Violent protest erupts in Ferguson, MO over deadly police shooting

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**whembly**

cincydooley wrote:
Bromsy wrote:
cincydooley wrote:
So....does the truth as to whether the suspect fired on the cop matter at all?

Nope, everyone knows that if you fire a sandwich at a cop, it's only a misdemeanor.

I mean....the article says they have ballistics substantiating that he fired on the cop....

Did it say whether or not the gun was recovered?

Weapon was recovered... but, family are disputing he ever had the gun.

**cincydooley**

whembly wrote:

Weapon was recovered... but, family are disputing he ever had the gun.

And people are already protesting?

I don't even know what we're supposed to say about this....

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Not to mention I'm not exactly sure how this part is being seemingly ignored on social media:

Myers was scheduled to stand trial in November for unlawful use of a weapon and resisting arrest. According to court documents, the incident happened June 27 in St. Louis. Myers was a passenger in a car involved in a high-speed car chase. The car crashed in the 1100 block of South Grand Boulevard. Myers got out of the car, and a police officer yelled at him to stop. Instead, Myers ran off and tossed a gun into a sewage drain. Police caught him nearby. Police recovered the gun, a loaded .380-caliber pistol.

**daedalus**

Welp, that'll improve the situation.

It's rough, because the evidence makes it sound like a pretty open and shut thing, but then you have to be able to trust the police for that to even matter. I struggle to do that and I'm a "respectable white guy".

Sucks. I feel for the family.

**squidhills**

cincydooley wrote:
whembly wrote:

Weapon was recovered... but, family are disputing he ever had the gun.

And people are already protesting?

I don't even know what we're supposed to say about this....

We're supposed to say what we always say in these situations....

People on one side say "Thug in a hoodie!" and people on the other side say "The cops are racist!".

You're allowed to choose which side you're on, of course, but the catchphrases aren't optional.

**Ensis Ferrae**

cincydooley wrote:
Bromsy wrote:
cincydooley wrote:
So....does the truth as to whether the suspect fired on the cop matter at all?

Nope, everyone knows that if you fire a sandwich at a cop, it's only a misdemeanor.

I mean....the article says they have ballistics substantiating that he fired on the cop....

But his parents say he didn't have a gun!!!!

He must have a Ghost Gun!!!!

**MrDwhitey**

If the evidence shows (and so far it does) that he had a weapon and shot at the guy, then whatever. It's a shame someone died, but that's all there is to it.

**cincydooley**

MrDwhitey wrote:
If the evidence shows (and so far it does) that he had a weapon and shot at the guy, then whatever. It's a shame someone died, but that's all there is to it.

I guess what I don't understand is how people can blatantly ignore all of those things and then go protest and damage police cars. I have trouble wrapping my head around that mindset.

**daedalus**

cincydooley wrote:
I guess what I don't understand is how people can blatantly ignore all of those things and then go protest and damage police cars. I have trouble wrapping my head around that mindset.

I think there's a lot of mistrust of the police to the point in which that some people assume that all (or at least most) evidence is fabricated. The media certainly does a good job of not helping this.

The above combined with a lot of anger and frustration and never learning a means of channeling that into something to improve the world causes people to lash out and break things.

And, I mean, sometimes you just get so angry you want to break something, even though you know it's stupid and irrational. Not excusing it, just pointing out that it's there.

**whembly**

Holy smokes! I really hope we have a miserable rainy, RAINY weather this weekend. (even though I'm a Cards fan, they're playing the NLCS this weekend).

Heard on the news that the St. Louis County Emergency Operations Center (if I got that title right) will be activated at 4:00 PM Thursday and remain activated until midnight Tuesday morning.

The activation is in response to intelligence information and planned demonstrations over the holiday weekend which is being organized as a “Weekend of Resistance.”

In response to this:
Activists: ‘Don’t come to Ferguson if you aren’t ready to die’

Three prominent organizers of the protest movement in Ferguson, Missouri, say they are willing to die in the streets if the police officer who fatally shot 18-year-old Michael Brown is not “brought to justice.”

The organizers told a rally in New York Tuesday night that there would be a fierce backlash if a grand jury declined to indict Officer Darren Wilson, The Guardian reported.

“If they can’t serve justice in this, the people have every right to go out and express their rage in a manner that is equal to what we have suffered,” said Ashley Yates, a co-founder of Millennial Activists United, who was arrested last week while protesting in Ferguson, The Guardian reported.

“We’re going to take our anger out on the people who have failed us, and if [police] are prepared to deal with that, then let them have at it,” she added.

Tef Poe, of the Organization for Black Struggle, said that Ferguson may be America’s turning point, where “casual revolution” is no longer possible. He criticized race commentators who didn’t get involved with the protests because they “didn’t want to get shot.”

Mr. Poe denied that he’s inciting violence, arguing that police “incited a riot by leaving Mike Brown’s body on the street for four-and-a-half hours.”

“Don’t come to Ferguson if you aren’t ready to die. Stay at home, as it could happen,” he told the crowd.

Joined by Tory Russell, organizer for Hands Up United, the three activists spoke in the ballroom in Washington Heights where Malcolm X was shot dead nearly 50 years ago, The Guardian reported.

They defended protesters’ behavior in previous clashes and encouraged “outside agitators” to join the fight.

Mr. Russell, who was also arrested during the protests, argued that Martin Luther King Jr. could be considered an “outside agitator.”

“Don’t be afraid to come from outside and help us do this work. Don’t be afraid to be an outside agitator for some true change,” he said.

Tuesday’s speakers are preparing to take leading roles in a “Weekend of Resistance” in Ferguson beginning Friday, in which Muslim groups and pro-Palestine groups will also take part.

**cincydooley**

That is some of the dumbest gak I've read in regards to this situation. Wow.

**PhantomViper**

Genuinely curious here, I know that the US definition of free speech is a bit different from over here in the Communist Republic of Europe, but don't you guys have any legislation regarding speech that promotes and incites violence? Wouldn't those declarations be covered under those laws and these people be arrested before those protests even started?

**squidhills**

PhantomViper wrote:
Genuinely curious here, I know that the US definition of free speech is a bit different from over here in the Communist Republic of Europe, but don't you guys have any legislation regarding speech that promotes and incites violence? Wouldn't those declarations be covered under those laws and these people be arrested before those protests even started?

We have laws against inciting a riot and laws against speech that is fully intended to provoke a violent response from someone ("Fighting Words" we calls 'em). In most cases, inciting a riot is easier to prove than use of fighting words, because the line between fighting words and plain old (and lawfully protected) hate speech is way too blurry.

**whembly**

PhantomViper wrote:
Genuinely curious here, I know that the US definition of free speech is a bit different from over here in the Communist Republic of Europe, but don't you guys have any legislation regarding speech that promotes and incites violence? Wouldn't those declarations be covered under those laws and these people be arrested before those protests even started?

There's a actually a "high threshold" to charge someone with incitement.

But, you'd also have to take into account of "Risk Management" too... having the police/DA charge this guy now may incur even more violence.

**Frazzled**

whembly wrote:
Holy smokes! I really hope we have a miserable rainy, RAINY weather this weekend. (even though I'm a Cards fan, they're playing the NLCS this weekend).

Heard on the news that the St. Louis County Emergency Operations Center (if I got that title right) will be activated at 4:00 PM Thursday and remain activated until midnight Tuesday morning.

The activation is in response to intelligence information and planned demonstrations over the holiday weekend which is being organized as a “Weekend of Resistance.”

In response to this:
Activists: ‘Don’t come to Ferguson if you aren’t ready to die’

Three prominent organizers of the protest movement in Ferguson, Missouri, say they are willing to die in the streets if the police officer who fatally shot 18-year-old Michael Brown is not “brought to justice.”

The organizers told a rally in New York Tuesday night that there would be a fierce backlash if a grand jury declined to indict Officer Darren Wilson, The Guardian reported.

“If they can’t serve justice in this, the people have every right to go out and express their rage in a manner that is equal to what we have suffered,” said Ashley Yates, a co-founder of Millennial Activists United, who was arrested last week while protesting in Ferguson, The Guardian reported.

“We’re going to take our anger out on the people who have failed us, and if [police] are prepared to deal with that, then let them have at it,” she added.

Tef Poe, of the Organization for Black Struggle, said that Ferguson may be America’s turning point, where “casual revolution” is no longer possible. He criticized race commentators who didn’t get involved with the protests because they “didn’t want to get shot.”

Mr. Poe denied that he’s inciting violence, arguing that police “incited a riot by leaving Mike Brown’s body on the street for four-and-a-half hours.”

“Don’t come to Ferguson if you aren’t ready to die. Stay at home, as it could happen,” he told the crowd.

Joined by Tory Russell, organizer for Hands Up United, the three activists spoke in the ballroom in Washington Heights where Malcolm X was shot dead nearly 50 years ago, The Guardian reported.

They defended protesters’ behavior in previous clashes and encouraged “outside agitators” to join the fight.

Mr. Russell, who was also arrested during the protests, argued that Martin Luther King Jr. could be considered an “outside agitator.”

“Don’t be afraid to come from outside and help us do this work. Don’t be afraid to be an outside agitator for some true change,” he said.

Tuesday’s speakers are preparing to take leading roles in a “Weekend of Resistance” in Ferguson beginning Friday, in which Muslim groups and pro-Palestine groups will also take part.

I bet none of the three are actually from...Ferguson.

**daedalus**

Frazzled wrote:
[
I bet none of the three are actually from...Ferguson.

Then they'll be doing the next place a favor by dying in the streets here?

**Frazzled**

Community organizers never die in the street. Thats what the pawns are for.

**daedalus**

That would imply they're being disingenuous!

**Ouze**

cincydooley wrote:
I guess what I don't understand is how people can blatantly ignore all of those things and then go protest and damage police cars. I have trouble wrapping my head around that mindset.

It's easy. The next time someone posts a factually-reported story here from MSNBC, and you immediately dismiss it because it was on MSNBC, congratulations! You now understand.

**Aesop the God Awful**

Tuesday’s speakers are preparing to take leading roles in a “Weekend of Resistance” in Ferguson beginning Friday, in which Muslim groups and pro-Palestine groups will also take part.

What a surprise the bolded ones would join in on a corner.

**cincydooley**

Ouze wrote:
cincydooley wrote:
I guess what I don't understand is how people can blatantly ignore all of those things and then go protest and damage police cars. I have trouble wrapping my head around that mindset.

It's easy. The next time someone posts a factually-reported story here from MSNBC, and you immediately dismiss it because it was on MSNBC, congratulations! You now understand.

I've never done that. In fact, I took a bunch of ignorant racists to task on The Blaze's Facebook page yesterday for lambasting Danny Green about his poorly executed selfie. And I've certainly never been motivated to damage anything in light of it.

I think MSNBC is the equivalent of Fox News when it comes to their factual reporting; any time I see something reported there, I look to see if it's been validated elsewhere.

Which, honestly, is what everyone should do. And let's not pretend people are picking which news outlet they use as their first source based on their "factual reporting" if they're picking MSNBC or Fox News as their primary; they're picking one of those two because they agree with their political commentators (who are NOT reporters).

**whembly**

Ouze wrote:
cincydooley wrote:
I guess what I don't understand is how people can blatantly ignore all of those things and then go protest and damage police cars. I have trouble wrapping my head around that mindset.

It's easy. The next time someone posts a factually-reported story here from MSNBC, and you immediately dismiss it because it was on MSNBC, congratulations! You now understand.

I must have missed the last time cincy violently protested...

cincy...

**cincydooley**

whembly wrote:
Ouze wrote:
cincydooley wrote:
I guess what I don't understand is how people can blatantly ignore all of those things and then go protest and damage police cars. I have trouble wrapping my head around that mindset.

It's easy. The next time someone posts a factually-reported story here from MSNBC, and you immediately dismiss it because it was on MSNBC, congratulations! You now understand.

I must have missed the last time cincy violently protested...

cincy...

I would have participated in the 2001 riots, but I was at my university being violent on the football field.

**SlaveToDorkness**

Truly, threatening to die for your cause if you don't get your way is the basis of all reasonable discourse.

The cops should ascertain a suspects race and either proceed as normal if they're white or drop their weapons and wallet if they are not. That's the only way. This mob will be satisfied.

**cincydooley**

SlaveToDorkness wrote:
Truly, threatening to die for your cause if you don't get your way is the basis of all reasonable discourse.

The cops should ascertain a suspects race and either proceed as normal if they're white or drop their weapons and wallet if they are not. That's the only way. This mob will be satisfied.

So in that instance do Hispanics count as white, or is that only if they're the shooter?

**squidhills**

cincydooley wrote:
SlaveToDorkness wrote:
Truly, threatening to die for your cause if you don't get your way is the basis of all reasonable discourse.

The cops should ascertain a suspects race and either proceed as normal if they're white or drop their weapons and wallet if they are not. That's the only way. This mob will be satisfied.

So in that instance do Hispanics count as white, or is that only if they're the shooter?

Hispanics are white, Latinos are not. In the event of a hostile suspect situation, a police officer will have to politely inquire as to the suspect's correct ethnicity, before the officer can determine if he is to shoot or surrender.

Hostile suspects will, of course, be assumed to be telling the truth in such situations, and would never lie to gain an advantage.

**Ouze**

cincydooley wrote:
Ouze wrote:
cincydooley wrote:
I guess what I don't understand is how people can blatantly ignore all of those things and then go protest and damage police cars. I have trouble wrapping my head around that mindset.

It's easy. The next time someone posts a factually-reported story here from MSNBC, and you immediately dismiss it because it was on MSNBC, congratulations! You now understand.

I've never done that.

I meant it as an analogy, not at you specifically: the behavior of immediately dismissing something because of the source. You see it with Fox News as well, and my point was that if there are people who wouldn't believe either outlet if they reported that the sun was going to rise in the east tomorrow. It's the same mindset, the source is so biased we can't believe anything. In this analogy, the Ferguson Police is the media source people don't want to believe because they are untrustworthy, mingled with they don't want to believe.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

squidhills wrote:
Hispanics are white, Latinos are not.

I have never understood how this works. I am Hispanic and do not consider myself white, but I have several forms (FFL forms most recently) where if you check the box for Hispanic, you must also check an additional box with white\black etc. .... I don't know why there is a second box.

**d-usa**

Ouze wrote:

squidhills wrote:
Hispanics are white, Latinos are not.

I have never understood how this works. I am Hispanic and do not consider myself white, but I have several forms (FFL forms most recently) where if you check the box for Hispanic, you must also check an additional box with white\black etc. .... I don't know why there is a second box.

Because Hispanics have European in them, so they are white and we like them. But they are also non-European, so they are not-white and we don't like them. It's complicated

**hotsauceman1**

It is an ethnicity. A shared cultural and language background, not a race per the us census

**Hordini**

squidhills wrote:

Hispanics are white, Latinos are not.

That's not necessarily true.

**cincydooley**

d-usa wrote:

Because Hispanics have European in them, so they are white and we like them. But they are also non-European, so they are not-white and we don't like them. It's complicated

This explanation both sounds correct but also makes my brain hurt.