Ferguson: Moving on..why none of this will mater...

[dawny0826]

Why or how wouldn't they know peace? Are you saying that it wont mean rioting or looting, something which has happened already and you keep forgetting to include in your statements?

Here's what one organizer said, "If some of our demands are not dealt with, you'll see more civil disobedience in the spirit of Dr. King, because we're not just going to sit by and just let injustice be constantly impacting us."
Source:AOL.com Article - Ferguson protesters plan to halt St. Louis Labor Day traffic

What demands? What justice are you looking for other than to get YOUR way no matter what?

Respectfuly, the majority of people who rioted and looted have been reported to be opportunists and not from Ferguson. It appeared that those in the crowd who did act excessively and violate curfew and peaceful assembly were arrested. In this regard, police did their jobs to control genuine safety issues. Why would she need to include this in her statements?

Protesters can make such demands and local government is still responsible for assuring the safety of citizens, whether it's to the liking of protesters or not. Those who act irrationally will be arrested as they should be within such context.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

The rioting and looting is overwhelmed by the peaceful assembly, marching, chanting that protestors have been doing. I noticed you fail to include what happens the majority of the time, and would rather focus on that.

Your focus is way off. Have you been there? I have.



Every citizen has a right to assemble and to demand justice. You, me, every citizen.

Are you thinking that civil disobedience = looting?

Abhorrent if you do think that.

You already talked about the peaceful part. My role here has been mostly filling in those areas that both sides tend to ignore. My position is not to make any judgment until all facts are in. Seems most of these protestors have already made up their minds and the media is not brave enough to challenge them like we challenge people here. I'm willing to take on unreasonable thinking from anyone here no matter the race or side. To some that's being racist .

What are the limits of civil disobedience? Which laws will protestors violate and once you open that bottle how do you know some won't go further or can you contain everyone on the same page?

 

[Alceste]

You already talked about the peaceful part. My role here has been mostly filling in those areas that both sides tend to ignore. My position is not to make any judgment until all facts are in. Seems most of these protestors have already made up their minds and the media is not brave enough to challenge them like we challenge people here. I'm willing to take on unreasonable thinking from anyone here no matter the race or side. To some that's being racist .

What are the limits of civil disobedience? Which laws will protestors violate and once you open that bottle how do you know some won't go further or can you contain everyone on the same page?

I find the fact that you think anyone on either side, but especially yours, is ignoring the looting hilarious.

 

[Alceste]

Heather, I'm so sorry to hear your friend didn't make it. Is the other one OK? And did they ever find out who was responsible?

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Heather, I'm so sorry to hear your friend didn't make it. Is the other one OK? And did they ever find out who was responsible?

Thank you. :flower:

She's recovering. Her story has been starting to get picked up by national outlets now, and she has an attorney representing her. Hopefully there will be more outside pressure to get the evidence available in the hands of investigators willing to pick up her case.

Nobody knows who shot the bullet.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

I find the fact that you think anyone on either side, but especially yours, is ignoring the looting hilarious.

Well when you talk about the police response as if the have no threats to respond to, and you do it frequently, then that is a bit misleading.

 

[McBell]

She doesn't need to. Wilson's entire department was disbanded and fired, specifically because they were so notoriously racist that the whole department was not considered credible in the community they swore to serve and protect. Those are the facts. Does that say something about Wilson?

Obviously, yes.

What does it say about Wilson?

 

[Alceste]

Well when you talk about the police response as if the have no threats to respond to, and you do it frequently, then that is a bit misleading.

And how, in your opinion, does tear gassing peaceful protesters, pointing assault rifles at them and raiding their meeting places to steal their first aid supplies protect local businesses from vandalism and theft?

 

[AgnosticBoy]

And how, in your opinion, does tear gassing peaceful protesters, pointing assault rifles at them and raiding their meeting places to steal their first aid supplies protect local businesses from vandalism and theft?

How does saying what the police do wrong also show what the Ferguson residents do wrong? Sometimes or probably most times tear gas was used when police came under attack or were provoked by protestors,. Reading your statements makes it seem as if the police are always wrong.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

How does saying what the police do wrong also show what the Ferguson residents do wrong? Sometimes or probably most times tear gas was used when police came under attack or were provoked by protestors,. Reading your statements makes it seem as if the police are always wrong.

There is a reason that Amnesty International has been present here. That people in our military has spoken out about how the PD is not utilizing the tactics safely to maintain order, that tear gas isn't even used in battle much less should be used against citizens.

Which tear gas isn't just getting sniffly, BTW, you can't breathe and collapse from the pain.

 

[Alceste]

How does saying what the police do wrong also show what the Ferguson residents do wrong? Sometimes or probably most times tear gas was used when police came under attack or were provoked by protestors,. Reading your statements makes it seem as if the police are always wrong.

That's because I believe the police are in the wrong.

Seriously, when your police are shooting hundreds - possibly thousands - of people a year dead in the street, something is wrong. We don't need to do that in Canada. The UK doesn't need to do it.

The US doesn't need to do it, and yet they do it all the time. A couple times a day at least in the US, the cops kill somebody. It's retarded.

 

[dawny0826]

That's because I believe the police are in the wrong.

Seriously, when your police are shooting hundreds - possibly thousands - of people a year dead in the street, something is wrong. We don't need to do that in Canada. The UK doesn't need to do it.

The US doesn't need to do it, and yet they do it all the time. A couple times a day at least in the US, the cops kill somebody. It's retarded.

Wouldn't the problem be moreso with law and protocol? If protocol dictates that such force is mandatory or par for the course in certain situations, are the cops the "enemy" here or is the system the enemy? I know that other factors can influence decisions making, but, let's take racism, Brown and Wilson out of the equation for a minute and look at a genuine good cop using a gun per established protocol.

Would such force never be justified?

Is there never need at all to look at the suspected criminal? Mind you, I'm not talking about Brown and I take ownership for the fact that some of these questions may be best addressed in another thread.

I take a balanced approach to this, because I've seen on my local news where cops are victimized by perps too.

 

[oldbadger]

That's because I believe the police are in the wrong.

Seriously, when your police are shooting hundreds - possibly thousands - of people a year dead in the street, something is wrong. We don't need to do that in Canada. The UK doesn't need to do it.

The US doesn't need to do it, and yet they do it all the time. A couple times a day at least in the US, the cops kill somebody. It's retarded.

....yep.
The legacy of a gun-easy society. There must be bad cops, but even good cops must be slowly worn down, day by day, because of the increased risk of facing a gun.... over nearly nothing, sometimes. We watch loads of US cop programs here, and the Police approach even speeders cars, touching their holsters. In Bait car(disgusting levels of provocation) the police approach every Bait captive with drawn pistols, fingers on triggers. It only takes one over stressed cop to squeeze a little too much. = 5000 shootings in 13 years.

... and then there are the naive youngsters who want to buy an assault rifle and body armour to solve the problem! :biglaugh:

 

[AgnosticBoy]

That's because I believe the police are in the wrong.

Seriously, when your police are shooting hundreds - possibly thousands - of people a year dead in the street, something is wrong. We don't need to do that in Canada. The UK doesn't need to do it.

The US doesn't need to do it, and yet they do it all the time. A couple times a day at least in the US, the cops kill somebody. It's retarded.

Its because the law authorizes them to shoot out of self defense. In Britian, most officers don't carry guns so that's a different scenario.

Blacks are probably shot more, probably because they commit a lot of the violent crimes. But before anyone sees cops shooting Blacks as a problem, esp. if its a White cop, they should be just as concerned about Black's shooting other Blacks in the inner cities. We don't find the same tension, protest, and outrage on that for some reason.

 

[oldbadger]

Wouldn't the problem be moreso with law and protocol? If protocol dictates that such force is mandatory or par for the course in certain situations, are the cops the "enemy" here or is the system the enemy? I know that other factors can influence decisions making, but, let's take racism, Brown and Wilson out of the equation for a minute and look at a genuine good cop using a gun per established protocol.

Would such force never be justified?

Is there never need at all to look at the suspected criminal? Mind you, I'm not talking about Brown and I take ownership for the fact that some of these questions may be best addressed in another thread.

I take a balanced approach to this, because I've seen on my local news where cops are victimized by perps too.

A Utah member has said that last year showed the lowest number of cop killings ever, about 35, I think. Body Armour and strict rules about wearing it must have made a massive difference.

 

[dawny0826]

A Utah member has said that last year showed the lowest number of cop killings ever, about 35, I think. Body Armour and strict rules about wearing it must have made a massive difference.

Majority of American cops wear bullet proof vests.

Care to answer my other questions?

 

[Alceste]

....yep.
The legacy of a gun-easy society. There must be bad cops, but even good cops must be slowly worn down, day by day, because of the increased risk of facing a gun.... over nearly nothing, sometimes. We watch loads of US cop programs here, and the Police approach even speeders cars, touching their holsters. In Bait car(disgusting levels of provocation) the police approach every Bait captive with drawn pistols, fingers on triggers. It only takes one over stressed cop to squeeze a little too much. = 5000 shootings in 13 years.

... and then there are the naive youngsters who want to buy an assault rifle and body armour to solve the problem! :biglaugh:

Hell, even when there is no risk at all, cops down there are shooting people. A couple days ago some idiot shot an unarmed mother of two in the neck, in her car, as she was driving away from Walmart. She's dead. The reason he was chasing her? Shoplifting.

There were two children in the car with her when the moron shot her. It's like they think they're in a Hollywood movie or something. "She's getting away! Shoot at her car!" That can not possibly be standard police procedure.

Unsurprisingly, she was black and the cop was white.

 

[oldbadger]

Majority of American cops wear bullet proof vests.

I expect that it is mandatory now. It is in the UK.....

Care to answer my other questions?

Ummmm...... not really. After all:-

......................Mind you, I'm not talking about Brown and I take ownership for the fact that some of these questions may be best addressed in another thread.

 

[dawny0826]

I expect that it is mandatory now. It is in the UK.....



Ummmm...... not really. After all:-

Funny.

 

[oldbadger]

Hell, even when there is no risk at all, cops down there are shooting people. A couple days ago some idiot shot an unarmed mother of two in the neck, in her car, as she was driving away from Walmart. She's dead. The reason he was chasing her? Shoplifting.

There were two children in the car with her when the moron shot her. It's like they think they're in a Hollywood movie or something. "She's getting away! Shoot at her car!" That can not possibly be standard police procedure.

Unsurprisingly, she was black and the cop was white.

That's bloody dreadful.....
Over here a shop-thief gets banned from the store, or cautioned if the police are fed up with an individual.... or prosecuted if absolutely necessary.

Hell, shops stack the expensive goods high, in stores with hardly any sales-floor staff, creating unreasonable levels of crime provocation in their attempts to attract more sales. Many Chief Constables here order 'no-response' unless there is a significantly high value involved, because they believe that stores should be more responsible.

But they shoot 'em in the US? Running away? No threat to the police?

I've got a theory...... I notice that some US members who rant about bad US cops have been... well.... quieter in this thread. You noticed that? I can't make up my mind.... is it that such incidents renew appeals for more gun-control, or is it to do with the race card, or.....? What?