Riots in St. Louis

Status
Not open for further replies.
Not at all. But I think large groups have their best interests in mind in working with city authorities for concerns that affect everyone like safety, traffic, etc.

And if the city authorities don't want to work with them, because maybe the city authorities don't really want to be protested against, the large group should just suck it up and go home, because we all know the city authorities are the good guys, right?

Thanks for being consistent. :lol:
 
And if the city authorities don't want to work with them, because maybe the city authorities don't really want to be protested against, the large group should just suck it up and go home, because we all know the city authorities are the good guys, right?

Not what I said at all. But I do think there are ways to protest such things and not burn, loot and harm your neighbors in the process.
 
Not what I said at all. But I do think there are ways to protest such things and not burn, loot and harm your neighbors in the process.

How exactly does it differ from what you said? You said it is the protesters responsibility to work with the authorities. I asked what happens if the authorities don't want to work with the protesters. You of course provide no answer, so my assumed answer is currently leading the field; the protesters who don't 'meet the standards' set by your beloved authorities should be denied permission and just go home.

If you don't want to be contradicted in your views on the benevolence of the authorities being sufficient that they should be allowed to set up a dictatorship, why do you keep pushing those views?
 
How exactly does it differ from what you said? You said it is the protesters responsibility to work with the authorities. I asked what happens if the authorities don't want to work with the protesters. You of course provide no answer, so my assumed answer is currently leading the field; the protesters who don't 'meet the standards' set by your beloved authorities should be denied permission and just go home.

If you don't want to be contradicted in your views on the benevolence of the authorities being sufficient that they should be allowed to set up a dictatorship, why do you keep pushing those views?

I said it was usually in their best interests to work with authorities for the reasons given, not that it was mandatory. Such protests occur all the time, and almost always end up being bad for the community, the protestors and pretty much everyone involved.

Was the guy that was arrested burning, looting, or harming?

Putting himself and others in harms way by blocking traffic. People get arrested all the time for blocking traffic, protesting or not, and freedom of speech simply isn't a legal defense for it. Never has been and you, as an attorney, know this. Not even sure why this is an issue.
 
I said it was usually in their best interests to work with authorities for the reasons given, not that it was mandatory. Such protests occur all the time, and almost always end up being bad for the community, the protestors and pretty much everyone involved.

How many ways can you word your views?

Not that it matters, since no matter how much you think the cops are always in the right and should never be held accountable they always will be...one way or the other.
 
Creating a risk of harm is not harming. It certainly doesn't come close to looting and burning.

Creating a risk of harm can still be elements of a charge. Bottom line, blocking traffic is against the law in probably every jurisdiction across the country.

Come on counselor, you know better.

How many ways can you word your views?

Far fewer ways than you are able to misrepresent them. Seems to be no end to that.

Not that it matters, since no matter how much you think the cops are always in the right and should never be held accountable they always will be...one way or the other.

See? You do it again. I've never said that the cops are always right. They aren't. Bad cops do exist, and absolutely should be held accountable for their deeds. But you seem to think every cop is a bad cop. They aren't.
 
Bad cops do exist, and absolutely should be held accountable for their deeds.

Yeah...like the guy who tortured a hundred people who you grudgingly said should probably lose his pension.

Meanwhile people who complain about cops should be locked up, or just summarily shot.

Not like you have a glaringly obvious double standard or anything.
 
Yeah...like the guy who tortured a hundred people who you grudgingly said should probably lose his pension.

Meanwhile people who complain about cops should be locked up, or just summarily shot.

Not like you have a glaringly obvious double standard or anything.

I didn't 'grudgingly' say that at all. He absolutely should have lost his pension and probably would have in most states across the nation. I've known soldiers that lost their pension for far less.

And neither did I ever say people who complain about cops should be locked up let alone summarily shot.

I don't know what in the hell bothers you so much that you have to misrepresent my comments to this extreme, but you need to put an end to it.
 
Oh snap!
This drama llama just won't quit.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/holder-supports-wholesale-change-ferguson-police-department


Holder supports ‘wholesale change’ in Ferguson police department

10/29/14 02:55 PM—Updated 10/29/14 04:51 PM
By Trymaine Lee


Attorney General Eric Holder called the need for “wholesale change” in the Ferguson, Missouri, police department as being “pretty clear” and “appropriate.” His comments on Wednesday came in light of revelations from local and federal officials that a plan is in the works to shakeup the police department, including a possible resignation of Chief Thomas Jackson and potential dismantling the department.

“I think it’s pretty clear that the need for wholesale change in that department is appropriate. Exactly what the form of that change will be, I think, we’ll wait until we complete our inquiry,” Holder said in an interview with Jonathan Capehart during the Washington Ideas Forum on Wednesday.

RELATED: St. Louis police spend big money on riot gear, just in case

MSNBC reported early Wednesday morning that local, state and federal officials were working on plans for major change in the department. According to sources with knowledge of the plans, new developments could include the resignations of Chief Jackson and Officer Darren Wilson, whose shooting and killing of an unarmed black teenager in August sent the city spiraling in unrest.

Another source with direct knowledge of the plans described them as “extremely delicate” and said the details are still being hashed out in closed-door meetings between Ferguson city and St. Louis County officials. Federal officials tell msnbc that the Justice Department is also being consulted.

Jackson’s resignation could come as early as next week, three sources said. As part of the plan, the resignation would be the first move ahead of a complete takeover of the department by the St. Louis County police. A source within the Obama administration confirmed with msnbc that plans for a shakeup of the Ferguson Police Department were in the works, but said that details have not been fully worked out.

When Holder was asked about the reports, the attorney general declined to comment, citing the Justice Department’s pattern and practice investigation of the police department. The Justice Department is conducting a civil rights investigation into the shooting death of teenager Michael Brown Jr., as well as the entire department for allegations of past discriminatory practices.

Jackson told NBC News late on Tuesday night that “I have not been asked to resign, I have not been fired, and I will not be resigning next week. If I do resign, it will be my choice.” Multiple sources told msnbc on Wednesday that it was unclear if Jackson had been aware of the back-channel conversations that included him being removed from his position.

Ferguson Mayor James Knowles III denied plans for Jackson to resign, telling the St. Louis Post-Dispatch via text that “He’s stayed strong with us till this point. Don’t see that changing.” Knowles also said that the city had not been asked by federal officials to contemplate dismantling the police force...



...Holder on Wednesday called the leaks inappropriate and expressed his discontent with what he described as an attempt to shape public opinion in the case.

“I’ve said I’m exasperated. That’s a nice way of saying I’m mad, because that’s just not how things should be done,” he said. “Whoever the sources of the leaks are need to shut up.”

I keep seeing the word "3 sources" and "multiple sources", followed by stringent denials. :lol:

All this pressure mounting must mean the decision is coming soon.

Also, whoever is leaking all this stuff needs to SHUT UP :lol:



Hacking collective Anonymous came out Monday with their own prediction.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...ry-and-ferguson-officer-darren-wilson-report/

The “hacktivist” group released the following on Monday:

Last night we announced that we have received over the past several days a series of leaks from two separate and unrelated sources regarding the long awaited Grand Jury decision regarding the murder of Mike Brown by Ferguson PD Officer Darren Wilson. In our opinion after careful analysis the sources are reliable, and the information we are about to reveal is true. Both sources are government employees with access to both internal government as well as confidential police communications. For reasons of safety we will not be revealing anything further on either our sources or the material leaked to us. The following is a synopses of the leaked information:

On or about November 10, 2014 the Grand Jury decision will be announced. Darren Wilson will NOT be indicted on ANY charges related to the murder of Mike Brown. All local police Chiefs and jail commanders have been notified to begin preparing for major civil unrest. Governor Nixon has been notified of the impending announcement and has ordered the Missouri National Guard to begin preparations for a possible re-enstatement of the martial law that was declared at the beginning of the Ferguson protests.

As additional evidence that neither the State nor Federal authorities intend any legal action against Darren Wilson for the murder of Mike Brown, one of our sources has provided a very intriguing close up glimpse of Darren Wilson – his current where abouts and lifestyle.

It has been reported that Wilson hasn’t been seen in public since the shooting in August.

Brown’s autopsy reportedly supported claims that there was a “significant altercation at the car” prior to the deadly shooting. Judy Melinek, a forensic pathologist in San Francisco, told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch that she didn’t think the autopsy supported claims that Brown was shot while surrendering with his hands up.

Further, a toxicology report also showed that Brown had tetrahydrocannabinol, also known as THC, in his blood and urine.

Anonymous’ sources, which could not be independently verified, revealed Wilson’s alleged “alias” and claimed the officer has “altered his appearance.” The sources also said Wilson’s girlfriend is pregnant with their first child.

The group promised to release additional information on the Ferguson case in the future.

A grand jury decision in the case is expected to come in November. The Huffington Post reports that the St. Louis County Police Department has already started stocking up on riot gear ahead of the decision.

Well then.
 
I didn't 'grudgingly' say that at all. He absolutely should have lost his pension and probably would have in most states across the nation. I've known soldiers that lost their pension for far less.

And neither did I ever say people who complain about cops should be locked up let alone summarily shot.

I don't know what in the hell bothers you so much that you have to misrepresent my comments to this extreme, but you need to put an end to it.


Can't help myself because you are just so hysterically funny!

You take exception to the word grudgingly...while reenforcing the point that you think loss of pension is appropriate 'punishment' for someone who tortured a hundred people...since the torturer is a cop! If I tortured a hundred people would you suggest taking away my pension? I think not. Do you think any human being, anywhere, other than you thinks loss of pension is appropriate punishment for anyone who tortures a hundred people? This guy is a walking argument for the death penalty, and you think the critical issue is whether you support loss of pension grudgingly or willingly.

I suggest you take a look at the comments you have made, because by and large I'm not misrepresenting you at all. If you don't like the reflection maybe change of image is in order.
 
While I disagree with MobBoss extensively on several key points, I feel you are misrepresenting him. He doesn't seem to want to kill the protesters, just is extremely unsympathetic, and believes they have no legitimate reason to feel mistreated under the law.

As for the police torture case, I think I recall Mobboss stating that the man should have gotten a longer jail sentence. I would believe the an deserves a life sentence at least.
 
You post a link to one of the most outrageous and egregious things that even I have seen (and I look for such things), and this is his response.


My opinion is the guy should have had his pension removed, and in most states probably would have.

No outrage. No 'hey maybe my support the cops in all things always position needs a review'. Just a response totally consistent with his position throughout this thread. A position that he continuously gets mad at me for pointing out. :lol:
 
I love how Holder doesn't like the leaks that are contrary to the story he was trying to narrate to the world.
 
It may not be a crime per se, but it very well could be grounds for dismissal or some other action by the force and should be. But while the guy was obviously in a high state of agitation, that is not necessarily against the law. Now, if he had started pulling the trigger, then you'd have a better argument.

This is his response to the video clip of the cop pointing an assault rifle at a crowd and screaming about killing them. Since it was a cop threatening the crowd, not an unprivileged citizen maybe he should lose his job. On the other hand, someone who threatened a cop with a knife presented an immediate danger and got shot full of holes, with full approval from MobBoss.

So I don't think that when I say double standard it is a misrepresentation at all.

Finding the places where he has said that when a protester is told to leave by a cop and then doesn't leave the protester automatically becomes a criminal, then can be arrested is not research I want to do right now, but there's plenty of it. There's also plenty of places where he continues on to say that this newly minted 'criminal', if they then resist arrest, becomes a danger to the cops so shooting them is only to be expected. So maybe 'summarily' shot is a bit overstated in summarizing his position, since he advocates a two step process.
 
No outrage. No 'hey maybe my support the cops in all things always position needs a review'. Just a response totally consistent with his position throughout this thread. A position that he continuously gets mad at me for pointing out. :lol:

I was asked by another poster in regards to the police unions support to get the guy his pension. NOT whether I thought the punishment he had was enough. NOT whether I thought the entire thing was some kind of miscarriage of justice.

But whether he deserved to get his friggin pension or not. I plainly stated he sure as hell didn't deserve a pension - which was the question asked of me.

Even other posters are picking up on how much you are misrepresenting me. Stop being such a jerk.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom