"I'm mad about something! I'll just go loot and burn down this business that donated thousands of dollars to my kids school, that'll show them that I'm serious."
Woke up to a video of people looting a Dollar Tree.....a Dollar Tree of all places. People gleefully carrying out armloads of potato chip bags.
Protests I understand, heck, if there's going to be violence, burning police cars I can at least see a correlation but random looting of businesses that support the community? People really are ignorant animals in large groups.
skyth wrote: I do wonder, though, if the sides had been flipped and Mike Brown was accused of shooting the cop, would Mike Brown have been asked to testify in front of the Grand Jury and would the DA present all evidence and not just evidence that looks worse for Mike?
If Brown had shot the cop it likely would not have needed to go to a grand jury for an indictment, and Brown would have just been charged. When a civilian shoots a cop generally there are no 'self defense' or 'in the line of duty' type factors bringing to question whether or not a crime had been committed. When a cop shoots and kills someone, those factors often do exist, so a grand jury may be desirable to determine if a crime was committed and if the cop should be charged. A self defense type shooting (think Zimmerman/Martin) can also have circumstances that make sending it to a grand jury an attractive option for the prosecutor.
agnosto wrote: "I'm mad about something! I'll just go loot and burn down this business that donated thousands of dollars to my kids school, that'll show them that I'm serious."
Woke up to a video of people looting a Dollar Tree.....a Dollar Tree of all places. People gleefully carrying out armloads of potato chip bags.
Protests I understand, heck, if there's going to be violence, burning police cars I can at least see a correlation but random looting of businesses that support the community? People really are ignorant animals in large groups.
McDonalds looted, Dollar store looted for potato chips. Seems like there are a lot of protesters from Colorado...
SlaveToDorkness wrote: The media shows us slanted information and we get riled up and nothing said afterwards will change our minds.
In this thread I literally can't count the number of times I've read untruths that go in the other direction as well, such as that he stole some cigars (he paid for them), that the police stopped him for stealing the cigars (the cop that stopped him didn't know about the altercation at the store, and the police hadn't viewed the footage until after the shooting), and my favorite, that the officer had suffered an orbital blowout fracture (he didn't).
CptJake wrote: When a civilian shoots a cop generally there are no 'self defense' or 'in the line of duty' type factors bringing to question whether or not a crime had been committed.
To expand on this a bit for non-Americans, there have been a few instances - though really rare - where grand juries have failed to indict people who have shot police officers in self defense, usually in states with castle doctrine laws. In those cases it's often while serving a "no knock" warrant at the wrong house, yet another reason no-knock warrants should not be used even a tiny fraction of the times they are used. I don't know if no-knock warrants exist commonly overseas or not.
agnosto wrote: "I'm mad about something! I'll just go loot and burn down this business that donated thousands of dollars to my kids school, that'll show them that I'm serious."
Woke up to a video of people looting a Dollar Tree.....a Dollar Tree of all places. People gleefully carrying out armloads of potato chip bags.
Protests I understand, heck, if there's going to be violence, burning police cars I can at least see a correlation but random looting of businesses that support the community? People really are ignorant animals in large groups.
McDonalds looted, Dollar store looted for potato chips. Seems like there are a lot of protesters from Colorado...
lol. exalted.
Dude, I've totally got the munchies.
Let's drive down to Ferguson and grab some snacks!
d-usa wrote: It seems like deciding to announce this thing at 8pm (which ended up even later of course) was just another example of piss-poor planing and decision making by the people in charge around there.
I'm not specifically calling you out on this d... but, this is getting a ton of play in the media.
As a resident here, my response? feth off.
The officials handled this as best as they could. We did NOT know "officially" that it would be announced yesterday till about 3pm. They wanted to give the locals enough time to get the feth out of dodge.
I think there would likely have been riots no matter when they announced, although they may have been able to mitigate them somewhat by altering when they were released. Who knows, really.
I hope tensions ratchet down before the National Guard has to become more involved. That's a really dangerous situation for everyone involved. I know there were quite a few FBI agents sent there, not sure what else for external support.
ImAGeek wrote: I think people need to understand why people are protesting. A young black man was shot 6 times and killed for allegedly robbing a shop. Eyewitnesses have said he had his hands up and was surrendering, and there's also evidence that he didn't rob the shop at all. The White man who shot him hasn't even been put on trial.
No, he was shot for assaulting a cop, which (despite eyewitness testimony) every shred of hard forensic evidence supports that he did, and thats why Wilson is not being indicted. Eyewitness testimony has, for the most part, painted Wilson to be some sort of Aryan ubermensch capable of lifting a black teen larger and heavier than himself off his feet single handedly by the neck before slamming him to the ground and unloading 50 rounds at point blank range from his 10 round magazine into his back. Further, those eyewitnesses have, for the most part, changed their story multiple times and been inconsistant at best. Actual science (confirmed by 3 seperate and independent forensic reports commissioned by the state, the federal government, and the victims parents) would indicate that the rounds were discharged inside the car and at least one of the rounds that hit Brown was basically at point blank, in other words, its unlikely that Brown was surrendering, at least not at the time that he had the first couple bullets put in him. More importantly, this means that the eyewitness testimony is largely useless as it cannot be used to corroborate any reasonable exppanation for the chain of events that occurred, and simply put there is not enough evidence with which to hold a trial one way or the other.
The riots started out as peaceful protests too, btw. Before police and SWAT came en force with their assault rifles and tear gas. Where was that when Mike Browns memorial was set on fire and pissed on.
No they didnt. They started out as 4.5 minutes of silence requested by the victims family. As soon as time expired the protestors began throwing things at police at which point they tried dispersing the crowd. You can believe what you want, but in this case there is dnouh video evidence to support that the protestors were violent from the word go. In fact they were prepared to be violent from the get go unless their "demands" for "Justice for Mike Brown" were met.
Okay. It appears I was wrong on some points, so I do apologise, I did speak in haste. And not being from America, and not having working TV at the moment, all my info was from the Internet so that probably was less impartial than I realised.
That'll teach me to post when angry about social issues I don't know much about! Who knew...
If you really want to be mad at anyone, you should be mad at the media for giving voice to rumors and gossip. The end result of all the media coverage wss to spread misinformation which poisoned the waters, sapped credibility from witness testimony, and muddied the waters and obscured whatever truth could have been found outside of the hard evidence. Part of the evidence presented to the grand jury was witness testimony presented in court as well as interviews of those same witnesses by the media. Turns out the two rarely matched up or remained consistant (which we already know because the story changed day to day from media source to media source even when the same eyewitness was being interviewed) which means it wasnt really admissable in court as evidence.
SlaveToDorkness wrote: The media shows us slanted information and we get riled up and nothing said afterwards will change our minds.
In this thread I literally can't count the number of times I've read untruths that go in the other direction as well, such as that he stole some cigars (he paid for them), that the police stopped him for stealing the cigars (the cop that stopped him didn't know about the altercation at the store, and the police hadn't viewed the footage until after the shooting), and my favorite, that the officer had suffered an orbital blowout fracture (he didn't).
Actually, the cop did hear about the theft, because it was called in, on the radio before he made the stop, at least according to his testimony to the grand jury:
ImAGeek wrote: I think people need to understand why people are protesting. A young black man was shot 6 times and killed for allegedly robbing a shop. Eyewitnesses have said he had his hands up and was surrendering, and there's also evidence that he didn't rob the shop at all. The White man who shot him hasn't even been put on trial. Yet there was a guy who went into a cinema and shot and killed 12 people, who was arrested peacefully. Guess what, he was white.
A 12 year old black boy has been shot and killed for playing with a freaking BB gun. I'm pretty sure he was in an open carry state.
If you aren't angry, you haven't been paying attention.
The riots started out as peaceful protests too, btw. Before police and SWAT came en force with their assault rifles and tear gas. Where was that when Mike Browns memorial was set on fire and pissed on.
I am disgusted.
You should probably educate yourself next time before posting. This is pretty much entirely wrong.
Ouze wrote: I think there would likely have been riots no matter when they announced, although they may have been able to mitigate them somewhat by altering when they were released. Who knows, really.
I hope tensions ratchet down before the National Guard has to become more involved. That's a really dangerous situation for everyone involved. I know there were quite a few FBI agents sent there, not sure what else for external support.
IMO, it seems to be about the "right time" to release that announcement. I was watching CNN's coverage last night (feth off... it was the closest channel to Monday Night Football ) and the CNN folks were talking about how the announcement at 8 allowed all the school busses to be done with, and the hospital had completely gone through all of their shift changes and so those key personnel were able to get home and get to work "safely" vs. if the announcement had been made at 7 or even earlier.
skyth wrote: I do wonder, though, if the sides had been flipped and Mike Brown was accused of shooting the cop, would Mike Brown have been asked to testify in front of the Grand Jury and would the DA present all evidence and not just evidence that looks worse for Mike?
If Brown had shot the cop it likely would not have needed to go to a grand jury for an indictment, and Brown would have just been charged. When a civilian shoots a cop generally there are no 'self defense' or 'in the line of duty' type factors bringing to question whether or not a crime had been committed. When a cop shoots and kills someone, those factors often do exist, so a grand jury may be desirable to determine if a crime was committed and if the cop should be charged. A self defense type shooting (think Zimmerman/Martin) can also have circumstances that make sending it to a grand jury an attractive option for the prosecutor.
It's also far less likely that we'd have heard about it.
Unless you can name me one of the 70 or so police officers that have been killed by criminals in the line of duty.
skyth wrote: I do wonder, though, if the sides had been flipped and Mike Brown was accused of shooting the cop, would Mike Brown have been asked to testify in front of the Grand Jury and would the DA present all evidence and not just evidence that looks worse for Mike?
If Brown had shot the cop it likely would not have needed to go to a grand jury for an indictment, and Brown would have just been charged. When a civilian shoots a cop generally there are no 'self defense' or 'in the line of duty' type factors bringing to question whether or not a crime had been committed. When a cop shoots and kills someone, those factors often do exist, so a grand jury may be desirable to determine if a crime was committed and if the cop should be charged. A self defense type shooting (think Zimmerman/Martin) can also have circumstances that make sending it to a grand jury an attractive option for the prosecutor.
It's also far less likely that we'd have heard about it.
Unless you can name me one of the 70 or so police officers that have been killed by criminals in the line of duty, and are not a cop yourself.
Good distinction to make. The only one I can name is Justin Weinbrenner, and that's because a buddy (who is also a cop) knew him and raised some money for his family when he was killed.
SlaveToDorkness wrote: The media shows us slanted information and we get riled up and nothing said afterwards will change our minds.
In this thread I literally can't count the number of times I've read untruths that go in the other direction as well, such as that he stole some cigars (he paid for them), that the police stopped him for stealing the cigars (the cop that stopped him didn't know about the altercation at the store
I'm not sure what exactly happened at the store, although it's been documented that a 911 call was made by another patron of the store reporting a robbery. The last I read, Mike Brown lacked the amount of money needed to buy all of the cigarillos and took them anyways.
Officer Wilson did know about the robbery and after initially asking them to get off the street, noticed Mike Brown had a hand full of cigarillos---which led to him stopping and attempting to question them.
ImAGeek wrote: I think people need to understand why people are protesting. A young black man was shot 6 times and killed for allegedly robbing a shop. Eyewitnesses have said he had his hands up and was surrendering, and there's also evidence that he didn't rob the shop at all. The White man who shot him hasn't even been put on trial. Yet there was a guy who went into a cinema and shot and killed 12 people, who was arrested peacefully. Guess what, he was white.
A 12 year old black boy has been shot and killed for playing with a freaking BB gun. I'm pretty sure he was in an open carry state.
If you aren't angry, you haven't been paying attention.
The riots started out as peaceful protests too, btw. Before police and SWAT came en force with their assault rifles and tear gas. Where was that when Mike Browns memorial was set on fire and pissed on.
I am disgusted.
You should probably educate yourself next time before posting. This is pretty much entirely wrong.
If you read two posts down, you'll notice that I said that myself...
I'd read a bunch of obviously slanted media, saw it was being talked about here, and posted whilst angry about something I didn't know as much as I thought I did about. I've acknowledged that and apologised for posting in haste. Really don't see what telling me something I've myself acknowledged achieves.
whembly wrote: FYI: I'm reading the Grand Jury's report it self.... holy gak it's a monster!
I read a good potion of the Darren Wilson testimony. I can't tell if the evidence matches the story, or the story was made to match the evidence. Like how he was allowed to drive himself alone back to the station after the shooting. That's when he discovered his radio was switched to the wrong channel. If I was a prosecutor and was wanting to get an indictment, I think I could have made a big issue out of that.
A special prosecutor should have been assigned. The deck is so stacked in the favor of a police officer in a grand jury that the public was never going to get a satisfactory resolution. A trial may have just found Wilson innocent, but I think it would have had much more legitimacy to the community than the grand jury.
ImAGeek wrote: I think people need to understand why people are protesting. A young black man was shot 6 times and killed for allegedly robbing a shop. Eyewitnesses have said he had his hands up and was surrendering, and there's also evidence that he didn't rob the shop at all. The White man who shot him hasn't even been put on trial. Yet there was a guy who went into a cinema and shot and killed 12 people, who was arrested peacefully. Guess what, he was white.
A 12 year old black boy has been shot and killed for playing with a freaking BB gun. I'm pretty sure he was in an open carry state.
If you aren't angry, you haven't been paying attention.
The riots started out as peaceful protests too, btw. Before police and SWAT came en force with their assault rifles and tear gas. Where was that when Mike Browns memorial was set on fire and pissed on.
I am disgusted.
You should probably educate yourself next time before posting. This is pretty much entirely wrong.
If you read two posts down, you'll notice that I said that myself...
I'd read a bunch of obviously slanted media, saw it was being talked about here, and posted whilst angry about something I didn't know as much as I thought I did about. I've acknowledged that and apologised for posting in haste. Really don't see what telling me something I've myself acknowledged achieves.
I was wrong. It happenes.
Perhaps fewer reactionary, baseless statements? That's the ultimate goal, yeah?
You can apologize all you want. That's great. Doesn't change the fact that you perpetuated all the mistruth to begin with. So, in effect, you did exactly what the media wanted you to. Congrats!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CaulynDarr wrote: but I think it would have had much more legitimacy to the community than the grand jury.
Personally, I disagree.
Wouldn't have changed the community outcome at all. Just delayed it.
CaulynDarr wrote: A trial may have just found Wilson innocent, but I think it would have had much more legitimacy to the community than the grand jury.
The reaction shows that a lot of people were not interested in justice or a fair trial. They wanted vengeance. You could have had the most perfect trial with bulletproof evidence and if the result was "not guilty" they would have still rioted.
I don't think applying some kind of scheme or logic to a riot is wise. It is a matter of group psychology.
You got a ton of angry people (rightly or wrongly is irrelevant) as well as a few people who are dedicated to be what you might call agitators or instigators of violence and criminal activity. Once you get them riled up, there's just an outpouring of energy into the businesses and town itself. If one person sees a brick thrown, groupthink takes over and they throw as well. If they see someone who just wanted a snack rob a dollar store for chips, well why not grab some for themselves, right?
It would look a lot better than "Pro-cop DA fails to indict cop and is a little pissed that people still think this is a big deal."
Well, I'm glad we're concerned about appearances and not facts or justice.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
curran12 wrote: I don't think applying some kind of scheme or logic to a riot is wise. It is a matter of group psychology.
You got a ton of angry people (rightly or wrongly is irrelevant) as well as a few people who are dedicated to be what you might call agitators or instigators of violence and criminal activity. Once you get them riled up, there's just an outpouring of energy into the businesses and town itself. If one person sees a brick thrown, groupthink takes over and they throw as well. If they see someone who just wanted a snack rob a dollar store for chips, well why not grab some for themselves, right?
Those mc fries and potato chips aint going to steal them selves.
(still baffled as to why.)
So why even bother with a Grand Jury really? They're just going to riot no matter what. Lets just roll in the tanks.
That's the whole cynicism behind the whole Grand Jury process in the first place. It was never going to return an indictment against a cop. They almost never do, as opposed to returning indictments 99% of the time in every other case. Just delay the thing until winter and hope it's too cold to riot or the news cycle forgets it ever happened.
It would look a lot better than "Pro-cop DA fails to indict cop and is a little pissed that people still think this is a big deal."
Well, I'm glad we're concerned about appearances and not facts or justice.
Appearance of justice matters just as much as actual justice in some cases, Mostly because out justice system in the country is imperfect and doesn't always deliver. I'm not saying send someone directly to jail, but a trial would not be unwarranted or unreasonable. And it would have maybe made some difference in the eyes of the public.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
cincydooley wrote: So what from the supplied evidence and testimony justified an indictment?
I haven't read the entire document, but things like Willson being allowed to drive himself alone back to the station puts gaps in the story that should have been explored in a trial. Then there was all the conflicting eye witness testimony to consider. And since it took several days alone just to reach a verdict, would seem to say that there was enough question of the facts to warrant a trial.
Grand Juries aren't about figuring out if someone is guilty only if he could be. And if the prosecutes really wanted to, I think they could have made it look so. By what I've read so far they choose not to do that and instead treated him with kid gloves.
It would look a lot better than "Pro-cop DA fails to indict cop and is a little pissed that people still think this is a big deal."
Well, I'm glad we're concerned about appearances and not facts or justice.
Appearance of justice matters just as much as actual justice in some cases, Mostly because out justice system in the country is imperfect and doesn't always deliver. I'm not saying send someone directly to jail, but a trial would not be unwarranted or unreasonable. And it would have maybe made some difference in the eyes of the public.
First... hell no.
Secondly... no.
The Prosecuting office has a duty to believe that they have enough evidence, beyond reasonable doubt to even send the case to the court.
You don't "have a court case" just to "maintain an appearnce".
It would look a lot better than "Pro-cop DA fails to indict cop and is a little pissed that people still think this is a big deal."
Well, I'm glad we're concerned about appearances and not facts or justice.
Appearance of justice matters just as much as actual justice in some cases, Mostly because out justice system in the country is imperfect and doesn't always deliver. I'm not saying send someone directly to jail, but a trial would not be unwarranted or unreasonable. And it would have maybe made some difference in the eyes of the public.
First... hell no.
Secondly... no.
The Prosecuting office has a duty to believe that they have enough evidence, beyond reasonable doubt to even send the case to the court.
You don't "have a court case" just to "maintain an appearnce".
A thousand times this. This "maintain an appearance" thing is utter and complete crap. That is one of the wrongest things I've seen posted here on Dakka. And that's saying something.
I haven't read the entire document, but things like Willson being allowed to drive himself alone back to the station puts gaps in the story that should have been explored in a trial. Then there was all the conflicting eye witness testimony to consider. And since it took several days alone just to reach a verdict, would seem to say that there was enough question of the facts to warrant a trial.
Grand Juries aren't about figuring out if someone is guilty only if he could be. And if the prosecutes really wanted to, I think they could have made it look so. By what I've read so far they choose not to do that and instead treated him with kid gloves.
For someone who hasn't read the whole GJ report... you've already made up your mind.
Did you miss the multiple witnesses corraborating Wilson's story? (who are African American as well).
I haven't read the entire document, but things like Willson being allowed to drive himself alone back to the station puts gaps in the story that should have been explored in a trial. Then there was all the conflicting eye witness testimony to consider. And since it took several days alone just to reach a verdict, would seem to say that there was enough question of the facts to warrant a trial.
Grand Juries aren't about figuring out if someone is guilty only if he could be. And if the prosecutes really wanted to, I think they could have made it look so. By what I've read so far they choose not to do that and instead treated him with kid gloves.
For someone who hasn't read the whole GJ report... you've already made up your mind.
Did you miss the multiple witnesses corraborating Wilson's story? (who are African American as well).
And how does Wilson's being able or unable to drive himself have any bearing whatsoever on whether it was a justified shoot or not?
And the conflicting eye witnesses were heard by the grand jury, and guess what? They seemed to believe the witnesses who had testimony supported by the physical evidence they were shown. As it should be.
It would look a lot better than "Pro-cop DA fails to indict cop and is a little pissed that people still think this is a big deal."
Well, I'm glad we're concerned about appearances and not facts or justice.
Appearance of justice matters just as much as actual justice in some cases, Mostly because out justice system in the country is imperfect and doesn't always deliver. I'm not saying send someone directly to jail, but a trial would not be unwarranted or unreasonable. And it would have maybe made some difference in the eyes of the public.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
cincydooley wrote: So what from the supplied evidence and testimony justified an indictment?
I haven't read the entire document, but things like Willson being allowed to drive himself alone back to the station puts gaps in the story that should have been explored in a trial. Then there was all the conflicting eye witness testimony to consider. And since it took several days alone just to reach a verdict, would seem to say that there was enough question of the facts to warrant a trial.
Grand Juries aren't about figuring out if someone is guilty only if he could be. And if the prosecutes really wanted to, I think they could have made it look so. By what I've read so far they choose not to do that and instead treated him with kid gloves.
A grown ass man drove himself back to his office? OH THE HUMANITY!!! Clearly some great crime was committed in Ferguson, heaven forbid a grown ass man be able to drive a car, because that is at all relevant to anything important.
Appearance of justice matters just as much as actual justice in some cases, Mostly because out justice system in the country is imperfect and doesn't always deliver. I'm not saying send someone directly to jail, but a trial would not be unwarranted or unreasonable. And it would have maybe made some difference in the eyes of the public.
Appearance of justice matters just as much as actual justice in some cases, Mostly because out justice system in the country is imperfect and doesn't always deliver. I'm not saying send someone directly to jail, but a trial would not be unwarranted or unreasonable. And it would have maybe made some difference in the eyes of the public.
Congrats on that!
Hold on to that thing, we've still got a lot of day left to cover.
Appearance of justice matters just as much as actual justice in some cases, Mostly because out justice system in the country is imperfect and doesn't always deliver. I'm not saying send someone directly to jail, but a trial would not be unwarranted or unreasonable. And it would have maybe made some difference in the eyes of the public.
Congrats on that!
Good to know we can be cynical and say that people would have rioted no matter what, but we can't be cynical about the justice system acting politically. I'm glad to know that saying having a fair trial instead of a forgone conclusion grand jury is the most absurd thing of the day.
Sorry, you can't twist your words. You pretty much said, straight up that they should have a trial against all the actual laws of holding a trial in order to "maintain appearances." That is the absurd part.
I haven't read the entire document, but things like Willson being allowed to drive himself alone back to the station puts gaps in the story that should have been explored in a trial. Then there was all the conflicting eye witness testimony to consider. And since it took several days alone just to reach a verdict, would seem to say that there was enough question of the facts to warrant a trial.
Grand Juries aren't about figuring out if someone is guilty only if he could be. And if the prosecutes really wanted to, I think they could have made it look so. By what I've read so far they choose not to do that and instead treated him with kid gloves.
For someone who hasn't read the whole GJ report... you've already made up your mind.
Did you miss the multiple witnesses corraborating Wilson's story? (who are African American as well).
Remember though, the standard is effectively merely probable cause that it could have occurred. Its not the trial.
Also GJs anotoriously follow the will of the prosecutor.
Appearance of justice matters just as much as actual justice in some cases, Mostly because out justice system in the country is imperfect and doesn't always deliver. I'm not saying send someone directly to jail, but a trial would not be unwarranted or unreasonable. And it would have maybe made some difference in the eyes of the public.
Congrats on that!
Good to know we can be cynical and say that people would have rioted no matter what, but we can't be cynical about the justice system acting politically. I'm glad to know that saying having a fair trial instead of a forgone conclusion grand jury is the most absurd thing of the day.
Of course the CJ acted politically. The DA didn't need a GJ at all. He just wanted cover, like hiring a consultant. Then its not on him either way.
curran12 wrote: Sorry, you can't twist your words. You pretty much said, straight up that they should have a trial against all the actual laws of holding a trial in order to "maintain appearances." That is the absurd part.
Never said that. I said they should have appointed a special prosecutor, who would then file charges and have a trial. These are all legal things to do. It was within the law to have a trial. The grand jury is optional and often just a rubber stamp
Never said that. I said they should have appointed a special prosecutor, who would then file charges and have a trial. These are all legal things to do. It was within the law to have a trial. The grand jury is optional and often just a rubber stamp
You only file charges if you feel you have enough evidence to support a conviction at trial, or if you feel you have enough to get a plea.
Seeing the report, I don't think a competent prosecutor would have thought he/she could win this at a jury trial.
In your scenario, you want a special prosecutor to act just as politically as you allege the grand jury did. You don't seem to hold actual facts/evidence of the case in much regard, you just want a trial because Trial!
curran12 wrote: Sorry, you can't twist your words. You pretty much said, straight up that they should have a trial against all the actual laws of holding a trial in order to "maintain appearances." That is the absurd part.
Never said that. I said they should have appointed a special prosecutor, who would then file charges and have a trial. These are all legal things to do. It was within the law to have a trial. The grand jury is optional and often just a rubber stamp
Someone help me out. I thought this had occurred in a non Ferguson jurisdction. Was I wrong in that?
curran12 wrote: Sorry, you can't twist your words. You pretty much said, straight up that they should have a trial against all the actual laws of holding a trial in order to "maintain appearances." That is the absurd part.
Never said that. I said they should have appointed a special prosecutor, who would then file charges and have a trial. These are all legal things to do. It was within the law to have a trial. The grand jury is optional and often just a rubber stamp
Someone help me out. I thought this had occurred in a non Ferguson jurisdction. Was I wrong in that?
It normally falls under the county, but the Missouri AG can assign a special prosecutor if there is a conflict of interest( many have argued that Mcculloch's father being a police officer could qualify). Or the local prosecutor can just ask for one. Back in August the Governor and Mcculloch where daring each other to do it, but no one pulled the trigger.
ImAGeek wrote: I think people need to understand why people are protesting. A young black man was shot 6 times and killed for allegedly robbing a shop. Eyewitnesses have said he had his hands up and was surrendering, and there's also evidence that he didn't rob the shop at all. The White man who shot him hasn't even been put on trial. Yet there was a guy who went into a cinema and shot and killed 12 people, who was arrested peacefully. Guess what, he was white.
A 12 year old black boy has been shot and killed for playing with a freaking BB gun. I'm pretty sure he was in an open carry state.
If you aren't angry, you haven't been paying attention.
The riots started out as peaceful protests too, btw. Before police and SWAT came en force with their assault rifles and tear gas. Where was that when Mike Browns memorial was set on fire and pissed on.
I am disgusted.
You should probably educate yourself next time before posting. This is pretty much entirely wrong.
If you read two posts down, you'll notice that I said that myself...
I'd read a bunch of obviously slanted media, saw it was being talked about here, and posted whilst angry about something I didn't know as much as I thought I did about. I've acknowledged that and apologised for posting in haste. Really don't see what telling me something I've myself acknowledged achieves.
I was wrong. It happenes.
Perhaps fewer reactionary, baseless statements? That's the ultimate goal, yeah?
You can apologize all you want. That's great. Doesn't change the fact that you perpetuated all the mistruth to begin with. So, in effect, you did exactly what the media wanted you to. Congrats!
Well, yeah. But I hardly perpetuated anything, I posted rashly on one board and was immediately shot down, and have now looked properly at the facts. I haven't been on every discussion about it spreading misinformation, I was misinformed and have learnt the truth. I've apologised for it, what more d'you want?
Also, the media is all I have to go on, so that's the only perspective I had really before posting here.
ImAGeek wrote: I think people need to understand why people are protesting. A young black man was shot 6 times and killed for allegedly robbing a shop. Eyewitnesses have said he had his hands up and was surrendering, and there's also evidence that he didn't rob the shop at all. The White man who shot him hasn't even been put on trial. Yet there was a guy who went into a cinema and shot and killed 12 people, who was arrested peacefully. Guess what, he was white.
A 12 year old black boy has been shot and killed for playing with a freaking BB gun. I'm pretty sure he was in an open carry state.
If you aren't angry, you haven't been paying attention.
The riots started out as peaceful protests too, btw. Before police and SWAT came en force with their assault rifles and tear gas. Where was that when Mike Browns memorial was set on fire and pissed on.
I am disgusted.
You should probably educate yourself next time before posting. This is pretty much entirely wrong.
If you read two posts down, you'll notice that I said that myself...
I'd read a bunch of obviously slanted media, saw it was being talked about here, and posted whilst angry about something I didn't know as much as I thought I did about. I've acknowledged that and apologised for posting in haste. Really don't see what telling me something I've myself acknowledged achieves.
I was wrong. It happenes.
Perhaps fewer reactionary, baseless statements? That's the ultimate goal, yeah?
You can apologize all you want. That's great. Doesn't change the fact that you perpetuated all the mistruth to begin with. So, in effect, you did exactly what the media wanted you to. Congrats!
Well, yeah. But I hardly perpetuated anything, I posted rashly on one board and was immediately shot down, and have now looked properly at the facts. I haven't been on every discussion about it spreading misinformation, I was misinformed and have learnt the truth. I've apologised for it, what more d'you want?
Also, the media is all I have to go on, so that's the only perspective I had really before posting here.
Dude, you received correct information, and then calmly and politely corrected yourself. Pretty much the only thing more you could have done was to go back and edit your original post with a retraction, but even that isn't enough for some people. The best solution to make your life more peaceful? Put cincydooley on ignore, then forget all about him. Every legitimate person accepted your apology and moved on. Don't get hung up on one troll.
I read a good potion of the Darren Wilson testimony. I can't tell if the evidence matches the story, or the story was made to match the evidence. Like how he was allowed to drive himself alone back to the station after the shooting. That's when he discovered his radio was switched to the wrong channel. If I was a prosecutor and was wanting to get an indictment, I think I could have made a big issue out of that.
A special prosecutor should have been assigned. The deck is so stacked in the favor of a police officer in a grand jury that the public was never going to get a satisfactory resolution. A trial may have just found Wilson innocent, but I think it would have had much more legitimacy to the community than the grand jury.
My political science professor was a practicing DA in California for nearly 30 years... And she talked briefly about this today in class. What she was saying is that, basically on a procedural level, she has so many issues with the investigation and how things were handled. For instance, why was the Investigating Officer sent to a scene with only 3 officers? Did this lead to IO not taking written testimony from Off. Wilson at the scene? Did this lead to the body lying there for over 4 hours? In the investigation, why is there so much time between the incident, and Off. Wilson's official statement? In that interim, did Off. Wilson speak to a lawyer?
This is why she said that things probably would have gotten real ugly in an open trial, because a GOOD defense lawyer would be questioning and heavily scrutinizing the whole thing, every piece of evidence, and all the way down to procedural issues.
Dude, you received correct information, and then calmly an politely corrected yourself. Pretty much the only thing more you could have done was to go back and edit your original post with a retraction, but even that isn't enough for some people. The best solution to make your life more peaceful? Put cincydooley on ignore, then forget all about him. Every legitimate person accepted your apology and moved on. Don't get hung up on one troll.
Sorry, I just felt like an idiot enough as it is... I will edit the original post though. Thanks.
It normally falls under the county, but the Missouri AG can assign a special prosecutor if there is a conflict of interest( many have argued that Mcculloch's father being a police officer could qualify). Or the local prosecutor can just ask for one. Back in August the Governor and Mcculloch where daring each other to do it, but no one pulled the trigger.
Ok, now I get it. I had thought that had occurred.
Dude, you received correct information, and then calmly and politely corrected yourself. Pretty much the only thing more you could have done was to go back and edit your original post with a retraction, but even that isn't enough for some people. The best solution to make your life more peaceful? Put cincydooley on ignore, then forget all about him. Every legitimate person accepted your apology and moved on. Don't get hung up on one troll.
And it's a lovely learning point for the future. Heaven forbid we encourage people to make informed arguments, right?
I do appreciate you calling me "not a legitimate person" however; that's a first for me. Yay for firsts!
With all due respect, but if someone openly admits to a mistake, especially on the internet, then by all means, appreciate it instead of mocking the user in question. It's a very rare sight and should be complimented, not used as a reason to mock.
Dude, you received correct information, and then calmly and politely corrected yourself. Pretty much the only thing more you could have done was to go back and edit your original post with a retraction, but even that isn't enough for some people. The best solution to make your life more peaceful? Put cincydooley on ignore, then forget all about him. Every legitimate person accepted your apology and moved on. Don't get hung up on one troll.
And it's a lovely learning point for the future. Heaven forbid we encourage people to make informed arguments, right?
I do appreciate you calling me "not a legitimate person" however; that's a first for me. Yay for firsts!
Sigvatr wrote: With all due respect, but if someone openly admits to a mistake, especially on the internet, then by all means, appreciate it instead of mocking the user in question. It's a very rare sight and should be complimented, not used as a reason to mock.
There have been times where I'll see a post, click the quote button, and make my comment without reading further into the thread to see if that "issue" had been resolved, or even addressed. Sometimes, I'll click the button, and not realize that there's been a page of comments since that post, or even 2 and 3 pages, depending on the last time I visited.
Sigvatr wrote: With all due respect, but if someone openly admits to a mistake, especially on the internet, then by all means, appreciate it instead of mocking the user in question. It's a very rare sight and should be complimented, not used as a reason to mock.
There have been times where I'll see a post, click the quote button, and make my comment without reading further into the thread to see if that "issue" had been resolved, or even addressed. Sometimes, I'll click the button, and not realize that there's been a page of comments since that post, or even 2 and 3 pages, depending on the last time I visited.
Its cool. Don't let logic get in the way of a good De-legitimizing of a person!
DarkLink wrote: In unrelated news, millions of internet experts completed their law degrees last night.
Indeed...
I'm trying to read the GJ report... I'm only on page 338 of the 4799 page report!
I read through the first 50 or so, then started skimming until I found Wilson's testimony (starts around 890, IIRC), and haven't read anymore since then.
I'm inclined to believe the officer did nothing unlawful in this case (not that my opinion on this matters at all), but this Bob McCulloch really, really, really should have recused himself.
His father was a police officer that was killed by a black man.
Let me say that again, more slowly. His - father - was - a - police - officer - that - was - killed - by - a - black - man.
Would it even be remotely, 0.00001% possible that, under such circumstances, the Ferguson community would have thought that this was a just proceeding?
jasper76 wrote: I'm inclined to believe the officer did nothing unlawful in this case (not that my opinion on this matters at all), but this Bob McCulloch really, really, really should have recused himself.
His father was a police officer that was killed by a black man.
Let me say that again, more slowly. His - father - was - a - police - officer - that - was - killed - by - a - black - man.
Would it even be remotely, 0.00001% possible that, under such circumstances, the Ferguson community would have thought that this was a just proceeding?
jasper76 wrote: I'm inclined to believe the officer did nothing unlawful in this case (not that my opinion on this matters at all), but this Bob McCulloch really, really, really should have recused himself.
His father was a police officer that was killed by a black man.
Let me say that again, more slowly. His - father - was - a - police - officer - that - was - killed - by - a - black - man.
Would it even be remotely, 0.00001% possible that, under such circumstances, the Ferguson community would have thought that this was a just proceeding?
He did practically recused himself.
He did NOT conduct the Grand Jury itself.
Those prosecutors that did report directly to him, as far as I understand...I mean, couldn't they have gotten a special prosecutor from somewhere else??? Has this guy ever heard of the phrase "appearance of impropriety"?
Co'tor Shas wrote: That's an interesting point. I'll go with this. If they're on your side it's protesting, if they are against you, it's rioting.*
*applying to everybody and every case.
I would never define it that way. My definition of protesting has nothing to do with sides, but it does not include burning and looting businesses. Rioting, in my opinion also has zero to do with 'what side' they are on, but when you are throwing molotov cocktails and bricks you are rioting, regardless of side.
Co'tor Shas wrote: That's an interesting point. I'll go with this. If they're on your side it's protesting, if they are against you, it's rioting.*
*applying to everybody and every case.
I would never define it that way. My definition of protesting has nothing to do with sides, but it does not include burning and looting businesses. Rioting, in my opinion also has zero to do with 'what side' they are on, but when you are throwing molotov cocktails and bricks you are rioting, regardless of side.
It's not ment literally, more that, people often dfine things by if they agree with them or not. Yes, everyone agrees it's rioting, but some people think it should still happen. That sort of thing.
Co'tor Shas wrote: It's not ment literally, more that, people often dfine things by if they agree with them or not. Yes, everyone agrees it's rioting, but some people think it should still happen. That sort of thing.
Co'tor Shas wrote: It's not ment literally, more that, people often dfine things by if they agree with them or not. Yes, everyone agrees it's rioting, but some people think it should still happen. That sort of thing.
Those people are wrong.
In your opinion. In their opinion they are right. Do you get it now?
Co'tor Shas wrote: It's not ment literally, more that, people often dfine things by if they agree with them or not. Yes, everyone agrees it's rioting, but some people think it should still happen. That sort of thing.
Those people are wrong.
In your opinion. In their opinion they are right. Do you get it now?
Yep.They're rioting. Effing well good for them! They should be rioting. We should all be rioting. This is America, we are a nation of rioters. That's how we got to *be* America in the first damn place.
Not because of the decision of the grand jury (as if that wasn't enough), but because the way the law is written in Missouri, it grants the police the right to use lethal force in order to prevent someone from fleeing the possibility of arrest.
It also permits them to use lethal force to stop someone in the commission of a crime, and to defend themselves, yes... but it makes no conditions on the severity or type of said crime, or the crime for which you might have been arrested. It is, in essence, a legalized method of extra-judicial execution.
Co'tor Shas wrote: It's not ment literally, more that, people often dfine things by if they agree with them or not. Yes, everyone agrees it's rioting, but some people think it should still happen. That sort of thing.
Those people are wrong.
In your opinion. In their opinion they are right. Do you get it now?
A different opinion is not necessarily an 'equal value' opinion. They can believe they are right all they want. As they run out of a store with arm loads of looted goods they are not protestors by any reasonable definition of the term.
Psienesis wrote: Yep.They're rioting. Effing well good for them! They should be rioting. We should all be rioting. This is America, we are a nation of rioters. That's how we got to *be* America in the first damn place.
Not because of the decision of the grand jury (as if that wasn't enough), but because the way the law is written in Missouri, it grants the police the right to use lethal force in order to prevent someone from fleeing the possibility of arrest.
It also permits them to use lethal force to stop someone in the commission of a crime, and to defend themselves, yes... but it makes no conditions on the severity or type of said crime, or the crime for which you might have been arrested. It is, in essence, a legalized method of extra-judicial execution.
Psienesis wrote: Yep.They're rioting. Effing well good for them! They should be rioting. We should all be rioting. This is America, we are a nation of rioters. That's how we got to *be* America in the first damn place.
Not because of the decision of the grand jury (as if that wasn't enough), but because the way the law is written in Missouri, it grants the police the right to use lethal force in order to prevent someone from fleeing the possibility of arrest.
It also permits them to use lethal force to stop someone in the commission of a crime, and to defend themselves, yes... but it makes no conditions on the severity or type of said crime, or the crime for which you might have been arrested. It is, in essence, a legalized method of extra-judicial execution.
Psienesis wrote: Yep.They're rioting. Effing well good for them! They should be rioting. We should all be rioting. This is America, we are a nation of rioters. That's how we got to *be* America in the first damn place.
Not because of the decision of the grand jury (as if that wasn't enough), but because the way the law is written in Missouri, it grants the police the right to use lethal force in order to prevent someone from fleeing the possibility of arrest.
It also permits them to use lethal force to stop someone in the commission of a crime, and to defend themselves, yes... but it makes no conditions on the severity or type of said crime, or the crime for which you might have been arrested. It is, in essence, a legalized method of extra-judicial execution.
There are so many things wrong with that..
Dude... really?
Yes, really.
Dude... you're justifying the destructions occurring in my town.
So, after reading a bit on break, it looks like he strong armed the clerk (for sure)....or his friend decided to lie about him robbing the guy after he died during GJ testimony. So, he robbed the store, walked down the middle of the street with the cigars in open view then started mouthing off to a cop.
Sad. Probably a punk kid, a little high, stole 2 bucks or so worth of cigars, then wanting to show off in front of another guy..and just escalated from there.
So by going against the Crown the original colonies were also wrong? Is right and wrong as simple as legal and illegal? Interesting.
I don't think the rebellion was a bunch of guys smashing windows and stealing property from folks who may have had nothing to do with the crown, for the sake of enriching themselves with the stolen property.
Yeah, I bet some looting did go on, and the looters then were crap bags too. But to equate the rebellion with looting is not really a good comparison.
At what point do we stop calling it rioting and start calling it terrorism?
Depending on your "news" source, when it comes out that there are muslims involved?
Also, in regards to the events leading up to the US independence from the British Crown.... Much of the property destroyed during events such as the Boston Tea Party were in almost all practical ways, property of the government. As such, the economic destruction of said property affected the Crown, not individual business owners (directly). If these rioters were behaving in the exact same way, they'd be "looting" and destroying the local library, or schools as those are government property and not that of private citizens.
So by going against the Crown the original colonies were also wrong? Is right and wrong as simple as legal and illegal? Interesting.
I don't think the rebellion was a bunch of guys smashing windows and stealing property from folks who may have had nothing to do with the crown, for the sake of enriching themselves with the stolen property.
So you are saying sometimes doing something illegal is ok?
So you are saying sometimes doing something illegal is ok?
As I said in my post above, I believe it depends on the intent, and the target.
The pre-1776 Americans were fighting an unjust system by targeting government institutions and government property.
the 2014 Ferguson rioters are targeting the economic well-being of people they see nearly every day, they are hurting themselves by targeting their own businesses and their own property.
the 2014 Ferguson rioters are targeting the economic well-being of people they see nearly every day, they are hurting themselves by targeting their own businesses and their own property.
Maybe this isn't what you meant, but I highly doubt that there's a single rioter who is targetting his or her own home or business.
Co'tor Shas wrote: It's not ment literally, more that, people often dfine things by if they agree with them or not. Yes, everyone agrees it's rioting, but some people think it should still happen. That sort of thing.
Those people are wrong.
In your opinion. In their opinion they are right. Do you get it now?
There is no excuse for rioting.
None.
So, please stop.
I agree, all I am saying is to look at both sides before you call it terrorism. I think what they are doing is unbelievably stupid. I don't think we should label them as terrorist just because we disagree with them.
Co'tor Shas wrote: It's not ment literally, more that, people often dfine things by if they agree with them or not. Yes, everyone agrees it's rioting, but some people think it should still happen. That sort of thing.
Those people are wrong.
In your opinion. In their opinion they are right. Do you get it now?
A different opinion is not necessarily an 'equal value' opinion. They can believe they are right all they want. As they run out of a store with arm loads of looted goods they are not protestors by any reasonable definition of the term.
If you looked at my previous posts you would see that I am saying that we should not call them terrorists just because we disagree with them.
So by going against the Crown the original colonies were also wrong? Is right and wrong as simple as legal and illegal? Interesting.
I don't think the rebellion was a bunch of guys smashing windows and stealing property from folks who may have had nothing to do with the crown, for the sake of enriching themselves with the stolen property.
Yeah, I bet some looting did go on, and the looters then were crap bags too. But to equate the rebellion with looting is not really a good comparison.
the 2014 Ferguson rioters are targeting the economic well-being of people they see nearly every day, they are hurting themselves by targeting their own businesses and their own property.
Maybe this isn't what you meant, but I highly doubt that there's a single rioter who is targetting his or her own home or business.
No... What I mean is... the liquor store, the "beauty supply" store, cell phone shop were all most likely owned by residents of Ferguson, or people who live near it. Obviously, it'd be pretty fethed if Bob, who owned Bob's battery store went and looted his own damn store.
What I'm saying is that, if you're living in a small community, you're generally a bit more connected than say, New York City. As such, when you are destroying and looting a privately owned business in your own town/city, you are hurting your own business owners. You're raising your own insurance rates, you're decreasing your own property values, and you're generally making your spot on this earth a bit less nice to live in.
Co'tor Shas wrote: [
You still don't get it. What i am saying is that you shouldn't call them terrorists because you disagree with them.
You need to read what I wrote. A little more closely, this time. The only thing I don't get is how you could mix that up, unless you didn't really read it?
Co'tor Shas wrote: [
You still don't get it. What i am saying is that you shouldn't call them terrorists because you disagree with them.
You need to read what I wrote. A little more closely, this time. The only thing I don't get is how you could mix that up, unless you didn't really read it?
I answered your question. Yes, they are doing illegal thing to protest. They should not do that. That is never terrorism because of the intent.
the 2014 Ferguson rioters are targeting the economic well-being of people they see nearly every day, they are hurting themselves by targeting their own businesses and their own property.
Maybe this isn't what you meant, but I highly doubt that there's a single rioter who is targetting his or her own home or business.
No... What I mean is... the liquor store, the "beauty supply" store, cell phone shop were all most likely owned by residents of Ferguson, or people who live near it. Obviously, it'd be pretty fethed if Bob, who owned Bob's battery store went and looted his own damn store.
What I'm saying is that, if you're living in a small community, you're generally a bit more connected than say, New York City. As such, when you are destroying and looting a privately owned business in your own town/city, you are hurting your own business owners. You're raising your own insurance rates, you're decreasing your own property values, and you're generally making your spot on this earth a bit less nice to live in.
It's possible that they don't perceive that these things help them in any way. "Nothing to lose", as the saying goes.
At what point do we stop calling it rioting and start calling it terrorism?
You should read that a little closer.
Never once called them terrorists. In fact, I posed a question.
And I answered it.
You did? I'm not so sure about that.
How did I not. It's not terrorism simply because terrorism is about intent, and we should not call things terrorism just because we feel it seems like it. I know I wirte in a convoluted way, so that may be causing some confusion.
Jihadin wrote: Damn
I mention it was two different animals being I read Cincy post as a question....
It was. You and Ahtman responded.
I actually don't think this is terrorism as we typically 'know' it, though by definition it sure could be construed as such, which is why I posed the question in the first place.
I answered your question. Yes, they are doing illegal thing to protest. They should not do that. That is never terrorism because of the intent.
This is the first time you've addressed terrorism at all.
Threatening to riot and vandalize the community if your demands aren't met sure sounds a lot like terrorism to me.
"noun
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes."
That is because I was not addressing it directly in my answer, but with an example. It's quite a common thing to do.
I'm not using that definition, I'm using our own special current usage. Under that definition gangs are all terrorists, but I don't see people running around freaked about all the terrorists in our midst.
Couple of people have said things about Ferguson natives destroying their community. I think it bears pointing out that the reports addressing the issue have all indicated that the violent rioters/looters are not locals, but have instead traveled in from out of town to take advantage of the situation.
Jimsolo wrote: Couple of people have said things about Ferguson natives destroying their community. I think it bears pointing out that the reports addressing the issue have all indicated that the violent rioters/looters are not locals, but have instead traveled in from out of town to take advantage of the situation.
That is because I was not addressing it directly in my answer, but with an example. It's quite a common thing to do.
It's also fairly common to at least tangentially reference the question you claim to be answering. It didn't appear you were to me at all, really.
I'm not using that definition, I'm using our own special current usage. Under that definition gangs are all terrorists, but I don't see people running around freaked about all the terrorists in our midst.
Gangs are terrorists.
I think I'm going to start using my own definitions for things, though, too! That sounds fun!
gangs are terrorists? feth me dead, why not just call everyone a terrorist and get on with it. People rioting are not terrorists they are people rioting. Terrorist, the bigot, and misogynist of 2014.
Bullockist wrote: gangs are terrorists? feth me dead, why not just call everyone a terrorist and get on with it. People rioting are not terrorists they are people rioting. Terrorist, the bigot, and misogynist of 2014.
Psienesis wrote: Yep.They're rioting. Effing well good for them! They should be rioting. We should all be rioting. This is America, we are a nation of rioters. That's how we got to *be* America in the first damn place.
Not because of the decision of the grand jury (as if that wasn't enough), but because the way the law is written in Missouri, it grants the police the right to use lethal force in order to prevent someone from fleeing the possibility of arrest.
It also permits them to use lethal force to stop someone in the commission of a crime, and to defend themselves, yes... but it makes no conditions on the severity or type of said crime, or the crime for which you might have been arrested. It is, in essence, a legalized method of extra-judicial execution.
There are so many things wrong with that..
You riot. I have a Mossberg. Lets see how that goes.
Jihadin wrote: Damn
I mention it was two different animals being I read Cincy post as a question....
It was. You and Ahtman responded.
I actually don't think this is terrorism as we typically 'know' it, though by definition it sure could be construed as such, which is why I posed the question in the first place.
Don't forget... I answered as well (rather tongue in cheekly though)
It is possible to acknowledge that people might have a valid motivation for doing something, while also acknowledging that the thing they are doing is wrong.
The terrorism thing is a red herring, especially since the definition given makes half the people on Dakka terrorists.
d-usa wrote: It is possible to acknowledge that people might have a valid motivation for doing something, while also acknowledging that the thing they are doing is wrong.
I hope you mean "doing something" is meaning peaceful protest.
That's okay.
But, arson and looting? Those are criminal actions and should NOT be dignified as "protestors".
Psienesis wrote: Yep.They're rioting. Effing well good for them! They should be rioting. We should all be rioting. This is America, we are a nation of rioters. That's how we got to *be* America in the first damn place.
Not because of the decision of the grand jury (as if that wasn't enough), but because the way the law is written in Missouri, it grants the police the right to use lethal force in order to prevent someone from fleeing the possibility of arrest.
It also permits them to use lethal force to stop someone in the commission of a crime, and to defend themselves, yes... but it makes no conditions on the severity or type of said crime, or the crime for which you might have been arrested. It is, in essence, a legalized method of extra-judicial execution.
There are so many things wrong with that..
You riot. I have a Mossberg. Lets see how that goes.
d-usa wrote: It is possible to acknowledge that people might have a valid motivation for doing something, while also acknowledging that the thing they are doing is wrong.
I hope you mean "doing something" is meaning peaceful protest.
That's okay.
But, arson and looting? Those are criminal actions and should NOT be dignified as "protestors".
Oh... and this is bs:
That was Brown's mother and step-dad.
Like I said:
I am able to acknowledge that people might have a valid motivation for what they are doing while also being able to acknowledge that what they are doing is wrong.
I am able to acknowledge that people might have a valid motivation for what they are doing while also being able to acknowledge that what they are doing is wrong.
I'm not speaking in riddles here.
"valid motivations for what they are doing" + "what they are doing is wrong" = how does that compute?
Sorry... I'm well into the "Zero Feth Given" mindset now.
You already told me to "feth off" once today, so if this situation makes you too emotional to be logical or to follow the rules then it might be time for you to decide to take some time off Dakka.
Coincidentally that is also a perfect example of what I am saying:
I am able to acknowledge that you have a valid motivation for what you are doing (you are angry because you feel that your community is under attack) and at the same time I can acknowledge that what you are doing is wrong (telling me "feth you" and lashing out at other posters that you disagree with).
d, unless I missed something, I think you're taking his comments aimed a little more directly toward you than what I assume they are. I think he's not telling you to feth off, I think he's saying he's quickly sliding into apathy.
d-usa wrote: It is possible to acknowledge that people might have a valid motivation for doing something, while also acknowledging that the thing they are doing is wrong.
I hope you mean "doing something" is meaning peaceful protest.
That's okay.
But, arson and looting? Those are criminal actions and should NOT be dignified as "protestors".
Oh... and this is bs:
That was Brown's mother and step-dad.
Looks like the apple may not fall far from the tree
d-usa wrote: You already told me to "feth off" once today, so if this situation makes you too emotional to be logical or to follow the rules then it might be time for you to decide to take some time off Dakka.
Erm... I didn't tell you feth off. O.o
If anything I posted is interpreted in such fashion... I'm sorry.
Coincidentally that is also a perfect example of what I am saying:
I am able to acknowledge that you have a valid motivation for what you are doing (you are angry because you feel that your community is under attack) and at the same time I can acknowledge that what you are doing is wrong (telling me "feth you" and lashing out at other posters that you disagree with).
It's not rocket science.
I disagree... it's that mindset of *why* we're here and what's happening in Ferguson.
Go back and look at the media.
No effort is done to delineate between the peaceful protesters vs. the arsonist/looters/violent nutters.
It's a backhanded way to justify what's going on.
What should be said is simply:
1) peaceful protest is more than okay
2) engage the officials to identify the challenges and seek redresses
3) unequivantly, rioting/looting/violence is absolutely unacceptable. There's no justifcation. (<--- don't whitewash that by saying, "I understand where they're coming from, but it's still bad" as it smacks of having it both ways).
What should be said is simply:
1) peaceful protest is more than okay
2) engage the officials to identify the challenges and seek redresses
3) unequivantly, rioting/looting/violence is absolutely unacceptable. There's no justifcation. (<--- don't whitewash that by saying, "I understand where they're coming from, but it's still bad" as it smacks of having it both ways).
That's all I'm saying.
Agreed.... I think that the greatest civil rights minds of our recent past are positively rolling in their graves right now... Ghandi, Nelson Mandela and MLK would be facepalming through the back of their skulls right now at this.
Agreed.... I think that the greatest civil rights minds of our recent past are positively rolling in their graves right now... Ghandi, Nelson Mandela and MLK would be facepalming through the back of their skulls right now at this.
In these trying times, I shrug my shoulders and say, "Well, you had Martin Luther King, Mahatma Gandhi, and Harvey Milk, and you left us with Honey Boo Boo and Ryan Seacreast, and you disparage US?"
Psienesis wrote: Yep.They're rioting. Effing well good for them! They should be rioting. We should all be rioting. This is America, we are a nation of rioters. That's how we got to *be* America in the first damn place.
Not because of the decision of the grand jury (as if that wasn't enough), but because the way the law is written in Missouri, it grants the police the right to use lethal force in order to prevent someone from fleeing the possibility of arrest.
It also permits them to use lethal force to stop someone in the commission of a crime, and to defend themselves, yes... but it makes no conditions on the severity or type of said crime, or the crime for which you might have been arrested. It is, in essence, a legalized method of extra-judicial execution.
There are so many things wrong with that..
You riot. I have a Mossberg. Lets see how that goes.
What should be said is simply:
1) peaceful protest is more than okay
2) engage the officials to identify the challenges and seek redresses
3) unequivantly, rioting/looting/violence is absolutely unacceptable. There's no justifcation. (<--- don't whitewash that by saying, "I understand where they're coming from, but it's still bad" as it smacks of having it both ways).
That's all I'm saying.
Agreed.... I think that the greatest civil rights minds of our recent past are positively rolling in their graves right now... Ghandi, Nelson Mandela and MLK would be facepalming through the back of their skulls right now at this.
Malcolm X and Huey be clapping their hands though.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I like that they were looting stores in Oakland, Ca. Now thats a five fingered discount ladiez and gentlemenz.
Frazzled wrote: Malcolm X and Huey be clapping their hands though.
Being ok with violent measures to protect oneself isn't the same as being ok with random violence, which is what this is. The rioters also tend to have the most effect on their own community, which is another problem.
They thought they were getting "justice" they didn't so "BURN THIS Mutha$#*^a DOWN!"
Someone needs to explain to these people how the justice system works. I'm sure there are plenty of reasons to be upset about race relations in this country, but this case was definitely the wrong one for them to all line up behind (much like Treyvon).
SlaveToDorkness wrote: They thought they were getting "justice" they didn't so "BURN THIS Mutha$#*^a DOWN!"
Someone needs to explain to these people how the justice system works. I'm sure there are plenty of reasons to be upset about race relations in this country, but this case was definitely the wrong one for them to all line up behind (much like Treyvon).
They would have been a lot better off focusing on police over reaction to the initial protests/gatherings and the militarization of the police and taking Brown and his death out of it. Could even have made lack of black cops in a predominantly black area a major theme (and used in a positive way to encourage kids to want to be cops and to live a clean enough life that they can qualify). Turn the issue into one of big over reaching gov't not only failing to meet the needs of the people but actually being oppressive.
Instead they seem to honor a violent thief by being violent and looting. That doesn't gain sympathy from Joe Citizen around the country.
SlaveToDorkness wrote: They thought they were getting "justice" they didn't so "BURN THIS Mutha$#*^a DOWN!"
Someone needs to explain to these people how the justice system works. I'm sure there are plenty of reasons to be upset about race relations in this country, but this case was definitely the wrong one for them to all line up behind (much like Treyvon).
They would have been a lot better off focusing on police over reaction to the initial protests/gatherings and the militarization of the police and taking Brown and his death out of it. Could even have made lack of black cops in a predominantly black area a major theme (and used in a positive way to encourage kids to want to be cops and to live a clean enough life that they can qualify). Turn the issue into one of big over reaching gov't not only failing to meet the needs of the people but actually being oppressive.
But why do that when you can "burn this bitch down"?
Maybe they think if they burn enough bitches down then they can get a retrial?
Isn't that how justice works in this country?
As an aside, some of those store owners need to act like the Koreans did. That should put a stop to a lot of bitch burning REAL quick. Certainly much quicker than the milit...... erm, "Police" apparently can.
Sadly, yes, that is how justice works in this country. Enough riots will go on until another special prosecutor is sent in and Wilson is charged. Only to be acquitted because of the actual evidence and then we get to start the whole mess over again.
SlaveToDorkness wrote: They thought they were getting "justice" they didn't so "BURN THIS Mutha$#*^a DOWN!"
Someone needs to explain to these people how the justice system works. I'm sure there are plenty of reasons to be upset about race relations in this country, but this case was definitely the wrong one for them to all line up behind (much like Treyvon).
They would have been a lot better off focusing on police over reaction to the initial protests/gatherings and the militarization of the police and taking Brown and his death out of it. Could even have made lack of black cops in a predominantly black area a major theme (and used in a positive way to encourage kids to want to be cops and to live a clean enough life that they can qualify). Turn the issue into one of big over reaching gov't not only failing to meet the needs of the people but actually being oppressive.
Instead they seem to honor a violent thief by being violent and looting. That doesn't gain sympathy from Joe Citizen around the country.
They aint gaining sympathy from across the pond either.
Out the looters for using your sons name in their self serving thieving for christs sake. The only mother they are burning down is a chance at changing things.
SlaveToDorkness wrote: They thought they were getting "justice" they didn't so "BURN THIS Mutha$#*^a DOWN!"
Someone needs to explain to these people how the justice system works. I'm sure there are plenty of reasons to be upset about race relations in this country, but this case was definitely the wrong one for them to all line up behind (much like Treyvon).
They would have been a lot better off focusing on police over reaction to the initial protests/gatherings and the militarization of the police and taking Brown and his death out of it. Could even have made lack of black cops in a predominantly black area a major theme (and used in a positive way to encourage kids to want to be cops and to live a clean enough life that they can qualify). Turn the issue into one of big over reaching gov't not only failing to meet the needs of the people but actually being oppressive.
Instead they seem to honor a violent thief by being violent and looting. That doesn't gain sympathy from Joe Citizen around the country.
They aint gaining sympathy from across the pond either.
Out the looters for using your sons name in their self serving thieving for christs sake.
CptJake wrote: That doesn't gain sympathy from Joe Citizen around the country.
That's clearly false, as lots of people who could be described as "Joe Citizen" are protesting.
Protests are one thing. Five fingered discounts are different.
Besides this runs about one more day. Turkey Day and Black Friday will pull all the protesters away, just leaving the usual hooligans.
Then its time for the Sweeps!
"The Sweeps are coming. I repreat the Sweeps are coming!"
SlaveToDorkness wrote: They thought they were getting "justice" they didn't so "BURN THIS Mutha$#*^a DOWN!"
Someone needs to explain to these people how the justice system works. I'm sure there are plenty of reasons to be upset about race relations in this country, but this case was definitely the wrong one for them to all line up behind (much like Treyvon).
They would have been a lot better off focusing on police over reaction to the initial protests/gatherings and the militarization of the police and taking Brown and his death out of it. Could even have made lack of black cops in a predominantly black area a major theme (and used in a positive way to encourage kids to want to be cops and to live a clean enough life that they can qualify). Turn the issue into one of big over reaching gov't not only failing to meet the needs of the people but actually being oppressive.
Instead they seem to honor a violent thief by being violent and looting. That doesn't gain sympathy from Joe Citizen around the country.
They aint gaining sympathy from across the pond either.
Out the looters for using your sons name in their self serving thieving for christs sake.
But then they couldn't sell their T-shirts.
You mean the ones that say, Gone "to" Soon?
Automatically Appended Next Post: As. I talked about earlier. The morons blocking the roads are cutting off hospitals.
Alex C wrote: Saw a driver just start plowing through the crowds of morons blocking roads.
Can't say I blame him considering what's been happening the past two nights.
Agreed.
Affiliated crowds have been shown to be potentially violent. Not that it's generally a good idea to equate one crowd with another, but I'd be hovering my foot over the gas if the zombies started massing around my vehicle.
Alex C wrote: Saw a driver just start plowing through the crowds of morons blocking roads.
Can't say I blame him considering what's been happening the past two nights.
You mean things like:
- No real reports of "crowds of morons" stopping cars for violent purposes?
- the vast majority of protesters being peaceful?
- the vast majority of rioters not being from the community despite all the derpage about "people tearing up their own community"?
- last night being much better than Monday night?
- actual community members helping clean up the damage that "they" supposedly caused?
- actual community volunteers protecting homes and shops with guns and rifles to keep the outside agitators at bay?
The difference between the narrative in this thread and what is actually happening is getting bigger and bigger.
So, watching the local news this morning, it turns out that nearly every person arrested for blocking 75 in Cincy wasn't actually from Cincinnati, nor were the majority of the people that went onto the highway with them.
The local protestors did just that, in front of the courthouse, and were, by all accounts, very organized and peaceful.
These were the people who were constantly talking to the media about protests remaining peaceful.
Any shred of dignity those people displayed is now null and void.
Here's hoping they don't end up like their kid.
No, that was Michael Brown Sr, Michael Browns biological father. The man in the video is his step father.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
cincydooley wrote: So, watching the local news this morning, it turns out that nearly every person arrested for blocking 75 in Cincy wasn't actually from Cincinnati, nor were the majority of the people that went onto the highway with them.
The local protestors did just that, in front of the courthouse, and were, by all accounts, very organized and peaceful.
Alex C wrote: Saw a driver just start plowing through the crowds of morons blocking roads.
Can't say I blame him considering what's been happening the past two nights.
Agreed.
Affiliated crowds have been shown to be potentially violent. Not that it's generally a good idea to equate one crowd with another, but I'd be hovering my foot over the gas if the zombies started massing around my vehicle.
I should probably call the police if I see you in the street then, I mean, based on this comment you've been shown to be potentially violent*, and that's all the justification needed to run people over, right?
*based on considering running people over to be justified.
It was surprising to most of the people here. There's literally no reason for people from elsewhere to be in Cincinnati protesting an event in St. Louis.
Alex C wrote: Saw a driver just start plowing through the crowds of morons blocking roads.
Can't say I blame him considering what's been happening the past two nights.
Agreed.
Affiliated crowds have been shown to be potentially violent. Not that it's generally a good idea to equate one crowd with another, but I'd be hovering my foot over the gas if the zombies started massing around my vehicle.
I should probably call the police if I see you in the street then, I mean, based on this comment you've been shown to be potentially violent*, and that's all the justification needed to run people over, right?
*based on considering running people over to be justified.
I said I would prepare to do whatever it took to GTFO of the area if a crowd surrounding my vehicle started to become violent, not that I would run people over because they looked at me wrong.
Alex C wrote:I thought it was his Stepfather that was calling for peace before too?
The two men in these videos are not the same person. For one, one of them has a rather nice beard, whilst the other does not.
I realize they are not the same person, I was just under the impression his Stepfather had ALSO been calling for peaceful protests prior to the decision.
Jihadin wrote: Majority of people assume it was a auto indictment
I think most of the "protesters" or rioters were under the assumption that "indictment" meant "guilty of charges" not what it actually means.
They probably also don't care that this was only one of a couple of investigations going on that could potentially lead to charges. Granted, it doesn't sound too likely that the other investigations will lead to charges either, since from what I've seen the vast majority of evidence seems to strongly back up the officer's case, but no need to let that stop you from driving out to Ferguson to see if there are any free tv's left for you to... acquire.
WASHINGTON—In the wake of a grand jury’s divisive decision not to charge Ferguson, MO police officer Darren Wilson in the shooting death of unarmed black teenager Michael Brown, a weary American populace told reporters Tuesday that they are not sure if they can take another speech about healing. “If I have to watch some politician, law enforcement official, or pretty much anyone regurgitate the same meaningless platitudes about setting aside our differences and coming together as a nation, I might just lose it,” said Atlanta resident Samantha Hubbard, echoing the sentiment of hundreds of millions of Americans who are uncertain if they can stomach even a single empty call for respect and civility. “I honestly don’t know if I’m physically capable of listening to another community leader recite the same unbearable garbage about how it’s time for an open and honest dialogue. I swear to God, if I hear even one goddamn person assert there’s more that unites us than divides us, I will immediately blow my brains out.” At press time, the nation was particularly apprehensive at the prospect of a speech that declared words were not enough.
Alex C wrote: Saw a driver just start plowing through the crowds of morons blocking roads.
Can't say I blame him considering what's been happening the past two nights.
You mean things like:
- No real reports of "crowds of morons" stopping cars for violent purposes?
- the vast majority of protesters being peaceful?
- the vast majority of rioters not being from the community despite all the derpage about "people tearing up their own community"?
- last night being much better than Monday night?
- actual community members helping clean up the damage that "they" supposedly caused?
- actual community volunteers protecting homes and shops with guns and rifles to keep the outside agitators at bay?
The difference between the narrative in this thread and what is actually happening is getting bigger and bigger.
There were no reports of rioting either, until stuff starting getting looted and burned, along with cars, I don't care if the violent ones came in from Antarctica, the city is still in flames and people were at risk.
Where's all the pictures of the National Guard dealing with the rioters? For months the media seems to be all over the police vs protesters/rioters yet have been strangely silent when it comes to covering the National Guard interactions. Bias perhaps?
Riot mobs haven't traditionally burned down churches while the KKK have in the past, so it wouldn't surprise me; businesses and the like sure, but not churches.
MO National Guard unit activated last deployment was 09-10 that's in Ferguson now. Means the NCO Chain of Command is Experience along with those damn E4 mafia type SoB's (Ensis )
Two Battalions of MP's so they have to be back filling with Combat Arms individuals to put them over 3K worth of troops in Ferguson and surrounding area
The comments section is interesting. Some are saying it's an insurance scam.
I managed to find a single comment suggesting it might be an insurance scam, nestled amongst dozens stating that all black people are savages, the pastor is full of gak, and other charming sentiment.
Why would you invite people to read the comments section?
The comments section is interesting. Some are saying it's an insurance scam.
I managed to find a single comment suggesting it might be an insurance scam, nestled amongst dozens stating that all black people are savages, the pastor is full of gak, and other charming sentiment.
Why would you invite people to read the comments section?
Actually there are a few more than one. Didn't make an invitation, just made a comment, and plunging in is on you.
Meanwhile, a video of the looted store where Brown roughed up the clerk when he and his bud were swiping cigars:
Jihadin wrote: Chwast. Someone offering a bounty on Wilson life
Old news buddy...
The radical group also threatened Ferguson business owners.
RbG Black Rebels @BlackRebels_Stl · Nov 25
Every biz that is gone from Ferguson means that the city will get thousand less in tax $$ a year. Let this be a lesson for all cites in US.
RbG Black Rebels @BlackRebels_Stl · Nov 25
Im not gon talk about to much gun play on here, but when the police heard them Ak's lastnite they stood down fast. They wasn't ready. #RbG
RbG Black Rebels @BlackRebels_Stl · Nov 25
#Uhuru We gon get respect by any means necessary. Feth ur store. Stay tuned for action details from lastnite later 2day. #ftp #fNG
RbG Black Rebels @BlackRebels_Stl · Nov 24
Looks like its time to put these War Plans into action. Thats all Im going to say for now. #RbG
This guy has to be one of the worst cops in history. He couldn't even arrest a teenage shoplifter without blowing the kids head off like the kid was some sort of terminator. He definitely earned his place in the history books for this one. Total donut eater. His excuse was that he was scared. He thought the kid was a demon. What bonehead is in charge of hiring over there?
Radiation wrote: This guy has to be one of the worst cops in history. He couldn't even arrest a teenage shoplifter without blowing the kids head off like the kid was some sort of terminator. He definitely earned his place in the history books for this one. Total donut eater. His excuse was that he was scared. He thought the kid was a demon. What bonehead is in charge of hiring over there?
Radiation wrote: This guy has to be one of the worst cops in history. He couldn't even arrest a teenage shoplifter without blowing the kids head off like the kid was some sort of terminator. He definitely earned his place in the history books for this one. Total donut eater. His excuse was that he was scared. He thought the kid was a demon. What bonehead is in charge of hiring over there?
I question attaching the word kid to someone who was 6'4 and aggressive.
Radiation wrote: This guy has to be one of the worst cops in history. He couldn't even arrest a teenage shoplifter without blowing the kids head off like the kid was some sort of terminator. He definitely earned his place in the history books for this one. Total donut eater. His excuse was that he was scared. He thought the kid was a demon. What bonehead is in charge of hiring over there?
Manfuly stated from the safety of your keyboard.
Oh yeah, this guy is a real American hero. He killed the evil badguy and now his city burns. Great story for his next job interview. I'm sure he has an incredible career ahead of him.
Radiation wrote: This guy has to be one of the worst cops in history. He couldn't even arrest a teenage shoplifter without blowing the kids head off like the kid was some sort of terminator. He definitely earned his place in the history books for this one. Total donut eater. His excuse was that he was scared. He thought the kid was a demon. What bonehead is in charge of hiring over there?
You realize he went for the officer's gun right? And continued to charge the officer after being shot?
Radiation wrote: This guy has to be one of the worst cops in history. He couldn't even arrest a teenage shoplifter without blowing the kids head off like the kid was some sort of terminator. He definitely earned his place in the history books for this one. Total donut eater. His excuse was that he was scared. He thought the kid was a demon. What bonehead is in charge of hiring over there?
Manfuly stated from the safety of your keyboard.
Oh yeah, this guy is a real American hero. He killed the evil badguy and now his city burns. Great story for his next job interview. I'm sure he has an incredible career ahead of him.
I think that of browns stepdad and the looters/arsonists from outside of town.
Radiation wrote: This guy has to be one of the worst cops in history. He couldn't even arrest a teenage shoplifter without blowing the kids head off like the kid was some sort of terminator. He definitely earned his place in the history books for this one. Total donut eater. His excuse was that he was scared. He thought the kid was a demon. What bonehead is in charge of hiring over there?
You realize he went for the officer's gun right? And continued to charge the officer after being shot?
Yeah, l realize he was completely incapable of handling the situation. That's my point. Again, I'm sure he will definitely be going places with his action hero career.
Radiation wrote: This guy has to be one of the worst cops in history. He couldn't even arrest a teenage shoplifter without blowing the kids head off like the kid was some sort of terminator. He definitely earned his place in the history books for this one. Total donut eater. His excuse was that he was scared. He thought the kid was a demon. What bonehead is in charge of hiring over there?
You realize he went for the officer's gun right? And continued to charge the officer after being shot?
Yeah, l realize he was completely incapable of handling the situation. That's my point. Again, I'm sure he will definitely be going places with his action hero career.
Radiation wrote: This guy has to be one of the worst cops in history. He couldn't even arrest a teenage shoplifter without blowing the kids head off like the kid was some sort of terminator. He definitely earned his place in the history books for this one. Total donut eater. His excuse was that he was scared. He thought the kid was a demon. What bonehead is in charge of hiring over there?
You realize he went for the officer's gun right? And continued to charge the officer after being shot?
Yeah, l realize he was completely incapable of handling the situation. That's my point. Again, I'm sure he will definitely be going places with his action hero career.
If you don't want to get shot, don't grab a police officer's gun and then charge him after he regains control of it. It's not that high of a bar to reach.
I would also love to know what you think he should have done though.
Radiation wrote: This guy has to be one of the worst cops in history. He couldn't even arrest a teenage shoplifter without blowing the kids head off like the kid was some sort of terminator. He definitely earned his place in the history books for this one. Total donut eater. His excuse was that he was scared. He thought the kid was a demon. What bonehead is in charge of hiring over there?
Ye, chose to ignore the facts that the kid assaulted the officer and went to grab his gun. But then you don't seem to understand the concept of a simile.
Radiation wrote: This guy has to be one of the worst cops in history. He couldn't even arrest a teenage shoplifter without blowing the kids head off like the kid was some sort of terminator. He definitely earned his place in the history books for this one. Total donut eater. His excuse was that he was scared. He thought the kid was a demon. What bonehead is in charge of hiring over there?
You realize he went for the officer's gun right? And continued to charge the officer after being shot?
Yeah, l realize he was completely incapable of handling the situation. That's my point. Again, I'm sure he will definitely be going places with his action hero career.
What would you suggest he have done?
How about not skrew everything up so bad that he ended up with a dead shoplifter and a burning city and no job. That would be a start.
How about not skrew everything up so bad that he ended up with a dead shoplifter and a burning city and no job. That would be a start.
That describes outcomes, not actions.
There's no do-overs for this guy. He gets to own it. That's how it works.
Please stop skirting around the question and the facts and let people know how you suggest a police officer handle someone assaulting him, going for his gun and appearing to be going to attack him again. What would you have done had you been in that situation?
How about not skrew everything up so bad that he ended up with a dead shoplifter and a burning city and no job. That would be a start.
That describes outcomes, not actions.
There's no do-overs for this guy. He gets to own it. That's how it works.
Please stop skirting around the question and the facts and let people know how you suggest a police officer handle someone assaulting him, going for his gun and appearing to be going to attack him again. What would you have done had you been in that situation?
Get over yourself. This isn't some sort of fantasy. I'm not here to tell you some stupid fairytale.
Radiation wrote: [
Get over yourself. This isn't some sort of fantasy. I'm not here to tell you some stupid fairytale.
Well, to be fair, you brought up how he mishandled the situation. I guess it would only have logically followed that you would know how to better handle the situation. Could be it's just not meant for the rest of us to know. That's cool too, I guess.
Radiation wrote: [
Get over yourself. This isn't some sort of fantasy. I'm not here to tell you some stupid fairytale.
Well, to be fair, you brought up how he mishandled the situation. I guess it would only have logically followed that you would know how to better handle the situation. Could be it's just not meant for the rest of us to know. That's cool too, I guess.
Mishandle is an understatement. This guy has a place of his own in history now and he earned it.
Get over yourself. This isn't some sort of fantasy. I'm not here to tell you some stupid fairytale.
Great way to keep skirting around the fact that your wrong. I think the next step is to insult everyone and leave? Thats normally how these things go. Or Godwin is a good alternative.
No one is asking for fantasy or fairy tail, only for you to back up your statements. You are the one ignoring facts and making up this idea that all that happened was a cop shot a shoplifter, without reference to the rest of the story. You need to back up your statement that it was handled incorrectly by saying how it should have been handled correctly. Alternatively, state why it is incorrect for a cop to defend themselves by shoot someone who assaulted him, went for his gun and was charging him to attack him again? Especially when your making such silly statements as "Worst cop in history". How exactly did he manhandle the situation, taking in to account all of the facts?
Mishandle is an understatement. This guy has a place of his own in history now and he earned it.
I would argue, and I have a bit of a reputation for being the crazy bleeding heart anti-establishment type in these here parts, that while he was the catalyst, the situation didn't get to the point it's up to without the rest of the authorities handling it as poorly has they have. I see many places to lay fault on both sides of the coin, and that includes the protesting side as well. Singularly picking him as the point of blame just seems too limited.
I hope when the smoke clears everyone directly involved learns a hard lesson they don't forget soon.
I think, and I mean I THINK, if in the same situation Wilson was in with Brown I would have more likely done the same as him.
Also some idiot LEO left a freaking M4 carbine/rifle in one of the patrol cars that got burned which manage to walk off.
Mishandle is an understatement. This guy has a place of his own in history now and he earned it.
I would argue, and I have a bit of a reputation for being the crazy bleeding heart anti-establishment type in these here parts, that while he was the catalyst, the situation didn't get to the point it's up to without the rest of the authorities handling it as poorly has they have. I see many places to lay fault on both sides of the coin, and that includes the protesting side as well. Singularly picking him as the point of blame just seems too limited.
I hope when the smoke clears everyone directly involved learns a hard lesson they don't forget soon.
I don't have a problem with the protesters. They're angry. That's fine. It's painful to watch, but I feel it to. I think other heads will roll in the aftermath of all this. But the cop earned himself a special place in history, argue all you want about all the details. He's no role model and he's no hero.
No one is saying he is a role model or a hero, but they are also not vilifying him like you are. The protesters are fine, it's the rioters people dislike, including those who live in the area. Your still refusing to answer any questions and ignoring anything that does not fit your myopic view.
Steve steveson wrote: No one is saying he is a role model or a hero, but they are also not vilifying him like you are. The protesters are fine, it's the rioters people dislike, including those who live in the area. Your still refusing to answer any questions and ignoring anything that does not fit your myopic view.
When did dakka hire me to hangout in offtopic in the middle of the night to answer questions? And how much are they paying? Public internet bro. I'm not here to explain the mystical workings of the universe to you. And the cop already villified himself, that wasn't my doing.
When did dakka hire me to hangout in offtopic in the middle of the night to answer questions? And how much are they paying? Public internet bro. I'm not here to explain the mystical workings of the universe to you. And the cop already villified himself, that wasn't my doing.
Generally people having some notion of the mystical workings of the universe are much more eager to spill them, gratis even. I still think that it's odd that you'd hold such a strong opinion, but be unwilling to explain how it could have gone down more peaceably.
When did dakka hire me to hangout in offtopic in the middle of the night to answer questions? And how much are they paying? Public internet bro. I'm not here to explain the mystical workings of the universe to you. And the cop already villified himself, that wasn't my doing.
Generally people having some notion of the mystical workings of the universe are much more eager to spill them, gratis even. I still think that it's odd that you'd hold such a strong opinion, but be unwilling to explain how it could have gone down more peaceably.
That's easy, because he has only an opinion, not facts to back it up.
Whatever... Its not worth arguing with someone who's reaction when they are called out to provide facts or more backup is to say "I don't have to do that! You can't tell me what to do!"
US embassy marchers condemn Ferguson shooting
Protesters in Oxford Street, London The protesters marched down Oxford Street at around 21:00 GMT on Wednesday
Hundreds of people have taken part in a demonstration outside the US embassy in London condemning the decision not to charge a police officer with shooting Missouri teenager Michael Brown.
Protesters observed a minute's silence before marching down Oxford Street and making their way to Parliament Square.
They were joined by Carole Duggan, whose nephew Mark was shot dead by a Met police officer in 2011.
Police said the "impromptu march" ended peacefully at about 23:30 GMT.
Ms Duggan told the crowd on Wednesday evening "we know the pain of losing somebody at the hands of the police".
She told them they were sending a message to the family of Michael Brown.
"That is why we stand in solidarity with the community of Ferguson. I feel they are very strong and brave people."
She went on: "They've come to a point in Ferguson where there is no turning back.
"They have to carry on fighting. They have to see this through. We have to stand behind them because you know what happens there will eventually happen here."
Mark Duggan campaign group Carole Duggan, whose nephew Mark was shot dead in 2011, said she stood behind the family of Michael Brown
Protest outside US embassy The protest was described as noisy but non-violent
A protester holds up a placard in Oxford Street, central London Demonstrators gathered in Parliament Square after walking down Oxford Street
The US Embassy protest was organised by campaign groups Stand Up To Racism and London Black Revolutionaries, according to the Press Association.
It follows the decision not to charge white police officer Darren Wilson with the death of Michael Brown who was shot dead on 9 August in Ferguson.
In London, protesters held placards which read "Jail racist cops" and chanted "Killer police off our streets".
After marching down Europe's busiest shopping street, they gathered again in Parliament Square. No arrests were made.
The sister of Sean Rigg, who died at Brixton police station in 2008, was also at the rally.
Marcia Rigg said: "Burning and looting - we don't condone these acts - but I for one, and I'm sure people around the world, understand the frustration and anger that the people are feeling when our loved ones are murdered on the streets."
Michael Brown Michael Brown's death has caused civil unrest in a number of US cities
Any Mark Dugans family are involved now... For those who don't know, he was a black teenager, involved in gang violence, drugs and had purchased a handgun 15 minuets before and surveillance said he was on the way to shoot a rival gang member. A gun was found 10 feet from the taxi he was in when he was stopped. His family insist he was not involved in gangs, drugs and had no criminal record (dispute two minor convictions and being arrested a number of times for various crimes, including attempted murder and murder).
Serious questions need to be asked throughout society. Both on the way the police work, but also about how society handles some things. Do the police have problems with the likely hood of black teenagers being stopped and searched? Absolutely. Is this entirely down to racist attitudes in the police, or does the number of black teens involved in gang violence play a part? This is a conversation that needs to be had with all involved if we are going to stop these things happening, not just the one sided mud slinging going on all over that we have at the moment. We need to accept that some police are racist, but some are just humans who do a difficult job. We also need to accept that some people are gang members and are violent, but also that there are people who want to heal the community, but cannot express themselves well or keep anger contained, and that anger is not a part of underling violence, but a want to make things better.
When did dakka hire me to hangout in offtopic in the middle of the night to answer questions? And how much are they paying? Public internet bro. I'm not here to explain the mystical workings of the universe to you. And the cop already villified himself, that wasn't my doing.
Generally people having some notion of the mystical workings of the universe are much more eager to spill them, gratis even. I still think that it's odd that you'd hold such a strong opinion, but be unwilling to explain how it could have gone down more peaceably.
That's not the way the world works. This is reality. We don't get to go back and do it again. Besides my opinion isn't that strong. The guy was a terrible cop. He blew it on a historical level. It's a reasonable observation. What else are you going to argue? "Oh he's ok, it's really not that bad." Good luck with that narrative.
Well, at worst, he's a terrible person who hurt a bunch of people. At best, he's a human being, just as pathetic, limited, and fallible as anyone else, who tried to deal with a scary situation that might have been well beyond most people even on their best day.
I frankly can't say even now that there's enough to draw a solid conclusion either way. At some times I'm just not capable of rendering my own judgement upon people.
One thing I do hold to be true though: the officer involved did not force anyone to throw bricks at any business. At the end of the day, our reactions to anything around us are our own, and that is that. You might hate him for committing an injustice, but at the end of the day, no one caused these riots other than the people who rioted.
Rice, who has a record of driving violations, hung up on a reporter Wednesday.
He was convicted of driving after a license cancellation in 2008 in Washington County, a second-degree DWI in 2003 in Scott County, having an open bottle of alcohol in his car and violating a restricted driver's license in 2001 in Pine County. He was convicted of driving while intoxicated with a blood alcohol greater than 0.20, and fleeing police in Ramsey County in 2000.
Rice, who has a record of driving violations, hung up on a reporter Wednesday.
He was convicted of driving after a license cancellation in 2008 in Washington County, a second-degree DWI in 2003 in Scott County, having an open bottle of alcohol in his car and violating a restricted driver's license in 2001 in Pine County. He was convicted of driving while intoxicated with a blood alcohol greater than 0.20, and fleeing police in Ramsey County in 2000.
No! How will I be able to tell who I should call a thug? On the one hand you've got filthy protesters, but on the other hand you have a drunk driver. I don't know who to be smugly superior at!
My friend invited me to the planned protest in Philly next weekend. She also told me to wear a mask to support Anonymous. Having trouble figuring out how to tell her thats a bad idea...
When did dakka hire me to hangout in offtopic in the middle of the night to answer questions? And how much are they paying? Public internet bro. I'm not here to explain the mystical workings of the universe to you. And the cop already villified himself, that wasn't my doing.
Generally people having some notion of the mystical workings of the universe are much more eager to spill them, gratis even. I still think that it's odd that you'd hold such a strong opinion, but be unwilling to explain how it could have gone down more peaceably.
When did dakka hire me to hangout in offtopic in the middle of the night to answer questions? And how much are they paying? Public internet bro. I'm not here to explain the mystical workings of the universe to you. And the cop already villified himself, that wasn't my doing.
Generally people having some notion of the mystical workings of the universe are much more eager to spill them, gratis even. I still think that it's odd that you'd hold such a strong opinion, but be unwilling to explain how it could have gone down more peaceably.
That's not the way the world works. This is reality. We don't get to go back and do it again. Besides my opinion isn't that strong. The guy was a terrible cop. He blew it on a historical level. It's a reasonable observation. What else are you going to argue? "Oh he's ok, it's really not that bad." Good luck with that narrative.
I have just one question for you. Just a simple "yes" or "no" will suffice.
Have you taken the time to read the Grand Jury report and review the photo/scene evidence?
Kid has what is thought to be a gun, kid has clearly taken the little orange bit of it for a reason, god knows what that is.
cops get call out because kid is waving gun around (?)
They turn up and kid has said "gun"
Cops I assume asked him to drop it, he either did or didn't.
cops shoot kid dead.
so what im missing is this, why did they shoot the kid, did he go to pull it out or something? or was the copper just taking no risks (understandable).
To me this seems like another reason the yanks need to disarm, too many guns, too high a risk, how many kids need to be shot before you people decide to stop this stuff being allowed.
as I said, inform a brit that just doesn't understand?
Formosa wrote: So clarify this for a brit will you guys.
Kid has what is thought to be a gun, kid has clearly taken the little orange bit of it for a reason, god knows what that is.
cops get call out because kid is waving gun around (?)
They turn up and kid has said "gun"
Cops I assume asked him to drop it, he either did or didn't.
cops shoot kid dead.
so what im missing is this, why did they shoot the kid, did he go to pull it out or something? or was the copper just taking no risks (understandable).
To me this seems like another reason the yanks need to disarm, too many guns, too high a risk, how many kids need to be shot before you people decide to stop this stuff being allowed.
as I said, inform a brit that just doesn't understand?
Islamic jihadists worldwide have launched a barrage of recruitment messages amid the latest unrest in Ferguson, Mo., using Twitter accounts to call on African-Americans and others in the United States to join their cause.
Some messages urge direct revolt against the U.S. government, while others evoke the names of former black leaders – among them Malcolm X – in a bid to convince people of color that living under an Islamic caliphate is in their best interests.
“March against tyranny and arm yourselves against the true terrorists of our time: the US government,” says a tweet from a prominent Dutch jihadist in Syria going by the name of Israfil Yilmaz, and carrying “Ferguson Rising” and “Ferguson Decision” hashtags.
Another tweet from a user going by the name of Abu Hamza As Somaal says: “My fellow black community know that #Jihad is the only thing that will bring justice, respect and honor in (the) Ferguson decision.” This message is followed by the hashtag “Islamic State.”
The U.S.-based monitoring firm SITE Intelligence Group, which has been collecting the messages, said they began emerging in large numbers in the wake of the grand jury decision not to indict Darren Wilson, the white police officer involved in the shooting death of 18-year-old Michael Brown, an African-American.
“Users characterized the decision as the result of America’s racism while claiming jihad and revolution to be fitting responses,” the group says in a statement accompanying the tweets.
“Some jihadist supporters even appeared to openly acknowledge the use of Ferguson as a means of recruitment.”
A message from a user identified as Abu Dhar Al Amirki appeared to directly address African Americans by encouraging people to travel to the IS-declared Caliphate in Syria and Iraq.
“In the Islamic state there are no racist, there is no difference between black and white,” the message said.
Similarly, another user tweeted: “Make hijra (meaning migration) to islamic state oh people of furgosan here we don't see the colour of skin but only the colour of your heart.”
References to statements by Malcolm X – the controversial African American Muslim minister who was a member of the Nation of Islam before leaving to embrace Sunni Islam – feature prominently in many of the jihadist tweets, SITE says.
One ran a graphic citing Malcolm X’s claim that Islam was “one religion that erases from its society the race problem…”
Radiation wrote: This guy has to be one of the worst cops in history. He couldn't even arrest a teenage shoplifter without blowing the kids head off like the kid was some sort of terminator. He definitely earned his place in the history books for this one. Total donut eater. His excuse was that he was scared. He thought the kid was a demon. What bonehead is in charge of hiring over there?
You realize he went for the officer's gun right? And continued to charge the officer after being shot?
Yeah, l realize he was completely incapable of handling the situation. That's my point. Again, I'm sure he will definitely be going places with his action hero career.
What would you suggest he have done?
How about not skrew everything up so bad that he ended up with a dead shoplifter and a burning city and no job. That would be a start.
Translation - I'm just blowing smoke out of my ass.
Mishandle is an understatement. This guy has a place of his own in history now and he earned it.
I would argue, and I have a bit of a reputation for being the crazy bleeding heart anti-establishment type in these here parts, that while he was the catalyst, the situation didn't get to the point it's up to without the rest of the authorities handling it as poorly has they have. I see many places to lay fault on both sides of the coin, and that includes the protesting side as well. Singularly picking him as the point of blame just seems too limited.
I hope when the smoke clears everyone directly involved learns a hard lesson they don't forget soon.
I don't have a problem with the protesters. They're angry. That's fine. It's painful to watch, but I feel it to. I think other heads will roll in the aftermath of all this. But the cop earned himself a special place in history, argue all you want about all the details. He's no role model and he's no hero.
So you're ok with looters too. Wow you're areal stand up guy. Shame they aren't looting your place. After all, you understand.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote: My friend invited me to the planned protest in Philly next weekend. She also told me to wear a mask to support Anonymous. Having trouble figuring out how to tell her thats a bad idea...
Jihadin wrote: Still waiting on the water cannon to be broking out
At the initial riots there was a news reporter who was critisizing the police's show of force who literally said 'well, couldn't the police use water cannons instead of rubber bullets?'
Jihadin wrote: Still waiting on the water cannon to be broking out
At the initial riots there was a news reporter who was critisizing the police's show of force who literally said 'well, couldn't the police use water cannons instead of rubber bullets?'
"Broken" instead of "broking"......
For those who were around for the OWS thread you know what I mean
daedalus wrote: I'm not sure the water cannon remains viable at below freezing temperatures, J.
Oh,it very much remains viable. Keep the water tank at about 35-40 degrees with a simple tank heater and have at it. REALLY sucks to be on the receiving end though.
But im sure it might be a health hazard if they did that to them during the cold.
Down town LA was intresting 2 days ago. Accidentally ran into a protest block on the way to a bar. 90% of them where white students.
90% white students, 100% brain dead. I suppose if someone died because they prevented ambulances from getting someone to a hospital, firetrucks from getting to a fire, or police couldn't respond to a situation, they'd blame that on Wilson.
Thanks Frazzled, you're the undisputed champion of blowing things out your ass. I can only strive to compare. Happy turkeyday to you too!
An inspired observation, truly.
This guy's way of expressing himself reminds me of a poster from a couple of years ago that got banned. He was a hard talking keyboard warrior, also, that used the same terms. I posit that this one won't be around long, either.
The dude is a terrible cop. He has a ten year career in law enforcement and all he has to show for it is one dead shoplifter and a burning city. He has earned his place in history. I wonder what he will do next in his career. I'm sure someone will hire him.
Radiation wrote: The dude is a terrible cop. He has a ten year career in law enforcement and all he has to show for it is one dead shoplifter and a burning city. He has earned his place in history. I wonder what he will do next in his career. I'm sure someone will hire him.
Oh, the outrage.
Im so sure you have the rest of his records, please share.
Dude, you are making me look like a reasonable and upstanding member of dakka.
Radiation wrote: The dude is a terrible cop. He has a ten year career in law enforcement and all he has to show for it is one dead shoplifter and a burning city. He has earned his place in history. I wonder what he will do next in his career. I'm sure someone will hire him.
Oh, the outrage.
Im so sure you have the rest of his records, please share.
Dude, you are making me look like a reasonable and upstanding member of dakka.
I don't think there is anything else in his record that is gonna compare to this. I think this one takes the cake as a career highlight.
What if he was visiting his wife for christmas at her office when it gets taken over by theives pretending to be terrorists, escapes, steals a machinegun, and takes out all the theives and throws their ringleader off the roof?
DarkLink wrote: What if he was visiting his wife for christmas at her office when it gets taken over by theives pretending to be terrorists, escapes, steals a machinegun, and takes out all the theives and throws their ringleader off the roof?
Keep living in a pretend world where this guy is a hero if that's what works for you.
Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote: My friend invited me to the planned protest in Philly next weekend. She also told me to wear a mask to support Anonymous. Having trouble figuring out how to tell her thats a bad idea...
Mask is fine. For the love of god, don't wear a hoodie though.
Radiation wrote: The dude is a terrible cop. He has a ten year career in law enforcement and all he has to show for it is one dead shoplifter and a burning city. He has earned his place in history. I wonder what he will do next in his career. I'm sure someone will hire him.
Oh, the outrage.
The lack of insight contained within your posts is matched only by the corresponding lack of facts. If you would like to be taken seriously, the onus is on you.
Radiation wrote: The dude is a terrible cop. He has a ten year career in law enforcement and all he has to show for it is one dead shoplifter and a burning city. He has earned his place in history. I wonder what he will do next in his career. I'm sure someone will hire him.
Oh, the outrage.
The lack of insight contained within your posts is matched only by the corresponding lack of facts. If you would like to be taken seriously, the onus is on you.
I think i have a picture for what's going on here.
Like a lot of big media coverage events, I haven't seen enough specific information to get an opinion. Yes, the guy was in the wrong, but we don't know the whole story like did these guys have prior encounters? What sort of provocation may have taken place behind the scenes? Either way, its the straw that broke the camels back. Things will get worse before they get better.
Like a lot of big media coverage events, I haven't seen enough specific information to get an opinion. Yes, the guy was in the wrong, but we don't know the whole story like did these guys have prior encounters? What sort of provocation may have taken place behind the scenes? Either way, its the straw that broke the camels back. Things will get worse before they get better.
Way to go on calling people trolls. Both clever and grownup of you. The internet needs more people just exactly like you. But wait, you say, "...the guy was in the wrong."
Hordini wrote: If by "guy" you mean "the guy trying to grab the police officer's gun and then charging him" then yes.
Yes, sorry, that's what i meant. I forgot the names of the people involved and resorted to 'guy', which in hindsight probably made things a little confusing when i started including both 'guys' in my response. On the face of it he was completely out of line and the officer's response seemed justifiable and appropriate. Unfortunate, but thats the line of work the police have to deal with. Meanwhile the political backlash is going to be brutal, but as i said the straw that broke the camel's back.
Radiation wrote: The dude is a terrible cop. He has a ten year career in law enforcement and all he has to show for it is one dead shoplifter and a burning city. He has earned his place in history. I wonder what he will do next in his career. I'm sure someone will hire him.
Oh, the outrage.
The lack of insight contained within your posts is matched only by the corresponding lack of facts. If you would like to be taken seriously, the onus is on you.
I think i have a picture for what's going on here.
Like a lot of big media coverage events, I haven't seen enough specific information to get an opinion. Yes, the guy was in the wrong, but we don't know the whole story like did these guys have prior encounters? What sort of provocation may have taken place behind the scenes? Either way, its the straw that broke the camels back. Things will get worse before they get better.
Not sure if relevant, but African-American "activists" are whining about how nobody should buy anything on black Friday, and people should only buy from minority owned stores.
Source- Spinning breaking news bar on CNN.
I'm ahead of that game already and have never gone out on Black Friday to shop. It never seemed worth it to me to get stuck, being knocked around in a in a mosh after standing in line half the night.
Relapse wrote: I'm ahead of that game already and have never gone out on Black Friday to shop. It never seemed worth it to me to get stuck, being knocked around in a in a mosh after standing in line half the night.
Yeah, I think this could be the official Black Friday song:
Back on topic, I didn't watch any TV last night, did the rioting continue on Thanksgiving?
“Ware said it`s the work of four men in two cars. He said, “They had guns on `em and all that and I approached and came out of my driveway, I noticed they were loading stuff up…One was standing through the sunroof of the white vehicle with his gun in the air.””
you looters.
@Radiation & @Psienesis? Still wanna defend these actions?
What a great idea. Ruin the incomes of small business owners during the time of year when they make most of their money. I guess props should be given in the restraint they show by not looting the stores.
Well he can't exactly be a police officer there anymore. He'd turn up dead in a week. Honestly, with all this media attention on him, it's safer for him to vanish. Assuming that is even possible. His life is pretty much ruined now.
trexmeyer wrote: Well he can't exactly be a police officer there anymore. He'd turn up dead in a week. Honestly, with all this media attention on him, it's safer for him to vanish. Assuming that is even possible. His life is pretty much ruined now.
Exactly why nobody was surprised.
I agree, there was no way he was going to stay with Ferguson PD, regardless of the outcome of the grand jury.
trexmeyer wrote: Well he can't exactly be a police officer there anymore. He'd turn up dead in a week. Honestly, with all this media attention on him, it's safer for him to vanish. Assuming that is even possible. His life is pretty much ruined now.
He could start a restaurant with zimmerman or something
trexmeyer wrote: Reading the last three pages of my thread has left me numb with stupidity. People are actually defending the looters?
You should read the opinion pieces on CNN. According to them, Brown was such a gentle giant that was wronged by Wilson, who should have been happy to have his kneck gently snapped. Also, they have no mention of him roughing up a store clerk half his size during a theft from a convenience store that was trashed by looters this past week. Then there's that precious picture of Martin .and Brown standing with their arms around each other's shoulders in the here after.
Simply tears me up with the injustice that poor mr. Brown, the looters who "burned the bitch down" in lieu of flowers, and the brain deads interfereing with people's safety and livlihoods by blocking roads have to endure...sniff.
So, I guess it's totally cool when Koreans do it in LA, but it's not cool for presumably white people to do it?
It sounds like the police had no problem with it. But when enough people started asking questions about it and it became either a PR problem or a case of making people uncomfortable they asked them to stop. The cops knew it was good intentions, and it sounds like quite a few of the other folks knew that as well, but sometimes it's just easier to put everybody at ease and prevent a problem in the future. For what it's worth some agitators might have tried to take a shot at the Oath Keepers and then it could have turned into a shootout.
It sounds like the police had no problem with it. But when enough people started asking questions about it and it became either a PR problem or a case of making people uncomfortable they asked them to stop. The cops knew it was good intentions, and it sounds like quite a few of the other folks knew that as well, but sometimes it's just easier to put everybody at ease and prevent a problem in the future. For what it's worth some agitators might have tried to take a shot at the Oath Keepers and then it could have turned into a shootout.
Feth 'em, let it turn into a shoot out. I bet those agitators wouldn't have the aim of the "Oath Keepers", nor the conviction of their cause to keep it up.
d-usa wrote: So you have zero interest in having this situation resolve as peaceful as possible?
Ohh, I do. But the police aren't trusted by the locals, and things seem to have at a minimum, not gotten better over the past couple days (I honestly don't know, I haven't watched the news since at least Wed. night).
The thing that remains then, is for people to ask for help from others' in protecting their property and their livelihood, unless you don't believe they should be able to defend themselves from anyone.
If the police and NG are unwilling, or unable to whatever is necessary to restore order, it falls on the "militia" to restore it.
I used the business owners in Koreatown as an example because the police had in every possible way, abandoned the people who lived there. It took a concerted effort by the people living/working their taking action for themselves for the State to say, "Ohh gak, maybe we should do something to help them"
d-usa wrote: So you have zero interest in having this situation resolve as peaceful as possible?
You know, if it was my property and livelihood on the line I would absolutely want and pray for everything to be resolved as peacefully and quickly as possible. But if someone else decided using force or threat of force to take/destroy my property and livelihood was a good idea, I would defend it. That has nothing to do with not desiring a peaceful solution. It has more to do with accepting that sometimes the peaceful solution isn't there in time.
whembly wrote: If the police is making it difficult for people to defend their own property and looting/arsoning happens again...
Woah momma. The gak will hit the fan ya'll.
What I'm saying is if the police basically leave an area, a la Koreatown and basically abandon citizens to the rioters/looters then people like the "Oath Keepers" or any other group should be able to defend/ aid defense of the area, until such as time as better law enforcement or the NG is called in.
But yeah... telling people to "stand down" could be kind of a means of making it "difficult" to defend your livelihood.
no.
