The police are setting fires, throwing Molotov cocktails, issuing death threats against government officials, looting and pillaging, and destroying public property?
Based on your views as presented at the SDMB, you are a radical authoritarian nationalist.
.
thank you for posting that link.
can’t believe someone said he came off as a jerk: the reporter was scared, he was trying to do his job, leaving McDonalds and clearly frightened of the police.
he was* justified,* too. this is very sad and very, very scary.
Really really equals?
Back to the press- suppose the press had just plain cleared out of the area as the police would have liked. Would the police then be emboldened to further abuse their power? And if the police really were in the right, why did the governor relieve them of their assignment?
Huh. I went back to read my own cite. Maybe you are thinking of another article?
They dispersed demonstrators a quarter a mile away. These demonstrators ran past the news crew.
According to that report the reporters were never told to disperse before they were fired on (with rubber bullets, and tear gas).
And a liberal.
YES - you militarize the police to this extent and this is what happens, it’s crazy and it’s dangerous.
No. But he was being a dick. And you don’t have to commit a crime in order to be detained by police. Them’s the rules.
His detention may have been wrong (or may have been right), but provoking police in a tense situation, completely needlessly, is never a good idea.
Oh, and being “a fellow conservative” doesn’t play with me. I don’t really care who you are.
- They would have to begin abusing their power first, which has yet to occur.
- The St. Louis county police were already running the operation when this incident occurred.
just realized this thread is in the pit, when did that happen?!
Smapti, you are a moron.
Did you watch the video? He wasn’t doing his job and trying to leave, he was standing still, pointing a camera in a cop’s face and antagonizing him.
The police are shooting at the press corps. To everybody except you, that is about as gross a violation of the principles of modern liberal society as you’ll see in real life.
Yes. Which is why I said you weren’t conservative.
Fascism and liberalism are not mutually exclusive. You can be a liberal all you want, you’re still an unrepentant fascist.
Well, that’s subtly different in that, in that case, it was the government that were the thugs and looters… But yes, it would probably have been better (although unjust) if they’d have complied with the police. Just as it would have been better for any innocent reporters (if that’s not an oxymoron) to have complied with the police rather than be arrested.
But this idea that the press, or “peaceful protesters”, get to ignore the law and the police is absurd.
Yes, I want protection from police brutality. But I also want protection from rioters, thugs, protesters, and anyone else who wants to harm me or my community. Just because one police officer may have acted wrongly - even so wrongly as to murder someone, which is at least possible here - doesn’t mean that the rest of the police aren’t acting correctly in shutting down riots and protests.
They’re shooting at people refusing to disperse. Their status as press is irrelevant.
“Modern liberal society” does not benefit from people acting with flagrant disrespect for the law, and it is onlynwithin the framework of respect for the law that liberal society can flourish.
Did you watch the video? In the video, he is acting like a complete dick.
It’s the county police who are being pulled out. No word yet on who takes their place, presumably state troopers.
Might as well start from your strongest argument, liberal hypocrisy.
“What is it, Lassie? Did Timmy fall down the well? The one Bricker poisoned?”
So, how does it get to be an “unlawful assembly” if no responsible authority has forbidden an assembly? I believe, in my naive understanding, that citizens are entitled to protest, entitled to petition for a redress of grievance.
Did the City Council of Ferguson meet, vote, and declare an emergency curfew? No. Did the State of Missouri declare some state of emergency that temporarily overrode the right of assembly? No. Do we empower our police to make such legislation or declaration on their own discretion? News to me.
if it is more likely false than true, how then is it “probable”? Isn’t that what “probable” means? Or is the definition another matter that is subject to the discretion of the police?
“Dilatory”? Is there some standard for response time? Or is that another matter for the discretion of each individual police officer to determine? How long, do you think, is the appropriate amount of time to pick up a dropped object? Would taking more time than that create some hazard for the public? Some dire threat the compels police action?
And if such dreadful public violence were afoot, why are the police not at the scene of said dreadful violence, arresting perps?
It’s an unlawful assembly by definition if the assembly is doing unlawful things. Like burning cars and stores and so on. The issue is how broadly the authorities can then define that assembly. Ferguson police seem to be treating everyone in town as unlawfully assembled regardless of where they are and what they’re doing.