Originally Posted By RoadTrip Largely white liberal, usually well off, occasionally gay, Bay Area Dalmatians.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Since it's only a matter of time before they show up, let's dispose of a few stand-by canards right now: 1) Blacks don't care about black-on-black crime. Nonsense, and only white (and unfortunately some black) people with the luxury of ignorance would say otherwise.>> I don't know of many whites, even here in Iraqi-Missouri, who feel that way. Anyone who listens to the news at all sees the anguish of Black parents and communities when a child is killed due to neighborhood violence. I think your perception of that is primarily due to the way media largely ignores it. Black on Black crime just isn't seen as "news" in some cities. <<2) Black people just need to get their own community in order.>> Only to the extent that poor whites in the Ozarks need to. They are also dependent on government programs for generations and it becomes an accepted way of life. They don't really pursue other options and there are few available to them in this area anyway. Being poverty puts you at the bottom of the priority list... Black or white. <<3) Absent fathers are to blame.>> To a large extent, yes they are. It is a proven fact that children in single parent families face poverty far more frequently than other families regardless of whether they are Black or white. And poverty generates all the other problems you are talking about... Black or white. No matter HOW STRICT the remaining custodial parent tries to be, the deck is stacked against them. Poverty is the core problem, not being Black. Being Black may increase the likelihood that you will be poor, but eliminate poverty and you eliminate the problem.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip By the way... I see this a LOT. The Ozarks is VERY white... and for the most part VERY poor. The cost of living here is very low which makes it nice for people collecting retirement income based on the much higher wages in Minnesota. But the wages paid here are crap... the cost of living HAS to be low.
Originally Posted By ecdc Police in Ferguson are shooting tear gas into crowds tonight—crowds that include children. I didn't realize this until this major cluster...uh...snafu in Ferguson, but tear gas is considered a chemical weapon by the Geneva Convention and it's banned in warfare. It's a dangerous substance and shouldn't be used lightly. Just don't tell that to cops in St. Louis.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Cops love their tear gas. I remember sitting in my office at the Minnesota Daily (the campus newspaper) when the Minneapolis police tear gassed the University Mall during the 1972 protests of the Cambodian Incursion. Even though I was somewhat removed from the area gassed and inside a building, the effects were immediately noticeable. I thought things were actually much better after that the National Guard was called in. They called off the helicopters with the tear gas and stopped the riot-clubbing of protesters. They instituted a strict curfew, but compared to the gassing and beatings that was a huge improvement. Maybe that is why I don't find a curfew unreasonable now. Of course the Guard didn't gas curfew violators... they simply had them arrested.
Originally Posted By ecdc These cops didn't even bother to wait for curfew—it goes into effect at midnight but they started gassing around 10PM.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Currently watching continuous coverage on CNN. The tone of the coverage seems to have changed. They are no longer exclusively blaming police for the situation, but also saying "bad actors", likely coming from other areas, are also responsible for the violence. There have been quite a few gun shots fired from the crowd of "non-violent" protesters. At this very moment, a Black CNN reporter is saying that "at SOME POINT, you have to take control of your city. You have to protect the citizens who are obeying the law. I'm not sure what other options the police have."
Originally Posted By ecdc It's not the protestors responsibility to kowtow to whatever the cops want. If people want the protests to stop, arrest Officer Wilson. If I shot an unarmed man, I'd be arrested. It doesn't mean he's guilty or there won't be an investigation. But that they waited so long to even release his name shows the problem of cop culture that basically says they are immune from the rules like the rest of us.
Originally Posted By Donny "If I shot an unarmed man, I'd be arrested." This is not true,There are many times and situations when a person who does not have a gun can represent a reasonable threat or maybe you think a parent who walks in a room and sees their child who may being rapped should have to over power a person who might be much bigger then them allowed to shoot the child rapist.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 You'd probably still be arrested. You might well be acquitted at trial, or maybe it wouldn't even get to trial, but unless there were other eyewitnesses and it was an absolute open and shut case, you'd almost certainly be arrested. Otherwise, anyone could just claim extenuating circumstances like that. That's what trials are for.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "If people want the protests to stop, arrest Officer Wilson. If I shot an unarmed man, I'd be arrested. It doesn't mean he's guilty or there won't be an investigation." Couldn't disagree more because then you've got mob rule. What this will likely have to do is go to a grand jury.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <No, no you would not> Yes, yes I would. I couldn't, as a non-cop, just shoot somebody and then say "hey, there was a good reason!" with no one to back my story, and not expected to NOT be arrested. Now as someone with no record, I'm sure I'd make bail, etc. But I couldn't expect the police investigators to just take my word for everything. Otherwise that's all anyone would have to do.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer When a local government has lost the ability to govern and the people of a community are essentially in open rebellion or insurrection against civil authority, can the federal government step in? Can the Missouri National Guard be federalized under the President's constitutional powers, or can US Marshalls be sent in to bring both sides under control?
Originally Posted By ecdc Let me back up. I absolutely believe the police—under extenuating circumstances—have the right to declare a curfew, disperse dangerous crowds, etc. Even though I understand that looting is another sign of the lack of power, it's a crime and perpetrators should be arrested. We have no evidence of the extenuating circumstances that would require a curfew or teargas or much else in this situation. As someone posted on Twitter, if a cop so much as got a paper cut from a protestor's leaflet, you better believe we'd be hearing about it. We have no evidence of widespread rioting, lawlessness, or the kind of disorder that would necessitate a curfew or teargas. We do have evidence of cops arresting reporters (and later releasing them without explanation—so long, probable cause!), firing teargas into groups of reporters and groups with children, of threatening to shoot reporters who are filming them, etc. What we have is the police instantly dialing up their response to 11, massing with military vehicles and weapons, and in some cases *pointing those weapons at protestors hundreds of feet away.* How is that ok? Pointing a gun at an unarmed, innocent person several yards away who is no threat to you is absolutely an act of violence. Those cops pointing those guns at protestors who are wandering around with their hands up shouldn't just be fired, they should be arrested. Which of course will never happen. We are witnessing a completely bananas level of police force that is totally out of proportion to the behavior of protestors. And instead of people saying, "Whoa! This is nuts!" many are saying, "Hey, those people best do what the cops say." None of us should be ok with what is happening.
Originally Posted By ecdc When a cop does in the line of duty, we instantly know the name of the person responsible, they are instantly vilified in the press, and if they're still alive, they are arrested and charged with a crime, and the cop (as well they should) gets a massive funeral procession. When Michael Brown is shot, we don't know the name of the cop responsible for days, he is not arrested, he is not vilified in the media, and instead, we get photos of Michael Brown flipping the bird and reports that he smoked weed. The victim is vilified. And we're all just a-ok with this? It's absolutely appalling.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Until ALL SIDES are committed to ending the violence it will never end. Period. Arresting Wilson would accomplish NOTHING. Those intent on causing trouble still would. First they were demanding the name. They got that. Now they demand an arrest. If they got that they would say bail was set too low. There will ALWAYS be some grievance. And none of it will bring Brown back. Restore peace to the community and let the justice system do its work.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Until ALL SIDES are committed to ending the violence it will never end.<< Why do you insist on dragging this false equivalency into it. What have unarmed protestors done that necessitates this response? Two days ago it was, "they broke curfew." It wasn't passed curfew last night when this started. Any reports of looting or violence have been isolated, and in some cases stopped by the community and protestors. There is no rioting. There is no violence by protestors. What exactly do you want these people to do apart, apparently, from going home? Is just showing up now an act of violence?
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Shots being fired and Molotov cocktails being tossed from within the crowd of protesters ARE violent acts that demand a response. The troublemakers are in effect using the peaceful demonstrators as "Human Shields". The only way to eliminate that is to order the crowds to disperse. If they don't, sooner of later an innocent demonstrator will be killed by one of the troublemakers. So reports are isolated? So what? Ferguson police shooting an unarmed individual is an isolated event also... at least in Ferguson. I know it is sadly par for the course in some large cities. But ONE EVENT is too many. Unjustified violence on EITHER SIDE cannot be excused away.
