Looting and Rioting in St. Louis (Merged)

Egginacup · 15-08-2014 09:05PM

Nodin wrote: »

Yeah, clearly he's 'guilty' and needed shooting, otherwise no box of cigars would be safe
http://www.thejournal.ie/ferguson-missouri-shooting-police-officer-identified-1622259-Aug2014/

This sadistic, cold blooded, "fcuk him" attitude is sickening and has to stop. A man has been shot to death. That's DEAD, KILLED, GONE..by an agent of the state. Shot to death! Is life so cheap and meaningless to you that you would even think this is ok because the dead man mightn't have been perfect? I encountered the same dismissive "fcuk the victim" attitude when that Chinese phone shop owner kicked that fella to death in Dublin a couple of years ago. It was a case of "He's not my type of person so his death is no big deal and probably deserved."

Nauseating.

Nodin · 15-08-2014 09:08PM

Egginacup wrote: »

This sadistic, cold blooded, "fcuk him" attitude is sickening and has to stop. A man has been shot to death. That's DEAD, KILLED, GONE..by an agent of the state. Shot to death! Is life so cheap and meaningless to you that you would even think this is ok because the dead man mightn't have been perfect? I encountered the same dismissive "fcuk the victim" attitude when that Chinese phone shop owner kicked that fella to death in Dublin a couple of years ago. It was a case of "He's not my type of person so his death is no big deal and probably deserved."

Nauseating.

*sigh

Egginacup · 15-08-2014 09:15PM

ForstalDave wrote: »

I think there are enough witnesses to assure that there was some issues with the shooting, i don't believe a police force should investigate its own officers and the fact that another force has taken over will hopefully give to a clearer picture. The fact is this was handled badly by both sides, the protesters resorted top violence which is not the answer but the police where also very heavy handed and made a number of illegal arrest(2 journalists plenty of witnesses)

"Both sides" ? A man has been shot dead and the cops, as is their wont, have been denying culpability. Confiscating video footage, harassing reporters, dropping the release of autopsy details, etc., and you expect the public to be "nice" about that scumbaggery? Fcuk that!

EyeSight · 15-08-2014 09:21PM

Egginacup wrote: »

"Both sides" ? A man has been shot dead and the cops, as is their wont, have been denying culpability. Confiscating video footage, harassing reporters, dropping the release of autopsy details, etc., and you expect the public to be "nice" about that scumbaggery? Fcuk that!

Confiscating video footage - Taking evidence is what is supposed to happen. Happens with every crime. Don't over-hype
harassing reporters - no excuse for this. Cops are wrong
dropping the release of autopsy details - waiting until a full investigation is finished first
etc. -?

The FBI is investigating this shooting now. Let wait to hear their outcome before laying blame on people

ForstalDave · 15-08-2014 09:21PM

Egginacup wrote: »

"Both sides" ? A man has been shot dead and the cops, as is their wont, have been denying culpability. Confiscating video footage, harassing reporters, dropping the release of autopsy details, etc., and you expect the public to be "nice" about that scumbaggery? Fcuk that!

Yes both sides, looting an Innocent persons shop is not hurting the police its hurting the person who owns the shop, protesting yes, hell even aggressive resistance towards the police il agree with, but i cant agree with arson and looting and i believe 99% protesting were doing it in the right way but there is always people who take advantage of these situations for there own gain

Tail Docker · 15-08-2014 09:26PM

Egginacup wrote: »

This sadistic, cold blooded, "fcuk him" attitude is sickening and has to stop. A man has been shot to death. That's DEAD, KILLED, GONE..by an agent of the state. Shot to death! Is life so cheap and meaningless to you that you would even think this is ok because the dead man mightn't have been perfect? I encountered the same dismissive "fcuk the victim" attitude when that Chinese phone shop owner kicked that fella to death in Dublin a couple of years ago. It was a case of "He's not my type of person so his death is no big deal and probably deserved."

Nauseating.

If that was aimed at Nodin, your sarcasm detector needs retuning.

Also, Re Cuchulain, LOL at your "fabricated - all of it" post. Whatever, Gard.

Egginacup · 15-08-2014 09:29PM

Grudaire wrote: »

I'm glad that things have cooled down and truth can begin to emerge.

I get that Michael Brown isn't a total Angel, but I'm not sure you've taken the right message from this extra piece of news.

This happened hours before he was shot, and it is still alleged. In the meantime there's no evidence that paints the local police as anything but heavy handed, shooting an unarmed person isn't justified, neither had the response since then.

The fact that tensions eased when new police took over shows this.

Even if he was a petty criminal he didn't deserve death. The very people on here who are trying to soften up his killing by alluding to him not being squeaky clean are the same people who would howl with revulsion if a petty thief or car robber was dragged down an alley in Belfast and was shot in the knees and ankles.

end of the road · 15-08-2014 09:31PM

EyeSight wrote: »

If he randomly pushed a cop for no reason, he wouldn't have been shot at, but he would have been arrested.

oh i don't know, it is good old murika after all, so anything is possible

EyeSight wrote: »

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.

they don't

EyeSight wrote: »

Would the kid be alive if he didn't commit these crimes? Yes.

maybe he wouldn't, as we don't know he did commit the crime. so that question is invalid for now

Egginacup · 15-08-2014 09:35PM

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

If he was a violent thug who attacked the cop and then tried to run then I have no issue with him being shot. If he had gotten away he probably would have gone on to rob or assault someone else. If he was shot on the ground then that is another matter and not justified at all.

Are you seriously standing by the remark that he needed to die because he "probably" would have done worse?
Is that what you are saying?

Little CuChulainn · 15-08-2014 09:59PM

Egginacup wrote: »

This sadistic, cold blooded, "fcuk him" attitude is sickening and has to stop. A man has been shot to death. That's DEAD, KILLED, GONE..by an agent of the state. Shot to death! Is life so cheap and meaningless to you that you would even think this is ok because the dead man mightn't have been perfect? I encountered the same dismissive "fcuk the victim" attitude when that Chinese phone shop owner kicked that fella to death in Dublin a couple of years ago. It was a case of "He's not my type of person so his death is no big deal and probably deserved."

Nauseating.

Your hypocrisy is disgraceful. You make this big deal of a life being extinguished yet advocate petrol bombing and armed resistance against the police. You do realise they are also people don't you?

As to the other posters assumption that an unarmed man poses no threat. If the guy did indeed grapple with the officer causing his gun to go off, rob a convenience store and assault a shopkeeper, I'd suggest he does pose a threat.

Little CuChulainn · 15-08-2014 10:01PM

Egginacup wrote: »

Are you seriously standing by the remark that he needed to die because he "probably" would have done worse?
Is that what you are saying?

I'm saying he needed to be stopped. It's unfortunate if he died as a result of that.

Tail Docker · 15-08-2014 10:04PM

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

I'm saying he needed to be stopped. It's unfortunate if he died as a result of that.

You're a cop. If you were in this situation, an unarmed suspect didn't stop when told to(and very few do stop..) and resisted arrest by struggling/pushing- would you, if armed, shoot to kill?

ForstalDave · 15-08-2014 10:07PM

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

As to the other posters assumption that an unarmed man poses no threat. If the guy did indeed grapple with the officer causing his gun to go off, rob a convenience store and assault a shopkeeper, I'd suggest he does pose a threat.

He stops posing a threat once he is on the ground or running away,the officer involved in the shooting shooting was not aware of the assault on the shopkeeper and as such this had no bearing on the shooting,
if he was shot during the altercation with the police officer that is fair enough but once he is on the ground/ or running away shooting him becomes excessive force and as i posted above unless he is believed to hold a threat of death/grievous bodily harm to the office or civilians(which an unarmed man is very unlikely to) it is not ok to shoot him to prevent his escape, even if the officer was aware of the assault the level of injury to the shopkeeper does not constitute a level of threat enough to justify him shooting an unarmed man

RustyNut · 15-08-2014 10:13PM

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

I'm saying he needed to be stopped. It's unfortunate if he died as a result of that.

What was the threat? and to who was that threat directed?

Rightwing · 15-08-2014 10:15PM

No harm in a bit of law and order.

Killer Wench · 15-08-2014 10:20PM

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/15/the-day-ferguson-cops-were-caught-in-a-bloody-lie.html

UCDVet · 15-08-2014 10:37PM

What's really depressing, to me, is how many people are just looking for an excuse, any excuse, to go steal free stuff from Walmart or the local gas station. The people looting don't actually care about any of this. It's just once enough people are out on the street, the cops are spread thin enough, that someone says, 'Hey, let's get from free stuff' and then everyone who wants some free stuff joins in.

And that's all it ends up being about.

Ironically, crap like this is exactly why businesses don't open up in the ghettos. Which only makes life in the ghettos worse. Decreases property values, increases cost of living, increases local unemployment.

The lower the crime rate, the less likely police are to shoot someone.
The poorer a community is, the more likely there is to be crime.

It's a self-fulfilling sort of thing.

If the poor people would just stop beating, robbing, and shooting each other; their communities wouldn't be shunned and life for them would be much, much better. Local schools are funded by local taxes and if they'd stop shooting at people, people would move in. And those people would pay property tax. And those taxes would go to the school districts. And without the violence good teachers wouldn't be afraid to teach there. And with good schools, and a community that doesn't have every 3rd house boarded up - businesses would open.

All it would take is for poor people to stop acting like dicks. No more ghettos.

Killer Wench · 15-08-2014 10:39PM

And to be clear, the Police Chief has now said that Mike Brown being stopped by the officer was separate and distinct from the alleged theft. The officer didn't know that Mike was a suspect. The police are using the alleged theft and assault to criminalize, i.e. legitimize the shooting.

Killer Wench · 15-08-2014 10:42PM

Canis Lupus wrote: »

So the police are concocting stories and have made all the evidence vanish? :rolleyes:

You don't sound biased at all.

Where you at now, brah?

LostinKildare · 15-08-2014 10:53PM

Killer Wench wrote: »

And to be clear, the Police Chief has now said that Mike Brown being stopped by the officer was separate and distinct from the alleged theft. The officer didn't know that Mike was a suspect. The police are using the alleged theft and assault to criminalize, i.e. legitimize the shooting.

+1 And possibly to taint the jury pool for when the cop is tried

Wompa1 · 16-08-2014 02:05AM

Killer Wench wrote: »

And to be clear, the Police Chief has now said that Mike Brown being stopped by the officer was separate and distinct from the alleged theft. The officer didn't know that Mike was a suspect. The police are using the alleged theft and assault to criminalize, i.e. legitimize the shooting.

One thing it does bring up...It may give credence to what the cops said.

Eye witnesses stated the cop went after them, there was no resistance or any assault.

It sounds more plausible that he may have tried to assault the cop, thinking that he was coming after him for the theft. But again, stands to be proven.

Apparently his friend said there were no other witnesses but several people have claimed to have witnessed it

Canis Lupus · 16-08-2014 02:44AM

Killer Wench wrote: »

Where you at now, brah?

Brah what?

Manic Moran · 16-08-2014 03:02AM

Killer Wench wrote: »

And to be clear, the Police Chief has now said that Mike Brown being stopped by the officer was separate and distinct from the alleged theft. The officer didn't know that Mike was a suspect. The police are using the alleged theft and assault to criminalize, i.e. legitimize the shooting.

That's only one half of the equation. The cop may have known that he was only contacting Brown due to his walking on the road, but Brown had no way of knowing that. If Brown was indeed the person who robbed the store earlier that day (and I'm not keeping abreast the details, I admit), then it is not a stretch for Brown to assume he had been rumbled and react accordingly.

Earlier actions cannot legitimize the shooting no matter how it is spun, and the police are not so ignorant of the law to not know that. It does, however, open a plausible route as to how violence may have come about which would legitimize the shooting. Basically, the plot thickens.

Egginacup · 16-08-2014 03:28AM

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Your hypocrisy is disgraceful. You make this big deal of a life being extinguished yet advocate petrol bombing and armed resistance against the police. You do realise they are also people don't you?

As to the other posters assumption that an unarmed man poses no threat. If the guy did indeed grapple with the officer causing his gun to go off, rob a convenience store and assault a shopkeeper, I'd suggest he does pose a threat.

Hypocrisy.
How about this. How about pulling out a gun and defending yourself from someone who might try to kill you. How's that? Is that ok? How about trying some of that "stand you ground" caper against a thug with a badge. Does any of it apply then or not? Why should I as a university graduate have to take orders from a moron in a cruiser just because he thinks he is the law. You kiss his glutes if you want to, if it makes you feel free. My price is higher than subservience.

Egginacup · 16-08-2014 03:32AM

Nodin wrote: »

*sigh

It wasn't aimed at you, Nodin.

Wompa1 · 16-08-2014 03:34AM

Manic Moran wrote: »

That's only one half of the equation. The cop may have known that he was only contacting Brown due to his walking on the road, but Brown had no way of knowing that. If Brown was indeed the person who robbed the store earlier that day (and I'm not keeping abreast the details, I admit), then it is not a stretch for Brown to assume he had been rumbled and react accordingly.

Hey!! That's what I said only much more eloquently put!

Of course, it's just as likely that perhaps he knew what he had done and thought the cop was after him for that and that's why he put his hands up to be arrested and asked not to be shot.

But it does doubts in my mind now about the 'eye witness' accounts of things

MadsL · 16-08-2014 03:54AM

Egginacup wrote: »

Hypocrisy.
How about this. How about pulling out a gun and defending yourself from someone who might try to kill you. How's that? Is that ok? How about trying some of that "stand you ground" caper against a thug with a badge. Does any of it apply then or not? Why should I as a university graduate have to take orders from a moron in a cruiser just because he thinks he is the law. You kiss his glutes if you want to, if it makes you feel free. My price is higher than subservience.

Living in an open carry state, there have been those who have espoused this argument when it came to the Albuquerque PD - time was around here when many carried a gun on their hip openly - the argument being that you could be seen going for your gun in the old west and otherwise you were no threat. If the argument holds water, or is simply a product of the movies of John Ford remains debatable. However many have said that (regardless of your right to carry/defend yourself) open carry is a white man's privilege and that black men simply could not open carry.

Killer Wench · 16-08-2014 04:22AM

Here's Oakland, CA:

http://www.ustream.tv/channel/treboros?utm_campaign=ustre.am&utm_source=ustre.am%2FFid0&utm_medium=social&utm_content=20140815192403

Nodin · 16-08-2014 05:01AM

UCDVet wrote: »

What's really depressing, to me, is how many people are just looking for an excuse, any excuse, to go steal free stuff from Walmart or the local gas station. The people looting don't actually care about any of this. It's just once enough people are out on the street, the cops are spread thin enough, that someone says, 'Hey, let's get from free stuff' and then everyone who wants some free stuff joins in.

And that's all it ends up being about.

Ironically, crap like this is exactly why businesses don't open up in the ghettos. Which only makes life in the ghettos worse. Decreases property values, increases cost of living, increases local unemployment.

The lower the crime rate, the less likely police are to shoot someone.
The poorer a community is, the more likely there is to be crime.

It's a self-fulfilling sort of thing.

If the poor people would just stop beating, robbing, and shooting each other; their communities wouldn't be shunned and life for them would be much, much better. Local schools are funded by local taxes and if they'd stop shooting at people, people would move in. And those people would pay property tax. And those taxes would go to the school districts. And without the violence good teachers wouldn't be afraid to teach there. And with good schools, and a community that doesn't have every 3rd house boarded up - businesses would open.

All it would take is for poor people to stop acting like dicks. No more ghettos.

"This disposition to admire, and almost to worship, the rich and powerful, and to despise or, at least, neglect persons of poor and mean conditions, though necessary both to establish and to maintain the distinction of ranks and the order of society, is, at the same time, the great and most universal cause of the corruption of our moral sentiments. " Adam Smith, 1759.

InTheTrees · 16-08-2014 07:17AM

And I believe the White Male Catholic controlled Supreme Court just decided that racism is over in the United states.

Looting and Rioting in St. Louis (Merged)

Comments