple pie. It is a lovely little community.
There are many historic homes from before the Revolutionary War, a first class golf course and country club, a Fortune 500 company and hundreds of suburban homes with American flags flying on their front porches.
It has undergone an economic resurgence and revitalization in the past ten years with new micro breweries, coffee houses and national retail outlets. It's adjacent to one of the largest campuses of the state university. The middle class people that reside there mostly own their own homes, tend their gardens and send their kids off to college or to serve in the military.
Ferguson is far more Mom and Apple Pie than a lot of places in MO these days even though its not a rural area where cooking and selling meth has destroyed small towns. It's also not inner city nor was there a race riot.
And now, outsiders are trying really hard to push a “narrative” that is deflecting attention from the actual matter at hand... which is to get the unvarnished truth on what happened.
d-usa wrote: There is quite a few posts in this thread that seem to have some very thinly veiled racist undertones. Stay classy Dakka.
I've had to remove several people from my Facebook over the past couple days due to this reason.
Yeah... I also want to reiterate that Ferguson is as American as apple pie. It is a lovely little community.
There are many historic homes from before the Revolutionary War, a first class golf course and country club, a Fortune 500 company and hundreds of suburban homes with American flags flying on their front porches.
It has undergone an economic resurgence and revitalization in the past ten years with new micro breweries, coffee houses and national retail outlets. It's adjacent to one of the largest campuses of the state university. The middle class people that reside there mostly own their own homes, tend their gardens and send their kids off to college or to serve in the military.
Ferguson is far more Mom and Apple Pie than a lot of places in MO these days even though its not a rural area where cooking and selling meth has destroyed small towns. It's also not inner city nor was there a race riot.
And now, outsiders are trying really hard to push a “narrative” that is deflecting attention from the actual matter at hand... which is to get the unvarnished truth on what happened.
That kind of gentrification can also cause issues. The increased cost of living can force out the poorer families in the town. And St. Louis has a long history of displacing it's minority populations for the current urban development flavor of the month. Also the fact that the city police force and leadership seems to be more representative of the wealthier part of the city's demographic is problematic.
I don't understand the people that jump immediately to race, disregarding any socio-economic factors. Being poor sucks, living in a high crime area sucks, what's worse is when the people who should be protecting you from crime look at you like a criminal and act like soldiers in occupied territory.
Hordini wrote: Has there been any research done on how often police are actually able to tell the race of the person driving the vehicle before they pull them over?
Yes.
It is not pure random chance that black drivers get stopped a lot more often than white drivers, and it isn't because white people are genetically or culturally superior at driving.
I just want to bring up an issue with the title, cause the riots have little to do with the murder. Everything was peaceful until people hijacked the protest and started looting, where the riot teams then had to show up, starting the current violence.
whembly wrote: It's also not inner city nor was there a race riot.
.
Ya know, I honestly have an issue with the media calling these, or any riots "race riots" There certainly may be some elements of racial tension/racial divide going on that aided in the cause of a riot, but I just feel that calling them specifically a Race Riot throws more fuel on the fire where it's really not needed.
It's not you, whembly, that I'm referring to here of course, but more the Media™ at large.
whembly wrote: It's also not inner city nor was there a race riot.
.
Ya know, I honestly have an issue with the media calling these, or any riots "race riots" There certainly may be some elements of racial tension/racial divide going on that aided in the cause of a riot, but I just feel that calling them specifically a Race Riot throws more fuel on the fire where it's really not needed.
It's not you, whembly, that I'm referring to here of course, but more the Media™ at large.
No argument from me.
It's the "narrative" the these outsiders are trying push.
I haven't had a whole lot of time to scour the local news... but, from what I seen so far, it looks like the situation has quieted down.
Also, is anyone else wondering why the Police have an APC on the streets for a riot? Why do cops even have APCs at the ready? If it s so bad that you need military equipment aren't you supposed to call in the National Guard?
Also, is anyone else wondering why the Police have an APC on the streets for a riot? Why do cops even have APCs at the ready? If it s so bad that you need military equipment aren't you supposed to call in the National Guard?
Also, is anyone else wondering why the Police have an APC on the streets for a riot? Why do cops even have APCs at the ready? If it s so bad that you need military equipment aren't you supposed to call in the National Guard?
That was a thread from a few months ago
MRAP?
MATV?
Four wheel light armored vehicle? (MRAT)
Okay, it just looks like a fancy Humvee. Either way, why? If you need something beyond squad cars/SUV/Mobile Command center then mobilize the National Guard.
Okay, it just looks like a fancy Humvee. Either way, why? If you need something beyond squad cars/SUV/Mobile Command center then mobilize the National Guard.
I've no idea WTF that is......
Riots so far does not warrant NG mobilization.
If the NG are mobilized what laws do they fall under? UCMJ comes into effect for anything over 30 days and becomes a regular active duty military unit. What laws do they fall under for 29 days activation to quell a riot for they do not have protection of UCMJ.
It looks a bit like an MATV or one of the other "small MRAP" type of vehicle. Actually come to think of it... I've seen something that looks almost exactly the same (only I saw this from the rear at a range), and it was a Marine transport of some armored variety
It looks a bit like an MATV or one of the other "small MRAP" type of vehicle. Actually come to think of it... I've seen something that looks almost exactly the same (only I saw this from the rear at a range), and it was a Marine transport of some armored variety
Not armored though. Going by its not that low to ground
Jihadin wrote: If the NG are mobilized what laws do they fall under?
It depends on how they were activated. There are 3 different ways of doing it.
Under the first way, they are activated by the state governor, considered assigned to the state and are under state control and funding, and the UCMJ does not apply. Posse comitatus does not apply. This is how they are likely to be activated for riot control, such as during the LA riots.
In the second way, they are activated under the control of the governor, but are funded by the federal government, and are under UCMJ. A good example of this is if they are performing "homeland security", such as - I imagine - Governor Perry's plan to activate some Guardsmen to the border. Posse comitatus applies.
In the third way, of course, they are activated by the President; and UCMJ applies. This requires a national emergency, I can't think of any really good domestic examples for this. Perhaps the patrols in airports right after 9/11.
State NG upon activation by the Governor falls under Title 32
When serving under Title 32 Active Duty, Title 32 service is primarily state active duty.
This includes the following forms of active service:
State Active Duty (SAD). The Governor can activate National Guard personnel to “State Active Duty” in response to natural or man-made disasters or Homeland Defense missions. State Active Duty is based on State statute and policy as well as State funds, and the Soldiers and Airmen remain under the command and control of the Governor. A key aspect of this duty status is that the Posse Comitatus Act (PCA) does not apply.
Title 32 Full-Time National Guard Duty. “Full-time National Guard duty” means training or other duty, other than inactive duty, performed by a member of the National Guard. Title 32 allows the Governor, with the approval of the President or the Secretary of Defense, to order a member to duty for operational HLD activities IAW the United States Code (USC):
The key to state active service is that Federal Law provides the Governor with the ability to place a soldier in a full-time duty status under the command and control of the State but directly funded with Federal dollars. Even though this duty status is authorized by Federal statute, this section is a statutory exception to the Posse Comitatus Act; the Governor may use the Guard in a law enforcement capacity; and the chain of command rests within the State.
Hordini wrote: Has there been any research done on how often police are actually able to tell the race of the person driving the vehicle before they pull them over?
Yes.
It is not pure random chance that black drivers get stopped a lot more often than white drivers, and it isn't because white people are genetically or culturally superior at driving.
That's not what I asked or implied. There could be a lot of different factors involved that could lead to black drivers being pulled over more often than white drivers that don't require the police officer to know the race of the person driving the vehicle before they pull them over.
Do you have any good examples of a study that incorporates data on how often police officers know the race of the driver before pulling them over?
It looks a bit like an MATV or one of the other "small MRAP" type of vehicle. Actually come to think of it... I've seen something that looks almost exactly the same (only I saw this from the rear at a range), and it was a Marine transport of some armored variety
Not armored though. Going by its not that low to ground
I'm pretty sure the vehicle is a Bearcat. It's not a military vehicle.
People are complaining about police overreach with the APC (which makes complete sense seeing as cars have already been destroyed) and in response they want the national guard to be mobilized in order to bring order to these protests.
I'm really glad DakkaDakka doesn't run the world O.o
The Hedge Knight wrote: People are complaining about police overreach with the APC (which makes complete sense seeing as cars have already been destroyed) and in response they want the national guard to be mobilized in order to bring order to these protests.
I'm really glad DakkaDakka doesn't run the world O.o
I think there are some situations that might cause police to have a legitimate need for something like a Bearcat but that wouldn't be bad enough to warrant mobilizing the National Guard. There's a bit of wiggle room there.
Perception of deploying "Combat Troops" would be a political nightmare for the Governor.
Now if this escalate to Rodney King status riots then it has to play out for a few more days for the riots to continue to give the perception the Guard is needed and can be used as a buffer between LEO's and the indig's
The Hedge Knight wrote: People are complaining about police overreach with the APC (which makes complete sense seeing as cars have already been destroyed) and in response they want the national guard to be mobilized in order to bring order to these protests.
There is absolutely a role for the National Guard in the event of uncontrollable riots. The events we have seen here have not, and hopefully will not, rise to that level.
However, I see no hypocrisy between those stances. The National Guard serve to restore order - not enforce the law, restore order - when it's beyond the control of law enforcement to do so, and only in the most extreme of circumstances, whereby police officers with their stupid tacticool outfits, surplus army tanks, and occupying invader mentality are a giant, different and I'd say bigger - certainly more omnipresent - problem.
The Hedge Knight wrote: People are complaining about police overreach with the APC (which makes complete sense seeing as cars have already been destroyed) and in response they want the national guard to be mobilized in order to bring order to these protests.
There is absolutely a role for the National Guard in the event of uncontrollable riots. The events we have seen here have not, and hopefully will not, rise to that level.
However, I see no hypocrisy between those stances. The National Guard serve to restore order - not enforce the law, restore order - when it's beyond the control of law enforcement to do so, and only in the most extreme of circumstances, whereby police officers with their stupid tacticool outfits, surplus army tanks, and occupying invader mentality are a giant, different and I'd say bigger - certainly more omnipresent - problem.
Yeah... I'm praying it doesn't come to that.
It's just sad that there are folks and various groups that are encouraging more rioting. I won't post them here...
Automatically Appended Next Post: /unserious time
Dude picks up active tear gas can to throw it back to the police WHILE holding a bag of chips:
Dude!
/unserious time off
Something made the riot police believe that it wasn't a peaceful protest tonight... so, they're gassing the whole area. Pictures should be coming soon...
Automatically Appended Next Post: /unserious time
Dude picks up active tear gas can to throw it back to the police WHILE holding a bag of chips:
Dude!
/unserious time off
Something made the riot police believe that it wasn't a peaceful protest tonight... so, they're gassing the whole area. Pictures should be coming soon...
In Ferguson, Washington Post reporter Wesley Lowery gives account of his arrest
FERGUSON, Mo. — For the past week in Ferguson, reporters have been using the McDonald’s a few blocks from the scene of Michael Brown’s shooting as a staging area. Demonstrations have blown up each night nearby. But inside there’s WiFi and outlets, so it’s common for reporters to gather there.
That was the case Wednesday. My phone was just about to die, so as I charged it, I used the time to respond to people on Twitter and do a little bit of a Q&A since I wasn’t out there covering the protests.
As I sat there, many armed officers came in — some who were dressed as normal officers, others who were dressed with more gear.
Initially, both Ryan Reilly of the Huffington Post and I were asked for identification. I was wearing my lanyard, but Ryan asked why he had to show his ID. They didn’t press the point, but one added that if we called 911, no one would answer.
Then they walked away. Moments later, the police reemerged, telling us that we had to leave. I pulled my phone out and began recording video.
An officer with a large weapon came up to me and said, “Stop recording.”
I said, “Officer, do I not have the right to record you?”
He backed off but told me to hurry up. So I gathered my notebook and pens with one hand while recording him with the other hand.
As I exited, I saw Ryan to my left, having a similar argument with two officers. I recorded him, too, and that angered the officer. As I made my way toward the door, the officers gave me conflicting information.
One instructed me to exit to my left. As I turned left, another officer emerged, blocking my path.
“Go another way,” he said.
As I turned, my backpack, which was slung over one shoulder, began to slip. I said, “Officers, let me just gather my bag.” As I did, one of them said, “Okay, let’s take him.”
Multiple officers grabbed me. I tried to turn my back to them to assist them in arresting me. I dropped the things from my hands.
“My hands are behind my back,” I said. “I’m not resisting. I’m not resisting.” At which point one officer said: “You’re resisting. Stop resisting.”
That was when I was most afraid — more afraid than of the tear gas and rubber bullets.
As they took me into custody, the officers slammed me into a soda machine, at one point setting off the Coke dispenser. They put plastic cuffs on me, then they led me out the door.
I could see Ryan still talking to an officer. I said: “Ryan, tweet that they’re arresting me, tweet that they’re arresting me.”
He didn’t have an opportunity, because he was arrested as well.
The officers led us outside to a police van. Inside, there was a large man sitting on the floor between the two benches. He began screaming: “I can’t breathe! Call a paramedic! Call a paramedic!”
Ryan and I asked the officers if they intended to help the man. They said he was fine. The screaming went on for the 10 to 15 minutes we stood outside the van.
“I’m going to die!” he screamed. “I’m going to die! I can’t breathe! I’m going to die!”
Eventually a police car arrived. A woman — with a collar identifying her as a member of the clergy — sat in the back. Ryan and I crammed in next to her, and we took the three-minute ride to the Ferguson Police Department. The woman sang hymns throughout the ride.
During this time, we asked the officers for badge numbers. We asked to speak to a supervising officer. We asked why we were being detained. We were told: trespassing in a McDonald’s.
“I hope you’re happy with yourself,” one officer told me. And I responded: “This story’s going to get out there. It’s going to be on the front page of The Washington Post tomorrow.”
And he said, “Yeah, well, you’re going to be in my jail cell tonight.”
Once at the station, we were processed, our pockets emptied. No mug shots. They removed our restraints and put us in a holding cell. Ryan was able to get ahold of his dad. I called my mom, but I couldn’t get through. I couldn’t remember any phone numbers.
We were in there for what felt like 10 or 15 minutes. Then the processing officer came in.
“Who’s media?” he asked.
We said we were. And the officer said we were both free to go. We asked to speak to a commanding officer. We asked to see an arrest report. No report, the officer told us, and no, they wouldn’t provide any names.
I asked if there would ever be a report. He came back with a case number and said a report would be available in a week or two.
“The chief thought he was doing you two a favor,” he said.
The Ferguson Police Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Lowery’s detention.
The following is a statement on the incident from Washington Post Executive Editor Martin D. Baron:
Wesley has briefed us on what occurred, and there was absolutely no justification for his
arrest.
He was illegally instructed to stop taking video of officers. Then he followed officers’ instructions to leave a McDonald’s — and after contradictory instructions on how to exit, he was slammed against a soda machine and then handcuffed. That behavior was wholly unwarranted and an assault on the freedom of the press to cover the news. The physical risk to Wesley himself is obvious and outrageous.
After being placed in a holding cell, he was released with no charges and no explanation. He was denied information about the names and badge numbers of those who arrested him.
We are relieved that Wesley is going to be OK. We are appalled by the conduct of police officers involved.
This was the preferred MO for various political conventions of fairly recent - roust undesirables, hold them, then release them without charge.
In Ferguson, Washington Post reporter Wesley Lowery gives account of his arrest
FERGUSON, Mo. — For the past week in Ferguson, reporters have been using the McDonald’s a few blocks from the scene of Michael Brown’s shooting as a staging area. Demonstrations have blown up each night nearby. But inside there’s WiFi and outlets, so it’s common for reporters to gather there.
That was the case Wednesday. My phone was just about to die, so as I charged it, I used the time to respond to people on Twitter and do a little bit of a Q&A since I wasn’t out there covering the protests.
As I sat there, many armed officers came in — some who were dressed as normal officers, others who were dressed with more gear.
Initially, both Ryan Reilly of the Huffington Post and I were asked for identification. I was wearing my lanyard, but Ryan asked why he had to show his ID. They didn’t press the point, but one added that if we called 911, no one would answer.
Then they walked away. Moments later, the police reemerged, telling us that we had to leave. I pulled my phone out and began recording video.
An officer with a large weapon came up to me and said, “Stop recording.”
I said, “Officer, do I not have the right to record you?”
He backed off but told me to hurry up. So I gathered my notebook and pens with one hand while recording him with the other hand.
As I exited, I saw Ryan to my left, having a similar argument with two officers. I recorded him, too, and that angered the officer. As I made my way toward the door, the officers gave me conflicting information.
One instructed me to exit to my left. As I turned left, another officer emerged, blocking my path.
“Go another way,” he said.
As I turned, my backpack, which was slung over one shoulder, began to slip. I said, “Officers, let me just gather my bag.” As I did, one of them said, “Okay, let’s take him.”
Multiple officers grabbed me. I tried to turn my back to them to assist them in arresting me. I dropped the things from my hands.
“My hands are behind my back,” I said. “I’m not resisting. I’m not resisting.” At which point one officer said: “You’re resisting. Stop resisting.”
That was when I was most afraid — more afraid than of the tear gas and rubber bullets.
As they took me into custody, the officers slammed me into a soda machine, at one point setting off the Coke dispenser. They put plastic cuffs on me, then they led me out the door.
I could see Ryan still talking to an officer. I said: “Ryan, tweet that they’re arresting me, tweet that they’re arresting me.”
He didn’t have an opportunity, because he was arrested as well.
The officers led us outside to a police van. Inside, there was a large man sitting on the floor between the two benches. He began screaming: “I can’t breathe! Call a paramedic! Call a paramedic!”
Ryan and I asked the officers if they intended to help the man. They said he was fine. The screaming went on for the 10 to 15 minutes we stood outside the van.
“I’m going to die!” he screamed. “I’m going to die! I can’t breathe! I’m going to die!”
Eventually a police car arrived. A woman — with a collar identifying her as a member of the clergy — sat in the back. Ryan and I crammed in next to her, and we took the three-minute ride to the Ferguson Police Department. The woman sang hymns throughout the ride.
During this time, we asked the officers for badge numbers. We asked to speak to a supervising officer. We asked why we were being detained. We were told: trespassing in a McDonald’s.
“I hope you’re happy with yourself,” one officer told me. And I responded: “This story’s going to get out there. It’s going to be on the front page of The Washington Post tomorrow.”
And he said, “Yeah, well, you’re going to be in my jail cell tonight.”
Once at the station, we were processed, our pockets emptied. No mug shots. They removed our restraints and put us in a holding cell. Ryan was able to get ahold of his dad. I called my mom, but I couldn’t get through. I couldn’t remember any phone numbers.
We were in there for what felt like 10 or 15 minutes. Then the processing officer came in.
“Who’s media?” he asked.
We said we were. And the officer said we were both free to go. We asked to speak to a commanding officer. We asked to see an arrest report. No report, the officer told us, and no, they wouldn’t provide any names.
I asked if there would ever be a report. He came back with a case number and said a report would be available in a week or two.
“The chief thought he was doing you two a favor,” he said.
The Ferguson Police Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Lowery’s detention.
The following is a statement on the incident from Washington Post Executive Editor Martin D. Baron:
Wesley has briefed us on what occurred, and there was absolutely no justification for his
arrest.
He was illegally instructed to stop taking video of officers. Then he followed officers’ instructions to leave a McDonald’s — and after contradictory instructions on how to exit, he was slammed against a soda machine and then handcuffed. That behavior was wholly unwarranted and an assault on the freedom of the press to cover the news. The physical risk to Wesley himself is obvious and outrageous.
After being placed in a holding cell, he was released with no charges and no explanation. He was denied information about the names and badge numbers of those who arrested him.
We are relieved that Wesley is going to be OK. We are appalled by the conduct of police officers involved.
This was the preferred MO for various political conventions of fairly recent - roust undesirables, hold them, then release them without charge.
Here’s the story with video. First, from what I observed in the video, the dude wasn’t leaving. Whether he could record or whether he could stay are two separate issues he seems to be conflating for a story. He says he was packing up, maybe he was, but I’m not sure I believe his amazing skill at keeping that hand cam mostly steady and straight while doing so. Not only that, but this from KSDK’s Leisa Zigmann:
Why weren’t other media arrested? You don’t have to agree with police orders to move, but they can and they will detain you, unfairly or not, and not charge you. Legally, you have every right to record the police so long as you’re not interfering with them. Maybe what police thought these two reporters were doing was interference, I don’t know, but that other media members weren’t arrested stands out. Were they roughed up? Or escorted out? Were there witnesses? The camera doesn’t record any of the “assault” they say happened. Not saying that it didn’t, but just that it isn’t in the footage. Was it a case of officers behaving badly? My friend Mary Katharine Hamm made this point:
It does seem weird that these guys were sent to cover the story about 18 year-old Mike Brown and ended up putting themselves on the front page of their site. As I’ve said for years: citizen journalists are the new minute men. Ferguson residents should have their cameras out and ready right now. What they record may be the only account if something occurs. And don’t forget: they cannot tell you to stop recording. More on videotaping police Previous Ferguson coverage.
Keep in mind that Dana is a local girl, so she's very familiar here.
Also... isn't all this made harder because of... I'm not sure what's the term, but something akin to "Fog of War"?
The journalists being arrested looks sketchy, but just going by what the video shows, I think the reporter ends up looking worse than the police officer. He reminds me of all the annoying open carry idiots who play up their confrontations with police. Every time the officer says something, the reporter has to have the last word.
He made a big deal about the officer saying, "Stop videotaping, now let's grab our stuff and go" but I get the impression that the officer's comment wasn't mean so much as "you are not allowed to videotape me" so much as, "You need to pack your stuff and leave and you standing here concentrating on videotaping is preventing you from doing that."
Hordini wrote: The journalists being arrested looks sketchy, but just going by what the video shows, I think the reporter ends up looking worse than the police officer. He reminds me of all the annoying open carry idiots who play up their confrontations with police. Every time the officer says something, the reporter has to have the last word.
He made a big deal about the officer saying, "Stop videotaping, now let's grab our stuff and go" but I get the impression that the officer's comment wasn't mean so much as "you are not allowed to videotape me" so much as, "You need to pack your stuff and leave and you standing here concentrating on videotaping is preventing you from doing that."
Hordini wrote: The journalists being arrested looks sketchy, but just going by what the video shows, I think the reporter ends up looking worse than the police officer. He reminds me of all the annoying open carry idiots who play up their confrontations with police. Every time the officer says something, the reporter has to have the last word.
He made a big deal about the officer saying, "Stop videotaping, now let's grab our stuff and go" but I get the impression that the officer's comment wasn't mean so much as "you are not allowed to videotape me" so much as, "You need to pack your stuff and leave and you standing here concentrating on videotaping is preventing you from doing that."
Regardless of what you think about the reporters in question, what the police did was wrong.
This is the statement from Martin D. Baron, Washington Post executive editor:
Wesley has briefed us on what occurred, and there was absolutely no justification for his arrest.
He was illegally instructed to stop taking video of officers. Then he followed officers’ instructions to leave a McDonald’s — and after contradictory instructions on how to exit, he was slammed against a soda machine and then handcuffed. That behavior was wholly unwarranted and an assault on the freedom of the press to cover the news. The physical risk to Wesley himself is obvious and outrageous.
After being placed in a holding cell, he was released with no charges and no explanation. He was denied information about the names and badge numbers of those who arrested him.
We are relieved that Wesley is going to be OK. We are appalled by the conduct of police officers involved.
Hordini wrote: Has there been any research done on how often police are actually able to tell the race of the person driving the vehicle before they pull them over?
Yes.
It is not pure random chance that black drivers get stopped a lot more often than white drivers, and it isn't because white people are genetically or culturally superior at driving.
That's not what I asked or implied. There could be a lot of different factors involved that could lead to black drivers being pulled over more often than white drivers that don't require the police officer to know the race of the person driving the vehicle before they pull them over.
Do you have any good examples of a study that incorporates data on how often police officers know the race of the driver before pulling them over?
Essentially you are claiming that policemen stop cars for various reasons, none of them involving the colour of the driver's face, but by pure random chance a lot more black drivers' cars get stopped than white.
How can you explain that by the laws of probability?
Hordini wrote: Has there been any research done on how often police are actually able to tell the race of the person driving the vehicle before they pull them over?
Yes.
It is not pure random chance that black drivers get stopped a lot more often than white drivers, and it isn't because white people are genetically or culturally superior at driving.
That's not what I asked or implied. There could be a lot of different factors involved that could lead to black drivers being pulled over more often than white drivers that don't require the police officer to know the race of the person driving the vehicle before they pull them over.
Do you have any good examples of a study that incorporates data on how often police officers know the race of the driver before pulling them over?
Essentially you are claiming that policemen stop cars for various reasons, none of them involving the colour of the driver's face, but by pure random chance a lot more black drivers' cars get stopped than white.
How can you explain that by the laws of probability?
No, I'm not making any such claim whatsoever, I'm asking a question. I'm not saying saying that the race of the driver is never a factor either. I'm curious as to how often black or white drivers get pulled over before the officer knows what race they are. There are plenty of situations where this could happen, and I'm curious if any studies specifically address that.
The Hedge Knight wrote: People are complaining about police overreach with the APC (which makes complete sense seeing as cars have already been destroyed) and in response they want the national guard to be mobilized in order to bring order to these protests.
There is absolutely a role for the National Guard in the event of uncontrollable riots. The events we have seen here have not, and hopefully will not, rise to that level.
However, I see no hypocrisy between those stances. The National Guard serve to restore order - not enforce the law, restore order - when it's beyond the control of law enforcement to do so, and only in the most extreme of circumstances, whereby police officers with their stupid tacticool outfits, surplus army tanks, and occupying invader mentality are a giant, different and I'd say bigger - certainly more omnipresent - problem.
Except those aren't tanks. They're completely unarmed APCs. Their 'tacticool outfits' are primarily used by SWAT teams and riot officers to ensure more officers aren't injured in the riots. Their 'occupying invader' mentality is sort of obvious and necessary seeing as their job is to stop the riots from spiraling further out of control.
The Hedge Knight wrote: People are complaining about police overreach with the APC (which makes complete sense seeing as cars have already been destroyed) and in response they want the national guard to be mobilized in order to bring order to these protests.
There is absolutely a role for the National Guard in the event of uncontrollable riots. The events we have seen here have not, and hopefully will not, rise to that level.
However, I see no hypocrisy between those stances. The National Guard serve to restore order - not enforce the law, restore order - when it's beyond the control of law enforcement to do so, and only in the most extreme of circumstances, whereby police officers with their stupid tacticool outfits, surplus army tanks, and occupying invader mentality are a giant, different and I'd say bigger - certainly more omnipresent - problem.
Except those aren't tanks. They're completely unarmed APCs. Their 'tacticool outfits' are primarily used by SWAT teams and riot officers to ensure more officers aren't injured in the riots. Their 'occupying invader' mentality is sort of obvious and necessary seeing as their job is to stop the riots from spiraling further out of control.
then when they finally lash out, talk about how they've proven correct everything that's said about them and use it to avoid at all costs discussing the issues at the heart of the problem.
then when they finally lash out, talk about how they've proven correct everything that's said about them and use it to avoid at all costs discussing the issues at the heart of the problem.
then when they finally lash out, talk about how they've proven correct everything that's said about them and use it to avoid at all costs discussing the issues at the heart of the problem.
Some of people that were fine with the way the government handled Cliven Bundy are now saying that the response of law enforcement here is too much. Why?
Bundy and his supporters were doing far less than what is going on here.
Relapse wrote: Some of people that were fine with the way the government handled Cliven Bundy are now saying that the response of law enforcement here is too much. Why?
Bundy and his supporters were doing far less than what is going on here.
I knew it would get here eventually and I knew you'd be the one to take it there. I'm not even going to explain the difference between these two situations because you would just ignore it and substitute your own version of reality in its place.
Relapse wrote: Some of people that were fine with the way the government handled Cliven Bundy are now saying that the response of law enforcement here is too much. Why?
Bundy and his supporters were doing far less than what is going on here.
I knew it would get here eventually and I knew you'd be the one to take it there. I'm not even going to explain the difference between these two situations because you would just ignore it and substitute your own version of reality in its place.
Honest question on my part in light of the fact that there were people here saying everyone in those towns should be gunned down by the feds.
I realize other folks have chimed in with similar issues, but as someone who lives in the inner city (Chicago, not Feruguson), I completely understand the complaints about the police using military-style gear. The image that the police projects to a community is EXTREMELY important, not only to the protestors, but to the wider community. It goes to the heart of what's wrong with the relationship between the police and the community. Even something as simple as the color matters, going from blues to swat black is a serious excalation, going to camo throws the whole thing into an even higher gear.
A police officer in in blues, even with a pistol riot helmet, can be interpreted as protecting the community. A police force in camoflage, tac gear, and toting AR's looks like an invading force. Because that's exactly what it is. It shows how completely out-of-touch the Fergusson police are. We shouldn't downplay the pressure and even danger they're under, but if you show up to a fist-fight with an assault rifle, you're likely going to escalate the situation. Doesn't surprise me at all that that some rioters were reportedly throwing molotov cocktails (not justifying it) last night. When a commuity is cowed, an assault rifle might help to back them down. When a community is furious, it's just going to make them madder.
Violence and looting is never justified, but you can only push people so far before they explode, and when they explode, it's not going to be neat and tidy and only aimed at the police. Nothing about how this situation has played out should surprise us, and we certainly shouldn't be surprised if/when it happens in other communities. We saw it herein '68, and the only real surprise is that it hasn't happened since.
Eilif wrote: I realize other folks have chimed in with similar issues, but as someone who lives in the inner city (Chicago, not Feruguson), I completely understand the complaints about the police using military-style gear. The image that the police projects to a community is EXTREMELY important, not only to the protestors, but to the wider community. It goes to the heart of what's wrong with the relationship between the police and the community. Even something as simple as the color matters, going from blues to swat black is a serious excalation, going to camo throws the whole thing into an even higher gear.
A police officer in in blues, even with a pistol riot helmet, can be interpreted as protecting the community. A police force in camoflage, tac gear, and toting AR's looks like an invading force. Because that's exactly what it is. It shows how completely out-of-touch the Fergusson police are. We shouldn't downplay the pressure and even danger they're under, but if you show up to a fist-fight with an assault rifle, you're likely going to escalate the situation. Doesn't surprise me at all that that some rioters were reportedly throwing molotov cocktails (not justifying it) last night. When a commuity is cowed, an assault rifle might help to back them down. When a community is furious, it's just going to make them madder.
.
Agreed. However, not certain thats the Ferguson police. I believe other police forces have been called in as well. But to what you're saying I agree completely.
Although I think Bundy is a schindling huckster fraud who should be in the bowels of a prison, the reaction of people to the PoPo there have been similar.
This will get worse and worse unless authorities wake up to where this is headed.
Or alternatively I look forward to "the sweeps have been called. I repeat the sweeps have been called. Leave immediately."
No, I'm not making any such claim whatsoever, I'm asking a question. I'm not saying saying that the race of the driver is never a factor either. I'm curious as to how often black or white drivers get pulled over before the officer knows what race they are. There are plenty of situations where this could happen, and I'm curious if any studies specifically address that.
There are indeed situations where the policemen might not be able to see the face of the driver, and there are situations where he clearly could.
However, the fact that black drivers get pulled over a lot more than white drivers shows that either they commit a lot more moving traffic offences, or there is racism in the motive for the stops. It cannot be just bad luck.
Since we know that black pedestrians get stopped a lot more than white one, it is not difficult to infer the true cause.
I'm going to reiterate RiTides post from the start of this thread, because some posts have been toeing, or even crossing, the line. This isn't directed at anyone particular, just the thread.
As a reminder to everyone, no matter what the content matter being discussed, Dakka's rules still apply. Please refrain from any remarks that would violate such (especially "isms" such as racism, sexism, etc) and hit the yellow triangle if any such posts are made, rather than engaging over them. Thanks.
No, I'm not making any such claim whatsoever, I'm asking a question. I'm not saying saying that the race of the driver is never a factor either. I'm curious as to how often black or white drivers get pulled over before the officer knows what race they are. There are plenty of situations where this could happen, and I'm curious if any studies specifically address that.
There are indeed situations where the policemen might not be able to see the face of the driver, and there are situations where he clearly could.
However, the fact that black drivers get pulled over a lot more than white drivers shows that either they commit a lot more moving traffic offences, or there is racism in the motive for the stops. It cannot be just bad luck.
Since we know that black pedestrians get stopped a lot more than white one, it is not difficult to infer the true cause.
I've watched perhaps dozens, perhaps hundreds of stops here. Police almost always watch the car go by and then stop them. They can almost always see who they are pulling over. That itself is not irrefutable proof of racial profiling, but the idea that police usually can't see the race of those they are arresting is just not true.
mitch_rifle wrote: Why is the police being armed and equiped like this a problem?
Has it come too far?, or were the police just underequiped and undertrained in the past?
The "militarization" of the police is a trend that's been happening across america in the past decade or so. There's alot of reasons for it.
-Part of it is a justified response to criminals and mass shootings where more powerful weaponry is used by criminals.
-Part of it is related to post-911 anti-terrorism concerns.
-Part of it is just that those with power (police in this situation) seem to constantly want more.
-It is supported by various government programs that direct US military surplus to police and sherif departments for free or almost-free.
All this in a country where violent crime is actually in decline and you can see where there is something of a disconnect. Those concerned about the trend generally express worries about the increasing use of higher levels of force by police, and further disconnecting of the relationship between the police and the communities they operate in.
It's a complicated issue, but it comes to a head in situations like this where police that face off against protestors look more like military forces than police and raises serious concern as to whether up-gunning is counter-productive to "keeping the peace".
then when they finally lash out, talk about how they've proven correct everything that's said about them and use it to avoid at all costs discussing the issues at the heart of the problem.
It's a neat trick.
Please tell me how shame, oppression and poverty were forced upon them?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Eilif wrote: I realize other folks have chimed in with similar issues, but as someone who lives in the inner city (Chicago, not Feruguson), I completely understand the complaints about the police using military-style gear. The image that the police projects to a community is EXTREMELY important, not only to the protestors, but to the wider community. It goes to the heart of what's wrong with the relationship between the police and the community. Even something as simple as the color matters, going from blues to swat black is a serious excalation, going to camo throws the whole thing into an even higher gear.
A police officer in in blues, even with a pistol riot helmet, can be interpreted as protecting the community. A police force in camoflage, tac gear, and toting AR's looks like an invading force. Because that's exactly what it is. It shows how completely out-of-touch the Fergusson police are. We shouldn't downplay the pressure and even danger they're under, but if you show up to a fist-fight with an assault rifle, you're likely going to escalate the situation. Doesn't surprise me at all that that some rioters were reportedly throwing molotov cocktails (not justifying it) last night. When a commuity is cowed, an assault rifle might help to back them down. When a community is furious, it's just going to make them madder.
Violence and looting is never justified, but you can only push people so far before they explode, and when they explode, it's not going to be neat and tidy and only aimed at the police. Nothing about how this situation has played out should surprise us, and we certainly shouldn't be surprised if/when it happens in other communities. We saw it herein '68, and the only real surprise is that it hasn't happened since.
Oh yeah... no argument from here there.
The SWAT response is absolutely overkill it's ridiculous.
To answer Frazz's question above, yes most of the officers you see in the pictures are STL County Police. I haven't seen any Ferguson in most of the pics... but, I'm sure they're in there too.
A buddy of mine works for an auto-parts supplier, and today was his first day back in that area since the rioting started. He said it looks like a tornado touched down.
then when they finally lash out, talk about how they've proven correct everything that's said about them and use it to avoid at all costs discussing the issues at the heart of the problem.
It's a neat trick.
Please tell me how shame, oppression and poverty were forced upon them?
The heritage of slavery, the repression of the pre-civil rights era, the less overt racist discrimination of the post-civil rights era, low quality public education, a racist heavily armed police force, attacks on and criticism of people on welfare, cuts in welfare public services and social infrastructure in favour of privatised solutions available only to the better off, the transfer of high quality industrial jobs to China, the transfer of medium quality assembly jobs to Mexico, the undercutting of low quality "MacJob" wages by illegal immigrants, the attack on voting rights under the guise of fraud prevention...
then when they finally lash out, talk about how they've proven correct everything that's said about them and use it to avoid at all costs discussing the issues at the heart of the problem.
It's a neat trick.
Please tell me how shame, oppression and poverty were forced upon them?
The heritage of slavery, the repression of the pre-civil rights era, the less overt racist discrimination of the post-civil rights era, low quality public education, a racist heavily armed police force, attacks on and criticism of people on welfare, cuts in welfare public services and social infrastructure in favour of privatised solutions available only to the better off, the transfer of high quality industrial jobs to China, the transfer of medium quality assembly jobs to Mexico, the undercutting of low quality "MacJob" wages by illegal immigrants, the attack on voting rights under the guise of fraud prevention...
As I've said before on this site, I used to be anti-gun, but after seeing some of the pictures coming out of Ferguson, I don't blame your average American citizen from stocking up on firearms. The police seem to be acting more and more like a paramilitary force from some bad sci-fi novel.
Some facts (most of which are probably already known to people on this site already) about Ferguson, from a Guardian article:
Pop: 22,000
Average number of robberies per year: 40 (Now I expect some of these would probably be armed, but it's no better or worse than any other part of America.)
2-3 homicides per year (sorry for the people who get killed)
and a crime rate at the national average.
Now, given that we're seeing pictures of snipers, and panzer divisions rolling into town, you would think that Ferguson has been twinned with Baghdad! What a total overreaction.
The Hedge Knight wrote: People are complaining about police overreach with the APC (which makes complete sense seeing as cars have already been destroyed) and in response they want the national guard to be mobilized in order to bring order to these protests.
I'm really glad DakkaDakka doesn't run the world O.o
No, what I am saying is there is no need to militarize police to the National Guard level themselves.
If the Police need to respond with military style deployment and tactics, let's just call in the actual military.
I hope you can see the difference in the arguments.
then when they finally lash out, talk about how they've proven correct everything that's said about them and use it to avoid at all costs discussing the issues at the heart of the problem.
It's a neat trick.
Please tell me how shame, oppression and poverty were forced upon them?
The heritage of slavery, the repression of the pre-civil rights era, the less overt racist discrimination of the post-civil rights era, low quality public education, a racist heavily armed police force, attacks on and criticism of people on welfare, cuts in welfare public services and social infrastructure in favour of privatised solutions available only to the better off, the transfer of high quality industrial jobs to China, the transfer of medium quality assembly jobs to Mexico, the undercutting of low quality "MacJob" wages by illegal immigrants, the attack on voting rights under the guise of fraud prevention...
then when they finally lash out, talk about how they've proven correct everything that's said about them and use it to avoid at all costs discussing the issues at the heart of the problem.
It's a neat trick.
Please tell me how shame, oppression and poverty were forced upon them?
The heritage of slavery, the repression of the pre-civil rights era, the less overt racist discrimination of the post-civil rights era, low quality public education, a racist heavily armed police force, attacks on and criticism of people on welfare, cuts in welfare public services and social infrastructure in favour of privatised solutions available only to the better off, the transfer of high quality industrial jobs to China, the transfer of medium quality assembly jobs to Mexico, the undercutting of low quality "MacJob" wages by illegal immigrants, the attack on voting rights under the guise of fraud prevention...
As an aside, can I say I find it hilarious that people complain in this thread about how militarized the police are getting, but in the Guardians of the Galaxy thread they were complaining about the Nova Corps (Police) not being well enough equipped?
The NYPD is the biggest police force in the country, with over 34,000 uniformed officers patrolling New York’s streets, and 51,000 employees overall — more than the FBI. It has a proposed budget of $4.6 billion for 2013, a figure that represents almost 15 percent of the entire city’s budget.
NYC’s population is a little over 8 million. That means that there are 4.18 police officers per 1,000 people. By comparison, Los Angeles, the second largest city in the U.S. with 3.8 million people, has only 9,895 officers–a ratio of 2.6 police per 1,000 people.
Last fall, Mayor Bloomberg famously bragged, ”I have my own army in the NYPD, which is the seventh biggest army in the world.”
...
Police Commissioner Ray Kelly told “60 Minutes” that the NYPD could shoot down a plane last year. When asked for details at a press conference, Mayor Bloomberg basically told reporters to feth off, saying, “The NYPD has lots of capabilities that you don’t know about and you won’t know about.”
...
Militaristic “Hercules teams,” are deployed to random parts of the city armed with automatic weapons and body armor. Their explicitly stated role is to terrify people. In a piece by Popular Mechanics, detective Abad Nieves described the unit’s job thusly: “The response we usually get is, ‘Holy s—!’ [...] That’s the reaction we want. We are in the business of scaring people–we just want to scare the right people.”
NYPD officers have flown to Afghanistan, Egypt, Yemen, Pakistan, and Guantanamo, where they have been known to conduct “special interrogations,”
then when they finally lash out, talk about how they've proven correct everything that's said about them and use it to avoid at all costs discussing the issues at the heart of the problem.
It's a neat trick.
Please tell me how shame, oppression and poverty were forced upon them?
The heritage of slavery, the repression of the pre-civil rights era, the less overt racist discrimination of the post-civil rights era, low quality public education, a racist heavily armed police force, attacks on and criticism of people on welfare, cuts in welfare public services and social infrastructure in favour of privatised solutions available only to the better off, the transfer of high quality industrial jobs to China, the transfer of medium quality assembly jobs to Mexico, the undercutting of low quality "MacJob" wages by illegal immigrants, the attack on voting rights under the guise of fraud prevention...
Apart from that, not much.
Something something I never got nothing
Something something bootstrap
Something something white priviledge
Something something reverse racism
Something something thread lock
Just saying.
So you have nothing to add. Got it.
Nothing that hasn't been covered in every other past thread covering race/poverty/social justice. Every one of which I have adequately summarized above.
The Hedge Knight wrote: People are complaining about police overreach with the APC (which makes complete sense seeing as cars have already been destroyed) and in response they want the national guard to be mobilized in order to bring order to these protests.
I'm really glad DakkaDakka doesn't run the world O.o
No, what I am saying is there is no need to militarize police to the National Guard level themselves.
If the Police need to respond with military style deployment and tactics, let's just call in the actual military.
I hope you can see the difference in the arguments.
Nothing that hasn't been covered in every other past thread covering race/poverty/social justice. Every one of which I have adequately summarized above.
You see... I'm 15 minutes away from this.
I've driven around and talked to some of my friends in the area.
My ass is glued to my local news cast and local social media.
Here's some of the problems that I see:
1) The police's response is ridiculous. C'mon... snipers? SWAT?
2) The Ferguson residence and local leaders WANT peaceful protest. They SHOULD have a forum to protest. But, it's being co-opted by outsider that seems to being doing the best the fan the tension.
3) We have the Black Panther crew here...
4) Apparent, some communist group from Chicago is here...
5) There's way too many folks justifying the violence and looting.
6) The national media is over sensationalizing this... that it's absurd. You'd think that's a KKK klansmen at every other house.
7) Let me repeat, the local resident want peaceful protests... it's the outsiders that appears to be fanning the tension.
Nothing that hasn't been covered in every other past thread covering race/poverty/social justice. Every one of which I have adequately summarized above.
You see... I'm 15 minutes away from this.
I've driven around and talked to some of my friends in the area.
My ass is glued to my local news cast and local social media.
Here's some of the problems that I see:
1) The police's response is ridiculous. C'mon... snipers? SWAT?
2) The Ferguson residence and local leaders WANT peaceful protest. They SHOULD have a forum to protest. But, it's being co-opted by outsider that seems to being doing the best the fan the tension.
3) We have the Black Panther crew here...
4) Apparent, some communist group from Chicago is here...
5) There's way too many folks justifying the violence and looting.
6) The national media is over sensationalizing this... that it's absurd. You'd think that's a KKK klansmen at every other house.
7) Let me repeat, the local resident want peaceful protests... it's the outsiders that appears to be fanning the tension.
Awesome response. Points 1 through 7 really did a wonderful job addressing the responses made to your comment of "who forced them to be poor and oppressed". I really appreciated the thoughtfulness of the argument that explained how "Ferguson residents WANT peaceful protests" addresses potential social inequalities that may be present. And the revelation of "the Black Panther crew is here" was a thorough expose on the hiring system that may be present which resulted in a predominantly white police force patrolling a predominantly black city.
The Hedge Knight wrote: People are complaining about police overreach with the APC (which makes complete sense seeing as cars have already been destroyed) and in response they want the national guard to be mobilized in order to bring order to these protests.
I'm really glad DakkaDakka doesn't run the world O.o
No, what I am saying is there is no need to militarize police to the National Guard level themselves.
If the Police need to respond with military style deployment and tactics, let's just call in the actual military.
I hope you can see the difference in the arguments.
Agreed.
More to the point, in many situations there is no need for the police to militarize or for the national Guard to be called out. Both are over-reactions in most cases.
The national Guard is not a police force. They are not trained to be police, they are not trained to use they're force in the same measure as police.. The national guard is a military unit and deploying the military against a country's own citizens should always be an option of last resort.
That is not to say that at some point they might not be called into Fergusson. However if it continues to escalate to that point, then the Fergusson police will deserve at least some of the blame for getting the ball rolling that direction with a very forceful kick.
Nothing that hasn't been covered in every other past thread covering race/poverty/social justice. Every one of which I have adequately summarized above.
You see... I'm 15 minutes away from this.
I've driven around and talked to some of my friends in the area.
My ass is glued to my local news cast and local social media.
Here's some of the problems that I see:
1) The police's response is ridiculous. C'mon... snipers? SWAT?
2) The Ferguson residence and local leaders WANT peaceful protest. They SHOULD have a forum to protest. But, it's being co-opted by outsider that seems to being doing the best the fan the tension.
3) We have the Black Panther crew here...
4) Apparent, some communist group from Chicago is here...
5) There's way too many folks justifying the violence and looting.
6) The national media is over sensationalizing this... that it's absurd. You'd think that's a KKK klansmen at every other house.
7) Let me repeat, the local resident want peaceful protests... it's the outsiders that appears to be fanning the tension.
Awesome response. Points 1 through 7 really did a wonderful job addressing the responses made to your comment of "who forced them to be poor and oppressed".
Don't you know d... bootstrap it man!
I really appreciated the thoughtfulness of the argument that explained how "Ferguson residents WANT peaceful protests" addresses potential social inequalities that may be present.
Irrelavent. The protesters are there for Mike Brown's family wanting Justice. It wasn't a reaction to the social ills in that community.
And the revelation of "the Black Panther crew is here" was a thorough expose on the hiring system that may be present which resulted in a predominantly white police force patrolling a predominantly black city.
How about you wait for the information on the hiring practice these police forces have today before making an oblique statement.
7) Let me repeat, the local resident want peaceful protests... it's the outsiders that appears to be fanning the tension.
Often the case. is Al Sharpton still there?
Does it matter? Should he not be there?
Al Sharpton ( I don't know if he's involved) and other black leaders such as Jacksonare often targeted and vilified for their activism, but it should be remembered that they often invited into situations such as these by locals. Clearly they are divisive figures (but so is the Speaker of the House…), but they are respected by many african american communities because of the abilities of these personalities to bring national attention to injustices and situations that might otherwise go unnoticed or un-reported.
I've got my own issues with some of these characters, but when I see the incredible venom directed at folks like Jackson and Sharpton, I wonder if those saying such things really understand the role that these figures play and the esteem they have in many of the communities that support them. This is a total judgement call on my part, but when I read the kind of things that seem to pop up on the interwebs (unfortuantely reposted by certain of my relatives on facebook) much of the time it just seems to me like those attacking them are just a bit too happy to have a couple of black leaders they can focus their frustration/hate/anger on. Frazzled, note that I'm not accusing you of such behavior or motivation.
7) Let me repeat, the local resident want peaceful protests... it's the outsiders that appears to be fanning the tension.
Often the case. is Al Sharpton still there?
Al Sharpton ( I don't know if he's involved) and other black leaders such as Jacksonare often targeted and vilified by the right, but it should be remembered that they often invited into situations such as these by locals. Clearly they are divisive figures (but so is the Speaker of the House…), but they are respected by many african american communities because of the abilities of these personalities to bring national attention to injustices and situations that might otherwise go unnoticed or un-reported.
I've got my own issues with some of these characters, but when I see the incredible venom directed at folks like Jackson and Sharpton, I wonder if those saying such things really understand the role that these figures play and the esteem they have in many of the communities that support them. This is a total judgement call on my part, but when I read the kind of things that seem to pop up on the interwebs (unfortuantely reposted by certain of my relatives on facebook) much of the time it just seems to me like those attacking them are just a bit too happy to have a couple of black leaders they can focus their frustration/hate/anger on.
Frazzled, note that I'm not accusing you of such behavior.
Sharpton is here...
Many of the local clergy/civic leaders here in Ferguson implored Sharpton to stay home. Not sure who asked him to come... maybe the Brown family's attorney?
*shrug* all he did was made a few speeches so far.
The governor of Missouri will reportedly relieve St. Louis County law enforcement from policing the ongoing demonstrations in the town of Ferguson, paving the way for possible state or federal intervention.
Rep Wm. Lacy Clay (D-Missouri told Bloomberg News on Thursday morning that Gov. Jay Nixon, also a Democrat, had confirmed to him that county police will be pulled from their duties in Ferguson, where outrage continues to erupt following the officer-involved shooting and killing of Michael Brown, an 18-year-old unarmed teenager, on Saturday.
On Wednesday evening, protests in Ferguson for the fourth straight day appeared to resemble a war zone when militarized police began firing tear gas and non-lethal ammunition into the streets towards private residences. Two journalists, one from Washington Post and another from Huffington Post, were briefly detained while on assignment.
“The gov. just called me and he’s on his way to St. Louis now to announce he’s taking St. Louis County police out of the situation,” Rep. Clay told Derek Wallbank, a reporter for Bloomberg, early Wednesday.
According to Wallbank’s Twitter account, Gov. Nixon neglected to tell Rep. Clay if state police or the Federal Bureau of Investigation would take control of the situation.
The FBI has previously acknowledged that it is investigating Saturday’s shooting death, and Rep. Clay issued a statement on Monday with other members of Congress urging federal agents to expand their probe.
“In light of the foregoing developments, we ask the Department of Justice to investigate the shooting of Michael Brown, looking at both the facts of the specific incident as well as the potential for any pattern or practice of police misconduct by the Ferguson Police Department," reads a portion of the statement, signed by Reps. Clay, John Conyers (D-Michigan) and Marsha Fudge (D-Ohio).
Has it come too far?, or were the police just underequiped and undertrained in the past?
When it comes to things like Organized Crime (mafia, gangs, etc) the police have ALWAYS been under equipped. For situations like this, they are no longer under trained, as we've had enough riots in the past to kind of know what to do/how to do it.
The "problem" has become that there is a huge grey area between organized crime/using tacticool toys on THEM, and quelling riots and the like. And as a result we see the tacticool stuff come out far earlier than it's probably needed, and in situations where it will do more harm than good.
Many of the local clergy/civic leaders here in Ferguson implored Sharpton to stay home. Not sure who asked him to come... maybe the Brown family's attorney?
*shrug* all he did was made a few speeches so far.
Good to know. I looked around and I'm not sure who invited him, but it looks like it was the family who invited him and/or have been associating with him publicly.
I can see that police departments might very well have situations where all the tacticool stuff may be necessary. SWAT teams have existed for a long time and they have valid reasons to use all this equipment. But it does seem like it is used by more and more people (not just the SWAT team, but line-officers as well) and for more and more reasons.
I do think a part of the problem is just the availability of the gear:
1) We now have more gear available to departments because of anti-terrorism funding grants and the military getting rid of equipment.
2) Police Departments then think "hey, they are giving this stuff away, might as well see if we can get some of it". I used to be part of the fire department. We did the same thing. Every grant cycle you write grants to see if you could get something, because if they are giving away free stuff it might as well come to you.
3) Once police department get the gear they start going "well, we got this stuff. Might as well use it." Maybe they just want to see the tax-payers what they paid for, or maybe it's just a mindset of "we have to use it to justify buying it". So they may end up using tactical gear for stuff that they would have never used tactical gear before. Or they might go "hey, we have this weird tear-gas grenade & water cannon APC that we got from DHS. This might be a good excuse to take it out for a spin. Wanna water some protesters?"
7) Let me repeat, the local resident want peaceful protests... it's the outsiders that appears to be fanning the tension.
Often the case. is Al Sharpton still there?
Does it matter? Should he not be there?
Al Sharpton ( I don't know if he's involved) and other black leaders such as Jacksonare often targeted and vilified for their activism, but it should be remembered that they often invited into situations such as these by locals. Clearly they are divisive figures (but so is the Speaker of the House…), but they are respected by many african american communities because of the abilities of these personalities to bring national attention to injustices and situations that might otherwise go unnoticed or un-reported.
I've got my own issues with some of these characters, but when I see the incredible venom directed at folks like Jackson and Sharpton, I wonder if those saying such things really understand the role that these figures play and the esteem they have in many of the communities that support them. This is a total judgement call on my part, but when I read the kind of things that seem to pop up on the interwebs (unfortuantely reposted by certain of my relatives on facebook) much of the time it just seems to me like those attacking them are just a bit too happy to have a couple of black leaders they can focus their frustration/hate/anger on. Frazzled, note that I'm not accusing you of such behavior or motivation.
It always matters when a fraudulent race baiter jumps into the mix.
Obama just made a statement talking out against violent protesters/looters, Police abusing their powers, and saying that this a time for "healing". The MO governor is going to Ferguson to start working personally with the issues.
It always matters when a fraudulent race baiter jumps into the mix.
Sharpton is no saint, but his purpose is to draw attention to situations of injustice, usually concerning African Americans.
Frazzled, usually you make alot of good points, but I wouldn't have thought that you would throw that term around. The label of "race baiter" is what conservatives call African American leaders who point out race issues. It's a term that is designed to shut down discussion and it makes it easier for their constituencies (usually white conservatives) to ignore what they are saying even -perhaps especially- when what they say contains some truth. One can't make the situation any less racially charged by labeling one of the national personalities speaking out about it a "Race Baiter" nor does that do anything to encourage communication and reconciliation.
It's not race-bating when race is an extremely important part of what is happening in Ferguson.
To the thread: please remember that the last thread had to be locked due to comments crossing the line about racism, and also comments advocating violence- please try not to cause the same result here. Thanks.
It's not race-bating when race is an extremely important part of what is happening in Ferguson.
it most certainly IS race baiting, because that is exactly what sharpton is doing. When cops shoot unarmed white people, there is no rioting, and no insistence that its because all cops are racist(which is a statement that infers all white people are racist, and homogenizes cops),
even when its a black cop shooting an unarmed white person and its based on race, as we saw when the white ex military guy was shot to death in cold blood by a black LEO for using a racial slur, its not "racist" nor is it "ok you have blanket permission to riot, loot, and commit various crimes now" moment.
the FACTS of the matter are still being decided in court,
but it is 100% inappropriate to form unruly mobs that burn down innocent peoples livelyhoods, even IF its proven to be a racially motivated shooting, which it hasnt yet.
if sharpton wasnt race baiting, he would be all over decrying it every time a black man shoots another unarmed (insert any race here),
as it is, this is now trial by mob, guilty until proven innocent, and heaven forbid they release the cops name, because even if he is 100% innocent, verifiably so, his life would be over as he knows it, if not literally ended by the next member of the mob he meets that has made up their mind to avenge the kid he shot.
I certainly dont think there are no racial issues, but to assert all cops are racist, and shoot black people in situations where they wouldnt shoot white people AS A RULE in this day and age, needs some actual proof, none has been given.
sure racist white cops have shot innocent black people, but racist black cops have also shot innocent whites...but neither do it AS A RULE. If we are going to argue on the pretense that every shooting of a black person, by a white person, is racially motivated, then you would have to also treat every time a black person shoots anyone who isnt black as racist as well.
It always matters when a fraudulent race baiter jumps into the mix.
Sharpton is no saint, but his purpose is to draw attention to situations of injustice, usually concerning African Americans.
His purpose is to make money race baiting -even using fraud to do it (Brawley case), and occasionally narc on other people to the FBI.
We agree that he's kind of a douche, but I don't think either of us expect public figures to be blameless these days.
However, bringing it back to Feguson... to be clear, is it that you think the issues he speaks out on aren't actually issues or that you just don't like the messenger?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also interesting:
Didn't we have reports in this thread about the no-fly-zone because people where shooting at helicopters?
Looks like the police requested the no-fly-zone to keep the news from flying in there. Feel free to make your own decisions about why they don't want news helicopters.
The reason? “It’s just for a no fly zone because we have multiple helicopters maneuvering in the area and we were having some problems with news aircrafts flying around there,” the dispatcher, who would only identify himself by his first name, Chris, said.
The effort to stop media from flying over the area to film is troubling, especially in light of reports that police have turned journalists away from the sites of the protests.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also interesting:
Didn't we have reports in this thread about the no-fly-zone because people where shooting at helicopters?
Looks like the police requested the no-fly-zone to keep the news from flying in there. Feel free to make your own decisions about why they don't want news helicopters.
The reason? “It’s just for a no fly zone because we have multiple helicopters maneuvering in the area and we were having some problems with news aircrafts flying around there,” the dispatcher, who would only identify himself by his first name, Chris, said.
The effort to stop media from flying over the area to film is troubling, especially in light of reports that police have turned journalists away from the sites of the protests.
well, thats what the person named "chris" the article interviews says is the reason, hardly concrete evidence.
especially considering the "source" isnt too far off from posting articles about bat boys it would seem... wow... some of those other article titles,
can you FEEL the bias on that site?
the police maintain a different story, im sure that the mob will "draw their own conclusions" and assume its just more of "the man" keeping everyone in line,
heck, why have verifiable sources on anything, just ask everyone what they think and what their conclusions are, most popular interpretation of reality wins!
According to your own reasoning you shouldn't be posting here...
Edit:
You realize that "chris" is the police department right? So according to you we shouldn't be listening to anything the police department says because it is hardly concrete evidence while at the same time waiting on what the police department has to say.
Edit again: (seriously, do we need a mandatory 10 minute delay on replying to any of your posts so that you won't accuse me of misquoting something that you changed 3 times?)
can you FEEL the bias on that site?
Are you giving us permission to ignore anything you post with bias and promise never to post anything that is not from a neutral source?
easysauce wrote: When cops shoot unarmed white people, there is no rioting, and no insistence that its because all cops are racist
Do you think that's because white people are naturally calmer, or do you think it's a mixture of "unarmed white people being less likely to be shot by the police" combined with "white victims are more likely to actually get justice in our legal system"?
Since Canada seems to regularly have riots when the Stanley Cup is won, I'm going to lean towards the latter.
Easy E wrote: Would it help to hav ea Federal 3rd Party organization look into the case?
Would that tap down some of the concerns of a cover-up/white-wash occurring?
Probably not... I mean, FBI, DEA, ATF etc, are all Law Enforcement agencies. NSA, CIA, etc..... well that'll get the tin foil hatters talking for a good long time Parks/Recreation services? DoD?
I mean, the problem is that this is a situation where there's not been anything that's gone on that automatically jumps into the Feds domain. And of the Fed agencies, there's either a lack of purpose, or conflicts of interest, or legal issues, etc. that would prevent them from stepping in.
INFOGRAPHIC • Civil Rights • Race • Violence • News • ISSUE 50•32 • Aug 14, 2014
With riots raging in Ferguson, Missouri following the shooting death by police of an unarmed African-American youth, the nation has turned its eyes toward police brutality, social injustice, and the continuing crisis of race relations throughout the U.S. Here are The Onion’s tips for being an unarmed black teen in America:
- Shy away from dangerous, heavily policed areas.
- Avoid swaggering or any other confident behavior that suggests you are not completely subjugated.
- Be sure not to pick up any object that could be perceived by a police officer as a firearm, such as a cell phone, a food item, or nothing.
- Explain in clear and logical terms that you do not enjoy being shot, and would prefer that it not happen.
- Don’t let society stereotype you as a petty criminal. Remember that you can be seen as so much more, from an armed robbery suspect, to a rape suspect, to a murder suspect.
- Try to see it from a police officer’s point of view: You may be unarmed, but you’re also black.
- Avoid wearing clothing associated with the gang lifestyle, such as shirts and pants.
- Revel in the fact that by simply existing, you exert a threatening presence over the nation’s police force.
- Be as polite and straightforward as possible when police officers are kicking the gak out of you.
But some security experts say the police actions made things much worse.
"You're in trouble when your SWAT team is on the front line of dealing with a civil disturbance," retired Lt. Gen. Russel Honore said Thursday.
In 2005, Honore was dispatched to New Orleans to lead recovery efforts after Hurricane Katrina, when the federal government said it was facing "urban warfare." Honore famously told police to lower their weapons and defused the tense situation.
"I've seen this done successfully in the past where you have your front line policemen on the front until people start throwing things. Then you have your riot control squads in the back," Honore said on "CNN Newsroom" on Thursday. "The tactics they are using, I don't know where they learned them from. It appears they may be making them up on the way. But this is escalating the situation."
"Any time we have policemen pointing weapons at American citizens, they need to go through retraining," Honor added. "And I think we are about 24 hours too late."
Civil rights icon Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) called on President Barack Obama to declare martial law in Ferguson, Missouri, where police and protesters have clashed after a police officer shot and killed unarmed black teenager Michael Brown on Saturday.
"It is very sad and unbelievable. It's unreal to see what the police is doing there," Lewis said in a Thursday interview with MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell. "First of all, Ferguson, Missouri, is part of the United States of America. People have a right to protest. They have a right to dissent. They have a right to march in an orderly, peaceful, nonviolent fashion. And the press has a right to cover it."
Lewis, whose skull was fractured by police during the 1965 march over the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama, told Mitchell that the situation in Ferguson reminds him of "the '40s, the '50s, the '60s," pointing to the dearth of black officers on the St. Louis suburb's police force.
"So my own feeling, right now, is that President Obama should use the authority of his office to declare martial law. Federalize the Missouri National Guard to protect people as they protest," Lewis said. "And people should come together. Reasonable elected officials, community leaders and address what is happening there."
He continued: "If we fail to act, the fires of frustration and discontent will continue to burn, not only in Ferguson, Missouri, but all across America."
Give the state troopers a chance to see what they can do. It looks like there has been a change in command, so it would be premature now.
This is a problem that is fueled by race relations in the area and possibly the state. It would be better for future race relations if it can be solved internally without "the black president" taking sides.
Ouze wrote: Man, there is absolutely no reason to declare martial law, and I have to say any politician who calls for it at this point just wants to be on TV.
Completely agree. I cringed so hard when I saw this, especially when people thought that county cops were being too tough...
Ouze wrote: Man, there is absolutely no reason to declare martial law, and I have to say any politician who calls for it at this point just wants to be on TV.
Completely agree. I cringed so hard when I saw this, especially when people thought that county cops were being too tough...
I know I'm 8 pages late, but I wanted to correct an earlier poster RE: Anonymous.
They aren't an organisation in any way. They have no leaders or unified motives.
They are just several groups of people who use tech to achieve aims they believe are in the public interest.
The problem is, the different groups will often disagree, and a lot of "members" are just there to have an excuse to troll and cause trouble.
A large number of them are active campaigners for positive things, but as always it's the few that spoil the reputation of the many.
The head of the State Police overseeing this, replacing the local robocops, seems to be making excellent headway in diffusing the situation and allowing peaceful marches, walking with the protesters. He ordered all police in the area to remove gas masks and face masks and no guns to be pointed at the civilians. The state cops all appear to be wearing standard uniform and far less heavily armed.
Hordini wrote: Did you take that? Hope you're doing alright and staying safe whembly, seriously.
Nah... following #ferguson on twitter timeline.
I'm good where I'm at.
Good to hear!
And hopefully, if the State Police's softer tactics continue to improve the situation, maybe this can serve as a good example that might lead to a decrease in the stupid militarization of police trend we've been seeing.
I'm also curious to see how tonight will turn out. Maybe we will see if not looking like an occupying army will result in them not being treated that way.
d-usa wrote: I'm also curious to see how tonight will turn out. Maybe we will see if not looking like an occupying army will result in them not being treated that way.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also interesting:
Didn't we have reports in this thread about the no-fly-zone because people where shooting at helicopters?
Looks like the police requested the no-fly-zone to keep the news from flying in there. Feel free to make your own decisions about why they don't want news helicopters.
The reason? “It’s just for a no fly zone because we have multiple helicopters maneuvering in the area and we were having some problems with news aircrafts flying around there,” the dispatcher, who would only identify himself by his first name, Chris, said.
The effort to stop media from flying over the area to film is troubling, especially in light of reports that police have turned journalists away from the sites of the protests.
There was a no fly zone declared with the Bundy situation, also.
Still heavy police present... but, not all tacti-cool geared up.
EDIT: I want to clarify something... the Ferguson and STL County Police is still there. It's just that the Highway Patrol is in charge of managing the protesting in this area.
Also, I haven't seen anything of this sort: But, no protesters in the last few days has been serious injured, so that ought to count for something.
Looks like overall it went fairly well last night. No riots and no crazy cop antics. A couple idiots being idiots in the crowd; but nothing that couldn't have happened on any other night.
So it looks like when police dress normally and serve the public, as opposed to dressing up like Call of Duty characters and acting like an invading force, it doesn't inflame tensions? Crazy.
Like having a white police force dress like an army looking like they are itching to use excessive force on people that have gathered to protest a white police force using excessive force.
It's already stupid to show up to protest looking like you are itching to drop the hammer. It's doubly stupid if that is what the protest was about in the first place...
Ouze wrote: So it looks like when police dress normally and serve the public, as opposed to dressing up like Call of Duty characters and acting like an invading force, it doesn't inflame tensions? Crazy.
Ouze wrote: So it looks like when police dress normally and serve the public, as opposed to dressing up like Call of Duty characters and acting like an invading force, it doesn't inflame tensions? Crazy.
It's too bad they couldn't have known that in Nevada with Bundy.
Ouze wrote: So it looks like when police dress normally and serve the public, as opposed to dressing up like Call of Duty characters and acting like an invading force, it doesn't inflame tensions? Crazy.
It's too bad they couldn't have known that in Nevada with Bundy.
Too bad these two situations aren't remotely related.
Ouze wrote: So it looks like when police dress normally and serve the public, as opposed to dressing up like Call of Duty characters and acting like an invading force, it doesn't inflame tensions? Crazy.
When they start acting like CoD characters problems begin; no one wants tea bagged on the ground, or being told by random people that they slept with your mother
Well, that totally justifies the officer shooting him. Carry on everyone.
Obviously it doesn't outright justify a police officer shooting him, however it does justify the police interaction that lead up to his death. The key thing here will be just what did happen during that interaction that resulted in a dead kid, and some pissed off people rioting/looting and actin' the fool.
Well, the whole thing would be a lot less grainy with salt if the very first statement released by the police would have been something along the line of "an officer investigating a robbery was involved in a shooting, we are investigsting the situation".
Releasing it now just reeks of trying to cover your ass.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: I am afraid things have gone a bit too far to be solved by releasing footage of him robbing a store.
This information should have been made available as part of a properly worked out package of info before the rioting started, not several days later.
I think it is just another sign of a seriously jacked up leadership problem at that department.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: When they start acting like CoD characters problems begin; no one wants tea bagged on the ground, or being told by random people that they slept with your mother
Missouri Revised Statutes
Chapter 563
Defense of Justification
Section 563.046
August 28, 2013
Law enforcement officer's use of force in making an arrest.
563.046. 1. A law enforcement officer need not retreat or desist from efforts to effect the arrest, or from efforts to prevent the escape from custody, of a person he reasonably believes to have committed an offense because of resistance or threatened resistance of the arrestee. In addition to the use of physical force authorized under other sections of this chapter, he is, subject to the provisions of subsections 2 and 3, justified in the use of such physical force as he reasonably believes is immediately necessary to effect the arrest or to prevent the escape from custody.
2. The use of any physical force in making an arrest is not justified under this section unless the arrest is lawful or the law enforcement officer reasonably believes the arrest is lawful.
3. A law enforcement officer in effecting an arrest or in preventing an escape from custody is justified in using deadly force only
(1) When such is authorized under other sections of this chapter; or
(2) When he reasonably believes that such use of deadly force is immediately necessary to effect the arrest and also reasonably believes that the person to be arrested
(a) Has committed or attempted to commit a felony; or
(b) Is attempting to escape by use of a deadly weapon; or
(c) May otherwise endanger life or inflict serious physical injury unless arrested without delay.
4. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section.
(L. 1977 S.B. 60)
Effective 1-1-79
That just looks horrible to me... especially 2(b).
Missouri Revised Statutes
Chapter 563
Defense of Justification
Section 563.046
August 28, 2013
Law enforcement officer's use of force in making an arrest.
563.046. 1. A law enforcement officer need not retreat or desist from efforts to effect the arrest, or from efforts to prevent the escape from custody, of a person he reasonably believes to have committed an offense because of resistance or threatened resistance of the arrestee. In addition to the use of physical force authorized under other sections of this chapter, he is, subject to the provisions of subsections 2 and 3, justified in the use of such physical force as he reasonably believes is immediately necessary to effect the arrest or to prevent the escape from custody.
2. The use of any physical force in making an arrest is not justified under this section unless the arrest is lawful or the law enforcement officer reasonably believes the arrest is lawful.
3. A law enforcement officer in effecting an arrest or in preventing an escape from custody is justified in using deadly force only
(1) When such is authorized under other sections of this chapter; or
(2) When he reasonably believes that such use of deadly force is immediately necessary to effect the arrest and also reasonably believes that the person to be arrested
(a) Has committed or attempted to commit a felony; or
(b) Is attempting to escape by use of a deadly weapon; or
(c) May otherwise endanger life or inflict serious physical injury unless arrested without delay.
4. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section.
(L. 1977 S.B. 60)
Effective 1-1-79
That just looks horrible to me... especially 2(b).
2a is worse than 2b. 2b is just saying that if you are trying to flee and are using a gun (or knife, or bomb, or car, or what have you) the cops are justified in using deadly force back. It doesn't mean that if you are just running away that they can shoot you.
Missouri Revised Statutes
Chapter 563
Defense of Justification
Section 563.046
August 28, 2013
Law enforcement officer's use of force in making an arrest.
563.046. 1. A law enforcement officer need not retreat or desist from efforts to effect the arrest, or from efforts to prevent the escape from custody, of a person he reasonably believes to have committed an offense because of resistance or threatened resistance of the arrestee. In addition to the use of physical force authorized under other sections of this chapter, he is, subject to the provisions of subsections 2 and 3, justified in the use of such physical force as he reasonably believes is immediately necessary to effect the arrest or to prevent the escape from custody.
2. The use of any physical force in making an arrest is not justified under this section unless the arrest is lawful or the law enforcement officer reasonably believes the arrest is lawful.
3. A law enforcement officer in effecting an arrest or in preventing an escape from custody is justified in using deadly force only
(1) When such is authorized under other sections of this chapter; or
(2) When he reasonably believes that such use of deadly force is immediately necessary to effect the arrest and also reasonably believes that the person to be arrested
(a) Has committed or attempted to commit a felony; or
(b) Is attempting to escape by use of a deadly weapon; or
(c) May otherwise endanger life or inflict serious physical injury unless arrested without delay.
4. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section.
(L. 1977 S.B. 60)
Effective 1-1-79
That just looks horrible to me... especially 2(b).
2a is worse than 2b. 2b is just saying that if you are trying to flee and are using a gun (or knife, or bomb, or car, or what have you) the cops are justified in using deadly force back. It doesn't mean that if you are just running away that they can shoot you.
Eh... it's the " reasonably believes " or " attempts to commit " seems awfully nebulous.
Missouri Revised Statutes
Chapter 563
Defense of Justification
Section 563.046
August 28, 2013
Law enforcement officer's use of force in making an arrest.
563.046. 1. A law enforcement officer need not retreat or desist from efforts to effect the arrest, or from efforts to prevent the escape from custody, of a person he reasonably believes to have committed an offense because of resistance or threatened resistance of the arrestee. In addition to the use of physical force authorized under other sections of this chapter, he is, subject to the provisions of subsections 2 and 3, justified in the use of such physical force as he reasonably believes is immediately necessary to effect the arrest or to prevent the escape from custody.
2. The use of any physical force in making an arrest is not justified under this section unless the arrest is lawful or the law enforcement officer reasonably believes the arrest is lawful.
3. A law enforcement officer in effecting an arrest or in preventing an escape from custody is justified in using deadly force only
(1) When such is authorized under other sections of this chapter; or
(2) When he reasonably believes that such use of deadly force is immediately necessary to effect the arrest and also reasonably believes that the person to be arrested
(a) Has committed or attempted to commit a felony; or
(b) Is attempting to escape by use of a deadly weapon; or
(c) May otherwise endanger life or inflict serious physical injury unless arrested without delay.
4. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section.
(L. 1977 S.B. 60)
Effective 1-1-79
That just looks horrible to me... especially 2(b).
2a is worse than 2b. 2b is just saying that if you are trying to flee and are using a gun (or knife, or bomb, or car, or what have you) the cops are justified in using deadly force back. It doesn't mean that if you are just running away that they can shoot you.
I think you are slightly over reading it (not to say you are wrong). You can also get into the whole discussion of "reasonable" and how it applies to law enforcement.
That language is fairly standard from state to state.
Well, that totally justifies the officer shooting him. Carry on everyone.
These riots are based on peoples' reactions to the media narrative of the big bad police officer shooting a sweet little boy. Now it's obvious he was actually a thug. This doesn't change the lethal force issue, but it certainly calls into question the media narrative that started this whole thing.
Ensis Ferrae has it - it's not that the robbery alone justified his shooting. Rather, the media narrative suggests that a sweet little boy was randomly attacked by a police officer. We now know that this is absolutely not the case. We can talk about the disparity of force issue, and try to hash out whether or not the shooting itself was justified, but this thug definitely "invited the man into his life" by committing violent crimes.
Well, that totally justifies the officer shooting him. Carry on everyone.
These riots are based on peoples' reactions to the media narrative of the big bad police officer shooting a sweet little boy. Now it's obvious he was actually a thug. This doesn't change the lethal force issue, but it certainly calls into question the media narrative that started this whole thing.
Ensis Ferrae has it - it's not that the robbery alone justified his shooting. Rather, the media narrative suggests that a sweet little boy was randomly attacked by a police officer. We now know that this is absolutely not the case. We can talk about the disparity of force issue, and try to hash out whether or not the shooting itself was justified, but this thug definitely "invited the man into his life" by committing violent crimes.
Nice to see it didn't take long for Nugg to show up and drop the Thug.
Is Thug still code for "black criminal"?
Anyway, it doesn't change anything in this situation other than give some people peace of mind knowing that another "thug" is off the streets and that he had it coming.
Well, that totally justifies the officer shooting him. Carry on everyone.
These riots are based on peoples' reactions to the media narrative of the big bad police officer shooting a sweet little boy. Now it's obvious he was actually a thug. This doesn't change the lethal force issue, but it certainly calls into question the media narrative that started this whole thing.
Ensis Ferrae has it - it's not that the robbery alone justified his shooting. Rather, the media narrative suggests that a sweet little boy was randomly attacked by a police officer. We now know that this is absolutely not the case. We can talk about the disparity of force issue, and try to hash out whether or not the shooting itself was justified, but this thug definitely "invited the man into his life" by committing violent crimes.
Nice to see it didn't take long for Nugg to show up and drop the Thug.
Is Thug still code for "black criminal"?
Anyway, it doesn't change anything in this situation other than give some people peace of mind knowing that another "thug" is off the streets and that he had it coming.
I didn't drop the thug - the police officer did.
Anyway, maybe it doesn't change anything if you're in the habit of thinking with your heart. However, for those of us exercising critical thinking, knowing that the deceased was a violent criminal calls the media narrative into question.
He was a suspect in the theft of Swisher Sweets from a convenience store
To:
NuggzTheNinja wrote: knowing that the deceased was a violent criminal calls the media narrative into question.
Is a bit of a stretch there methinks...
Edit:
I certainly wouldn't call it "critical thinking". In fact, going from "he was a suspect in a theft" and turning it into "I KNOW he was a violent criminal thug" seems more like emotional reasoning than critical thinking.
Anyway, maybe it doesn't change anything if you're in the habit of thinking with your heart. However, for those of us exercising critical thinking, knowing that the deceased was a violent criminal calls the media narrative into question.
Violent criminal? Critical thinking?
A man with no criminal record and one alleged petty robbery that had nothing to do with his interaction with the law officer that ended up taking his life is a violent criminal? All you are doing is substituting the "media narrative" you don't like (innocent black kid gunned down by white cop) with the one you do like (ruthless violent criminal that probably deserved it).
But I'm sure you can rest easy knowing that the town of Ferguson is so much safer now that this violent scourge has been rid from the streets.
"The initial contact between the officer and Mr. Brown was not related to the robbery," Thomas Jackson, the police chief, said during a news conference Friday afternoon.
Rather, it stemmed from the fact that Brown and his friend were "walking down the street blocking traffic," Jackson said.
Keep in mind that the robbery occurred approx 10 minutes earlier... but...
The robbery is apparently not relevant to why he was stopped. However, it could be relevant to why the suspect reacted in the way he did.
— johnny dollar (@johnnydollar01) August 15, 2014
Maybe it gives a little insight as to what was Brown thinking...the guy who committed a felony robbery probably has good reason to get away from the officer and reacted in someway.
Now... does it prove the shooting was justified? Not yet...
Does it prove it was unjustified homicide? Not yet either...
But, whereas the cop's initial story last Monday seemed implausible earlier, the background facts about the robbery, and Brown's apparent casual familiarity with violence, sorta makes his story plausible.
Anyway, maybe it doesn't change anything if you're in the habit of thinking with your heart. However, for those of us exercising critical thinking, knowing that the deceased was a violent criminal calls the media narrative into question.
Violent criminal? Critical thinking?
A man with no criminal record and one alleged petty robbery that had nothing to do with his interaction with the law officer that ended up taking his life is a violent criminal? All you are doing is substituting the "media narrative" you don't like (innocent black kid gunned down by white cop) with the one you do like (ruthless violent criminal that probably deserved it).
But I'm sure you can rest easy knowing that the town of Ferguson is so much safer now that this violent scourge has been rid from the streets.
I'm not saying that the shooting was justified. That would require reviewing tapes of the shooting incident itself. However, I am saying that the media narrative painting him as a sweet little boy is bs.
Whembly has it - This isn't about proof, it's about plausibility. The media paints a picture of a sweet little boy so his behaving in a way that would justify shooting would seem implausible. In reality, he is a violent criminal who had just committed a robbery, making his behavior justify shooting him far more plausible. This is not proof that the shooting was justified - we don't have enough information yet to make that call.
In common law, assault is the act of creating apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact with a person.[1]
I know where you are getting your own "media narrative" from.
He was a suspect because he matched the description of the guy in the video. The cop doesn't know it was him, we don't know it was him. And it doesn't change anything about his encounter with the cop.
The only thing it does is let people justify it in their mind because, to quote you, the unarmed person gunned down by the cop was a violent criminal thug.
Yet you are accusing everybody else of thinking with their heart and not being rational...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
NuggzTheNinja wrote: In reality, he is a violent criminal who had just committed a robbery, making his behavior justify shooting him far more plausible. This is not proof that the shooting was justified - we don't have enough information yet to make that call.
I would point out how incredibly fascinating it is to watch you type "we don't have enough information yet to make that call" immediately after repeating that you know, as a fact, that the unarmed guy that was shot was 100% without a doubt a violent criminal thug even though the police has only called him a suspect in that robbery. But please, tell us more about how we are the emotional ones here.
