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
13567…51

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    kneemos wrote: »
    I'd call an 18 year old a boy.

    Bullsh!t. Infantilizing of young adults and robbing them of their agency reaslly pisses me off, and I'm actually on the shot man's side in this story, but this trend is fairly insidious.


  • Options
    #63
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 28,998 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    PeteFalk78 wrote: »
    The majority of civilized people will work with police in a civilized manner.

    because most of the time the police will be civilised also.
    PeteFalk78 wrote: »
    The rest have either something to hide or have a huge anti-establishment chip on their shoulder.

    oh? or maybe you know, not everyone within the police is civilised and behaves as they should.
    PeteFalk78 wrote: »
    I probably detest the anti-establishment anarchistic idiots the most.

    good for you, personally i detest the idiots who think the police should be able to behave with impunity and the people shouldn't be able to question them or do anything about them when they do something wrong

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #64
    Karl Stein
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,689 ✭✭✭Karl Stein


    PeteFalk78 wrote: »
    The majority of civilized people will work with civilised police in a civilized manner.

    FYP.

    There are plenty of places in the world where running away from the cops is good for your health and well-being and I'm not talking about getting exercise.
    The rest have either something to hide

    Ah yes, the 'if-you've-nothing-to-hide' argument which is essentially the presumption of guilt, which is fascistic bullshit.
    or have a huge anti-establishment chip on their shoulder.

    The job of the police is to protect the citizenry not the establishment.
    I probably detest the anti-establishment anarchistic idiots the most.

    The if-you've-nothing-to-hide fascists are far worse.


  • Options
    #65
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 28,998 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    PeteFalk78 wrote: »
    Respect the cops.

    no, they treat me with respect i'l do the same, they don't, then why should i, after all they work for me and are payed by me, not only that, but i will question their actions if i want.
    PeteFalk78 wrote: »
    Simples.

    not "simples" at all.
    PeteFalk78 wrote: »
    There's more to this story.

    no there isn't, believe it or not police don't always act the way they should.

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #66
    cournioni
    Moderators, Regional North East Moderators Posts: 12,739 Mod ✭✭✭✭cournioni


    Little CuChulainn wrote: »
    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.
    Totally agree, the riots are just an excuse for scum to run amok. The peaceful protesters are different story however.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    floggg
    Registered Users Posts: 5,820 ✭✭✭floggg


    PeteFalk78 wrote: »
    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?



    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.

    It's so naive and misinformed to conclude that minority distrust of the police in the US is down to either having some thing to hide or having a chip on their shoulder.

    There are so many countless cases of minority persons being wrongfully beaten, arrested, detained, and yes, killed/murdered by the police in the US. When you see cases like Oscar Grant, or the recent choke hold death, or the way the US justice system disproportionately targets minority/disadvantaged communities in it's policing, or incidents like the Jena 6 were a two tiered system appears to operate depending on race, then it's not hard to see why minorities would distrust and fear the police in the US.

    Many prominent black people in the US have spoken of being stopped and harassed by police simply for driving, walking or shopping black. I imagine Latinos have a similar problem too.

    I don't know anything of the rights or wrongs of this. What I do know is that I would be entirely unsurprised if this was a case of excessive force by the police when dealing with ethnic minorities, as it would certainly not be the first, and unfortunately likely won't be the last.


  • Options
    #68
    MadsL
    Registered Users Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    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.

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

    Lets be clear about this; there is no law requiring US citizens to carry Government ID. Yes, in 24 states the cops may ask you for ID, but the part that you left out is the fact that they can only legally do this when they have a reasonable suspicion that you are engaged in criminal activity. Working with police in a 'civilized manner' should include both being aware of your constitutional rights and expecting the cops to uphold them.


  • Options
    #69
    Killer Wench
    Registered Users Posts: 2,386 ✭✭✭Killer Wench


    MarkR wrote: »
    Good job you're there to decide who is telling the truth. Have you considered becoming a judge?

    Well, I am a lawyer who has worked in the justice system so I'm in a better position than most.

    Currently, CNN is reporting on the two different stories and what the Ferguson police are doing about it. Primarily, they turned the investigation over to the county.

    So all this lame crap about my "personal bias" can bounce.


  • Options
    #70
    Killer Wench
    Registered Users Posts: 2,386 ✭✭✭Killer Wench


    SeanW wrote: »
    Why are the Asians being targeted?

    Frequently in urban Black areas, chain grocery stores do not open there; Asian immigrants open up stores to cater to the population. There is a distrust between the two groups. These types of actions certainly doesn't help the relations.


  • Options
    #71
    Cienciano
    Registered Users Posts: 14,234 ✭✭✭✭Cienciano


    SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »
    the only experience i have of St Louis is watching National Lampoon's Vacation
    One thing I do know, is that East St Louis (east of the river, considered a different city) is one of the biggest shítholes in USA. Pretty much a no go area. Here's a random google street view: http://goo.gl/maps/xpcPR


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    WilyCoyote
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,059 ✭✭✭WilyCoyote


    Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »
    He was unarmed. He was shot when he was 35ft away from the officer. No news reports are disputing that.

    If the bullet holes entered to the rear of his body then there really is no excuse.
    Should be a top class basketball player if he can shove a cop back into his vehicle from 35 feet.


  • Options
    #73
    crockholm
    Registered Users Posts: 2,448 ✭✭✭crockholm


    Cienciano wrote: »
    One thing I do know, is that East St Louis (east of the river, considered a different city) is one of the biggest shítholes in USA. Pretty much a no go area. Here's a random google street view: http://goo.gl/maps/xpcPR

    Thats the truth! Even though it is technically Illinois. A few years ago it had a murder rate of over 100 per 100,000 inhabitants,which is classed as warzone rate of casualities.

    They have calmed down a bit and are hovering at about the 50 per 100,000 so far this year.


  • Options
    #74
    Cienciano
    Registered Users Posts: 14,234 ✭✭✭✭Cienciano


    crockholm wrote: »
    Thats the truth! Even though it is technically Illinois. A few years ago it had a murder rate of over 100 per 100,000 inhabitants,which is classed as warzone rate of casualities.

    They have calmed down a bit and are hovering at about the 50 per 100,000 so far this year.
    I heard stories about people taking wrong turns and ending up there, the police escort you out!


  • Options
    #75
    Da Shins Kelly
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,048 ✭✭✭Da Shins Kelly


    PeteFalk78 wrote: »
    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.

    When did 'pro-establishment-no-matter-what' suddenly become the new anti-establishment? People who back authorities in everything are frankly more annoying than any anti-establishment person.

    I can't be sure what the exact ins and outs of this are, but it really wouldn't surprise me in the least if it is a case of a trigger happy cop. It's not like that kind of thing is unheard of in the US, particularly in relation to minorities.


  • Options
    #76
    crockholm
    Registered Users Posts: 2,448 ✭✭✭crockholm


    Cienciano wrote: »
    I heard stories about people taking wrong turns and ending up there, the police escort you out!

    Thats if you're really,rrally lucky-as you can imagine,the tax intake is pretty low so services such as the fire services and police are severly understaffed even though the Place is a tinderbox.

    So the solution is more cameras,less boots on the ground.

    Unfortunately for the residents of nearby Belleville,many ex ESL folk have moved to the Town and brought a predictible surge of crime with them too


  • Options
    #77
    Egginacup
    Site Banned Posts: 2,922 ✭✭✭Egginacup


    MadsL wrote: »
    Lets be clear about this; there is no law requiring US citizens to carry Government ID. Yes, in 24 states the cops may ask you for ID, but the part that you left out is the fact that they can only legally do this when they have a reasonable suspicion that you are engaged in criminal activity. Working with police in a 'civilized manner' should include both being aware of your constitutional rights and expecting the cops to uphold them.

    A cop in ALL 50 STATES can ask you what he or she wants. You are under ZERO obligation to answer the question. You are also under no obligation to provide identification or even say your name.

    A policeman or policewoman may ONLY detain you if they state explicitly that they are doing so for reasons that they suspect you being in the commission of a crime. They must categorically state this, state the suspicion and allow you to not speak further.

    And that, is in the Constitution.

    No state policeperson can legally expect ID unless you are operating a motor vehicle. And NO state policeperson can order you to do anything.

    If you are standing naked in the middle of a highway, blocking traffic, you are in the commission of a crime or an infraction, but a policeperson MUST allow you to know your predicament, detain you and allow you representation thereafter.
    He or she cannot just beat you to the ground or shoot you dead.

    Even in this case you are not required to provide identification, only to submit to arrest and detention, pending further charges, investigation, trial, etc.

    Absent of the declaration of suspicion of being within the commission of a crime you do not even have to acknowledge a policeman or woman.


  • Options
    #78
    Egginacup
    Site Banned Posts: 2,922 ✭✭✭Egginacup


    PeteFalk78 wrote: »
    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?



    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.

    Pointing a gun at anyone or kicking their head in means you are ALREADY in the commission of a crime, not even under suspicion, like I mentioned earlier.

    Being witnessed killing or raping someone or robbing someone or setting fire to someone or their house or dog is completely different from being ordered to do anything by a policeman or policewoman where a crime is not in commission.


  • Options
    #79
    Egginacup
    Site Banned Posts: 2,922 ✭✭✭Egginacup


    PeteFalk78 wrote: »
    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?



    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.

    You might start reading up on your rights if somebody simply called the cops and said you were abusing kids or harbouring terrorists, just because you got in an argument with them in a bar or they held a grudge against you.

    Plead your case then when the SWATs boot your door down, blow your dog to chopmeat and drag you away.
    After all, you've done nothing wrong or have anything to hide. Try clearing your name though or ever getting on an airline flight again.

    Let's see how pro-security you are then. A lawyer wouldn't touch you....you'd already have lost your job.


  • Options
    #80
    Egginacup
    Site Banned Posts: 2,922 ✭✭✭Egginacup


    seamus wrote: »
    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.

    To be fair, you are correct....theoretically.
    But even in Ireland you are not obligated to honour any order or even request by a policeman or woman. Now I'm not going to get all "Freeman of the Land" caper with you. You do not have to comply to ANY demand or even REQUEST by a policeman or policewoman in the United States unless they deliver a determination that you are under suspicion of a crime or it has been witnessed to occur during their engagement with you.

    Ordering people to get off the road and onto the path is not within a policeperson's remit nor is even ordering them to stop should they flee. And certainly not firing a gun at them or him or her.

    Now again, I'm sure I'll receive the usual rebuke that is "why run if you're innocent?" Well, I would run if I was black.

    A 50/50 chance is better than a zero chance if I stayed.


  • Options
    #81
    Egginacup
    Site Banned Posts: 2,922 ✭✭✭Egginacup


    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?

    You know this?
    I hope you never attempt to read a law book and just stick to the pitch-fork manual.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,259 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »
    If the bullet holes entered to the rear of his body then there really is no excuse.

    That argument has been long disproven. People can rotate faster than a decision cycle operates, it's possible for a running man to turn, shoot, and turn away again before a cop can react and shoot back. End result is you get a very justified shooting, with entry wounds in the back.

    I'm not saying it applies in this case, but just pointing out you're operating on a disproven assumption.
    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 you on your way. And that's it. They can't even ask you for ID unless you are driving a car.

    Eh?

    Failure to follow a peace officer's lawful instruction is an offense in every State as far as I know. Failing to provide ID on demand will get you arrested in some States, as an Arizona university professor famously discovered a couple of weeks ago after she was stopped for jaywalking (As MadsL correctly points out, you have to be doing something wrong to begin with in order for the statute to apply, but it does exist.). Missouri is not one of those States, in fairness, unless you're in Kansas City, where such an obligation exists. Supposedly MO cops "May demand" identification, though I can't find it in a cursory check of the statutes.


  • Options
    #83
    Egginacup
    Site Banned Posts: 2,922 ✭✭✭Egginacup


    darkpagandeath wrote: »
    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.

    Shame you don't show this much rationale, logic, resistance to knee-jerk reactions, and cool-headed temperament regarding the MH17 downing, darkpagandeath.


  • Options
    #84
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,259 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    Egginacup wrote: »
    A cop in ALL 50 STATES can ask you what he or she wants. You are under ZERO obligation to answer the question. You are also under no obligation to provide identification or even say your name.

    A policeman or policewoman may ONLY detain you if they state explicitly that they are doing so for reasons that they suspect you being in the commission of a crime. They must categorically state this, state the suspicion and allow you to not speak further.

    And that, is in the Constitution.

    No state policeperson can legally expect ID unless you are operating a motor vehicle. And NO state policeperson can order you to do anything.

    If you are standing naked in the middle of a highway, blocking traffic, you are in the commission of a crime or an infraction, but a policeperson MUST allow you to know your predicament, detain you and allow you representation thereafter.
    He or she cannot just beat you to the ground or shoot you dead.

    Even in this case you are not required to provide identification, only to submit to arrest and detention, pending further charges, investigation, trial, etc.

    Absent of the declaration of suspicion of being within the commission of a crime you do not even have to acknowledge a policeman or woman.

    OK, you really need to look up some statutes. There are several errors in that. Start with the Hibel Supreme Court Case which upheld the constitutionality of Stop and Identify laws, about half the US states have such laws on the books, and five of them explicitly require the provision of identification evidence (as opposed to just identification) on pain of arrest if you cannot provide such.


  • Options
    #85
    Egginacup
    Site Banned Posts: 2,922 ✭✭✭Egginacup


    PeteFalk78 wrote: »
    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?



    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.

    Must be lovely.
    So you're stating that you can be stopped at any time and demanded to say who you are, where you're going and a load of other questions as well?

    Now tell me, if someone can kick your door down while you're sleeping with your wife (or someone else's wife), and demand to see your papers or face death, and you've nothing to hide, is that good enough for you? Because it isn't for me.

    Actually, if you have nothing to hide. ... ..nothing at all to hide then kindly post all your email, fb, irc, icq, twitter and any other passwords on here. We just want to have a look, that's all.


  • Options
    #86
    Killer Wench
    Registered Users Posts: 2,386 ✭✭✭Killer Wench


    Rioting has started up again. The police are using tear gas and rubber bullets.

    http://www.reddit.com/live/tdrph3y49ftn/


  • Options
    #87
    Egginacup
    Site Banned Posts: 2,922 ✭✭✭Egginacup


    Killer Wench wrote: »
    Well, I am a lawyer who has worked in the justice system so I'm in a better position than most.

    Currently, CNN is reporting on the two different stories and what the Ferguson police are doing about it. Primarily, they turned the investigation over to the county.

    So all this lame crap about my "personal bias" can bounce.


    Killer Wench, if you really ARE a lawyer, or at least an impartial one at that, then I wouldn't be quoting ANY news sources, least of all a vociferously PARTIAL one such as CNN, if I were you.

    Justin Volpe (the guy who shoved a broken stick up Abner Louima's anus and ruptured his spleen) also worked in the justice system.

    President Judge, Mark Ciaveralla and Senior Judge, Michael Conahan were convicted of selling kids into for-profit juvenile detentions centres and/or extending their sentencing for monetary gain.

    Judges. Not lawyers or low-levellers. Judges.

    So, my recommendation is that you don't use the fact that you may have passed the bar as some benchmark whereby you would know more about the law and the rest of us would know less about moral turpitude.


  • Options
    #88
    Egginacup
    Site Banned Posts: 2,922 ✭✭✭Egginacup


    Cienciano wrote: »
    I heard stories about people taking wrong turns and ending up there, the police escort you out!

    Do you have a point? Or are you trying to imply that poor and neglected areas, or even places that you don't like are subject to different laws than other areas?


  • Options
    #89
    Egginacup
    Site Banned Posts: 2,922 ✭✭✭Egginacup


    Manic Moran wrote: »
    That argument has been long disproven. People can rotate faster than a decision cycle operates, it's possible for a running man to turn, shoot, and turn away again before a cop can react and shoot back. End result is you get a very justified shooting, with entry wounds in the back.

    I'm not saying it applies in this case, but just pointing out you're operating on a disproven assumption.



    Eh?

    Failure to follow a peace officer's lawful instruction is an offense in every State as far as I know. Failing to provide ID on demand will get you arrested in some States, as an Arizona university professor famously discovered a couple of weeks ago after she was stopped for jaywalking (As MadsL correctly points out, you have to be doing something wrong to begin with in order for the statute to apply, but it does exist.). Missouri is not one of those States, in fairness, unless you're in Kansas City, where such an obligation exists. Supposedly MO cops "May demand" identification, though I can't find it in a cursory check of the statutes.

    Nope,

    There is no statute, at ALL for you to follow a policeperson's orders. You have just stated that failure to "follow" a policeperson's "lawful instruction"...no.

    ..again mealy-mouthed. Where does it state in any part of the US Constitution that you have to abide by any instruction delivered by an agent of the State? Nowhere.

    However, you did dilute your language with the "lawful instruction" get-out clause....as opposed to the aforementioned "order". The agent of the State is therefore under obligation to explain this "lawful" instruction before demanding that it be complied with.

    Who determines the "lawfullness" of the "instruction"? The policeperson, or the person being "instructed"?

    Is "give me your name and address" a lawful instruction?
    Is "get onto the sidewalk!" the same lawful instruction?

    Answer.....there are NO lawful instructions because the concept does NOT exist. It is a concept that has been invented to circumvent those who might demand the definition of a "police ORDER".

    And ANY Constitutional lawyer will tell you that.


  • Options
    #90
    Egginacup
    Site Banned Posts: 2,922 ✭✭✭Egginacup


    Manic Moran wrote: »
    OK, you really need to look up some statutes. There are several errors in that. Start with the Hibel Supreme Court Case which upheld the constitutionality of Stop and Identify laws, about half the US states have such laws on the books, and five of them explicitly require the provision of identification evidence (as opposed to just identification) on pain of arrest if you cannot provide such.


    We can argue in circles about anecdotal evidence. The US Supreme Court also struck out cases regarding war and torture. All treaties being the Supreme Law of the Land ...and all that. The Supreme Court can say what a quorum of them wants to say to keep the lid on things. It doesn't make it legal and it doesn't make it Constitutional, just acceptable to some.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    Little CuChulainn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,624 ✭✭✭Little CuChulainn


    Egginacup wrote: »
    To be fair, you are correct....theoretically.
    But even in Ireland you are not obligated to honour any order or even request by a policeman or woman. Now I'm not going to get all "Freeman of the Land" caper with you. You do not have to comply to ANY demand or even REQUEST by a policeman or policewoman in the United States unless they deliver a determination that you are under suspicion of a crime or it has been witnessed to occur during their engagement with you.

    Ordering people to get off the road and onto the path is not within a policeperson's remit nor is even ordering them to stop should they flee. And certainly not firing a gun at them or him or her.

    Now again, I'm sure I'll receive the usual rebuke that is "why run if you're innocent?" Well, I would run if I was black.

    A 50/50 chance is better than a zero chance if I stayed.

    Gardai can give you orders which you are required to follow, including telling you to get off the road. The most commonly used one would be section 8 of the public order act.

    And my rebuke is not "why run if you are innocent", it's "why run if you know they are going to stop you anyway." Reminds me of someone I was teaching to drive. We were on a main road and there was a truck merging. He was blatantly going to pull right out on top of her and she wasn't slowing down. Her excuse was "I have right of way". Being right won't stop you from being dead.


Advertisement