Racism on parade part 2- cops, thugs, looting, Obama,& more

[djAdvocate]

Aug 21, 2014 7:52:35 GMT -5 Shooby said:

So far the only ones who keep changing their story are Brown's side.

and this makes perfect sense.  Brown doesn't have a PR department.

[djAdvocate]

Aug 21, 2014 8:37:01 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

Aug 20, 2014 23:05:38 GMT -5 resolution said:

Most of us care way more about the civil rights violations that are going on in the current police action than what happened in that specific encounter that triggered the demonstrations.

What civil rights are being violated exactly?  This is an honest question.  I don't see it that way and it's more than possible I'm missing something. 

let's start with peaceful protesters getting gassed, and work down from there.

[djAdvocate]

Aug 21, 2014 9:28:50 GMT -5 Shooby said:

So, then looting isn't about "justice and racism"? Just smash and grab to get free stuff. Oh ok. Guess it depends on what narrative they are trying to spin.

this isn't about ONE THING.  stop trying to make it.

[djAdvocate]

Aug 21, 2014 10:22:51 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

Aug 21, 2014 10:08:30 GMT -5 resolution said:

I think we are all in agreement that the looters and arsonists need to be arrested and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. The issue I see is the peaceful protesters and journalists being lumped in together with the criminals.

I agree....with the exception of the press.  For some reason, some members of the press feel they have a different set of rules and don't have to follow the directions ordinary citizens have to follow. 

i think this is kinda true, tho, isn't it?  if the press is supposed to be our eyes and ears, and the police are intentionally blinding and deafening us by limiting access, is that not different than telling irate citizens that they have no business getting up close and personal with the police?  i think it is.

If they are impeding law enforcement, they should be arrested and prosecuted just like you and I would be.  I don't think they get a pass just because they are reporters.

the press are actually trained to not be an impediment, and they are also given instructions by police how to NOT intrude.  but if you think that walking alongside protestors or the police as they are doing a job and guaranteeing that we have eyes and ears in the game is "impeding", then you are playing right into the abuses.

HOWEVER, if the intent of their arrests was an attempt to hide from the public what is really going on, I'd feel completely different.  I don't know the reasons, so I can't say.

i only need to know that the access was limited, and the press was harassed and jailed.  if you need more, i respect that.  but i don't.

[Green Eyed Lady]

Aug 21, 2014 12:01:33 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Aug 21, 2014 8:37:01 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

What civil rights are being violated exactly?  This is an honest question.  I don't see it that way and it's more than possible I'm missing something. 

let's start with peaceful protesters getting gassed, and work down from there.

As I said, I'll have to go back and read, but I didn't read where the peaceful protesters were gassed.  I read the ones being gassed were the ones not obeying directives.  If you are not obeying a lawful order, you are no longer peaceful.

There are a ton of articles out there I haven't read, and I don't pretend to know even a small fraction of what has been written.  Unfortunately, this day isn't going to allow much of that.  I'll try to catch up when I get home.  Thank you for your answer.

[djAdvocate]

Aug 21, 2014 12:08:04 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

Aug 21, 2014 12:01:33 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

let's start with peaceful protesters getting gassed, and work down from there.

As I said, I'll have to go back and read, but I didn't read where the peaceful protesters were gassed. 

i didn't read anything either.  i saw it.

I read the ones being gassed were the ones not obeying directives.  If you are not obeying a lawful order, you are no longer peaceful.

well, i think we will part ways here.  if a crowd is not looting, they have every right to assemble.  i don't buy this curfew crap, and i don't buy any sort of suppression of free speech going on here.  if the police have a case to make on individual bases, they should do it.  but herding protesters around like cattle and gassing them is not on my long list of justifiable actions.  but keep in mind that i am quite anti-authoritarian, so i am going to view anything up to, but not including property damage and theft as protected under the 1st amendment.

There are a ton of articles out there I haven't read, and I don't pretend to know even a small fraction of what has been written.  Unfortunately, this day isn't going to allow much of that.  I'll try to catch up when I get home.  Thank you for your answer.

np.  thanks for the civil debate.

[Green Eyed Lady]

Aug 21, 2014 12:07:51 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Aug 21, 2014 10:22:51 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

I agree....with the exception of the press.  For some reason, some members of the press feel they have a different set of rules and don't have to follow the directions ordinary citizens have to follow. 

i think this is kinda true, tho, isn't it?  if the press is supposed to be our eyes and ears, and the police are intentionally blinding and deafening us by limiting access, is that not different than telling irate citizens that they have no business getting up close and personal with the police?  i think it is.

If they are impeding law enforcement, they should be arrested and prosecuted just like you and I would be.  I don't think they get a pass just because they are reporters.

the press are actually trained to not be an impediment, and they are also given instructions by police how to NOT intrude.  but if you think that walking alongside protestors or the police as they are doing a job and guaranteeing that we have eyes and ears in the game is "impeding", then you are playing right into the abuses.

HOWEVER, if the intent of their arrests was an attempt to hide from the public what is really going on, I'd feel completely different.  I don't know the reasons, so I can't say.

i only need to know that the access was limited, and the press was harassed and jailed.  if you need more, i respect that.  but i don't.

We don't entirely disagree because I have no idea what they were doing when they were arrested.  As we both said, if the arrests were an attempt to hide information, it is inexcusable.  If the arrests were made because the reporters were intentionally disobeying direction, that's another matter and I don't feel one bit sorry for them.  I have to say, I'm pretty sure ALL reporters weren't "harassed and jailed" so I have a hard time believing it was any attempt to limit anybody's access.  I find it easier to believe those that were arrested were doing something wrong.

[djAdvocate]

Aug 21, 2014 12:11:58 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

Aug 21, 2014 12:07:51 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i only need to know that the access was limited, and the press was harassed and jailed.  if you need more, i respect that.  but i don't.

We don't entirely disagree because I have no idea what they were doing when they were arrested.  As we both said, if the arrests were an attempt to hide information, it is inexcusable.  If the arrests were made because the reporters were intentionally disobeying direction, that's another matter and I don't feel one bit sorry for them. 

i am inclined to think the "direction" was in no way justified. but like i say, that is just my nature.

I have to say, I'm pretty sure ALL reporters weren't "harassed and jailed" so I have a hard time believing it was any attempt to limit anybody's access.  I find it easier to believe those that were arrested were doing something wrong.

did i say "ALL reporters"?  if i did, i apologize.  i think the reporters that didn't film any improprieties were probably treated nicely. 

[Green Eyed Lady]

Aug 21, 2014 12:11:55 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Aug 21, 2014 12:08:04 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

As I said, I'll have to go back and read, but I didn't read where the peaceful protesters were gassed. 

i didn't read anything either.  i saw it.

I read the ones being gassed were the ones not obeying directives.  If you are not obeying a lawful order, you are no longer peaceful.

well, i think we will part ways here.  if a crowd is not looting, they have every right to assemble.  i don't buy this curfew crap, and i don't buy any sort of suppression of free speech going on here.  if the police have a case to make on individual bases, they should do it.  but herding protesters around like cattle and gassing them is not on my long list of justifiable actions.  but keep in mind that i am quite anti-authoritarian, so i am going to view anything up to, but not including property damage and theft as protected under the 1st amendment.

There are a ton of articles out there I haven't read, and I don't pretend to know even a small fraction of what has been written.  Unfortunately, this day isn't going to allow much of that.  I'll try to catch up when I get home.  Thank you for your answer.

np.  thanks for the civil debate.

Understood.  We are polar opposites as I am very pro-law enforcement, except when it is proven they have done something wrong.  Even so, we don't disagree on several things.

[Green Eyed Lady]

Aug 21, 2014 12:14:10 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Aug 21, 2014 12:11:58 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

We don't entirely disagree because I have no idea what they were doing when they were arrested.  As we both said, if the arrests were an attempt to hide information, it is inexcusable.  If the arrests were made because the reporters were intentionally disobeying direction, that's another matter and I don't feel one bit sorry for them. 

i am inclined to think the "direction" was in no way justified. but like i say, that is just my nature.

I have to say, I'm pretty sure ALL reporters weren't "harassed and jailed" so I have a hard time believing it was any attempt to limit anybody's access.  I find it easier to believe those that were arrested were doing something wrong.

did i say "ALL reporters"?  if i did, i apologize.  i think the reporters that didn't film any improprieties were probably treated nicely. 

No, you did not.  My point wasn't to imply that you did, but rather to state that since all reporters weren't arrested, I have a hard time believing it was an attempt at some sort of cover up.

I liken it to the brouhaha over the officers without badges.  It's ridiculous that anyone asserts they were trying to hide their identity.  Their pictures were plastered all over the place!  I find it easier to believe that they removed yet one more "weapon" that could have been pulled off and used against them.

Just differences of opinion.  I hope this whole thing gets straightened out soon - whichever way that may be.

[djAdvocate]

Aug 21, 2014 12:17:10 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

Aug 21, 2014 12:14:10 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

did i say "ALL reporters"?  if i did, i apologize.  i think the reporters that didn't film any improprieties were probably treated nicely. 

No, you did not.  My point wasn't to imply that you did, but rather to state that since all reporters weren't arrested, I have a hard time believing it was an attempt at some sort of cover up.

I liken it to the brouhaha over the officers without badges.  It's ridiculous that anyone asserts they were trying to hide their identity.  Their pictures were plastered all over the place!  I find it easier to believe that they removed yet one more "weapon" that could have been pulled off and used against them.

Just differences of opinion.  I hope this whole thing gets straightened out soon - whichever way that may be.

my guess: the pro-police reporters were treated well, and those that were pro-protester were not.  but just like you: guessing.

[Green Eyed Lady]

You could be right.  I don't know.  I certainly hope that isn't the case.

[PK Bucko]

Aug 21, 2014 12:01:33 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Aug 21, 2014 8:37:01 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

What civil rights are being violated exactly?  This is an honest question.  I don't see it that way and it's more than possible I'm missing something. 

let's start with peaceful protesters getting gassed, and work down from there.

As I stated earlier. The criminals inter mingled with peaceful protesters. This caused a ton of problems. 

[djAdvocate]

Aug 21, 2014 12:56:42 GMT -5 PK Bucko said:

Aug 21, 2014 12:01:33 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

let's start with peaceful protesters getting gassed, and work down from there.

As I stated earlier. The criminals inter mingled with peaceful protesters. This caused a ton of problems. 

there is a way of dealing with that, but it is risky to cops.  i get that they don't like that.  i really do.

[Deleted]

Aug 20, 2014 23:17:59 GMT -5 Shooby said:

I have said I think cops should have stun guns or other nonlethal ways to subdue someone

Be careful how much faith you put into "Stun Guns". Some people just get pissed off when shot with them.

[Deleted]

Aug 21, 2014 9:23:36 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Aug 21, 2014 9:19:00 GMT -5 Shooby said:

How about THEY actually listen to the FACTS? How about finding out the FACTS BEFORE looting?

The FACTS did not start coming out until well after the looting began.  The police and governor screwed that up.

Is it possible that they didn't want to release any information until it was proven to be fact.

I think it's MUCH better to wait and present unassailable facts than to jump the gun, possibly be wrong, and have to back-peddle if you are (kind of like those in the Brown camp are having to do).

[Tennesseer]

Aug 21, 2014 18:53:03 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Aug 21, 2014 9:23:36 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

The FACTS did not start coming out until well after the looting began.  The police and governor screwed that up.

Is it possible that they didn't want to release any information until it was proven to be fact.

I think it's MUCH better to wait and present unassailable facts than to jump the gun, possibly be wrong, and have to back-peddle if you are (kind of like those in the Brown camp are having to do).

Did it take almost a week for the police to determine their own officer's name?  Did it take a week for the police to find out their own employee had an eye injury as a result of being punched by Brown?  

[Value Buy]

One thing that caught my attention was the instruction that the protestors had to keep moving, and could not stop.

It got me to thinking about the civil rights and University protests back in the sixties.

The protests that were hugely successful morally speaking, were largely sit-in's, with signage and chanting of key phrases. They were able to accomplish their goal of being heard much better than the walking protestors.

Now these protestors were instructed, you have to keep walking. I think the press would have preferred the old sit in style protests, where you can catch the real civil right's violation by the police, doing the interviews in place with the protestors, etc..

My question is, how can the police insist you have to keep walking?

What if they all set down in the intersection instead?

Remember two years ago the protestors in our major cities, protesting big banks and big business? They were more than accomodated by the city officials, keeping the police departments basically in line.

[Deleted]

Aug 21, 2014 19:42:11 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Aug 21, 2014 18:53:03 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Is it possible that they didn't want to release any information until it was proven to be fact.

I think it's MUCH better to wait and present unassailable facts than to jump the gun, possibly be wrong, and have to back-peddle if you are (kind of like those in the Brown camp are having to do).

Did it take almost a week for the police to determine their own officer's name?  Did it take a week for the police to find out their own employee had an eye injury as a result of being punched by Brown?  

I don't know how long it took to get information in a "safe to release to the public" manner.

I do know that the more that comes out the more it looks like a "good shoot" (as they call them).

[Value Buy]

And on another note, in Chicago today they were holding a vigil for the nightly shootings of black children by other blacks.

A nine year old boy who was described as a nice boy, who was disciplined by a family member in the afternoon, so he stormed out of the house, upset over the discipline. Went down the street near a traditional gang boundary line separating two gangs.

Shot and killed in the crossfire, supposedly...... that is what the news stations say anyway.

No rioting, no protests, just a vigil with the mother and neighbors saying someone has to stop the killing.

I cannot tell you how many have been killed this year. I do not think they release the total every week.

At least not with the actual incident.

Why aren't the gang members brought up on civil right's violation of the children's right to LIVE?

It is always a simple degree of murder.

[Deleted]

Aug 21, 2014 19:52:31 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

One thing that caught my attention was the instruction that the protestors had to keep moving, and could not stop.

It got me to thinking about the civil rights and University protests back in the sixties.

The protests that were hugely successful morally speaking, were largely sit-in's, with signage and chanting of key phrases. They were able to accomplish their goal of being heard much better than the walking protestors.

Now these protestors were instructed, you have to keep walking. I think the press would have preferred the old sit in style protests, where you can catch the real civil right's violation by the police, doing the interviews in place with the protestors, etc..

My question is, how can the police insist you have to keep walking?

What if they all set down in the intersection instead?

Remember two years ago the protestors in our major cities, protesting big banks and big business? They were more than accomodated by the city officials, keeping the police departments basically in line.

It may be an issue with "loitering" laws.

People that own the property have rights, and rights of way (streets/sidewalks) have "ability to pass" (you don't have the right to impede traffic) issues to deal with.

[EVT1]

Aug 21, 2014 7:35:59 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Aug 20, 2014 23:09:49 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Well you can't have the facts when there are different versions of events, now can you.

And anyway I'd feel better if the guy was being actively attacked while shooting him- because the alternative sucks.

It seems the police officer was in fact being actively attacked.  More than a dozen eyewitnesses tell the same story the police officer told- the Mr. Brown immediately attacked him when he pulled up, went for his gun to the point where the gun discharged in the police vehicle, fled, but then doubled back for a second attack on the officer- who at the time had already had his face broken by the 'gentle giant'.

Who are these dozen eyewitnesses?  More than 12 people were standing right there and saw him go for a gun inside a patrol car   Riiiight.

I have only read of about 5 or 6 witnesses and the accounts vary to a degree.  And of course the mystery radio call in witness that won't give their name 

BTW now being reported via CNN that his face was not broken- no fractures.  Methinks we need to wait and see what the evidence actually is- as in sworn statements, medical records, etc.  Told you the bullshit was on the way a few days ago.  When radio show callers are considered witnesses because they say so then everyone might as well be one. 

[Value Buy]

Aug 21, 2014 20:00:27 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Aug 21, 2014 19:52:31 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

One thing that caught my attention was the instruction that the protestors had to keep moving, and could not stop.

It got me to thinking about the civil rights and University protests back in the sixties.

The protests that were hugely successful morally speaking, were largely sit-in's, with signage and chanting of key phrases. They were able to accomplish their goal of being heard much better than the walking protestors.

Now these protestors were instructed, you have to keep walking. I think the press would have preferred the old sit in style protests, where you can catch the real civil right's violation by the police, doing the interviews in place with the protestors, etc..

My question is, how can the police insist you have to keep walking?

What if they all set down in the intersection instead?

Remember two years ago the protestors in our major cities, protesting big banks and big business? They were more than accomodated by the city officials, keeping the police departments basically in line.

It may be an issue with "loitering" laws.

People that own the property have rights, and rights of way (streets/sidewalks) have "ability to pass" (you don't have the right to impede traffic) issues to deal with.

The businesses were already affected by the people being there already.

Heck, the police were the ones standing in the road with traffic blocked off. The sidewalks were rather wide on the main street. They could easily sit four or five deep and still not block pedestrian traffic.

I do not know if there is a public park there, but I assume if the protest was in front of city hall or the police station, the crowds could have been dealt with, and the emotional impact could have been even greater for the community as a whole. You lose a little bit in the walk by of a gas station or McDonald's imo

Just to be clear, I think the "protest structure" of the crowd was weak at best. There was really no leadership, and did not even have a feel of a grassroots movement, and yet I know that was exactly it, a grassroots protest.

They needed some Tea Party people there to give them some organization. Or maybe Al Sharpton......

[EVT1]

Know what I think- all of the people whining about looters and trying to attribute that to the population IMO are nothing but prejudiced ignorant people or plain racists.  There are over 20K people that live there and it's pretty shitty to attribute the actions of a handful of assholes- the majority of which at seems to not even live there- to the rest of them.

Heard the RW radio idiot this morning quoting 'Joe the plumber' who is an obvious racist- stating that the one way to quell the protests would be to hold a job fair.  What a real POS that man is.

[Deleted]

Aug 21, 2014 20:21:05 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Aug 21, 2014 20:00:27 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

It may be an issue with "loitering" laws.

People that own the property have rights, and rights of way (streets/sidewalks) have "ability to pass" (you don't have the right to impede traffic) issues to deal with.

The businesses were already affected by the people being there already.

Heck, the police were the ones standing in the road with traffic blocked off. The sidewalks were rather wide on the main street. They could easily sit four or five deep and still not block pedestrian traffic.

I do not know if there is a public park there, but I assume if the protest was in front of city hall or the police station, the crowds could have been dealt with, and the emotional impact could have been even greater for the community as a whole. You lose a little bit in the walk by of a gas station or McDonald's imo

Just to be clear, I think the "protest structure" of the crowd was weak at best. There was really no leadership, and did not even have a feel of a grassroots movement, and yet I know that was exactly it, a grassroots protest.

They needed some Tea Party people there to give them some organization. Or maybe Al Sharpton......

Well... in fairness, I did say "may be an issue".

[djAdvocate]

Aug 21, 2014 20:00:27 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Aug 21, 2014 19:52:31 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

One thing that caught my attention was the instruction that the protestors had to keep moving, and could not stop.

It got me to thinking about the civil rights and University protests back in the sixties.

The protests that were hugely successful morally speaking, were largely sit-in's, with signage and chanting of key phrases. They were able to accomplish their goal of being heard much better than the walking protestors.

Now these protestors were instructed, you have to keep walking. I think the press would have preferred the old sit in style protests, where you can catch the real civil right's violation by the police, doing the interviews in place with the protestors, etc..

My question is, how can the police insist you have to keep walking?

What if they all set down in the intersection instead?

Remember two years ago the protestors in our major cities, protesting big banks and big business? They were more than accomodated by the city officials, keeping the police departments basically in line.

It may be an issue with "loitering" laws.

People that own the property have rights, and rights of way (streets/sidewalks) have "ability to pass" (you don't have the right to impede traffic) issues to deal with.

i thought they should have set up a big boom box with NWA and danced to it.

f(*k loitering laws! 

[resolution]

www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/18/ron-johnson-ferguson_n_5689871.html

FERGUSON, Mo. -- Missouri Highway Patrol Capt. Ron Johnson defended the new rule that protesters cannot stand and congregate in one place, saying it would protect community members from criminal elements who were trying to hide in their midst and cause trouble.

"We are not going to let groups congregate and build into larger groups because that's what causes problems," Johnson told reporters in a press briefing Monday night, in response to a question from The Huffington Post. "Because what happens is, the peaceful protesters gather, and the other element blends in. Now they blend in, and that's what's been causing us some issues. So by allowing them to walk, that's not going to let the other element blend in and define this group."

On Monday, protesters were told by law enforcement to keep walking, unless they were in an approved protest area. The American Civil Liberties Union filed a motion in court for a temporary restraining order to stop this rule, but a judge denied the request.

This was their reasoning behind the no stopping rule. The ACLU tried to get a restraining order to prevent it but the judge supported the no stopping rule. I read some other articles that said that the "approved protest area" was a fenced field that was locked and no one could access, but I don't know how reliable that source was. 

[EVT1]

Must be building on the Bush 'protest zones'

www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/free-speech-zone/

Sorry- 'free speech zones'

[djAdvocate]

slavery is freedom.
war is peace.

as far as i am concerned, the free speech zone starts at the pacific and ends at the atlantic.

[Virgil Showlion]

Is there any recognized leadership among the protesters? Any common objective?

What do they hope to accomplish?