NorthernVike 2,087 Posted August 14, 2014 It amazes me that the OP is only concerned with the libertarian reaction to the police instead of a young man who lost his life. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Reality 3,121 Posted August 14, 2014 Yeah it's bad. There are things that I guess aren't getting put out there in the national media. Over 20 cop cars have been damaged since Sunday night from protestors throwing ###### at them. Local news media trucks have been attacked and damaged. Groups of protestors have been in residential neighborhoods with masks over their faces carrying weapons in plain sight. Last night some protestors threw Malotov cocktails, rocks and bottles at the cops causing the tear gas to be used. On Sunday night before the riots and looting took place, the cops showed tremendous restraint. They were a presence, but bent over backward to allow the crowd to vent. For the most part that's all the crow did, but a bunch of them decided to turn to violence. There is and has been racial tension in St. Louis and the northside suburbs. The town of Ferguson is 2/3 black, the police dept has only 3 black cops out of 54. The ###### has been building. The shooting was the last straw. But another thing nobody outside of St. Louis realizes is that of all the arrests made since the demonstrations started, only a hand full are Ferguson residents. Most of the ###### has been done by people from other municipalities or north St. Louis. I have no idea what happened in the shooting, but from what I've been told by a person in the know, is that the cop and the kid scuffled, the kid punched the cop then ran, the cop got out of the car and shot the kid several times. From what she told me the cop will be facing charges most likely, but please don't canonize this kid either. Once the civil suit is under way, his juvenile criminal record will become public. The kid in no way deserved to die for punching a cop, it's tragic and I hope justice prevails, but the kid ain't completely clean either. Seeing militarized SWAT teams and cops in riot gear with assault rifles is a disturbing sight, but what are they supposed to do? I have a friend who lives near the area where the looting was happening and every night he's been hearing gunshots. He has kids that used to play outside. This week he and others have been sitting on his porch armed because he's worried about his home. His family is staying with friends far away. Has the media covered that aspect of the story yet? I understand the anger and frustration, but for the love of God, there are people roving about tossing molotov cocktails and other ######, looting innocent businesses, carrying shotguns in plain sight and terrorizing families. This shouldn't be happening, it's wrong. Hopefully it settles down and something good comes from it like better race relations, but if you think these have been peaceful demonstrations, you are mistaken. Good info. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IGotWorms 4,059 Posted August 14, 2014 I have no idea what happened in the shooting, but from what I've been told by a person in the know, is that the cop and the kid scuffled, the kid punched the cop then ran, the cop got out of the car and shot the kid several times. From what she told me the cop will be facing charges most likely, but please don't canonize this kid either. Once the civil suit is under way, his juvenile criminal record will become public. The kid in no way deserved to die for punching a cop, it's tragic and I hope justice prevails, but the kid ain't completely clean either. Good post for the most part and I appreciate the local info, BUT... the bolded is total bullsh!t. If the kid got murdered, you don't go trashing the victim. No he probably shouldn't be "canonized" either, but to say he was no saint seems almost completely irrelevant to the matter You don't have to be Mother Teresa to be a true victim. And hell, even Mother Teresa had her detractors Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
paulinstl 296 Posted August 14, 2014 Good post for the most part and I appreciate the local info, BUT... the bolded is total bullsh!t. If the kid got murdered, you don't go trashing the victim. No he probably shouldn't be "canonized" either, but to say he was no saint seems almost completely irrelevant to the matter You don't have to be Mother Teresa to be a true victim. And hell, even Mother Teresa had her detractors You don't punch anyone either, especially a cop. I'm not trashing the victim, I'm trying to point out that he was in part responsible for what happened. You don't think that assaulting a cop is relevant in characterizing what happened? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Eaglesin14 12 Posted August 14, 2014 Good post for the most part and I appreciate the local info, BUT... the bolded is total bullsh!t. If the kid got murdered, you don't go trashing the victim. No he probably shouldn't be "canonized" either, but to say he was no saint seems almost completely irrelevant to the matter You don't have to be Mother Teresa to be a true victim. And hell, even Mother Teresa had her detractors So it has been determined it was murder? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hoytdwow 202 Posted August 14, 2014 It amazes me that the OP is only concerned with the libertarian reaction to the police instead of a young man who lost his life. What interests me is that there's a bunch of posters here who claim some kind of libertarian/constructionist purity when it comes to government overreach, but then when a basically paramilitary police force is running wild in the streets of an American city, they all side 100% with the cops. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
phillybear 366 Posted August 14, 2014 Good post for the most part and I appreciate the local info, BUT... the bolded is total bullsh!t. If the kid got murdered, you don't go trashing the victim. No he probably shouldn't be "canonized" either, but to say he was no saint seems almost completely irrelevant to the matter You don't have to be Mother Teresa to be a true victim. And hell, even Mother Teresa had her detractors Speaks to the character of the "victim". A pattern of unrelenting criminal activity that supports the credibility of the account of the police. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
paulinstl 296 Posted August 14, 2014 What interests me is that there's a bunch of posters here who claim some kind of libertarian/constructionist purity when it comes to government overreach, but then when a basically paramilitary police force is running wild in the streets of an American city, they all side 100% with the cops. That in no way comes close to describing what's really been happening. You have to include the crowd's behavior to get the clear picture. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IGotWorms 4,059 Posted August 14, 2014 You don't punch anyone either, especially a cop. I'm not trashing the victim, I'm trying to point out that he was in part responsible for what happened. You don't think that assaulting a cop is relevant in characterizing what happened? I don't think it has any bearing on whether the cop could gun him down in cold blood as you described. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IGotWorms 4,059 Posted August 14, 2014 So it has been determined it was murder? Since you're pretty slow, I was going with how paulinstl described what happened and then explaining that if it did indeed go down as he described, then the victim's purity is essentially irrelevant. I have no idea what actually occurred HTH Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
paulinstl 296 Posted August 14, 2014 I don't think it has any bearing on whether the cop could gun him down in cold blood as you described. I don't either, but his actions played a role in what happened, that has to be considered. The cop will be held to face charges, and it's a shame the kid was killed, but for people to think the kid was completely innocent is bs. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hoytdwow 202 Posted August 14, 2014 That in no way comes close to describing what's really been happening. You have to include the crowd's behavior to get the clear picture. The point is, no one knows for sure what is happening, who's at fault, etc., but, regardless, the bored's sons of liberty are all saying the cops are 100% right. No one is even entertaining the suggestion that they may have gone too far or have acted illegally. That's all I'm saying...just a bored sociology observation Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
phillybear 366 Posted August 14, 2014 What interests me is that there's a bunch of posters here who claim some kind of libertarian/constructionist purity when it comes to government overreach, but then when a basically paramilitary police force is running wild in the streets of an American city, they all side 100% with the cops. I'm not sure what you think Libertarianism is exactly nor what is actually happening in this situation. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IGotWorms 4,059 Posted August 14, 2014 Speaks to the character of the "victim". A pattern of unrelenting criminal activity that supports the credibility of the account of the police. Paulinstl described a scenario where the cop gunned down the kid in cold blood as he ran. Explain to me how the character of the victim is relevant there Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
paulinstl 296 Posted August 14, 2014 Paulinstl described a scenario where the cop gunned down the kid in cold blood as he ran. Explain to me how the character of the victim is relevant there In cold blood? The cop was assaulted by the kid. I think the cop should never have shot at the kid after the scuffle was over, but once again, the kid's actions caused the confrontation to escalate. How in the world is that not relevant? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
phillybear 366 Posted August 14, 2014 Paulinstl described a scenario where the cop gunned down the kid in cold blood as he ran. Explain to me how the character of the victim is relevant there Paraphrasing, from what I've heard. The rioters and Fat Al Sharpton are claiming that the kid was walking along the street when the cops told him to move to the sidewalk. The kid then supposedly put his arms up as if to surrender for some reason, and the cops opened fire for no reason. The cops are claiming the kid ran up to the car and was throwing punches at the cop in the car. As the cop disengaged, he thought the kid was reaching for a gun. Shots were fired. The character of the kid might come into play in one's conclusion as to what is the more likely scenario. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Eaglesin14 12 Posted August 14, 2014 Since you're pretty slow, I was going with how paulinstl described what happened and then explaining that if it did indeed go down as he described, then the victim's purity is essentially irrelevant. I have no idea what actually occurred HTH You made the leap of calling it murder in cold blood. That is not how Paul described it. You then said Paul has no right to trash the victim when all he did was describe both sides of the story. You are the slow one. Seems the only thing that isn't slow about you is your jumping to conclusions. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IGotWorms 4,059 Posted August 14, 2014 You made the leap of calling it murder in cold blood. That is not how Paul described it. How so? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IGotWorms 4,059 Posted August 14, 2014 Paraphrasing, from what I've heard. The rioters and Fat Al Sharpton are claiming that the kid was walking along the street when the cops told him to move to the sidewalk. The kid then supposedly put his arms up as if to surrender for some reason, and the cops opened fire for no reason. The cops are claiming the kid ran up to the car and was throwing punches at the cop in the car. As the cop disengaged, he thought the kid was reaching for a gun. Shots were fired. The character of the kid might come into play in one's conclusion as to what is the more likely scenario. In a self-defense scenario, it might. That was not at all what paulinstl described though, and my post was related only to his description of the event. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Eaglesin14 12 Posted August 14, 2014 Obama stuck his nose into this situation today. Seems his inability to comment on ongoing investigations doesn't apply when a black kid is killed by a white guy. No word on if this dead kid could have been his son. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IGotWorms 4,059 Posted August 14, 2014 In cold blood? The cop was assaulted by the kid. I think the cop should never have shot at the kid after the scuffle was over, but once again, the kid's actions caused the confrontation to escalate. How in the world is that not relevant? Look, if I come up and punch you in the face I realize that you are going to be pissed about that. So maybe out of anger you pull out a gun and shoot me after the scuffle is over and I'm walking away. That's still murder Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
5-Points 3,573 Posted August 14, 2014 The point is, no one knows for sure what is happening, who's at fault, etc., but, regardless, the bored's sons of liberty are all saying the cops are 100% right. No one is even entertaining the suggestion that they may have gone too far or have acted illegally. That's all I'm saying...just a bored sociology observation For the record I'm not saying the cops are 100% correct. However, given that they are tasked with keeping the peace and protecting the community, I'm inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt over a bunch of rioters and looters who have no business being there in the first place. Don't start none, won't be none. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
paulinstl 296 Posted August 14, 2014 Look, if I come up and punch you in the face I realize that you are going to be pissed about that. So maybe out of anger you pull out a gun and shoot me after the scuffle is over and I'm walking away. That's still murder I'm not going to be able to make my point clear to you. I do think the cop overreacted. I also think the kid focked up by assaulting the police and grabbing for his gun. If I lost an arm because I kept jabbing an alligator's snout, would you tell people my stupidity was irrelevant or did it play a major part in what happened? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Eaglesin14 12 Posted August 14, 2014 The point is, no one knows for sure what is happening, who's at fault, etc., but, regardless, the bored's sons of liberty are all saying the cops are 100% right. No one is even entertaining the suggestion that they may have gone too far or have acted illegally. That's all I'm saying...just a bored sociology observation List of posters saying the cops were 100% right? I don't see anyone saying that. You are trying too hard, Kid. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
phillybear 366 Posted August 14, 2014 While I have no sympathy for the looters getting focked up, admittedly in an overall sense it's troubling how heavily armed most police forces are now today. We see the government targeting citizens race, sex, political leanings, while spying on everybody in secrecy and forcing us to do things that we don't want to do. Then they use their government workers to swing their bully sticks, and the cops are a part of that. Well armed militias aren't going to be able to defend themselves against a tyrannical government. Our government continues to become more despicable by the day. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hoytdwow 202 Posted August 14, 2014 I also think the kid focked up by assaulting the police and grabbing for his gun. but it isn't even certain that this happened! There are eyewitnesses who say it didn't. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
drobeski 3,061 Posted August 14, 2014 What interests me is that there's a bunch of posters here who claim some kind of libertarian/constructionist purity when it comes to government overreach, but then when a basically paramilitary police force is running wild in the streets of an American city, they all side 100% with the cops. while you side with the animals and destruction they are trying to keep under control. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hoytdwow 202 Posted August 14, 2014 while you side with the animals and destruction they are trying to keep under control. go away plumber boy. The adults are talking here. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
paulinstl 296 Posted August 14, 2014 but it isn't even certain that this happened! There are eyewitnesses who say it didn't. So no clear facts are out there yet. They will be in time. All I have been trying to say is that there is cause and effect. I guarantee that cop wasn't looking to shoot a kid that Saturday morning. Something caused it. The kid's actions played a major role in what followed. Why is that so hard to agree on? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
drobeski 3,061 Posted August 14, 2014 go away plumber boy. The adults are talking here. No Get me popcorn, liberal arts boy Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Eaglesin14 12 Posted August 14, 2014 but it isn't even certain that this happened! There are eyewitnesses who say it didn't. Are these witnesses the ones with the new flat screens and Air Jordans? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
paulinstl 296 Posted August 14, 2014 There were many witnesses that have been interviewed by the authorities. Many contradict what you have seen in the media. I'm pretty sure the witnesses that claim they saw the kid assault the cop aren't going to go on TV, because they wouldn't last the night without feeling repercussions from their neighbors that saw it differently. For the County police chief to have made those claims, he had to have some pretty solid evidence or eyewitness testimony to go public. If he's proven wrong, it's career suicide on his part. I don't see that happening. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 720 Posted August 14, 2014 How so? Don't bother...he already missed the word "if" in your first statement. He missed every explanation you will give. he will nitpick you over and over and over again (because you lean left and don't agree with him politically). Don't waste your time...seriously. Have a discussion with more rational people (like paul, even philly). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 720 Posted August 14, 2014 For the record I'm not saying the cops are 100% correct. However, given that they are tasked with keeping the peace and protecting the community, I'm inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt over a bunch of rioters and looters who have no business being there in the first place. Don't start none, won't be none. If they are being peaceful...they have every right to be there...no matter where the people are from. That is a big if with what has been reported though. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Eaglesin14 12 Posted August 14, 2014 List of posters saying the cops were 100% right? I don't see anyone saying that. You are trying too hard, Kid. Anyone? A single poster? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 720 Posted August 14, 2014 While I have no sympathy for the looters getting focked up, admittedly in an overall sense it's troubling how heavily armed most police forces are now today. We see the government targeting citizens race, sex, political leanings, while spying on everybody in secrecy and forcing us to do things that we don't want to do. Then they use their government workers to swing their bully sticks, and the cops are a part of that. Well armed militias aren't going to be able to defend themselves against a tyrannical government. Our government continues to become more despicable by the day. Its been a long long long long time since a well armed militia could defend themselves against our government. And I don't disagree that police forces are heavily armed. All in reaction (or even over reaction sometimes) to what some of the people on the streets have been armed with. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Eaglesin14 12 Posted August 14, 2014 It amazes me that the OP is only concerned with the libertarian reaction to the police instead of a young man who lost his life. He was a little too obvious from the get-go, huh? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 720 Posted August 14, 2014 to most in here too for keeping this civil even when we disagree. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BunnysBastatrds 2,460 Posted August 14, 2014 What interests me is that there's a bunch of posters here who claim some kind of libertarian/constructionist purity when it comes to government overreach, but then when a basically paramilitary police force is running wild in the streets of an American city, they all side 100% with the cops. So what are the police supposed to do? Let the bad guys destroy the city? if they sit back and do nothing, it's their fault. If someone innocent dies because they were caught in the crossfire, it's their fault. They show force and while trying to bring order, their out of line. What should they do? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Eaglesin14 12 Posted August 14, 2014 Only five days after everything started... Glad he is on top of things... Maybe he doesn't watch the news while on golfing vacations. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites