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.

 cincydooley wrote:
Thats an interesting point, actually.

At what point do we stop calling it rioting and start calling it terrorism?

The label "Terrorism" and "Rioting" are two different animal Cincy.

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.

 whembly wrote:

 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"?

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.

 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.

 CptJake wrote:

 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.

Those people are wrong.

 cincydooley wrote:

 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:

 cincydooley wrote:

 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.

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..

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 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.

There are so many things wrong with that..

Dude... really?

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

In your opinion. In their opinion they are right. Do you get it now?

I never didn't get it.

Looting is illegal, and as such, they are wrong.

I believe looting is morally wrong, too, but that's beside the point.

 whembly wrote:

 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.

 cincydooley wrote:
Looting is illegal, and as such, they are wrong.

So by going against the Crown the original colonies were also wrong? Is right and wrong as simple as legal and illegal? Interesting.

 Psienesis wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 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.

Think about what you're actually saying.

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.

 Ahtman wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
Looting is illegal, and as such, they are wrong.

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.

 Ahtman wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
Looting is illegal, and as such, they are wrong.

So by going against the Crown the original colonies were also wrong? Is right and wrong as simple as legal and illegal? Interesting.

Fair point.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CptJake wrote:
[

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.

I agree.

 cincydooley wrote:


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.

 CptJake wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
Looting is illegal, and as such, they are wrong.

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?

 Ahtman wrote:

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.

1700"s to 2014
Revolution to Rioting
Yep both the same
Firm belief that Beer Math is real

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

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.

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CptJake wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cincydooley wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

In your opinion. In their opinion they are right. Do you get it now?

I never didn't get it.

Looting is illegal, and as such, they are wrong.

I believe looting is morally wrong, too, but that's beside the point.

You still don't get it. What i am saying is that you shouldn't call them terrorists because you disagree with them.

 CptJake wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
Looting is illegal, and as such, they are wrong.

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.

It's a fething sickening comparison.

 cincydooley wrote:
Thats an interesting point, actually.

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.

 jasper76 wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

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?