*threat

Edited May 24, 201510 yr by OFFICERJAKE8
put threat twice up above

First of all, police want to make their presence known so people will think twice about turning to violence.  Second, Mike Brown is a scumbag.  He attacked Darren Wilson.  Now Wilson is receiving threats, his family members are getting threatsthreats, and his career is over just for doing his job.  Mike Brown doesn't deserve a memorial in my opinion.

​And you're allowed to voice that opinion because of the First Amendment, the same Amendment that the peaceful protesters that put up the memorial were exercising.

This is how freedom works.

Edited May 24, 201510 yr by Riley24

​But there was protesting (some peaceful, some not) all across the city. Its still unacceptable, under nearly any circumstance, to bring an APC and a small army of cops to a group of people exercising their right to assemble. Standing on the sidewalk with a sign is not a crime, its a constitutional right. 

And that's not what happened on the first night. What happened on the first night was a K-9 officer allowed his dog to urinate on a memorial for Michael Brown, and police vehicles crushed the memorial a short while later. The looting happened the next night. If you're going to go into specifics of the situation, please make sure you get the timeline right.

Source: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/08/ferguson-st-louis-police-tactics-dogs-michael-brown

 

The overall problem here, and why this policy is being put in place, is because as we found out, police departments aren't well trained enough to know how to handle these types of situations without completely destroying their relationship with the community the protect. There is a time for gear like this, and there is a time for the police to be violent, they just need to be better at knowing when that time is. 

​Mother Jones is one of the most biased sites to ever exist.

 

So what if I was off by a day. Businesses were ransacked the 2nd night. There is no excuse for that. The businesses had nothing to do with the shooting, and "protesters" looted them.  Unlike you, I actually have been to Ferguson in the wake of the "peaceful protests." I saw at least 50 businesses boarded up, and that was 2 weeks after Brown was shot.

 

If the same protest is consistently turning violent, police are going to put more pressure onto the protest to keep looting from happening again.

So what if I was off by a day. Businesses were ransacked the 2nd night. There is no excuse for that. The businesses had nothing to do with the shooting, and "protesters" looted them.  Unlike you, I actually have been to Ferguson in the wake of the "peaceful protests." I saw at least 50 businesses boarded up, and that was 2 weeks after Brown was shot.

 

If the same protest is consistently turning violent, police are going to put more pressure onto the protest to keep looting from happening again.

​You're right, there's no excuse for looting. But it would be incredibly ignorant to lump together all of the peaceful protesters and the looters. They are completely different entities and should be treated as such. Once someone breaks a window and steals something, they're a looter. When someone stands on the side of a road with a sign, they're a protester. Yes, sometimes protesters become looters. It seems silly that I need to point this out...

And my apologies for not travelling across the country to go sight-seeing is Ferguson.

Edited May 24, 201510 yr by Riley24

​You're right, there's no excuse for looting. But it would be incredibly ignorant to lump together all of the peaceful protesters and the looters. They are completely different entities and should be treated as such. 

And my apologies for not travelling across the country to go sight-seeing is Ferguson.

​It's not "lumping together." It's preparing for the worst. It's common sense. If a protest for Mike Brown routinely precedes violence, then it makes sense to prepare for that violence by having anything necessary to break up a riot in the area.

Should the police put all their gear away the day after 2 nights of rioting in case the rioters change their mind that night, then have to pull all that out from the station, prep it and respond to the scene only when businesses start to be ransacked?

​And you're allowed to voice that opinion because of the first Amendment, the same Amendment that the peaceful protesters that put up the memorial were exercising.

This is how freedom works.

​To be fair, putting a memorial in the road where he was killed is not the brightest idea. It's a road.

On a serious note, all the timelines I've looked show the armored cars and cops coming in after the riots and the looting. This is appropriate, because people aren't gonna pull that type of shit with cops in riot gear and  armored cars all over the place. 

With whatever response the cops have people are not gonna be happy. They show up in the full force on the first day to prevent anything riots from breaking out, and people aren't gonna be happy. They give protesters some space, and then someone sparks riots and looting which makes people unhappy.  Nothing will make people happy.

​It's not "lumping together." It's preparing for the worst. It's common sense. If a protest for Mike Brown routinely precedes violence, then it makes sense to prepare for that violence by having anything necessary to break up a riot in the area.

Should the police put all their gear away the day after 2 nights of rioting in case the rioters change their mind that night, then have to pull all that out from the station, prep it and respond to the scene only when businesses start to be ransacked?

​No, of course they should have riot police on stand-by all across the city, so that if looting and arson takes place they're able to intervene. They shouldn't roll up with all that gear to a peaceful protest. This is common sense.

​No, of course they should have riot police on stand-by all across the city, so that if looting and arson takes place they're able to intervene. They shouldn't roll up with all that gear to a peaceful protest. This is common sense.

​Wouldn't it be common sense to disregard the police gear and continue protesting the thing your'e devoted to protesting?

First of all, police want to make their presence known so people will think twice about turning to violence.  Second, Mike Brown is a scumbag.  He attacked Darren Wilson.  Now Wilson is receiving threats, his family members are getting threatsthreats, and his career is over just for doing his job.  Mike Brown doesn't deserve a memorial in my opinion.

If I were in Ferguson I'd probably dig up the memorial. I don't appreciate when people honor criminals. 

​To be fair, putting a memorial in the road where he was killed is not the brightest idea. It's a road.

​

 Actually a fair point lol, but I still think the police shoud've been more sensitive towards people who are obviously grieving over someone they killed (Justified or not).

On a serious note, all the timelines I've looked show the armored cars and cops coming in after the riots and the looting. This is appropriate, because people aren't gonna pull that type of shit with cops in riot gear and  armored cars all over the place. 

 I'd love to see those timelines, because they sound completely different from everything I've heard.

With whatever response the cops have people are not gonna be happy. They show up in the full force on the first day to prevent anything riots from breaking out, and people aren't gonna be happy. They give protesters some space, and then someone sparks riots and looting which makes people unhappy.  Nothing will make people happy.

 Like this

​

Again, I think it's possible your timelines might be a little off. I think a lot of times, seeing police with gear like this at a peaceful protest is part of what incites anger in the crowds. Also, things were much better when MHP Captain Ron Johnson took over the response. There's something to be said about what he was doing, which was working with peaceful protesters to make sure everything stayed peaceful.

If I were in Ferguson I'd probably dig up the memorial. I don't appreciate when people honor criminals. 

​You're a big supporter of the military, correct?

​It's not "lumping together." It's preparing for the worst. It's common sense. If a protest for Mike Brown routinely precedes violence, then it makes sense to prepare for that violence by having anything necessary to break up a riot in the area.

Should the police put all their gear away the day after 2 nights of rioting in case the rioters change their mind that night, then have to pull all that out from the station, prep it and respond to the scene only when businesses start to be ransacked?

I don't mean to go off topic but you and 13ubba have the same profile picture, and I know it's military or something. If you don't mind me asking, what does that symbol mean? Again, don't meant to go off topic, just it's kinda hard to google an image. 

​You're a big supporter of the military, correct? 

Correct... 

​No, of course they should have riot police on stand-by all across the city, so that if looting and arson takes place they're able to intervene. They shouldn't roll up with all that gear to a peaceful protest. This is common sense.

​No, common sense is having that there to deter the criminals in the first place. The peaceful protesters shouldn't be deterred if they care that much about their cause, and the local businesses are reassured because they feel like the presence will deter their own livelihoods being looted. A city ultimately cares more about local businesses than the supporters of a local criminal.

​Wouldn't it be common sense to disregard the police gear and continue protesting the thing your'e devoted to protesting?

​Its a very emotional issue for a lot of people, its not really fair to ask them all to be completely logical in the middle of that anger.

​But THEY are not the ones burning police cars. THEY are not the ones lighting fires or looting. THEY are exercising the same exact constitutional right that THESE people are:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think any of the "Support Officer Darren Wilson" protests became city-wide riots, or actually had any problems at all. The people who started attacking cops and burning cars and buildings were people from the crowds of "peaceful protestors"

​Its a very emotional issue for a lot of people, its not really fair to ask them all to be completely logical in the middle of that anger.

Yes, yes it is fair. If I punch a cop cause I'm angry my sister died it's still a crime, and its logical for me not to punch him. Just because these idiots rioting are angry doesn't justify unleashing on anything. It's better they unleash on riot cops than patrol cops, because riot cops are there for dealing with such idiots and are equipped to do so

Correct... 

​So I don't think you would disagree with the concept that military service men and women die to protect our freedom. Wouldn't one of those freedoms be the right to free speech and the right to peaceably assemble? So wouldn't it be a little contradictory to your own ideals to trample on someone else's free speech, just because you don't agree with it? The soldiers that die for freedom don't get to choose what freedoms they do or don't die for, only the fundamental rights themselves.

Haven't you ever heard the saying "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."?

So by trampling on free speech, aren't you doing a disservice to the people that have died for their right to say it?

Edited May 24, 201510 yr by Riley24

​So I don't think you would disagree with the concept that military service men and women die to protect our freedom. Wouldn't one of those freedoms be the right to free speech and the right to peaceably assemble? So wouldn't it be a little contradictory to your own ideals to trample on someone else's free speech, just because you don't agree with it? The soldiers that die for freedom don't get to choose what freedoms they do or don't die for, only the fundamental rights themselves.

Haven't you ever heard the saying "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."?

Yes I do agree. However me implying that I would dig up the memorial is a personal decision that I would make, it has nothing to do with the military or our rights. I'm unsure if you're speaking specifically on the subject of the memorial, or more in general; because I hold two different opinions depending on what we're talking about. 

​So I don't think you would disagree with the concept that military service men and women die to protect our freedom. Wouldn't one of those freedoms be the right to free speech and the right to peaceably assemble? So wouldn't it be a little contradictory to your own ideals to trample on someone else's free speech, just because you don't agree with it? The soldiers that die for freedom don't get to choose what freedoms they do or don't die for, only the fundamental rights themselves.

Haven't you ever heard the saying "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."?

They have the right to speak freely their opinion, but they don't have the right to attack cops, burn their cars and destroy business' and loot. 

Yes I do agree. However me implying that I would dig up the memorial is a personal decision that I would make, it has nothing to do with the military or our rights. I'm unsure if you're speaking specifically on the subject of the memorial, or more in general; because I hold two different opinions depending on what we're talking about. 

​I'm talking about the memorial, since its technically a form of free speech.

So by trampling on that memorial, aren't you doing a disservice to the people that have died for their right to put up that memorial?

 

Edited May 24, 201510 yr by Riley24