Looting and Rioting in St. Louis (Merged)

Pumpkinseeds · 20-08-2014 09:18AM

There is no excuse for the violence that's taking place. If a white police officer had shot dead a white kid this would be a non story. There are people behind the scenes manipulating things and making this a racial issue, which imho, it is not. It's just an excuse for lawlessness and looting. How many of those who are taking part in this violence have a job to go to? Not many I'm guessing or they wouldn't be roaming the streets looking for trouble at night.

steddyeddy · 20-08-2014 10:00AM

A mate of mine from states summed it up nicely "the African American criminals join gangs and the white criminals join the police"

Little CuChulainn · 20-08-2014 10:41AM

Egginacup wrote: »

You're correct.
You didn't.

Alluding to acceptable levels or reasonable force, however, is something that you bring up even when a 80 lbs girl is thumped into the bricks by a 200lbs man.

You want me to tell you what reasonable force and acceptable levels are?

Try telling me what they are. How about beating the sh1t out of someone in a wheelchair. Is that resonable force or an acceptable level?

and the cop who did this to a cripple shows ZERO remorse:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TohbY-tHhMw

The prick would defecate in his toggs if he faced a guy who stood the same size as him.

There you go again trying to attribute opinions to me with absolutely no cause. I referred to two incidents only. In one a drugged up man who attacked to officers with a knife was hit on the legs a number of times because he would not lie on his stomach. In another, a very large man was shot six times as he charged at a cop he had already assaulted. All those other incidents you mention are simply you trying to water down my opinion to make it something you can more easily attack. Don't bother. If you can't address what I've actually posted then feel free not to reply.

Tail Docker wrote: »

I lolled at that. It sounded Cartmanlike. "You must respect my Authoritii!". Naah, you're alright, I'll pass. School finished a while back.

Someone should have explained to you that school is just practice for life. There will always be people who have authority over you, if not in work, in the justice system. Deal with it.

hatrickpatrick · 20-08-2014 11:03AM

rockonollie wrote: »

They knew tensions were high even from the first set of protests, cops can't deploy in plane clothes and wait for protests to turn violent before going back to their vehicles to put on riot gear. Above all else, it's a crazy argument that people only began rioting because the police were wearing riot gear.

I never suggested that they did, or that the cops should have done nothing. I'm simpy suggesting that the military-stye response was heavy handed. They're policing a civilian protest, not an Iraqi insurgency. Come on, driving a tank around a protest? Talk about intimidation...

http://gizmodo.com/john-oliver-on-ferguson-no-you-dont-need-that-tank-1623244532

Note they also talk about the increasing use of riot equipped swat teams for standard house raids. I mentioned earlier in the thread a story of some alleged drug user having both of his dogs shot in front of his wife and kids by riot cops who barged into his house at 2AM yelling and screaming and basically treating the whole thing like a commando raid on an Al Qaeda suspect. The guy was suspected of non-violent offenses FFS - the cops in America have gone completely over the top, and this whole incident, rather than occurring in a vacuum as many seem to imply, is merely the latest in a long line of such incidents. Whether the shooting of Brown was justified or not, the perception among many is that the cops in America have become a bludgeoning SAS style "shoot first, negotiate later" outfit, and that's what's fuelling such massive controversy and unrest over this and other such incidents.

Did you ever watch footage of the policing during Occupy protests at UC Berkley? :eek:

So far, every journalist arrested has been because of their refusal to vacate an area that the police are attempting to secure. No journalist has been charged, all are released within a couple of hours.

I don't support orders to disperse if peope are protesting peacefuly. Never have. And I don't support pre-emptive orders to disperse just because a protest might turn violent. Arrest the troublemakers and let everyone else demonstrate peacefully.

You seem pretty well informed on the whole situation, what's your opinion on the mother of the victim's attempts to force the police dept into arresting the officer?

It'd be a start, but I accept that others don't share my view of such incidents and that's fair enough. I don't think the cops should be allowed to kill people unless there's literally no other possible option to avoid loss of innocent life. Others disagree with me here and that's fair enough. In my view, any time a cop shoots an unarmed person they should asked for a full accounting of exactly why they did it and what other options were exhausted before a firearm was deployed. None of that ever seems to happen in the states.

Police shootings of suspects seem to be regarded as routine, and in my view that in and of itself is extremely f*cked up.

rockonollie · 20-08-2014 12:42PM

Killer Wench wrote: »

Mike's friend is one witness. There are three witnesses that have stepped forward with the same version of events. Only one of those three knew Mike personally.

Incorrect, Mike's friend said that he was shot in the back, two witnesses said he had surrendered and was on his knees, the fourth said he was standing with his hands up........ so it isn't the same version of events.

Killer Wench wrote: »

Whereas all of the people speaking up on behalf of the police officer were not actually there to witness the events. Instead, they are friends of the PO and have "heard" his version of events.

That is the one statement that was heard publicly in the radio interview, the police do not consider this a witness statement because it is hearsay..... but they have confirmed that it matches what Officer Wilson said happened. They haven't released the information on their other witnesses because it is an active investigation and there's a genuine fear of intimidation.

RustyNut · 20-08-2014 12:47PM

rockonollie wrote: »

Incorrect, Mike's friend said that he was shot in the back, two witnesses said he had surrendered and was on his knees, the fourth said he was standing with his hands up........ so it isn't the same version of events.

That is the one statement that was heard publicly in the radio interview, the police do not consider this a witness statement because it is hearsay..... but they have confirmed that it matches what Officer Wilson said happened. They haven't released the information on their other witnesses because it is an active investigation and there's a genuine fear of intimidation.

So the independent consensus is that he was no threat to anyone when he was shot

rockonollie · 20-08-2014 12:52PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Come on, driving a tank around a protest? Talk about intimidation...

http://gizmodo.com/john-oliver-on-ferguson-no-you-dont-need-that-tank-1623244532

Can i get that 15 minutes of my life back? Watched the whole video and there is no mention of a tank being used in Ferguson....... prime example of the media manipulating stories and the viewers falling for it and getting all fired up.

rockonollie · 20-08-2014 12:53PM

RustyNut wrote: »

So the independent consensus is that he was no threat to anyone when he was shot

Four contradicting stories does not form any kind of consensus

RustyNut · 20-08-2014 12:57PM

rockonollie wrote: »

Four contradicting stories does not form any kind of consensus

I accept your point so ill rephrase.
There is no independent evidence to back up the claim that he posed a threat to anybody

rockonollie · 20-08-2014 01:00PM

RustyNut wrote: »

I accept your point so ill rephrase.
There is no independent evidence to back up the claim that he posed a threat to anybody

According to police there is...... just because they haven't given the witnesses addresses out to the media, doesn't mean that they don't exist.

Killer Wench · 20-08-2014 01:46PM

Sand wrote: »

And all those witnesses appear to have been wrong - the original claim was Michael Brown was shot in the back, running away. The autopsy has shown that all 6 wounds were received to his front.

@Egginacup

You want to join the police force because you believe you will be able to murder people? I think its better you don't, and I'm fairly sure most police forces across the world wouldn't accept the application.

They did an autopsy on his body. Have they released the info about his clothing? It is entirely possible that one of the shots grazed through his shirt and grazed his arm. His clothing needs to be checked for residue.

end of the road · 20-08-2014 02:41PM

rockonollie wrote: »

Brief education on police training.... they are taught to fire twice every time they take a 'shot', increasing the chance of a successful hit.

of course, many of the rubbish that join the police over there wouldn't be able to be thought how to fire a single shot at the head or wherever

end of the road · 20-08-2014 02:45PM

Dublin Red Devil wrote: »

I'm sick of racebaters like Jese Jackson and Al Sharpton coming out of nowhere and sturing up racial tentions everytime something like this comes up.

awwwwwwwwww, you poor oul crayther, god love ya

Dublin Red Devil wrote: »

These men are just vultures looking for an oppertunity to take advantage of a situation for their own selfish gain

not at all, good men exposing the fact that such bigotry and racism still exists in america to this day, specially within the police and other authorities, you probably are a denialist?

Manic Moran · 20-08-2014 03:28PM

end of the road wrote: »

awwwwwwwwww, you poor oul crayther, god love ya

not at all, good men exposing the fact that such bigotry and racism still exists in america to this day, specially within the police and other authorities, you probably are a denialist?

There's a difference between calling attention to ongoing inequality and unequal treatment, and making inflammatory pronouncements without firm merit. I do not see their activities as being particularly calming at this point in time.

RustyNut · 20-08-2014 03:31PM

Manic Moran wrote: »

I do not see their activities as being particularly calming at this point in time.

More guns and gas then.

steddyeddy · 20-08-2014 03:37PM

Manic Moran wrote: »

There's a difference between calling attention to ongoing inequality and unequal treatment, and making inflammatory pronouncements without firm merit. I do not see their activities as being particularly calming at this point in time.

Maybe there is no calm way of dealing with inequality in America.

Little CuChulainn · 20-08-2014 03:42PM

end of the road wrote: »

of course, many of the rubbish that join the police over there wouldn't be able to be thought how to fire a single shot at the head or wherever

Because that would be completely ineffective. The only person who would suggest such a policy would be someone whose exposure to firearms is solely from tv. The chance of a single headshot are pretty low. The correct place to aim for would be the center of the body so if the shot deviates then it is most likely to still hit the body.

seamus · 20-08-2014 03:44PM

Egginacup wrote: »

Now when I witnessed the recommissioning of warzone equipment onto the streets of the US ...SIX years ago I was called a dildo for claiming 1. that it was happening and 2. that it was dangerous.

One thing I find interesting to hark back to is the John Titor hoax of a man claiming to be a time traveler. While most of his specific predictions are now known to be nonsense, he did speak of the increased militarisation of the internal US government and an increasingly us -v- them attitude building up within the United States between the government and the people.

For a hoaxster in 2000 to spot this trend in the US was quite impressive - given that the WTC attacks had not occurred and terrorism wasn't that big an agenda in US politics. But the signs must have been there otherwise people wouldn't have taken his predictions quite as seriously as they did.

Which means that this is not a recent issue. It's been slowly building up for 15/20 years, if not more. It's only now that "ordinary" people seem to be noticing it.

Little CuChulainn · 20-08-2014 03:50PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Maybe there is no calm way of dealing with inequality in America.

There is no big race divide in the USA. The problem is simply that peoples circumstances haven't caught up with the advancement of society. The same issue exists in Ireland with perceived gender inequality. The average pay gap between men and women exists but see if you can find a job where a woman is paid less than a man. It's simply a fact of women not having time to climb the ladder yet. In the same way, racial inequality is gradually disappearing. It's something that happens over generations.

Egginacup · 20-08-2014 05:54PM

woodoo wrote: »

If the cops feel their life or a member of the public's life is in danger they are entitled to defend themselves and defend the public. Why should they wait for the criminal to get the first shot in or stab in.

when someone's life is about to be taken it's more important to be trained to differentiate between reality and mere hunch. That's why there are so many killings at the hands of American police. They lack the analytical skill to determine TRUE danger from annoyance. They also lack the training or screening to qualify coolness, intelligent police officers and weed out trigger happy, unstable and ultimately unsuitable idiots.
A cop in the US could kill someone on the grounds that they look like they might be thinking about buying a gun and that actually have sympathizers.

steddyeddy · 20-08-2014 05:58PM

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

There is no big race divide in the USA. The problem is simply that peoples circumstances haven't caught up with the advancement of society. The same issue exists in Ireland with perceived gender inequality. The average pay gap between men and women exists but see if you can find a job where a woman is paid less than a man. It's simply a fact of women not having time to climb the ladder yet. In the same way, racial inequality is gradually disappearing. It's something that happens over generations.

I think the problem stems from an inequality of opportunity in America rather than an issue of gender or race.

EyeSight · 20-08-2014 05:58PM

Egginacup wrote: »

when someone's life is about to be taken it's more important to be trained to differentiate between reality and mere hunch. That's why there are so many killings at the hands of American police. They lack the analytical skill to determine TRUE danger from annoyance. They also lack the training or screening to qualify coolness, intelligent police officers and weed out trigger happy, unstable and ultimately unsuitable idiots.
A cop in the US could kill someone on the grounds that they look like they might be thinking about buying a gun and that actually have sympathizers.

Yes it's in the constitution. :rolleyes:
Come on seriously? All you've "contributed" to this thread is sensationalized and made up statements

EyeSight · 20-08-2014 06:02PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

I think the problem stems from an inequality of opportunity in America rather than an issue of gender or race.

Can you explain your point more?
I wouldn't completely agree with you. America has many rules in place for favoring minorities and women for certain school and job positions. Chicago recently got rid of these rules for colleges and they felt the inequality gap for college admissions is gone.

America still has some inequality in opportunity, but they are trying to get rid of them. It takes time and nobody can help that

funny_fecker · 20-08-2014 06:06PM

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

There is no big race divide in the USA. The problem is simply that peoples circumstances haven't caught up with the advancement of society. The same issue exists in Ireland with perceived gender inequality. The average pay gap between men and women exists but see if you can find a job where a woman is paid less than a man. It's simply a fact of women not having time to climb the ladder yet. In the same way, racial inequality is gradually disappearing. It's something that happens over generations.

apples and oranges

you are correct that their is no gender pay gap in ireland ( its illegal to pay someone less based on gender or race ) , women are paid less for many reasons but none are due to reasons of anatomy

the racial divisions in america are a whole different matter , institutional racism exists at many levels , especially at judicial level , such issues exists in ireland too , your adress and occupation are a big factor when it comes to sentencing in court , ive experienced it myself first hand

Egginacup · 20-08-2014 06:10PM

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

There is no big race divide in the USA. The problem is simply that peoples circumstances haven't caught up with the advancement of society. The same issue exists in Ireland with perceived gender inequality. The average pay gap between men and women exists but see if you can find a job where a woman is paid less than a man. It's simply a fact of women not having time to climb the ladder yet. In the same way, racial inequality is gradually disappearing. It's something that happens over generations.

I've heard it all now.

Blacks in America comprise approximately 10 to 12% of the population yet equal in numbers to whites either incarcerated OR on death row. So a black is 10 times more likely to be banged up or executed than a white.
But ignore that if you must.

Little CuChulainn · 20-08-2014 06:15PM

Egginacup wrote: »

I've heard it all now.

Blacks in America comprise approximately 10 to 12% of the population yet equal in numbers to whites either incarcerated OR on death row. So a black is 10 times more likely to be banged up or executed than a white.
But ignore that if you must.

I didn't. I put it down to socio-economic reasons. Black people are more likely to be involved in crime in America because they are more likely to be poor and live in rougher areas. This is because they have only obtained their civil rights in the last half century or so and it takes generations to undo so many years of oppression. They are not being oppressed, they are still simply recovering from when they were.

Egginacup · 20-08-2014 06:27PM

EyeSight wrote: »

Yes it's in the constitution. :rolleyes:
Come on seriously? All you've "contributed" to this thread is sensationalized and made up statements

Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure is also in the Constitution. Freedom of speech and of assembly is also in the "Constitution". All treaties entered are the "Supreme Law Of The Land"...that includes the Geneva Conventions (all of them) and the ban on torture that the White House Fool has recently come out and admitted was violated....despite the fact that anyone with a cerebrum could have told you this for years.

So, enlighten me as to how fervently and adamantly this meaningless "Constitution" about which you harp is respected.

Egginacup · 20-08-2014 06:44PM

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

I didn't. I put it down to socio-economic reasons. Black people are more likely to be involved in crime in America because they are more likely to be poor and live in rougher areas. This is because they have only obtained their civil rights in the last half century or so and it takes generations to undo so many years of oppression. They are not being oppressed, they are still simply recovering from when they were.

Black people in America are not more prone to crime because they are impoverished and live in poorer areas. They are ghettoised because they are not given a level playing field. And for you to say otherwise is a downright racist lie. A neighbourhood in WonderBread like Long Island or Paramus would not bat an eyelid if some white high school dropout with a mullet moved into the street. A polished Black surgeon and his Black architect wife would cause apoplexy.
I've seen it.

Killer Wench · 20-08-2014 09:10PM

EyeSight wrote: »

Can you explain your point more?
I wouldn't completely agree with you. America has many rules in place for favoring minorities and women for certain school and job positions. Chicago recently got rid of these rules for colleges and they felt the inequality gap for college admissions is gone.

America still has some inequality in opportunity, but they are trying to get rid of them. It takes time and nobody can help that

This post makes it seem as if minorities and women had more favorable outcomes than white men. That's incorrect.

Affirmative Action is still policy in many places because Affirmative Action isn't strictly about race or sex.

EyeSight · 20-08-2014 11:14PM

Killer Wench wrote: »

This post makes it seem as if minorities and women had more favorable outcomes than white men. That's incorrect.

Affirmative Action is still policy in many places because Affirmative Action isn't strictly about race or sex.

From a quick google:
Affirmative action or positive discrimination (known as employment equity in Canada, reservation in India, and positive action in the UK) is the policy of providing special opportunities for, and favoring members of, one group over another, when those being favored are perceived as a disadvantaged group who suffer from discrimination within a culture.

Looting and Rioting in St. Louis (Merged)

Comments