Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Looting and Rioting in St. Louis (Merged)

Options
24567…51

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    anncoates
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,925 ✭✭✭✭anncoates


    SeanW wrote: »
    Why are the Asians being targeted?

    Could be just a case of most of the small neighbourhood stores being Asian-owned.

    Not to say that racism doesn't exist across the board, of course.


  • Options
    #33
    Uriel.
    Registered Users Posts: 8,061 ✭✭✭Uriel.


    Frank Lee Midere wrote: »
    I don't see much of a reason to doubt KW's version. Why would people riot if the guy robbed a shop. Plus if the police have exonerating evidence they can show it. Lots of cc cameras and police car cameras these days.

    It's not unlikely that a trigger happy cop shot someone.

    why riot and loot at all?

    I'll show my distaste for the law (or perhaps one officer) and become a criminal, destroying the very neighbourhood in which I live. Ridiculous stuff.


  • Options
    #34
    kneemos
    Registered Users Posts: 20,419 ✭✭✭✭kneemos


    anncoates wrote: »
    Could be just a case of most of the small neighbourhood stores being Asian-owned.

    Not to say that racism doesn't exist across the board, of course.

    Hoe do you jump to those conclusions'


  • Options
    #35
    Little CuChulainn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,624 ✭✭✭Little CuChulainn


    It's pretty irrelevant what the cop did in the context of riots. Whether he shot him in self defense or cold blood it doesn't justify rioting or looting. people mentioned the cops taking cctv and cell phones like it's part of a conspiracy. That's the job of cops, to seize evidence. If it's tampered with or disappears then that is a different matter but so far there is no evidence of that as far as I can see. This is no different than the London riots. Unjustified and criminal in every way.


  • Options
    #36
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Whatever about the nonsense in the OP, there appears to be unified agreement that the guy was unarmed and shot multiple times.

    So there's something fncked. When you're carrying an array of non-lethal weapons (no doubt the officer had a tazer, club and mace on his belt) and the first thing you're inclined to pull is your pistol, then that's bad.

    This is another of a long list of incidents which indicate that security forces in the US are becoming more and more culturally inclined to pull and use their guns as a first response rather than a last one.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Fr_Dougal
    Registered Users Posts: 9,167 ✭✭✭Fr_Dougal


    Killer Wench wrote: »
    Reports are coming in that they have activated the Missouri National Guard and tanks are being transported in.

    https://twitter.com/StLouisJournal/status/498680629391671298

    As mentioned on twitter, the photo of the tanks is an old photo and not from last night.

    Nice bit of propaganda going on at the moment.


  • Options
    #38
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    They were guilty of "walking while black", I expect?!

    Sounds like a horrible story.


  • Options
    #39
    No Pants
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,347 ✭✭✭No Pants


    seamus wrote: »
    So there's something fncked. When you're carrying an array of non-lethal weapons (no doubt the officer had a tazer, club and mace on his belt) and the first thing you're inclined to pull is your pistol, then that's bad.

    This is another of a long list of incidents which indicate that security forces in the US are becoming more and more culturally inclined to pull and use their guns as a first response rather than a last one.
    This is how T.J. Hooker taught it, although if he'd any sense, he'd have taught Heather Locklear a few other things too.



  • Options
    #40
    anncoates
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,925 ✭✭✭✭anncoates


    kneemos wrote: »
    Hoe do you jump to those conclusions'

    Just speculating, hence could.

    I think I recall similar issues during the LA riots where Korean/Asian small stores were more prevalent in low-income areas and during the riots, the tensions between the communities led to stores being disproportionately looted.


  • Options
    #41
    Myrddin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 33,733 ✭✭✭✭Myrddin


    seamus wrote: »
    So there's something fncked. When you're carrying an array of non-lethal weapons (no doubt the officer had a tazer, club and mace on his belt) and the first thing you're inclined to pull is your pistol, then that's bad.

    The only variable that might explain this that I can think of, is that if the guy that was shot had reached into a pocket or had something in his hand that made the officer perceive it as a weapon. If it is something like that, then the officer was still wrong by shooting first without identifying the 'threat' properly, but in high pressure split second situations, these mistakes can & are made. If it turns out the guy was shot in the back though, then there's no mitigating circumstances.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Tabnabs
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 15,699 Mod ✭✭✭✭Tabnabs


    seamus wrote: »
    Whatever about the nonsense in the OP, there appears to be unified agreement that the guy was unarmed and shot multiple times.

    So there's something fncked. When you're carrying an array of non-lethal weapons (no doubt the officer had a tazer, club and mace on his belt) and the first thing you're inclined to pull is your pistol, then that's bad.

    This is another of a long list of incidents which indicate that security forces in the US are becoming more and more culturally inclined to pull and use their guns as a first response rather than a last one.

    What seems to be emerging besides being shot multiple times, is that the 18y/o got into some sort of an argument with the cop which resulted in the cop being pushed back into his car and the 18y/o continued to struggle with the cop to the end that at least one shot went off inside the car. It appears he decided to run at this point...


  • Options
    #43
    Uriel.
    Registered Users Posts: 8,061 ✭✭✭Uriel.


    Police obviously need to fully investigate the shooting and the detail surrounding that incident and deal with it according to their findings.

    But separately, looking at the various videos of the rioting/looting, police also should be trying to identify those committing the crimes and try to follow up and bring them to justice.

    Sometimes (a lot of the time) people can be their own worst enemy.


  • Options
    #44
    Egginacup
    Site Banned Posts: 2,922 ✭✭✭Egginacup


    No Pants wrote: »
    AKA an adult. Using the word "boy" is misleading.

    If it was an 18 year old female would you call her her a girl?


  • Options
    #45
    kneemos
    Registered Users Posts: 20,419 ✭✭✭✭kneemos


    Egginacup wrote: »
    If it was an 18 year old female would you call her her a girl?

    It wasn't an 18 year old female so it's irrelevant,but yeah definitely would.


  • Options
    #46
    Egginacup
    Site Banned Posts: 2,922 ✭✭✭Egginacup


    PeteFalk78 wrote: »
    Yep that's a great reason to refuse an officers order. :rolleyes:

    Respect the cops. Simples. There's more to this story.

    Refuse an officer's order??
    Excuse me but police do not give "orders" to anyone. The do not have that power. They have the power to detain you if you are under suspicion of committing a crime or they must cease, desist and allow you on your way. And that's it. They can't even ask you for ID unless you are driving a car.

    So save your "respect the badge" rubbish for sci-fi movies and comics.


  • Options
    #47
    Soups123
    Registered Users Posts: 8,969 ✭✭✭Soups123


    Omackeral wrote: »
    Disenfranchised. That word is bound to be used sometime soon to explain the actions of the looters. Gas that these underprivileged poor souls usually take 50inch plasma TV's and expensive runners rather than bread and milk.

    Give the looter a loaf of bread and he will eat for a day, give him a 50 inch TV and he can sell it and feed for a month


  • Options
    #48
    PeteFalk78
    Closed Accounts Posts: 762 ✭✭✭PeteFalk78


    Egginacup wrote: »
    Refuse an officer's order??
    Excuse me but police do not give "orders" to anyone. The do not have that power. They have the power to detain you if you are under suspicion of committing a crime or they must cease, desist and allow to on your way. And that's it. They can't even ask you for ID unless you are driving a car.

    That's great to know.
    If somebody is pointing a gun at your head and an officer "orders" that person to drop the gun?
    If somebody is kicking your head in and the officer "orders" that person to stop?
    Egginacup wrote: »
    So save your "respect the badge" rubbish for sci-fi movies and comics.

    Haha, I think you are the one that's overdosing on sci-fi movies and comics.
    The majority of civilized people will work with police in a civilized manner. The rest have either something to hide or have a huge anti-establishment chip on their shoulder. I probably detest the anti-establishment anarchistic idiots the most.

    States are beginning to adopt "stop and identify" statutes which means the police in the US have more control that you mention.


  • Options
    #49
    goose2005
    Registered Users Posts: 4,798 ✭✭✭goose2005


    anncoates wrote: »
    Just speculating, hence could.

    I think I recall similar issues during the LA riots where Korean/Asian small stores were more prevalent in low-income areas and during the riots, the tensions between the communities led to stores being disproportionately looted.
    "tensions" is quite a euphemism, the violence, hatred and racism was pretty much one-sided.


  • Options
    #50
    Omackeral
    Registered Users Posts: 32,956 ✭✭✭✭Omackeral


    Soups123 wrote: »
    Give the looter a loaf of bread and he will eat for a day, give him a 50 inch TV and he can sell it and feed for a month

    All while wearing Nike Air Max and watching his 60 inch TV.


  • Options
    #51
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Egginacup wrote: »
    Refuse an officer's order??
    Excuse me but police do not give "orders" to anyone. The do not have that power. They have the power to detain you if you are under suspicion of committing a crime or they must cease, desist and allow to on your way. And that's it. They can't even ask you for ID unless you are driving a car.
    That very much depends on the jurisdiction to be fair, you can't say the above is true everywhere, all the time.

    For example, all road users in Ireland are required to comply with any lawful instruction given to them by a Garda. I.e. an order.

    This would theoretically extend to telling pedestrians to get off the road, and failing to comply with the order is an offence.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    darkpagandeath
    Closed Accounts Posts: 24,465 ✭✭✭✭darkpagandeath


    So I'm going to guess there is more to this than meets the eye, Problem is now any information the police release will be considered some kind of damage control and seen as false by those involved. If your looting then your not protesting the killing.


  • Options
    #53
    Radly
    Closed Accounts Posts: 72 ✭✭Radly


    More violence on top of violence from state side. Much to learn
    Canis Lupus wrote: »
    You don't sound biased at all.

    Unfortunately OP has previous on this kind of bias

    boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056909234&page=10


  • Options
    #54
    My name is URL
    Registered Users Posts: 25,068 ✭✭✭✭My name is URL


    PeteFalk78 wrote: »
    The majority of civilized people will work with police in a civilized manner. The rest have either something to hide or have a huge anti-establishment chip on their shoulder. I probably detest the anti-establishment anarchistic idiots the most.

    Shooting dead unarmed civilians doesn't sound very civilized.. or is only one side expected to act in a civilized manner out of fear of being shot dead by the other?

    That's a very civilized approach to take indeed.. 'respect me or I'll hurt you' :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #55
    PeteFalk78
    Closed Accounts Posts: 762 ✭✭✭PeteFalk78


    My name is URL wrote: »
    Shooting dead unarmed civilians doesn't sound very civilized.. or is only one side expected to act in a civilized manner out of fear of being shot dead by the other?

    That's a very civilized approach to take indeed.. 'respect me or I'll hurt you' :rolleyes:

    I'm not saying what the officer did was right. However chances are that the victim was involved in some illegal activity otherwise he would have cooperated.

    If you are pushing a police officer back into his car then you're a scumbag.

    Was the victim unarmed? You know this?


  • Options
    #56
    darkpagandeath
    Closed Accounts Posts: 24,465 ✭✭✭✭darkpagandeath


    PeteFalk78 wrote: »
    I'm not saying what the officer did was right. However chances are that the victim was involved in some illegal activity otherwise he would have cooperated.

    If you are pushing a police officer back into his car then you're a scumbag.

    Was the victim unarmed? You know this?

    Cpt hindsight, Usual in these cases. No real witness testimony, no investigation yet. But lets just say "Guy was 100% innocent" and shot because Black. I will wait for an investigation, before saying the officer was right or the officer was wrong and over reacted. This day and age it’s trial by social media, funny thing is Social media very rarely get it right. People charge in with Faux outrage on their high horse, then end up with egg on their face.


  • Options
    #57
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    Big Nasty wrote: »
    Gotta love the intelligence of people rioting, looting and destroying their own neighbourhood.

    Nothing says I'm fighting for justice better than a free 40 inch


  • Options
    #58
    SEPT 23 1989
    Registered Users Posts: 43,028 ✭✭✭✭SEPT 23 1989


    the only experience i have of St Louis is watching National Lampoon's Vacation


  • Options
    #59
    kneemos
    Registered Users Posts: 20,419 ✭✭✭✭kneemos


    SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »
    the only experience i have of St Louis is watching National Lampoon's Vacation

    Mosquitoes,crickets and fat boys squealing like pigs.


  • Options
    #60
    RustyNut
    Registered Users Posts: 3,430 ✭✭✭RustyNut


    PeteFalk78 wrote: »
    I'm not saying what the officer did was right. However chances are that the victim was involved in some illegal activity otherwise he would have cooperated.

    If you are pushing a police officer back into his car then you're a scumbag.

    Was the victim unarmed? You know this?

    Oh yea great lads the american cops...



    NSFW


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    PeteFalk78 wrote: »
    Yep that's a great reason to refuse an officers order. :rolleyes:

    Respect the cops. Simples. There's more to this story.

    F*cking hell. "Disrespect" does not carry a death sentence.


Advertisement