cincydooley wrote: So does the reason they released the video change the content of the video?
No.
Does the fact that the police had a vague but now exposed intent to mislead people change the general public's impression of the goodwill of the police, and should this cause us all to kind of have a little worry for the integrity of the police?
Among the claims that ignited the fury over the fatal shooting of Michael Brown were that Ferguson police Officer Darren Wilson chased the unarmed teen on foot, shot at him as he ran away, then fired a barrage of fatal shots after Brown had turned around with his hands up.
Almost all of the witnesses who shared these accounts with media either knew Brown; lived at or near the Canfield Green apartments, where the shooting occurred; or were visiting friends or relatives there.
But there were two outsiders who happened to be working outside at the apartment complex on Aug. 9 — two men from a company in Jefferson County — who heard a single gunshot, looked up from their work and witnessed the shooting.
Both have given their statements to the St. Louis County police and the FBI. One of the men agreed to share his account with a Post-Dispatch reporter on the condition that his name and employer not be used.
The worker, who has not previously spoken with reporters, said he did not see what happened at the officer’s car — where Wilson and Brown engaged in an initial struggle and a shot was fired from Wilson’s gun.
His account largely matches those who reported that Wilson chased Brown on foot away from the car after the initial gunshot and fired at least one more shot in the direction of Brown as he was fleeing; that Brown stopped, turned around and put his hands up; and that the officer killed Brown in a barrage of gunfire.
But his account does little to clarify perhaps the most critical moment of the confrontation, on which members of the grand jury in St. Louis County may focus to determine whether the officer was justified in using lethal force: whether Brown moved toward Wilson just before the fatal shots, and if he did, how aggressively.
At least one witness has said Brown was not moving. Others didn’t mention him moving, while still others have said he was heading toward Wilson.
There is no way to determine how many witnesses have spoken to law enforcement without making public statements. The worker acknowledged that his account could be valuable to the case because he did not know either Brown or Wilson and had no ties to Ferguson.
The worker said he saw Brown on Aug. 9 about 11 a.m. as Brown was walking west on Canfield Drive, toward West Florissant Avenue.
He said Brown struck up a rambling, half-hour conversation with his co-worker.
The co-worker could not be reached for comment through his employer. He previously told KTVI (Channel 2) that he had uttered a profanity in frustration after hitting a tree root while digging. Brown heard him and stopped to talk.
Brown “told me he was feeling some bad vibes,” the co-worker told KTVI in a video that aired Aug. 12. “That the Lord Jesus Christ would help me through that as long as I didn’t get all angry at what I was doing.”
The worker interviewed by the Post-Dispatch said he paid attention to little of the conversation. He said he heard Brown tell his co-worker that he had a picture of Jesus on his wall; and the co-worker joked that the devil had a picture of him on the wall.
The co-worker told KTVI that Brown promised to come back and resume their conversation; Brown walked away, and the workers returned to their job.
About a half-hour later, the worker heard a gunshot. Then he saw Brown running away from a police car. Wilson trailed about 10 to 15 feet behind, gun in hand. About 90 feet away from the car, the worker said, Wilson fired another shot at Brown, whose back was turned.
The worker said Brown stumbled and then stopped, put his hands up, turned around and said, “OK, OK, OK, OK, OK.” He said he told investigators from the St. Louis County police and the FBI that because of the stumble, it seemed to him that Brown had been wounded.
A private autopsy showed that all but one of his gunshot wounds came while Brown was facing Wilson. Shawn L. Parcells, who participated in the autopsy, said one of the wounds to the arm could have occurred when Brown was facing away from Wilson. “It’s inconclusive,” he said. St. Louis County and federal autopsy results have not been released.
Wilson, gun drawn, also stopped about 10 feet in front of Brown, the worker said.
Then Brown moved, the worker said. “He’s kind of walking back toward the cop.” He said Brown’s hands were still up.
Wilson began backing up as he fired, the worker said.
After the third shot, Brown’s hands started going down, and he moved about 25 feet toward Wilson, who kept backing away and firing. The worker said he could not tell from where he watched — about 50 feet away — if Brown’s motion toward Wilson after the shots was “a stumble to the ground” or “OK, I’m going to get you, you’re already shooting me.”
Among people who have spoken to the media, there hasn’t been a clear consensus on what happened after Brown turned around.
Dorian Johnson — a friend of Brown’s who said he was walking with him when Wilson approached them on Canfield and told them to get off the street — told CNN that Brown was “beginning to tell the officer he was unarmed and to tell him to stop shooting.” Johnson, 22, told KTVI Brown was starting to get down when he was shot.
Johnson also told MSNBC that Wilson began shooting before Brown “could get his last words out.”
Another witness who lives nearby, Michael T. Brady, 32, told CNN that Brown turned with his hands under his stomach. He also said Brown took one or two steps toward Wilson as he was going down when Wilson fired three or four more times.
Piaget Crenshaw, who lives in the Canfield apartments, and Tiffany Mitchell, her boss, were in different places in the complex. Crenshaw told CNN that Brown didn’t move toward Wilson. In several statements to reporters, neither has mentioned Brown moving toward Wilson.
The New York Times quoted James McKnight as saying Brown stumbled toward Wilson, who was 6 to 7 feet away.
Phillip Walker, 40, another Canfield Green resident, told the Post-Dispatch on Tuesday that Brown was walking at a steady pace toward Wilson, with his hands up. “Not quickly,” Walker said. “He did not rush the officer.” Walker, who is distantly related to a Post-Dispatch reporter not involved in this report, said the last shot, into the top of Brown’s head, was from about 4 feet away.
“It wasn’t justified because he didn’t pose no threat to the officer. I don’t understand why he didn’t Tase him if he deemed him to be hostile. He didn’t have no weapon on him. I was confused on why he was shooting his rounds off like that into this individual,” Walker said.
The co-worker in the KTVI interview said he “starting hearing pops and when I look over … I seen somebody staggering and running. And when he finally caught himself he threw his hands up and started screaming, ‘OK, OK, OK, OK, OK, OK.’”
He said the officer “didn’t say, ‘Get on the ground.’ He didn’t say anything. At first his gun was down and then he … got about 8 to 10 feet away from him … I heard six, seven shots … it seemed like seven. Then he put his gun down. That’s when Michael stumbled forward. I’d say about 25 feet or so and then fell right on his face.”
No witness has ever publicly claimed that Brown charged at Wilson. The worker interviewed by the Post-Dispatch disputed claims by Wilson’s defenders that Brown was running full speed at the officer.
“I don’t know if he was going after him or if he was falling down to die,” he said. “It wasn’t a bull rush.”
Advancing 25ft while being fired on, or immediately after being shot many times seems a bit odd. 4-5ft while stumbling forwards sure, 25ft seems as though he was attempting with great effort to reach the police officer which doesn't seem like surrendering. Everyone knows that when there's a gun drawn with a bead on you better stop moving. You don't budge a single foot much less 25, 25ft is a lot of ground to cover and it sounds very much like he charged the officer.
If I remember from what these two said. Actually one because the other would not discuss with the Media about his statement to police IIRC. They still conflict with other "eye witnesses". City worker said Brown advance 20-25 feet. Another eye witness said 5 ft.
Heard something briefly about a memorial being burned or something? Can anyone enlighten me as to what this is about and what's happening in Ferguson atm?
Tactical_Genius wrote: Heard something briefly about a memorial being burned or something? Can anyone enlighten me as to what this is about and what's happening in Ferguson atm?
It's been pretty quiet.
Here's a youtube. Just the memorial accidently catching fire:
And the most transparent administration in history™ rears it's head:
DOJ's Ferguson Town Hall Meetings Ban Media, Non-Residents.
This is the same DOJ unit that was accused of helping organize protests against George Zimmerman in the Trayvon Martin case.
Ok, just wasn't sure. I think looters would be a better term, to differentiate from the actual protesters, (although someone would probably get their feelings hurt, so maybe not ). This is one of the things that (I think) give these kinds of protests a bad name. Idiots and opportunists who use the chaos created by a large protest to break the law. I hate people like that.
That and the people who are so blinded by prejudices that they don't understand how fire works. Or that the Fire Department puts out fires, not the Police Department.
Does anyone have a picture of it before it caught fire? I all it is now is a bunch of beer cans (which is never a good sign , seriously who uses beer cans in a memorial?).
Its interesting to me how in all of this Ferguson debacle, NOBODY has talked further about the late night incident that is archived on Tim Poole's page where both police and media are fired on by protestors. You can hear the bullets whizz by the heads of reporters as they hit the dirt, and even hear them bounce off the ground.
It was crazy to watch that live as it happened, and its even crazier to me that literally nobody has talked about it...including Tim and the rest of the VICE crew that actually experienced it!
Peter Wiggin wrote: Its interesting to me how in all of this Ferguson debacle, NOBODY has talked further about the late night incident that is archived on Tim Poole's page where both police and media are fired on by protestors. You can hear the bullets whizz by the heads of reporters as they hit the dirt, and even hear them bounce off the ground.
It was crazy to watch that live as it happened, and its even crazier to me that literally nobody has talked about it...including Tim and the rest of the VICE crew that actually experienced it!
Don't you mean police shooting at protestors and media?
d-usa wrote: If that is what you want to take from it then that is on you, it is not my takeaway from this thread.
I think he's saying that some people know way to much about illicit substances. Others call them... the life of the party!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Peter Wiggin wrote: Its interesting to me how in all of this Ferguson debacle, NOBODY has talked further about the late night incident that is archived on Tim Poole's page where both police and media are fired on by protestors. You can hear the bullets whizz by the heads of reporters as they hit the dirt, and even hear them bounce off the ground.
It was crazy to watch that live as it happened, and its even crazier to me that literally nobody has talked about it...including Tim and the rest of the VICE crew that actually experienced it!
Because that doesn't fit with the approved analog of this story.
ST. LOUIS, Mo. (KMOV.com) – Commander Ron Johnson issued a plea Wednesday to political leaders and protest leaders to end the violent demonstrations. However, an elected leader's staff member has threatened to shut down the MetroLink during Cardinals’ playoff games.
News 4 went to State Senator Jamilah Nasheed’s office to see if a staff member was planning this civil disobedience while he was on the clock and getting paid with tax dollars.
The MetroLink station across from Busch Stadium is a busy place on game day; there are 4500 passengers boarding there on an average weekend game day compared to just 500 on other weekends. Riders don’t want to see a MetroLink shutdown.
“I think there are better ways to handle the Ferguson situation,” MetroLink rider Cornelius Armour said, “I don’t think everybody has to suffer in the St. Louis area just because of this Ferguson situation. There’s other ways the situation can be handled.”
Armour worries the shutdown could be harmful to non-Cardinals fans who need to get to work or home to their families.
Eric Vickers, a long-time civil rights activist and chief of staff for Senator Nasheed, said he sent a letter to Major League Baseball warning of a shutdown as leverage to get a special prosecutor in the Michael Brown case.
Vickers said if there’s an act of civil disobedience that fills trains with protesters to keep fans from getting to the game it would be legal and peaceful. For now it is just an idea.
One thing that's impressed me (for lack of a better word) about this so far is that most of the hooliganism has mostly contained itself within Ferguson. There was maybe one or two outliers, and that was never even proven to be related. Might have just been a smash and grab. The only other one I can think of was that I heard reports of people throwing bricks off of overpasses at cars on the interstate, but I never read anything "official" on that, so I'm not sure if it even actually happened. Personally, I do not think anyone for a second is planning on interfering with their damned precious Cardinals games.
Shutting down MetroLink is a super-bad idea, and pretty much does everything the opposite of improving race relations, though the attitude is unsurprising. You could get away with murder here if you could show it was what was required to keep the baseball games running.
daedalus wrote: One thing that's impressed me (for lack of a better word) about this so far is that most of the hooliganism has mostly contained itself within Ferguson. There was maybe one or two outliers, and that was never even proven to be related.
I've also noticed this. There were rumors of people heading to the Illinois-side, but nothing ever happened.
And I don't see many people going through with the "protest" on the Metro...there are just too many diehard Cards fans
Most likely unrelated to the Mike Brown situation.
EDIT: the Ferguson officers was on routine patrol when they confronted two men breaking into a business, one pulled gun and shot the officer. Manhunt is onging...
Peter Wiggin wrote: Its interesting to me how in all of this Ferguson debacle, NOBODY has talked further about the late night incident that is archived on Tim Poole's page where both police and media are fired on by protestors. You can hear the bullets whizz by the heads of reporters as they hit the dirt, and even hear them bounce off the ground.
It was crazy to watch that live as it happened, and its even crazier to me that literally nobody has talked about it...including Tim and the rest of the VICE crew that actually experienced it!
Don't you mean police shooting at protestors and media?
No, I do not. I mean "protestors" opening fire on police and the media pen at around 2 AM one evening. I watched as it happened on livestream and the archive is on here somewhere.
Actually, it makes sense. Although eyewitnesses are pretty unreliable, people will still believe them more than a person who has no witnesses to back them up.
They seriously must have his medical record sealed Eye's Only. Handle by Dark Eldar Scourges and the receivers have the correct counter toxin to handle that folder
Co'tor Shas wrote: Actually, it makes sense. Although eyewitnesses are pretty unreliable, people will still believe them more than a person who has no witnesses to back them up.
It is somewhere in my psych notes. If I wasn't elbow deep in EMT notes right now I would look for them.
I forget what percentage of cases, but its pretty high. Also, 75% (if I remember my notes from class) of eye witnesses are wrong.
Grand jury considering the Ferguson shooting is being investigated for misconduct
The St. Louis County prosecutor’s office is investigating an accusation of misconduct on the grand jury that is hearing the case against the Ferguson police officer who shot and killed 18-year-old Michael Brown.
Ed Magee, the spokesman for county prosecutor Robert McCulloch, said they received the information from a “Twitter user” Wednesday morning.
“We are looking into the matter,” he said.
An account of possible jury misconduct surfaced Wednesday morning on Twitter, when several users sent messages about one juror who may have discussed evidence in the case with a friend.
In one of those messages, a person tweeted that they are friends with a member of the jury who doesn’t believe there is enough evidence to warrant an arrest of the officer, Darren Wilson.
The same person who tweeted about being friends with a member of the jury has also tweeted messages of support for Wilson.
Magee confirmed that information on the Twitter user and feed came from an activist, Shaun King.
Within seconds of posting this, her friends told her to delete it and she did. It was screenshotted first. pic.twitter.com/b6kTf9p40h
— Shaun King (@ShaunKing) October 1, 2014
The jury has been weighing evidence on the case since Aug. 20, within days of the Aug. 9 shooting. McCulloch told The Washington Post last week that both the FBI and county police’s investigations into the shooting are “pretty much done.” He also said that jurors should be done hearing all the evidence by later this month, but they could meet through mid-November.
Grand jury proceedings are confidential and if there has been a breach, the prosecutor’s office may have to start over with a newly empaneled group.
Meanwhile, Ferguson is grappling with continuing protests amid the wait over whether Wilson will face charges.
The attorney for Brown’s family, Ben Crump, said the potential breach must be fully investigated.
“If this allegation is true and there is a member of the grand jury who is discussing the case with a Darren Wilson supporters the appropriate thing for the prosecutor to do is impanel a new grand jury,” Crump said in an interview Wednesday night. “If this person is discussing the case outside of the grand jury it is wholly inappropriate. It’s an issue of fairness for Michael Brown’s family.”
Reached on Wednesday evening, King told The Post that the potential link was further evidence that the current legal proceedings may be flawed.
“At a time where so many people in Ferguson already don’t believe that Prosecutor Bob McCulloch will take this case seriously, this potential leak is a disaster,” King said. “If it’s found to be true and the Grand Jury has to be dismantled, McCulloch should be taken off of the case immediately and replaced with a special prosecutor.”
Here's that tweet:
@thesusannichols
I know someone sitting on the grnad jury of this case There isn't enough at this point to warrant an arrest. #Ferguson
Keep in mind that we have also not been privy to whatever evidence has come from Officer Wilson’s testimony, physical evidence from his squad car and other factors, as is proper in a `secret` grand jury deliberation. The grand jury may simply not have enough material to justify an arrest or trial, regardless of the media and public pressure to do so.
But if such a leak leads to the grand jury being dismissed, they will have to start all over again.
That means, more unrest in the area.
*sigh*
There's a very real chance that the "I know somebody on the Grand Jury" tweet is just plain old bullgak. We've all met the guy who knows nothing and will claim that he has firsthand or secondhand knowledge of a thing to make his assinine claims seem more authoritative. I'm hoping it's something along those lines, here.
I see this tweet as being from a series of tweets in support of Wilson, made by Wilson supporters, and one guy just decided "feth it, I'll say I know somebody on the jury". I don't think anybody knows anybody.
On the other hand, people are pretty stupid. So after being told not to talk to anyone about the case, I'm sure it's possible there was one juror stupid enough to talk about it with someone. I just hope that's not the case.
squidhills wrote: There's a very real chance that the "I know somebody on the Grand Jury" tweet is just plain old bullgak. We've all met the guy who knows nothing and will claim that he has firsthand or secondhand knowledge of a thing to make his assinine claims seem more authoritative. I'm hoping it's something along those lines, here.
I see this tweet as being from a series of tweets in support of Wilson, made by Wilson supporters, and one guy just decided "feth it, I'll say I know somebody on the jury". I don't think anybody knows anybody.
On the other hand, people are pretty stupid. So after being told not to talk to anyone about the case, I'm sure it's possible there was one juror stupid enough to talk about it with someone. I just hope that's not the case.
Are you suggesting that people lie on the internet, particularly to try to push their own otherwise unfounded beliefs? Based upon my intimate discussions with President Obama (or the B-man as he is known to his friends) your suggestion is frankly impossible.
"It's impossible to lie on the Internet. I'd know if it were." - Obama
To be fair, I understand him to have been contextually paraphrasing Bush. But he went on to imply that he agreed, what with the mischievous wink and making the universal sign of "fisting someone hard" while nodding out the window toward the general public.
SlaveToDorkness wrote: The same Twitter account posted information about the plastic Thunderhawk that's due out next year (perpetually!). His buddy has seen it!
Hold the Hell up...I though he deleted that post and posted that Robotech Tactics are to be released to the General Public beginning Oct..
One thing that makes me a bit skeptical is that this seems to be being driven by Shaun King. I've read a few of his other Tweets on this subject and there is a pretty good chance he's an idiot. Some of it is borderline conspiracy theory nonsense.
whembly wrote: Looks like the decision will be made early/mid November.
That's actually kinda smart, as our weather can get gnarly at that time.
The conspiracy theorist in me thinks that they already have their decision, but are waiting til "campaign season" is over to announce it.... I suppose that rioters that dont live in Soviet Russia don't like rioting/protesting in the cold
Well, I mean, I don't really have any means of proving that, one way or the other. It's possible they're not, I suppose. I'm not sure I'd consider that the default hypothesis though.
daedalus wrote: Well, I mean, I don't really have any means of proving that, one way or the other. It's possible they're not, I suppose. I'm not sure I'd consider that the default hypothesis though.
Okay. I wasn't asking because I was assuming they weren't, just legitimately curious if you knew either way.
daedalus wrote: Well, I mean, I don't really have any means of proving that, one way or the other. It's possible they're not, I suppose. I'm not sure I'd consider that the default hypothesis though.
During the riots part, over 95% of arrests were from out of towners. A lot from illinois. Even one from Austin that was arrested at least twice.
daedalus wrote: Well, I mean, I don't really have any means of proving that, one way or the other. It's possible they're not, I suppose. I'm not sure I'd consider that the default hypothesis though.
During the riots part, over 95% of arrests were from out of towners. A lot from illinois. Even one from Austin that was arrested at least twice.
I don't know if that counts though. The only thing really separating St. Louis and East St. Louis (Illinois) is a river. I could walk to East St. Louis from my apartment in about an hour.
Really, that might actually give credence to the notion this people might be out of towners, as the baseball stadium is downtown, and would actually probably be a shorter walk than I am, but to talk about people from Illinois as out of towners is a little misleading since Ferguson and East St. Louis are about 12 miles apart as the crow flies. I mean, it's probably less distance than the difference between Manhattan and Hauppage, and it's also effectively the same urban population center. I'm not saying they're not rabble rousers, but I'd say they potentially have more skin in the game than the guy from Austin, for example. I wish I could see a breakdown of what parts of IL they're from. If you go as far as Springfield or Chicago, yeah, I'd say total rabble.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Not that walking to East St. Louis is ever an advisable thing. I had to drive there a couple times for work there many years ago to do computer work for a non-profit women's shelter. I remember getting lost for multiple city blocks because donkey-caves have torn down the street signs, all the while, just standing around staring at you. That gak is scary.
ST. LOUIS • Another police-involved fatal shooting of a teenager, this time in south St. Louis not far from the Missouri Botanical Garden, led to hours of protests overnight Wednesday and into Thursday morning as an angry crowd gathered quickly when news spread across social media.
St. Louis Police Chief Sam Dotson said the officer was off-duty, working a secondary job for a private security company, when he chased and fatally shot an 18-year-old male Wednesday night who came at him aggressively in a gangway.
The teen had a gun and fired at least three shots at the officer, who returned fire, the chief said. The teenager attempted to fire more but his gun jammed, Dotson said.
The officer was unhurt. The officer fired 17 times, Dotson said. It is unclear how many times the teenager was struck.
Police said they recovered a 9mm Ruger.
Relatives of the dead teen who came to the scene identified him as Vonderrit Myers Jr., 18. They disputed the police version. They say he didn't have a weapon.
Teyonna Myers, 23, of Florissant, said Myers was her cousin.
“He was unarmed,” Teyonna Myers said. “He had a sandwich in his hand, and they thought it was a gun. It’s like Michael Brown all over again.”
The crowd that converged on the scene through the night numbered about 300 at its peak. Random gunshots fired by someone near Shaw caused many to scatter. At least two rounds of gunshots were heard near the scene. Several police cars were damaged by protesters kicking in the vehicles' windows or tail lights.
Dotson, who came to the scene and gave an update to reporters after midnight, said the officer had been in a car when he saw three males near Shaw Boulevard and Klemm Street at about 7:30 p.m. Wednesday. One of the males started to run away but stopped. The officer did a U-turn and then all three ran, in the 4100 block of Shaw Boulevard. The officer drove through streets following them, and then he got out and chased them on foot.
Dotson said a physical confrontation escalated into gunfire. This is how Dotson described the confrontation:
At one point the officer got out of his car and followed the suspect through a gangway. "When the officer went through the gangway, he saw the three gentlemen had come back together," Dotson said. "One of the gentleman started to approach the officer in an aggressive manner. The officer was giving verbal commands, telling them to stop, telling them how to surrender, telling them that they were under arrest. The suspect continued to come towards the officer until they got into a physical altercation. The suspect and the officer were hands on with each other. At that time, the suspect's gray hooded sweatshirt comes off and the suspect starts to run up a hill at the address on Shaw."
The officer clearly saw the suspect had a gun, Dotson said.
The officer said he "wanted to be certain that it was a gun and did not fire at that point. The suspect pointed the gun at the officer and fired at least three rounds at the police officer. We believe this to be true because there are three projectiles that we recovered with trajectories going towards the officer, down the hill, and one piece of ballistic evidence located behind the officer. At that point, the officer returned fire. As the officer moved towards the suspect, the suspect continued to pull the trigger on his gun."
That is when the teen's gun jammed, Dotson said.
Dotson did not identify the 18-year-old but said he "was no stranger to law enforcement."
Myers was scheduled to stand trial in November for unlawful use of a weapon and resisting arrest. According to court documents, the incident happened June 27 in St. Louis. Myers was a passenger in a car involved in a high-speed car chase. The car crashed in the 1100 block of South Grand Boulevard. Myers got out of the car, and a police officer yelled at him to stop. Instead, Myers ran off and tossed a gun into a sewage drain. Police caught him nearby. Police recovered the gun, a loaded .380-caliber pistol.
In early July, Myers was released on bail after posting $1,000 cash bond. His bail originally was set at $30,000 but was dropped to $10,000 after a judge agreed it was excessive. She allowed Myers to post 10 percent of that in cash. As a condition of bail, Myers was supposed to be under house arrest and wear an electronic ankle monitor.
A private monitoring firm, Eastern Missouri Alternative Sentencing Services, Inc., was supposed to monitor Myers' movements and contact the court if he violated the rules. Nothing in the court file indicates any violations.
Myers' trial was set for Nov. 17.
The chief said he is unaware of any video that captured Wednesday night's shooting. Police did not identify the officer but said he is 32 and a six-year veteran of the police department.
PROTESTERS GATHER
Word of the officer-involved shooting quickly spread across social media, and crowds of angry people began showing up and flooded the streets.
At one point, the crowd surrounded a police SUV and someone kicked and broke a taillight. Someone in the angry crowd broke out a rear window of a police SUV as it drove away.
Police closed Grand between Russell and Interstate 44 before midnight. A tactical team showed up to order people out of the street. Some protesters were sitting in the road. Others marched north on Grand. They shouted, "Black lives matter."
The crowd included several who said they were Myers’ relatives. Some shouted at police, and some were in tears.
By about 4 a.m., Grand was reopened to traffic in both directions and most of the protesters had left. About 40 people stood on the corner at Shaw as thunder rumbled in the distance.
Jackie Williams, 47, said Myers was his nephew and lived with him in the 4200 block of Castleman Avenue, near the shooting scene. He said he had talked to several people who had been with his nephew or saw the shooting.
“My nephew was coming out of a store from purchasing a sandwich. Security was supposedly searching for someone else. They Tased him,” Williams said. “I don’t know how this happened, but they went off and shot him 16 times. That’s outright murder.”
A police spokeswoman said the officer did not have a Taser.
Williams said Myers worked at a warehouse and attended high school.
Lavell Boyd, 47, lives in the neighborhood and said he happened upon the scene as he was going to a store on Shaw to pick up a sandwich. Boyd said he heard 14 or 15 shots as he was in his car.
“When I pulled up I saw the cop standing over him (Myers) then he pointed the gun at everyone else telling everyone to get back while he was searching for another clip,” Boyd said.
Boyd said he heard others nearby telling the officer “you killed my friend.”
Several neighbors also gathered at the scene. Some said they were surprised by the shooting.
“This is not normal,” said Dorenda Townsend, 42, who lives in the Shaw neighborhood. “I’ve lived here over 20 years.”
Some also expressed concern that the shooting involved police.
“I pray this is not another Mike Brown situation,” said Sharon Norman, 50, referring to a shooting in August in Ferguson in which a police officer fatally shot a teenager, which has prompted many protests.
Ronnie Sparks, 45, who lives in the Shaw neighborhood, said his son, Cameron Ming, 21, was with Myers on Wednesday night. After the shooting, Sparks said Ming was talking with police.
"They have been harassing him all day like they do all the time, puling him over, stopping him," Sparks said of his son. "That's how it is. They harass the kids in the neighborhood. Our kids walk around in their own neighborhood and get harassed for it."
Dotson said there had been no arrests of those involved in the protests that followed.
Here’s a wide look at the scene on Shaw at Klemm in south #STL. @kmoxnews pic.twitter.com/o6xfmtIWMz — Michael Calhoun (@michaelcalhoun) October 9, 2014
Weapon was recovered... but, family are disputing he ever had the gun.
And people are already protesting?
I don't even know what we're supposed to say about this....
Automatically Appended Next Post: Not to mention I'm not exactly sure how this part is being seemingly ignored on social media:
Myers was scheduled to stand trial in November for unlawful use of a weapon and resisting arrest. According to court documents, the incident happened June 27 in St. Louis. Myers was a passenger in a car involved in a high-speed car chase. The car crashed in the 1100 block of South Grand Boulevard. Myers got out of the car, and a police officer yelled at him to stop. Instead, Myers ran off and tossed a gun into a sewage drain. Police caught him nearby. Police recovered the gun, a loaded .380-caliber pistol.
It's rough, because the evidence makes it sound like a pretty open and shut thing, but then you have to be able to trust the police for that to even matter. I struggle to do that and I'm a "respectable white guy".
If the evidence shows (and so far it does) that he had a weapon and shot at the guy, then whatever. It's a shame someone died, but that's all there is to it.
MrDwhitey wrote: If the evidence shows (and so far it does) that he had a weapon and shot at the guy, then whatever. It's a shame someone died, but that's all there is to it.
I guess what I don't understand is how people can blatantly ignore all of those things and then go protest and damage police cars. I have trouble wrapping my head around that mindset.
cincydooley wrote: I guess what I don't understand is how people can blatantly ignore all of those things and then go protest and damage police cars. I have trouble wrapping my head around that mindset.
I think there's a lot of mistrust of the police to the point in which that some people assume that all (or at least most) evidence is fabricated. The media certainly does a good job of not helping this.
The above combined with a lot of anger and frustration and never learning a means of channeling that into something to improve the world causes people to lash out and break things.
And, I mean, sometimes you just get so angry you want to break something, even though you know it's stupid and irrational. Not excusing it, just pointing out that it's there.
Holy smokes! I really hope we have a miserable rainy, RAINY weather this weekend. (even though I'm a Cards fan, they're playing the NLCS this weekend).
Heard on the news that the St. Louis County Emergency Operations Center (if I got that title right) will be activated at 4:00 PM Thursday and remain activated until midnight Tuesday morning.
The activation is in response to intelligence information and planned demonstrations over the holiday weekend which is being organized as a “Weekend of Resistance.”
Three prominent organizers of the protest movement in Ferguson, Missouri, say they are willing to die in the streets if the police officer who fatally shot 18-year-old Michael Brown is not “brought to justice.”
The organizers told a rally in New York Tuesday night that there would be a fierce backlash if a grand jury declined to indict Officer Darren Wilson, The Guardian reported.
“If they can’t serve justice in this, the people have every right to go out and express their rage in a manner that is equal to what we have suffered,” said Ashley Yates, a co-founder of Millennial Activists United, who was arrested last week while protesting in Ferguson, The Guardian reported.
“We’re going to take our anger out on the people who have failed us, and if [police] are prepared to deal with that, then let them have at it,” she added.
Tef Poe, of the Organization for Black Struggle, said that Ferguson may be America’s turning point, where “casual revolution” is no longer possible. He criticized race commentators who didn’t get involved with the protests because they “didn’t want to get shot.”
Mr. Poe denied that he’s inciting violence, arguing that police “incited a riot by leaving Mike Brown’s body on the street for four-and-a-half hours.”
“Don’t come to Ferguson if you aren’t ready to die. Stay at home, as it could happen,” he told the crowd.
Joined by Tory Russell, organizer for Hands Up United, the three activists spoke in the ballroom in Washington Heights where Malcolm X was shot dead nearly 50 years ago, The Guardian reported.
They defended protesters’ behavior in previous clashes and encouraged “outside agitators” to join the fight.
Mr. Russell, who was also arrested during the protests, argued that Martin Luther King Jr. could be considered an “outside agitator.”
“Don’t be afraid to come from outside and help us do this work. Don’t be afraid to be an outside agitator for some true change,” he said.
Tuesday’s speakers are preparing to take leading roles in a “Weekend of Resistance” in Ferguson beginning Friday, in which Muslim groups and pro-Palestine groups will also take part.
Genuinely curious here, I know that the US definition of free speech is a bit different from over here in the Communist Republic of Europe, but don't you guys have any legislation regarding speech that promotes and incites violence? Wouldn't those declarations be covered under those laws and these people be arrested before those protests even started?
PhantomViper wrote: Genuinely curious here, I know that the US definition of free speech is a bit different from over here in the Communist Republic of Europe, but don't you guys have any legislation regarding speech that promotes and incites violence? Wouldn't those declarations be covered under those laws and these people be arrested before those protests even started?
We have laws against inciting a riot and laws against speech that is fully intended to provoke a violent response from someone ("Fighting Words" we calls 'em). In most cases, inciting a riot is easier to prove than use of fighting words, because the line between fighting words and plain old (and lawfully protected) hate speech is way too blurry.
PhantomViper wrote: Genuinely curious here, I know that the US definition of free speech is a bit different from over here in the Communist Republic of Europe, but don't you guys have any legislation regarding speech that promotes and incites violence? Wouldn't those declarations be covered under those laws and these people be arrested before those protests even started?
There's a actually a "high threshold" to charge someone with incitement.
But, you'd also have to take into account of "Risk Management" too... having the police/DA charge this guy now may incur even more violence.
whembly wrote: Holy smokes! I really hope we have a miserable rainy, RAINY weather this weekend. (even though I'm a Cards fan, they're playing the NLCS this weekend).
Heard on the news that the St. Louis County Emergency Operations Center (if I got that title right) will be activated at 4:00 PM Thursday and remain activated until midnight Tuesday morning.
The activation is in response to intelligence information and planned demonstrations over the holiday weekend which is being organized as a “Weekend of Resistance.”
Three prominent organizers of the protest movement in Ferguson, Missouri, say they are willing to die in the streets if the police officer who fatally shot 18-year-old Michael Brown is not “brought to justice.”
The organizers told a rally in New York Tuesday night that there would be a fierce backlash if a grand jury declined to indict Officer Darren Wilson, The Guardian reported.
“If they can’t serve justice in this, the people have every right to go out and express their rage in a manner that is equal to what we have suffered,” said Ashley Yates, a co-founder of Millennial Activists United, who was arrested last week while protesting in Ferguson, The Guardian reported.
“We’re going to take our anger out on the people who have failed us, and if [police] are prepared to deal with that, then let them have at it,” she added.
Tef Poe, of the Organization for Black Struggle, said that Ferguson may be America’s turning point, where “casual revolution” is no longer possible. He criticized race commentators who didn’t get involved with the protests because they “didn’t want to get shot.”
Mr. Poe denied that he’s inciting violence, arguing that police “incited a riot by leaving Mike Brown’s body on the street for four-and-a-half hours.”
“Don’t come to Ferguson if you aren’t ready to die. Stay at home, as it could happen,” he told the crowd.
Joined by Tory Russell, organizer for Hands Up United, the three activists spoke in the ballroom in Washington Heights where Malcolm X was shot dead nearly 50 years ago, The Guardian reported.
They defended protesters’ behavior in previous clashes and encouraged “outside agitators” to join the fight.
Mr. Russell, who was also arrested during the protests, argued that Martin Luther King Jr. could be considered an “outside agitator.”
“Don’t be afraid to come from outside and help us do this work. Don’t be afraid to be an outside agitator for some true change,” he said.
Tuesday’s speakers are preparing to take leading roles in a “Weekend of Resistance” in Ferguson beginning Friday, in which Muslim groups and pro-Palestine groups will also take part.
I bet none of the three are actually from...Ferguson.
cincydooley wrote: I guess what I don't understand is how people can blatantly ignore all of those things and then go protest and damage police cars. I have trouble wrapping my head around that mindset.
It's easy. The next time someone posts a factually-reported story here from MSNBC, and you immediately dismiss it because it was on MSNBC, congratulations! You now understand.
Tuesday’s speakers are preparing to take leading roles in a “Weekend of Resistance” in Ferguson beginning Friday, in which Muslim groups and pro-Palestine groups will also take part.
What a surprise the bolded ones would join in on a corner.
cincydooley wrote: I guess what I don't understand is how people can blatantly ignore all of those things and then go protest and damage police cars. I have trouble wrapping my head around that mindset.
It's easy. The next time someone posts a factually-reported story here from MSNBC, and you immediately dismiss it because it was on MSNBC, congratulations! You now understand.
I've never done that. In fact, I took a bunch of ignorant racists to task on The Blaze's Facebook page yesterday for lambasting Danny Green about his poorly executed selfie. And I've certainly never been motivated to damage anything in light of it.
I think MSNBC is the equivalent of Fox News when it comes to their factual reporting; any time I see something reported there, I look to see if it's been validated elsewhere.
Which, honestly, is what everyone should do. And let's not pretend people are picking which news outlet they use as their first source based on their "factual reporting" if they're picking MSNBC or Fox News as their primary; they're picking one of those two because they agree with their political commentators (who are NOT reporters).
cincydooley wrote: I guess what I don't understand is how people can blatantly ignore all of those things and then go protest and damage police cars. I have trouble wrapping my head around that mindset.
It's easy. The next time someone posts a factually-reported story here from MSNBC, and you immediately dismiss it because it was on MSNBC, congratulations! You now understand.
I must have missed the last time cincy violently protested...
cincydooley wrote: I guess what I don't understand is how people can blatantly ignore all of those things and then go protest and damage police cars. I have trouble wrapping my head around that mindset.
It's easy. The next time someone posts a factually-reported story here from MSNBC, and you immediately dismiss it because it was on MSNBC, congratulations! You now understand.
I must have missed the last time cincy violently protested...
cincy...
I would have participated in the 2001 riots, but I was at my university being violent on the football field.
Truly, threatening to die for your cause if you don't get your way is the basis of all reasonable discourse.
The cops should ascertain a suspects race and either proceed as normal if they're white or drop their weapons and wallet if they are not. That's the only way. This mob will be satisfied.
SlaveToDorkness wrote: Truly, threatening to die for your cause if you don't get your way is the basis of all reasonable discourse.
The cops should ascertain a suspects race and either proceed as normal if they're white or drop their weapons and wallet if they are not. That's the only way. This mob will be satisfied.
So in that instance do Hispanics count as white, or is that only if they're the shooter?
SlaveToDorkness wrote: Truly, threatening to die for your cause if you don't get your way is the basis of all reasonable discourse.
The cops should ascertain a suspects race and either proceed as normal if they're white or drop their weapons and wallet if they are not. That's the only way. This mob will be satisfied.
So in that instance do Hispanics count as white, or is that only if they're the shooter?
Hispanics are white, Latinos are not. In the event of a hostile suspect situation, a police officer will have to politely inquire as to the suspect's correct ethnicity, before the officer can determine if he is to shoot or surrender.
Hostile suspects will, of course, be assumed to be telling the truth in such situations, and would never lie to gain an advantage.
cincydooley wrote: I guess what I don't understand is how people can blatantly ignore all of those things and then go protest and damage police cars. I have trouble wrapping my head around that mindset.
It's easy. The next time someone posts a factually-reported story here from MSNBC, and you immediately dismiss it because it was on MSNBC, congratulations! You now understand.
I've never done that.
I meant it as an analogy, not at you specifically: the behavior of immediately dismissing something because of the source. You see it with Fox News as well, and my point was that if there are people who wouldn't believe either outlet if they reported that the sun was going to rise in the east tomorrow. It's the same mindset, the source is so biased we can't believe anything. In this analogy, the Ferguson Police is the media source people don't want to believe because they are untrustworthy, mingled with they don't want to believe.
I have never understood how this works. I am Hispanic and do not consider myself white, but I have several forms (FFL forms most recently) where if you check the box for Hispanic, you must also check an additional box with white\black etc. .... I don't know why there is a second box.
I have never understood how this works. I am Hispanic and do not consider myself white, but I have several forms (FFL forms most recently) where if you check the box for Hispanic, you must also check an additional box with white\black etc. .... I don't know why there is a second box.
Because Hispanics have European in them, so they are white and we like them. But they are also non-European, so they are not-white and we don't like them. It's complicated
Because Hispanics have European in them, so they are white and we like them. But they are also non-European, so they are not-white and we don't like them. It's complicated
This explanation both sounds correct but also makes my brain hurt.
Because Hispanics have European in them, so they are white and we like them. But they are also non-European, so they are not-white and we don't like them. It's complicated
This explanation both sounds correct but also makes my brain hurt.
The pain is the evidence that it is a government definition.
Because Hispanics have European in them, so they are white and we like them. But they are also non-European, so they are not-white and we don't like them. It's complicated
This explanation both sounds correct but also makes my brain hurt.
That explanation isn't completely correct either. Hispanic people can be European, but aren't necessarily so.
It's also not meant to be taken seriously. Especially when you read the rest of the post about police officers politely asking violent suspects about their exact ethnicity before determining if they can shoot or if they need to surrender their "wallet and weapon" as another poster said. I was hoping the absurdity of the latter part of the post would've made the facetiousness of the former part aparent, but then I guess I forgot what the internet is like.
Hispanic means that they have European Spanish blood somewhere in their heritage, usually from when the new world was being colonized (ie beaten/raped into submission)
Latino refers to people of Central and South America that weren't mixed with Spanish heritage, pure blooded Aztec or Mayan for example.
150+ years ago it was very important distinction as Non-Hispanics couldn't hold titles, lands, or wealth in Mexico or other parts of central America that were domain of Spanish rule.
Nowdays it's largely used for race baiting, like the Zimmerman Travon Martin shooting, the race baiters claim he's a white man shooting an unarmed black kid to flame racial tensions when he's not really white but has a mixed race background. But the headlines don't sound as good if they read Hispanic-mixed man shoots unarmed black teen.
There's an old joke in Mexico and the Southwest that denotes the different in class and background, What's the difference between a Hispanic and Latino? The Hispanic is the one you want to date your daughter and the Latino tends your garden. Even in current times Mexican Hispanics view themselves as more upper class level then Latinos from other areas, Guatemala for instance is "Mexico's Mexico", ie the poor southern neighbor that they get to do their unwanted work. (like how America views Mexico)
It's also not meant to be taken seriously. Especially when you read the rest of the post about police officers politely asking violent suspects about their exact ethnicity before determining if they can shoot or if they need to surrender their "wallet and weapon" as another poster said. I was hoping the absurdity of the latter part of the post would've made the facetiousness of the former part aparent, but then I guess I forgot what the internet is like.
Sorry, I didn't realize you were joking. I'm not sure what came over me.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
cincydooley wrote: Did you guys see Oprah lose her mind when Raven said she didn't view herself as "African-American" but rather just American.
Rough night for this business on S. Grand in S #STL. Protestors busted windows at Medicine Shoppe @kmov #n4tm pic.twitter.com/vAdbSI1vaZ
— Laura Hettiger KMOV (@LauraKHettiger) October 10, 2014
Busted glass in middle of S. Grand after a night of protests. We know several @SLMPD cars had windows busted @kmov pic.twitter.com/ILFQ0CpVBl — Laura Hettiger KMOV (@LauraKHettiger) October 10, 2014
God, I was rushing to the article wondering which one of us got so drunk they thought throwing a Knight Titan at the police was a good idea.
See I didn't even think in GW terms... I was like, "man, things are getting desperate... tomorrow we'll hear about them throwing the rest of their chess pieces"
Them bishops are usually pointy, so probably more dangerous
Co'tor Shas wrote: He's saying it's bad that a felon on bail had a gun he should not have had. What's wrong with that?
More gun control regulations won't fix that.
Harsher punishments for criminals with illegal firearms will.
That actually probably won't fix the problem either, with the possible exception of beginning to enforce laws that haven't been being enforced. But just adding harsher punishments alone probably won't do much.
That actually probably won't fix the problem either, with the possible exception of beginning to enforce laws that haven't been being enforced. But just adding harsher punishments alone probably won't do much.
Good point. They don't even enforce the ones we have in place. Not enforcing harsher ones won't make a difference.
Yup, all your Felons are totes walking down to Cabela's to get their firearms
As in going after the illegal sales. It's rather obvious, the best way to stop felons from getting the guns in the first place, is to stop it at the source. Track large gun sales, stuff like that.
Yup, all your Felons are totes walking down to Cabela's to get their firearms
As in going after the illegal sales. It's rather obvious, the best way to stop felons from getting the guns in the first place, is to stop it at the source. Track large gun sales, stuff like that.
I don't think felons should be allowed to openly carry a sandwich either. What we need is more sandwich control in this country. Oh, I know what you'll say then, but plenty of people get full on wraps or gyros too! Not nearly as easy as a sandwich. A wrap or gyro takes more time to load and get ready to eat. A sandwich is just bread, meat, bread BOOM!
Think of the children! (Or at least of-age teenagers with records whose only available pictures are from when they were twelve)
Yup, all your Felons are totes walking down to Cabela's to get their firearms
As in going after the illegal sales. It's rather obvious, the best way to stop felons from getting the guns in the first place, is to stop it at the source. Track large gun sales, stuff like that.
Like fast and furious
No, not like F&F. Actually doing the job well. Not suppliing the guns, but having gun manufactures and vendors report when thy receive a large order for guns and ammuntion. If that doesn't work, than try something else. Just keep trying until you can severely damage the illegal suppliers. And this should be something we could all agree on, keeping guns away from gangs and illegal weapons dealers.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I'm saying that if an individual orders large amounts of gun and/or ammo, that should be labeled under suspicious, no?
What's is consider a large amount of ammo? I brought 1K in one transaction.
I have no idea, that would be a question for the experts. I have no real idea f how this would work, just the idea that we should go after the suppliers.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I'm saying that if an individual orders large amounts of gun and/or ammo, that should be labeled under suspicious, no?
What's is consider a large amount of ammo? I brought 1K in one transaction.
I have no idea, that would be a question for the experts. I have no real idea f how this would work, just the idea that we should go after the suppliers.
You may want to define 'suppliers'. Gang members tend to not use the same suppliers legal purchasers do. Further restricting legal suppliers in the guise of Doing Something tends to be a waste fo tax payer money and leads to infringement of rights.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I'm saying that if an individual orders large amounts of gun and/or ammo, that should be labeled under suspicious, no?
What's is consider a large amount of ammo? I brought 1K in one transaction.
I have no idea, that would be a question for the experts. I have no real idea f how this would work, just the idea that we should go after the suppliers.
You may want to define 'suppliers'. Gang members tend to not use the same suppliers legal purchasers do. Further restricting legal suppliers in the guise of Doing Something tends to be a waste fo tax payer money and leads to infringement of rights.
The people who buy the guns ti sell them to gangs.
Also, how could that infringe on any rights? The 2nd is definitely not involved.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I'm saying that if an individual orders large amounts of gun and/or ammo, that should be labeled under suspicious, no?
What's is consider a large amount of ammo? I brought 1K in one transaction.
I have no idea, that would be a question for the experts. I have no real idea f how this would work, just the idea that we should go after the suppliers.
You may want to define 'suppliers'. Gang members tend to not use the same suppliers legal purchasers do. Further restricting legal suppliers in the guise of Doing Something tends to be a waste fo tax payer money and leads to infringement of rights.
The people who buy the guns ti sell them to gangs.
Also, how could that infringe on any rights? The 2nd is definitely not involved.
The only people who buy guns in bulk are gun shop owners, who tend to have the feds up their tail ends enough to not do something stupid like sell to gang members. Either this was a straw purchase, the kid stole it from someone, or he knew where to buy it illegally. Around here you can buy an assortment of handguns out of people's trucks at flea markets. Tracking orders from the manufacturer would only impede legal business
Co'tor, I think that maybe you don't realize that nearly all guns that are used in crimes are either bought on the "black market" (illegal) or through straw man purchases (illegal), or they're stolen.
The kind of problem you're trying to address doesnt really happen.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I'm saying that if an individual orders large amounts of gun and/or ammo, that should be labeled under suspicious, no?
What's is consider a large amount of ammo? I brought 1K in one transaction.
I hate to play devils advocate here with the other's guys idea because I don't really agree with it - after all, I also buy thousand round cases semi-regularly - but how much diesel fuel and fertilizer can you buy before the government gets involved? How much Sudafed?
The "it's legal in x amount, so it's never the governments business no matter what the amount is" doesn't seem to hold up well in the real world.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I'm saying that if an individual orders large amounts of gun and/or ammo, that should be labeled under suspicious, no?
What's is consider a large amount of ammo? I brought 1K in one transaction.
I hate to play devils advocate here with the other's guys idea because I don't really agree with it - after all, I also buy thousand round cases semi-regularly - but how much diesel fuel and fertilizer can you buy before the government gets involved? How much Sudafed?
The "it's legal in x amount, so it's never the governments business no matter what the amount is" doesn't seem to hold up well in the real world.
The majority of criminals aren't buying mass amounts of ammunition from legal sources though. I'd guess, for the most part, the people who buy large amounts of ammunition in one go are people who like to shoot often.
I think one of the problems here is that there is a misconception that some criminal elements - Mexican narcotics groups, for example - get their weaponry from the "legal" market, and this misconception is furthered by politicians who wish to use it to drive their own purposes. If you start from there, as perhaps Co'Tor did, then the idea of tracking seems reasonable.
The problem with that is twofold:
A.) Why would you buy a $600 AR-15 that you'd have to smuggle into the country, convert to select fire, etc etc when you can just buy an actual select-fire M4 from the Mexican Army, or from Guatemala or wherever down south?
B.) When they have these big weapon seizures and show the guns on the table, there is always tons of stuff you can't get on the US civilian market. I saw one on some site talking about how the "gun show loophole" allows the Mexican cartels to get stuff like what was pictured, and the stuff in the picture included, like, hand grenades, M203's, stuff like that. Laughable.
So, rather than argue about whether or not the government could track large purchases of ammunition, firearms, etc - an idea that I feel they probably legally could, but why argue about it? - we should put the horse before the cart instead and point out there is no point in doing this anyway, as has been argued in this thread by more than one person - most criminals are not buying from conventional sources anyway.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Oprah didnt loose her mind. She just knew what Symone said was going to stire up a storm
Which is too bad, because nothing she said should really be that controversial.
It is really controversial. And here is understanding why.
White people are the default. We do not have a "Race Identity" Our race specificall does not shape our experiances inn the way black people do. We do not go around questioning is EVERY thing that happened to us is is because of our race. It creates this identity
hotsauceman1 wrote: Oprah didnt loose her mind. She just knew what Symone said was going to stire up a storm
Which is too bad, because nothing she said should really be that controversial.
It is really controversial. And here is understanding why.
White people are the default. We do not have a "Race Identity" Our race specificall does not shape our experiances inn the way black people do. We do not go around questioning is EVERY thing that happened to us is is because of our race. It creates this identity
That's cool. I actually went to college too, by the way. And if you don't believe being white doesn't shape your experiences then I don't know what to tell you. To me the claim that "white people are the default" is personally incredibly more offensive than an African-American saying she identifies as American. Maybe they're the default for you, but that doesn't mean they're the default for me or anyone else. A lot of this can vary incredibly depending on where you live and where you grew up.
Last night I watched a bit of the protests. They were screaming "We are memorizing your faces, you can't hide. How about we come pay you and your wife a visit."
"We support Hamas 100%"
hotsauceman1 wrote: That is my reason as to why. White people quite often dont see rae as big as a deal as the the races do
Ravens comments have literally nothing to do with her race. It has to do with her cultural heritage. She doesn't want to be called AFRICAN-American because she doesn't align with any of her potential African heritage at all. You know who the AFRICAN-americans are? The ones that are actually immigrating from Africa.
And that is how YOU see it, but i know alot of people that think differently. Again, it is difficult for someone who hasnt experianced it to understand
hotsauceman1 wrote: And that is how YOU see it, but i know alot of people that think differently. Again, it is difficult for someone who hasnt experianced it to understand
hotsauceman1 wrote: And that is how YOU see it, but i know alot of people that think differently. Again, it is difficult for someone who hasnt experianced it to understand
No. That's what she said.
Whatever class you're taking right now that's prompting your comments, you should drop. It's not actually teaching you anything.
It isnt a class. It is how I feel. Im taking mostly history and logic.
And good on you for showing your hate on universities again, thinking that everything you think is stupid I say comes from a class.
And that is what she said, but that isnt what a majority of black people feel. The have a Racial Identity that forms a bond from shared experiances. Why do you think there are orginizations like black pride clubs at schools? Its because they do feel the need to reach out for others with shared racial experiance
I'm glad to hear that you speak for most Black Americans. I'll have to ask you more about hip hop culture when I get the chance.
Additionally, your "hate on universities" claim is not only tired and laughable, but shows that you lack a fundamental understanding, despite multiple conversations about it, on my opinions of the American education system.
And finally, you're still, almost entirely, missing Symone's point.
I am not missing her point, she doesnt want to be labeled. Fine good on her. She doesnt want to be called a Lesbian for some reason or African American.
And I say this because I have read up on it, i have studied it and I have talked to people of numerous races on this subject. And they don't like it when someone denies their heritage because to them, it is a fundamental part of who they are and their shared experiences.
And I do understand, you do not like universities thinking they are expensive and produce useless results
Who the feth cares what "they" think? News flash: it's no one elses business what your sexuality is or what you claim as your cultural heritage.
And again, you're wrong. You have absolutely zero understanding of my opinion on university educations. In short: university's are filled with too many C students that would be better served learning a trade or taking an apprenticeship.
I would argue that what if those C-students dont want a trade.
But, I did some stupid stuff last night, and not I have a bad hangover. Im going back to bed.
hotsauceman1 wrote: I am not missing her point, she doesnt want to be labeled. Fine good on her. She doesnt want to be called a Lesbian for some reason or African American.
And I say this because I have read up on it, i have studied it and I have talked to people of numerous races on this subject. And they don't like it when someone denies their heritage because to them, it is a fundamental part of who they are and their shared experiences.
And I do understand, you do not like universities thinking they are expensive and produce useless results
I feel that old Teddy had something to say about this:
"Theodore Roosevelt on hyphenated Americans: "There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism. When I refer to hyphenated Americans, I do not refer to naturalized Americans. Some of the very best Americans I have ever known were naturalized Americans, Americans born abroad. But a hyphenated American is not an American at all."
"This is just as true of the man who puts “native” before the hyphen as of the man who puts German or Irish or English or French before the hyphen. Americanism is a matter of the spirit and of the soul. Our allegiance must be purely to the United States. We must unsparingly condemn any man who holds any other allegiance."
"But if he is heartily and singly loyal to this Republic, then no matter where he was born, he is just as good an American as any one else."
"The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities, an intricate knot of German-Americans, Irish-Americans, English- Americans, French-Americans, Scandinavian- Americans, or Italian-Americans, each preserving its separate nationality, each at heart feeling more sympathy with Europeans of that nationality than with the other citizens of the American Republic."
"The men who do not become Americans and nothing else are hyphenated Americans; and there ought to be no room for them in this country. The man who calls himself an American citizen and who yet shows by his actions that he is primarily the citizen of a foreign land, plays a thoroughly mischievous part in the life of our body politic. He has no place here; and the sooner he returns to the land to which he feels his real heart-allegiance, the better it will be for every good American."
I am imagining the number of dashes I could lay claim to. The European posters here, if I read them correctly, are highly amused by people here in the U.S. Identifying themselves by whatever country in Europe their ancestors came from. The same from what I know, is true of Africans. My friends that have met people from Africa have been told that they may call themselves Africans, but they are not, they are American. They may have the trappings of Africa about them, but they have not lived African, they have lived American.
Why do you think there are orginizations like black pride clubs at schools? Its because they do feel the need to reach out for others with shared racial experiance
Go into ANY school across the country and ask to form a "White Pride" club at their location, and tell us what happens. Personally, all of the "X Pride" clubs are just as bad as the Black Panthers, KKK or ANY of the other racially motivated political/hate groups.
It's actually quite good that someone like Raven came out saying "I'm an American, not a hyphenated American" (paraphrasing). She is smart enough to have realized that her "roots" in Africa are so far back and so far gone that she doesn't have roots in Africa, she has roots in the Bayous of Louisiana. Perhaps with her lead, others will do the same and quite possibly, many years from now, "dethrone" Oprah and Jackson and all these other race baiting talking-heads.
proof that idiots still roam free and why they should be trying to fund the school more lol
If you think about where the bullets hit, it would line up if he put his hand up and did a charge, which was what the cop said also he was a football player and thats how they charge. Seems about right
You'd think, what with their aversion to getting killed, they would be endorsing pepper spray, or outright just demanding that the police not waste their time showing up to begin with. Oh well.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Dozens of protesters still chanting outside of Steve Stenger/Claire McCaskill fundraiser #FergusonOctober
https://vine.co/v/OqZQvBwEhB7/
o.O
Sounds like there are some groups "coordinating" all of this.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Dozens of protesters still chanting outside of Steve Stenger/Claire McCaskill fundraiser #FergusonOctober
https://vine.co/v/OqZQvBwEhB7/
o.O
Sounds like there are some groups "coordinating" all of this.
I understand protesting outside the police stations, but what legitimate purpose is served by protesting police actions in Wal-Mart?
Felons already cannot legally buy a firearm. It is also a Federal offence to knowingly sell a firearm (even if you are a private seller) to an improper person, such as a felon.
Co'tor Shas wrote: As in going after the illegal sales. It's rather obvious, the best way to stop felons from getting the guns in the first place, is to stop it at the source. Track large gun sales, stuff like that.
Co'tor Shas wrote: No, not like F&F. Actually doing the job well. Not suppliing the guns, but having gun manufactures and vendors report when thy receive a large order for guns and ammuntion. If that doesn't work, than try something else. Just keep trying until you can severely damage the illegal suppliers. And this should be something we could all agree on, keeping guns away from gangs and illegal weapons dealers.
People who cannot legally purchase firearms are unlikely to go directly to a manufacturer to place a bulk order. The only people who typically order from manufacturers in bulk are FFL stores, and criminals aren't typically customers there. Criminals get their firearms through illegal channels. Going after legal channels is barking up the wrong tree
I think its adorable when tired relics try to be relevant.
My guess is this guy is completely ignorant of the "real" Black Panther movement of the 60s and 70s, and so, as a "New Black Panther" isn't so much an adorable relic, as a dangerous, new ignorance masquerading and revelling in past "glories"
(CNN) -- Lab results are back in the case of a teenager who died in a police shooting in St. Louis last week, and they show gun residue on the clothing and body of Vonderrit Myers, authorities said Tuesday.
The residue was found on Myers' shirt, jeans and hand, according to a release from St. Louis police.
Its presence on his hand could mean that he discharged a firearm, was near a firearm when it went off or that Myers touched something with gun residue on it, police said. People shot at close range could also have residue deposited on their hands.
Myers was fatally shot Wednesday by a St. Louis officer, who was off-duty but wearing his uniform while moonlighting for a security company. Police have said the teenager fired a pistol three times at the officer.
The shooting sparked street protests, with residents pointing out similarities to the August killing of Michael Brown in nearby Ferguson, Missouri.
Myers and Brown were both 18 and black and killed by white police officers. However, unlike Myers, authorities say Brown was not armed.
Myers was struck by seven or eight bullets, St. Louis city Medical Examiner Dr. Michael Graham said last week.
Police say the officer fired his pistol 17 times.
"All but one gunshot wound were to the lower extremities," Graham said. "The one fatal wound was to the head."
(CNN) -- Lab results are back in the case of a teenager who died in a police shooting in St. Louis last week, and they show gun residue on the clothing and body of Vonderrit Myers, authorities said Tuesday. The residue was found on Myers' shirt, jeans and hand, according to a release from St. Louis police. Its presence on his hand could mean that he discharged a firearm, was near a firearm when it went off or that Myers touched something with gun residue on it, police said. People shot at close range could also have residue deposited on their hands. Myers was fatally shot Wednesday by a St. Louis officer, who was off-duty but wearing his uniform while moonlighting for a security company. Police have said the teenager fired a pistol three times at the officer. The shooting sparked street protests, with residents pointing out similarities to the August killing of Michael Brown in nearby Ferguson, Missouri. Myers and Brown were both 18 and black and killed by white police officers. However, unlike Myers, authorities say Brown was not armed. Myers was struck by seven or eight bullets, St. Louis city Medical Examiner Dr. Michael Graham said last week. Police say the officer fired his pistol 17 times. "All but one gunshot wound were to the lower extremities," Graham said. "The one fatal wound was to the head."
It wasn't just a 9mm sandwich afterall?
Now that the second kid (legal adult) was proven to have shot at the off duty cop, can we go back and un-protest things now and un-vandalize all the cars and property that were damaged?
One question that wasn't cleared up: Do young adults on court ordered electronic monitoring get to wear their monitoring device on their thug-angel wings? Or do they wear it on their ankle like everyone else? These protesters really should start looking for better martyrs to rally around if they want anyone to listen. Perhaps finding some people without gang affiliations or lengthy arrest records might be a good place to start?
Is anyone else wondering how these people can sit on the street for what...14 weeks now and not go off to get a job....... Ok protest is fine but seriously a walmart whats next a curves club like they have alot of say.
Get a job and move on folks, Who the hell is giving them money for this......
oh p.s. can someone tell me why people are upset his body laid in the street that long, When the police where shot at when they went to the scene.
According to the mother (who wasn't there) he was only armed with a sandwich.
I'd have to look for the specific article but one of them did mention that a weapon was recovered at the scene.
Edit:
Myers then ran from the officer, up an incline in the 4100 block of Shaw, and the officer saw what he believed to be a gun. He did not immediately fire because he wanted to be sure it was a firearm, police said. Myers turned and pointed a gun toward the officer and fired at least three shots, police said.
As Myers fired, the officer returned fire, police said. Myers continued to pull the trigger, but his gun apparently jammed.
It's unclear how many times Myers was hit. He was pronounced dead at the scene.
Authorities found the gun, which appeared to have jammed after firing at least three rounds, at the scene, police said. Three bullets that had been fired toward the officer were also recovered. One bullet was found in a vehicle behind the officer. Trajectories showed they had been fired downhill at the officer, police said.
Police initially identified the gun as a 9 mm Ruger. But a police source told the Post-Dispatch that the gun Myers fired at the officer was a 9 mm Smith & Wesson, which was bought at Cabela's in Hazelwood on May 5. It was then reported stolen Sept. 26 by a man from The Ville neighborhood. The owner told police that one of his sons stole the gun. When questioned, the son claimed the gun was stolen from him during a robbery that he did not report to police. It's unclear how Myers acquired the weapon, police said.
OgreChubbs wrote: Is anyone else wondering how these people can sit on the street for what...14 weeks now and not go off to get a job....... Ok protest is fine but seriously a walmart whats next a curves club like they have alot of say.
Get a job and move on folks, Who the hell is giving them money for this......
oh p.s. can someone tell me why people are upset his body laid in the street that long, When the police where shot at when they went to the scene.
DNC?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: Where is the weapon that was fired at the LEO? Did I miss something?
The police have it.
Don't worry this will all blow over after the November election.
I think its adorable when tired relics try to be relevant.
My guess is this guy is completely ignorant of the "real" Black Panther movement of the 60s and 70s, and so, as a "New Black Panther" isn't so much an adorable relic, as a dangerous, new ignorance masquerading and revelling in past "glories"
Maybe he got confused with the Marvel comic character? T'chala was kinda militant, y'know.
MrDwhitey wrote: Perhaps, but the implication is that it's being a muslim that makes him a terrorist.
Which is frankly about as ignorant as to be expected considering the source.
I did not get that at all from the original post of the BP clown... He posted the video, as well as a transcript of what was said. No where in all of that do I personally see anyone equating Islam with Terrorism.... I see "look at this guy, thinks he's a Black Panther, lol"
CLAYTON • A stream of eyewitnesses has been testifying in secret before a grand jury considering whether to indict police officer Darren Wilson in the fatal shooting of Michael Brown near the Canfield Green apartments in Ferguson.
One Canfield resident — who said he saw the killing of Brown from start to finish and talked to the grand jury recently — has given the Post-Dispatch an account with some key differences from previous public statements from other witnesses.
Among the recollections of the witness, who agreed to an interview on the condition that his name not be used, were:
• After an initial scuffle in the car, the officer did not fire until Brown turned back toward him.
• Brown put his arms out to his sides but never raised his hands high.
• Brown staggered toward Wilson despite commands to stop.
• The two were about 20 to 25 feet apart when the last shots were fired.
• He would not detail what he had told the grand jury but said the members seemed fair and asked a lot of questions.
Witnesses have given differing accounts since the white officer killed the unarmed black teen Aug. 9, triggering protests, riots and national attention.
READ POST-DISPATCH COVERAGE OF THE CASE
Some have said that Wilson first fired as Brown ran away from him, then pumped off more shots after Brown turned around.
Some have said Brown raised his arms high in surrender, giving rise to a common protesters’ chant of “Hands up, don’t shoot” while mimicking the move. But this witness said Brown never put his hands straight up, but held his elbows straight out from his torso, with palms turned up in a sort of gesture of disbelief.
Perhaps the most widely quoted witness has been Brown’s companion that day, Dorian Johnson, who said Wilson had grabbed Brown by the throat through the open window of the officer’s police SUV. Johnson, 22, also said Wilson shot Brown at the car, then ran after Brown, who put his hands up in surrender, and then shot him again.
This latest witness, who is black, told the Post-Dispatch that Johnson took off running toward West Florissant Avenue after the first shot went off inside Wilson’s police SUV.
HONEST ACCOUNTS CAN DIFFER
Differences in witness accounts are no surprise to researchers, who even have a name for it: the Rashomon effect. It’s derived from the title of a Japanese movie in which four witnesses’ accounts of a rape and murder differ notably.
“That’s why anyone who wants to put complete faith in his statements is foolish and anyone who wants to completely discount what Dorian Johnson saw, is foolish,” said David Klinger, a University of Missouri-St. Louis criminologist. “It is entirely possible that multiple witnesses will recall different things. That’s why it’s critical to wait and see what all the evidence shows.”
Klinger, who has testified as an expert witness in numerous police shooting cases, recalls one in Houston in which one eyewitness said she saw an officer handcuff a teen, hogtie him and shoot him. Another witness, standing in nearly the same place, testified that the officer handcuffed the teen after he was shot, but the witness did not see him shot again or hogtied. “They’re not lying; they just have different stories,” Klinger said.
WITNESS SAW ENCOUNTER FROM START TO FINISH
In the latest account of the Brown killing, the witness said he saw Wilson’s police SUV stop near Brown and Johnson as they were walking in the middle of Canfield Drive. He said he heard Wilson say something to them, but not what. He said Wilson drove past them, then backed up.
The witness said he had been on the right side of the police SUV and did not have a clear view of what happened on the opposite, driver’s side. “There was a tussle going on,” he said, adding that he believes he saw Wilson’s hat fly off.
He then heard a shot and saw Brown run, followed by Wilson. He said Wilson aimed his handgun at Brown and yelled: “Stop! Stop! Stop!”
The witness said Brown did stop, mumbled something he could not clearly hear and took a step toward Wilson.
“When he stepped foot on that street, the officer told him to stop again, and he fired three shots,” the witness recalled. “When he (Brown) got hit, he staggered like, ‘Oh,’ and his body moved. Then he looked down.
“His hands were up like this (he gestures with arms out to the side and palms upward), and he was looking at the officer and was coming toward him trying to keep his feet and stand up. The officer took a few steps back and yelled, ‘Stop,’ again, and Michael was trying to stay on his feet.
“He was 20 to 25 feet from officer, and after he started staggering, he (Wilson) let off four more rounds. As he was firing those last rounds, Michael was on his way down. We were thinking, ‘Oh my God, oh my God, brother, stop, stop.’ He was already on his way down when he fired those last shots.”
The witness said Wilson didn’t have to kill Brown. “It went from zero to 100 like that, in the blink of an eye. ... What transpired to us, in my eyesight, was murder. Down outright murder.”
Ferguson police asked St. Louis County police to investigate the shooting. The county police have released no details about the physical evidence.
The Post-Dispatch confirmed that the witness did tell his story to police investigators. He said he testified about two weeks ago for about an hour to the St. Louis County grand jury deciding whether to indict Wilson.
Brown’s family hired Dr. Michael Baden, a nationally renowned forensic pathologist, to conduct a private autopsy after the one performed by the St. Louis County medical examiner. Baden said Brown was shot six times from the front, including once in the top of the head.
“It can be because he’s giving up, or because he’s charging forward at the officer,” Baden said.
The official autopsy has not been released.
Two men from outside the area who were working outside the apartment complex previously told the Post-Dispatch that Wilson chased Brown on foot away from the car after the initial gunshot, and fired at least one more shot in Brown’s direction as he fled. They said that Brown stopped, turned around and put his hands up, and that the officer killed him in a barrage of gunfire.
The men also said they never heard the officer say anything to Brown before opening fire, and that they heard Brown scream, “OK! OK! OK! OK! OK! OK!”
The man who spoke recently to the newspaper said those witnesses were about the same distance from the action as he was.
The witness also said he previously had seen Brown walking around Canfield Green, near the shooting scene, several times and knew that a friend of Brown’s lived nearby. He said that he was surprised by a video showing Brown stealing from a convenience store minutes before he was killed and shoving a store clerk who tried to stop him.
“Everyone has a little dark secret, but all I know is that anytime I’ve been in his presence, he was very cordial,” the witness said. “He was one of the few in all the years I’ve lived out here with all these young guys who ever addressed me as ‘sir’ and asked me how I was doing instead of, ‘What’s up, dog?’ ”
Ferguson Police Officer Darren Wilson, who fatally shot Michael Brown while on patrol in August, told investigators he feared for his life and was pinned in his vehicle during a struggle over his gun, according to a New York Times report.
The report posted on the newspaper’s website Friday night credits unnamed “government officials briefed on the federal civil rights investigation into the matter” who also say the evidence so far did not support civil rights charges against Wilson.
Wilson told authorities Brown reached for the officer’s gun during a struggle inside his police SUV, the Times reported. The gun fired twice inside the car. One bullet hit Brown in the arm and the other bullet missed him, the Times reported. Brown was unarmed.
Brown’s blood was found on Wilson’s gun, uniform, and the inside of the vehicle door, the Times reported. Wilson said Brown “punched and scratched him repeatedly, leaving swelling on his face and cuts on his neck,” the Times said.
This testimony is the first public account from Wilson, who testified before the grand jury in September. But it doesn’t touch on why Wilson fired at Brown several times after he got out of his vehicle, the Times points out.
Brown’s attorney, Anthony Gray, said that the new details won’t make much of a difference because they are from early in the confrontation.
“When you’re raising your arms to surrender, it hits a reset button,” says Gray, referring to witness accounts that Brown, 18, raised his hands after the struggle at the car.
Gray said he doesn’t dispute that something happened between Brown and Wilson at the police vehicle. But he wonders why Wilson would go after Brown and perceive him as a threat outside the vehicle, even knowing that Brown had been shot.
“His actions contradict the presence of fear,” Gray said. “You’re fearful, a guy’s running, but you’re going to get out and chase him? How many people do you know chase something that you’re fearful of?”
The St. Louis County grand jury has been meeting on the case since Aug. 20. St. Louis County prosecutor Robert McCulloch has said he expects a decision by mid to late November.
This is really nothing new, we all already know the "there was a struggle in the car" story, and it does in fact have nothing to do with shooting him later away from the car.
d-usa wrote: This is really nothing new, we all already know the "there was a struggle in the car" story, and it does in fact have nothing to do with shooting him later away from the car.
Did we, though?
Lots of the witnesses claim there wasn't a struggle in the car at all. The overall forensics make nearly all of the eyewitness accounts very hard to believe. I know Rashomon syndrome is a very real occurrence, but man....
Everything I have read said there was a struggle in the car. There are different accounts about who started it, but we knew about it. "The gun went off in the car" was also part of the very early dialogue.
But you don't get to shoot someone later because of it.
d-usa wrote: Everything I have read said there was a struggle in the car. There are different accounts about who started it, but we knew about it. "The gun went off in the car" was also part of the very early dialogue.
But you don't get to shoot someone later because of it.
If that later is part of the same encounter and the individual in question is coming at you with intent and ability to do harm you get to.
That hasn't yet been established. In fact, there is no new information here, and there is still in my opinion inadequate information to know what happened and hence to form an opinion one way or the other.
Ouze wrote: That hasn't yet been established. In fact, there is no new information here, and there is still in my opinion inadequate information to know what happened and hence to form an opinion one way or the other.
That's why I use the word if. This new revalation, though, put together with Brown's earlier antics that day, doesn't look good for his side of the story and those trying to paint him as a mother's angel.
Co'tor Shas wrote: So far, all we know he did was get in an argument and push a shopkeeper because he didn't have enough money.
Looks like some revisionism or at the least, playing down of the incident on your part. From what the video shows, he shoved the much smaller, older person out of the way and then advanced on him in a threatening manner just before he took stuff out of the store without paying. I believe that's called a "strong arm robbery".
Co'tor Shas wrote: So far, all we know he did was get in an argument and push a shopkeeper because he didn't have enough money.
Looks like some revisionism or at the least, playing down of the incident on your part. From what the video shows, he shoved the much smaller, older person out of the way and then advanced on him in a threatening manner just before he took stuff out of the store without paying. I believe that's called a "strong arm robbery".
Co'tor Shas wrote: So far, all we know he did was get in an argument and push a shopkeeper because he didn't have enough money.
Looks like some revisionism or at the least, playing down of the incident on your part. From what the video shows, he shoved the much smaller, older person out of the way and then advanced on him in a threatening manner just before he took stuff out of the store without paying. I believe that's called a "strong arm robbery".
The store did not report any robbery. I'm assuming that means there wasn't one?
I guess according to you, shoving around store clerks and threatening them before removing items from the store constitutes payment. The clerk probably didn't report the robbery because he wvas scared of Brown and his friends. Considering the aftermath, it's not hard to understand why he probably didn't say anything.
BTW, Brown's buddy seems to admit it was a robbery if seeing the act played out in front of your eyes wasn't enough:
Aside from the robbery he commited, shoving and threating a tiny old man shows the kind of person Brown was capable of being shortly before he was shot.
"Brown's attorney said that the new details won't make much of a difference"
Is this guy for real?
That's really fething rich.
No, because that isn't what the attorney said. If it were, the relevant journalist would have directly quoted him, much as he did regarding things the attorney actually did say.
No, because that isn't what the attorney said. If it were, the relevant journalist would have directly quoted him, much as he did regarding things the attorney actually did say.
Well, no.
He didn't directly quote him because he's either summarizing or paraphrasing.
Believe it or not, a news story is never comprised of quotations alone.
Co'tor Shas wrote: So far, all we know he did was get in an argument and push a shopkeeper because he didn't have enough money.
Looks like some revisionism or at the least, playing down of the incident on your part. From what the video shows, he shoved the much smaller, older person out of the way and then advanced on him in a threatening manner just before he took stuff out of the store without paying. I believe that's called a "strong arm robbery".
The store did not report any robbery. I'm assuming that means there wasn't one?
I guess according to you, shoving around store clerks and threatening them before removing items from the store constitutes payment. The clerk probably didn't report the robbery because he wvas scared of Brown and his friends. Considering the aftermath, it's not hard to understand why he probably didn't say anything.
BTW, Brown's buddy seems to admit it was a robbery if seeing the act played out in front of your eyes wasn't enough:
Aside from the robbery he commited, shoving and threating a tiny old man shows the kind of person Brown was capable of being shortly before he was shot.
AFAIK, he bought some items and got in a confrentation with the clerk because he didn't have enough money for all of it. There was a report on it a while ago, I'll have to go find it. I don't know for sure, and am just putting out my confusion on the matter because of different conflicting reports in a perfectly reasonable tone. There is no reason to be snippy about it.
He didn't directly quote him because he's either summarizing or paraphrasing.
Believe it or not, a news story is never comprised of quotations alone.
I am aware, but in this case the summary does not follow from the facts presented in support of, something especially egregious that the entire article is essentially just a cut-down version of an NYT article.
AFAIK, he bought some items and got in a confrentation with the clerk because he didn't have enough money for all of it.
When you take it anyway that's still theft.
When you put your hands on someone, that's still assault.
There was this one report that he didn't actually steal anything, and only took what he bought. I can't find it now, so I assume it has been taken back.
There was this one report that he didn't actually steal anything, and only took what he bought. I can't find it now, so I assume it has been taken back.
Was it the same article that said the other one had sandwich
AFAIK, he bought some items and got in a confrentation with the clerk because he didn't have enough money for all of it.
When you take it anyway that's still theft.
When you put your hands on someone, that's still assault.
There was this one report that he didn't actually steal anything, and only took what he bought. I can't find it now, so I assume it has been taken back.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Curious that they managed to write up a report on the robbery on the day but it took how long to write the shooting incident report?
I would imagine that you'd want to take some time to properly investigate and write up an incident involving a fatality as opposed to a strong arm robbery over a couple dollars.
I suspect a 2 minute strong arm robbery caught on 3 cameras makes for pretty easy report writing opposed to a shooting incident resulting in a fatality not caught on camera where published witness accounts conflicted and forensic evidence needed to be collected and analyzed and so on...
Wow, This is still going on? I thought the protests died.
I asked several people around the dorm and they ALL think they should quiet down and let justice take its course.
When Liberals at UCSC think you are too radical, tone it down
d-usa wrote: Is that the same FIO requests that didn't actually exist for the video?
No... there were several FIO request. I know the local TV station (kmov cbs) and The Post Dispatch submitted them.
I'll have to find the information, but there were a gak ton of FIO requests... mostly over the juvenile records it seems.
EDIT: fwiw... I know they've stated that if given a choice, they wouldn't of released that robbery information, but seriously doubt that they would've of been able to "sit" on it for any lengthy time.
Potentially interfere in any way with the one thing people in STL almost universally consider holy ground.
Are all the protesters actually from STL?
Of course not. The demagogues involved in on the ground organizing around Ferguson have successfully turned Mike Brown into a martyr. There was a "weekend of resistance" advertised nationally via social media. The entire point was to bring in more people that don't live in the towns immediately affected in order to spread the "fire"...so to speak.
At this point it isn't about the kid that got shot, his family, the town, or that individual cop. The cop could be arrested tomorrow and it wouldn't matter to the majority of the youth/radical protest community because its not about what happened, its about the fact that they see the entire "system" as corrupt and worth overturning. Note the powerful attempts (legitimate or illegitimate, I am not making a judgement call) to directly link the death of Mike Brown to Trayvon Martin & Eric Garner.
Follow the appropriate hashtags on twitter, its all openly discussed.
Interesting indeed. No scumbag rioters were shot in NH, either, just arrested, like in Ferguson. What's the point of this post?
There's a "keyword" your missing there
I think we are in agreement about the keyword in the title, but I was looking at the fact that no rioters were shot, just arrested. The difference is a cop was shot in MO
We can agree that the points presented in the article might not matter, but if you are going to pretend the points don't even exist then there is really no reason for me to even post any more replies.
d-usa wrote: We can agree that the points presented in the article might not matter, but if you are going to pretend the points don't even exist then there is really no reason for me to even post any more replies.
Tell it to me from your perspective. In past threads you've made some good points I found out in the end, to agree with.
What I see in both instances are straight up donkey-caves that need a serious butt kicking. One group was using Brown as an excuse to loot and cause mayhem, the other group was using pumpkins. In the end the signifigance was the same to both.
d-usa wrote: We can agree that the points presented in the article might not matter, but if you are going to pretend the points don't even exist then there is really no reason for me to even post any more replies.
And yet you will still continue posting your smarmy cryptic little posts.
There is nothing cryptic about the link, the story is told in the link. With letters that make up words, that then combine to form sentences, that then combine to make the many points.
Again, feel free to disagree about the points being valid. But if people want to pretend that there is no point then there is no reason for me to become involved in the "lets all pretend we can't read a simple article" game.
d-usa wrote: There is nothing cryptic about the link, the story is told in the link. With letters that make up words, that then combine to form sentences, that then combine to make the many points.
Again, feel free to disagree about the points being valid. But if people want to pretend that there is no point then there is no reason for me to become involved in the "lets all pretend we can't read a simple article" game.
I am honestly trying to understand your point, d. White or black, rioters are jerks that deserve imprisonment. What is it you find interesting about this? I feel the same way about rioters of any color. I really want to know what your view is on the article.
I'm assuming that the point is something along the lines of the fact that Ferguson rioted over someone being shot and ether was condemnation of races as a whole, calls for more leadership from within the community, large spread news coverage and criticism,and when these guys riot over pumpkins nothing has happened.
I will agree with D though, the points are pretty succinctly summed up in the twitter posts in that article.
d-usa wrote: Everything I have read said there was a struggle in the car. There are different accounts about who started it, but we knew about it. "The gun went off in the car" was also part of the very early dialogue.
But you don't get to shoot someone later because of it.
Several witnesses were saying he was just chaased down and executed.
AFAIK, he bought some items and got in a confrentation with the clerk because he didn't have enough money for all of it.
When you take it anyway that's still theft.
When you put your hands on someone, that's still assault.
Historically thats actually battery. Assault is the threat to do such. Some states just combine the two, because occasional some dill weed lawyer will try to point that out and be all snooty, kind of like what I'm doing now.
d-usa wrote: There is nothing cryptic about the link, the story is told in the link. With letters that make up words, that then combine to form sentences, that then combine to make the many points.
Again, feel free to disagree about the points being valid. But if people want to pretend that there is no point then there is no reason for me to become involved in the "lets all pretend we can't read a simple article" game.
I am honestly trying to understand your point, d. White or black, rioters are jerks that deserve imprisonment. What is it you find interesting about this? I feel the same way about rioters of any color. I really want to know what your view is on the article.
I'll be honest. If the rioters were green or purple I'd probably have a different view. "Ma get the shotguns, the aliens are riotin' again."
I will agree with D though, the points are pretty succinctly summed up in the twitter posts in that article.
But they're false positives.
No one in the "white" community is condoning the rioting. At all.
And the riots APPEAR to have been handled quite similarly:
The Ferguson riots were intermittent over the course of two weeks. Pumpkin riot less than 12 hours.
30 were arrested in the initial Ferguson riot that involved massive looting, vandalizing, and a GAS STATION being set on fire. "At Least 12" were arrested in the pumpkin riot that involved overturning cars, uprooting street signs, and A COUCH being set on fire.
Is the point that the relatively benign pumpkin riot got barely any coverage? feth, be more pissed that the WVU campus "riot" following their dismantling of Baylor didn't get any coverage.
I'm just curious where all the twitter uproar was regarding Dillon Taylor.
I will agree with D though, the points are pretty succinctly summed up in the twitter posts in that article.
But they're false positives.
No one in the "white" community is condoning the rioting. At all.
And the riots APPEAR to have been handled quite similarly:
The Ferguson riots were intermittent over the course of two weeks. Pumpkin riot less than 12 hours.
30 were arrested in the initial Ferguson riot that involved massive looting, vandalizing, and a GAS STATION being set on fire. "At Least 12" were arrested in the pumpkin riot that involved overturning cars, uprooting street signs, and A COUCH being set on fire.
Is the point that the relatively benign pumpkin riot got barely any coverage? feth, be more pissed that the WVU campus "riot" following their dismantling of Baylor didn't get any coverage.
I'm just curious where all the twitter uproar was regarding Dillon Taylor.
I will agree with D though, the points are pretty succinctly summed up in the twitter posts in that article.
But they're false positives.
No one in the "white" community is condoning the rioting. At all.
And the riots APPEAR to have been handled quite similarly:
The Ferguson riots were intermittent over the course of two weeks. Pumpkin riot less than 12 hours.
30 were arrested in the initial Ferguson riot that involved massive looting, vandalizing, and a GAS STATION being set on fire. "At Least 12" were arrested in the pumpkin riot that involved overturning cars, uprooting street signs, and A COUCH being set on fire.
Is the point that the relatively benign pumpkin riot got barely any coverage? feth, be more pissed that the WVU campus "riot" following their dismantling of Baylor didn't get any coverage.
I'm just curious where all the twitter uproar was regarding Dillon Taylor.
yup,
seems hypocritical to think that the pumkin riots get some sort of defacto support from the white community at large... despite no one really knowing about them or supporting them.
No one is claiming its racist when the white rioters are arrested/charged with riot related crimes, while it seems like the tone at fergison is "dont arrest anyone or else you are a racist or just furthering the "anti black" cops agenda"
I mean, if D-usa is going to act like that article proves something,
One could easily link articles where cops shoot white people, and claim that its proof of some widespread "anti-white" agenda on the cops part... but for obvious reasons that wouldnt fly.
I mean, if D-usa is going to act like that article proves something,
I didn't post that article to prove something.
I posted it because it raised some interesting points: how media covered the two events, the public response to both events, how it goes counter to the "white people don't riot" that was posted quite a few times in this thread.
Points that are very clearly talked about in the article, and points that are worth talking about whether you agree with them or not. The whole "what's the point" thing this thread had going while pretending that the points are not clearly raised in the article was pretty insulting to anybody actually reading the article. Which is why I said that it's fine if you don't agree with it, but it's stupid to pretend that the point wasn't raised in the article.
Edit:
If you don't agree with the whole "nobody called on white leaders to condemn this riot or to take responsibility for these actions" bit of the article, then say so. That's what we call talking about stuff. Which is what you did in your post.
Reading the article, reading the points raised, and going "what's the point" when the point is very clear even though you might not agree with it doesn't actually do anything on a discussion board.
If that is how we are going to talk about stuff we can just have the initial post by the OP, a couple pages of "what's the point", and then lock the thing.
even if someone made that point, it wouldnt be worth addressing as its just silly.. of course white people riot.. and they get arrested for it, and are idiots for doing it as well.
the difference being, when a white person is shot, arrested, or otherwise disciplined by police for something they actually did, they are seen as crooks who deserved the punishment for their crimes, as opposed to being used to feul accusations of racism
I mean, if D-usa is going to act like that article proves something,
I didn't post that article to prove something.
I posted it because it raised some interesting points: how media covered the two events, the public response to both events, how it goes counter to the "white people don't riot" that was posted quite a few times in this thread.
Points that are very clearly talked about in the article, and points that are worth talking about whether you agree with them or not. The whole "what's the point" thing this thread had going while pretending that the points are not clearly raised in the article was pretty insulting to anybody actually reading the article. Which is why I said that it's fine if you don't agree with it, but it's stupid to pretend that the point wasn't raised in the article.
Edit:
If you don't agree with the whole "nobody called on white leaders to condemn this riot or to take responsibility for these actions" bit of the article, then say so. That's what we call talking about stuff. Which is what you did in your post.
Reading the article, reading the points raised, and going "what's the point" when the point is very clear even though you might not agree with it doesn't actually do anything on a discussion board.
If that is how we are going to talk about stuff we can just have the initial post by the OP, a couple pages of "what's the point", and then lock the thing.
The white community did speak up we sent police and arrested them. The big difference is when people act like that and cops arrest them we say good little bastard deserved it. Where all i hear about the other groups is more hate crimes.
I mean, if D-usa is going to act like that article proves something,
I didn't post that article to prove something.
I posted it because it raised some interesting points: how media covered the two events, the public response to both events, how it goes counter to the "white people don't riot" that was posted quite a few times in this thread.
Points that are very clearly talked about in the article, and points that are worth talking about whether you agree with them or not. The whole "what's the point" thing this thread had going while pretending that the points are not clearly raised in the article was pretty insulting to anybody actually reading the article. Which is why I said that it's fine if you don't agree with it, but it's stupid to pretend that the point wasn't raised in the article.
Edit:
If you don't agree with the whole "nobody called on white leaders to condemn this riot or to take responsibility for these actions" bit of the article, then say so. That's what we call talking about stuff. Which is what you did in your post.
Reading the article, reading the points raised, and going "what's the point" when the point is very clear even though you might not agree with it doesn't actually do anything on a discussion board.
If that is how we are going to talk about stuff we can just have the initial post by the OP, a couple pages of "what's the point", and then lock the thing.
Thank you for explaining what you meant. I disagree with nobody caring about the riot in NH. It sounds like plenty of people from whatever race were happy these punks went to jail.
It doesn't look like a done deal, though. The police are now hunting people that took part so they can prosecute them.
If you don't agree with the whole "nobody called on white leaders to condemn this riot or to take responsibility for these actions" bit of the article, then say so. That's what we call talking about stuff. Which is what you did in your post.
I disagree with this portion. I think white PEOPLE in general roundly condemned it so there wasn't any need to call on white LEADERS (do we even have any?)
And I don't think anyone said "white people don't riot." That would be just ignorant.
What is interesting, however, is if one were to notice the difference in the riots. The rioters in NH didn't touch any stores or building, nor does it appear that they looted at all.
If you don't agree with the whole "nobody called on white leaders to condemn this riot or to take responsibility for these actions" bit of the article, then say so. That's what we call talking about stuff. Which is what you did in your post.
I disagree with this portion. I think white PEOPLE in general roundly condemned it so there wasn't any need to call on white LEADERS (do we even have any?)
And I don't think anyone said "white people don't riot." That would be just ignorant.
What is interesting, however, is if one were to notice the difference in the riots. The rioters in NH didn't touch any stores or building, nor does it appear that they looted at all.
Judging from the few pictures I've seen, they messed up at least one car pretty badly.
d-usa wrote: how it goes counter to the "white people don't riot" that was posted quite a few times in this thread.
I know that I haven't really been following this thread too closely, but someone actually said that?
There was at least one person, I just remember that another person followed the post up with "because other races actually have jobs so that they don't have time to riot".
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Do you have a link? I need to see that level of derp for myself
That was somewhere deep in the past of that thread, and I'm not even sure if that post is still there since I triangled it. I'll check later on tonight.
