# 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:** 32
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2014, 8:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354/621 "2014-08-15T08:59:23Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > To burn down houses and loot and steal with impunity, and now they’re about to be given the name of the officer involved in the shooting so they can kill him or drive him and his family out of town. OK, let me try to sum up your beliefs here, based on previous posts (and please correct me if I’m wrong). You believe: a) The protestors’ primary purpose, as a whole, was to commit crimes to benefit themselves. b) The police ONLY enacted tactics that could be viewed as extreme IN RESPONSE to (a). c) The reason the protestors have (apparently) stopped being violent is because of the tactics enacted in (b). d) The name of the officer involved in the shooting would not have been released, and had no reason to be released, if it weren’t for the protestors getting violent. Have I gotten anything wrong? ---
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2014, 9:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354/622 "2014-08-15T09:02:17Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > **Leaper** , please correct me if I’m wrong. > > Wasn’t at least one molotov cocktail thrown at police? > > Weren’t stores and gas stations looted and burned? > > Weren’t there threats made against the lives of Ferguson police officers? > > Wasn’t a shotgun wielding protestor shot for pointing a gun at police officers? If you have a gathering of sources, I think it’d benefit the thread to share them. (Not just because of facts, you understand, but because I think it’s instructive to see them in context — both what the sources are and the events themselves in the context of the larger picture. Arguments will probably go a little smoother for it… I hope.) ---
**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 15, 2014, 9:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354/623 "2014-08-15T09:11:27Z")
> [@Leaper](#): > > a) The protestors’ primary purpose, as a whole, was to commit crimes to benefit themselves. Not all of the protestors; just the ones throwing Molotov cocktails and trying to kill cops. > [@](#): > > b) The police ONLY enacted tactics that could be viewed as extreme IN RESPONSE to (a). Correct. > [@](#): > > c) The reason the protestors have (apparently) stopped being violent is because of the tactics enacted in (b). A combination of this and the fact that they got what they wanted when the governor promised to stop enforcing the law against them. > [@](#): > > d) The name of the officer involved in the shooting would not have been released, and had no reason to be released, if it weren’t for the protestors getting violent. Correct. ---
**Author:** ![eulalia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eulalia/32/457_2.png) [@eulalia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eulalia)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2014, 9:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354/624 "2014-08-15T09:57:15Z")
> [@Jay4](#): > > [Times Square SHUT DOWN by thousands marching as Ferguson protests spin-off across the country on fifth night of tensions over gunned down teen | Daily Mail Online](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2725535/Times-Square-SHUT-DOWN-thousands-marching-Ferguson-protests-spin-country-fifth-night-tensions-gunned-teen.html) > > i wonder what the next race issue the president will stick his nose into will be,i guess the democrats must not care about there non black supporters.since they are doing a great job at losing them with shit like this I’m guessing you aren’t a democrat, so you don’t actually realize that most actual non-black supporters will not be lost by the president’s actions in this case. Those issues we do have with him have nothing to do with race, and since the other guys are even worse on these issues he hasn’t lost us over them. Why do you assume that all non-black democrats and independent supporters of Obama are as racist as you are? ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2014, 10:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354/625 "2014-08-15T10:03:35Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No. So far as my research shows, the case I quoted is the only time the Missouri appellate system has addressed the failure to disperse law. > > But the principles of criminal law are pretty straightforward. Even Richard Parker would (I am confident) agree that the example I gave (the sixty-second pause between each step) would constitute constructive refusal. > > The actual facts here are much closer, of course. But the principle that someone needs to substantially comply is not seriously disputed. Could you go through that principle and how it would apply to the sixty-second pause situation? I don’t doubt you when you say it’s straightforward, but that leaves me with hope that I might actually be able to follow an explanation. > [@](#): > > At the risk of severe oversimplification, the officer determines that a jury would see those facts and reach a verdict of guilty. > > That’s not it, but it will do. So the officer makes a personal determination based on their evaluation of a hypothetical jury and how they in turn would interpret the purpose of the statute? It’s a judgement call of a judgement call of a judgement call? I’m not entirely sure _what_ actions, under that basis, could not constitute probable cause. Imagine that the person in this case _had_ packed expeditiously. Couldn’t a police officer believe that a jury might consider that the possible purpose of the statute was for utterly immediate dispersal, even to the extent of leaving all personal belongings behind? ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2014, 10:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354/626 "2014-08-15T10:08:40Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > Cute. Were I to somehow find myself living in Nazi Germany, I would _not_ be a “good little Nazi” nor would I be “loading people onto trains”, because that was not the role of civilians. I would be doing my job, keeping quiet, and staying out of anyone’s way. Wouldn’t you be subject to conscription? I confess I don’t know whether you’re a man or a woman. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2014, 10:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354/627 "2014-08-15T10:27:18Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > …yes I mentioned that earlier. The only pictures I could find was a failed attempt to light a molotov cocktail. These are the same pictures. Debasers assertion wasn’t that a couple of people tried to light a molotov cocktail but failed miserably. It was " It’s when the Molotov cocktails start flying that the tear gas comes out." I haven’t seen any tear gas fired in response to a flying molotov cocktail. Just about all of the news stories we’ve cited about the fourth night of the riots say that there were bottles and molotov cocktails thrown at police. I’m going by that. Maybe pictures exist of them being thrown. Maybe not. But lack of said pictures isn’t proof that it didn’t happen. In either case, my point stands. Peaceful protests haven’t attracted the heavy handed police response. Just the violent rioting. This is my point, and it is beyond dispute, unless all the news stories are completely wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2014, 10:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354/628 "2014-08-15T10:29:56Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > Is it so hard for everyone to agree that: > > 1. The police may have mishandled the situation, > > and > > 1. Looting was/is wrong? Exactly. The problem is if you write it like this: 1. Looting is wrong. 2. The police may have mishandled the situation. People are so filled with rage upon reading point #1, they are busy calling you a racist and a fascist before they get to point #2. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2014, 10:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354/629 "2014-08-15T10:43:15Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > I’ve read your posts here, and yes, IMO you believe and say some astonishing shit. It seems utterly plausible to me that you were making a comment without thinking it all the way thru, as seems to be a habit for you. > > Frankly, if I were you, I’d rethink how I post and what I say if I found that someone was misunderstanding me as badly as you claim just happened. But, as I said, I’ve read your posts here and don’t find any evidence of self-reflection nor have I ever seen you admit you were wrong about anything more substantial than a typo maybe, so I doubt you’ll do anything other than call me names and huff. > > Whatever. You suck. Got an example? Seriously. I have acknowledged that the cops have mishandled the situation. I’ve withheld judgement about what happened with the shooting of Brown, since we don’t know the facts yet. But it certainly doesn’t look good. I’ve acknowledged that there is legitimate anger from the community about it. What I’m guilty of, and what people here are in a rage at me over, is condemning the rioting and looting. It seems that many here think merely mentioning this in any way is racist and fascist. What I’m also guilty of is calling out posters who go too far in their condemnation of police. People saying that the cops are tear gassing and shooting at every peaceful crowd that gathers are simply wrong. We’ve seen cites that peaceful crowds have gathered without resistance from the police. The police haven’t handled the situation well. They appear to be out of their depth. But people here are going too far in their criticism of them. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2014, 10:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354/630 "2014-08-15T10:43:43Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > Just about all of the news stories we’ve cited about the fourth night of the riots say that there were bottles and molotov cocktails thrown at police. > > I’m going by that. > > Maybe pictures exist of them being thrown. Maybe not. But lack of said pictures isn’t proof that it didn’t happen. > > In either case, my point stands. Peaceful protests haven’t attracted the heavy handed police response. Just the violent rioting. This is my point, and it is beyond dispute, unless all the news stories are completely wrong. …your claim was that the tear gas was in response to molotov cocktails. How many unedited videos of tear gas being fired at people who had not thrown any molotov cocktails do you have to watch before you admit you were wrong? There only has to be a single example, and I’ve provided that, to show that the absolute statement that you made is not true. I’ve conceded that molotov cocktails may have been thrown. But they weren’t thrown at every police use of tear gas. So you are wrong. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2014, 11:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354/631 "2014-08-15T11:56:29Z")
Yep, all they needed was some stern, upside-your-jaw, tough love. Settled them right down, it did. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2014, 12:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354/632 "2014-08-15T12:22:43Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > Could you go through that principle and how it would apply to the sixty-second pause situation? I don’t doubt you when you say it’s straightforward, but that leaves me with hope that I might actually be able to follow an explanation. Sure. I mentioned the phrase “constructive refusal.” The word “constructive” applies to a number of situations in the law that recognize the _effect_ a set of actions have. For example, a landlord can constructively evict a tenant by turning off the heat. The landlord cannot say, “This isn’t an eviction – I never told them they had to leave.” The tenant says that by turning off the heat, the landlord _effectively_ gave them no real option except to leave, so the end result is the same. We can speak of “constructive possession” of contraband drugs. You can be charges for possession of the five pounds of heroin in your locked trunk even though you were sitting in the driver’s seat and say that the cops can’t prove you ever touched them. Constructive possession happens when you have knowledge of ten drugs and they are in your dominion and control. In other words, the law recognizes the actual effect of your actions, and is not a blind automaton. If you are told to disperse, and you pause for sixty seconds, pick up one item, pause for another sixty seconds, pack the item, pause for another sixty seconds, pick up the second item, and so forth, the law is perfectly equipped to rule that the conduct is constructively a refusal, even though you can point to your actions and say, “Technically, I was complying.” The preceding is pretty uncontroversially true. In the actual case, it’s obviously a much closer question. The entire video is less than sixty seconds. It’s much less clear that the reporter was intentionally delaying in a way that constitutes constructive refusal. In my opinion, the reporter at McDonald’s was refusing, but I don’t think a jury could conclude this beyond a reasonable doubt. But because the standard of “probable cause” is so low, I think the police can show probable cause to believe the crime of refusal was in play. > [@](#): > > So the officer makes a personal determination based on their evaluation of a hypothetical jury and how they in turn would interpret the purpose of the statute? It’s a judgement call of a judgement call of a judgement call? > > I’m not entirely sure _what_ actions, under that basis, could not constitute probable cause. Imagine that the person in this case _had_ packed expeditiously. Couldn’t a police officer believe that a jury might consider that the possible purpose of the statute was for utterly immediate dispersal, even to the extent of leaving all personal belongings behind? Probable cause is a practical, common-sense determination made by looking at the totality of circumstances of which the officer was aware. Obviously, the actions that would not support probable cause would be: “Ok, everybody out, right now!” (Individual immediately leaves) When a person has personal belongings strewn about, the question becomes tougher. How long is reasonable to pack up? Does the statute contemplate requiring people to leave behind valuable personal property? Is the officer aware of the existence of the personal property, so that he understands the delay is not dilatory? All of these would be issues to support, or refute, the existence of probable cause. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2014, 12:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354/633 "2014-08-15T12:30:33Z")
> [@Jay4](#): > > i wonder what the next race issue the president will stick his nose into will be,i guess the democrats must not care about there non black supporters.since they are doing a great job at losing them with shit like this Funny. I’m white as white can be, yet the Democrats are not losing me over this. If anything, I’m greatly relieved that someone is acting like a grown-up about this and trying to find out what really happened instead of playing Domestic Supersoldier Tech God. ---
**Author:** ![kidchameleon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/898d66/32.png) [@kidchameleon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kidchameleon)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2014, 12:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354/634 "2014-08-15T12:34:42Z")
> [@Flyer](#): > > It’s because of all the people like **Smapti** , **Der Trihs** , and the like, who think that government can do no wrong. :eek: **Der Trihs** , government apologist? I don’t think we live in the same universe… ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2014, 12:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354/635 "2014-08-15T12:45:02Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > …your claim was that the tear gas was in response to molotov cocktails. How many unedited videos of tear gas being fired at people who had not thrown any molotov cocktails do you have to watch before you admit you were wrong? > > There only has to be a single example, and I’ve provided that, to show that the absolute statement that you made is not true. I’ve conceded that molotov cocktails may have been thrown. But they weren’t thrown at every police use of tear gas. So you are wrong. I’m not sure what it is you are looking for here. My statement is based on all of the news stories we have seen cited to this thread. It’s not really controversial. You seem to be hung up on exactly what’s in these videos. Do you expect that it’s like a tennis match or something where every time a molotov cocktail gets thrown a tear gas canister gets tossed back in response moments later? You are being hyper-literal in this, whatever it is you are looking for. My point is a very simple one and it stands: The statements by posters here that the police are using tear gas and rubber bullets at non violent crowds indiscriminately is false. There have been examples of non-violent protests that haven’t met with a harsh police response. Meanwhile there is a harsh police response to the riots and looting where that is occurring. The videos of police using tear gas and pointing guns at crowds are at the location where there were riots for four days straight and molotov cocktails thrown. That’s not really in dispute by anybody so I don’t know what you hope to gain by continuing to pic at this nit. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2014, 12:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354/636 "2014-08-15T12:57:20Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > Funny. I’m white as white can be, yet the Democrats are not losing me over this. If anything, I’m greatly relieved that someone is acting like a grown-up about this and trying to find out what really happened instead of playing Domestic Supersoldier Tech God. Obama’s statement is typical vanilla that you’d expect from a politician. He doesn’t really pick a side, which is actually better than he usually does in these sorts of cases. Remember the black Professor vs Cambridge cop situation that led to the beer summit? Obama ham fistedly called the cop’s actions “stupid” even though there was no evidence that was the case. This time around here’s what Obama said: > [@](#): > > “There is never an excuse for violence against police or for those who would use this tragedy as a cover for vandalism or looting,” Obama said. “There is also no excuse for police to use excessive force against peaceful protests or to throw protesters in jail for lawfully expressing their First Amendment rights.” > Obama did not specifically mention the arrests of two reporters, who work for the Huffington Post and the Washington Post. But he did speak to the aggressive law enforcement tactics. > “Here in the United States of America, police should not be bullying or arresting journalists who are just trying to do their jobs and report to the American people on what they are seeing on the ground,” Obama said. “Put simply, we all need to hold ourselves to a high standard, particularly those of us in positions of authority.” There’s nothing there I can be too critical of. In fact, Obama’s position on this issue is basically identical to my own. However, since he had the gall to condemn the looters, I’m sure people here will jump all over him for being a racist and a fascist. Let’s go back to **septimus** on the first page of the thread: > [@septimus](#): > > Once again, let’s all blame the victims. > > Leave it to the right-wing racist assholes to make the story about the looters, not about the innocent unarmed teenager shot dead by police. What do you say, **septimus**? Obama is saying the same thing **magellan** and I have been. So he is a right-wing racist asshole too, right? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2014, 1:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354/637 "2014-08-15T13:07:16Z")
Well, look at that! All the forces of the law had to do was adopt a less confrontational attitude, and the riot turns into a street party! ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2014, 1:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354/638 "2014-08-15T13:19:06Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Sure. I mentioned the phrase “constructive refusal.” The word “constructive” applies to a number of situations in the law that recognize the _effect_ a set of actions have. For example, a landlord can constructively evict a tenant by turning off the heat. The landlord cannot say, “This isn’t an eviction – I never told them they had to leave.” The tenant says that by turning off the heat, the landlord _effectively_ gave them no real option except to leave, so the end result is the same. > > We can speak of “constructive possession” of contraband drugs. You can be charges for possession of the five pounds of heroin in your locked trunk even though you were sitting in the driver’s seat and say that the cops can’t prove you ever touched them. Constructive possession happens when you have knowledge of ten drugs and they are in your dominion and control. > > In other words, the law recognizes the actual effect of your actions, and is not a blind automaton. If you are told to disperse, and you pause for sixty seconds, pick up one item, pause for another sixty seconds, pack the item, pause for another sixty seconds, pick up the second item, and so forth, the law is perfectly equipped to rule that the conduct is constructively a refusal, even though you can point to your actions and say, “Technically, I was complying.” > > Edit: Thanks for explaining all this, by the way. > > The preceding is pretty uncontroversially true. I guess I still don’t see it. If told to\* immediately\* disperse, assuming that’s lawful, obviously a delay would be refusal; they may or may not actually be intending to go but they certainly aren’t doing to immediately. But the person isn’t just _technically_ complying, they are\* literally\* complying. The actual effect of the sixty-second person’s actions was to depart. I understand being able to define a term loosely, but not being able to define a term as the opposite of the usual meaning. It seems to me like being ordered to leave, doing so immediately, and when halfway across the street being arrested because the action of dispersal wasn’t completed yet. It seems entirely counter to reason to say that the action of dispersal is evidence for lack of dispersal. _Immediate_ dispersal, perhaps. But that’s not what the statute requires. ---
**Author:** ![Bridget\_Burke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7cd45c/32.png) [@Bridget\_Burke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bridget_Burke)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2014, 1:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354/639 "2014-08-15T13:19:34Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > …Did he say that before or after he received six slaves as a wedding present, bought 70 more, and encouraged revolution by telling people the British would arm the blacks to kill them all? I share your contempt at Patrick Henry’s behavior but you are not convincing as an enemy of slavery. Or racism. Or Fascism. I’m sure you would have been a Good Confederate. Just as you would have been a Good German. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2014, 1:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354/640 "2014-08-15T13:25:49Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > I guess I still don’t see it. If told to\* immediately\* disperse, assuming that’s lawful, obviously a delay would be refusal; they may or may not actually be intending to go but they certainly aren’t doing to immediately. But the person isn’t just _technically_ complying, they are\* literally\* complying. The actual effect of the sixty-second person’s actions was to depart. I understand being able to define a term loosely, but not being able to define a term as the opposite of the usual meaning. > > It seems to me like being ordered to leave, doing so immediately, and when halfway across the street being arrested because the action of dispersal wasn’t completed yet. It seems entirely counter to reason to say that the action of dispersal is evidence for lack of dispersal. _Immediate_ dispersal, perhaps. But that’s not what the statute requires. Ok. How about, instead of a sixty-second pause between each object, the pause was two minutes? Three minutes? Ten minutes? Is there some point in your mind at which a claimed pause becomes an effective refusal? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354.md?page=31) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354.md?page=33)