Jay Nixon Declares State Of Emergency, Curfew In Ferguson

[Exocet]

Wow..

Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon (D) has signed an order declaring a state of emergency and ordering a curfew in Ferguson, he announced in a press conference on Saturday.

The curfew will last from midnight to 5 a.m., according to Capt. Ronald Johnson of the Missouri State Highway Patrol, who also spoke at the press conference.

"What we're doing now is not who we are," Johnson said amid shouts from community members during the press conference.

Johnson noted there would be no trucks or tear gas used to enforce the curfew. He acknowledged that tear gas had been used against protesters early Saturday morning, but said he did not order officers to take that action.

Below, more from the AP:

FERGUSON, Mo. (AP) — Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon says he's declared a state of emergency and is implementing a curfew in the St. Louis suburb where a black teenager was shot to death by a white police officer a week ago.

Nixon said Saturday that the state will not allow a handful of looters to endanger the community and that there must be calm if justice is to be served. The curfew will run from midnight to 5 a.m.

Tensions in Ferguson flared late Friday after police released the name of the officer who fatally shot 18-year-old Michael Brown and documents alleging Brown robbed a store before he died.

Nixon also says the U.S. Department of Justice is beefing up its investigation of the shooting and there are dozens of FBI agents on the ground working on the investigation.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/16/ferguson-state-of-emergency_n_5684739.html

[TheN3rdyOutcast]

Here we go again, another case of white on black crime sends an earthquake through the country. Oy.

I don't get why, when it's white on black crime, everybody goes into an uproar, and the whole country seems to freeze, but in Black on white crime, nobody really gives a fuck.

[thatcountrykid]

Here we go again, another case of white on black crime sends an earthquake through the country. Oy.

I don't get why, when it's white on black crime, everybody goes into an uproar, and the whole country seems to freeze, but in Black on white crime, nobody really gives a fuck.

^^^exactly

And actually this happens last night and rioters broke it and continued rioting.

[Southside]

Here we go again, another case of white on black crime sends an earthquake through the country. Oy.

I don't get why, when it's white on black crime, everybody goes into an uproar, and the whole country seems to freeze, but in Black on white crime, nobody really gives a fuck.


^^^exactly

And actually this happens last night and rioters broke it and continued rioting.

Ahh of course you'll jump on the race situation not the fact that our community police forces who are here to "serve and protect" are rolling around with M16's and night vision goggles. You guys should be outraged at our militarized police departments. The most those police officers should have is some riot equipment, not a 50 Cal sniper rifle, not a assault rifle with 30 rounds, not a armored personnel carrier that can withstand a IED blast.

Are the Missouri State Police fighting the Taliban or some rioters with rocks and pipes?

Don't make this a issue of race, why are WHITE journalist being detained and harassed by the police in Ferguson?http://www.nationaljournal.com/domesticpolicy/how-police-are-keeping-journalists-from-doing-their-jobs-in-ferguson-20140814

Why are foreign news agencies being targeted with tear gas in Ferguson?http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/14/al-jazeera-ferguson-tear-gas-journalists_n_5678081.html

That's what you should be concerned about, not the fact that the unarmed teen was black and the officer was white.

Why are news reporters being hassled for simply sitting down at Mcdonalds?
http://eater.com/archives/2014/08/14/journalists-arrested-at-mcdonalds-in-ferguson-missouri.php

Why are humvees that are meant for combat situations being bought for our community police departments with our tax dollars?
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/8/14/police-militarizationfergusonmikebrown.html

And you wonder why people see the police as a threat, no one wants to look out their window and see a police officer with a M16

[Exocet]

Ahh of course you'll jump at the fact but not the fact that our community police forces who are here to "serve and protect" are rolling around with M16's and night vision goggles. You guys should be outraged at our militarized police departments. The most those police officers should have is some riot equipment, not a 50 Cal sniper rifle, not a assault rifle with 30 rounds, not a armored personnel carrier that can withstand a IED blast.


Comparisons between the Ferguson Police (On the left) and the US army in Iraq and Afghanistan. (on the right)

http://rack.3.mshcdn.com/media/ZgkyMDE0LzA4LzEzL2NlL01pbGl0YXJpemF0LmU3YjRjLmpwZwpwCXRodW1iCTE0NDB4MTAwMD4KZQlq cGc/dc60e544/594/Militarization%20of%20Police%2001.jpg

http://rack.1.mshcdn.com/media/ZgkyMDE0LzA4LzEzL2NlL01pbGl0YXJpemF0LmZmNGM0LmpwZwpwCXRodW1iCTE0NDB4MTAwMD4KZQlq cGc/dfdc0ffe/7b6/Militarization%20of%20Police%2002.jpg

http://rack.2.mshcdn.com/media/ZgkyMDE0LzA4LzEzL2NlL01pbGl0YXJpemF0LjhlN2NkLmpwZwpwCXRodW1iCTE0NDB4MTAwMD4KZQlq cGc/9a97b403/691/Militarization%20of%20Police%2003.jpg

http://rack.3.mshcdn.com/media/ZgkyMDE0LzA4LzEzL2NlL01pbGl0YXJpemF0LmZmNWY0LmpwZwpwCXRodW1iCTE0NDB4MTAwMD4KZQlq cGc/19b7f7e0/643/Militarization%20of%20Police%2004.jpg

http://rack.1.mshcdn.com/media/ZgkyMDE0LzA4LzEzL2NlL01pbGl0YXJpemF0LjIxMTQxLmpwZwpwCXRodW1iCTE0NDB4MTAwMD4KZQlq cGc/d0e24fd4/1b8/Militarization%20of%20Police%2005.jpg

http://rack.2.mshcdn.com/media/ZgkyMDE0LzA4LzEzL2NlL01pbGl0YXJpemF0LmQ1ODAyLmpwZwpwCXRodW1iCTE0NDB4MTAwMD4KZQlq cGc/b1e4edcb/6af/Militarization%20of%20Police%2006.jpg

http://images.dailykos.com/images/99807/large/militarization_of_cops.png?1408026160

[Pulp501]

Here we go again, another case of white on black crime sends an earthquake through the country. Oy.

I don't get why, when it's white on black crime, everybody goes into an uproar, and the whole country seems to freeze, but in Black on white crime, nobody really gives a fuck.

I agree, there's more black on black, and black on white crime, but no one really cares about that. The media is a huge problem in promoting it too, and people don't even try to learn about what happened. Anyone who did a little research would tell you that George Zimmerman was almost certainly not guilty, and there was never gonna be enough evidence to convict him.

[Harry Smith]

I agree, there's more black on black, and black on white crime, but no one really cares about that. The media is a huge problem in promoting it too, and people don't even try to learn about what happened. Anyone who did a little research would tell you that George Zimmerman was almost certainly not guilty, and there was never gonna be enough evidence to convict him.

http://www.hlntv.com/article/2013/11/18/george-zimmerman-arrested-again-apopka-disturbance-call

[thatcountrykid]

Ahh of course you'll jump on the race situation not the fact that our community police forces who are here to "serve and protect" are rolling around with M16's and night vision goggles. You guys should be outraged at our militarized police departments. The most those police officers should have is some riot equipment, not a 50 Cal sniper rifle, not a assault rifle with 30 rounds, not a armored personnel carrier that can withstand a IED blast.

Are the Missouri State Police fighting the Taliban or some rioters with rocks and pipes?

Don't make this a issue of race, why are WHITE journalist being detained and harassed by the police in Ferguson?http://www.nationaljournal.com/domesticpolicy/how-police-are-keeping-journalists-from-doing-their-jobs-in-ferguson-20140814

Why are foreign news agencies being targeted with tear gas in Ferguson?http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/14/al-jazeera-ferguson-tear-gas-journalists_n_5678081.html

That's what you should be concerned about, not the fact that the unarmed teen was black and the officer was white.

Why are news reporters being hassled for simply sitting down at Mcdonalds?
http://eater.com/archives/2014/08/14/journalists-arrested-at-mcdonalds-in-ferguson-missouri.php

Why are humvees that are meant for combat situations being bought for our community police departments with our tax dollars?
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/8/14/police-militarizationfergusonmikebrown.html

And you wonder why people see the police as a threat, no one wants to look out their window and see a police officer with a M16

This isn't the fault of the police.

I'm glad they have all this and it has been extremely useful. The job of the police is to enforce the law and protect then serve. Protect and serve doesn't mean bend over backwards for the citizen and put themselves in more danger just because oh an ar 15 scares them. Police are fighting higher violence crime. These rioters have been seen making gasoline bombs.

I blame the rioter who are blowing this all out of proportion. People are loosing their fucking minds and police need to be able to handle that.

The journalists weren't targeted they are in the middle of a damn riot. There are plenty of other places to cover from but right now police can't tailor just to them because there is a FUCKING RIOT.

[Pulp501]

http://www.hlntv.com/article/2013/11/18/george-zimmerman-arrested-again-apopka-disturbance-call

Yeah, those are two totally separate cases that have nothing to do with each other.

[Southside]

This isn't the fault of the police.

I'm glad they have all this and it has been extremely useful. The job of the police is to enforce the law and protect then serve. Protect and serve doesn't mean bend over backwards for the citizen and put themselves in more danger just because oh an ar 15 scares them. Police are fighting higher violence crime. These rioters have been seen making gasoline bombs.

I blame the rioter who are blowing this all out of proportion. People are loosing their fucking minds and police need to be able to handle that.

The journalists weren't targeted they are in the middle of a damn riot. There are plenty of other places to cover from but right now police can't tailor just to them because there is a FUCKING RIOT.


Oh so the journalist charging his phone who got his head slammed into the window at Mcdonalds was in middle of the riot?

The Aljazeera news crew who were nowhere near the protest/riots setting up for a report were in the middle of the riot? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=720_l3dgbYA

Don't just side with the police because one of your relatives or whoever is in law enforcement, open your eyes man we live in a police state.

And what do you mean they don't have to bend over backwards? WE PAY THE POLICE and they are there to "serve and protect" US they should be doing backflips on a balance beam if we ask. How has all the military equipment been "extremely useful"? I really don't know why a police officer has a fucking 50 cal sniper rifle aimed directly at a peaceful protest, no looting was going on.

The only people who should have that type of military equipment are the special units and SWAT teams, not the average joe police officer. The militarization of US police departments has gone too far and its a extreme waste of tax payer dollar.

[thatcountrykid]

Oh so the journalist charging his phone who got his head slammed into the window at Mcdonalds was in middle of the riot?

The Aljazeera news crew who were nowhere near the protest/riots setting up for a report were in the middle of the riot? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=720_l3dgbYA

Don't just side with the police because one of your relatives or whoever is in law enforcement, open your eyes man we live in a police state.

And what do you mean they don't have to bend over backwards? WE PAY THE POLICE and they are there to "serve and protect" US they should be doing backflips on a balance beam if we ask. How has all the military equipment been "extremely useful"? I really don't know why a police officer has a fucking 50 cal sniper rifle aimed directly at a peaceful protest, no looting was going on.

The only people who should have that type of military equipment are the special units and SWAT teams, not the average joe police officer. The militarization of US police departments has gone too far and its a extreme waste of tax payer dollar.


So if you're logic of citizens paying the police then my dad pays his own fucking salary. No your taxes go to the city, county, state, or the Feds. They decide where the money goes. They don't owe any citizen shit. They are not a private company like your acting like they are.

Let me guess you or someone in you family fucked up and got arrested huh?

[Southside]

So if you're logic of citizens paying the police then my dad pays his own fucking salary. No your taxes go to the city, county, state, or the Feds. They decide where the money goes. They don't owe any citizen shit. They are not a private company like your acting like they are.

Let me guess you or someone in you family fucked up and got arrested huh?

No I'm just tired of being constantly stopped by Chicago Police for just walking down the street just because I have a little melanin in my skin. I was at a store in a majority white area and I stood out there waiting for a ride with shopping bags in my hand, I got questioned by the police.

And what do you mean the police/government aren't private companies?

Some Airport TSA-Privatized
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/07/29/tsa-airports-privatize-montana-kansas-city/13316121/

Most of the US Prison System-Privatized
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/11/corrections-corporation-of-america-private-prison_n_3064795.html?utm_hp_ref=business

Probation Officers in certain states-Privatized
http://america.aljazeera.com/watch/shows/america-tonight/articles/2014/8/12/alabama-private-probation.html

Protection for US interests overseas-Privatized

http://www.pogo.org/blog/2013/09/Benghazi-Ignored-New-Evidence-Exposes-Gaps-in-Kabul-Embassy-Security.html

Almost everything is privatized my friend..I don't know about you but I don't necessarily want a corporation to "serve and protect' me

[thatcountrykid]

No I'm just tired of being constantly stopped by Chicago Police for just walking down the street just because I have a little melanin in my skin. I was at a store in a majority white area and I stood out there waiting for a ride with shopping bags in my hand, I got questioned by the police.

And what do you mean the police/government aren't private companies?

Some Airport TSA-Privatized
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/07/29/tsa-airports-privatize-montana-kansas-city/13316121/

Most of the US Prison System-Privatized
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/11/corrections-corporation-of-america-private-prison_n_3064795.html?utm_hp_ref=business

Probation Officers in certain states-Privatized
http://america.aljazeera.com/watch/shows/america-tonight/articles/2014/8/12/alabama-private-probation.html

Protection for US interests overseas-Privatized

http://www.pogo.org/blog/2013/09/Benghazi-Ignored-New-Evidence-Exposes-Gaps-in-Kabul-Embassy-Security.html

Almost everything is privatized my friend..I don't know about you but I don't necessarily want a corporation to "serve and protect' me

See that is exactly what we mean. Everybody freaks out about a black person being killed by a white person but do you ever see this much of a fuss over the white girl raped by three black teens and stuffed in a trash can cut apart. Or the 14 year old girl raped and stabbed 40 times? No. People pull the race card all the damn time like you just did and the people in Missouri are. Grow the fuck up. It's a bunch of shit for attention.

And those are private contractors. You are making it seem like you think the police are just that which they are not.

[Southside]

See that is exactly what we mean. Everybody freaks out about a black person being killed by a white person but do you ever see this much of a fuss over the white girl raped by three black teens and stuffed in a trash can cut apart. Or the 14 year old girl raped and stabbed 40 times? No. People pull the race card all the damn time like you just did and the people in Missouri are. Grow the fuck up. It's a bunch of shit for attention.

And those are private contractors. You are making it seem like you think the police are just that which they are not.

Why are you making it a race issue? Police brutality happens everyday to blacks, whites, Asians, and people are outraged. Why are Whites and Hispanics marching alongside Blacks in Ferguson right now as we speak? Why are people in Europe and the Middle East standing in solidarity with the Ferguson protesters?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIccco4PRRk

Looks like majority of these college students white, and guess what THE POLICE OFFICER WAS FIRED FOR MISUSE OF FORCE, and it was public outrage over the incident

This female bartender was white, police officer fired and the lady received a lot of money

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49kgG0s7lVk

Look Dan, White on White police brutality! The man received 40,000 dollars

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

What about this one of police beating up a disabled homeless man? By the way, both of the officers were charged and fired. It was public outrage over this incident

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yn8CE5ISUSw

Like I said, its protest all over the world with people of all colors protesting police brutality, so don't make it a race issue.
By the way, black person wasn't shot by a white person, he was shot by a police officer when he clearly had his hands up and was unarmed according to multiple eyewitnesses
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2725057/New-witnesses-claim-Michael-Brown-did-wrong-cop-shooting-Missouri.html
http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/14/us/missouri-teen-shooting/

And no, no one in my family has been "fucked up or arrested", most of them have college degrees including both of my parents and are working citizens. My dad did have a couple parking tickets when he use to work downtown if that counts as being "fucked up".

[Gamma Male]

I've always fucking hated the idea of curfews. People aren't even allowed to go outside during certain times? What is this, some fascist police state?

[thatcountrykid]

I've always fucking hated the idea of curfews. People aren't even allowed to go outside during certain times? What is this, some fascist police state?

It's to Regain a safe community. It's a chance for rioter to go home and end it. Beleive it or not it's for their own safety. You most likely have a city or county curfew cause you're a minor.

[Gamma Male]

It's to Regain a safe community. It's a chance for rioter to go home and end it. Beleive it or not it's for their own safety. You most likely have a city or county curfew cause you're a minor.

I know, but since when is the government in the business of telling innocent citizens when they can and can't go outside? That's a level of government control I'm just not comfortable with. Maybe this is just the leftlibertarian in me speaking, but I don't think that the police should be able to arrest or fine me simply because I'm outside on public property(doing nothing wrong or suspicious) at a time they don't approve of.

[Southside]

It's to Regain a safe community. It's a chance for rioter to go home and end it. Beleive it or not it's for their own safety. You most likely have a city or county curfew cause you're a minor.

Protestor you mean?

[thatcountrykid]

I know, but since when is the government in the business of telling innocent citizens when they can and can't go outside? That's a level of government control I'm just not comfortable with. Maybe this is just the leftlibertarian in me speaking, but I don't think that the police should be able to arrest or fine me simply because I'm outside on public property(doing nothing wrong or suspicious) at a time they don't approve of.

remember the police don't right the laws. They just enforce them. People need to stop blaming police for what the laws say and black the legislature. And in Missouri it's in a state of emergency and personally I beleive they need to call in the national guard.

Protestor you mean?

Rioters. They've recently ago at police vehicles and have thrown molotovs.

[Southside]

[QUOTE=thatcountrykid;2905085]remember the police don't right the laws. They just enforce them. People need to stop blaming police for what the laws say and black the legislature. And in Missouri it's in a state of emergency and personally I beleive they need to call in the national guard.



Rioters. They've recently ago at police vehicles and have thrown molotovs.[/QUOTE


By they you mean a small fraction that probably make up about ten percent of the people that are on the street?

Don't make it seem like its all just rioters and looters out there, most of the demonstrations are peaceful.

Lol our over militarized police departments can't even handle some "rioters" with crude molotov cocktails and bricks. What a waste of tax dollars...shame they should have to call in the guard , yet they have exactly the same equipment as the guard (also a shame)

Just one of those armored personnel carriers cost $100,000+,you don't think that could go towards rebuilding failing infrastructure or education?

You've also failed to respond on why you're making the situation into a race issue.

[Living For Love]

One more case of how some communities take advantage of one isolated occurrence to spread chaos, disorder and starting looting shops as a sign of "frustration". Michael Brown robbed a tobacco shop minutes before he was killed and began to flee after being confronted by one police officer. People don't give a crap about the kid that died, they're only using the fact that one white person killed one black person as a sign of racism, and therefore, as an excuse to create civil unrest and starting robbing and looting shops.

[Vlerchan]

Michael Brown robbed a tobacco shop minutes before he was killed and began to flee after being confronted by one police officer.
We don't know what happened for sure. Here's Vox trying to piece it together though.

— Multiple eyewitness accounts say that Brown was killed while attempting to surrender.

— Brown's friend Dorian Johnson, who was with Brown at the time, says that the two of them were walking in the middle of the street when a police car approached, and the officer told them to get on the sidewalk.

— Eyewitness Piaget Crenshaw says that Johnson, Brown and the officer got into a verbal confrontation, and the officer attempted to put Brown in the police car. When Brown began to flee, with his hands in the air, she says, the officer got out of the car and started shooting at Brown. (Crenshaw has photos of the shooting, which have been turned over to the police.)

— Another eyewitness told the press that the officer was in his car when he started shooting at the boys. (At least one shot was fired from the police car.)

— Johnson says that he and Brown started running when they heard the first shot. He told local news station KMOV that Wilson "shot again, and once my friend felt that shot, he turned around and put his hands in the air. He started to get down and the officer still approached with his weapon drawn and fired several more shots."

— Meanwhile, St. Louis County police, who have been called in to investigate Brown's death, say that Brown assaulted Wilson before he was killed. St. Louis County police chief Jon Belmar told reporters on Sunday that Brown shoved the officer back into the police car, "physically assaulted" him, and attempted to grab the officer's gun. According to Belmar, the officer only began firing at Brown after the assault.

— According to Ferguson Police Chief Tom Jackson during a briefing on Wednesday, the officer who shot Johnson was injured during the encounter. One side of the Wilson's face was swollen, Jackson said.

http://www.vox.com/2014/8/11/5988925/mike-brown-killing-shooting-case-ferguson-police-riots-st-louis

Here's more from Vox - it's really a fantastic article:

Some of the context for community anger

— There's a history of police violence against young black men, and the shooting takes place at a time when this perennial topic was already being widely discussed. New Yorker Eric Garner, an unarmed black man, was killed in July after police put him in a chokehold by police. The incident, which was caught on video, caused an outcry against the New York Police Department — especially after Garner's death was officially ruled a homicide. Mayor Bill de Blasio eventually agreed to a review of the department's training procedures.

— The frustration and anger in Ferguson likely goes beyond the killing of Brown. Ferguson is like many cities in America: police disproportionately stop and arrest black residents. While 67 percent of Ferguson is black, 86 percent of all traffic stops and 92 percent of all arrests are of black residents, according to state report on racial profiling obtained by Buzzfeed (http://www.buzzfeed.com/jimdalrympleii/blacks-overwhelmingly-get-stopped-by-the-police-in-ferguson). But black residents of Ferguson who are stopped by police are less likely to be carrying contraband than white residents are.

— The city's government is predominately white as well: there is one black person on the Ferguson city council and one Latino on the school board. Just three out of the city's 53 commissioned police officers are black.

— There's also a lot of anger around how the media portrays young men who are killed. Over the weekend, the hashtag #IfTheyGunnedMeDown, which was trending on Twitter on Sunday night, captured the divide between how young black men see themselves and how the media sees them.

— Advocates around the country who have been outraged by the shooting are organizing National Moments of Silence on August 14 in several cities to protest police brutality.

http://www.vox.com/2014/8/11/5988925/mike-brown-killing-shooting-case-ferguson-police-riots-st-louis

On bolded: no racism in Ferguson, I tell ya.

[Southside]

One more case of how some communities take advantage of one isolated occurrence to spread chaos, disorder and starting looting shops as a sign of "frustration". Michael Brown robbed a tobacco shop minutes before he was killed and began to flee after being confronted by one police officer. People don't give a crap about the kid that died, they're only using the fact that one white person killed one black person as a sign of racism, and therefore, as an excuse to create civil unrest and starting robbing and looting shops.



So shoplifting warrants two bullets to the head? It's called excessive use of force, yes he probably did rob a store prior to the shooting but the situation could've been handled differently. The guy was unarmed, and all the witnesses at the scene say he was about to surrender and had his hands up.

That's what people are angered and frustrated about, anyone making this into a White on Black think or vise versa is a fool. Its about police brutality/excessive force on a unarmed citizen who just happened to be black

And no a white person didn't kill a Black person, a police officer killed a black person. The only people who are really making this into a race issue are the people who are saying "Oh its just this much outrage because the kid was black". It's people of all races, religions standing in solidarity with the protesters in Ferguson. Its Whites standing side by side with the Black protesters, even some Republican lawmakers have spoke out against the over-militarization and use of force extreme in the situation

[Living For Love]

We don't know what happened for sure. Here's Vox trying to piece it together though.

[indent]— Multiple eyewitness accounts say that Brown was killed while attempting to surrender.

— Brown's friend Dorian Johnson, who was with Brown at the time, says that the two of them were walking in the middle of the street when a police car approached, and the officer told them to get on the sidewalk.

— Eyewitness Piaget Crenshaw says that Johnson, Brown and the officer got into a verbal confrontation, and the officer attempted to put Brown in the police car. When Brown began to flee, with his hands in the air, she says, the officer got out of the car and started shooting at Brown. (Crenshaw has photos of the shooting, which have been turned over to the police.)

So he was running and at the same time holding his hands in the air? He must have thought this: "I don't want to get arrested for robbing a shop and disobeying a police officer, so I'll run, but I don't want to get shot too, so I'll raise my hands in the air." Makes perfect sense.

— There's a history of police violence against young black men
No, there isn't, there's only more media coverage for cases when white people murder/assault black people, and that makes it seem violence against black men occurs more frequently than violence against white men.

But black residents of Ferguson who are stopped by police are less likely to be carrying contraband than white residents are.[/b]
Evidence, please.

— The city's government is predominately white as well: there is one black person on the Ferguson city council and one Latino on the school board. Just three out of the city's 53 commissioned police officers are black.
Lol, so a city government who is predominantly constituted by white people is forcefully a racist city government? What do you want, force black and Latino people to run for mayors?

So shoplifting warrants two bullets to the head? It's called excessive use of force, yes he probably did rob a store prior to the shooting but the situation could've been handled differently. The guy was unarmed, and all the witnesses at the scene say he was about to surrender and had his hands up.

That's what people are angered and frustrated about, anyone making this into a White on Black think or vise versa is a fool. Its about police brutality/excessive force on a unarmed citizen who just happened to be black

The police office probably didn't have the intention to kill him. If killing the guy was "police brutality/excessive force", what should we say about the shop lifting and pillaging that the rioters have been committing in the past days? What do those shop keepers have to do about all this? If people want justice, how can breaking shop's windows and robbing supermarkets bring any justice to this?

And no a white person didn't kill a Black person, a police officer killed a black person.
Oh, so the problem is because a police officer did it!? He was doing his job! I don't understand these guys nowadays who think it's cool and fabulous to hate the police for whatever reason.

[Vlerchan]

Dance In The Dark, I was quoting from a news article. You 'evidence issues' are directed at the evidence.

---

So he was running and at the same time holding his hands in the air? He must have thought this: "I don't want to get arrested for robbing a shop and disobeying a police officer, so I'll run, but I don't want to get shot too, so I'll raise my hands in the air." Makes perfect sense.
You literally just needed to read down two more lines:

— Another eyewitness told the press that the officer was in his car when he started shooting at the boys. (At least one shot was fired from the police car.)

— Johnson says that he and Brown started running when they heard the first shot. He told local news station KMOV that Wilson "shot again, and once my friend felt that shot, he turned around and put his hands in the air. He started to get down and the officer still approached with his weapon drawn and fired several more shots."

http://www.vox.com/2014/8/11/5988925/mike-brown-killing-shooting-case-ferguson-police-riots-st-louis

No, there isn't, there's only more media coverage for cases when white people murder/assault black people, and that makes it seem violence against black men occurs more frequently than violence against white men.
I'm just quoting from the article. Here's a full report though:

Previous attempts to analyze racial bias in police shootings have arrived at similar conclusions. In 2007, ColorLines and the Chicago Reporter investigated fatal police shootings in 10 major cities (http://www.colorlines.com/archives/2007/11/killed_by_the_cops.html), and found that there were a disproportionately high number of African Americans among police shooting victims in every one, particularly in New York, San Diego, and Las Vegas.

[...]

In Oakland, California, the NAACP reported (http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/NAACP-focuses-on-officer-involved-shootings-2453109.php) that out of 45 officer-involved shootings in the city between 2004 and 2008, 37 of those shot were black. None were white. One-third of the shootings resulted in fatalities. Although weapons were not found in 40 percent of cases, the NAACP found, no officers were charged. (These numbers don't include 22-year-old Oscar Grant, who was shot and killed by a transit authority officer at the Fruitvale BART station on New Year's Day of 2009.)

The New York City Police Department has reported (http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downloads/pdf/analysis_and_planning/nypd_annual_firearms_discharge_report_2011.pdf) similar trends in its firearms discharge report, which shows that more black people have been shot by NYPD officers between 2000 and 2011 than have Hispanics or whites.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/08/police-shootings-michael-brown-ferguson-black-men

Regardless, it's quite clear from a later quote however that black men were disproportionately targeted by police in the area in the lead-up to this.

Evidence, please.
You're quoting the evidence - i.e., the news article I produced.

If you want to know where Vox got the information it's in the linked Buzzfeed article.

http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/2014-08/11/2/enhanced/webdr08/original-26850-1407739334-4.png

The contraband hit rate for the general population in Ferguson is 22.59%. The rate for blacks, however, is slightly lower, at 21.71%. That means about one in five blacks who are stopped are caught with contraband. But whites have a significantly higher contraband hit rate: 34.04%. That means more than one in three whites who are stopped get busted for contraband.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/jimdalrympleii/blacks-overwhelmingly-get-stopped-by-the-police-in-ferguson

Lol, so a city government who is predominantly constituted by white people is forcefully a racist city government?
It was an observation made by Vox. On a side note, it does seem indicative of racial gerrymandering in Ferguson, considering the racial make-up of the city.

You'll note that I personally didn't bold it in order to highlight racism in Ferguson.

---

The police office probably didn't have the intention to kill him.
He shot the kid between 4 and 8 times, with an autopsy out today indicating 6.

I have no idea how you can come out with something like that all things considered.

[Living For Love]

You literally just needed to read down two more lines:

[indent]— Another eyewitness told the press that the officer was in his car when he started shooting at the boys. (At least one shot was fired from the police car.)

— Johnson says that he and Brown started running when they heard the first shot. He told local news station KMOV that Wilson "shot again, and once my friend felt that shot, he turned around and put his hands in the air. He started to get down and the officer still approached with his weapon drawn and fired several more shots."

That's what the guy that was with him told to the press. Ferguson Police Chief explained why Brown was shot first (http://www.westernjournalism.com/breaking-police-chief-releases-cops-side-story-michael-brown-shooting/):

Additional information came out Wednesday that suggests Brown’s death was anything but a murder. Ferguson Police Chief Tom Jackson confirmed the still unidentified officer who shot him was serious injured by the teen.

The “side of his face was swollen” after Brown struck him, Jackson confirmed, though he did not offer specifics regarding the officer’s condition.

Police did, however, offer some insight into the events leading up to the shooting. According to reports, Brown was with a friend at an apartment complex when the officer attempted to get out of his cruiser.

The teen reportedly initiated an altercation, pushing the officer back into the vehicle and struggling to retrieve his weapon. A fatal shot was then fired within the car, police confirm.

While some onlookers claim Brown had his hands raised just before he was shot, the confirmation that the officer sustained facial injuries suggests there was, in fact, an altercation prior to the incident that sparked widespread anger in the community.

It was an observation made by Vox. On a side note, it does seem indicative of racial gerrymandering in Ferguson, considering the racial make-up of the city.

Just because the majority of the city's population is constituted by black people doesn't mean the people who govern the city have to be black.

[Vlerchan]

That's what the guy that was with him told to the press. Ferguson Police Chief explained why Brown was shot first:
I am aware of this.

The information was also pasted into my first post, as taken from the Vox article.

It's still notable however that if eyewitnesses are to be believed, as Brown backed down the police officer finished him off.

---

You'll also note if you decide to re-read my first post I said that we don't know for certain what happened, and that a number of conflicting narratives exist.

Just because the majority of the city's population is constituted by black people doesn't mean the people who govern the city have to be black.
I never said they had to be.

[Exocet]

The Missouri National Guard will be deployed in Ferguson.

Missouri's governor ordered the National Guard onto the streets of Ferguson

[thatcountrykid]

The Missouri National Guard will be deployed in Ferguson.

Good.

[phuckphace]

Here we go again, another case of white on black crime sends an earthquake through the country. Oy.

I don't get why, when it's white on black crime, everybody goes into an uproar, and the whole country seems to freeze, but in Black on white crime, nobody really gives a fuck.

it's good to see that not everyone here buys into the racial agitprop that the media pushes on us. you can see how effective it is just from some of the "MY MELANIN" posts above. Faith in humanity = restored.

I don't think the pigs need tanks and autocannons though.

I've always fucking hated the idea of curfews. People aren't even allowed to go outside during certain times? What is this, some fascist police state?

no, but that would be pretty BALLER

[thatcountrykid]

it's good to see that not everyone here buys into the racial agitprop that the media pushes on us. you can see how effective it is just from some of the "MY MELANIN" posts above. Faith in humanity = restored.

I don't think the pigs need tanks and autocannons though.



no, but that would be pretty BALLER

Watch what you're calling police there man. That's my father your talking about.

[Living For Love]

The information was also pasted into my first post, as taken from the Vox article.I know, but it seemed to me you didn't considered it much relevant.

You'll also note if you decide to re-read my first post I said that we don't know for certain what happened, and that a number of conflicting narratives exist.
Oh, ok, it's just that I prefer to believe in an official police report than on some lowlife criminal who deserves to be in jail for robbing a shop, physical assault, and disobeying a police officer.

I never said they had to be.
I never said you said it, I only didn't undestand how could it be indicative of racial gerrymandering.

[Vlerchan]

I know, but it seemed to me you didn't considered it much relevant.
If it happened then it's somewhat relevant. I'm not sure it happened:

During the news conference at Greater St. Marks Family Church in Ferguson, Baden said his preliminary autopsy revealed there were no signs of struggle between Brown and the officer and that all of Brown’s gunshot wounds were survivable except one from a bullet that entered at the top of Brown’s head and went downward through his brain.

Baden said there was no gunshot residue on Brown’s skin, which would determine how far away the shots were fired.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/official-autopsy-michael-brown-had-marijuana-in-his-system-was-shot-6-times/2014/08/18/8c016ef8-26f4-11e4-8593-da634b334390_story.html

It wouldn't be the first time a police officer lied in the face of the worlds spotlight.

There's also two more notable aspects of the above quote: 1, Michael Brown was gun downed at a distance and thus probably not presenting an immediate to the officer-in-question - and if you take the word of multiple eye witnesses and pathologists: whilst trying to run away and/or surrender - and 2, Michael Brown who is 6' 4" was shot once in head which implies that at least one shot was fired whilst he was lying on the ground. Even if we presume that there was a scuffle the actual shooting itself still needs to be justified.

Earlier, a respected former New York pathologist hired by Mr Brown's family to perform an independent autopsy into his shooting gave his findings.

The family's lawyer Ben Crump said they had asked Dr Michael Baden to perform an autopsy as they "did not want to be left having to rely on the autopsy done by the St Louis law enforcement... the same individuals they feel are responsible for executing their son in broad daylight".

Dr Baden said he believed six bullets struck Mr Brown and two may have re-entered.

"All of the gunshot wounds could have been survivable, except the one at the top of the head," he said.

'We don't know'

Dr Baden said there were no signs of a struggle, as abrasions around the teenager's face were likely from falling to the pavement after being shot.

He also believed Mr Wilson did not shoot him at close range as there was no gunpowder residue on his body, suggesting the officer was at least 2ft away.

Shawn Parcells, a forensic pathologist who assisted Dr Baden, said a wound to Mr Brown's right arm may have been sustained as he had his hands up, "but we don't know".

He said the wound was consistent either with having his back to the officer or facing the officer with his hands above his head or in a defensive position.

Witnesses have said Mr Brown was shot as he held his hands up in a position of surrender, while the police and supporters of Mr Wilson have said he fired during a fight with Mr Brown.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-28839522

Oh, ok, it's just that I prefer to believe in an official police report than on some lowlife criminal who deserves to be in jail for robbing a shop, physical assault, and disobeying a police officer.
At least you're open about your biases.

I'm going with eyewitnesses (beyond the shooter and his friend - the former standing to lose big) and pathologists.

I never said you said it, I only didn't undestand how could it be indicative of racial gerrymandering.
I don't believe that the interests of white bourgeoisie and black working class people intersect at any single point.

The US has also historically had racial gerrymandering - and other types of gerrymandering - occur. The racism in Ferguson both historic (http://www.accuracy.org/release/was-ferguson-a-sundown-town/) and current leaves me little room for hope.

[Living For Love]

Baden said his preliminary autopsy revealed there were no signs of struggle between Brown and the officer
Dr Baden said there were no signs of a struggle, as abrasions around the teenager's face were likely from falling to the pavement after being shot.
What about the officer's swollen face?

At least you're open about your biases.

I'm going with eyewitnesses (beyond the shooter and his friend - the former standing to lose big) and pathologists.
Witnesses who belong to the same community... And it's not a biased opinion, it's just the most logic one considering how different witnesses describe different scenarios.


I don't believe that the interests of white bourgeoisie and black working class people intersect at any single point.

The US has also historically had racial gerrymandering - and other types of gerrymandering - occur. The racism in Ferguson both historic (http://www.accuracy.org/release/was-ferguson-a-sundown-town/) and current leaves me little room for hope.

I still can't understand how you think this is related to racism. There's no racism here, there's no proof of it, a white guy shoot a black man for a certain reason, but that reason was unrelated to the colour of his skin.

[Vlerchan]

What about the officer's swollen face?
Feel free to produce images. I've just heard reports - reports that aren't backed up by independent witnesses.

It is notable though that the officer could have been punched in the face without there having been a distinguishable struggle.

Witnesses who belong to the same community...
I have no idea why you'd doubt their validity because they live in the same locality.

As far as I know only one witness present had a connection to Brown.

---

You should also note that the finding of pathologists are what I'm basing a lot of my position on.

And it's not a biased opinion, it's just the most logic one considering how different witnesses describe different scenarios.
I don't think I'm quite catching this. Would you mind rewording it? Thank you.

I still can't understand how you think this is related to racism.
My musings about racial gerrymandering which you're quoting are unrelated to the topic of Michael Browns shooting.

I think it's good that we drop them anyway though.

There's no racism here, there's no proof of it, a white guy shoot a black man for a certain reason, but that reason was unrelated to the colour of his skin.
I produced evidence that black individuals are disproportionately involved in instances such as this and others.

I'm also not saying that this is definitely a result of racism but that there's a trend.

[Living For Love]

Feel free to produce images. I've just heard reports - reports that aren't backed up by independent witnesses.

It is notable though that the officer could have been punched in the face without there having been a distinguishable struggle.
The reports were produced by the police, you don't need images, as there are no images of Michael Brown's body with gun wounds.


Darren Wilson, the Ferguson, Mo., police officer whose fatal shooting of Michael Brown touched off more than a week of demonstrations, suffered severe facial injuries, including an orbital (eye socket) fracture, and was nearly beaten unconscious by Brown moments before firing his gun, a source close to the department's top brass told FoxNews.com.

“The Assistant (Police) Chief took him to the hospital, his face all swollen on one side,” said the insider. “He was beaten very severely.”

According to the well-placed source, Wilson was coming off another case in the neighbourhood on Aug. 9 when he ordered Michael Brown and his friend Dorain Johnson to stop walking in the middle of the road because they were obstructing traffic. However, the confrontation quickly escalated into physical violence, the source said.



Nabil Khattar, CEO of 7Star Industries – which specializes in firearms training for law enforcement and special operations personnel – confirmed that police are typically instructed to use deadly force if in imminent danger of being killed or suffering great bodily injury.

Wilson is a six-year veteran of the Ferguson police force department, and has no prior disciplinary infringements.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/08/20/missouri-cop-was-badly-beaten-before-shooting-michael-brown-says-source/

------

Officer Darren Wilson suffered severe injuries to his face, including a fractured eye socket, during an altercation that ended in the shooting death of Michael Brown on August 9, according to sources close to the Ferguson, Mo. police department.

There is also “solid proof” that Brown tried to gain control of Wilson’s weapon, a source told Fox News.

Police sources had already claimed that Wilson’s face was swollen following the incident, but Fox’s report — which backs another earlier report from the blog Gateway Pundit (http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/08/breaking-report-po-darren-wilson-suffered-orbital-blowout-fracture-to-eye-socket-during-encounter-with-mike-brown/) — suggests that the injuries were quite severe.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/08/20/claim-darren-wilson-suffered-fractured-eye-socket/

------

I have no idea why you'd doubt their validity because they live in the same locality.

As far as I know only one witness present had a connection to Brown.

Not because they live in the same locality, but because they belonged to the same African-descendant community. In this type of cases, it's normal that people who belong to the same community of the "victim" back up each others stories when telling what happened to Michael Brown.

I don't think I'm quite catching this. Would you mind rewording it? Thank you.

Piaget Crenshaw account:

"[...] it appeared that the police officer and Brown were arm wrestling before the officer shot Brown from inside his vehicle. The officer then chased Brown for about 20 feet before shooting him again."

Michael Brady account:

"Brady said he could see Johnson at the front passenger side of the car when he and Brown started running suddenly; he did not hear a gunshot or what caused them to run."

Do you understand now? What I meant was that different witnesses describe different scenarios of what happened during the incident.


My musings about racial gerrymandering which you're quoting are unrelated to the topic of Michael Browns shooting.

I think it's good that we drop them anyway though.
They are unrelated indeed, because there's no racism here.


I produced evidence that black individuals are disproportionately involved in instances such as this and others.

I'm also not saying that this is definitely a result of racism but that there's a trend.
No, racism is not a trend. It's something intrinsic in America history, I admit that, but we simply have no evidence of racism in this case, particularly. It doesn't mean, however, that other similar cases weren't originated by racism, but we simply can't generalise like that.

[Vlerchan]

The reports were produced by the police, you don't need images.
I have no idea why you don't believe the police need to produce evidence to back up the incident that none of the eyewitnesses saw, and which an examination of Micheal Brown's body for signs of struggle didn't support.

Micheal Brown was seen to be shot by multiple eyewitnesses, this was then confirmed by the police, and a pathologist.

Do you understand the varying degrees of evidence supporting each claim? One claim is back by multiple sources, whilst the other is backed by one (the police).

---

According to the well-placed source, Wilson was coming off another case in the neighbourhood on Aug. 9 when he ordered Michael Brown and his friend Dorain Johnson to stop walking in the middle of the road because they were obstructing traffic. However, the confrontation quickly escalated into physical violence, the source said.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/08/20/missouri-cop-was-badly-beaten-before-shooting-michael-brown-says-source/
It's interesting that they didn't name the source here.

Could you find an article where the source making these claims is named? Thank you.

Nabil Khattar, CEO of 7Star Industries – which specializes in firearms training for law enforcement and special operations personnel – confirmed that police are typically instructed to use deadly force if in imminent danger of being killed or suffering great bodily injury.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/08/20/missouri-cop-was-badly-beaten-before-shooting-michael-brown-says-source/

If you read my above post you'd realise I'm skeptical of this. Both eyewitnesses and pathologists indicate that Micheal Brown was not a threat when the shooting happened, regardless of whether the assualt on the police officer took place or not

"There's also two more notable aspects of the above quote: 1, Michael Brown was gun downed at a distance and thus probably not presenting an immediate to the officer-in-question - and if you take the word of multiple eye witnesses and pathologists: whilst trying to run away and/or surrender - and 2, Michael Brown who is 6' 4" was shot once in head which implies that at least one shot was fired whilst he was lying on the ground. Even if we presume that there was a scuffle the actual shooting itself still needs to be justified."

edit: It's notable that the pathologist reports indicates that he was shot whilst in ostensibly non-threatening positions.

He said the wound was consistent either with having his back to the officer or facing the officer with his hands above his head or in a defensive position.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-28839522

Do you understand now? What I meant was that different witnesses describe different scenarios of what happened during the incident.
It's been confirmed by police that at least one shot was fired in the car.

[b]A shot was fired inside the police car, and Brown was eventually shot about 35 feet away from the vehicle, Belmar said, adding few details because he didn't want to "prejudice" the case.

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/08/10/justice/missouri-police-involved-shooting/index.html

Perhaps the witnesses missed it, I don't know, but him disagreeing over sonething that's confirmed does not invalidate anyone elses testimony.

In this type of cases, it's normal that people who belong to the same community of the "victim" back up each others stories when telling what happened to Michael Brown.
Feel free to provide evidence backing the supposed normality of this occurring. I don't believe you.

It's also notable that with the exception of Brady's statement: and he didn't say it didn't happen - just that he didn't see it, everything the other witnesses are saying is matching up with the pathologist report.

They are unrelated indeed, because there's no racism here.
We don't know this for sure, so I'd appreciate if you'd stop pretending we did.

[Living For Love]

I have no idea why you don't believe the police need to produce evidence to back up the incident that none of the eyewitnesses saw, and which an examination of Micheal Brown's body for signs of struggle didn't support.

Micheal Brown was seen to be shot by multiple eyewitnesses, this was then confirmed by the police, and a pathologist.

Do you understand the varying degrees of evidence supporting each claim? One claim is back by multiple sources, whilst the other is backed by one (the police).

So you're basically saying that the claim backed by the police is less important than the claims backed by the witnesses just because there are three or four witnesses and only one police officer?

It's interesting that they didn't name the source here.

Could you find an article where the source making these claims is named? Thank you.

"a source close to the department's top brass told FoxNews.com."
You don't need a name, the source probably wants to remain anonymous.

If you read my above post you'd realise I'm skeptical of this. Both eyewitnesses and pathologists indicate that Micheal Brown was not a threat when the shooting happened, regardless of whether the assualt on the police officer took place or not


There is also “solid proof” that Brown tried to gain control of Wilson’s weapon, a source told Fox News.
I wonder what you would do if you had a gun and two guys, one of them 6' 4" tall, assaulted you during the night. You're talking about the police officer if he was some kind of murderer or criminal.

Perhaps the witnesses missed it, I don't know, but him disagreeing over sonething that's confirmed does not invalidate anyone elses testimony.

I wonder how the witness can describe what happened with so much detail but nor hearing a gunshot in the middle of the night, but ok.

Feel free to provide evidence backing the supposed normality of this occurring. I don't believe you.
It happens all the time: 1992 Los Angeles riots, 2005 French riots, 2011 England riots, those are just some cases when someone from a minority group is killed by the police, which sparks a series of riots and protests, in which most of the people involved belong to the same ethnic and racial group of the person killed.

We don't know this for sure, so I'd appreciate if you'd stop pretending we did.
Unless you present true evidence that there is racism involved in this case, I'll continue to support this claim.

[Vlerchan]

So you're basically saying that the claim backed by the police is less important than the claims backed by the witnesses just because there are three or four witnesses and only one police officer?
No.

What I'm saying is that I'm willing to believe the multiple independent witnesses and the findings of an independently-run pathologist report commissioned by respected NYC pathologists (NewYorkPosts words, not mine), over the word of the shooter who stands to lose majorly if this goes against him and his friends who stand to also lose (though not as majorly) if this goes against them, regardless of what positions of authority that the latter group might hold. If Ferguson police department produce a doctor's report or a report commissioned by an investigative branch of the police who run independent of Ferguson or even just produce some images of the damage done during the proposed assault then I'll take their position as true - I am not however prepared to accept their unbacked word just because they are the police.

You don't need a name, the source probably wants to remain anonymous.
I'm sure he does - I just wonder why.

From the wording of the Fox article I'm presuming that the source is a member of Ferguson police department - read above for why I'm unprepared to take his or her word on the issue.

I wonder what you would do if you had a gun and two guys, one of them 6' 4" tall, assaulted you during the night.
What I would have done is completely irrelevant.

The fact remains that Wilson fired on and shot Michael Brown whilst he was (according to the pathologists report): 1, running away with his hands up (implying surrender); 2, attempting to go to ground with his hands up (implying surrender); 3, whilst he was curled in a defensive ball on the ground, three positions in which I would not consider him an 'immediate threat'.

You're talking about the police officer if he was some kind of murderer or criminal.
If the current level of evidence is to be believed, he is.

It happens all the time: 1992 Los Angeles riots, 2005 French riots, 2011 England riots, those are just some cases when someone from a minority group is killed by the police, which sparks a series of riots and protests, in which most of the people involved belong to the same ethnic and racial group of the person killed.
I presume you realise that there's a difference between 'filing a false report with the police' and 'taking advantage of local disarray as to loot for ones material gain'.

---

You'll also note that it was much more of a class issue than a racial issue in regards to the London riots and the Las Angelas riots but let's not get bogged down in that.

Unless you present true evidence that there is racism involved in this case, I'll continue to support this claim.
I'm not saying that racism was definitely involved.

I'm saying that considering both the historic and current racist trends in America-in-general and Ferguson-in-particular, esp. in policing (I provided sources in previous posts to back this up), racism is something that we should not just discount off-hand here.

[Living For Love]

No.

What I'm saying is that I'm willing to believe the multiple independent witnesses and the findings of an independently-run pathologist report commissioned by respected NYC pathologists (NewYorkPosts words, not mine), over the word of the shooter who stands to lose majorly if this goes against him and his friends who stand to also lose (though not as majorly) if this goes against them, regardless of what positions of authority that the latter group might hold.

Ok, you're entitled to your opinion. Fortunately, previous similar occurrences show us that history appears to be in Darren Wilson's favour (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/08/darren-wilson-ferguson-police-officers-shoot-unarmed-black-men).

I'm sure he does - I just wonder why.

From the wording of the Fox article I'm presuming that the source is a member of Ferguson police department - read above for why I'm unprepared to take his or her word on the issue.

Maybe because he doesn't want the protesters to know their name for the sake of his security.

If the current level of evidence is to be believed, he is.
No, he's not. The real criminal is the one who robbed a shop a smoked marijuana moments before he was killed.

I presume you realise that there's a difference between 'filing a false report with the police' and 'taking advantage of local disarray as to loot for ones material gain'.
They did both, they are backing up Brown, whether it is by filing a false report with the police or by protesting violently in the streets.

You'll also note that it was much more of a class issue than a racial issue in regards to the London riots and the Las Angelas riots but let's not get bogged down in that.

All the people involved belong to the same social class as well.

[thatcountrykid]

Here's a lot of your questions or debate points explained by a long retired police officer.

http://www.policeone.com/use-of-force/articles/7489476-Fergusons-6-top-use-of-force-questions-A-cops-response/

[Vlerchan]

Ok, you're entitled to your opinion. Fortunately, previous similar occurrences show us that history appears to be in Darren Wilson's favour.
I see nothing 'fortunate' about a large majority of the stories printed here.

But like me you're entitled to your opinion.

No, he's not.
I have no idea how you can look at the current level of evidence and not see him as at least doing some wrong.

The real criminal is the one who robbed a shop a smoked marijuana moments before he was killed.
Brown's crimes were completely unrelated to this incident so I see no reason to consider them.

There's also no evidence supporting claim that Brown smoked marijuana moments before his shooting: marijuana can take upwards two weeks to leave your system so finding some in his system doesn't prove anything. I'd also argue that Brown's alleged actions leading up to the events supports the idea that he wasn't smoking marijuana immediately previous to the incident - it has 'pacifying' effects - but that's just speculation.

They did both, they are backing up Brown, whether it is by filing a false report with the police or by protesting violently in the streets.
No: "looting", "protesting violently in the streets", and "filing a false report with the police" are all three different things.

There's entirely different motivations behind each. It's not comparable.

All the people involved belong to the same social class as well.
I don't feel social class in this instance is going to impact on someone taking the huge risk (of a fine and/or several years in jail) to file a false police report when it comes to people they don't know.

[Harry Smith]

it's scary how far people will go to defend the police, especially looking at cases in the past like Rodney King.

And no, smoking 'a marijuana' doesn't give the police the right to shoot anyone, ever

[thatcountrykid]

it's scary how far people will go to defend the police, especially looking at cases in the past like Rodney King.

And no, smoking 'a marijuana' doesn't give the police the right to shoot anyone, ever

I'm defending the good cops. There are very few cases of brutality. Most people who scream brutality just don't want to get arrested. I have not seen one bit of evidence in this case of brutality.

[Harry Smith]

I. I have not seen one bit of evidence in this case of brutality.

So the shooting of an unarmed teenager is not brutality? The arrest of journalist, the assaults on journalists, the use of military grade weapons to stop a 93 year old holocaust victim protesting?

[thatcountrykid]

So the shooting of an unarmed teenager is not brutality? The arrest of journalist, the assaults on journalists, the use of military grade weapons to stop a 93 year old holocaust victim protesting?

Shhoting a teenager attacking an officer is not brutality.

Show me the "assaults" on journalists

You wanna know why police have the armored trucks and weapons. It's cause they deal with this:http://www.funker530.com/shots-fired-in-ferguson-mo/

[Harry Smith]

Shhoting a teenager attacking an officer is not brutality.

Show me the "assaults" on journalists

You wanna know why police have the armored trucks and weapons. It's cause they deal with this:http://www.funker530.com/shots-fired-in-ferguson-mo/

no, but shooting a teenager who's trying to surrender is. Even if he was attacking him I don't understand the need to shoot him 6 times with a semi-automatic weapon.

You don't need to deploy it across the entire city just because shots were fired, it's irresponsible force to deploy high powered weaponry just because shots were fired in one area of the city.

Evidence?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=720_l3dgbYA

[thatcountrykid]

no, but shooting a teenager who's trying to surrender is. Even if he was attacking him I don't understand the need to shoot him 6 times with a semi-automatic weapon.

You don't need to deploy it across the entire city just because shots were fired, it's irresponsible force to deploy high powered weaponry just because shots were fired in one area of the city.

Evidence?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=720_l3dgbYA

Did you even read the other article I posted. It explains the science behind the amount of shots and time it takes.

The weapon has nothing to do with it.

The deployment across te whole city is necessary because that isn't the first shots fired and you never know when someone has a gun because this is America and not the uk. Police have to treat things different here.

[Harry Smith]

Did you even read the other article I posted. It explains the science behind the amount of shots and time it takes.

The weapon has nothing to do with it.

The deployment across te whole city is necessary because that isn't the first shots fired and you never know when someone has a gun because this is America and not the uk. Police have to treat things different here.

Yet you're opposed to gun control?

[Vlerchan]

thatcountrykids link:

Shooting events are over far faster than most people think. According to a scientifically-validated study on reaction times, the time from a threat event to recognition of the threat (the decision making process) is 31/100 second. The mechanical action of pulling the trigger is as fast as 6/100 of a second.

A decision to stop shooting uses the same mental process and, because of the multitude of sensory experiences the brain is processing, actually typically takes longer than the decision to shoot — closer to half a second. Since the trigger pull is still operating as fast as 6/100th of a second, it is entirely possible to fire many times within under two seconds.
This is not a defence for him misanalysing the threat in the first place.

The fact also remains that the killing shot was delivered through the base of Brown's skull. Considering his height, that infers that Brown was on the ground when at least one of the shoots were fired: presumably, the shooter would have had to re-aimed and then continued to fire in this instance. It leads me to believe that at least one shot was not fired in rapid succession with the others - and the fact that another shot went off within the car implies that only four of six of the shoots can be accounted for by 'rapid succession theory'.

Courts have consistently ruled that suspect behavior that appears to be consistent with an impending firearms attack is a reasonable basis for the officer to fire, whether or not a weapon is clearly visible.
I don't believe that 'running' and 'raising ones hands in surrender' implies suspect behaviour.

Do you?

Research has shown that a person fleeing the police can turn, fire, and turn back by the time an officer recognizes the threat and fires back, resulting in a shot to the back of the suspect. A shot in any part of the body where the subject is moving is dependent on the trajectory of the officer, the weapon, and the subject meeting at a tiny point of time in space.
Fantastic. I still don't believe this makes 'fleeing' constitute a 'credible and immediate threat'.

Do you?

---

It seems like if we are using the speaker's logic here everyone is a credible and immediate threat because everyone could possibly shoot you.

Brown knew full well and good about that crime, and having an officer contact him in such a short timeframe after the incident could very well have affected the decisions he made during that contact.
Like 'running'?

It's the only decision he made that's immediately relevant to his shooting.

If a person is six feet and four inches tall, and weights almost 300 pounds, that person’s physical stature alone gives them the potential capacity to harm another person.[1]

In Missouri, the most recent annual murder total is 386 — of those, 106 were committed without a firearm.[2]
[1]: Not when they're running away.

[2]: I wonder how many of these unarmed killings were committed whilst the 'killer' was running away from his target?

[thatcountrykid]

Yet you're opposed to gun control?

Yes I am because it is someone's right to own a firearm.


thatcountrykids link:

Shooting events are over far faster than most people think. According to a scientifically-validated study on reaction times, the time from a threat event to recognition of the threat (the decision making process) is 31/100 second. The mechanical action of pulling the trigger is as fast as 6/100 of a second.

A decision to stop shooting uses the same mental process and, because of the multitude of sensory experiences the brain is processing, actually typically takes longer than the decision to shoot — closer to half a second. Since the trigger pull is still operating as fast as 6/100th of a second, it is entirely possible to fire many times within under two seconds.
This is not a defence for him misanalysing the threat in the first place.

The fact also remains that the killing shot was delivered through the base of Brown's skull. Considering his height, that infers that Brown was on the ground when at least one of the shoots were fired: presumably, the shooter would have had to re-aimed and then continued to fire in this instance. It leads me to believe that at least one shot was not fired in rapid succession with the others - and the fact that another shot went off within the car implies that only four of six of the shoots can be accounted for by 'rapid succession theory'.

Courts have consistently ruled that suspect behavior that appears to be consistent with an impending firearms attack is a reasonable basis for the officer to fire, whether or not a weapon is clearly visible.
I don't believe that 'running' and 'raising ones hands in surrender' implies suspect behaviour.

Do you?

Research has shown that a person fleeing the police can turn, fire, and turn back by the time an officer recognizes the threat and fires back, resulting in a shot to the back of the suspect. A shot in any part of the body where the subject is moving is dependent on the trajectory of the officer, the weapon, and the subject meeting at a tiny point of time in space.
Fantastic. I still don't believe this makes 'fleeing' constitute a 'credible and immediate threat'.

Do you?

---

It seems like if we are using the speaker's logic here everyone is a credible and immediate threat because everyone could possibly shoot you.

Brown knew full well and good about that crime, and having an officer contact him in such a short timeframe after the incident could very well have affected the decisions he made during that contact.
Like 'running'?

It's the only decision he made that's immediately relevant to his shooting.

If a person is six feet and four inches tall, and weights almost 300 pounds, that person’s physical stature alone gives them the potential capacity to harm another person.[1]

In Missouri, the most recent annual murder total is 386 — of those, 106 were committed without a firearm.[2]
[1]: Not when they're running away.

[2]: I wonder how many of these unarmed killings were committed whilst the 'killer' was running away from his target?

I'll answer you later when my shift ends.

[Living For Love]

I see nothing 'fortunate' about a large majority of the stories printed here.

But like me you're entitled to your opinion.

What I meant was that, in those 5 cases, similar to this one, on only one the police officer was sent to jail. Also,

Delores Jones-Brown, a law professor and director of the Center on Race, Crime, and Justice at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, looked at 21 publicized cases from 1994 through 2009 in which a police officer killed an unarmed black person. Of those, only seven cases resulted in an indictment—for criminally negligent homicide, obstruction of justice, conspiracy, or violation of civil rights—and only three officers were found guilty.


, which means juries seem to understand what's really involved in most of this cases: not racism, not excessive use of force, but simply men and women doing their job, a job that many times puts their life at risk.

I have no idea how you can look at the current level of evidence and not see him as at least doing some wrong.

He might have done something wrong, no one's perfect, but considering him a murdered and a criminal, I can't accept that.

Brown's crimes were completely unrelated to this incident so I see no reason to consider them.

There's also no evidence supporting claim that Brown smoked marijuana moments before his shooting: marijuana can take upwards two weeks to leave your system so finding some in his system doesn't prove anything. I'd also argue that Brown's alleged actions leading up to the events supports the idea that he wasn't smoking marijuana immediately previous to the incident - it has 'pacifying' effects - but that's just speculation.

I know they were unrelated, Wilson didn't know about it at that time, I just mentioned them again because you were implying the police officer was a murderer and a criminal. Brown's parents and family keep saying he was some kind of adorable angel roaming the Earth, but if he was so good as people are describing him, he wouldn't smoke marijuana (which is illegal in Missouri) or rob shops for tobacco. Since he did that, I have no doubt he wouldn't think twice about assaulting a police officer.

No: "looting", "protesting violently in the streets", and "filing a false report with the police" are all three different things.

There's entirely different motivations behind each. It's not comparable.

By "looting" and "protesting violently in the streets", they are raising some kind of awareness for what happened, demanding "justice", so they're backing him up. The same happens with "filing a false report with the police".

[Vlerchan]

What I meant was that, in those 5 cases, similar to this one, on only one the police officer was sent to jail.
I know.

I'm not in agreement that the officers in the "Edward Garner" case or the "Amadou Diallo" case or the "Oscar Grant" case should have gotten off. That is to say I don't consider the following justified:

[Edward Garner]: Officers Hymon and Wright were responding to a burglary call when Hymon spotted Garner, an unarmed 15-year-old, by a fence in the backyard of the home in question. After Hymon ordered Garner to halt, the teenager tried to climb the fence. In response, the officer shot him fatally in the head

[...]

[Amadou Diallo]: ... officers fired 41 shots, striking him 19 times. Diallo had just returned home from his job as a street vendor at 12:44 a.m. when he was confronted by the plainclothes officers. The officers later said he matched the description of a rape suspect, and that they mistakenly believed he was reaching for a gun. (He was pulling out his wallet.) Three of the officers had been involved in previous shootings, including one that led to the death of another black civilian in 1997.

[...]

[Oscar Grant:] In an incident captured on cell phone cameras, Officer Mehserle pulled out his gun and fatally shot Grant, who was face down on the platform at the time. Mehserle later testified that he thought he was reaching for his Taser while trying to put handcuffs on Grant, who resisted. A jury found Mehserle guilty of involuntary manslaughter and sentenced him to two years in jail. He was released after serving 11 months at the Los Angeles County Jail.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/08/darren-wilson-ferguson-police-officers-shoot-unarmed-black-men

The "Anthony Baez" was also not a justified killing but I consider the outcome just because the police officer did do jailtime.

On interesting aspect of this case though was this:

In 2003, two more cops were fired for giving false testimony in Livoti's defense.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/08/darren-wilson-ferguson-police-officers-shoot-unarmed-black-men

---

I also don't know what you're trying to prove with this link other than America has a history of unanswered for police brutality.

which means juries seem to understand what's really involved in most of this cases:
Of the 7 cases a jury presided over 3 resulted in the police officer being charged and I dispute the judgement of the others (see above).

He might have done something wrong, no one's perfect, but considering him a murdered and a criminal, I can't accept that.
I don't excuse at the very least 'manslaughter' on the charge that 'nobody is perfect'.

I just mentioned them again because you were implying the police officer was a murderer and a criminal.
It's still considered murder when you kill a criminal.

Brown's parents and family keep saying he was some kind of adorable angel roaming the Earth, but if he was so good as people are describing him, he wouldn't smoke marijuana (which is illegal in Missouri) or rob shops for tobacco.
I agree that Brown wasn't perfect.

I don't agree that because he wasn't perfect him being murdered doesn't matter.

Since he did that, I have no doubt he wouldn't think twice about assaulting a police officer.
What you think is irrelevant to the debate.

What is relevant is the fact that he was not as far as current evidence indicates an 'credible and immediate threat' to Wilson's life.

By "looting" and "protesting violently in the streets", they are raising some kind of awareness for what happened, demanding "justice", so they're backing him up. The same happens with "filing a false report with the police".
People involve themselves in looting because it brings the financial gain.

People involve themselves in rioting because they are angry at an establishment they deem oppressive. It happens at times like this (i.e., in groups) because it's less likely they'll be caught because everyone is doing it - a key difference between rioting and filing a false report is that in the former occupation you do not run such a massive risk of being caught.

Filing a false report isn't 'demanding' justice. It's 'obstructing' justice. Unless you know the dead personally, which with the exception of one none of the people filing reports did, there is not a credible amount of incentive to file a false report at massive legal risk to yourself.

[Harry Smith]

What I meant was that, in those 5 cases, similar to this one, on only one the police officer was sent to jail. Also,



, which means juries seem to understand what's really involved in most of this cases: not racism, not excessive use of force, but simply men and women doing their job, a job that many times puts their life at risk.



He might have done something wrong, no one's perfect, but considering him a murdered and a criminal, I can't accept that.



I know they were unrelated, Wilson didn't know about it at that time, I just mentioned them again because you were implying the police officer was a murderer and a criminal. Brown's parents and family keep saying he was some kind of adorable angel roaming the Earth, but if he was so good as people are describing him, he wouldn't smoke marijuana (which is illegal in Missouri) or rob shops for tobacco. Since he did that, I have no doubt he wouldn't think twice about assaulting a police officer.



By "looting" and "protesting violently in the streets", they are raising some kind of awareness for what happened, demanding "justice", so they're backing him up. The same happens with "filing a false report with the police".

Just because someone is a criminal doesn't mean you can shoot them, plus smoking dope really isn't that bad. I'd argue that about 70% of young people have tried it

[Southside]

Shhoting a teenager attacking an officer is not brutality.

Show me the "assaults" on journalists

You wanna know why police have the armored trucks and weapons. It's cause they deal with this:http://www.funker530.com/shots-fired-in-ferguson-mo/

I showed you in a post that journalist were assaulted and harassed in Ferguson by police and you refused to respond.

Journalist arrested in Mcdonalds while charging phone, head slammed into glass
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/13/reporters-arrested-ferguson-ryan-reilly-wesley-lowery_n_5676841.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2014/08/18/police-in-ferguson-arrest-and-threaten-more-journalists/
Police harass journalist

Tear gas fired at Al Jazeera team setting up for report

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

Wait so you need a mine resistant Humvee that cost thousands of dollars to fight against a couple rioters with guns? Come on, the police aren't fighting the Taliban out there.

[thatcountrykid]

I showed you in a post that journalist were assaulted and harassed in Ferguson by police and you refused to respond.

Journalist arrested in Mcdonalds while charging phone, head slammed into glass
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/13/reporters-arrested-ferguson-ryan-reilly-wesley-lowery_n_5676841.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2014/08/18/police-in-ferguson-arrest-and-threaten-more-journalists/
Police harass journalist

Tear gas fired at Al Jazeera team setting up for report

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

Wait so you need a mine resistant Humvee that cost thousands of dollars to fight against a couple rioters with guns? Come on, the police aren't fighting the Taliban out there.

Right now what really pisses me of is how you for somereadon police don't need to take every precaution to defend themselves and not some pussy reporter who over exaggerates everything.

Police are fighting people with guns, molotovs, pipe bombs and other extreme weapons. They deserve those vehicles an I wish they had more. Also those vehicles are used to save civilians. Say a kid was shot and laying in the open and a shooter was still there. That vehicle is rolling cover allowing police to get to that child. I assume you would want one of those if you were getting shot at

Apparently even though almost no one on the internet as any experience in law enforcement just because they read the damn news they know how something "should" have been handled.

[JamesSuperBoy]

AS usual the media hype - but the situation is sad all round

[Southside]

Right now what really pisses me of is how you for somereadon police don't need to take every precaution to defend themselves and not some pussy reporter who over exaggerates everything.

Police are fighting people with guns, molotovs, pipe bombs and other extreme weapons. They deserve those vehicles an I wish they had more. Also those vehicles are used to save civilians. Say a kid was shot and laying in the open and a shooter was still there. That vehicle is rolling cover allowing police to get to that child. I assume you would want one of those if you were getting shot at

Apparently even though almost no one on the internet as any experience in law enforcement just because they read the damn news they know how something "should" have been handled.

Pipe Bombs? Show some evidence
Only reports I've heard of "extreme weapons" were small arms, Molotov cocktails, and fireworks. And how much fucking precaution do the "community police" need? Let me guess, the rioters in Ferguson had 50 cal machine guns and RPG's? They should've laid down some concrete blocks like they do in real combat zones and ducked behind there in my opinion. Even hide behind the police interceptors, I doubt a 9mm engine block( Don't they teach officers to hide behind the engine in case of a firefight?)

And how is the "pussy reporter" over exaggerating something? Since when was charging your phone at a public restaurant a crime? Did he deserved to have his head smashed against the window or is that standard police protocol? :rolleyes:

Nah if I was getting shot at I'd want a bulletproof vest, helmet, and a rifle IF it was a hostage situation or the criminal was heavily armed. Now Ill agree with you, there should be a couple of these bulletproof vehicles for extreme situations like hostages or a heavily armed individual but the normal community police department shouldn't have one. Maybe just the county or state police. Bottom line is the response was heavy handed and it looked more like the Gaza Strip rather than a suburban town, waste of tax payer dollars if you ask me.

It's a picture of a 50 cal rifle aimed at peaceful protesters? That's necessary in your opinion?

[thatcountrykid]

Pipe Bombs? Show some evidence
Only reports I've heard of "extreme weapons" were small arms, Molotov cocktails, and fireworks. And how much fucking precaution do the "community police" need? Let me guess, the rioters in Ferguson had 50 cal machine guns and RPG's? They should've laid down some concrete blocks like they do in real combat zones and ducked behind there in my opinion. Even hide behind the police interceptors, I doubt a 9mm engine block( Don't they teach officers to hide behind the engine in case of a firefight?)

And how is the "pussy reporter" over exaggerating something? Since when was charging your phone at a public restaurant a crime? Did he deserved to have his head smashed against the window or is that standard police protocol? :rolleyes:

Nah if I was getting shot at I'd want a bulletproof vest, helmet, and a rifle IF it was a hostage situation or the criminal was heavily armed. Now Ill agree with you, there should be a couple of these bulletproof vehicles for extreme situations like hostages or a heavily armed individual but the normal community police department shouldn't have one. Maybe just the county or state police. Bottom line is the response was heavy handed and it looked more like the Gaza Strip rather than a suburban town, waste of tax payer dollars if you ask me.

It's a picture of a 50 cal rifle aimed at peaceful protesters? That's necessary in your opinion?

I'm talking what police face in general not just ferguson

Not surprisingly you are misinformed. Ferguson pd does not have a swat team or armored truck. It's all county and state police with Rhodes there.

Another thing you are misinformed about is that bulletproof vests aren't bullet"proof. " they won't stop the bullets.

They teach the police to shoot back not hide. Personally I think they need to declare martial law in the city, blockade the rioter and arrest them one by one. Give the peaceful ones a chance to leave. They've let these rioters go to far. Try need to end it.

You need to provide more on what happened before his he's was "slammed into a window." A lot could have happened and just saying he was charging his phone doesn't tell the whole story

[Southside]

I'm talking what police face in general not just ferguson

Not surprisingly you are misinformed. Ferguson pd does not have a swat team or armored truck. It's all county and state police with Rhodes there.

Another thing you are misinformed about is that bulletproof vests aren't bullet"proof. " they won't stop the bullets.

They teach the police to shoot back not hide. Personally I think they need to declare martial law in the city, blockade the rioter and arrest them one by one. Give the peaceful ones a chance to leave. They've let these rioters go to far. Try need to end it.

You need to provide more on what happened before his he's was "slammed into a window." A lot could have happened and just saying he was charging his phone doesn't tell the whole story

They stop bullets to a degree, of course certain rounds can penetrate them. The average criminal isn't walking around with a weapon that can do that much damage anyway.
http://abc13.com/news/vest-saves-officer-during-shooting-in-ne-houston/256727/
So....The bulletproof randomly decided to save this officers life or was it designed to do that?

And not all of those expensive tax payer funded vehicles are county or state, the Ferguson police department owns two Humvees that were used in the recent unrest. http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics/2014/08/20/police-military-equipment/14371961/

So im not "misinformed"

They should be able to protest all damn day if they want to, they shouldn't have to "leave".

[thatcountrykid]

They stop bullets to a degree, of course certain rounds can penetrate them. The average criminal isn't walking around with a weapon that can do that much damage anyway.
http://abc13.com/news/vest-saves-officer-during-shooting-in-ne-houston/256727/
So....The bulletproof randomly decided to save this officers life or was it designed to do that?

And not all of those expensive tax payer funded vehicles are county or state, the Ferguson police department owns two Humvees that were used in the recent unrest. http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics/2014/08/20/police-military-equipment/14371961/

So im not "misinformed"

They should be able to protest all damn day if they want to, they shouldn't have to "leave".

Vests are resistant. 22. Will penetrate a vest if it does not hit in the plate and there are weak points. Besides police shouldn't have to risk taking bullets just cause people don't like the big scary trucks.

By all means protest that's their right but it's not their right to fight, shoot, or throw molotovs at police.

You keep bringing up tax payer dollars but be real only a few cents from each taxpayer will go to the vehicle or police. Let's talk about the business owners needing to pay millions for damages from rioters or the rioting taxpayers themselves who are gonna end up costing themselves.

Did you just decide to drop the reporter case ?

[Southside]

Vests are resistant. 22. Will penetrate a vest if it does not hit in the plate and there are weak points. Besides police shouldn't have to risk taking bullets just cause people don't like the big scary trucks.

By all means protest that's their right but it's not their right to fight, shoot, or throw molotovs at police.

You keep bringing up tax payer dollars but be real only a few cents from each taxpayer will go to the vehicle or police. Let's talk about the business owners needing to pay millions for damages from rioters or the rioting taxpayers themselves who are gonna end up costing themselves.

Did you just decide to drop the reporter case ?

So then don't say the vest aren't bulletproof, say its not a 100% guarantee(depending on the round) that the bullet wont penetrate.

Yeah those "few cents" could be rebuilding America's failing infrastructure or going towards education, every penny counts bro. Majority of people don't like "big scary trucks" because its no use for them in the hands of community police officers. Like I said, the only people who should have that type of equipment are SWAT, State & County, and federal agencies(FBI, ATF, DEA). Do you know how much it cost to maintain those vehicles? Its not like there being used everyday, I'd say each state should have 5, the more populated states( Cali,Florida, Illinois, Texas) should have 10.

The protesters aren't doing this, its a couple thugs who aren't even from the immediate community who are doing these acts.

And no, I havent

[thatcountrykid]

So then don't say the vest aren't bulletproof, say its not a 100% guarantee(depending on the round) that the bullet wont penetrate.

Yeah those "few cents" could be rebuilding America's failing infrastructure or going towards education, every penny counts bro. Majority of people don't like "big scary trucks" because its no use for them in the hands of community police officers. Like I said, the only people who should have that type of equipment are SWAT, State & County, and federal agencies(FBI, ATF, DEA). Do you know how much it cost to maintain those vehicles? Its not like there being used everyday, I'd say each state should have 5, the more populated states( Cali,Florida, Illinois, Texas) should have 10.

The protesters aren't doing this, its a couple thugs who aren't even from the immediate community who are doing these acts.

And no, I havent

Oh damn if forgot on word. Do throw a fit over it.

I do know how much it's costs to main rain those. So do you think. Most police departments still have enough in their budget to do tons of charitable shit so they can afford the vehicle.

The police can't afford to pick out the ba seeds when there is molotovs being thrown. That's why they use non legal tear gas and rubber bullets.

Then explain the whole event like I asked. In a non biased, non rhetoric, manner.

[Southside]

Oh damn if forgot on word. Do throw a fit over it.

I do know how much it's costs to main rain those. So do you think. Most police departments still have enough in their budget to do tons of charitable shit so they can afford the vehicle.

The police can't afford to pick out the ba seeds when there is molotovs being thrown. That's why they use non legal tear gas and rubber bullets.

Then explain the whole event like I asked. In a non biased, non rhetoric, manner.

But why would a police department in rural Wyoming need one of those vehicles?(Just an example). Charitable? Maybe where you live...Hopefully one day I can walk to school without being harassed by officers, that's where the anger in Ferguson is stemming from. Years and years of random stops and harassment. I just was in St Louis(Rode through Ferguson before the whole situation) in July, a very divided city.

I don't believe I need to explain the situation, this article http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2014/08/13/washington-post-reporter-arrested-in-ferguson/ explains the harassment after the police officers told them it was OK for them to stay although they couldn't guarantee there safety.

How do you feel about the news team that was targeted by tear gas? Explain that situation for me.

[thatcountrykid]

I'd love to hear what you consider Harrasment and if I do recall you had made a comment before on officers supposedly harassing you for you color so I'm not the one who makes it a race issue.

That was not brutality. Again I'm sure the reporter over exaggerates it.

As for the second reporter the answer is simple. Don't argue with the police.

[phuckphace]

the whole clusterfuck that is American "law enforcement" never fails to deliver the lulz. since we're living under anarcho-tyranny (the final, dying stage of democracy) we're seeing 4-man police departments in Bumfuck Wyoming showing off their new million-dollar toys in a state nobody lives in, but meanwhile cities like Detroit are indistinguishable from Beirut and the cops are magically nowhere to be found. it would be nice to see those tanks being put to good use by going to places where the actual, violent crime is occurring and CRACKING DOWN ON IT. sure, it'll only give us a 99.8% reduction in robberies and murder rates but why bother with that when we could just argue about it in city council meetings while the bullets continue to fly?!

if I were in charge, all inner cities would be heavily militarized with 24-hour neighborhood patrols and armed cops posted at every business. straighten the fuck up or pay the ultimate price (in this case, 40 cents for a carbine round, way cheaper than a jury trial yo)

[Living For Love]

I also don't know what you're trying to prove with this link other than America has a history of unanswered for police brutality.

Of the 7 cases a jury presided over 3 resulted in the police officer being charged and I dispute the judgement of the others (see above).
I was just trying to tell you that history is in Darren Wilson's favour. And the fact you dispute the judgement of the others doesn't make them less valid, I highly doubt you know more about Law than the juries involved in the cases.

I agree that Brown wasn't perfect.

I don't agree that because he wasn't perfect him being murdered doesn't matter.
He wasn't murdered because he wasn't perfect, he was murdered because the police officer who killed him thought it was the best action to take.


People involve themselves in looting because it brings the financial gain.

People involve themselves in rioting because they are angry at an establishment they deem oppressive.
There's no oppression involved here. The fact that they are rioting and looting because of what happened nullifies all their credibility.

[thatcountrykid]

But why would a police department in rural Wyoming need one of those vehicles?(Just an example). Charitable? Maybe where you live...Hopefully one day I can walk to school without being harassed by officers, that's where the anger in Ferguson is stemming from. Years and years of random stops and harassment. I just was in St Louis(Rode through Ferguson before the whole situation) in July, a very divided city.

I don't believe I need to explain the situation, this article http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2014/08/13/washington-post-reporter-arrested-in-ferguson/ explains the harassment after the police officers told them it was OK for them to stay although they couldn't guarantee there safety.

How do you feel about the news team that was targeted by tear gas? Explain that situation for me.

I'd love to hear what you consider Harrasment and if I do recall you had made a comment before on officers supposedly harassing you for you color so I'm not the one who makes it a race issue.

That was not brutality. Again I'm sure the reporter over exaggerates it.

As for the second reporter the answer is simple. Don't argue with the police.

[Harry Smith]

He wasn't murdered because he wasn't perfect, he was murdered because the police officer who killed him thought it was the best action to take.

That's not the point, you were using the argument that because he smokes weed and committed a crime then the police had more of a right to shoot him.

This is the reason people are rioting

[Vlerchan]

I was just trying to tell you that history is in Darren Wilson's favour.
Right. I don't consider the US's poor history in delivering justice in cases trying police brutality relevant.

You'll have to explain how you believe it adds to your case that Wilson was correct in his actions if you want me to give a counter.

And the fact you dispute the judgement of the others doesn't make them less valid[1], I highly doubt you know more about Law than the juries involved in the cases[2].
[1]: I don't understand what you're saying here.

[2]: There's no reason to presume that juries no anything about law. I'll admit that it's more than likely that the juries new about about this case in particular than I do - but from using the sources that you gave me I'm of the opinion that the juries were wrong of their judgement.

He wasn't murdered because he wasn't perfect, he was murdered because the police officer who killed him thought it was the best action to take.
I have no idea why you value this policeman's opinion so highly.

Why do you value this policeman's opinion so highly?

---

Him thinking it was a good idea holds no bearing on its legality.

There's no oppression involved here.
They believe there is. I would agree.

I presented verifiable evidence earlier to support this position.

The fact that they are rioting and looting because of what happened nullifies all their credibility.
Please explain. Thank you.

[Southside]

[QUOTE=thatcountrykid;2913001]I'd love to hear what you consider Harrasment and if I do recall you had made a comment before on officers supposedly harassing you for you color so I'm not the one who makes it a race issue.

That was not brutality. Again I'm sure the reporter over exaggerates it.

As for the second reporter the answer is simple. Don't argue with the police.[/QUOTE

The officer lied, the reporters were told they could stay yet they were forced out, i think any sensible person would be angered or begin to question "authority" if they were lied too.

And hmm I've been stopped so many times( at least ten times) while in a school uniform just on the way to school for no particular reason. It is a race issue, why are minorities stopped more than Caucasians(even though the contraband hit rate on whites is higher than ones on minorities).

[thatcountrykid]

[QUOTE=thatcountrykid;2913001]I'd love to hear what you consider Harrasment and if I do recall you had made a comment before on officers supposedly harassing you for you color so I'm not the one who makes it a race issue.

That was not brutality. Again I'm sure the reporter over exaggerates it.

As for the second reporter the answer is simple. Don't argue with the police.[/QUOTE

The officer lied, the reporters were told they could stay yet they were forced out, i think any sensible person would be angered or begin to question "authority" if they were lied too.

And hmm I've been stopped so many times( at least ten times) while in a school uniform just on the way to school for no particular reason. It is a race issue, why are minorities stopped more than Caucasians(even though the contraband hit rate on whites is higher than ones on minorities).

Officers entered two separate times. The first it was safe for them to stay. The second time it was unsafe and they needed to leave.

You'll need to explain it more. What happened wen you where stopped because when you say no particular reason it's seems that way to you. What kind of area do you live in. What times where these.

[Living For Love]

Right. I don't consider the US's poor history in delivering justice in cases trying police brutality relevant.

You'll have to explain how you believe it adds to your case that Wilson was correct in his actions if you want me to give a counter.
It doesn't add much, really, I just mentioned it after you said you didn't believed in Darren Wilson's story:

Originally Posted by Vlerchan
No.

What I'm saying is that I'm willing to believe the multiple independent witnesses and the findings of an independently-run pathologist report commissioned by respected NYC pathologists (NewYorkPosts words, not mine), over the word of the shooter who stands to lose majorly if this goes against him and his friends who stand to also lose (though not as majorly) if this goes against them, regardless of what positions of authority that the latter group might hold.


I don't understand what you're saying here.
The fact you dispute the judgement of the juries who didn't condemn the police officer in the previous cases I've shown you doesn't mean they were wrong.


I have no idea why you value this policeman's opinion so highly.

Why do you value this policeman's opinion so highly?
Let's say it's my natural intuition; at first sight, I value more a police officer's opinion than a criminal or a thief's opinion.
The way you posed that question was funny.

They believe there is. I would agree.

I presented verifiable evidence earlier to support this position.
If you're still lingering in that racism nonsense theory of yours then you could just stop there, because you haven't presented concrete evidence yet that shows there's racism involved in this case.

Please explain. Thank you.

These people are rioting because, apparently, they want justice. They think that breaking shop's windows and throwing some rocks to police officers will help bring any justice. They can't simply shake off the thought that justice can only be achieved using violence. Well, if they keep thinking about that, then they have no authority to say that Darren Wilson used extreme violence considering they're promoting it as well.

[Harry Smith]

These people are rioting because, apparently, they want justice. They think that breaking shop's windows and throwing some rocks to police officers will help bring any justice. They can't simply shake off the thought that justice can only be achieved using violence..

Have you heard of the Civil rights protests in the 1960's?

[Southside]

[QUOTE=Southside;2913112]

Officers entered two separate times. The first it was safe for them to stay. The second time it was unsafe and they needed to leave.

You'll need to explain it more. What happened wen you where stopped because when you say no particular reason it's seems that way to you. What kind of area do you live in. What times where these.

What happened? Walking to and from school in a school uniform with no one around me. I was stopped, questioned, this isn't harassment to you if this happens almost once a month at random times? I asked why I was being stopped and was told "Just making sure you're going where you need to be", the police department are my parents now?

Don't give me the "Making sure you're not cutting class" BS, any smart person wouldn't put on a school uniform if they were going to cut school

It shouldn't matter where I live unless your trying to make this into a demographic or class issue. And this was at 8am(Time I go to school) and around 3pm(When school lets out).

[thatcountrykid]

[QUOTE=thatcountrykid;2913123]

What happened? Walking to and from school in a school uniform with no one around me. I was stopped, questioned, this isn't harassment to you if this happens almost once a month at random times? I asked why I was being stopped and was told "Just making sure you're going where you need to be", the police department are my parents now?

Don't give me the "Making sure you're not cutting class" BS, any smart person wouldn't put on a school uniform if they were going to cut school

It shouldn't matter where I live unless your trying to make this into a demographic or class issue. And this was at 8am(Time I go to school) and around 3pm(When school lets out).

I'm not trying to make it a class issue goddamn. No the police aren't your parents but I think it is smart to check on people every now and then.

It'd be harassment if you were contactedaybe once or twice a week but once a month isn't.

[phuckphace]

And hmm I've been stopped so many times( at least ten times) while in a school uniform just on the way to school for no particular reason. It is a race issue, why are minorities stopped more than Caucasians(even though the contraband hit rate on whites is higher than ones on minorities).

http://i.imgur.com/CYoSJNf.jpg

the highest number of violent crimes are perpetrated by blacks, followed by Hispanics, followed by whites and finally Asians. I guess most cops are selectively-racist Japanophiles since fewer Asians get incarcerated than whites :lol3:

unfortunately, racial profiling is just one of the many things where people who are the rule ruin it for those who are the exception. as long as you behave yourself (which I'm sure you do) you have little reason to be seriously worried (aside from the fact that you live in Chicago)

[Vlerchan]

I just mentioned it after you said you didn't believed in Darren Wilson's story:
Right. I'm not sure how you thought that would convince me but it is safe to say I'm not convinced.

The fact you dispute the judgement of the juries who didn't condemn the police officer in the previous cases I've shown you doesn't mean they were wrong.
Right. But I still very much believe they are wrong.

Let's say it's my natural intuition; at first sight, I value more a police officer's opinion than a criminal or a thief's opinion.
Few things:

First, you seem to pretend entirely that it's in the police best interests not to lie here and grant them undue credibility as a result. It's your own source that makes the claim that police have lied to save their own and their friends hides in the past.

Second, you'll note that I'm making use of a number of witnesses beyond "criminals" and "thiefs" so I don't appreciate the implication here that those are all I have arguing my narrative. As far as I'm concerned my side has the greater amount and better quality of testimony to back it.

If you're still lingering in that racism nonsense theory of yours then you could just stop there, because you haven't presented concrete evidence yet that shows there's racism involved in this case.
I've never once claimed that racism is definitely involved in this case.

What I have claimed is that in general there's a racist trend here in both a current and historical sense (and I provided supporting evidence) and it is this trend that people are protesting against.

These people are rioting because, apparently, they want justice.
I agree it's not the best way to appeal for justice but its an effective attention seeking mechanism which is why people engage in it. It should be noted that in this case it's a minority engaging in the rioting etc. so I don't see how the whole movement is discredited in your eyes on the basis.