# Ferguson, MO **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [August 12, 2014, 4:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354 "2014-08-12T04:51:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 23
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2014, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354/441 "2014-08-14T20:08:58Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > This is not excessive. Excessive would be gunning down the rioters in the streets by the dozen. These scumbags are lucky the cops have been as gentle with then as they have. Hmm. Gunning down one or two at a time would be alright, or do I misunderstand you? Also, what scumbags are you talking about being treated so gently by the St. Louis Co. Police? The reporters who were arrested at McD’s, the alderman who was yanked out of his car, the AJA reporters who received teargas and rubber bullets as their sole order to disperse, or just the greater bulk of the residents of Ferguson? ---
**Author:** ![madmonk28](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/madmonk28/32/20811_2.png) [@madmonk28](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/madmonk28)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2014, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354/442 "2014-08-14T20:16:57Z")
Serious question for the people arguing that the protesters should comply with the orders by the police in Ferguson: is that always the case? Should Indians protesting British occupation of their country have complied with police orders to not protest, should the Solidarity Union in Poland have disbanded when ordered to by the communist government, should the Prague protesters given up in '68 when ordered to by the Soviets? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2014, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354/443 "2014-08-14T20:18:38Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > Uh, no. If a cop gives you an unlawful, unconstitutional order, you are permitted to ask him to reconsider without it creating probable cause for your arrest. Moreover, your dichotemy between “committing a crime” and “probable cause” makes no sense. The police must have probable cause _that you committed a crime_. It is not a crime to be a dick, even if you think this reporter was being a dick. > > According to his account, he started recording with his cell phone while gathering his things to leave. Then he was given conflicting orders about which way to go, and when he stopped to adjust his hastily-gathered backpack he was arrested. If that account is true, the police did not have probable cause that a crime was committed. Whether a person knowingly fails to obey the order to disperse is a question of fact. The question isn’t what was going on in the reporter’s mind, at least not for probable cause purposes. All that’s necessary for the police to have believed is that the reporter was feigning difficulty for the purpose of refusing the order. And they don’t need to know that he was feigning – they just need a fair probability. ---
**Author:** ![SmellMyWort](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ea5d25/32.png) [@SmellMyWort](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SmellMyWort)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2014, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354/444 "2014-08-14T20:22:11Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > So they werent just failing to disperse, they were actively interfering with an arrest? > > Well, that’s MUCH better. Wow, just pathetic. He was shot at from a distance. Please explain how videotaping an arrest from a distance is considered interfering. Where in the article does it say that the news crews set up OUTSIDE the police perimeter were ever asked to disperse? How can they fail to do so if they were not asked. Of course I realize you’ll just continue to make shit up as it suits you. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2014, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354/445 "2014-08-14T20:22:44Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > What “unlawful, unconstitutional” order was given? To stop recording the interaction while he was packing up. He has a right to record the interaction so long as it doesn’t keep him with complying with lawful orders. Your view seems to be that he wasn’t asked to stop recording so much as he was asked to stop everything he was doing and leave immediately and he just happened to be recording. I think the right analysis of the situation turns on (1) whether the order to disperse was lawful and (2) whether he was packing up his things, etc., while still recording. > [@magellan01](#): > > But the investigation into the things you mention can just as well be done by the investigators. But even granting your position on the pro side, how do you think it stacks up to the don’t-release-his-name side of the debate? It could be done by the investigators, but neither the Department of Justice nor the police department is likely to call for this guy to be suspended without pay. That’s pressure that would come from the public. And as I said in my first post, I think it’s fine not to release his name if they had some credible and specific threats made against him, which it sounds like they did. I doubt that the police would extend that courtesy to other people accused in shootings, but I’m fine with it. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2014, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354/446 "2014-08-14T20:27:13Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Because the “it’s not possible that I would do the same” is a moral judgment. Unless you’re just saying you’d be too lazy to do it. And I love that in your imagination there is some kind of “angry mob” that is somehow separate from “people” that makes the “people” do “things that are bad”. That’s some bizarre world view there. And, as I pointed out, whether I would do it or not has nothing to do with whether I would find it understandable. I specifically worked from both sides. Whether I would or would not do the same actions, I can understand why someone else would do them, yet not think they are moral reprobates. And, yes, a mob is more than the sum of its parts. There’s a reason the phrase “mob mentality” exists. A mob of people will do things that any individuals on their own will not. That’s what a mob is! There’s a reason you don’t see these actions happening when people are alone. It’s not even just about angry mobs. I’ve known friend after friend who has gotten caught up in a group of people where they wound up doing something they would never do on their own. Not that the last two paragraphs have anything to do with the topic of what “understandable” and “justified” mean. You have a weird definition. That would be fine if you didn’t insist that everyone else has to use the same one. Stop singling out small parts of what I say and deal with what I argue in total. Why do you think that it is impossible to understand someone’s actions without thinking they are moral or that the person is morally inferior to you? I can even come up with an example. **Bricker** and I disagreed in that Zimmerman thread, yet I understand exactly where he was coming from. He made his POV perfectly clear. I don’t agree with it, but I understand it. And I do not think he is morally inferior to me. His opinion is not justified in my mind, but I understand it. Here’s another example: My best friend in college wound up sleeping with friend’s boyfriend. I think sleeping with anyone else’s boyfriend or girlfriend is wrong, let alone your friend’s. I do not think she was justified in sleeping with him. But I do understand why it happened. It is understandable. I could see myself bowing to temptation if my friend’s girlfriend was coming on to me. I do not think I am morally superior to her. What she did was wrong, and thus cannot be justified, but it is also understandable. And this is the last time I am going to respond on this. If you still don’t get it, I just don’t think there’s any hope. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2014, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354/447 "2014-08-14T20:32:48Z")
I had no idea so many of my fellow Americans had such a strong affection for the taste of boot leather. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2014, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354/448 "2014-08-14T20:33:38Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > All that’s necessary for the police to have believed is that the reporter was feigning difficulty for the purpose of refusing the order. And they don’t need to know that he was feigning – they just need a fair probability. Let’s grant you the assumption that the order to disperse was lawful. Let’s also grant you the assumption that “sort of complying while momentarily delaying” is the legal equivalent of not complying. I don’t know if either of things are true, but let’s put them aside for now. Generally speaking, under the Fourth Amendment, it is not necessary for the police officer to have believed jack shit–he could believe the guy is a goon and he wants to mess with him, or he can sincerely believe the guy has just committed murder, it doesn’t matter. What is necessary is for a _reasonable person_ in those circumstances to have believed that the reporter was feigning confusion in order to delay compliance. What are the facts or circumstances known to the officer that would cause a reasonable person to conclude that there was a fair probability that the reporter was feigning confusion in order to delay compliance? Please be specific. ---
**Author:** ![Defensive\_Indifference](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/defensive_indifference/32/6502_2.png) [@Defensive\_Indifference](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Defensive_Indifference)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2014, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354/449 "2014-08-14T20:39:20Z")
The Chief of Police of St. Louis (City), Sam Dotson, has refused to send his officers to help Ferguson and St. Louis County cops. Dotson [said](http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/st-louis-police-chief-says-he-does-not-support-militarized/article_b401feba-b49e-5b79-8926-19481191726f.html) he was concerned about the tactics being employed. > [@Dotson](#): > > One side, the chiefly side of me, wants to always be there to support law enforcement in the city or in the county…My personal side was concerned about the things I saw transpiring in Ferguson. > > My gut told me what I was seeing were not tactics that I would use in the city and I would never put officers in situations that I would not do myself > \ > > This is going to drive a further wedge, without question. I have two responsibilities: to protect our community and to keep it safe and to protect my officers. After two nights of not making any progress in Ferguson I was concerned about both of them. This is the chief of a biggish city, you know, one of the “[Most Dangerous Cities in America](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/19/most-dangerous-cities-in-america-2013_n_4816774.html)”, refusing to help a neighboring community because they’re fucking it up so bad he doesn’t want his cops anywhere near it. ---
**Author:** ![madmonk28](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/madmonk28/32/20811_2.png) [@madmonk28](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/madmonk28)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2014, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354/450 "2014-08-14T20:39:42Z")
> [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > I had no idea so many of my fellow Americans had such a strong affection for the taste of boot leather. A lot of America is really, really afraid of black people. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2014, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354/451 "2014-08-14T20:39:59Z")
A specific fact, **Richard**? One of them was black. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2014, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354/452 "2014-08-14T20:47:33Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > And multiple people argued that your definitions are incorrect, and you did not refute them. You may use those words that way, but that’s not how the rest of us are using the terms. > > Something being justified means it is morally correct. I do not agree that the actions here are morally correct. Even if I am capable of doing the same actions, I still would not think they were morally correct. > > But I do find them understandable, even if I wouldn’t do the same things. I understand how they feel. I understand how angry mobs can get people to do things that are bad. I understand their position. That’s what it means to be understandable. > > I just don’t get your mental block here. Why in the world do you think that I cannot understand someone but disagree with them without first judging them as morally inferior? I understand the majority of people and actions I disagree with. It’s harder to disagree with things you don’t find understandable. This is an example of falling back on the technical definition of a word even though as a practical matter it has other connotations. If “understandable” just meant “understand how they feel” and the like, then it would be pointless to use the term in context. I can understand how Nazis felt, anyone. It adds nothing. When people say “understandable”, what they really mean is “this is how a normal person might feel or act under these circumstances”. It’s an attempt to lessen the severity of the harmful feelings or actions, by placing them within the bounds of normal human feelings and actions. So I don’t think you can use the term and then back up to “well I just mean I understand it” when challenged. But I think a lot of people do anyway, because it enables them to put forth a thought by implication without having to actually back it up. So the fact that “multiple people argued that your definitions are incorrect” is not definitive, IMO. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2014, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354/453 "2014-08-14T20:48:58Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > To stop recording the interaction while he was packing up. He has a right to record the interaction so long as it doesn’t keep him with complying with lawful orders. That’s absolutely correct. > [@](#): > > Your view seems to be that he wasn’t asked to stop recording so much as he was asked to stop everything he was doing and leave immediately and he just happened to be recording. I think the right analysis of the situation turns on (1) whether the order to disperse was lawful and (2) whether he was packing up his things, etc., while still recording. Agreed. In this video, though! it appears that the reporter was not promptly complying. He continually attempts to discuss the dispersal order, and while we can’t see what he’s doing, we know where one hand is, because his finger obscures the upper left portion of the lens for a good portion of the conversation. Claiming he was expeditiously packing up his belongings will be a difficult sell. And he doesn’t say he needs time to pack. He continually attempts to engage the office in a conversation. That video certainly supports probable cause with respect to your (2) above. (1) would seem to hinge on how close the McDonald’s was to the festivities. That, I don’t know, other by reference to Debaser’s earlier comment. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2014, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354/454 "2014-08-14T20:50:53Z")
> [@madmonk28](#): > > Serious question for the people arguing that the protesters should comply with the orders by the police in Ferguson: is that always the case? Should Indians protesting British occupation of their country have complied with police orders to not protest, should the Solidarity Union in Poland have disbanded when ordered to by the communist government, should the Prague protesters given up in '68 when ordered to by the Soviets? They were certainly legally obliged to. They would probably, in each case, been better off personally, at least in the short term, if they had. And their actions, again in the short term, probably made things worse for their community. The same as in Ferguson. However, in each case you cite, the protesters had no legitimate option to change the government they were under, something that’s not the case in a democracy such as the US. So, unless you think that the best way to effect change is by illegal forms of protest even in a democracy, then yes, they should comply. This incidentally ties into **Smapti** ’s comments about terror. Whilst they are extremely hyperbolic in my opinion, there’s a grain of truth in the idea that this style of protest is similar to the things you cite - the difference being that a democratic government is not a legitimate target for that level of protest. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2014, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354/455 "2014-08-14T20:54:04Z")
> [@madmonk28](#): > > Serious question for the people arguing that the protesters should comply with the orders by the police in Ferguson: is that always the case? Should Indians protesting British occupation of their country have complied with police orders to not protest, should the Solidarity Union in Poland have disbanded when ordered to by the communist government, should the Prague protesters given up in '68 when ordered to by the Soviets? Yes. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2014, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354/456 "2014-08-14T20:55:21Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > Yes. Not one for nuance, are you… ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2014, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354/457 "2014-08-14T20:55:30Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > To stop recording the interaction while he was packing up. He has a right to record the interaction so long as it doesn’t keep him with complying with lawful orders. > > Your view seems to be that he wasn’t asked to stop recording so much as he was asked to stop everything he was doing and leave immediately and he just happened to be recording. I think the right analysis of the situation turns on (1) whether the order to disperse was lawful and (2) whether he was packing up his things, etc., while still recording. His video makes it clear that his taping was hindering his ability to evacuate in a timely manner. ---
**Author:** ![LibrarySpy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/f9ae1b/32.png) [@LibrarySpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LibrarySpy)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2014, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354/458 "2014-08-14T20:55:44Z")
The pro-police-at-McDonalds people are forgetting one thing. No charges were brought. The reporters were let go with no explanation. Therefore, legally, they committed no crime. All this hand-wringing about disobeying a lawful order is nonsense. Ergo, what’s left is harassment and assault. It is true that Al Jazeera was thankful the police helped them regain their equipment, after the police teargassed them and tore it down. Sounds like a warzone to me. Messy. **Smapti** shows up to shit in every death penalty thread, and is now being insanely pro-authoritarian in this one. There’s a word for it, but it’s not liberal or conservative. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2014, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354/459 "2014-08-14T20:56:54Z")
> [@madmonk28](#): > > A lot of America is really, really afraid of black people. I fear terrorists and anarchists regardless of what color they are. George Zimmerman, Cliven Bundy, and these rioters are all morally equivalent as enemies of the people. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2014, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354/460 "2014-08-14T20:56:54Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > [H]is finger obscures the upper left portion of the lens for a good portion of the conversation. Claiming he was expeditiously packing up his belongings will be a difficult sell. And he doesn’t say he needs time to pack. He continually attempts to engage the office in a conversation. I am not persuaded that packing one-handed or asking questions while walking toward the door amount to non-compliance. I doubt there’s much case law here, but I would venture that non-compliance is gonna be pretty contextual, and I very much doubt that in the absence of any real reason to get him out of there in 45 seconds instead of 2 minutes that his conduct could be described as non-compliant. > [@Bricker](#): > > (1) would seem to hinge on how close the McDonald’s was to the festivities. That, I don’t know, other by reference to Debaser’s earlier comment. AFAICT, there was no unlawful assembly. This McDonald’s was simply near the location of a previous night’s unlawful assembly and the expected location of a future unlawful assembly. Is there any evidence at all that the patrons in the McDonalds could be considered part of a group assembled with the intent to commit violence? I don’t think even **Debaser’s** comment suggests that. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354.md?page=22) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354.md?page=24)