A thin reed for what? I’m not trying to justify violence or looting, just as I’m sure you’re not trying to justify terrorism or school shooting.
I’m saying that in terms of the analysis of the protests and riots, their causes, consequences, and meaning, it doesn’t really matter what actually went down in the initial shooting. The “narrative” is much more than just this one shooting in St. Louis. It is decades of racism, and specifically decades of police misconduct. That was my point.
You seem to be having the trouble with the whole “protest demonstration” concept.
So your argument is that the police are wrong because law enforcement is in photogenic?
If they stayed hone they wouldn’t be getting fired on.
[/quote]
Unarmed != innocent.
That’s a very charitable interpretation. It’s clear from reading his own account that he was acting like a complete ass.
Give me a break. This is the McDonalds right next to the rioting. That’s why the reporters set up there. It’s a place they can duck into and charge their phones and stuff. It’s two blocks from where Brown was shot.
Of course any cops responding to it might be in riot gear. It’s right in the middle of an area where there have been riots for four days.
This is just getting absurd.
Ok. I guess reasonable people can argue about whether or not Police should be kicking reporters out of McDonalds and arresting them. Is there any reasonable reason the Al Jazeera camera crew needed to be tear gassed, chased, and shot at and afterwards have the cops dismantle their cameras?
That’s more like Salon reaching a new low. The headline says O’Reilly “spews a sick lecture” but that content is missing from the piece. All it has is a bunch of way out of left field racist accusations by the author that in no way resemble anything O’Reilly is quoted as saying.
Nice try, though.
Molotov cocktails are not a valid means of protest.
If the people of Ferguson refuse to fall into line soon, we may as well solve this problem the way the Israelis do and bulldoze the place into dust.
You let out what the “5 to 10 minutes later” referred to;
Once again, people loitering in a riot zone which has been dispersed are shocked to find themselves being subjected to riot dispersal tactics.
This isn’t rocket surgery - if you insist on standing around with a camera in the middle of a war zone, don’t act surprised when you get fired on.
The police are coming of as heavy handed and my gut tells me that Mike Brown’s shooting will be found to be unjustified. That said, I’m not compelled by any argument as to why they should release the officers name at this point.
You don’t have that right if doing so interferes with a police operation. You don’t have that right if a policeman has instructed you to move, if doing so stops you moving. It’s time people respected the police, instead of trying to stop them doing their job. In this case, their job is to protect people from the criminal scum rioting, looting, and destroying their community - and if you’re not supporting the police, you’re effectively supporting the rioters.
There’s a simple solution. Impose a curfew, and lock up anyone breaking it, and throw away the key. Fuck your “peaceful” protests, save them for a time when tempers aren’t so high. Or, better still, actually work for change rather than whinging.
I watched his video. He (the reporter) was being a dick. Pure and simple. And I didn’t see any “assault”.
First, Debaser, you’re on a fool’s errand. If the police were acting illegally, then the fidelity of this board to the law is admirable. If it turns out their order was legal, then you’re a monster for not seeing that not every law is moral, and an idiot for not understanding that what was REALLY being discussed here was morality, which, of course, is defined by the liberal members of the board.
However, since you asked:
So far as a brief, non-exhaustive bit of research has shown, I can’t find any authority for the police to impose a curfew.
However, under Missouri law, a person commits the crime of “refusal to disperse” if, being present at the scene of an unlawful assembly, or at the scene of a riot, he knowingly fails or refuses to obey the lawful command of a law enforcement officer to depart from the scene of such unlawful assembly or riot.
Under Missouri law, an arrest need be justified only by probable cause. This is a standard much lower than what a conviction would require. It doesn’t require certainty or even a preponderance of the evidence. It does not demand any showing that the belief that a crime is afoot be correct or even more likely true than false.
So in my view, there was sufficient probable cause. The reporters were ordered to leave, and apparently did not quickly comply. The reporter for the post says he was trying to comply but his bag fell off his shoulder and he didn’t understand which door he was supposed to use. The officer could have believed that the reporter was employing dilatory tactics to avoid complying with the order. There is nowhere near enough evidence to ever secure a conviction, but the standard for arrest is much lower.
The thing is, the police are some of the people of Ferguson, and I’ve no doubt that most people there would rather see them arresting the rioters, even id it upsets a few bleeding heart cunts, than let their town be trashed.
Always - absolutely always - these riots and “protests” are a minority of troublemakers. Whilst I get where you’re coming from, when you say that the whole town should suffer, you are effectively doing the work of the troublemakers by assuming everyone is at their level - which of course is where they want to drag us down to.
Yeah. That’s not reasonable. Sorry. Reporting != Loitering. If it was just the reporters’ presence that bothered the police they wouldn’t have gone to the trouble of pointing the cameras towards the ground.
If you are a police force that fires on the press don’t act surprised when people are upset.
No, it isn’t.
Running for election?
I note that you haven’t bothered to address the fact that the reporters were in a McDonald’s - nearby, but not actually at the scene of the riots. Frankly, I’m a little surprised (regardless of the facts) that you take the position that the arrest of a member of the press corps is presumptively okay.
I don’t agree that a momentary explained delay and confusion over conflicting orders gives rise to PC for arrest on the facts as reported.
Being a member of the press corps does not privilege one from arrest. They’re subject to the same laws as the rest of society, and failure to disperse is failure to disperse.