Looting in Missouri after cops shoot 18 year old (3 Viewers)

[Slapdash]

If Slapdash doesn't get banned for life we all should riot and loot this forum.

Pretty sure Tim is already doing that.

 

[urbanhack]

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/city-of-ferguson-public-relations-common-ground

 

[Ditka Butkus]

I want to discuss this issue of the militarization of police, because it keeps getting brought up, and I'm not quite seeing the connection. I don't understand how it contributed to the shooting of Michael Brown, and I don't understand how it has contributed to the actions of the police afterwards in response to the protests and rioting. My assumption is that if the police didn't have any military hardware, very little about this entire story would be different.

Is this a wrong assumption on my part? If so, why?

You claim to be a big fan of the libertarians, right? I'll let Rand Paul explain it to you.

To simplify- when you treat citizens as enemy combatants instead of the people you are supposed to serve and protect, you're gonna get justifiable distrust at a minimum, and on occasion much more than that.

I guess the police are suppose to just walk up and explain to the thrower, that the Molotov cocktail toss is not a game they should be playing out in the street with all of those people around.

You tear gas their asses, then water cannon them. All done with out military hardware

Oh ok, I get it.....Don't wear fatigues or battle helmets or any riot gear because it comes off as an intimidating tactic....but no problem shooting tear gas or water cannons at the people.

Thanks for missing my point/ As mentioned I have no problem with using tear gas or water cannons to break up rioting.

I do have a problem with police in armored vehicles and using assault rifles.

It's not as if there hasn't been riots handled by water cannons and tear gas. No need to escalate from there.

So when the criminals (and I'm talking in general terms) start shooting at the police with assault weapons, what would you like to see the police return fire with.....and this has happened in the past.

Wait, there are no police left? They have all been killed by assault rifle wielding criminals?

So, those are the ones in Ferguson, then.

I thought they were the police, Now I understand everything



If you want to use this argument as it pertains to the present situation in Ferguson, then please link to how many police have lost their lives from being attacked by rioters with assault rifles in Ferguson, MO since August 11th

This was a question to your suggestion that the use of military tactics and weapons make police(not just Ferguson police) intimidating.. that is why I said (criminals in general) so that you may understand I didn't mean the rioters.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

TIME FOR OUTRAGE AND RIOTS IN UTAH!

Cops gun down headphones-wearing Utah man because he wouldnt comply with orders

http://mobile.rawstory.com/all/2014-08-15-cops-gun-down-headphones-wearing-utah-man-because-he-wouldnt-comply-with-orders#1

GENOCIDE!

MSNBC Guest: There’s a U.S. ‘War on Black Boys,’ Could Turn ‘Genocide’ if We Don’t Stop ItOn Hardball Monday, MSNBC contributor Michelle Bernard said the U.S. is on the verge of experiencing a “genocide” of young black men.

Bernard was on the program with the Washington Post’s Eugene Robinson to discuss the ongoing unrest in Ferguson, Mo., following the police shooting of 18-year-old Michael Brown. Bernard, who is black, said her 11-year-old son had asked her recently if someone was going to shoot him, as was the case with Brown.

“I don’t have an answer that is palatable to be able to look my children in the face and say there are people in this country who– not only do not like African-Americans, but they despise black men,” Bernard said. “There is a war on black boys in this country. In my opinion, there is a war on African-American men.”

Host Chris Matthews wrapped up the segment, saying he wished that other Americans would listen to Bernard and Robinson, who had said both racial and economic elements are at play in the Ferguson turmoil.

“I hope so,” Bernard said, “because this is, it’s going to turn into a genocide if it doesn’t stop.”

Did she seriously refer to black men as "boys?"

 

[Ditka Butkus]

If Slapdash doesn't get banned for life we all should riot and loot this forum.

Pretty sure Tim is already doing that.

 

[saintfool]

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/city-of-ferguson-public-relations-common-ground

To be fair, i suspect a few of the staffers have "dated" AA guys in the past, have black friend(s), and love Bey, Rhi and Iggy so much they use them on their workout mix at the gym stairmaster.

 

[Henry Ford]

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/city-of-ferguson-public-relations-common-ground

To be fair, i suspect a few of the staffers have "dated" AA guys in the past, have black friend(s), and love Bey, Rhi and Iggy so much they use them on their workout mix at the gym stairmaster.

I hear Jenna's roommate freshman year had a Bob Marley poster.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/city-of-ferguson-public-relations-common-ground

1.1 Jenna

 

[Henry Ford]

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/city-of-ferguson-public-relations-common-ground

1.1 Jenna

I think Pia is much better when you get the photo to full size.

 

[Henry Ford]

And I think we can all agree that Lynese is actually the CPU from Tron.

 

[msommer]

I want to discuss this issue of the militarization of police, because it keeps getting brought up, and I'm not quite seeing the connection. I don't understand how it contributed to the shooting of Michael Brown, and I don't understand how it has contributed to the actions of the police afterwards in response to the protests and rioting. My assumption is that if the police didn't have any military hardware, very little about this entire story would be different.

Is this a wrong assumption on my part? If so, why?

You claim to be a big fan of the libertarians, right? I'll let Rand Paul explain it to you.

To simplify- when you treat citizens as enemy combatants instead of the people you are supposed to serve and protect, you're gonna get justifiable distrust at a minimum, and on occasion much more than that.

I guess the police are suppose to just walk up and explain to the thrower, that the Molotov cocktail toss is not a game they should be playing out in the street with all of those people around.

You tear gas their asses, then water cannon them. All done with out military hardware

Oh ok, I get it.....Don't wear fatigues or battle helmets or any riot gear because it comes off as an intimidating tactic....but no problem shooting tear gas or water cannons at the people.

Thanks for missing my point/ As mentioned I have no problem with using tear gas or water cannons to break up rioting.

I do have a problem with police in armored vehicles and using assault rifles.

It's not as if there hasn't been riots handled by water cannons and tear gas. No need to escalate from there.

So when the criminals (and I'm talking in general terms) start shooting at the police with assault weapons, what would you like to see the police return fire with.....and this has happened in the past.

Wait, there are no police left? They have all been killed by assault rifle wielding criminals?

So, those are the ones in Ferguson, then.

I thought they were the police, Now I understand everything



If you want to use this argument as it pertains to the present situation in Ferguson, then please link to how many police have lost their lives from being attacked by rioters with assault rifles in Ferguson, MO since August 11th

This was a question to your suggestion that the use of military tactics and weapons make police(not just Ferguson police) intimidating.. that is why I said (criminals in general) so that you may understand I didn't mean the rioters.

So how many Ferguson police officers have been attacked by assault rifle wielding criminals? None?

That's what I thought

 

[saintfool]

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/city-of-ferguson-public-relations-common-ground

1.1 Jenna

I think Pia is much better when you get the photo to full size.

True but I think Peggy might be the dirtiest of the bunch.

 

[Henry Ford]

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/city-of-ferguson-public-relations-common-ground

1.1 Jenna

I think Pia is much better when you get the photo to full size.

True but I think Peggy might be the dirtiest of the bunch.

Sadly, the wrong kind of dirty. I think "Peggy" is a nickname.

 

[Ditka Butkus]

I want to discuss this issue of the militarization of police, because it keeps getting brought up, and I'm not quite seeing the connection. I don't understand how it contributed to the shooting of Michael Brown, and I don't understand how it has contributed to the actions of the police afterwards in response to the protests and rioting. My assumption is that if the police didn't have any military hardware, very little about this entire story would be different.

Is this a wrong assumption on my part? If so, why?

You claim to be a big fan of the libertarians, right? I'll let Rand Paul explain it to you.

To simplify- when you treat citizens as enemy combatants instead of the people you are supposed to serve and protect, you're gonna get justifiable distrust at a minimum, and on occasion much more than that.

I guess the police are suppose to just walk up and explain to the thrower, that the Molotov cocktail toss is not a game they should be playing out in the street with all of those people around.

You tear gas their asses, then water cannon them. All done with out military hardware

Oh ok, I get it.....Don't wear fatigues or battle helmets or any riot gear because it comes off as an intimidating tactic....but no problem shooting tear gas or water cannons at the people.

Thanks for missing my point/ As mentioned I have no problem with using tear gas or water cannons to break up rioting.

I do have a problem with police in armored vehicles and using assault rifles.

It's not as if there hasn't been riots handled by water cannons and tear gas. No need to escalate from there.

So when the criminals (and I'm talking in general terms) start shooting at the police with assault weapons, what would you like to see the police return fire with.....and this has happened in the past.

Wait, there are no police left? They have all been killed by assault rifle wielding criminals?

So, those are the ones in Ferguson, then.

I thought they were the police, Now I understand everything



If you want to use this argument as it pertains to the present situation in Ferguson, then please link to how many police have lost their lives from being attacked by rioters with assault rifles in Ferguson, MO since August 11th

This was a question to your suggestion that the use of military tactics and weapons make police(not just Ferguson police) intimidating.. that is why I said (criminals in general) so that you may understand I didn't mean the rioters.

So how many Ferguson police officers have been attacked by assault rifle wielding criminals? None?

That's what I thought

So when the time comes whenever that is, you want them to be inadequately prepared to respond... That is what I thought. Maybe you should watch the below.

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=la+shootout+robbers+in+body+armour&FORM=HDRSC3#view=detail&mid=6E913BA479A0D4E2F3F56E913BA479A0D4E2F3F5

 

[Ilov80s]

That's awesome. If there is one group of people that can really relate to the feelings of poor blacks, it's college educated white women. I'm sure most of them will draw on their experiences of that one African American Lit course they took in the fall semester of 97 or the Sisqo concert that they went to with their girlfriends.

 

[msommer]

Butkus:

So you agree there is no present need in Ferguson, MO. That is progress.

They are using the assault rifles now against protesters not wearing body armor, nor wielding assault rifles.

And therein lies the problem.

 

[jonessed]

Butkus:

So you agree there is no present need in Ferguson, MO. That is progress.

They are using the assault rifles now against protesters not wearing body armor, nor wielding assault rifles.

And therein lies the problem.

They are carrying assault rifles (at least some of them). Are they actually using them? I haven't heard of any shots fired by police.

 

[TheIronSheik]

Butkus:

So you agree there is no present need in Ferguson, MO. That is progress.

They are using the assault rifles now against protesters not wearing body armor, nor wielding assault rifles.

And therein lies the problem.

You keep saying things like "Looks like they don't need this..."

The point Butkus is making is that the Police Department should be prepared for any kind of event that has happened. Do you remember the Bank of America robbery in CA? Police went to that active crime scene with pistols and had to face off against two criminals equipped in armor from head to toe and with assault rifles. The cops were literally helpless against them. Police and civilians were pinned down, unable to do anything to stop the mad men.

Luckily, some officers went to a gun store and took some rifles to use against them. Only then, did the police start to control the situation and restore order.

Why should officers not be equipped to handle any situation? This whole idea of only going into a situation with just enough is stupid. These cops are putting their lives on the line.

 

[Henry Ford]

Butkus:

So you agree there is no present need in Ferguson, MO. That is progress.

They are using the assault rifles now against protesters not wearing body armor, nor wielding assault rifles.

And therein lies the problem.

You keep saying things like "Looks like they don't need this..."

The point Butkus is making is that the Police Department should be prepared for any kind of event that has happened. Do you remember the Bank of America robbery in CA? Police went to that active crime scene with pistols and had to face off against two criminals equipped in armor from head to toe and with assault rifles. The cops were literally helpless against them. Police and civilians were pinned down, unable to do anything to stop the mad men.

Luckily, some officers went to a gun store and took some rifles to use against them. Only then, did the police start to control the situation and restore order.

Why should officers not be equipped to handle any situation? This whole idea of only going into a situation with just enough is stupid. These cops are putting their lives on the line.

I agree wholeheartedly with the equipment issue, with the caveat that police officers should be equipped to handle the worst case scenario, but then have to exercise restraint up until it reaches that point. Which I think everyone agrees with.

 

[msommer]

Butkus:

So you agree there is no present need in Ferguson, MO. That is progress.

They are using the assault rifles now against protesters not wearing body armor, nor wielding assault rifles.

And therein lies the problem.

You keep saying things like "Looks like they don't need this..."

The point Butkus is making is that the Police Department should be prepared for any kind of event that has happened. Do you remember the Bank of America robbery in CA? Police went to that active crime scene with pistols and had to face off against two criminals equipped in armor from head to toe and with assault rifles. The cops were literally helpless against them. Police and civilians were pinned down, unable to do anything to stop the mad men.

Luckily, some officers went to a gun store and took some rifles to use against them. Only then, did the police start to control the situation and restore order.

Why should officers not be equipped to handle any situation? This whole idea of only going into a situation with just enough is stupid. These cops are putting their lives on the line.

Why do they need to equip assault rifles in Ferguson when water cannons have been known to be more effective?

 

[TheIronSheik]

Butkus:

So you agree there is no present need in Ferguson, MO. That is progress.

They are using the assault rifles now against protesters not wearing body armor, nor wielding assault rifles.

And therein lies the problem.

You keep saying things like "Looks like they don't need this..."

The point Butkus is making is that the Police Department should be prepared for any kind of event that has happened. Do you remember the Bank of America robbery in CA? Police went to that active crime scene with pistols and had to face off against two criminals equipped in armor from head to toe and with assault rifles. The cops were literally helpless against them. Police and civilians were pinned down, unable to do anything to stop the mad men.

Luckily, some officers went to a gun store and took some rifles to use against them. Only then, did the police start to control the situation and restore order.

Why should officers not be equipped to handle any situation? This whole idea of only going into a situation with just enough is stupid. These cops are putting their lives on the line.

I agree wholeheartedly with the equipment issue, with the caveat that police officers should be equipped to handle the worst case scenario, but then have to exercise restraint up until it reaches that point. Which I think everyone agrees with.

I agree. I have never said that officers should have free reign with no restraints.

 

[TheIronSheik]

Butkus:

So you agree there is no present need in Ferguson, MO. That is progress.

They are using the assault rifles now against protesters not wearing body armor, nor wielding assault rifles.

And therein lies the problem.

You keep saying things like "Looks like they don't need this..."

The point Butkus is making is that the Police Department should be prepared for any kind of event that has happened. Do you remember the Bank of America robbery in CA? Police went to that active crime scene with pistols and had to face off against two criminals equipped in armor from head to toe and with assault rifles. The cops were literally helpless against them. Police and civilians were pinned down, unable to do anything to stop the mad men.

Luckily, some officers went to a gun store and took some rifles to use against them. Only then, did the police start to control the situation and restore order.

Why should officers not be equipped to handle any situation? This whole idea of only going into a situation with just enough is stupid. These cops are putting their lives on the line.

Why do they need to equip assault rifles in Ferguson when water cannons have been known to be more effective?

I feel like I'm talking to a wall, GB. Did you not read my post at all?

 

[msommer]

Butkus:

So you agree there is no present need in Ferguson, MO. That is progress.

They are using the assault rifles now against protesters not wearing body armor, nor wielding assault rifles.

And therein lies the problem.

You keep saying things like "Looks like they don't need this..."

The point Butkus is making is that the Police Department should be prepared for any kind of event that has happened. Do you remember the Bank of America robbery in CA? Police went to that active crime scene with pistols and had to face off against two criminals equipped in armor from head to toe and with assault rifles. The cops were literally helpless against them. Police and civilians were pinned down, unable to do anything to stop the mad men.

Luckily, some officers went to a gun store and took some rifles to use against them. Only then, did the police start to control the situation and restore order.

Why should officers not be equipped to handle any situation? This whole idea of only going into a situation with just enough is stupid. These cops are putting their lives on the line.

I agree wholeheartedly with the equipment issue, with the caveat that police officers should be equipped to handle the worst case scenario, but then have to exercise restraint up until it reaches that point. Which I think everyone agrees with.

I agree. I have never said that officers should have free reign with no restraints.

Butkus:

So you agree there is no present need in Ferguson, MO. That is progress.

They are using the assault rifles now against protesters not wearing body armor, nor wielding assault rifles.

And therein lies the problem.

You keep saying things like "Looks like they don't need this..."

The point Butkus is making is that the Police Department should be prepared for any kind of event that has happened. Do you remember the Bank of America robbery in CA? Police went to that active crime scene with pistols and had to face off against two criminals equipped in armor from head to toe and with assault rifles. The cops were literally helpless against them. Police and civilians were pinned down, unable to do anything to stop the mad men.

Luckily, some officers went to a gun store and took some rifles to use against them. Only then, did the police start to control the situation and restore order.

Why should officers not be equipped to handle any situation? This whole idea of only going into a situation with just enough is stupid. These cops are putting their lives on the line.

Why do they need to equip assault rifles in Ferguson when water cannons have been known to be more effective?

I feel like I'm talking to a wall, GB. Did you not read my post at all?

And here I was thinking I was alone in that feeling

 

[tom22406]

What if it turns out the cop suffered injuries during the struggle with Brown near or inside the cop car?

Does this change anything for you?

What if they find fingerprints on the gun that match Brown's?

I'm in the camp that I need more info before I judge anything.

 

[Sinn Fein]

Butkus:

So you agree there is no present need in Ferguson, MO. That is progress.

They are using the assault rifles now against protesters not wearing body armor, nor wielding assault rifles.

And therein lies the problem.

You keep saying things like "Looks like they don't need this..."

The point Butkus is making is that the Police Department should be prepared for any kind of event that has happened. Do you remember the Bank of America robbery in CA? Police went to that active crime scene with pistols and had to face off against two criminals equipped in armor from head to toe and with assault rifles. The cops were literally helpless against them. Police and civilians were pinned down, unable to do anything to stop the mad men.

Luckily, some officers went to a gun store and took some rifles to use against them. Only then, did the police start to control the situation and restore order.

Why should officers not be equipped to handle any situation? This whole idea of only going into a situation with just enough is stupid. These cops are putting their lives on the line.

So where do you draw the line Sheik?

What should be the required armaments for every police department in the US? Does every police department have the same needs? Should they all be prepared for any eventuality? What are the limits to that eventuality? Should all officers be issued biohazard suits, or are the standard gas-masks enough? What about anti-tank weapons? Because you know somebody is going to rob something, somewhere using an armored vehicle. May be some surface to air missiles, in case someone tries to make a get away in a helicopter?

I did see a neat sonic crowd dispersal vehicle - maybe we can get one for every town - you know to break up the hostile crowds, just in case. I mean we need a police force in every town that can handle any situation, right?

 

[msommer]

What if it turns out the cop suffered injuries during the struggle with Brown near or inside the cop car?

Does this change anything for you?

What if they find fingerprints on the gun that match Brown's?

I'm in the camp that I need more info before I judge anything.

He could have all the injuries in the world and it still wouldn't justify unloading on someone 10 yards away with his arms up.

So yes, I agree. We desperately need more information

 

[Henry Ford]

What if it turns out the cop suffered injuries during the struggle with Brown near or inside the cop car?

Does this change anything for you?

What if they find fingerprints on the gun that match Brown's?

I'm in the camp that I need more info before I judge anything.

This matters a little. What matters the most to me is probably the following:

1. How did the altercation between the officer and the citizen start?

2. After they disengaged, what was the sequence of events? especially:

3. What were the positions of Brown's body during entry of each bullet?

4. What was the distance between the two men at the time of each bullet?

 

[Fennis]

What if it turns out the cop suffered injuries during the struggle with Brown near or inside the cop car?

Does this change anything for you?

What if they find fingerprints on the gun that match Brown's?

I'm in the camp that I need more info before I judge anything.

boring

 

[Ditka Butkus]

Butkus:

So you agree there is no present need in Ferguson, MO. That is progress.

They are using the assault rifles now against protesters not wearing body armor, nor wielding assault rifles.

And therein lies the problem.

You keep saying things like "Looks like they don't need this..."

The point Butkus is making is that the Police Department should be prepared for any kind of event that has happened. Do you remember the Bank of America robbery in CA? Police went to that active crime scene with pistols and had to face off against two criminals equipped in armor from head to toe and with assault rifles. The cops were literally helpless against them. Police and civilians were pinned down, unable to do anything to stop the mad men.

Luckily, some officers went to a gun store and took some rifles to use against them. Only then, did the police start to control the situation and restore order.

Why should officers not be equipped to handle any situation? This whole idea of only going into a situation with just enough is stupid. These cops are putting their lives on the line.

I agree wholeheartedly with the equipment issue, with the caveat that police officers should be equipped to handle the worst case scenario, but then have to exercise restraint up until it reaches that point. Which I think everyone agrees with.

I agree. I have never said that officers should have free reign with no restraints.

Butkus:

So you agree there is no present need in Ferguson, MO. That is progress.

They are using the assault rifles now against protesters not wearing body armor, nor wielding assault rifles.

And therein lies the problem.

You keep saying things like "Looks like they don't need this..."

The point Butkus is making is that the Police Department should be prepared for any kind of event that has happened. Do you remember the Bank of America robbery in CA? Police went to that active crime scene with pistols and had to face off against two criminals equipped in armor from head to toe and with assault rifles. The cops were literally helpless against them. Police and civilians were pinned down, unable to do anything to stop the mad men.

Luckily, some officers went to a gun store and took some rifles to use against them. Only then, did the police start to control the situation and restore order.

Why should officers not be equipped to handle any situation? This whole idea of only going into a situation with just enough is stupid. These cops are putting their lives on the line.

Why do they need to equip assault rifles in Ferguson when water cannons have been known to be more effective?

I feel like I'm talking to a wall, GB. Did you not read my post at all?

And here I was thinking I was alone in that feeling

msommer: when you have rioting of this magnitude and you are greatly outnumbered you have to be equipped and prepared for the worst...Someone in the crowd opens up with an assault rifle and they better be prepared...I know somewhere down inside you can understand this.

 

[Fennis]

Butkus:

So you agree there is no present need in Ferguson, MO. That is progress.

They are using the assault rifles now against protesters not wearing body armor, nor wielding assault rifles.

And therein lies the problem.

You keep saying things like "Looks like they don't need this..."

The point Butkus is making is that the Police Department should be prepared for any kind of event that has happened. Do you remember the Bank of America robbery in CA? Police went to that active crime scene with pistols and had to face off against two criminals equipped in armor from head to toe and with assault rifles. The cops were literally helpless against them. Police and civilians were pinned down, unable to do anything to stop the mad men.

Luckily, some officers went to a gun store and took some rifles to use against them. Only then, did the police start to control the situation and restore order.

Why should officers not be equipped to handle any situation? This whole idea of only going into a situation with just enough is stupid. These cops are putting their lives on the line.

I agree wholeheartedly with the equipment issue, with the caveat that police officers should be equipped to handle the worst case scenario, but then have to exercise restraint up until it reaches that point. Which I think everyone agrees with.

I agree. I have never said that officers should have free reign with no restraints.

Butkus:

So you agree there is no present need in Ferguson, MO. That is progress.

They are using the assault rifles now against protesters not wearing body armor, nor wielding assault rifles.

And therein lies the problem.

You keep saying things like "Looks like they don't need this..."

The point Butkus is making is that the Police Department should be prepared for any kind of event that has happened. Do you remember the Bank of America robbery in CA? Police went to that active crime scene with pistols and had to face off against two criminals equipped in armor from head to toe and with assault rifles. The cops were literally helpless against them. Police and civilians were pinned down, unable to do anything to stop the mad men.

Luckily, some officers went to a gun store and took some rifles to use against them. Only then, did the police start to control the situation and restore order.

Why should officers not be equipped to handle any situation? This whole idea of only going into a situation with just enough is stupid. These cops are putting their lives on the line.

Why do they need to equip assault rifles in Ferguson when water cannons have been known to be more effective?

I feel like I'm talking to a wall, GB. Did you not read my post at all?

And here I was thinking I was alone in that feeling

msommer: when you have rioting of this magnitude and you are greatly outnumbered you have to be equipped and prepared for the worst...Someone in the crowd opens up with an assault rifle and they better be prepared...I know somewhere down inside you can understand this.

plus you need to protect the PD from reporters. They may film things.

 

[Ditka Butkus]

Butkus:

So you agree there is no present need in Ferguson, MO. That is progress.

They are using the assault rifles now against protesters not wearing body armor, nor wielding assault rifles.

And therein lies the problem.

You keep saying things like "Looks like they don't need this..."

The point Butkus is making is that the Police Department should be prepared for any kind of event that has happened. Do you remember the Bank of America robbery in CA? Police went to that active crime scene with pistols and had to face off against two criminals equipped in armor from head to toe and with assault rifles. The cops were literally helpless against them. Police and civilians were pinned down, unable to do anything to stop the mad men.

Luckily, some officers went to a gun store and took some rifles to use against them. Only then, did the police start to control the situation and restore order.

Why should officers not be equipped to handle any situation? This whole idea of only going into a situation with just enough is stupid. These cops are putting their lives on the line.

So where do you draw the line Sheik?

What should be the required armaments for every police department in the US? Does every police department have the same needs? Should they all be prepared for any eventuality? What are the limits to that eventuality? Should all officers be issued biohazard suits, or are the standard gas-masks enough? What about anti-tank weapons? Because you know somebody is going to rob something, somewhere using an armored vehicle. May be some surface to air missiles, in case someone tries to make a get away in a helicopter?

I did see a neat sonic crowd dispersal vehicle - maybe we can get one for every town - you know to break up the hostile crowds, just in case. I mean we need a police force in every town that can handle any situation, right?

I hope so that is what I expect out of my tax dollars.

 

[TheIronSheik]

Butkus:

So you agree there is no present need in Ferguson, MO. That is progress.

They are using the assault rifles now against protesters not wearing body armor, nor wielding assault rifles.

And therein lies the problem.

You keep saying things like "Looks like they don't need this..."

The point Butkus is making is that the Police Department should be prepared for any kind of event that has happened. Do you remember the Bank of America robbery in CA? Police went to that active crime scene with pistols and had to face off against two criminals equipped in armor from head to toe and with assault rifles. The cops were literally helpless against them. Police and civilians were pinned down, unable to do anything to stop the mad men.

Luckily, some officers went to a gun store and took some rifles to use against them. Only then, did the police start to control the situation and restore order.

Why should officers not be equipped to handle any situation? This whole idea of only going into a situation with just enough is stupid. These cops are putting their lives on the line.

So where do you draw the line Sheik?

What should be the required armaments for every police department in the US? Does every police department have the same needs? Should they all be prepared for any eventuality? What are the limits to that eventuality? Should all officers be issued biohazard suits, or are the standard gas-masks enough? What about anti-tank weapons? Because you know somebody is going to rob something, somewhere using an armored vehicle. May be some surface to air missiles, in case someone tries to make a get away in a helicopter?

I did see a neat sonic crowd dispersal vehicle - maybe we can get one for every town - you know to break up the hostile crowds, just in case. I mean we need a police force in every town that can handle any situation, right?

I always enjoy when people take a rationale argument and turn it into a ridiculous argument to help convince people their side is right.

 

[Fennis]

Butkus:

So you agree there is no present need in Ferguson, MO. That is progress.

They are using the assault rifles now against protesters not wearing body armor, nor wielding assault rifles.

And therein lies the problem.

You keep saying things like "Looks like they don't need this..."

The point Butkus is making is that the Police Department should be prepared for any kind of event that has happened. Do you remember the Bank of America robbery in CA? Police went to that active crime scene with pistols and had to face off against two criminals equipped in armor from head to toe and with assault rifles. The cops were literally helpless against them. Police and civilians were pinned down, unable to do anything to stop the mad men.

Luckily, some officers went to a gun store and took some rifles to use against them. Only then, did the police start to control the situation and restore order.

Why should officers not be equipped to handle any situation? This whole idea of only going into a situation with just enough is stupid. These cops are putting their lives on the line.

So where do you draw the line Sheik?

What should be the required armaments for every police department in the US? Does every police department have the same needs? Should they all be prepared for any eventuality? What are the limits to that eventuality? Should all officers be issued biohazard suits, or are the standard gas-masks enough? What about anti-tank weapons? Because you know somebody is going to rob something, somewhere using an armored vehicle. May be some surface to air missiles, in case someone tries to make a get away in a helicopter?

I did see a neat sonic crowd dispersal vehicle - maybe we can get one for every town - you know to break up the hostile crowds, just in case. I mean we need a police force in every town that can handle any situation, right?

I always enjoy when people take a rationale argument and turn it into a ridiculous argument to help convince people their side is right.

kind of like when people say the NFL might as well and go ahead and also ban the name Vikings.

 

[Sinn Fein]

Butkus:

So you agree there is no present need in Ferguson, MO. That is progress.

They are using the assault rifles now against protesters not wearing body armor, nor wielding assault rifles.

And therein lies the problem.

You keep saying things like "Looks like they don't need this..."

The point Butkus is making is that the Police Department should be prepared for any kind of event that has happened. Do you remember the Bank of America robbery in CA? Police went to that active crime scene with pistols and had to face off against two criminals equipped in armor from head to toe and with assault rifles. The cops were literally helpless against them. Police and civilians were pinned down, unable to do anything to stop the mad men.

Luckily, some officers went to a gun store and took some rifles to use against them. Only then, did the police start to control the situation and restore order.

Why should officers not be equipped to handle any situation? This whole idea of only going into a situation with just enough is stupid. These cops are putting their lives on the line.

So where do you draw the line Sheik?

What should be the required armaments for every police department in the US? Does every police department have the same needs? Should they all be prepared for any eventuality? What are the limits to that eventuality? Should all officers be issued biohazard suits, or are the standard gas-masks enough? What about anti-tank weapons? Because you know somebody is going to rob something, somewhere using an armored vehicle. May be some surface to air missiles, in case someone tries to make a get away in a helicopter?

I did see a neat sonic crowd dispersal vehicle - maybe we can get one for every town - you know to break up the hostile crowds, just in case. I mean we need a police force in every town that can handle any situation, right?

I always enjoy when people take a rationale argument and turn it into a ridiculous argument to help convince people their side is right.

That just acknowledges that there is a limit, and a line that must be drawn somewhere. What is left is figuring out what/where that line is.

 

[msommer]

msommer: when you have rioting of this magnitude and you are greatly outnumbered you have to be equipped and prepared for the worst...Someone in the crowd opens up with an assault rifle and they better be prepared...I know somewhere down inside you can understand this.

Ok let's put it to the test.

You pick up an assault rifle and I show up in one of these puppies.

http://www.argoasecurity.com/product_detail.aspx?productID=204

Let's see for how long you'll keep firing

That is riot control gear.

Assault rifles are combat gear and not necessary in Ferguson, MO at this point in time, nor have they ever been

 

[tom22406]

What if it turns out the cop suffered injuries during the struggle with Brown near or inside the cop car?

Does this change anything for you?

What if they find fingerprints on the gun that match Brown's?

I'm in the camp that I need more info before I judge anything.

This matters a little. What matters the most to me is probably the following:

1. How did the altercation between the officer and the citizen start?

2. After they disengaged, what was the sequence of events? especially:

3. What were the positions of Brown's body during entry of each bullet?

4. What was the distance between the two men at the time of each bullet?

I guess this is why we wait for the investigation to come to a close before jumping to conclusions?

 

[Bigboy10182000]

The shot that was fired while the officer was in the car--Did it hit Michael Brown or not?

 

[lod01]

What if it turns out the cop suffered injuries during the struggle with Brown near or inside the cop car?

Does this change anything for you?

What if they find fingerprints on the gun that match Brown's?

I'm in the camp that I need more info before I judge anything.

boring

 

[TobiasFunke]

I always enjoy when people take a rationale argument and turn it into a ridiculous argument to help convince people their side is right.

Wait a second- didn't you turn my post about the police intimidating people through military weaponry/vehicles/attire into "the police in this country are out to kill citizens" like an hour ago?

 

[kentric]

TIME FOR OUTRAGE AND RIOTS IN UTAH!

Cops gun down headphones-wearing Utah man because he wouldnt comply with orders

http://mobile.rawstory.com/all/2014-08-15-cops-gun-down-headphones-wearing-utah-man-because-he-wouldnt-comply-with-orders#1

GENOCIDE!

MSNBC Guest: There’s a U.S. ‘War on Black Boys,’ Could Turn ‘Genocide’ if We Don’t Stop ItOn Hardball Monday, MSNBC contributor Michelle Bernard said the U.S. is on the verge of experiencing a “genocide” of young black men.

Bernard was on the program with the Washington Post’s Eugene Robinson to discuss the ongoing unrest in Ferguson, Mo., following the police shooting of 18-year-old Michael Brown. Bernard, who is black, said her 11-year-old son had asked her recently if someone was going to shoot him, as was the case with Brown.

“I don’t have an answer that is palatable to be able to look my children in the face and say there are people in this country who– not only do not like African-Americans, but they despise black men,” Bernard said. “There is a war on black boys in this country. In my opinion, there is a war on African-American men.”

Host Chris Matthews wrapped up the segment, saying he wished that other Americans would listen to Bernard and Robinson, who had said both racial and economic elements are at play in the Ferguson turmoil.

“I hope so,” Bernard said, “because this is, it’s going to turn into a genocide if it doesn’t stop.”

Never heard such tripe.

 

[msommer]

The shot that was fired while the officer was in the car--Did it hit Michael Brown or not?

With no police incident report no way to be sure there was a shot fired while the police officer was in the car

There was no GSR on the body and Brown was only wearing a t-shirt.

IIRC the only wound covered by the t-shirt was high by the armpit.

 

[TheIronSheik]

Butkus:

So you agree there is no present need in Ferguson, MO. That is progress.

They are using the assault rifles now against protesters not wearing body armor, nor wielding assault rifles.

And therein lies the problem.

You keep saying things like "Looks like they don't need this..."

The point Butkus is making is that the Police Department should be prepared for any kind of event that has happened. Do you remember the Bank of America robbery in CA? Police went to that active crime scene with pistols and had to face off against two criminals equipped in armor from head to toe and with assault rifles. The cops were literally helpless against them. Police and civilians were pinned down, unable to do anything to stop the mad men.

Luckily, some officers went to a gun store and took some rifles to use against them. Only then, did the police start to control the situation and restore order.

Why should officers not be equipped to handle any situation? This whole idea of only going into a situation with just enough is stupid. These cops are putting their lives on the line.

So where do you draw the line Sheik?

What should be the required armaments for every police department in the US? Does every police department have the same needs? Should they all be prepared for any eventuality? What are the limits to that eventuality? Should all officers be issued biohazard suits, or are the standard gas-masks enough? What about anti-tank weapons? Because you know somebody is going to rob something, somewhere using an armored vehicle. May be some surface to air missiles, in case someone tries to make a get away in a helicopter?

I did see a neat sonic crowd dispersal vehicle - maybe we can get one for every town - you know to break up the hostile crowds, just in case. I mean we need a police force in every town that can handle any situation, right?

I always enjoy when people take a rationale argument and turn it into a ridiculous argument to help convince people their side is right.

That just acknowledges that there is a limit, and a line that must be drawn somewhere. What is left is figuring out what/where that line is.

Fair enough. No surface to air missiles. Can we stop rioting now?

 

[Ditka Butkus]

msommer: when you have rioting of this magnitude and you are greatly outnumbered you have to be equipped and prepared for the worst...Someone in the crowd opens up with an assault rifle and they better be prepared...I know somewhere down inside you can understand this.

Ok let's put it to the test.

You pick up an assault rifle and I show up in one of these puppies.

http://www.argoasecurity.com/product_detail.aspx?productID=204

Let's see for how long you'll keep firing

That is riot control gear.

Assault rifles are combat gear and not necessary in Ferguson, MO at this point in time, nor have they ever been

I'd shoot you thru the windshield before you leave the station. And I'd do it from about 800yards.

 

[TheIronSheik]

I always enjoy when people take a rationale argument and turn it into a ridiculous argument to help convince people their side is right.

Wait a second- didn't you turn my post about the police intimidating people through military weaponry/vehicles/attire into "the police in this country are out to kill citizens" like an hour ago?

Are you still replying to me?

 

[lod01]

The shot that was fired while the officer was in the car--Did it hit Michael Brown or not?

Haven't seen anything on that yet. Supposedly Wilson had it pointed at Brown's hips and Brown pushed it aside as it went off.

 

[Bucky86]

msommer: when you have rioting of this magnitude and you are greatly outnumbered you have to be equipped and prepared for the worst...Someone in the crowd opens up with an assault rifle and they better be prepared...I know somewhere down inside you can understand this.

Ok let's put it to the test.

You pick up an assault rifle and I show up in one of these puppies.

http://www.argoasecurity.com/product_detail.aspx?productID=204

Let's see for how long you'll keep firing

That is riot control gear.

Assault rifles are combat gear and not necessary in Ferguson, MO at this point in time, nor have they ever been

I'd shoot you thru the windshield before you leave the station.

I could use one of those for LA traffic.

 

[Jim11]

What if it turns out the cop suffered injuries during the struggle with Brown near or inside the cop car?

Does this change anything for you?

What if they find fingerprints on the gun that match Brown's?

I'm in the camp that I need more info before I judge anything.

He could have all the injuries in the world and it still wouldn't justify unloading on someone 10 yards away with his arms up.

So yes, I agree. We desperately need more information

Do you really believe that the officer would shoot someone who had their hands up and was just standing there? Seriously?

 

[msommer]

What if it turns out the cop suffered injuries during the struggle with Brown near or inside the cop car?

Does this change anything for you?

What if they find fingerprints on the gun that match Brown's?

I'm in the camp that I need more info before I judge anything.

He could have all the injuries in the world and it still wouldn't justify unloading on someone 10 yards away with his arms up.

So yes, I agree. We desperately need more information

Do you really believe that the officer would shoot someone who had their hands up and was just standing there? Seriously?

it's not much further out of the realms of possibility than an unarmed man, already 10 yards away and getting further, abruptly turns and bumrushes a police officer with his weapon drawn.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I always enjoy when people take a rationale argument and turn it into a ridiculous argument to help convince people their side is right.

Wait a second- didn't you turn my post about the police intimidating people through military weaponry/vehicles/attire into "the police in this country are out to kill citizens" like an hour ago?

Are you still replying to me?

I take it you'd prefer that I not point out your hypocrisy? Sure, you got it.

 

[lod01]

What if it turns out the cop suffered injuries during the struggle with Brown near or inside the cop car?

Does this change anything for you?

What if they find fingerprints on the gun that match Brown's?

I'm in the camp that I need more info before I judge anything.

He could have all the injuries in the world and it still wouldn't justify unloading on someone 10 yards away with his arms up.

So yes, I agree. We desperately need more information

Do you really believe that the officer would shoot someone who had their hands up and was just standing there? Seriously?

it's not much further out of the realms of possibility than an unarmed man, already 10 yards away and getting further, abruptly turns and bumrushes a police officer with his weapon drawn.

You mean the guy that earlier that day pushed aside a store clerk so he could leave with stolen cigars......with marijuana in his system? Is that the guy we are talking about?

The same 6'-4" 290 lb guy who according to Wilson's account and the audio recording we have heard, that was running full speed at Wilson? Is that the guy we are talking about? Yeah, I'm pretty sure a magazine unloaded into him would be acceptable. You run towards a police officer, with or without a deadly object in hand, you should expect to die.