Looting in Missouri after cops shoot 18 year old (4 Viewers)

[TobiasFunke]

At 14:54, the Cardinals fans start in on a very loud "USA! USA! USA!" chant.

I hate people.

The people in this video are ####### idiots (I didn't actually watch it but read the recap) but people are also sick of being harassed. I also hate stuff like this because perhaps, maybe, they have tape of people not being racist cocksucking idiots. Perhaps.

Here's the real problem.

Who was being harassed?

I watched the video. The author fails to point out that the protestors were the first to get collectively negative when they chanted "We''ll shut the sh#t down" at people who just want to attend a game in peace. And the protestors were the first to invoke violence with their chant of, "Who do we want? Darren Wilson. How do we want him? Dead."

Most people would consider that kind of harrassing if you were just standing in line with your kids to attend a game.

The author excludes these important aspects of the video that precipitated the fans' reaction because the author obviously wants to paint a one-sided picture that the video itself does not show.

1. It's like 15 people. If you consider 15 people chanting social justice slogans in a public place amidst a massive crowd to be "harassment" you might be the most privileged, oversensitive human being on the face of the earth. People just want to attend the game in peace? Who's stopping them? What do you see going on there that's not peaceful?

2. I don't hear any "we want Darren Wilson dead" chant. Feel free to tell me when it starts so I can locate it- I assume before the "Let's go Darren" chant at 2:40?

3. I don't see anyone waiting in line to go to the game who is forced to stand by and listen to the protests. People watching them are facing away from the stadium and moving around freely. They're kind of near a gate, I guess, but doesn't look like they're all that close to the folks actually trying to enter through that gate, nor does it look like there's much of a line. However, if they are, and if you are in fact so sensitive that you consider a handful of people protesting peacefully to be "harassment," you can always just take your kids to a different gate. Pretty sure Busch Stadium has more than one.

 

[mcintyre1]

I understand that another cop said that's what they recovered, and that other people gave different accounts.

My boy was a good boy, he never did nothing wrong!!! (excluding that 9 page rap sheet)

You've got Jim11 on your side.

I rest my case.

You're defending looters and rioters, I rest mine.

I defended protesting, not looting and rioting. The two are not the same. You'd know that if you weren't the kind of person with whom Jim11 agrees.

You know you've won the argument when the other side's best volley is an ad hominem attack.

Or, you might consider re-evaluating your life and beliefs. If one person attacks your persona, they might be the problem. If a majority of people attack your persona, maybe you're the problem. Something we should all remember, myself included.

 

[fantasycurse42]

2. I don't hear any "we want Darren Wilson dead" chant. Feel free to tell me when it starts so I can locate it- I assume before the "Let's go Darren" chant at 2:40?

You're listening, but you can't hear the chant...

What do we want!?

Darren Wilson!!

How do we want him!?

Dead!!

Still waiting on my previous post about the "protestors".

 

[TobiasFunke]

2. I don't hear any "we want Darren Wilson dead" chant. Feel free to tell me when it starts so I can locate it- I assume before the "Let's go Darren" chant at 2:40?

You're listening, but you can't hear the chant...

What do we want!?

Darren Wilson!!

How do we want him!?

Dead!!

Still waiting on my previous post about the "protestors".

Re: the previous post- a police officer saying people were "shouting obscenities" and that there were "damaged police cars" does not equate to "looting and rioting"- although if the damage to police cars was more than just a casual scrape or something (and again, assuming this officer is not full of ####) I wouldn't defend that behavior.

Yeah I didn't hear the chant. I'm in the office so I don't want to turn the sound all the way up and listen to the whole thing. Can you give me a time on the video? Although I'm not sure it matters much, there's still a ton of people saying some pretty horrible stuff.

 

[TobiasFunke]

1. You asked what part is harassing. Yes, fifteen people chanting negative, profanity riddled, violence tinged at people who are waiting in line is somewhat harassing. The protestors know that, and that's why they're at that specific location. An, no, that doesn't have anything to do with me being oversenitive or privileged. It has more to do with me being normal, and you having arguably the greatest case of white/Jewish guilt on this board.

Further, if fifteen people don't rise to the level of harassment, then why does the author single out lines from individual fans as examples of racism or harassment. If words from one person can constitute harassing behavior, then words from fifteen people can constitute harassing behavior.

2. Start your video right at the 1:00 mark. The protestors "Who do we want? How do we want him?" chant starts then. The protestors most assuredly chant that they want Wilson dead. Only after that collective chant do the fans start chanting back collectively.

3. So the people are waiting to enter the stadium through one set of doors, but they can leave and go walk to and wait in the back of another potentially larger crowd to enter the game if they don't just want to be free of being screamed at? C'mon, Guilt Guy.

And if you don't want to have your obvious white/Jewish guilt pointed out, then stop getting so pissy and calling me sensitive and privileged when all I did was answer your question point with legitimate points in a completely non pissy way.

1. Harassing someone generally requires directing your behavior at someone. If I open my window and scream random obscenities about FFA posters who aren't there, I'm not harassing anyone. I'm just being weird and obnoxious. Generic chants directed at no one in particular definitely don't rise to the level of harassment in my opinion. Unless you're screaming them right in someone's face, I guess. But that's not the case here- in fact it looks like these protesters are confined to an area behind police barriers. If you consider 15 people chanting something not directed at you from behind police barricades to be harassment, then yes, you are way too sensitive.

2. You're right. I think I can make that out. Sounds like a couple people say it a couple times. Inappropriate, but hardly threatening considering it lasts for maybe 10 seconds and is barely audible.

3. I have no idea what you're saying here. Nobody's being screamed at here- like I said it's a chant, behind a barricade, nowhere near the actual entrnce. Yes, if people find a lawful, peaceful protest conducted behind police barricades to be harassment, they can go to another of what I assume are several other gates to enter the stadium. Sometimes when I go to the ballpark there's a religious nut in front of one of the gates telling us we're going to hell. I don't consider this to be harassment (even though it is directed at me personally, unlike the protest in the video). But if I did, I'd just go to another gate 100 feet away. I wouldn't even think twice about it.

4. My obvious white/Jewish guilt? Where did that come from? Are you another alias of that anti-semite Dondante dooshbag or something? And where did I call you sensitive and privileged? I called anyone who would feel "harassed" by that small, confined protest sensitive and privileged. I never said a word about you personally. I have no idea if you were even at the game.

 

[Jackstraw]

Now imagine how white people get to interact with Cops.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/local/wp/2014/10/08/foxhall-police-encounter-caught-on-video-and-the-interaction-is-fascinating/

Bet that's not how it goes down in Ferguson.

 

[Bucky86]

Now imagine how white people get to interact with Cops.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/local/wp/2014/10/08/foxhall-police-encounter-caught-on-video-and-the-interaction-is-fascinating/

Bet that's not how it goes down in Ferguson.

She'd have been arrested or shot for sure.

 

[lod01]

Westby and Stucky are burglarizing the homes together. She talked her way right out of it.

 

[Fennis]

man if I were a black guy I would only walk around town with tough old white women.

 

[Sweet J]

So this guy either shot at the cop or only had a sammich?

ST. LOUIS (KTVI) – Homicide detectives from the St. Louis police department have been called to the scene of a fatal officer involved shooting in the 4100 block of Shaw Blvd. in south St. Louis.

The shooting occurred around 7:30 pm.

Police say an off-duty officer working a second job attempted pedestrian check. The suspect fled on foot, and officer pursed the suspect. The suspect turned and fired at the officer. The officer fearing for his life returned fire fatally wounding the suspect.

A crowd has gathered at the corner store at Klemm next to the Shaw Market. Some in the crowd say the suspect in his 20’s, was shot 16 times. They also say the suspect was only armed with a sandwich.

http://fox2now.com/2014/10/08/fatal-officer-involved-shooting-in-south-st-louis/

some of those shaws deli sandwiches are loaded with high cholesterol ...so it would be in fact a deadly weapon

Wait, why would an off-duty cop working his second job be attempting a "pedestrian check"????? Unless the police officer's second job is "police officer," how the hell does he have the right to do a "pedestrian check," whatever the heck that is? What is going on?

 

[Jim11]

http://www.ajc.com/news/news/local/georgia-murder-suspect-nabbed-by-pedestrian-check/nQfnJ/

http://www.shawneeok.org/publicsafety/police/calls/default.asp?Nature=PEDESTRIAN%20CHECK

 

[Courtjester]

So the basic gist of the article is:

The officer is working his 2nd job as a security officer. While patroling the area he is employed to watch, he see 3 guys run from the area. He pursues them for a bit, but instead of them continuing to run, they turn and fight him. They then run away again and open fire on him with 3 shots (and the only reason it is 3 is because their gun jams). He returns fire, emptying his clip and kills one of them."

If all these facts are true, then what was he supposed to do? Allow himself to get beat up? Perhaps jump in front of one of the three bullets?

I understand the hightenend emotions of the area, but if these facts are true, there is nothing else he should have done. Now, if more info comes out, I will be happy to change my assessment.

 

[Sweet J]

1. You asked what part is harassing. Yes, fifteen people chanting negative, profanity riddled, violence tinged at people who are waiting in line is somewhat harassing. The protestors know that, and that's why they're at that specific location. An, no, that doesn't have anything to do with me being oversenitive or privileged. It has more to do with me being normal, and you having arguably the greatest case of white/Jewish guilt on this board.

Further, if fifteen people don't rise to the level of harassment, then why does the author single out lines from individual fans as examples of racism or harassment. If words from one person can constitute harassing behavior, then words from fifteen people can constitute harassing behavior.

2. Start your video right at the 1:00 mark. The protestors "Who do we want? How do we want him?" chant starts then. The protestors most assuredly chant that they want Wilson dead. Only after that collective chant do the fans start chanting back collectively.

3. So the people are waiting to enter the stadium through one set of doors, but they can leave and go walk to and wait in the back of another potentially larger crowd to enter the game if they don't just want to be free of being screamed at? C'mon, Guilt Guy.

And if you don't want to have your obvious white/Jewish guilt pointed out, then stop getting so pissy and calling me sensitive and privileged when all I did was answer your question point with legitimate points in a completely non pissy way.

1. Harassing someone generally requires directing your behavior at someone. If I open my window and scream random obscenities about FFA posters who aren't there, I'm not harassing anyone. I'm just being weird and obnoxious. Generic chants directed at no one in particular definitely don't rise to the level of harassment in my opinion. Unless you're screaming them right in someone's face, I guess. But that's not the case here- in fact it looks like these protesters are confined to an area behind police barriers. If you consider 15 people chanting something not directed at you from behind police barricades to be harassment, then yes, you are way too sensitive.

2. You're right. I think I can make that out. Sounds like a couple people say it a couple times. Inappropriate, but hardly threatening considering it lasts for maybe 10 seconds and is barely audible.

3. I have no idea what you're saying here. Nobody's being screamed at here- like I said it's a chant, behind a barricade, nowhere near the actual entrnce. Yes, if people find a lawful, peaceful protest conducted behind police barricades to be harassment, they can go to another of what I assume are several other gates to enter the stadium. Sometimes when I go to the ballpark there's a religious nut in front of one of the gates telling us we're going to hell. I don't consider this to be harassment (even though it is directed at me personally, unlike the protest in the video). But if I did, I'd just go to another gate 100 feet away. I wouldn't even think twice about it.

4. My obvious white/Jewish guilt? Where did that come from? Are you another alias of that anti-semite Dondante dooshbag or something? And where did I call you sensitive and privileged? I called anyone who would feel "harassed" by that small, confined protest sensitive and privileged. I never said a word about you personally. I have no idea if you were even at the game.

Everyone knows you guys feel guilty about everything.

 

[TobiasFunke]

So the basic gist of the article is:

The officer is working his 2nd job as a security officer. While patroling the area he is employed to watch, he see 3 guys run from the area. He pursues them for a bit, but instead of them continuing to run, they turn and fight him. They then run away again and open fire on him with 3 shots (and the only reason it is 3 is because their gun jams). He returns fire, emptying his clip and kills one of them."

If all these facts are true, then what was he supposed to do? Allow himself to get beat up? Perhaps jump in front of one of the three bullets?

I understand the hightenend emotions of the area, but if these facts are true, there is nothing else he should have done. Now, if more info comes out, I will be happy to change my assessment.

I'm not 100% sure on the timeline but I believe the initial reports were that the victim (and I assume the other two guys) were unarmed. The report that one of them was armed and shot at the off-duty officer came later, from the police. That's the reason for the protests and whatnot. At least that's my understanding.

 

[Sweet J]

http://www.ajc.com/news/news/local/georgia-murder-suspect-nabbed-by-pedestrian-check/nQfnJ/

http://www.shawneeok.org/publicsafety/police/calls/default.asp?Nature=PEDESTRIAN%20CHECK

I bet if police were allowed to stop anybody who looked funny and ask them for their papers, we'd cut down on a whole lot of crime. Maybe even catch some illegals (or people who shouldn't be in the wrong neighborhood). Better yet, if random citizens who weren't actually working as police officers were allowed to stop random people and "check" them, we'd totally be better off.

 

[Courtjester]

http://www.ajc.com/news/news/local/georgia-murder-suspect-nabbed-by-pedestrian-check/nQfnJ/

http://www.shawneeok.org/publicsafety/police/calls/default.asp?Nature=PEDESTRIAN%20CHECK

I bet if police were allowed to stop anybody who looked funny and ask them for their papers, we'd cut down on a whole lot of crime. Maybe even catch some illegals (or people who shouldn't be in the wrong neighborhood). Better yet, if random citizens who weren't actually working as police officers were allowed to stop random people and "check" them, we'd totally be better off.

But you do understand in this case,(at least according to the news article) this officer was working in his capacity as a security guard hired to patrol a certain area due to increased criminal activity. So this wasn't like he was out driving around the city all vigilanty style and randomly picked these 3 people out to stop.

 

[Jim11]

http://www.ajc.com/news/news/local/georgia-murder-suspect-nabbed-by-pedestrian-check/nQfnJ/

http://www.shawneeok.org/publicsafety/police/calls/default.asp?Nature=PEDESTRIAN%20CHECK

I bet if police were allowed to stop anybody who looked funny and ask them for their papers, we'd cut down on a whole lot of crime. Maybe even catch some illegals (or people who shouldn't be in the wrong neighborhood). Better yet, if random citizens who weren't actually working as police officers were allowed to stop random people and "check" them, we'd totally be better off.

Hey, you're the one who asked what a pedestrian check was.

 

[Sweet J]

http://www.ajc.com/news/news/local/georgia-murder-suspect-nabbed-by-pedestrian-check/nQfnJ/

http://www.shawneeok.org/publicsafety/police/calls/default.asp?Nature=PEDESTRIAN%20CHECK

I bet if police were allowed to stop anybody who looked funny and ask them for their papers, we'd cut down on a whole lot of crime. Maybe even catch some illegals (or people who shouldn't be in the wrong neighborhood). Better yet, if random citizens who weren't actually working as police officers were allowed to stop random people and "check" them, we'd totally be better off.

But you do understand in this case,(at least according to the news article) this officer was working in his capacity as a security guard hired to patrol a certain area due to increased criminal activity. So this wasn't like he was out driving around the city all vigilanty style and randomly picked these 3 people out to stop.

Can I hire an off-duty cop to stop and frisk people in my neighborhood if I don't like the way they look? He'd be working in his capacity as a security guard to patrol it because I'm worried about criminal activity.

 

[Sweet J]

http://www.ajc.com/news/news/local/georgia-murder-suspect-nabbed-by-pedestrian-check/nQfnJ/

http://www.shawneeok.org/publicsafety/police/calls/default.asp?Nature=PEDESTRIAN%20CHECK

I bet if police were allowed to stop anybody who looked funny and ask them for their papers, we'd cut down on a whole lot of crime. Maybe even catch some illegals (or people who shouldn't be in the wrong neighborhood). Better yet, if random citizens who weren't actually working as police officers were allowed to stop random people and "check" them, we'd totally be better off.

Hey, you're the one who asked what a pedestrian check was.

And you linked to an aticle indicating a bad person was caught because of a pedestrian check. Inviting the reader to assume you posted in support of pedestrian checks as a good way to catch bad people.

 

[kentric]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/off-duty-st-louis-fires-17-times-kills-teen-gunfight-cops-article-1.1968403

"Ballistic evidence recovered from the scene indicates that the man fired three rounds at the officer before his weapon, a 9mm Ruger, jammed, Dotson said, adding that the gun was also recovered. The cop fired 17 rounds, although police did not say how many struck the teen."

If this is true, I've ####### had it with these St Louis protestors. #### them! Protesting that someone who fired on a cop (or even anyone) was killed by law enforcement. #### this dead POS (if this is true).

If this is true, then the protestors were uninformed, because they believed the dead man was unarmed. So why are you so pissed at them?

Unarmed? He was packing a sandwich FFS. One step below a banana and a bunch of grapes.

 

[Bucky86]

Why am I always surprised when I see that posters are actually debating with Jim11?

 

[Ghost Rider]

So the basic gist of the article is:

The officer is working his 2nd job as a security officer. While patroling the area he is employed to watch, he see 3 guys run from the area. He pursues them for a bit, but instead of them continuing to run, they turn and fight him. They then run away again and open fire on him with 3 shots (and the only reason it is 3 is because their gun jams). He returns fire, emptying his clip and kills one of them."

If all these facts are true, then what was he supposed to do? Allow himself to get beat up? Perhaps jump in front of one of the three bullets?

I understand the hightenend emotions of the area, but if these facts are true, there is nothing else he should have done. Now, if more info comes out, I will be happy to change my assessment.

I'm not 100% sure on the timeline but I believe the initial reports were that the victim (and I assume the other two guys) were unarmed. The report that one of them was armed and shot at the off-duty officer came later, from the police. That's the reason for the protests and whatnot. At least that's my understanding.

I think that report of them being unarmed came from family members who weren't there. That is what I had read earlier, although I am admittedly not totally up to speed on the story as far as new info in the last few hours goes.

 

[Bucky86]

Has this been posted yet? Not sure I entirely believe anything the cops say out there anymore.

 

[timschochet]

Has this been posted yet? Not sure I entirely believe anything the cops say out there anymore.

It seems to me that in this simple comment you've hit on the whole crux of the issue here.

Many African-Americans, and many progressives and liberals, simply do not believe the police in these situations. They begin from a starting point of distrust, and every action they take or response that they make in regards to these events is based on that.

On the other side, there are many conservatives, and others (mostly white), who have throughout their lives perceived the police as heroes and protectors of the common citizen, and they tend to trust what the police tells them unless it's proven to be false- and if it is proven to be false, they regard that person as a rogue policemen, and never representative of a larger problem.

For the most part, both sides are well-meaning, although on both sides there can be real jerks- the ones who protest by breaking into stores (or calling for Wilson to be killed, etc.) and the ones who yell racial epithets and make things worse. Most of us, however, are somewhere in the middle. And most of us know, intuitively, that the truth as usual is somewhere in-between: there are rogue cops, but there is also institutionalized racism. And most cops are good and generally don't want to do anything but serve and help people. And most cops can be trusted, but not all.

How to bridge this gap in perception which is causing all of our problems? I have no idea.

 

[Jackstraw]

http://www.ajc.com/news/news/local/georgia-murder-suspect-nabbed-by-pedestrian-check/nQfnJ/

http://www.shawneeok.org/publicsafety/police/calls/default.asp?Nature=PEDESTRIAN%20CHECK

I bet if police were allowed to stop anybody who looked funny and ask them for their papers, we'd cut down on a whole lot of crime. Maybe even catch some illegals (or people who shouldn't be in the wrong neighborhood). Better yet, if random citizens who weren't actually working as police officers were allowed to stop random people and "check" them, we'd totally be better off.

Hey, you're the one who asked what a pedestrian check was.

Love how the second amendment is iron clad but the fourth is all mushy when the public good is concerned.

 

[Jim11]

http://www.ajc.com/news/news/local/georgia-murder-suspect-nabbed-by-pedestrian-check/nQfnJ/

http://www.shawneeok.org/publicsafety/police/calls/default.asp?Nature=PEDESTRIAN%20CHECK

I bet if police were allowed to stop anybody who looked funny and ask them for their papers, we'd cut down on a whole lot of crime. Maybe even catch some illegals (or people who shouldn't be in the wrong neighborhood). Better yet, if random citizens who weren't actually working as police officers were allowed to stop random people and "check" them, we'd totally be better off.

Hey, you're the one who asked what a pedestrian check was.

And you linked to an aticle indicating a bad person was caught because of a pedestrian check. Inviting the reader to assume you posted in support of pedestrian checks as a good way to catch bad people.

I linked it to the 2 google search results that readily came up, chief.

 

[squistion]

Wesley Lowery ‏@WesleyLowery 22m

Appears that other than QT - which says it's coming back - all of stores that were looted in Ferguson have reopened

 

[fatness]

Ferguson police department is terrible. "Catch and release" arrests going on, where people are picked up, locked up, and released without charges or any paperwork.

They've been so aggressive that they've been pulled off policing the protests. Again. They're embarrassing other police departments.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ferguson-police-continued-crackdown-on-protesters-after-federal-state-interventions/2014/10/09/15df8a2a-4e40-11e4-aa5e-7153e466a02d_story.html

Despite federal and state attempts to intervene during the two months since 18-year-old Michael Brown was shot and killed, the Ferguson Police Department continued — and even accelerated — efforts to suppress peaceful protests using arbitrary and inconsistently applied arrest policies, according to Justice Department officials who are investigating the department and county police officials who have since taken over for the city.

A Washington Post review of county and state arrest records, and interviews with Justice Department officials, Ferguson and St. Louis County police chiefs, dozens of protesters and several civil rights officials reveal numerous questionable practices.

Hundreds of protesters have been arrested since August for violating unwritten rules and committing minor offenses, such as failure to disperse or unlawful assembly, and for violating a noise ordinance. Many have been taken to jail without being told what charges they may face and often been released without any paperwork. For weeks, officers employed a “five-second rule” under which any protester who stopped walking was subject to arrest — a policy ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge this week.

A least one officer patrolling protests wore a wristband that said “I am Darren Wilson,” referencing the officer whom protesters want jailed and prosecuted for the Aug. 9 shooting of Brown. County Police Chief Jon Belmar confirmed that an officer wore one of the wristbands and said that he understood why protesters felt taunted.

And, in recent weeks, protesters have complained that bail amounts are rising, jail time has increased and that their organizers were routinely plucked from crowds of 100 to 300 people and arrested.

The controversial practices continued into October until Belmar stepped in — stripping jurisdiction for policing the protests from the thinly stretched Ferguson station. In an interview with The Post, Belmar said that, under the Ferguson Police Department’s command, laws and policies were being enforced arbitrarily.

“We have a real issue when we start taking away people’s ability to express their opinions,” Belmar said.

The breaking point for Belmar with the Ferguson department’s handling of recent protests came last week, when arrests that were captured on video by a CNN freelance journalist showed a loud but otherwise peaceful group of protesters demonstrating outside the Ferguson police station. The protesters were ordered to move from the street to the sidewalk, and as the group raced back, an officer in a brown uniform was recorded saying, “Get them.”

Belmar said he watched the video at home and decided that night that his department would take over the crowd-control efforts. He said the incident illustrated problems he hopes to eliminate, in which protesters are arrested based on an arbitrary application of rules and laws, a frustration also held in the halls of the Justice Department.

“They were arrested for violating a noise ordinance. I hadn’t noticed us enforcing that,” he said. “So I wondered why, all of a sudden, why are we doing this now?”

 

[fatness]

Gov. Jay Nixon declared a state of emergency in the days that followed, giving the Missouri Highway Patrol command of the protests for two weeks.

On Sept. 3, Nixon lifted it, shifting control for the first time to the Ferguson Police Department.

Things quickly deteriorated, according to records and interviews with federal and St. Louis law enforcement. Ferguson’s force of 54 people was spread too thin.

During the weeks that protests were policed by the Ferguson department, arresting officers sometimes weren’t wearing name tags, prompting repeated reprimands from the Justice Department. Meanwhile, protesters say their organizers were being targeted. On nights when crowds of more than 100 people stood chanting “We’re Young. We’re Strong. We’re marching all night long” and “Indict Darren Wilson. If we don’t get it, shut it down,” there would be just a handful of arrests — almost always of protest organizers.

At times, just three or four Ferguson police officers were able to staff nightly protests, Belmar said. “They couldn’t provide the majority of resources down there,” he said.

Community members who have been regular protesters, however, said the problems with Ferguson officers went beyond staffing.

Some describe being taken away in handcuffs by officers who couldn’t decide what to charge them with — a problem that Belmar confirmed was an issue.

“They were asking each other, ‘What is the charge?’ They couldn’t figure it out. I’m being taken away in handcuffs, and they don’t even know why,” said Gwen Cogshell, 57, of Ferguson, who was arrested and charged with “unlawful assembly” at a Sept. 10 protest where demonstrators tried to shut down Interstate 70. “They really are not trained to do anything but give tickets.”

The Ferguson Police Department, which has carried out a number of arrests during the protests, has not released such records.

Cogshell was also one of more than a dozen people, interviewed by The Post, who said they left jail with no paperwork, unclear about what charges they might face.

Anthony Rothert, the ACLU’s legal director in Missouri, described it as a “catch and release program,” adding that his organization has “never seen mass arrests where people are released without any paperwork and then told charges may come later.”

Though some of the complaints have to do with the competency of police, most focused on targeted efforts by Ferguson police to quash dissent.

They focused, for example, on the targeting of protest leaders.

“This is a logical extension of the militarized response, part of what we’re seeing is kind of par for the course, it’s how the state deals with dissent,” said the Rev. Osagyefo Sekou, a Boston minister with St. Louis ties who has been active in the protests.

 

[fatness]

On some nights, Ferguson Police officers bartered with protesters — offering to release those arrested sooner if the remaining protesters would disperse.

“It’s a hostage negotiation, plain and simple,” said Umar Lee, an independent journalist and Muslim activist who has been arrested twice while documenting the Ferguson protests. “Any time you randomly arrest people and tell people ‘we’ll let them out if you go home,’ that’s a hostage situation.”

Belmar said that the incident was “not appropriate” and that protesters should never be used as “a bargaining chip” to end demonstrations.

 

[lod01]

Ferguson police department is terrible. "Catch and release" arrests going on, where people are picked up, locked up, and released without charges or any paperwork.

They've been so aggressive that they've been pulled off policing the protests. Again. They're embarrassing other police departments.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ferguson-police-continued-crackdown-on-protesters-after-federal-state-interventions/2014/10/09/15df8a2a-4e40-11e4-aa5e-7153e466a02d_story.html

That's ####### awesome!

 

[Doug B]

“They were asking each other, ‘What is the charge?’ They couldn’t figure it out. I’m being taken away in handcuffs, and they don’t even know why,” said Gwen Cogshell, 57, of Ferguson, who was arrested and charged with “unlawful assembly” at a Sept. 10 protest where demonstrators tried to shut down Interstate 70. “They really are not trained to do anything but give tickets.”

Some of the others you linked were in the right, but not in this case.

 

[[icon]]

Hey guys...

I have it on good authority the kid was actuallly just trying to sell candybars for his basketball team when the officer walked up to him and beat him with a baton for a while trying to provoke him, then when he wouldn't act up, the cop emptied his magazine in him while yelling "Die Die Die Black Man" and laughing maniacally.

It's time to steal some ham from the corner deli.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Here's a little more detail about this second shooting, although it's still not clear why the off-duty officer chased and confronted the kids in the first place. Also, it's not just a relative saying the kids were unarmed - a neighbor and the manager of the store where the guy bought the sandwich say it too.

The cops also say he was wearing a "gray hooded sweatshirt." Here's a picture of the three guys at the sandwich shop. I can buy that a gun maybe wouldn't be viewable in that image if it's tucked into the front of the waistband or something ... but where's the gray hooded sweatshirt?

And more good news- the cops are once again refusing to give up the officer's name! Remarkable that we can go through this again and law enforcement learns absolutely nothing from its previous mistakes.

 

[fantasycurse42]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/protesters-angered-death-st-louis-teen-rally-burning-flags-article-1.1969792

"The peaceful protestors" - Tobias

You also left this little nugget out of your nonsense too:

"Online court documents show Myers was free on bond when he was killed. He had been charged with unlawful use of a weapon, a felony, and misdemeanor resisting arrest in June."

Out on bond due to a felony weapons charge and resisting arrest... I'm sure he was a good boy though, I mean who here among us wasn't arrested for felony weapon and resisting charges as a youth

 

[fantasycurse42]

You know who I really feel bad for... Innocent people in these areas that are suffering from this nonsense. Their properties are losing value, their businesses are losing money, the citizens are prob worried.

 

[TobiasFunke]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/protesters-angered-death-st-louis-teen-rally-burning-flags-article-1.1969792

"The peaceful protestors" - Tobias

You also left this little nugget out of your nonsense too:

"Online court documents show Myers was free on bond when he was killed. He had been charged with unlawful use of a weapon, a felony, and misdemeanor resisting arrest in June."

Out on bond due to a felony weapons charge and resisting arrest... I'm sure he was a good boy though, I mean who here among us wasn't arrested for felony weapon and resisting charges as a youth

Haven't I asked you not to put words in my mouth at least five times? The protest you link to there happened last night, after any comments I might have made previously. Knock it off. It's obnoxious.

As to the rest- yes, I left out that information, because it's not relevant to whether the shooting was justified or not. You don't deserve to die if you have a weapons charge pending. You deserve to die if you pull a gun on someone unprovoked and start shooting at them. Therefore the only relevant question is whether this guy was armed and pulled a gun on the cops, as they say. If the cops' story is the truth, I have no issue with the off-duty officer's action. If they're lying, it's a problem, regardless of this guy's criminal record, wouldn't you say?

 

[timschochet]

You know who I really feel bad for... Innocent people in these areas that are suffering from this nonsense. Their properties are losing value, their businesses are losing money, the citizens are prob worried.

i feel bad for everyone innocent here- for police who don't do bad things. For protestors who remain peaceful and don't act stupid. There are some bad people in this situation, but no bad groups.

 

[timschochet]

Hey guys...

I have it on good authority the kid was actuallly just trying to sell candybars for his basketball team when the officer walked up to him and beat him with a baton for a while trying to provoke him, then when he wouldn't act up, the cop emptied his magazine in him while yelling "Die Die Die Black Man" and laughing maniacally.

It's time to steal some ham from the corner deli.

wtf? Is this supposed to be funny?

 

[TobiasFunke]

You know who I really feel bad for... Innocent people in these areas that are suffering from this nonsense. Their properties are losing value, their businesses are losing money, the citizens are prob worried.

I feel bad for people who may be getting killed without justification, as well as their family members, and for the communities that have to live in fear that the police might do the same to them, resulting in a bad situation that will continue to spiral if trust cannot be reestablished. That's probably just me, though. Declining property value is super important, too.

 

[kentric]

You know who I really feel bad for... Innocent people in these areas that are suffering from this nonsense. Their properties are losing value, their businesses are losing money, the citizens are prob worried.

I feel bad for people who may be getting killed without justification, as well as their family members, and for the communities that have to live in fear that the police might do the same to them, resulting in a bad situation that will continue to spiral if trust cannot be reestablished. That's probably just me, though. Declining property value is super important, too.

Not just property values, but fear of bodily harm. How can you not feel bad for an older woman who has been living in the neighborhood for 40 years and is afraid to leave her house due to vandalism/violence in the area. How can you not feel bad for the person who put their life savings into a store, working 16 hour days to better themselves and then see your livelihood burned to the ground. Of course you can feel bad for such people.

 

[TobiasFunke]

You know who I really feel bad for... Innocent people in these areas that are suffering from this nonsense. Their properties are losing value, their businesses are losing money, the citizens are prob worried.

I feel bad for people who may be getting killed without justification, as well as their family members, and for the communities that have to live in fear that the police might do the same to them, resulting in a bad situation that will continue to spiral if trust cannot be reestablished. That's probably just me, though. Declining property value is super important, too.

Not just property values, but fear of bodily harm. How can you not feel bad for an older woman who has been living in the neighborhood for 40 years and is afraid to leave her house due to vandalism/violence in the area. How can you not feel bad for the person who put their life savings into a store, working 16 hour days to better themselves and then see your livelihood burned to the ground. Of course you can feel bad for such people.

Of course I do. I feel bad for lots of people for lots of things. I just think it's a little silly to say the people you really feel bad for (which is how fantasycurse phrased it- see his post) are the people in the neighborhood whose properties and businesses may be losing value. There's two dead bodies at the hands of the police, at least one of whom was definitely unarmed. People have lost beloved family members at the hands of the cops. Communities who have completely lost their faith in law enforcement and the justice system. And in that context the people you really feel bad for are the people losing some money off the value of their property or their business due to the public response to this injustice and lack of accountability?

Seems like some skewed priorities to me- but to each their own I suppose.

 

[fantasycurse42]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/protesters-angered-death-st-louis-teen-rally-burning-flags-article-1.1969792

"The peaceful protestors" - Tobias

You also left this little nugget out of your nonsense too:

"Online court documents show Myers was free on bond when he was killed. He had been charged with unlawful use of a weapon, a felony, and misdemeanor resisting arrest in June."

Out on bond due to a felony weapons charge and resisting arrest... I'm sure he was a good boy though, I mean who here among us wasn't arrested for felony weapon and resisting charges as a youth

Haven't I asked you not to put words in my mouth at least five times? The protest you link to there happened last night, after any comments I might have made previously. Knock it off. It's obnoxious.

As to the rest- yes, I left out that information, because it's not relevant to whether the shooting was justified or not. You don't deserve to die if you have a weapons charge pending. You deserve to die if you pull a gun on someone unprovoked and start shooting at them. Therefore the only relevant question is whether this guy was armed and pulled a gun on the cops, as they say. If the cops' story is the truth, I have no issue with the off-duty officer's action. If they're lying, it's a problem, regardless of this guy's criminal record, wouldn't you say?

Those have been your exact words, maybe 1.5 gazillion times, possibly 1.6. They weren't peaceful a month ago, they weren't peaceful yesterday, and they won't be peaceful in the future. Sorry your own words are obnoxious to you, imagine how they make others feel.

BTW, am I supposed to believe his mom? "The boy didn't have a gun!!!!"

Oh, the clerk he bought a sandwich from, he didn't have a gun.... I didn't realize someone committing a felony made it aware to those around him. "Hey everyone, check out my gun!" The fact that he has a felony weapons charge from a few months back is also evidence of behavior, does this really need to be explained?

 

[TobiasFunke]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/protesters-angered-death-st-louis-teen-rally-burning-flags-article-1.1969792

"The peaceful protestors" - Tobias

You also left this little nugget out of your nonsense too:

"Online court documents show Myers was free on bond when he was killed. He had been charged with unlawful use of a weapon, a felony, and misdemeanor resisting arrest in June."

Out on bond due to a felony weapons charge and resisting arrest... I'm sure he was a good boy though, I mean who here among us wasn't arrested for felony weapon and resisting charges as a youth

Haven't I asked you not to put words in my mouth at least five times? The protest you link to there happened last night, after any comments I might have made previously. Knock it off. It's obnoxious.

As to the rest- yes, I left out that information, because it's not relevant to whether the shooting was justified or not. You don't deserve to die if you have a weapons charge pending. You deserve to die if you pull a gun on someone unprovoked and start shooting at them. Therefore the only relevant question is whether this guy was armed and pulled a gun on the cops, as they say. If the cops' story is the truth, I have no issue with the off-duty officer's action. If they're lying, it's a problem, regardless of this guy's criminal record, wouldn't you say?

Those have been your exact words, maybe 1.5 gazillion times, possibly 1.6. They weren't peaceful a month ago, they weren't peaceful yesterday, and they won't be peaceful in the future. Sorry your own words are obnoxious to you, imagine how they make others feel.

BTW, am I supposed to believe his mom? The boy didn't have a gun!!!!

Oh, the clerk he bought a sandwich from, he didn't have a gun.... I didn't realize someone committing a felony made it aware to those around him. "Hey everyone, check out my gun!" The fact that he has a felony weapons charge from a few months back is also evidence of behavior, does this really need to be explained?

Please show me where I described the protestors from last night as "peaceful protestors", as you claimed I did here.

If you can't, don't say that I said it. It's common courtesy. Thanks.

 

[fantasycurse42]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/protesters-angered-death-st-louis-teen-rally-burning-flags-article-1.1969792

"The peaceful protestors" - Tobias

You also left this little nugget out of your nonsense too:

"Online court documents show Myers was free on bond when he was killed. He had been charged with unlawful use of a weapon, a felony, and misdemeanor resisting arrest in June."

Out on bond due to a felony weapons charge and resisting arrest... I'm sure he was a good boy though, I mean who here among us wasn't arrested for felony weapon and resisting charges as a youth

Haven't I asked you not to put words in my mouth at least five times? The protest you link to there happened last night, after any comments I might have made previously. Knock it off. It's obnoxious.

As to the rest- yes, I left out that information, because it's not relevant to whether the shooting was justified or not. You don't deserve to die if you have a weapons charge pending. You deserve to die if you pull a gun on someone unprovoked and start shooting at them. Therefore the only relevant question is whether this guy was armed and pulled a gun on the cops, as they say. If the cops' story is the truth, I have no issue with the off-duty officer's action. If they're lying, it's a problem, regardless of this guy's criminal record, wouldn't you say?

Those have been your exact words, maybe 1.5 gazillion times, possibly 1.6. They weren't peaceful a month ago, they weren't peaceful yesterday, and they won't be peaceful in the future. Sorry your own words are obnoxious to you, imagine how they make others feel.

BTW, am I supposed to believe his mom? The boy didn't have a gun!!!!

Oh, the clerk he bought a sandwich from, he didn't have a gun.... I didn't realize someone committing a felony made it aware to those around him. "Hey everyone, check out my gun!" The fact that he has a felony weapons charge from a few months back is also evidence of behavior, does this really need to be explained?

Please show me where I described the protestors from last night as "peaceful protestors", as you claimed I did here.

If you can't, don't say that I said it. It's common courtesy. Thanks.

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=710325&p=17332327

You remember yesterday, right? It was the day before today You incorrectly defended the "protestors". You have shown a pattern in this, so I wouldn't really expect it to change.

You remember the article I posted by the NY Daily News (the most liberal of the NY papers) describing a scene that didn't appear calm and peaceful? This was also yesterday, or the day before today.

 

[Ditka Butkus]

Protesters have lost all credibility with me when I saw on the news a couple of their front row guys bent over in hilarity.

 

[timschochet]

Protesters have lost all credibility with me when I saw on the news a couple of their front row guys bent over in hilarity.

so because of two guys, NONE of the protestors have credibility?

 

[TobiasFunke]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/protesters-angered-death-st-louis-teen-rally-burning-flags-article-1.1969792

"The peaceful protestors" - Tobias

You also left this little nugget out of your nonsense too:

"Online court documents show Myers was free on bond when he was killed. He had been charged with unlawful use of a weapon, a felony, and misdemeanor resisting arrest in June."

Out on bond due to a felony weapons charge and resisting arrest... I'm sure he was a good boy though, I mean who here among us wasn't arrested for felony weapon and resisting charges as a youth

Haven't I asked you not to put words in my mouth at least five times? The protest you link to there happened last night, after any comments I might have made previously. Knock it off. It's obnoxious.

As to the rest- yes, I left out that information, because it's not relevant to whether the shooting was justified or not. You don't deserve to die if you have a weapons charge pending. You deserve to die if you pull a gun on someone unprovoked and start shooting at them. Therefore the only relevant question is whether this guy was armed and pulled a gun on the cops, as they say. If the cops' story is the truth, I have no issue with the off-duty officer's action. If they're lying, it's a problem, regardless of this guy's criminal record, wouldn't you say?

Those have been your exact words, maybe 1.5 gazillion times, possibly 1.6. They weren't peaceful a month ago, they weren't peaceful yesterday, and they won't be peaceful in the future. Sorry your own words are obnoxious to you, imagine how they make others feel.

BTW, am I supposed to believe his mom? The boy didn't have a gun!!!!

Oh, the clerk he bought a sandwich from, he didn't have a gun.... I didn't realize someone committing a felony made it aware to those around him. "Hey everyone, check out my gun!" The fact that he has a felony weapons charge from a few months back is also evidence of behavior, does this really need to be explained?

Please show me where I described the protestors from last night as "peaceful protestors", as you claimed I did here.

If you can't, don't say that I said it. It's common courtesy. Thanks.

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=710325&p=17332327

You remember yesterday, right? It was the day before today You incorrectly defended the "protestors". You have shown a pattern in this, so I wouldn't really expect it to change.

You remember the article I posted by the NY Daily News (the most liberal of the NY papers) describing a scene that didn't appear calm and peaceful? The was also yesterday, or the day before today.

That post is from yesterday, Thursday, at 12:39 PM (you'll also notice that the word "peaceful" doesn't appear in my post, but we can get to that lie next, if you want to keep making it).

You posted a link to an article with today's date describing protests from "late Thursday night" and then implied that I had described those late Thursday night protestors as "peaceful protestors."

Show me where I said that.

 

[timschochet]

Hey fantasycurse and Tobias, why not just let the facts play out? If the guy was armed and shooting at the policeman, he deserved to be shot and killed. If the guy was unarmed then he didn't. His prior record doesn't matter. Witnesses don't matter unless they witnessed the actual shooting. If he had a gun and fired shots, there will be ballistics and evidence of the bullets. So why waste time arguing based on nothing but conjecture?

 

[fantasycurse42]

Hey fantasycurse and Tobias, why not just let the facts play out? If the guy was armed and shooting at the policeman, he deserved to be shot and killed. If the guy was unarmed then he didn't. His prior record doesn't matter. Witnesses don't matter unless they witnessed the actual shooting. If he had a gun and fired shots, there will be ballistics and evidence of the bullets. So why waste time arguing based on nothing but conjecture?

There is ballistic evidence, but Tobias the African American Justice Crusader doesn't believe those reports. After reading multiple reports over the last day, I do believe them.

But hey, why not protest a weapon carrying felon shooting at cops being killed? Seems like a great cause!