What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Looting in Missouri after cops shoot 18 year old (1 Viewer)

Otis

Footballguy
LINK

So the community is angry and say it was not a justified shooting, OK. The police apparently say the young man started a physical altercation with the cops and that the shooting was justified. I have no idea which side is right on this.

Then there's a candlelight vigil and it turns violent and the crowd gets wild and they start throwing bottles at the cops. Fine.

But my question is this: what's with the looting? Our community is outraged about this unjustified shooting of one of our own, so we're gonna smash in the door of the Target and steal a bunch of stuff.

Huh?

:shrug:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Following #ferguson on twitter, some people are justifying it because the stores being looted never give anything back to the community and that's what insurance is for.

They protested peacefully for 3 hours, but swat teams were brought in. That angered them and got the looting started.

A police officers house was reported to be burned down, so that one is easier to understand.

 
People will use anything to justify their stealing other people's things. Anyone that looted in the name of a kid getting shot is a real piece of ####. The extent people will go to just to rationalize their actions is astounding sometimes.

"Hey this shooting was bull####! You know what would make me feel better about it is a new Playstation and some games"

 
Seems to me like a lot of police - and much of the public - have forgotten when use of lethal force is supposed to be legal. Was the kid a bona fide threat to the officer's life or anyone else's? (and it is possible for an unarmed person to be a legitimate threat if, for example, there's a big difference in physical ability because of age or handicap, for example, or if the officer is outnumbered by more than one unarmed assailant, or if the assailant is known to authorities as a threat (professional boxer comes to mind)).

But if no threat to officer's life or anyone else's, then non-lethal means (night stick, pepper spray, taser) should be used to compel compliance.

ETA: After reading this from the quoted article, we can only speculate here... if the officer was attacked by more than one, it's possible that use of lethal force was justified... we won't know for sure until we have more information.

County Police Chief Jon Belmar said the shooting occurred after an officer encountered two people -- one of whom was Brown -- on the street near an apartment complex in Ferguson.

Belmar said one of the men pushed the officer back into his squad car and a struggle began. Belmar said at least one shot was fired from the officer's gun inside the police car. Ferguson Police Chief Tom Jackson said authorities were still sorting out what happened inside the police car. It was not clear if Brown was the man who struggled with the officer.

The struggle spilled out into the street, where Brown was shot multiple times. Belmar said the exact number of shots wasn't known, but "it was more than just a couple." He also said all shell casings found at the scene matched the officer's gun. Police are still investigating why the officer shot Brown, who police have confirmed was unarmed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Few actions express outrage and disapproval of governmental action like looting booze, cigarettes, toilet paper and t.v.'s. Scoring Xboxes and Nikes is close, but not quite there. Looting is expressive conduct for those not quite able to articulate their outrage. I believe it is protected under the first amendment. They are simply assembling to petition their government.

 
Then they burn the stores to the ground and whine when the companies don't rebuild and leave the area... Go figure...

 
FYI, Ferguson, where this happened, is one of the worst areas of the St. Louis metropolitan area. I had a bunch of relatives who grew up there decades ago, and it was a good area then, but it has gone way downhill in the last 20 years, and last night was a prime example of this. Sad. Very sad.

 
FYI, Ferguson, where this happened, is one of the worst areas of the St. Louis metropolitan area. I had a bunch of relatives who grew up there decades ago, and it was a good area then, but it has gone way downhill in the last 20 years, and last night was a prime example of this. Sad. Very sad.
No it isn't. There has been a lot of money invested and redevelopment the last 15 years or so. It's terrible this kid lost his life and it's terrible for a city that has been making a big come back.

 
Looting is usually an irrational but not unexpected result of strong, emotional protest against law and order. If society's rules are considered oppressive or unjust, then the response is to throw out ALL rules.

 
Sounds like the guy shot struggled with the cop inside the patrol car.
Is there a witness to this? Or is this just the story the police are putting out there for now.
Just watching a little of the news last night, the cops were saying the guy forced the officer into the car, attempted to get his gun and the officer shot. So that could be justified. But I think where the problem comes in (according to the eye witness) is the guy is shot stumbling down the street, turns and raised his hands above his head to give up and the officer shoot him twice including once in the head and chest.

But again that is an eyewitness who seemed to like making the rounds of the different news shows last night.

 
Looting is usually an irrational but not unexpected result of strong, emotional protest against law and order. If society's rules are considered oppressive or unjust, then the response is to throw out ALL rules.
I think they are usually opportunists.

 
St. Petersburg, Florida - Michael Brown's family has hired the same Florida civil rights attorney who currently represents Trayvon Martin's family. (link)

 
Following #ferguson on twitter, some people are justifying it because the stores being looted never give anything back to the community and that's what insurance is for.

They protested peacefully for 3 hours, but swat teams were brought in. That angered them and got the looting started.

A police officers house was reported to be burned down, so that one is easier to understand.
They're saying that most insurance policies don't cover civil unrest. Some people, people that had nothing to do with the shooting, lost everything last night. ####### awful.

 
Seems to me like a lot of police - and much of the public - have forgotten when use of lethal force is supposed to be legal. Was the kid a bona fide threat to the officer's life or anyone else's? (and it is possible for an unarmed person to be a legitimate threat if, for example, there's a big difference in physical ability because of age or handicap, for example, or if the officer is outnumbered by more than one unarmed assailant, or if the assailant is known to authorities as a threat (professional boxer comes to mind)).

But if no threat to officer's life or anyone else's, then non-lethal means (night stick, pepper spray, taser) should be used to compel compliance.

ETA: After reading this from the quoted article, we can only speculate here... if the officer was attacked by more than one, it's possible that use of lethal force was justified... we won't know for sure until we have more information.

County Police Chief Jon Belmar said the shooting occurred after an officer encountered two people -- one of whom was Brown -- on the street near an apartment complex in Ferguson.

Belmar said one of the men pushed the officer back into his squad car and a struggle began. Belmar said at least one shot was fired from the officer's gun inside the police car. Ferguson Police Chief Tom Jackson said authorities were still sorting out what happened inside the police car. It was not clear if Brown was the man who struggled with the officer.

The struggle spilled out into the street, where Brown was shot multiple times. Belmar said the exact number of shots wasn't known, but "it was more than just a couple." He also said all shell casings found at the scene matched the officer's gun. Police are still investigating why the officer shot Brown, who police have confirmed was unarmed.
Well, that does sound like it may have been racially motivated.

 
Following #ferguson on twitter, some people are justifying it because the stores being looted never give anything back to the community and that's what insurance is for.

They protested peacefully for 3 hours, but swat teams were brought in. That angered them and got the looting started.

A police officers house was reported to be burned down, so that one is easier to understand.
They're saying that most insurance policies don't cover civil unrest. Some people, people that had nothing to do with the shooting, lost everything last night. ####### awful.
Standard HO policies generally cover civil unrest and riots.

 
Following #ferguson on twitter, some people are justifying it because the stores being looted never give anything back to the community and that's what insurance is for.

They protested peacefully for 3 hours, but swat teams were brought in. That angered them and got the looting started.

A police officers house was reported to be burned down, so that one is easier to understand.
They're saying that most insurance policies don't cover civil unrest. Some people, people that had nothing to do with the shooting, lost everything last night. ####### awful.
Standard HO policies generally cover civil unrest and riots.
I was talking about the businesses. At least that's what they are reporting on the radio. Plenty of scary pictures. I used to live a couple of miles from here. Pretty surreal.

 
Following #ferguson on twitter, some people are justifying it because the stores being looted never give anything back to the community and that's what insurance is for.

They protested peacefully for 3 hours, but swat teams were brought in. That angered them and got the looting started.

A police officers house was reported to be burned down, so that one is easier to understand.
lol...what a bunch of idiots; they give back to the community just by virtue of being there. They provide jobs for people who live in the community and access to buy stuff. All stuff that people take for granted.

 
Following #ferguson on twitter, some people are justifying it because the stores being looted never give anything back to the community and that's what insurance is for.

They protested peacefully for 3 hours, but swat teams were brought in. That angered them and got the looting started.

A police officers house was reported to be burned down, so that one is easier to understand.
lol...what a bunch of idiots; they give back to the community just by virtue of being there. They provide jobs for people who live in the community and access to buy stuff. All stuff that people take for granted.
There have been protests because some areas of the city don't have grocery stores, gas stations etc. Actual scary parts of the city, not like Ferguson. People suck.

 
The riots and looting grew and moved at speeds faster than previous riots due to cell phones and social media. People were contacting their friends to let them know what was going on and where to go.

 
Following #ferguson on twitter, some people are justifying it because the stores being looted never give anything back to the community and that's what insurance is for.

They protested peacefully for 3 hours, but swat teams were brought in. That angered them and got the looting started.

A police officers house was reported to be burned down, so that one is easier to understand.
They're saying that most insurance policies don't cover civil unrest. Some people, people that had nothing to do with the shooting, lost everything last night. ####### awful.
Standard HO policies generally cover civil unrest and riots.
I was talking about the businesses. At least that's what they are reporting on the radio. Plenty of scary pictures. I used to live a couple of miles from here. Pretty surreal.
I would be surprised if that were the case. This sounds like a case of radio reporters not knowing what they're talking about.

It doesn't cover War or Acts of Terrorism, but civil unrest or riots are covered in every policy I've seen. This is a pretty standard policy.

 
Sounds like the guy shot struggled with the cop inside the patrol car.
Is there a witness to this? Or is this just the story the police are putting out there for now.
Just watching a little of the news last night, the cops were saying the guy forced the officer into the car, attempted to get his gun and the officer shot. So that could be justified. But I think where the problem comes in (according to the eye witness) is the guy is shot stumbling down the street, turns and raised his hands above his head to give up and the officer shoot him twice including once in the head and chest.

But again that is an eyewitness who seemed to like making the rounds of the different news shows last night.
Who even cares what the cop did or didn't do?

The issue here is that a group of people are deciding to tear apart the community because of some perceived injustice, that quite frankly, does not even affect them in the slightest.

 
Following #ferguson on twitter, some people are justifying it because the stores being looted never give anything back to the community and that's what insurance is for.

They protested peacefully for 3 hours, but swat teams were brought in. That angered them and got the looting started.

A police officers house was reported to be burned down, so that one is easier to understand.
lol...what a bunch of idiots; they give back to the community just by virtue of being there. They provide jobs for people who live in the community and access to buy stuff. All stuff that people take for granted.
There have been protests because some areas of the city don't have grocery stores, gas stations etc. Actual scary parts of the city, not like Ferguson. People suck.
Well, congrats, now there will be even less options for these poor, poor people. I know some people are like...whatever, insurance will pay for it....but anyone with even half a brain knows that when a claim is put in, the rates skyrocket. So I guess we will see if it is worth it to pull this kind of crap.

 
And people wonder why stereotypes exist? lol.......
I don't wonder. Stereotypes exist because of simplistic minds.

Unfortunately, looting seems to result whenever there is protest and rioting. The London riots of 2011 were evidence that there is no racial element that has anything to do with this:

http://www.psychologymatters.asia/article/49/the-psychology-behind-riots-and-looting-the-august-2011-english-riots.html

You might want to read the above article from Psychology Today- using the British riots as an example, it attempts to discuss in depth why protests lead to riots, and why riots lead to looting (always among a minority). Or, skip it and stick to your stereotypes.

 
Sounds like the guy shot struggled with the cop inside the patrol car.
Is there a witness to this? Or is this just the story the police are putting out there for now.
Just watching a little of the news last night, the cops were saying the guy forced the officer into the car, attempted to get his gun and the officer shot. So that could be justified. But I think where the problem comes in (according to the eye witness) is the guy is shot stumbling down the street, turns and raised his hands above his head to give up and the officer shoot him twice including once in the head and chest.

But again that is an eyewitness who seemed to like making the rounds of the different news shows last night.
So then currently we only have the story from the police that he attempted to jump in a police car and get his gun - seems odd.

Not sure I know of many people who go from walking down the street to attacking an officer head on inside his police car - not to mention going for a gun. And then running away from police doesn't make sense - It would seem if you were in the unlikely position of going for a gun inside a police car you are pretty much all in and would finish off the officer or you would go down in the car.

This witness on TV - was he with the victim - or was he watching from elsewhere?

 
Here is another good article on the psychology of looting, again using the UK riots:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/aug/09/uk-riots-psychology-of-looting

At the other end of the authoritarian-liberal spectrum, you have Camila Batmanghelidjh's idea, movingly expressed in the Independent, that this is a natural human response to the brutality of poverty: "Walk on the estate stairwells with your baby in a buggy manoeuvring past the condoms, the needles, into the lift where the best outcome is that you will survive the urine stench and the worst is that you will be raped . . . It's not one occasional attack on dignity, it's a repeated humiliation, being continuously dispossessed in a society rich with possession. Young, intelligent citizens of the ghetto seek an explanation for why they are at the receiving end of bleak Britain, condemned to a darkness where their humanity is not even valued enough to be helped."

Between these poles is a more pragmatic reading: this is what happens when people don't have anything, when they have their noses constantly rubbed in stuff they can't afford, and they have no reason ever to believe that they will be able to afford it. Hiller takes up this idea: "Consumer society relies on your ability to participate in it. So what we recognise as a consumer now was born out of shorter hours, higher wages and the availability of credit. If you're dealing with a lot of people who don't have the last two, that contract doesn't work. They seem to be targeting the stores selling goods they would normally consume. So perhaps they're rebelling against the system that denies its bounty to them because they can't afford it."

 
Here is another good article on the psychology of looting, again using the UK riots:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/aug/09/uk-riots-psychology-of-looting

At the other end of the authoritarian-liberal spectrum, you have Camila Batmanghelidjh's idea, movingly expressed in the Independent, that this is a natural human response to the brutality of poverty: "Walk on the estate stairwells with your baby in a buggy manoeuvring past the condoms, the needles, into the lift where the best outcome is that you will survive the urine stench and the worst is that you will be raped . . . It's not one occasional attack on dignity, it's a repeated humiliation, being continuously dispossessed in a society rich with possession. Young, intelligent citizens of the ghetto seek an explanation for why they are at the receiving end of bleak Britain, condemned to a darkness where their humanity is not even valued enough to be helped."

Between these poles is a more pragmatic reading: this is what happens when people don't have anything, when they have their noses constantly rubbed in stuff they can't afford, and they have no reason ever to believe that they will be able to afford it. Hiller takes up this idea: "Consumer society relies on your ability to participate in it. So what we recognise as a consumer now was born out of shorter hours, higher wages and the availability of credit. If you're dealing with a lot of people who don't have the last two, that contract doesn't work. They seem to be targeting the stores selling goods they would normally consume. So perhaps they're rebelling against the system that denies its bounty to them because they can't afford it."
A much simpler explanation is that people like getting stuff for free, and a riot provides a good opportunity to steal with impunity.

 
Here is another good article on the psychology of looting, again using the UK riots:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/aug/09/uk-riots-psychology-of-looting

At the other end of the authoritarian-liberal spectrum, you have Camila Batmanghelidjh's idea, movingly expressed in the Independent, that this is a natural human response to the brutality of poverty: "Walk on the estate stairwells with your baby in a buggy manoeuvring past the condoms, the needles, into the lift where the best outcome is that you will survive the urine stench and the worst is that you will be raped . . . It's not one occasional attack on dignity, it's a repeated humiliation, being continuously dispossessed in a society rich with possession. Young, intelligent citizens of the ghetto seek an explanation for why they are at the receiving end of bleak Britain, condemned to a darkness where their humanity is not even valued enough to be helped."

Between these poles is a more pragmatic reading: this is what happens when people don't have anything, when they have their noses constantly rubbed in stuff they can't afford, and they have no reason ever to believe that they will be able to afford it. Hiller takes up this idea: "Consumer society relies on your ability to participate in it. So what we recognise as a consumer now was born out of shorter hours, higher wages and the availability of credit. If you're dealing with a lot of people who don't have the last two, that contract doesn't work. They seem to be targeting the stores selling goods they would normally consume. So perhaps they're rebelling against the system that denies its bounty to them because they can't afford it."
A much simpler explanation is that people like getting stuff for free, and a riot provides a good opportunity to steal with impunity.
Yes, that would be simpler. And certainly true of some of those engaged in looting. But for the majority of the looters, incorrect.

 
Following #ferguson on twitter, some people are justifying it because the stores being looted never give anything back to the community and that's what insurance is for.

They protested peacefully for 3 hours, but swat teams were brought in. That angered them and got the looting started.

A police officers house was reported to be burned down, so that one is easier to understand.
They're saying that most insurance policies don't cover civil unrest. Some people, people that had nothing to do with the shooting, lost everything last night. ####### awful.
Standard HO policies generally cover civil unrest and riots.
I was talking about the businesses. At least that's what they are reporting on the radio. Plenty of scary pictures. I used to live a couple of miles from here. Pretty surreal.
I would be surprised if that were the case. This sounds like a case of radio reporters not knowing what they're talking about.

It doesn't cover War or Acts of Terrorism, but civil unrest or riots are covered in every policy I've seen. This is a pretty standard policy.
Yeah, I don't know. One of the sponsors of the show had his tire business cleaned out and that's what he said.

 
Here is another good article on the psychology of looting, again using the UK riots:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/aug/09/uk-riots-psychology-of-looting

At the other end of the authoritarian-liberal spectrum, you have Camila Batmanghelidjh's idea, movingly expressed in the Independent, that this is a natural human response to the brutality of poverty: "Walk on the estate stairwells with your baby in a buggy manoeuvring past the condoms, the needles, into the lift where the best outcome is that you will survive the urine stench and the worst is that you will be raped . . . It's not one occasional attack on dignity, it's a repeated humiliation, being continuously dispossessed in a society rich with possession. Young, intelligent citizens of the ghetto seek an explanation for why they are at the receiving end of bleak Britain, condemned to a darkness where their humanity is not even valued enough to be helped."

Between these poles is a more pragmatic reading: this is what happens when people don't have anything, when they have their noses constantly rubbed in stuff they can't afford, and they have no reason ever to believe that they will be able to afford it. Hiller takes up this idea: "Consumer society relies on your ability to participate in it. So what we recognise as a consumer now was born out of shorter hours, higher wages and the availability of credit. If you're dealing with a lot of people who don't have the last two, that contract doesn't work. They seem to be targeting the stores selling goods they would normally consume. So perhaps they're rebelling against the system that denies its bounty to them because they can't afford it."
A much simpler explanation is that people like getting stuff for free, and a riot provides a good opportunity to steal with impunity.
The article seems to pretty much say the same thing, but in a more nuanced manner.

The bottom line is people want things they can't afford so they take them when the opportunity presents itself.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top