Ferguson, Missouri, in unrest after shooting of unarmed teenager

[Mark Kamill]

http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/da...g_12_says_police_have_not_interviewed_her.php
Did anyone already post this? Extremely suspicious that they're covering this up.

 

[Grey Wind]

I work in the Missouri National Guard in 70th Troop Command (The NG unit dealing with the whole Ferguson BS.) I had to laugh at the tank comment. We're a MP and maintenance unit, we don't own any tanks.

Idk, maybe tanks was the wrong word but that's what most people seem to be calling the armoured truck things they're using so I thought it was the right terminology. Doesn't really matter what they;re called anyway, the response is still way overboard.

 

[CoffeeDrink]

Idk, maybe tanks was the wrong word but that's what most people seem to be calling the armoured truck things they're using so I thought it was the right terminology. Doesn't really matter what they;re called anyway, the response is still way overboard.

This proves to me we have nothing further to discuss.

 

[Grey Wind]

This proves to me we have nothing further to discuss.

Uh, what? I love how you continuously post misinformation and insist that Brown was an armed robber and then as soon as I call those things tanks you're like "nope sorry not talking any more". I'm not sure I understand how me calling them tanks suddenly means that you were right about Brown being an armed robber or were right about the police action being justified or any of the other stuff in your post, or how one naming mistake suddenly invalidates the rest of my points. I guess you're still gonna ignore the fact that the store owners have confirmed that there was no robbery and and label an innocent man being murdered as a non-issue? If my post is suddenly so stupid then it should be easy for you to counter.


e: Like honestly this is SO maddening, because multiple people in this thread have posted stuff about how Brown was a "thug" and an armed robber or how all the protests were violent or how he assaulted the police officer only to be proven wrong, and then as soon as I make one mistake about the terminology of an army vehicle I'm wrong and not worth debating with.

 

[Kyrul]

Idk, maybe tanks was the wrong word but that's what most people seem to be calling the armoured truck things they're using so I thought it was the right terminology. Doesn't really matter what they;re called anyway, the response is still way overboard.

Don't worry about it. It's all good, but there's a huuuuuge difference between a armored truck and a tank lol. Personally, I don't think the response is overboard. I mean just 2 nights ago they were throwing Molotov cocktails, that ain't exactly peaceful. Don't get me wrong, there are some peaceful protests going on, but those aren't the ones having tear gas thrown at them. I can't speak for the police, but I'm almost certain they are using non-lethal methods that are pretty much standard for riot control.

I don't have an opinion on the kid who was shot or the officer, there's not enough evidence yet but I would much rather wait and focus on that after these riots stop.

 

[Nick]

e: Like honestly this is SO maddening, because multiple people in this thread have posted stuff about how Brown was a "thug" and an armed robber or how all the protests were violent or how he assaulted the police officer only to be proven wrong, and then as soon as I make one mistake about the terminology of an army vehicle I'm wrong and not worth debating with.

I think this is just a shimmering example of the race issue in it all, and even in a community like this where people generally get along, race plays a role in judgement of other people. People assume things about him that aren't simply true without even really looking into the example.

It's a shame, really.

 

[Oryx]

Don't worry about it. It's all good, but there's a huuuuuge difference between a armored truck and a tank lol. Personally, I don't think the response is overboard. I mean just 2 nights ago they were throwing Molotov cocktails, that ain't exactly peaceful. Don't get me wrong, there are some peaceful protests going on, but those aren't the ones having tear gas thrown at them. I can't speak for the police, but I'm almost certain they are using non-lethal methods that are pretty much standard for riot control.

I don't have an opinion on the kid who was shot or the officer, there's not enough evidence yet but I would much rather wait and focus on that after these riots stop.

I just want to point out that my friend, a reporter standing in the middle of a peaceful protest, was tear gassed. What evidence do you have of the claim that the peaceful ones "aren't the ones having tear gas thrown at them"? You're probably assuming reasonableness on the parts of the officers, which isn't an assumption you can make - just a few nights ago a police officer pointed a rifle at peaceful protesters and threatened to "***ing kill them", giving his name as "go **** yourself" when asked. This is what is happening on the streets on nights when police officers don't have to deal with more than people peacefully protesting; given this, I don't think it's reasonable to assume without evidence that these officers are only tear gassing the people who "deserve it".

 

[Kyrul]

I just want to point out that my friend, a reporter standing in the middle of a peaceful protest, was tear gassed. What evidence do you have of the claim that the peaceful ones "aren't the ones having tear gas thrown at them"? You're probably assuming reasonableness on the parts of the officers, which isn't an assumption you can make - just a few nights ago a police officer pointed a rifle at peaceful protesters and threatened to "***ing kill them", giving his name as "go **** yourself" when asked. This is what is happening on the streets on nights when police officers don't have to deal with more than people peacefully protesting; given this, I don't think it's reasonable to assume without evidence that these officers are only tear gassing the people who "deserve it".

There's a difference between saying your going to do something and actually doing it. The video show's nothing about peaceful protesters getting tear gas thrown at them, so I'd say just about as much evidence as your friend does. As I said earlier, I can't speak for the police. In the military that would be a huge no-go. You don't point your weapon at anything you aren't prepared to kill. And judging by the fact that another officer was telling him to put his gun down, I'm guessing it's the same way for the police. But what happened before that video? I'm not praising what the officer did but what caused the officer to be so pissed off? Why are the reporters egging him on? I don't believe he would just snap like that without any reason.

 

[Nick]

There's a difference between saying your going to do something and actually doing it. The video show's nothing about peaceful protesters getting tear gas thrown at them, so I'd say just about as much evidence as your friend does. As I said earlier, I can't speak for the police. In the military that would be a huge no-go. You don't point your weapon at anything you aren't prepared to kill. And judging by the fact that another officer was telling him to put his gun down, I'm guessing it's the same way for the police. But what happened before that video? I'm not praising what the officer did but what caused the officer to be so pissed off? Why are the reporters egging him on? I don't believe he would just snap like that without any reason.

I am seriously amazed that you think that there's any rational reason for a police officer to threaten to kill protestors, regardless of what caused him to snap.

Someone who threatens to kill someone whose not posing a real threat and just getting under your skin isn't fit to be a police officer. That's why, according to a document I read, that police officer involved in that incident was fired.

As a police officer, you're charged with the task of protecting these people from harm. That's your job. You aren't allowed to respond to the anger that you feel. You're expected to be professional, just like you're expected to be professional when dealing with an unruly customer at a store you work at.

 

[Oryx]

There's a difference between saying your going to do something and actually doing it. The video show's nothing about peaceful protesters getting tear gas thrown at them, so I'd say just about as much evidence as your friend does. As I said earlier, I can't speak for the police. In the military that would be a huge no-go. You don't point your weapon at anything you aren't prepared to kill. And judging by the fact that another officer was telling him to put his gun down, I'm guessing it's the same way for the police. But what happened before that video? I'm not praising what the officer did but what caused the officer to be so pissed off? Why are the reporters egging him on? I don't believe he would just snap like that without any reason.

I'm not asking for forensics. You made a very strong claim - you claimed that the police are only using tear gas on protesters that aren't peaceful. All you need to disprove that is one experience of that not being the case. If you're going to make a claim, you have to back it up if it isn't obvious - you're making a claim that many people here would disagree with, even if we water it down to "most of the time tear gas is used on non-peaceful protesters". The stories coming out of Ferguson are saying that this isn't the case, that tear gas and rubber bullets are being used against children, press, and peaceful crowds. Therefore, you have to either back up or back down; either you have a reason to think this, or you're making assumptions that support the police officers despite not having any concrete reason to do so. Which makes sense since your next point is "yeah he's threatening to literally kill peaceful protesters but I wonder what they did to provoke him?"

This is why people are comparing the stories coming out of Ferguson and the justifications by their supporters to domestic violence. If you didn't talk so harshly, protesters, I wouldn't have to hurt you! You know I'm a good guy, I wouldn't be this violent without provocation, so you must have provoked me.

For the record, my friend's evidence of being tear gassed was...being tear gassed.

 

[Kyrul]

I am seriously amazed that you think that there's any rational reason for a police officer to threaten to kill protestors, regardless of what caused him to snap.

Someone who threatens to kill someone whose not posing a real threat and just getting under your skin isn't fit to be a police officer. That's why, according to a document I read, that police officer involved in that incident was fired.

As a police officer, you're charged with the task of protecting these people from harm. That's your job. You aren't allowed to respond to the anger that you feel. You're expected to be professional, just like you're expected to be professional when dealing with an unruly customer at a store you work at.

Sounds like it all worked out for the better then.

I'm not asking for forensics. You made a very strong claim - you claimed that the police are only using tear gas on protesters that aren't peaceful. All you need to disprove that is one experience of that not being the case. If you're going to make a claim, you have to back it up if it isn't obvious - you're making a claim that many people here would disagree with, even if we water it down to "most of the time tear gas is used on non-peaceful protesters". The stories coming out of Ferguson are saying that this isn't the case, that tear gas and rubber bullets are being used against children, press, and peaceful crowds. Therefore, you have to either back up or back down; either you have a reason to think this, or you're making assumptions that support the police officers despite not having any concrete reason to do so. Which makes sense since your next point is "yeah he's threatening to literally kill peaceful protesters but I wonder what they did to provoke him?"

This is why people are comparing the stories coming out of Ferguson and the justifications by their supporters to domestic violence. If you didn't talk so harshly, protesters, I wouldn't have to hurt you! You know I'm a good guy, I wouldn't be this violent without provocation, so you must have provoked me.

For the record, my friend's evidence of being tear gassed was...being tear gassed.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat...protesters_before_second_night_of_curfew.html

This article covers the same events the one you posted did. The officers were fired upon first. They didn't just fire tear gas for no reason.

Edit:
Also I'm done posting after this. I know when I have been defeated, I didn't come prepared to defend my views. So good debating sir.

 

[Rogue planet]

I'm on a phone but just wanted to make two quick points to the above post. Just because you are black does not mean you cannot be racist towards your own people, please educate yourself further on what racism is. Also that picture you cared to share is from Greece, a quick Google search told me that. Please try harder.

 

[CoffeeDrink]

I'm on a phone but just wanted to make two quick points to the above post. Just because you are black does not mean you cannot be racist towards your own people, please educate yourself further on what racism is. Also that picture you cared to share is from Greece, a quick Google search told me that. Please try harder.

Yes, it is from Greece. However this is what I said: "Yeah, I can see it if I tilt my head a little. . . molotov cocktails are kind of peaceful." pertaining to Molotov cocktails in general, and not the situation in Missouri. So I did not make an error, as it is one of the few pictures I could find that can show the actual damage these horrific projectiles can do; and besides, it was a 'peaceful' protest in Greece, so by GW's standards I guess that means this is okay. 'Peaceful' protesters in Missouri were apprehended with these horrific kitchen-sink incendiary devices. Call me cynical, but I don't believe for a second either of us would care to take the place of the Greek Officer that was on fire, or anyone that's on fire for that matter. None of the Officers wish to be there [Missouri], it's a mess.

And no, I am not racist against 'my own people' as this is the definition of racism:

"rac·ism (rāˌsizəm)

noun

1. The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.

2. Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior."

Let's see, do any of these apply to me? As far as I can tell, they don't. This is a critical error on the parts of many. Racism is an intrinsic part of being. It doesn't just 'flare up' and die down. It sticks around. If anything, I have a lack of patience for those who do not understand, or know, the true definition of racism, and as I see it now, you do not. Do not accuse me of being racist, because when it comes down to the individual it does not matter what color you are on the outside, it's the insides that truly count.

Unless, you meant to say that individuals can be racist against their own race; if this is so, I would advise you to utilize the word 'you' more carefully in the future, as it can be viewed as a more personal note than one would have liked. So, if you did indeed mean the latter, I apologies, but if it remains the former, I retain my resentment and that's my constitutional given right.

 

[Oryx]

If you're taking a dictionary definition as your be-all end-all definition without any outside sources or sociological research or actual knowledge on the subject, why did you immediately expand the definition to include "intrinsic" and "sticking around"? Those are not in those definitions you listed at all. Beliefs change, and actions are bounded. You're contradicting yourself - either there is more to the definition of racism than what is in those few sentences from the dictionary in which case you citing it as disproving Gold is useless, or there is no more than the dictionary definition in which case you are wrong as well in trying to expand it.

 

[CoffeeDrink]

If you're taking a dictionary definition as your be-all end-all definition without any outside sources or sociological research or actual knowledge on the subject, why did you immediately expand the definition to include "intrinsic" and "sticking around"? Those are not in those definitions you listed at all. Beliefs change, and actions are bounded. You're contradicting yourself - either there is more to the definition of racism than what is in those few sentences from the dictionary in which case you citing it as disproving Gold is useless, or there is no more than the dictionary definition in which case you are wrong as well in trying to expand it.

What is belief? Faith. But what is faith? Religion. What is it to have religion? To have creed (3. a set of beliefs or aims that guide someone's actions). Ergo 'sticks around'. If you want to nit pick the nuances between the words constant and 'sticks around'. . . racism is not something that just springs up from nowhere, it is a learned belief, much akin to a religious belief. Therefore, I did not 'expand the definition' to include words that have nothing to do with the original definition in the first place.

What answer would you receive if you asked a Christian on what their beliefs are? God created this, that, and so on. It doesn't vary much. You can explain to them the values of certain sciences, but they'll still believe in Christianity. The very same can be said of a true racist, and until you actually meet one, you will not know what one sounds like.

In fact, one of my great uncles is actually racist against Mexicans and Hispanics. He hates dealing with them. If he's standing in line at the DMV (this is not a joke) or some other business, and there is two people helping one line if one of the employees is Mexican he'll wait until the next person available is another color. He hates their posture, their voices, their 'breeding' habits (as he put it), their average height, their 'fat' (I'm about as confused with this one, their is the correct term), the Spanish language, the way they call their children 'mami' and 'papi' (I have no clue, but I suspect it is a cultural thing), he won't eat Mexican food 'because it's dirty', or buy items made in Mexico 'for fear of lead poisoning', he won't watch a movie with Antonio Banderas in it (unless he dies, and even though he's from Spain), and he believes the US border should shoot to kill every Mexican attempting to immigrate illegally (he used much more colorful language). He drones on and on until his racism stops being offensive and goes on the borderline of absurdity. That man is a racist. That man's beliefs, cannot be shaken. His beliefs are going to stick with him until he dies.

Fortunately I only see the guy about once every five years, and every time he says something racist I just chuckle and shake my head. It's gotten to the point where everything he says about Mexicans is a running joke. I mean, how can you hate a people by the way they push their shopping carts around. . . really.

 

[Oryx]

Your first two sentences are wrong. Faith and belief are not perfect synonyms, and belief is not inherently tied to religion. Racism is not a religion. Take it from someone who spent 4 years studying words in college, your idea of what is and is not the same word is wrong in a big way.

You are also wrong in your assumption that I have never met a racist.

Racism being a learned belief means nothing in regards to its similarities to religion; fairness is also a learned belief, that doesn't mean that racism and fairness are the same thing just because they're both learned.

 

[Grey Wind]

Yes, it is from Greece. However this is what I said: "Yeah, I can see it if I tilt my head a little. . . molotov cocktails are kind of peaceful." pertaining to Molotov cocktails in general, and not the situation in Missouri. So I did not make an error, as it is one of the few pictures I could find that can show the actual damage these horrific projectiles can do; and besides, it was a 'peaceful' protest in Greece, so by GW's standards I guess that means this is okay. 'Peaceful' protesters in Missouri were apprehended with these horrific kitchen-sink incendiary devices. Call me cynical, but I don't believe for a second either of us would care to take the place of the Greek Officer that was on fire, or anyone that's on fire for that matter. None of the Officers wish to be there [Missouri], it's a mess.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat...protesters_before_second_night_of_curfew.html

Tonight, a day of hope, prayers, and peaceful protests was marred by the violent criminal acts of an organized and growing number of individuals, many from outside the community and state, whose actions are putting the residents and businesses of Ferguson at risk

Most of the people throwing molotovs, looting etc. aren't involved with the protests and all the protesters condemn them. And if it is such a problem, why aren't the police doing anything about them? Why aren't they protecting the stores from being looted, why aren't they arresting those being violent? Why, instead, are they arresting journalists and peaceful protesters, tear gassing the peaceful protesters (some of whom are children), firing bullets into peaceful crowds? And the ridiculous police response started before the violence did, so...


I only managed to skim your other post because it was deleted, but I did see that you're still insisting that Brown assaulted somebody and that was why he was shot. Do you have any proof of that? Because the store owners and witnesses never mentioned anything about him assaulting someone at the store, these five eyewitnesses to the shooting have stories that match up and they don't mention anything about Brown assaulting the officer. The police department also admitted that Wilson didn't know anything about the supposed robbery, so it's completely irrelevant even if it did happen (Brown was stopped for "blocking traffic", supposedly). Also, the implication that a teen deserves to be shot ten+ times for robbing a packet of cigars is horrific.

 

[CoffeeDrink]

Your first two sentences are wrong. Faith and belief are not perfect synonyms, and belief is not inherently tied to religion. Racism is not a religion. Take it from someone who spent 4 years studying words in college, your idea of what is and is not the same word is wrong in a big way.

You are also wrong in your assumption that I have never met a racist.

Racism being a learned belief means nothing in regards to its similarities to religion; fairness is also a learned belief, that doesn't mean that racism and fairness are the same thing just because they're both learned.

". . .it is a learned belief, much akin to a religious belief." If you've studied words as you say, then I'm sure you understand that I didn't actually say racism equals religion at all. Nobody is born with a religion, and no one is born a racist and this fact makes them similar (akin > similar > alike). Or am I wrong again?

Further more, I suppose my dictionary must be wrong as well when it comes to synonyms and related words. I guess Merriam-Webster made some kind of mistake here. Oh well, good thing you're here to tell me! You know all the ins and outs of the English language, so that shouldn't be an issue. . .

And, if you would like to get picky, these are my first two sentences "What is belief? Faith." and while it is considered a major sentence faux pas, it can fall into the class of partial sentences or sentence fragments. So, what does faith actually mean? "Complete trust or confidence in someone or something." (see also: trust, belief, confidence, conviction) you mean, like a belief? Kind of like racism? No. That cannot be.

Also, Grey Wind, you have shown me the error in my ways, and I now believe that all police should actually withdraw from Ferguson, and leave everyone to their own devices. Good day, and I hope you enjoy each others company.

 

[Oryx]

". . .it is a learned belief, much akin to a religious belief." If you've studied words as you say, then I'm sure you understand that I didn't actually say racism equals religion at all. Nobody is born with a religion, and no one is born a racist and this fact makes them similar (akin > similar > alike). Or am I wrong again?

Further more, I suppose my dictionary must be wrong as well when it comes to synonyms and related words. I guess Merriam-Webster made some kind of mistake here. Oh well, good thing you're here to tell me! You know all the ins and outs of the English language, so that shouldn't be an issue. . .

And, if you would like to get picky, these are my first two sentences "What is belief? Faith." and while it is considered a major sentence faux pas, it can fall into the class of partial sentences or sentence fragments. So, what does faith actually mean? "Complete trust or confidence in someone or something." (see also: trust, belief, confidence, conviction) you mean, like a belief? Kind of like racism? No. That cannot be.

Also, Grey Wind, you have shown me the error in my ways, and I now believe that all police should actually withdraw from Ferguson, and leave everyone to their own devices. Good day, and I hope you enjoy each others company.

Actually, you're right. Belief and faith, according to Merriam-Webster, are synonyms, because Merriam-Webster includes the definition of faith that has nothing to do with religion, a "strong belief". So you're right, it's your second sentence that is wrong - faith is not religion. :) Thank you for correcting me!

"If you've studied words as you say, then I'm sure you understand that I didn't actually say racism equals religion at all."

You defined racism as a belief. You then defined belief as faith. You then defined faith as religion. Thus, you think racism is religion. That's what you said. You're quoting a different part of your post, when I was responding to your initial leapfrog.

I would not criticize your grammar because you're not using grammatical structures to try to make a point. I am not nitpicking - you're the one that brought in the dictionary as your backup source, while ignoring all the societal context that makes the dictionary only a denotative source, not a connotative one.

 

[Grey Wind]

Also, Grey Wind, you have shown me the error in my ways, and I now believe that all police should actually withdraw from Ferguson, and leave everyone to their own devices. Good day, and I hope you enjoy each others company.

God stop acting like such a child. You know full well that's not what I'm saying and you've done pretty much nothing to prove your points but repeat yourself.

Eh, just because the police weren't aware that Brown was a robbery suspect doesn't mean that Brown didn't freak out and think he was going to be arrested for it. Criminals do stupid things in the prescence of law enforcement.

What relevance does it have? The police officer knew nothing about a robbery so his actions weren't influenced by it. He shot him solely for jaywalking. You don't see any problem with that?

Also, Brown freaked out because he was dragged into the window of a cop car and had a gun pointed at him...

I agree with the video Phantom posted, the blame cannot solely be placed on the police. Nobody has mentioned black ghetto culture idolising violence, drugs and disrespecting the police. If you want your treatment to change perhaps black people of influence (namely rappers) should stop encouraging thuggish behaviour. Seeing that store robbery video highlights Mike Browns size and attitude, using intimidation to get away with a misdemeanour. Jaywalking and shoplifting is not worth death but it goes to the individuals character as him being a person that has no consideration for other human beings.

What kind of reach @ you blaming black people for this. You're basically saying that you agree with racial profiling and think of black people as thugs


It's honestly so telling where y'all put your focus. Nothing about the guy who shot an unarmed teen, nothing about the police department that straight up lied and tried to cover up said shooting, nothing about the officers tear gassing peaceful protesters incl. children or the rubber bullets fired at crowds. No, the REAL issue is Brown being thug (based on???), how "not all cops" kill unarmed teenagers, the "violent "protesters" (the vast majority of whom aren't even from Ferguson), and the robbery that never happened.