Looting and Rioting in St. Louis (Merged)

seamus · 12-08-2014 9:04am

Egginacup wrote: »

But even in Ireland you are not obligated to honour any order or even request by a policeman or woman.

Depends on your interpretation of "obligated". You can be arrested if you don't comply in that specific instance.

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.

Well most sources seem to agree that the guy ran because he had just assaulted a police officer and been fired upon within the vehicle. Whether I'd run or not, I don't know, but I can see why this guy ran.

Not that running in any way justifies being shot at.

Cienciano · 12-08-2014 1:23pm

Egginacup wrote: »

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?

If you read the post I'm quoting it will help you understand.

darkpagandeath · 12-08-2014 1:37pm

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.

Yes it is They have a duty of care, To stop you injuring yourself or others. Pretty standard everywhere you cannot put yourself or others in danger.

westernfrenzy · 12-08-2014 1:53pm

The guy was unarmed and he didn't appear to do anything to them from what I've read so there was no need to kill him. The US cops love targeting minorities for no reason though and it's sickening.

Manic Moran · 12-08-2014 4:13pm

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

You're either incorrigible or obtuse. By definition, what the Supreme Court says is legal. They are the ultimate arbiter of what the laws are within the US.

If you can't accept that, then there's no point in further discussion with you as this principle is the very foundation of our legal structure.

Nodin · 12-08-2014 5:34pm

Egginacup wrote: »

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.

The law is what the US supreme court says it is. It's the same here.

shampoosuicide · 12-08-2014 10:07pm

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.

why do people look for logic in rioting?

Egginacup · 12-08-2014 10:57pm

seamus wrote: »

Depends on your interpretation of "obligated". You can be arrested if you don't comply in that specific instance.Well most sources seem to agree that the guy ran because he had just assaulted a police officer and been fired upon within the vehicle. Whether I'd run or not, I don't know, but I can see why this guy ran.

Not that running in any way justifies being shot at.

You can be arrested at anytime for anything. That's at the behest of the policeperson. It doesn't mean that the arrest is warranted. A charge and jurisprudence takes care of things thereafter.

Egginacup · 12-08-2014 11:45pm

Nodin wrote: »

The law is what the US supreme court says it is. It's the same here.

And your opinion on the Constitutional Right to Travel versus no Supreme Court decision to abolish No FLy Lists?

obplayer · 12-08-2014 11:47pm

Egginacup wrote: »

And your opinion on the Constitutional Right to Travel versus no Supreme Court decision to abolish No FLy Lists?

You have a reference for this Constitutional Right? And even if you do, how does not being able to fly stop you from travelling?

Egginacup · 12-08-2014 11:56pm

Manic Moran wrote: »

You're either incorrigible or obtuse. By definition, what the Supreme Court says is legal. They are the ultimate arbiter of what the laws are within the US.

If you can't accept that, then there's no point in further discussion with you as this principle is the very foundation of our legal structure.

I'm not being obtuse. You, on the contrary, are being intransigent. You state that the US Supreme Court's decision pertaining to the law IS the law.

Are you familiar with Korematsu v. United States (1944)? It held that the government could lock thousands of American citizens in concentration camps because of military necessity.

And to qualify your statement with the "by definition" get-out clause skirts the issue.

Egginacup · 13-08-2014 12:03am

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

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.

Gardai can NOT give you orders which you are required to follow. If you can quote me this stipulation chapter and verse then I would be very grateful.

Citing the Public Order Act is not a defence of the indefensible.

darkpagandeath · 13-08-2014 12:14am

Egginacup wrote: »

Gardai can NOT give you orders which you are required to follow. If you can quote me this stipulation chapter and verse then I would be very grateful.

Citing the Public Order Act is not a defence of the indefensible.

Duty of care to you and the public would cover that, Walking on a road could lead to an accident. I'm not going out of my way to find the relevant law. They can order you off the road for your own safety/publics, If you chose to not move they can arrest you.

Manic Moran · 13-08-2014 4:49am

Egginacup wrote: »

I'm not being obtuse. You, on the contrary, are being intransigent. You state that the US Supreme Court's decision pertaining to the law IS the law.

Are you familiar with Korematsu v. United States (1944)? It held that the government could lock thousands of American citizens in concentration camps because of military necessity.

And to qualify your statement with the "by definition" get-out clause skirts the issue.

Lawful and moral are not necessarily the same thing. Slavery, similarly, was lawful.

There is a healthy history in the US of civil disobedience against immoral laws, as a method of change. If you wish to carry out a campaign of disobedience by failing to follow lawful orders of peace officers, or failing to provide identification in stop-and-identify jurisdictions, then more power to you. That doesn't make the act of disobedience lawful, and it won't stop you getting arrested. In fact, the only way that the act could be considered lawful is if the court system decides the laws prohibiting it were unConstitutional. But if you don't agree with SCOTUS as being an arbiter, I guess that's that option gone.

NTM

creolebelle · 13-08-2014 5:04am

I'm surprised y'all are having such a heated and long discussion on boards.
This 18 year old unarmed boy who was killed was supposed to start college this week and had a full paid scholarship.
He wasn't a thug. Of course people are angry and will react.
I cried a little when I read about it.

VinLieger · 13-08-2014 8:33am

Whats really scary about this is the visible militarisation of the american police forces that have been deployed during this. Looking at the pictures you'd be forgiven for thinking these guys were working checkpoints in Iraq or Afghanistan with the gear they are equipped with and vehicles they are using

Little CuChulainn · 13-08-2014 1:14pm

Egginacup wrote: »

Gardai can NOT give you orders which you are required to follow. If you can quote me this stipulation chapter and verse then I would be very grateful.

Citing the Public Order Act is not a defence of the indefensible.

Like I said, Section 8 of the Public Order Act. It's only a few lines long.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1994/en/act/pub/0002/sec0008.html#sec8

stevedublin · 13-08-2014 2:57pm

another man (boy?) has been shot in Ferguson.
Seems like this'll be an ongoing saga.

Egginacup · 13-08-2014 3:47pm

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Like I said, Section 8 of the Public Order Act. It's only a few lines long.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1994/en/act/pub/0002/sec0008.html#sec8

Yes, but the caveat is "suspects with reasonable cause".

If I'm standing on a corner smoking a cigarette, minding my own business, and a Garda orders me to move on because he suspects me of casing the joint or some rubbish, I'm going to refuse. He now has the power to arrest me because in his mind he has reasonable cause of suspicion. I'm not going to resist and I know that once arrested I must give my name. After that I will ask for legal representation.
He had better be prepared to explain his "reasonable cause" to a judge.

Little CuChulainn · 13-08-2014 3:53pm

Egginacup wrote: »

Yes, but the caveat is "suspects with reasonable cause".

If I'm standing on a corner smoking a cigarette, minding my own business, and a Garda orders me to move on because he suspects me of casing the joint or some rubbish, I'm going to refuse. He now has the power to arrest me because in his mind he has reasonable cause of suspicion. I'm not going to resist and I know that once arrested I must give my name. After that I will ask for legal representation.
He had better be prepared to explain his "reasonable cause" to a judge.

So he can order you to do something and arrest you if you don't.

blastman · 13-08-2014 3:53pm

anncoates wrote: »

You can't say that racism/deadly response doesn't exist in American police forces. It's curious that you would be so completely certain that this isn't the case here.

Because jumping to conclusions based on Fox News reports isn't entirely helpful?

Killer Wench · 13-08-2014 9:19pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zta9FyoA7TU

Anon posted audio tapes. Mike Brown chatter is 11:26.

Wompa1 · 13-08-2014 9:32pm

Too early to form an opinion other than it's very sad.

Not sure what good looting does as a form of protest. What did the London riots accomplish in the end?

The cops here in certain communities have a crazy arsenal behind them. Some have rocket launchers!

Killer Wench · 14-08-2014 3:09am

This is live. Cops have fired tear gas and rubber bullets at this crowd of protesters.

http://new.livestream.com/accounts/9035483/events/3271930

Egginacup · 14-08-2014 4:16am

creolebelle wrote: »

I'm surprised y'all are having such a heated and long discussion on boards.
This 18 year old unarmed boy who was killed was supposed to start college this week and had a full paid scholarship.
He wasn't a thug. Of course people are angry and will react.
I cried a little when I read about it.

Someone said he had four felonies since turning 18. This, I find, IMPOSSIBLE to believe since (having lived in the US) a simple misdemeanor carries a prison term of maximum, 1 year. That's a misdemeanor crime.....you know, menacing, trespassing, brawling with your girlfriend's Ex, etc. 4 FELONIES would have put a white man inside for years. 4 felonies would have put a black man in the gas chamber, along with his family.
So did this so called "thug" have convictions, or even charges against him?

I doubt it. Drug dealers and street hooligans don't go to college.

porsche959 · 14-08-2014 4:19am

Egginacup wrote: »

Yes, but the caveat is "suspects with reasonable cause".

If I'm standing on a corner smoking a cigarette, minding my own business, and a Garda orders me to move on because he suspects me of casing the joint or some rubbish, I'm going to refuse. He now has the power to arrest me because in his mind he has reasonable cause of suspicion. I'm not going to resist and I know that once arrested I must give my name. After that I will ask for legal representation.
He had better be prepared to explain his "reasonable cause" to a judge.

Frankly, if one is smoking a cigarette outside a Dublin city centre pub, speaking from experience, one is much, much more likely to suffer harassment from a junkie scumbag than a Garda.

porsche959 · 14-08-2014 4:38am

Thought this was apposite:

Killer Wench · 14-08-2014 4:55am

He didn't have a criminal record.

http://www.ksdk.com/story/news/local/2014/08/13/michael-brown-ferguson-shooting-no-criminal-background/14023731/

Meanwhile, the Ferguson police statistics have been examined:

While black residents accounted for 67 percent of Ferguson’s population, black drivers accounted for more than 86 percent of the traffic stops made last year by the Ferguson Police Department, according to a report produced by the office of Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster.

And the majority of the traffic stops (92 percent) that ended with arrests involved black drivers.

Statewide, black drivers “were 66 percent more likely than white drivers to be stopped” last year, Koster said in a statement in May.

The percentage of black drivers getting pulled over by the Ferguson police is actually higher than it has been in recent years. As recently as 2008, black drivers accounted for 79 percent of traffic stops — still nearly four out of five stops, but not as high as the percentage seen last year.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2014/08/12/the-breaking-point-for-ferguson/

porsche959 · 14-08-2014 5:04am

Killer Wench wrote: »

Meanwhile, the Ferguson police statistics have been examined:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2014/08/12/the-breaking-point-for-ferguson/

And the majority of the traffic stops (92 percent) that ended with arrests involved black drivers.

It seems to me that this does not necessarily, prima facie, demonstrate a bias on the part of the cops.

Statewide, black drivers “were 66 percent more likely than white drivers to be stopped” last year, Koster said in a statement in May

This, potentially, does.

But, in both cases, would need more examination to determine whether there is a racist bias within the cops operating in this city.

mark13 · 14-08-2014 5:33am

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAlo2kHN8K8

Looting and Rioting in St. Louis (Merged)

Comments