Looting and Rioting in St. Louis (Merged)

Egginacup · 15-08-2014 05:07PM

Canis Lupus wrote: »

If there was the potential to be shot at in your line of work would you rather be walking or in an armoured vehicle?

There's a potential for German cops, Dutch cops, Italian cops, Japanese cops, Jamaican cops, Irish cops, to be shot at. You don't see them going around in armoured cars. They walk around the place and don't even wear body armour or helmets.

If you want to start bringing in fantasyland movie scenarios to justify the equipment these boneheads think they need then you shouldn't stop there. Maybe there should be Swift gunboats cruising up and down every river and canal and lake and fcuking fishpond in the States. Maybe police helicopters should be replaced with Apache attack choppers and those fcuking Spectre gunships. Cos' you know there's a risk of getting shot at.

There's a risk of rape for any woman. Are you going to recommend every female wear a chastity belt?

Little CuChulainn · 15-08-2014 05:08PM

Grudaire wrote: »

I love how many negative assumptions you have managed to make on the deceased, and none on the cop involved!

There's video evidence to support the fact he nothing but a thug.

RustyNut wrote: »

Even tho he posed no actual threat to anyone as he ran away? Shoot him because he might pose some hypothetical threat to some possible person at some stage in the future, really?

Shoot him to stop him evading arrest.

Grudaire · 15-08-2014 05:14PM

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Shoot him to stop him evading arrest.

Are you serious!?

I'm just glad you're not a cop, otherwise I as a civilian would probably need the amoured car :pac:

ForstalDave · 15-08-2014 05:15PM

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Shoot him to stop him evading arrest.

That would be murder though,
Lethal force is a last resort to be used in threat of your own life or a civilians, He had a radio he could have called for help or used non lethal force.

MRnotlob606 · 15-08-2014 05:17PM

Thank god we don't arm most of our police here.

Egginacup · 15-08-2014 05:19PM

EyeSight wrote: »

what an idiotic post :rolleyes:
firstly Ireland is probably the most passive country around - just look at all the government has done in the past 4 years and the huge garda corruption scandals. We took it without much fuss.

secondly do not condone violence. It's so easy for you to sit at home telling people to throw petrol bombs. The fact that you compare this to what happens in Gaza shows you don't really know what you're talking about.

That link just showed some videos of a march so i didn't get much info. But from a quick Google(only article i found was on RT) i see that they only arrested people who were blocking traffic and refused to leave. In a congested city like NYC that's understandable. I've been to some protests in NYC which were huge, well organised, made a difference and nobody got hurt/arrested
I am 110% for the right to protest but do it right. It's like last year when those idiots tried to protest at the Dail and sat in rush hour traffic on Westmorland street

There's a big difference between not getting violent when your government are a bunch of con artists and not fighting back when the police are killing you. Were the Zucotti Park people blocking traffic? No.....but they were beaten up and their possessions smashed or stolen just the same. And you know what....FCUK the traffic!! Rectifying social injustice is a hell of a lot more important than Carrie and Samantha getting to The Tavern on the Green on time.

EyeSight · 15-08-2014 05:21PM

Egginacup wrote: »

There's a potential for German cops, Dutch cops, Italian cops, Japanese cops, Jamaican cops, Irish cops, to be shot at. You don't see them going around in armoured cars. They walk around the place and don't even wear body armour or helmets.

If you want to start bringing in fantasyland movie scenarios to justify the equipment these boneheads think they need then you shouldn't stop there. Maybe there should be Swift gunboats cruising up and down every river and canal and lake and fcuking fishpond in the States. Maybe police helicopters should be replaced with Apache attack choppers and those fcuking Spectre gunships. Cos' you know there's a risk of getting shot at.

There's a risk of rape for any woman. Are you going to recommend every female wear a chastity belt?

In riot situations all of them have similar armored personnel carriers. except maybe Jamaica and Rep of Ireland. So there goes your point
The rest of your post is just ridiculous so i won't bother responding to it

RustyNut wrote: »

Even tho he posed no actual threat to anyone as he ran away? Shoot him because he might pose some hypothetical threat to some possible person at some stage in the future, really?

If he robbed a store and roughed up the clerk then he posed a threat. Also keep in mind the cop would have info from the dispatcher and they may have told him there was a weapon involved**. Either way in the states there are some rules about the cops everyone knows, you don't get out of your car when pulled over and you don't run from them or your risk being shot or tazed. It's sad, but that's what happens(because some scumbags kill cops for petty things).
Should the kid have been killed? No. I am just saying to look at both sides of the story.

**I only say this because i rang 911 to report something before and the dispatcher kept asking me if there was a weapon, what was the guy holding etc. I said "no he has something in his hand but it's not a gun or a knife or anything" her response: "he has a gun and a knife?". It took me about a minute to convince her there was no weapon. It's like she got a bonus for reporting weapon related incidents

EyeSight · 15-08-2014 05:25PM

Egginacup wrote: »

There's a big difference between not getting violent when your government are a bunch of con artists and not fighting back when the police are killing you. Were the Zucotti Park people blocking traffic? No.....but they were beaten up and their possessions smashed or stolen just the same. And you know what....FCUK the traffic!! Rectifying social injustice is a hell of a lot more important than Carrie and Samantha getting to The Tavern on the Green on time.

Yes, the police are knocking on everyone's door and shooting us all dead :rolleyes:

I don't know if you read my post. I said the link provided only had a live stream with no article, and a google of what was happening only mentioned people who refused to stop blocking traffic got arrested. That's what i made comment on.
And yes, blocking citizens going about their business or doing their job will not help your cause. As i said before, i don't think you know what you're talking about

Nodin · 15-08-2014 05:29PM

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Shoot him to stop him evading arrest.

'I had to do it. He could have gone on to take more cigars and push others.'

Tail Docker · 15-08-2014 05:31PM

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Your daughters husband is full of **** if he told you any of that. He may very well have gotten trained but he'd only be a replacement for someone who left. But basically your whole post was completely fabricated, either by you or him.

Err, yeah. He's a Sergeant. Which bit was fabricated again?

Egginacup · 15-08-2014 05:36PM

Manic Moran wrote: »

I am unsure that the merit of a society should be measured in proportion to the number of petrol bombs thrown. I don't recall Rosa Parks lobbing any Molotov cocktails.

I also seem to recall, when I was growing up, cash escort in Ireland being conducted with AML60 armored cars, with a 60mm gun/mortar, and twin 7.62mm machineguns. Interestingly, irish designed armoured cars are used by the Belgian police (BDX). Originally designed for the Irish Army (Timoney APC)

And if you think US police are heavily armoured, check out the French Gendarmes or Italian Carabinieri motor pools. At the extreme end, this Gendarme vehicle has a 90mm anti-tank cannon. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cc/VBC-90_mg_7761.jpg/640px-VBC-90_mg_7761.jpg

See also http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/aug/09/london-riots-police-armoured-vehicles

If you've not been aware of the variety of armoured vehicles available to emergency services around the world, that's your lookout

The Gendarmes and the Caribinieri are military police. They are not deployed to smash up somebody's house who's suspected of growing a pot plant. Neither are the Dutch MA. They are generally deployed on a saturday night in the Rembrandt Square in Amsterdam if Ajax had won a home game and there was potential for trouble. And even those guys are pretty chilled out. They have a few paddy-wagons and they stand around in navy fatigues drinking coffee. There's no fcuking Judge Dredd lookalikes and robocop wannabes.
As for the armoured brinks vans. What's that got to do with anything? This is basically a money-safe on wheels. It has nothing to do with law enforcement. Why did you even bring it up?

Egginacup · 15-08-2014 05:43PM

My name is URL wrote: »

Military veterans see deeply flawed police response in Ferguson

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2014/08/14/military-veterans-see-deeply-flawed-police-response-in-ferguson/

St. Louis police chief says he does not support militarized tactics in Ferguson

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/article_b401feba-b49e-5b79-8926-19481191726f.html#.U-0DAFotxhg.twitter

Missouri Highway Patrol Captain Leads March In Ferguson: “When I see a young lady cry because of fear of this uniform, that’s a problem. We’ve got to solve that.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2014/08/14/with-highway-patrol-hugs-and-kisses-replace-tear-gas-in-ferguson/

While getting rid of the stormtroopers is a positive development, I'm still a cynic. There's still a sense that these people are cowed and there's still a sense that the cops are looking on in disgust as if to say "We've done you a favour by muzzling the attack dogs but know your place! We still rule your sorry asses!"

Egginacup · 15-08-2014 06:02PM

jimgoose wrote: »

Sometimes it works well the other way about. On May 24th 1954, Eisenhower deployed the 101st Airborne to Little Rock, Arkansas to enforce desegregation at the local high-school.

Was there no non-military force that could have achieved the same goal. Surely violating Posse Comitatus should be taken very seriously.

WilyCoyote · 15-08-2014 06:02PM

Egginacup wrote: »

The Gendarmes and the Caribinieri are military police. They are not deployed to smash up somebody's house who's suspected of growing a pot plant. Neither are the Dutch MA. They are generally deployed on a saturday night in the Rembrandt Square in Amsterdam if Ajax had won a home game and there was potential for trouble. And even those guys are pretty chilled out. They have a few paddy-wagons and they stand around in navy fatigues drinking coffee. There's no fcuking Judge Dredd lookalikes and robocop wannabes.
As for the armoured brinks vans. What's that got to do with anything? This is basically a money-safe on wheels. It has nothing to do with law enforcement. Why did you even bring it up?

A lot of the Robocops are vets from various failed adventures in the Middle East. Low social intelligence, chip on the shoulder, sociopathic way of thinking and bully-boys in uniform sums up the ex-Military ones.
But the OK cops are complicit by not rooting these fuckers out. And just as in Ireland, when the solids hit the fan ........ the them or us mentality takes over their fragile way of thinking.
The Huff sees it this way: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/14/police-militarization-ferguson_n_5678407.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

Egginacup · 15-08-2014 06:11PM

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Turns out it wasn't some innocent black kid shot by a racist cop. It was a guy on his way back from robbing a convenience store and roughing up the clerk.

http://www.thejournal.ie/ferguson-missouri-shooting-police-officer-identified-1622259-Aug2014/

It says in the article that he was "suspected" of stealing cigars and pushing a clerk. You said he "was on his way back from [definitely] stealing cigars and "roughing up" the clerk".

Very easy to massage the language to fit your own agenda. Is the guy in the CCTV footage Brown? Were cigars found on him? Does that then justify killing him?

Egginacup · 15-08-2014 06:14PM

InTheTrees wrote: »

Pretty interesting developments over the last few days.

The lunatic militarization of police with 2nd hand iraq war gear has been now shown to be utterly counter productive. All thanks to the morons at Ferguson PD.

I would imagine this will mean a drastic change in police tactics around the country.

It's not just Ferguson. These tactics are used everywhere. Every police department in the US now has military materiel.

Wompa1 · 15-08-2014 06:18PM

Egginacup wrote: »

It says in the article that he was "suspected" of stealing cigars and pushing a clerk. You said he "was on his way back from [definitely] stealing cigars and "roughing up" the clerk".

Very easy to massage the language to fit your own agenda. Is the guy in the CCTV footage Brown? Were cigars found on him? Does that then justify killing him?

Sure looks like it from the pictures:

WARNING: Contains a picture of Michael Brown dead on the ground

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BvF6w4ZIIAAHkcP.jpg:large

But no, I don't think it justifies killing the guy. Particularly if the eye witness accounts are accurate. That the first shot was in the head and then subsequent shots were fired into his body...that should have the cop in question prosecuted

InTheTrees · 15-08-2014 06:24PM

Egginacup wrote: »

It's not just Ferguson. These tactics are used everywhere. Every police department in the US now has military materiel.

Er no. I never said it was.

I said the national conversation today is about how fcuking dumb and stupid it is for local police forces around the USA to be using this 2nd hand iraq war gear.

And how the experience in ferguson has shown up how counter productive it is.

The picture of the para-military sniper on top of the truck aiming his weapon into the crowd went viral yesterday and probably was a major contributor to the switch in tactics.

Little CuChulainn · 15-08-2014 06:28PM

ForstalDave wrote: »

That would be murder though,
Lethal force is a last resort to be used in threat of your own life or a civilians, He had a radio he could have called for help or used non lethal force.

Lethal force can also be used to prevent an escape from custody in many states, all of them probably.

Tail Docker wrote: »

Err, yeah. He's a Sergeant. Which bit was fabricated again?

All of it.

Egginacup wrote: »

It says in the article that he was "suspected" of stealing cigars and pushing a clerk. You said he "was on his way back from [definitely] stealing cigars and "roughing up" the clerk".

Very easy to massage the language to fit your own agenda. Is the guy in the CCTV footage Brown? Were cigars found on him? Does that then justify killing him?

It shows him in the video stills and the police report specifically names him as the person involved. If the guy was a robber who had no issue using violence and he also attacked an armed policeman then I think stopping him from escaping was pretty necessary. Some people obviously disagree. I don't care if he used violence to rob a box of cigars or the crown jewels. It's completely irrelevant as far as I am concerned. What matters is his use of violence to take what he wants.

Like I've already said, if he was shot after being subdued then that is a completely different matter and if the forensic evidence shows that then I will have no problem changing my opinion on the shooting. But for now the evidence points at a violent man trying to escape from police and I've no issue with someone like that being subject to lethal force to prevent his escape.

Nodin · 15-08-2014 06:37PM

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

It shows him in the video stills and the police report specifically names him as the person involved. If the guy was a robber who had no issue using violence and he also attacked an armed policeman then I think stopping him from escaping was pretty necessary. Some people obviously disagree. I don't care if he used violence to rob a box of cigars or the crown jewels. It's completely irrelevant as far as I am concerned. What matters is his use of violence to take what he wants.

Like I've already said, if he was shot after being subdued then that is a completely different matter and if the forensic evidence shows that then I will have no problem changing my opinion on the shooting. But for now the evidence points at a violent man trying to escape from police and I've no issue with someone like that being subject to lethal force to prevent his escape.

Yep. It's a known fact that pushing leads to serial killing, often within minutes. Who knows how many would have been beheaded and left cigarless?

EyeSight · 15-08-2014 06:47PM

Nodin wrote: »

Yep. It's a known fact that pushing leads to serial killing, often within minutes. Who knows how many would have been beheaded and left cigarless?

Why do people keep exaggerating the facts? Do you just read headlines or do you refuse to remember the facts?

If he randomly pushed a cop for no reason, he wouldn't have been shot at, but he would have been arrested. But the facts say that he committed a robbery, assaulted a store clerk, pushed an armed officer, attempted to evade arrest and was shot in doing so.
For a second, try to look at this objectively. A cop on patrol gets a call on the radio stating a man committed robbery and assaulted a clerk. Does the dispatcher say "it was only a cigar, he's definitely unarmed, he barely touched the clerk"? Probably not. The cop doesn't know if he just beat the clerk bloody, has a weapon, is capable of murder etc. So obviously the cop is on edge, even more so when the guy assaults him and runs

Should the kid have been shot dead? No. I would prefer if someone does need to get shot for evading, it would be in the legs.
Would the kid be alive if he didn't commit these crimes? Yes. But don't focus on that

Nodin · 15-08-2014 06:58PM

EyeSight wrote: »

Why do people keep (...........) Yes. But don't focus on that

I'm keeping a sense of proportion. If you did the same, you might not fly off the handle as quick.

EyeSight · 15-08-2014 07:00PM

Nodin wrote: »

I'm keeping a sense of proportion. If you did the same, you might not fly off the handle as quick.

Did you read the post? I was obviously sarcastic in my last sentence
If i wasn't then my post would make no sense

Little CuChulainn · 15-08-2014 08:06PM

Nodin wrote: »

I'm keeping a sense of proportion. If you did the same, you might not fly off the handle as quick.

No you aren't. You're trying to play down a robbery to justify retaining the opinion you had before you knew about it. You're making a big deal over the fact it was only a box of cigars. But if you thought about it logically you'd realise that a person willing to commit robbery and assault for a box of cigars is much more dangerous and likely to reoffend frequently because his reward to risk ratio is so low and his conscience is either missin or ignored.

Nodin · 15-08-2014 08:15PM

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

No you aren't. You're trying to play down a robbery.

....a box of cigars.

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

to justify retaining the opinion you had before you knew about it..

What was my opinion before I knew about it?

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

You're making a big deal over the fact it was only a box of cigars. But if you thought about it logically you'd realise that a person willing to commit robbery and assault for a box of cigars is much more dangerous and likely to reoffend frequently because his reward to risk ratio is so low and his conscience is either missin or ignored.

Takes box of cigars - beheading 7/11 store clerks across all the states. Absolutely. The only thing to do is gun them down and do it quick.

What about kids playing "Doctors and Nurses"? Bound to be perverts in the long run. Castration or shooting?

EyeSight · 15-08-2014 08:23PM

Nodin wrote: »

....a box of cigars.

What was my opinion before I knew about it?

Takes box of cigars - beheading 7/11 store clerks across all the states. Absolutely. The only thing to do is gun them down and do it quick.

What about kids playing "Doctors and Nurses"? Bound to be perverts in the long run. Castration or shooting?

:rolleyes: <-- The only way i can respond to this. You cannot answer any of our points. You just spew out sensationalized "points" and exaggerated hypotheticals while ignoring facts.

The daily mail headlines make better points than you

RustyNut · 15-08-2014 08:24PM

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

No you aren't. You're trying to play down a robbery to justify retaining the opinion you had before you knew about it. You're making a big deal over the fact it was only a box of cigars. But if you thought about it logically you'd realise that a person willing to commit robbery and assault for a box of cigars is much more dangerous and likely to reoffend frequently because his reward to risk ratio is so low and his conscience is either missin or ignored.

A person who is willing to kill someone who poses no threat to them is probably a bigger threat to society than a thief.

Nodin · 15-08-2014 08:26PM

EyeSight wrote: »

:rolleyes: <-- The only way i can respond to this. You cannot answer any of our points. You just spew out sensationalized "points" and exaggerated hypotheticals while ignoring facts.

The daily mail headlines make better points than you

Points. Guy takes a box of cigars and pushes a fella = okay to shoot him down while he was running away later on that night. Yeah, that's a point that really needs me to consult the great phillosophers allright.

ForstalDave · 15-08-2014 08:55PM

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Lethal force can also be used to prevent an escape from custody in many states, all of them probably.

In the United States, this is governed by Tennessee v. Garner, (U.S. Supreme Court 1985) which said that "deadly force...may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others

I believe an unarmed man can be defined as not possessing a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to a person. As it is a supreme court it means that states law cant not overule its decisions so shooting an unarmed suspect even when running away is not legal and as such constitutes murder

Manic Moran · 15-08-2014 09:00PM

Egginacup wrote: »

The Gendarmes and the Caribinieri are military police. They are not deployed to smash up somebody's house who's suspected of growing a pot plant. Neither are the Dutch MA. They are generally deployed on a saturday night in the Rembrandt Square in Amsterdam if Ajax had won a home game and there was potential for trouble. And even those guys are pretty chilled out. They have a few paddy-wagons and they stand around in navy fatigues drinking coffee. There's no fcuking Judge Dredd lookalikes and robocop wannabes.
As for the armoured brinks vans. What's that got to do with anything? This is basically a money-safe on wheels. It has nothing to do with law enforcement. Why did you even bring it up?

The French Gendarmerie are the sole police force for about half the French population, which are out of the coverage of the French National Police (who generally focus on urban areas). That they are funded as part of the Ministry of Defence is irrelevant to the fact that they have a job as primary civilian law enforcement and, if necessary, they can draw on some pretty hefty equipment.

The relevance of the cash in transit comment is that the security from crime was provided in Ireland by front line military vehicles.

And no, American police do not roam around in their APCs. They're a tad expensive to run. Like every other nation's police else, they're kept in the motor pool and only brought out when there's a perceived need or for open days

Looting and Rioting in St. Louis (Merged)

Comments