Total Posts:58|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Ferguson

YaHey
Posts: 43
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2014 11:06:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I haven't heard many people talking about this event, but there is some major police brutality going on in Feguson, Missouri. Mike Brown was shot by Ferguson police, and they then tried to cover it up, blaming Mike in several scenarios. Now they are using tear gas and rubber bullets on innocent protesters and journalists.

PLEASE SPREAD THIS LINK AROUND SO WE CAN GET SOME SIGNATURES. END THE BRUTALITY.

https://www.change.org...
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2014 11:30:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/15/2014 6:32:45 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
I heard it was:
1. a riot
The protests were allegedly peaceful/mostly peaceful (depending on who's report you read), but things were exacerbated by the local police department's response culminating with Wednesday night's conflict. State police are now taking over for county and local police which has apparently eased tension.

2. not the local police
Both the St. Louis County Police and the Ferguson Police Department have been criticised for their response to the protests and heavy handed tactics. They have been relieved by Missouri highway patrol. http://www.foxnews.com...
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2014 12:38:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/15/2014 11:30:59 AM, Enji wrote:
At 8/15/2014 6:32:45 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
I heard it was:
1. a riot
The protests were allegedly peaceful/mostly peaceful (depending on who's report you read), but things were exacerbated by the local police department's response culminating with Wednesday night's conflict. State police are now taking over for county and local police which has apparently eased tension.

Look at this statement:
they were allegedly peaceful/mostly peaceful. This implies there was cause for police intervention, which exploded into a riot.
Protests are great places for a few people to start trouble, then everyone gets in trouble.

2. not the local police
Both the St. Louis County Police and the Ferguson Police Department have been criticised for their response to the protests and heavy handed tactics. They have been relieved by Missouri highway patrol. http://www.foxnews.com...
My work here is, finally, done.
YaHey
Posts: 43
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2014 12:43:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/15/2014 12:38:35 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 8/15/2014 11:30:59 AM, Enji wrote:
At 8/15/2014 6:32:45 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
I heard it was:
1. a riot
The protests were allegedly peaceful/mostly peaceful (depending on who's report you read), but things were exacerbated by the local police department's response culminating with Wednesday night's conflict. State police are now taking over for county and local police which has apparently eased tension.

Look at this statement:
they were allegedly peaceful/mostly peaceful. This implies there was cause for police intervention, which exploded into a riot.
Protests are great places for a few people to start trouble, then everyone gets in trouble.

So whichever police you want to blame, they haven't been allowing journalists into the area to report what is going on, so what exactly happened is hard to tell. I have heard that these heavy police actions happened a day before things got violent, and it's hard to justify using tear gas and rubber bullets on civilians. Even the state senator was tear gassed. When she asked if she would be tear gassed again, the man in charge said "I hope not." A very small minority got violent, after police actions. This is unjustifiable brutality.

2. not the local police
Both the St. Louis County Police and the Ferguson Police Department have been criticised for their response to the protests and heavy handed tactics. They have been relieved by Missouri highway patrol. http://www.foxnews.com...
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2014 12:47:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/15/2014 12:43:26 PM, YaHey wrote:
At 8/15/2014 12:38:35 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 8/15/2014 11:30:59 AM, Enji wrote:
At 8/15/2014 6:32:45 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
I heard it was:
1. a riot
The protests were allegedly peaceful/mostly peaceful (depending on who's report you read), but things were exacerbated by the local police department's response culminating with Wednesday night's conflict. State police are now taking over for county and local police which has apparently eased tension.

Look at this statement:
they were allegedly peaceful/mostly peaceful. This implies there was cause for police intervention, which exploded into a riot.
Protests are great places for a few people to start trouble, then everyone gets in trouble.

So whichever police you want to blame, they haven't been allowing journalists into the area to report what is going on, so what exactly happened is hard to tell. I have heard that these heavy police actions happened a day before things got violent, and it's hard to justify using tear gas and rubber bullets on civilians. Even the state senator was tear gassed. When she asked if she would be tear gassed again, the man in charge said "I hope not." A very small minority got violent, after police actions. This is unjustifiable brutality.

So, you don't know what happened, but you'll cast blame on one party. Sounds reasonable.

The overall group may have turned violent after the tear gas, but it doesn't mean there weren't issues. Were they trespassing? Looting? Battering?

As far as using tear gas goes, what would you have riot police do?
My work here is, finally, done.
YaHey
Posts: 43
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2014 12:52:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/15/2014 12:47:04 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 8/15/2014 12:43:26 PM, YaHey wrote:
At 8/15/2014 12:38:35 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 8/15/2014 11:30:59 AM, Enji wrote:
At 8/15/2014 6:32:45 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
I heard it was:
1. a riot
The protests were allegedly peaceful/mostly peaceful (depending on who's report you read), but things were exacerbated by the local police department's response culminating with Wednesday night's conflict. State police are now taking over for county and local police which has apparently eased tension.

Look at this statement:
they were allegedly peaceful/mostly peaceful. This implies there was cause for police intervention, which exploded into a riot.
Protests are great places for a few people to start trouble, then everyone gets in trouble.

So whichever police you want to blame, they haven't been allowing journalists into the area to report what is going on, so what exactly happened is hard to tell. I have heard that these heavy police actions happened a day before things got violent, and it's hard to justify using tear gas and rubber bullets on civilians. Even the state senator was tear gassed. When she asked if she would be tear gassed again, the man in charge said "I hope not." A very small minority got violent, after police actions. This is unjustifiable brutality.

So, you don't know what happened, but you'll cast blame on one party. Sounds reasonable.

The overall group may have turned violent after the tear gas, but it doesn't mean there weren't issues. Were they trespassing? Looting? Battering?

As far as using tear gas goes, what would you have riot police do?

The police are using tear gas not only on protesters, but on journalists, and you think that they are completely in the limits of the law? Tear gas, by the way, is illegal to use in warfare, but somehow it is legal to use on our own citizens? I would have the police force not brutalize people and there freedom to peacefully assemble.

No, the overall group DIDNT turn violent after the tear gas. In fact, even then only a small minority did.

While the police aren't letting journalists report (bye-bye, first amendment), which is some shady stuff in itself, there are people taking pictures and tweeting them. The infor that has gotten out is from eyewitnesses.

http://37.media.tumblr.com...

http://38.media.tumblr.com...

http://31.media.tumblr.com...
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2014 1:12:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/15/2014 12:52:45 PM, YaHey wrote:
At 8/15/2014 12:47:04 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 8/15/2014 12:43:26 PM, YaHey wrote:
At 8/15/2014 12:38:35 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 8/15/2014 11:30:59 AM, Enji wrote:
At 8/15/2014 6:32:45 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
I heard it was:
1. a riot
The protests were allegedly peaceful/mostly peaceful (depending on who's report you read), but things were exacerbated by the local police department's response culminating with Wednesday night's conflict. State police are now taking over for county and local police which has apparently eased tension.

Look at this statement:
they were allegedly peaceful/mostly peaceful. This implies there was cause for police intervention, which exploded into a riot.
Protests are great places for a few people to start trouble, then everyone gets in trouble.

So whichever police you want to blame, they haven't been allowing journalists into the area to report what is going on, so what exactly happened is hard to tell. I have heard that these heavy police actions happened a day before things got violent, and it's hard to justify using tear gas and rubber bullets on civilians. Even the state senator was tear gassed. When she asked if she would be tear gassed again, the man in charge said "I hope not." A very small minority got violent, after police actions. This is unjustifiable brutality.

So, you don't know what happened, but you'll cast blame on one party. Sounds reasonable.

The overall group may have turned violent after the tear gas, but it doesn't mean there weren't issues. Were they trespassing? Looting? Battering?

As far as using tear gas goes, what would you have riot police do?

The police are using tear gas not only on protesters, but on journalists, and you think that they are completely in the limits of the law? Tear gas, by the way, is illegal to use in warfare, but somehow it is legal to use on our own citizens? I would have the police force not brutalize people and there freedom to peacefully assemble.

1. You didn't answer my question, so please do. What would you have the police do?
2. Tear gas is illegal in war, yes. Any idea why that is? Is it because soldiers don't cry?
http://www.washingtonpost.com...
According to this, police tear gas is less than other countries, which implies that the use by police is not military grade at all.

No, the overall group DIDNT turn violent after the tear gas. In fact, even then only a small minority did.
And, how do you route out the bad apples?


While the police aren't letting journalists report (bye-bye, first amendment), which is some shady stuff in itself, there are people taking pictures and tweeting them. The infor that has gotten out is from eyewitnesses.

Journalists aren't allowed everywhere.
Pretty sure they don't get to go into a bank with hostages.
I can think of a few reasons for this. Can you?

http://37.media.tumblr.com...

I saw no gun, so not sure who or what that light is.
Also, it's generally not a good idea to up the ante if you are concerned with police brutality.

http://38.media.tumblr.com...
Closed the streets to contain protest.
Problem with that?

http://31.media.tumblr.com...
Not eye witness testimony.

Frankly, you just sound like some anti-police fan who is in favor of this protest protesting against (seemingly) unjustified use of force. You seem to ignore how bias you are being, as evident in your lack of question answering.
What would you have the police do?
It is an illegal protest, in which, illegal other things are happening (looting).

Do you believe all police are bad, or just a large enough percentage?
If the latter, why do you not believe that a large enough percentage of protesters are using this to have their own fun (looting, mayhem, fame, lawsuit, or even actual bad intentions of hurting others: police or bystanders)?
After all, you yourself have said there is no evidence of anything.
My work here is, finally, done.
The_Immortal_Emris
Posts: 474
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2014 1:19:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/15/2014 12:47:04 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 8/15/2014 12:43:26 PM, YaHey wrote:
At 8/15/2014 12:38:35 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 8/15/2014 11:30:59 AM, Enji wrote:
At 8/15/2014 6:32:45 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
I heard it was:
1. a riot
The protests were allegedly peaceful/mostly peaceful (depending on who's report you read), but things were exacerbated by the local police department's response culminating with Wednesday night's conflict. State police are now taking over for county and local police which has apparently eased tension.

Look at this statement:
they were allegedly peaceful/mostly peaceful. This implies there was cause for police intervention, which exploded into a riot.
Protests are great places for a few people to start trouble, then everyone gets in trouble.

So whichever police you want to blame, they haven't been allowing journalists into the area to report what is going on, so what exactly happened is hard to tell. I have heard that these heavy police actions happened a day before things got violent, and it's hard to justify using tear gas and rubber bullets on civilians. Even the state senator was tear gassed. When she asked if she would be tear gassed again, the man in charge said "I hope not." A very small minority got violent, after police actions. This is unjustifiable brutality.

So, you don't know what happened, but you'll cast blame on one party. Sounds reasonable.


The reason we don't know what happened is because ONE PARTY is preventing the media from doing their constitutionally protected jobs.

The overall group may have turned violent after the tear gas, but it doesn't mean there weren't issues. Were they trespassing? Looting? Battering?

Except social media exists now, so this hypothetical is already disproved. The police caused the explosion in violence when they brought attack dogs and swat teams to a peaceful candle light vigil, then refused to release any information regarding the state of the investigation.

As far as using tear gas goes, what would you have riot police do?

Not shoot innocent and peaceful civilians with gas and rubber bullets.

Because this is AMERICA. Where we have the right to assembly.

Where were these defenders of the militarism of our law enforcement when Cliven Bundy was around.

Hypocrisy.
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2014 1:24:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/15/2014 12:38:35 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 8/15/2014 11:30:59 AM, Enji wrote:
At 8/15/2014 6:32:45 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
I heard it was:
1. a riot
The protests were allegedly peaceful/mostly peaceful (depending on who's report you read), but things were exacerbated by the local police department's response culminating with Wednesday night's conflict. State police are now taking over for county and local police which has apparently eased tension.

Look at this statement:
they were allegedly peaceful/mostly peaceful. This implies there was cause for police intervention, which exploded into a riot.
Protests are great places for a few people to start trouble, then everyone gets in trouble.

There was some cause for police intervention, but the manner in which police reacted made things worse, particularly since the protests were in response to believed overuse of force by the local police in the first place. This is why the state police taking over has eased tension; they haven't responded with the same force and apparent hostility, and they aren't a part of the issue prompting the protests.
LogicalLunatic
Posts: 1,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2014 1:25:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Guys it is proven fact that White policemen are evul and Black protesters are good and violence is a protest if black people do it! Why? Because Black people are oppressed! And they display their victimhood by looting and vandalizing and killing! How DARE those wicked White people crack down on violent protesters?!
A True Work of Art: http://www.debate.org...

Atheist Logic: http://www.debate.org...

Bulproof formally admits to being a troll (Post 16):
http://www.debate.org...
YaHey
Posts: 43
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2014 1:27:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/15/2014 1:12:56 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 8/15/2014 12:52:45 PM, YaHey wrote:
At 8/15/2014 12:47:04 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 8/15/2014 12:43:26 PM, YaHey wrote:
At 8/15/2014 12:38:35 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 8/15/2014 11:30:59 AM, Enji wrote:
At 8/15/2014 6:32:45 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
I heard it was:
1. a riot
The protests were allegedly peaceful/mostly peaceful (depending on who's report you read), but things were exacerbated by the local police department's response culminating with Wednesday night's conflict. State police are now taking over for county and local police which has apparently eased tension.

Look at this statement:
they were allegedly peaceful/mostly peaceful. This implies there was cause for police intervention, which exploded into a riot.
Protests are great places for a few people to start trouble, then everyone gets in trouble.

So whichever police you want to blame, they haven't been allowing journalists into the area to report what is going on, so what exactly happened is hard to tell. I have heard that these heavy police actions happened a day before things got violent, and it's hard to justify using tear gas and rubber bullets on civilians. Even the state senator was tear gassed. When she asked if she would be tear gassed again, the man in charge said "I hope not." A very small minority got violent, after police actions. This is unjustifiable brutality.

So, you don't know what happened, but you'll cast blame on one party. Sounds reasonable.

The overall group may have turned violent after the tear gas, but it doesn't mean there weren't issues. Were they trespassing? Looting? Battering?

As far as using tear gas goes, what would you have riot police do?

The police are using tear gas not only on protesters, but on journalists, and you think that they are completely in the limits of the law? Tear gas, by the way, is illegal to use in warfare, but somehow it is legal to use on our own citizens? I would have the police force not brutalize people and there freedom to peacefully assemble.

1. You didn't answer my question, so please do. What would you have the police do?

I don't know, not go into a civil space with freaking war equipment? Handle the situation peacefully. RESPECT THE FIRST AMENDMENT.

2. Tear gas is illegal in war, yes. Any idea why that is? Is it because soldiers don't cry?
http://www.washingtonpost.com...
According to this, police tear gas is less than other countries, which implies that the use by police is not military grade at all.

Oh, then by all means, chuck it at the protesters. What first amendment?

No, the overall group DIDNT turn violent after the tear gas. In fact, even then only a small minority did.
And, how do you route out the bad apples?

I guess by just f*cking the entire group.


While the police aren't letting journalists report (bye-bye, first amendment), which is some shady stuff in itself, there are people taking pictures and tweeting them. The infor that has gotten out is from eyewitnesses.

Journalists aren't allowed everywhere.
Pretty sure they don't get to go into a bank with hostages.
I can think of a few reasons for this. Can you?

Reporters are allowed to at least report on such an event, no? They are literally shutting down journalists. Two were arrested at a McDonald's just NEAR a protest!

http://37.media.tumblr.com...

I saw no gun, so not sure who or what that light is.
Also, it's generally not a good idea to up the ante if you are concerned with police brutality.

Oh yes, let's blame the citizens.

http://38.media.tumblr.com...
Closed the streets to contain protest.
Problem with that?

Well, yes, actually. There's that whole right of the people to peacefully assemble thing somewhere in the Bill of Rights. I mean last time I checked. It could have changed. But the point of the picture was to show the gear the cops have. COPS. They look like soldiers!

http://31.media.tumblr.com...
Not eye witness testimony.

Those are examples of police brutality?

Frankly, you just sound like some anti-police fan who is in favor of this protest protesting against (seemingly) unjustified use of force. You seem to ignore how bias you are being, as evident in your lack of question answering.
What would you have the police do?
NOT USE TEAR GAS, FOR ONE.
It is an illegal protest, in which, illegal other things are happening (looting).
AFTER POLICE GOT BRUTAL.

Do you believe all police are bad, or just a large enough percentage?

The system is corrupt. When police, POLICE, the people paid to protect us, start getting away with murder, the system is wrong.
If the latter, why do you not believe that a large enough percentage of protesters are using this to have their own fun (looting, mayhem, fame, lawsuit, or even actual bad intentions of hurting others: police or bystanders)?

One, these protesters aren't doing that? It only seemed to happen day in the minority. I mean, when police are using rubber bullets and tear gas, fair game if you ask me.
After all, you yourself have said there is no evidence of anything.
No, I didn't, and you know that. I said reporters aren't being allowed to report. There are people, in Ferguson, that are giving out pictures and information.
The_Immortal_Emris
Posts: 474
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2014 1:28:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/15/2014 1:12:56 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 8/15/2014 12:52:45 PM, YaHey wrote:
At 8/15/2014 12:47:04 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 8/15/2014 12:43:26 PM, YaHey wrote:
At 8/15/2014 12:38:35 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 8/15/2014 11:30:59 AM, Enji wrote:
At 8/15/2014 6:32:45 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
I heard it was:

1. You didn't answer my question, so please do. What would you have the police do?
1. Their damn jobs, would be nice.
2. Not shoot journalists with tear gas.

According to this, police tear gas is less than other countries, which implies that the use by police is not military grade at all.

It's still illegal to shoot journalists.

No, the overall group DIDNT turn violent after the tear gas. In fact, even then only a small minority did.
And, how do you route out the bad apples?

Not by shooting the innocent and the journalists who just want to tell the truth.

While the police aren't letting journalists report (bye-bye, first amendment), which is some shady stuff in itself, there are people taking pictures and tweeting them. The infor that has gotten out is from eyewitnesses.

Journalists aren't allowed everywhere.

Yes, they are, if it's public.

Pretty sure they don't get to go into a bank with hostages.

Pretty sure a city street isn't this idiotic hypothetical.
I can think of a few reasons for this. Can you?

I can think of a few reasons why they SHOULD be allowed. If you can't that just speaks to your personal ignorance.

Frankly, you just sound like some anti-police fan who is in favor of this protest protesting against (seemingly) unjustified use of force. You seem to ignore how bias you are being, as evident in your lack of question answering.

IT IS OUR RIGHT TO PROTEST. You sound like a jackbooted fascist apologist for the police state.

What would you have the police do?

NOT SHOOT PEACEFUL PROTESTERS AND JOURNALISTS.

It is an illegal protest, in which, illegal other things are happening (looting).

THERE IS NO SUCH THING IN AMERICA AS AN ILLEGAL PROTEST. They have NO right to remove peaceful protesters from the streets, regardless of what a few dozen fools do.

Do you believe all police are bad, or just a large enough percentage?

I believe a large percentage of THIS police force is bad. They are not known for being a good police force.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com...

If the latter, why do you not believe that a large enough percentage of protesters are using this to have their own fun (looting, mayhem, fame, lawsuit, or even actual bad intentions of hurting others: police or bystanders)?

Because the police caused the looting by mistreating peaceful protesters and causing further unrest with their poor handling of the situation. And the entire nation is still reeling from the injustices done to black teens in Florida.

After all, you yourself have said there is no evidence of anything.

Except the rampant video evidence, and the eye witness testimony which proves police shot and killed an unarmed young man.

That is reason enough to protest.

And if police try to stop the protests, that's reason enough for further civil disobedience.

Sadly, not all of the world is as rational and composed as I am, and sometimes, when people feel their peaceful protest is being subverted, they don't know what else to do but be violent.

And look how well it worked. You're actually paying attention now. When it would have been easier for you to turn your head and ignore another dead black teen killed by a corrupt system.
YaHey
Posts: 43
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2014 1:30:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/15/2014 1:25:26 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
Guys it is proven fact that White policemen are evul and Black protesters are good and violence is a protest if black people do it! Why? Because Black people are oppressed! And they display their victimhood by looting and vandalizing and killing! How DARE those wicked White people crack down on violent protesters?!

Ah yes. How dare those black people not want to be murdered and profiled by the people paid to protect them. Hah! I mean, white people kill more black people than the other way around, but those African Americans love to kill! Of course the looting was in a small minority for a very short time, but oh how they loot! I love logic, don't you?
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2014 1:31:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/15/2014 1:19:22 PM, The_Immortal_Emris wrote:
At 8/15/2014 12:47:04 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 8/15/2014 12:43:26 PM, YaHey wrote:
At 8/15/2014 12:38:35 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 8/15/2014 11:30:59 AM, Enji wrote:
At 8/15/2014 6:32:45 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
I heard it was:
1. a riot
The protests were allegedly peaceful/mostly peaceful (depending on who's report you read), but things were exacerbated by the local police department's response culminating with Wednesday night's conflict. State police are now taking over for county and local police which has apparently eased tension.

Look at this statement:
they were allegedly peaceful/mostly peaceful. This implies there was cause for police intervention, which exploded into a riot.
Protests are great places for a few people to start trouble, then everyone gets in trouble.

So whichever police you want to blame, they haven't been allowing journalists into the area to report what is going on, so what exactly happened is hard to tell. I have heard that these heavy police actions happened a day before things got violent, and it's hard to justify using tear gas and rubber bullets on civilians. Even the state senator was tear gassed. When she asked if she would be tear gassed again, the man in charge said "I hope not." A very small minority got violent, after police actions. This is unjustifiable brutality.

So, you don't know what happened, but you'll cast blame on one party. Sounds reasonable.


The reason we don't know what happened is because ONE PARTY is preventing the media from doing their constitutionally protected jobs.

I wasn't aware the media could just walk through a crime scene, my house, or wherever they pleased. Their speech is protected, not their access.

The overall group may have turned violent after the tear gas, but it doesn't mean there weren't issues. Were they trespassing? Looting? Battering?

Except social media exists now, so this hypothetical is already disproved. The police caused the explosion in violence when they brought attack dogs and swat teams to a peaceful candle light vigil, then refused to release any information regarding the state of the investigation.
What hypothetical?
Do you really think someone is going to report on some looters/trespasser/etc?
This assumes:
1. the looter is stupid enough to say "I did this"
2. the peaceful protesters are aware of what others are doing

Neither are likely.


As far as using tear gas goes, what would you have riot police do?

Not shoot innocent and peaceful civilians with gas and rubber bullets.
Not an answer.

Because this is AMERICA. Where we have the right to assembly.
Not if it infringes upon the rights of others, and even a peaceful protest does that.

Where were these defenders of the militarism of our law enforcement when Cliven Bundy was around.
I don't know, but don't lump me in with others.

Hypocrisy.
Explain, since you don't know my view.
My work here is, finally, done.
The_Immortal_Emris
Posts: 474
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2014 1:32:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/15/2014 1:30:45 PM, YaHey wrote:
At 8/15/2014 1:25:26 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
Guys it is proven fact that White policemen are evul and Black protesters are good and violence is a protest if black people do it! Why? Because Black people are oppressed! And they display their victimhood by looting and vandalizing and killing! How DARE those wicked White people crack down on violent protesters?!

Ah yes. How dare those black people not want to be murdered and profiled by the people paid to protect them. Hah! I mean, white people kill more black people than the other way around, but those African Americans love to kill! Of course the looting was in a small minority for a very short time, but oh how they loot! I love logic, don't you?

Know what I love?

You're damn profile picture.

Thank you for having perspective. You're my personal hero today.
YaHey
Posts: 43
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2014 1:35:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/15/2014 1:32:10 PM, The_Immortal_Emris wrote:
At 8/15/2014 1:30:45 PM, YaHey wrote:
At 8/15/2014 1:25:26 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
Guys it is proven fact that White policemen are evul and Black protesters are good and violence is a protest if black people do it! Why? Because Black people are oppressed! And they display their victimhood by looting and vandalizing and killing! How DARE those wicked White people crack down on violent protesters?!

Ah yes. How dare those black people not want to be murdered and profiled by the people paid to protect them. Hah! I mean, white people kill more black people than the other way around, but those African Americans love to kill! Of course the looting was in a small minority for a very short time, but oh how they loot! I love logic, don't you?

Know what I love?

You're damn profile picture.

Thank you for having perspective. You're my personal hero today.

There is actually a really powerful post with a bunch of pictures like this.
http://38.media.tumblr.com...
http://37.media.tumblr.com...
http://38.media.tumblr.com...
http://38.media.tumblr.com...
http://38.media.tumblr.com...
http://38.media.tumblr.com...
http://38.media.tumblr.com...
http://33.media.tumblr.com...
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2014 1:35:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/15/2014 1:24:56 PM, Enji wrote:
At 8/15/2014 12:38:35 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 8/15/2014 11:30:59 AM, Enji wrote:
At 8/15/2014 6:32:45 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
I heard it was:
1. a riot
The protests were allegedly peaceful/mostly peaceful (depending on who's report you read), but things were exacerbated by the local police department's response culminating with Wednesday night's conflict. State police are now taking over for county and local police which has apparently eased tension.

Look at this statement:
they were allegedly peaceful/mostly peaceful. This implies there was cause for police intervention, which exploded into a riot.
Protests are great places for a few people to start trouble, then everyone gets in trouble.

There was some cause for police intervention, but the manner in which police reacted made things worse, particularly since the protests were in response to believed overuse of force by the local police in the first place. This is why the state police taking over has eased tension; they haven't responded with the same force and apparent hostility, and they aren't a part of the issue prompting the protests.

So, the issue isn't that the police interfered, it was the method of their interference?
That is a position I can respect, and one I cannot address specifically, as I have no details. I take issue with the blanket statements people are making.

People are making it sound like the police had no business there, but you say they did. Ergo, the police aren't the "bad guys" inherently, since if the "bad protester" weren't bad, the police would have had no reason to be there.
My work here is, finally, done.
The_Immortal_Emris
Posts: 474
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2014 1:41:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/15/2014 1:31:52 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 8/15/2014 1:19:22 PM, The_Immortal_Emris wrote:
At 8/15/2014 12:47:04 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 8/15/2014 12:43:26 PM, YaHey wrote:
At 8/15/2014 12:38:35 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 8/15/2014 11:30:59 AM, Enji wrote:
At 8/15/2014 6:32:45 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
I heard it was:
1. a riot

I wasn't aware the media could just walk through a crime scene, my house, or wherever they pleased. Their speech is protected, not their access.

Well, I'm glad to inform you of where you are ignorant.

1. A city street is not a crime scene, it is a city street.
2. No martial law was imposed, no curfew, the media was present legally. They were then attacked.
3. Their access IS protected when it's a PUBLIC STREET.
4. If they have permission, media can stand on private property, and police can say NOTHING about it, unless martial law is imposed.

Take a media law class.

The overall group may have turned violent after the tear gas, but it doesn't mean there weren't issues. Were they trespassing? Looting? Battering?

Not until after police brutality began.

Except social media exists now, so this hypothetical is already disproved. The police caused the explosion in violence when they brought attack dogs and swat teams to a peaceful candle light vigil, then refused to release any information regarding the state of the investigation.
What hypothetical?

The idiotic one you presented.

Do you really think someone is going to report on some looters/trespasser/etc?

Yes. Because they do and continue to. What closed minded echo chamber are you living in?

This assumes:
1. the looter is stupid enough to say "I did this"

No, it only requires them to be caught on camera, which they were. Your willful ignorance is astounding.

2. the peaceful protesters are aware of what others are doing
Oh, are they omnipresent now? Omniscient?
Neither are likely.
Neither are necessary.

As far as using tear gas goes, what would you have riot police do?

Not shoot innocent and peaceful civilians with gas and rubber bullets.
Not an answer.

Yeah, it is. Don't shoot protesters with tear gas, don't shoot the media with rubber bullets and tear gas. This is simple $hit.

Because this is AMERICA. Where we have the right to assembly.
Not if it infringes upon the rights of others, and even a peaceful protest does that.

You're obviously ignorant of the rights given by the constitution. Peaceful protests are not illegal, and do not infringe upon the rights of others, as they are peaceful protests.

Read the first amendment.
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2014 1:44:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/15/2014 1:35:07 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
People are making it sound like the police had no business there, but you say they did. Ergo, the police aren't the "bad guys" inherently, since if the "bad protester" weren't bad, the police would have had no reason to be there.

I think characterisations like"good police, bad protesters" or "bad police, good protesters" are overly simplistic. Are the protests justified? I think there's good reasons to believe so. Is a police response justified? Certainly. But there have been poor decisions and actions by both the police and the protesters.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2014 1:49:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/15/2014 1:27:36 PM, YaHey wrote:
At 8/15/2014 1:12:56 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 8/15/2014 12:52:45 PM, YaHey wrote:
At 8/15/2014 12:47:04 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 8/15/2014 12:43:26 PM, YaHey wrote:
At 8/15/2014 12:38:35 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 8/15/2014 11:30:59 AM, Enji wrote:
At 8/15/2014 6:32:45 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
I heard it was:
1. a riot
The protests were allegedly peaceful/mostly peaceful (depending on who's report you read), but things were exacerbated by the local police department's response culminating with Wednesday night's conflict. State police are now taking over for county and local police which has apparently eased tension.

Look at this statement:
they were allegedly peaceful/mostly peaceful. This implies there was cause for police intervention, which exploded into a riot.
Protests are great places for a few people to start trouble, then everyone gets in trouble.

So whichever police you want to blame, they haven't been allowing journalists into the area to report what is going on, so what exactly happened is hard to tell. I have heard that these heavy police actions happened a day before things got violent, and it's hard to justify using tear gas and rubber bullets on civilians. Even the state senator was tear gassed. When she asked if she would be tear gassed again, the man in charge said "I hope not." A very small minority got violent, after police actions. This is unjustifiable brutality.

So, you don't know what happened, but you'll cast blame on one party. Sounds reasonable.

The overall group may have turned violent after the tear gas, but it doesn't mean there weren't issues. Were they trespassing? Looting? Battering?

As far as using tear gas goes, what would you have riot police do?

The police are using tear gas not only on protesters, but on journalists, and you think that they are completely in the limits of the law? Tear gas, by the way, is illegal to use in warfare, but somehow it is legal to use on our own citizens? I would have the police force not brutalize people and there freedom to peacefully assemble.

1. You didn't answer my question, so please do. What would you have the police do?

I don't know, not go into a civil space with freaking war equipment? Handle the situation peacefully. RESPECT THE FIRST AMENDMENT.

Why, the reason the police responded in the first place was due to infringement on it?
But, to be clear, you have no idea, but damn the police for doing something? Got it.

2. Tear gas is illegal in war, yes. Any idea why that is? Is it because soldiers don't cry?
http://www.washingtonpost.com...
According to this, police tear gas is less than other countries, which implies that the use by police is not military grade at all.

Oh, then by all means, chuck it at the protesters. What first amendment?
You can wave the first amendment all you want, but you haven't established any facts that suggest there is a breach.

Where was the protest? In the street, impeding traffic and others' right to assemble?
In a public park or square, doing the same thing? Or was it on private property?

How long was the vigil? An hour before police tried to break it up? Five hours? One day?
Did they have a permit?
Why did the police intervene in the first place? Calls about looting? Loud noise? No reason except they are racists and aggressors?

Which occured first, the reason the police were there in the first place, or the non-peaceful acts of some protestors?

No, the overall group DIDNT turn violent after the tear gas. In fact, even then only a small minority did.
And, how do you route out the bad apples?

I guess by just f*cking the entire group.
Unfortunately, yes.
The bad apples can't hide in the crowd to get away, or use the protest as cover.


While the police aren't letting journalists report (bye-bye, first amendment), which is some shady stuff in itself, there are people taking pictures and tweeting them. The infor that has gotten out is from eyewitnesses.

Journalists aren't allowed everywhere.
Pretty sure they don't get to go into a bank with hostages.
I can think of a few reasons for this. Can you?

Reporters are allowed to at least report on such an event, no? They are literally shutting down journalists. Two were arrested at a McDonald's just NEAR a protest!
Source?
Are you saying there is a gag order?
Are you saying gag orders are unconstitutional?


http://37.media.tumblr.com...

I saw no gun, so not sure who or what that light is.
Also, it's generally not a good idea to up the ante if you are concerned with police brutality.

Oh yes, let's blame the citizens.
You have zero evidence of what that light was. For all you know, it was a laser light from a friend, staged to make them look cool.

And, yes, I blame the citizens for ruining a peaceful protest/vigil by being douchebags. And, if the police just came out because they felt like it, then provide evidence of that.

THE FACT IS, NO ONE KNOWS WHAT IS GOING ON, AND YOU CAN REST ASSURED NO ONE WILL BE OBJECTIVE.

http://38.media.tumblr.com...
Closed the streets to contain protest.
Problem with that?

Well, yes, actually. There's that whole right of the people to peacefully assemble thing somewhere in the Bill of Rights. I mean last time I checked. It could have changed. But the point of the picture was to show the gear the cops have. COPS. They look like soldiers!

Was that cops? Could they have been soldiers? The national guard?
You're taking things at face value.

http://31.media.tumblr.com...
Not eye witness testimony.

Those are examples of police brutality?
They are, but that isn't the issue of Ferguson, is it?

Frankly, you just sound like some anti-police fan who is in favor of this protest protesting against (seemingly) unjustified use of force. You seem to ignore how bias you are being, as evident in your lack of question answering.
What would you have the police do?
NOT USE TEAR GAS, FOR ONE.
Then what?
It is an illegal protest, in which, illegal other things are happening (looting).
AFTER POLICE GOT BRUTAL.
Site me evidence that the police weren't called out for some reason.

Do you believe all police are bad, or just a large enough percentage?

The system is corrupt. When police, POLICE, the people paid to protect us, start getting away with murder, the system is wrong.
Not an answer. In fact, not even relevant, since any system that can happen in.
If the latter, why do you not believe that a large enough percentage of protesters are using this to have their own fun (looting, mayhem, fame, lawsuit, or even actual bad intentions of hurting others: police or bystanders)?

One, these protesters aren't doing that? It only seemed to happen day in the minority. I mean, when police are using rubber bullets and tear gas, fair game if you ask me.
Aren't they? How do you know? Why do you assume? I've heard reports they are.
After all, you yourself have said there is no evidence of anything.
No, I didn't, and you know that. I said reporters aren't being allowed to report. There are people, in Ferguson, that are giving out pictures and information.
And people are
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2014 1:52:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/15/2014 1:44:28 PM, Enji wrote:
At 8/15/2014 1:35:07 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
People are making it sound like the police had no business there, but you say they did. Ergo, the police aren't the "bad guys" inherently, since if the "bad protester" weren't bad, the police would have had no reason to be there.

I think characterisations like"good police, bad protesters" or "bad police, good protesters" are overly simplistic. Are the protests justified? I think there's good reasons to believe so. Is a police response justified? Certainly. But there have been poor decisions and actions by both the police and the protesters.

Yep.
And that is what I'm trying to get across to people, but their hatred for police is too great.
My work here is, finally, done.
The_Immortal_Emris
Posts: 474
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2014 1:58:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/15/2014 1:52:25 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 8/15/2014 1:44:28 PM, Enji wrote:
At 8/15/2014 1:35:07 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
People are making it sound like the police had no business there, but you say they did. Ergo, the police aren't the "bad guys" inherently, since if the "bad protester" weren't bad, the police would have had no reason to be there.

I think characterisations like"good police, bad protesters" or "bad police, good protesters" are overly simplistic. Are the protests justified? I think there's good reasons to believe so. Is a police response justified? Certainly. But there have been poor decisions and actions by both the police and the protesters.

Yep.
And that is what I'm trying to get across to people, but their hatred for police is too great.

No, you're trying to depict the police as blameless in all of this, when they are the root cause.
YaHey
Posts: 43
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2014 2:03:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I don't know, not go into a civil space with freaking war equipment? Handle the situation peacefully. RESPECT THE FIRST AMENDMENT.

Why, the reason the police responded in the first place was due to infringement on it?
What?
But, to be clear, you have no idea, but damn the police for doing something? Got it.
No, I do. You pretend I dont. Hasn't worked yet.

2. Tear gas is illegal in war, yes. Any idea why that is? Is it because soldiers don't cry?
http://www.washingtonpost.com...
According to this, police tear gas is less than other countries, which implies that the use by police is not military grade at all.

Oh, then by all means, chuck it at the protesters. What first amendment?
You can wave the first amendment all you want, but you haven't established any facts that suggest there is a breach.

Where was the protest? In the street, impeding traffic and others' right to assemble?
In a public park or square, doing the same thing? Or was it on private property?
You're so f*cking stupid.
How long was the vigil? An hour before police tried to break it up? Five hours? One day?
Did they have a permit?
Why did the police intervene in the first place? Calls about looting? Loud noise? No reason except they are racists and aggressors?
DO YOU OFTEN SHOW UP TO A F*CKING VIGIL WITH DOGS? HUH?

Which occured first, the reason the police were there in the first place, or the non-peaceful acts of some protestors?
There were protests, and the police responded with violence. They would have gotten away with it too if it weren't for those pesky citizens with cell phones!

No, the overall group DIDNT turn violent after the tear gas. In fact, even then only a small minority did.
And, how do you route out the bad apples?

I guess by just f*cking the entire group.
Unfortunately, yes.
The bad apples can't hide in the crowd to get away, or use the protest as cover.
F*ck you.


While the police aren't letting journalists report (bye-bye, first amendment), which is some shady stuff in itself, there are people taking pictures and tweeting them. The infor that has gotten out is from eyewitnesses.

Journalists aren't allowed everywhere.
Pretty sure they don't get to go into a bank with hostages.
I can think of a few reasons for this. Can you?

Reporters are allowed to at least report on such an event, no? They are literally shutting down journalists. Two were arrested at a McDonald's just NEAR a protest!
Source?
Are you saying there is a gag order?
Are you saying gag orders are unconstitutional?
http://dcist.com...

http://37.media.tumblr.com...

I saw no gun, so not sure who or what that light is.
Also, it's generally not a good idea to up the ante if you are concerned with police brutality.

Oh yes, let's blame the citizens.
You have zero evidence of what that light was. For all you know, it was a laser light from a friend, staged to make them look cool.
I think what should be taken away here is that there were actually snipers and they were being pointed at the crowd. http://www.infowars.com...

And, yes, I blame the citizens for ruining a peaceful protest/vigil by being douchebags. And, if the police just came out because they felt like it, then provide evidence of that.

THE FACT IS, NO ONE KNOWS WHAT IS GOING ON, AND YOU CAN REST ASSURED NO ONE WILL BE OBJECTIVE.
I see military equipment on cops and using brutal tactics on US citizens. I see a police force stopping information from being spread.

http://38.media.tumblr.com...
Closed the streets to contain protest.
Problem with that?

Well, yes, actually. There's that whole right of the people to peacefully assemble thing somewhere in the Bill of Rights. I mean last time I checked. It could have changed. But the point of the picture was to show the gear the cops have. COPS. They look like soldiers!

Was that cops? Could they have been soldiers? The national guard?
You're taking things at face value.
http://hw.infowars.com... IT SAYS POLICE ON THEIR GEAR

http://31.media.tumblr.com...
Not eye witness testimony.

Those are examples of police brutality?
They are, but that isn't the issue of Ferguson, is it?
To quote, "Mike Brown is shot ten times by Ferguson police..."

Frankly, you just sound like some anti-police fan who is in favor of this protest protesting against (seemingly) unjustified use of force. You seem to ignore how bias you are being, as evident in your lack of question answering.
What would you have the police do?
NOT USE TEAR GAS, FOR ONE.
Then what?
I'm not the police. I'm not the one trained and paid to protect the US citizens.
It is an illegal protest, in which, illegal other things are happening (looting).
AFTER POLICE GOT BRUTAL.
Site me evidence that the police weren't called out for some reason.
http://www.washingtonpost.com...

Do you believe all police are bad, or just a large enough percentage?

The system is corrupt. When police, POLICE, the people paid to protect us, start getting away with murder, the system is wrong.
Not an answer. In fact, not even relevant, since any system that can happen in.
???????
If the latter, why do you not believe that a large enough percentage of protesters are using this to have their own fun (looting, mayhem, fame, lawsuit, or even actual bad intentions of hurting others: police or bystanders)?

One, these protesters aren't doing that? It only seemed to happen day in the minority. I mean, when police are using rubber bullets and tear gas, fair game if you ask me.
Aren't they? How do you know? Why do you assume? I've heard reports they are.
A small group did it. It's not letting me respond to anything past this.
YaHey
Posts: 43
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2014 2:05:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/15/2014 1:52:25 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 8/15/2014 1:44:28 PM, Enji wrote:
At 8/15/2014 1:35:07 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
People are making it sound like the police had no business there, but you say they did. Ergo, the police aren't the "bad guys" inherently, since if the "bad protester" weren't bad, the police would have had no reason to be there.

I think characterisations like"good police, bad protesters" or "bad police, good protesters" are overly simplistic. Are the protests justified? I think there's good reasons to believe so. Is a police response justified? Certainly. But there have been poor decisions and actions by both the police and the protesters.

Yep.
And that is what I'm trying to get across to people, but their hatred for police is too great.
Escuse me if I am not sympathetic to people that systematically brutalizing US citizens for peacefully protesting and getting away with murder.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2014 2:08:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/15/2014 1:41:07 PM, The_Immortal_Emris wrote:
At 8/15/2014 1:31:52 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 8/15/2014 1:19:22 PM, The_Immortal_Emris wrote:
At 8/15/2014 12:47:04 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 8/15/2014 12:43:26 PM, YaHey wrote:
At 8/15/2014 12:38:35 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 8/15/2014 11:30:59 AM, Enji wrote:
At 8/15/2014 6:32:45 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
I heard it was:
1. a riot

I wasn't aware the media could just walk through a crime scene, my house, or wherever they pleased. Their speech is protected, not their access.

Well, I'm glad to inform you of where you are ignorant.

1. A city street is not a crime scene, it is a city street.
Then they are loitering, jaywalking, and impeding traffic. All crimes.
Also, my city has a curfew for teens. Does yours?
2. No martial law was imposed, no curfew, the media was present legally. They were then attacked.
Source please. I've heard from people here they were being barred access first, and now this. So, I'm confused.
3. Their access IS protected when it's a PUBLIC STREET.
Not if it is a crime scene.
A driveby is in the city street, and media can't just walk through it, can they?
4. If they have permission, media can stand on private property, and police can say NOTHING about it, unless martial law is imposed.
True, but this is likely not the case here.
And, are you saying that if a hostage scene goes down in my house, the police can't stop journalists from entering?

Take a media law class.
Any student of law knows to ensure that laws vary from state to state, and city to city.

The overall group may have turned violent after the tear gas, but it doesn't mean there weren't issues. Were they trespassing? Looting? Battering?

Not until after police brutality began.
Since you seem level headed, I want you to walk me through this. What exactly happened? Why did the police show up, and try to break up the vigil? Did they try peacefully first or just start with the tear gas?

Except social media exists now, so this hypothetical is already disproved. The police caused the explosion in violence when they brought attack dogs and swat teams to a peaceful candle light vigil, then refused to release any information regarding the state of the investigation.
What hypothetical?

The idiotic one you presented.
I take back my level-headed comment.

Do you really think someone is going to report on some looters/trespasser/etc?

Yes. Because they do and continue to. What closed minded echo chamber are you living in?
It takes a might ethical person to tweet that the police had reason to tear gas a crowd he was in because there was shenanigans going on.
A journalist would. A protester, after being gassed for it, is likely not.

This assumes:
1. the looter is stupid enough to say "I did this"

No, it only requires them to be caught on camera, which they were. Your willful ignorance is astounding.
Oh good, and looting was only after the police arrived?

2. the peaceful protesters are aware of what others are doing
Oh, are they omnipresent now? Omniscient?
Of course they're not, which is why a true full objective story is not. To some protesters, the police showed up for no reason, and gassed them. Naturally, they're be angry.
Neither are likely.
Neither are necessary.

As far as using tear gas goes, what would you have riot police do?

Not shoot innocent and peaceful civilians with gas and rubber bullets.
Not an answer.

Yeah, it is. Don't shoot protesters with tear gas, don't shoot the media with rubber bullets and tear gas. This is simple $hit.

Telling them what not to do is not the same as telling them what they should have done.
They respond to a protest (for some reason). What should they have done?

Because this is AMERICA. Where we have the right to assembly.
Not if it infringes upon the rights of others, and even a peaceful protest does that.

You're obviously ignorant of the rights given by the constitution. Peaceful protests are not illegal, and do not infringe upon the rights of others, as they are peaceful protests.

Oh, so I can just start a parade down the middle of the street. That doesn't affect anyone else?

Read the first amendment.
I have.
Now, tell me, where does it say that your right to assemble trumps my ability to get to work?
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2014 2:10:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/15/2014 1:58:30 PM, The_Immortal_Emris wrote:
At 8/15/2014 1:52:25 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 8/15/2014 1:44:28 PM, Enji wrote:
At 8/15/2014 1:35:07 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
People are making it sound like the police had no business there, but you say they did. Ergo, the police aren't the "bad guys" inherently, since if the "bad protester" weren't bad, the police would have had no reason to be there.

I think characterisations like"good police, bad protesters" or "bad police, good protesters" are overly simplistic. Are the protests justified? I think there's good reasons to believe so. Is a police response justified? Certainly. But there have been poor decisions and actions by both the police and the protesters.

Yep.
And that is what I'm trying to get across to people, but their hatred for police is too great.

No, you're trying to depict the police as blameless in all of this, when they are the root cause.

I'm not assigning blame to anyone, since I don't know what happened.
I get tired of the police getting blamed for everything when it comes to protests. I've been to a few, and there are almost always stupid people that take it too far.

I am assuming the police had a reason to be there. If they didn't, then what transpired is their fault.
If they did, and the protest got ugly, then they are to blame....at least in part.
My work here is, finally, done.
YaHey
Posts: 43
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2014 2:16:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/15/2014 2:08:05 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 8/15/2014 1:41:07 PM, The_Immortal_Emris wrote:
At 8/15/2014 1:31:52 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 8/15/2014 1:19:22 PM, The_Immortal_Emris wrote:
At 8/15/2014 12:47:04 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 8/15/2014 12:43:26 PM, YaHey wrote:
At 8/15/2014 12:38:35 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 8/15/2014 11:30:59 AM, Enji wrote:
At 8/15/2014 6:32:45 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
I heard it was:
1. a riot

I wasn't aware the media could just walk through a crime scene, my house, or wherever they pleased. Their speech is protected, not their access.

Well, I'm glad to inform you of where you are ignorant.

1. A city street is not a crime scene, it is a city street.
Then they are loitering, jaywalking, and impeding traffic. All crimes.
Also, my city has a curfew for teens. Does yours?
This is protesting. A legal right.
2. No martial law was imposed, no curfew, the media was present legally. They were then attacked.
Source please. I've heard from people here they were being barred access first, and now this. So, I'm confused.
Both are happening. Helicopters are being barred, and the journalists that get in are getting attacked.
3. Their access IS protected when it's a PUBLIC STREET.
Not if it is a crime scene.
A driveby is in the city street, and media can't just walk through it, can they?
This isn't a crime scene? This is a legal protests. False analogy, anybody?
4. If they have permission, media can stand on private property, and police can say NOTHING about it, unless martial law is imposed.
True, but this is likely not the case here.
And, are you saying that if a hostage scene goes down in my house, the police can't stop journalists from entering?

This isn't a hostage situation????????

Take a media law class.
Any student of law knows to ensure that laws vary from state to state, and city to city.

The overall group may have turned violent after the tear gas, but it doesn't mean there weren't issues. Were they trespassing? Looting? Battering?

Not until after police brutality began.
Since you seem level headed, I want you to walk me through this. What exactly happened? Why did the police show up, and try to break up the vigil? Did they try peacefully first or just start with the tear gas?

Except social media exists now, so this hypothetical is already disproved. The police caused the explosion in violence when they brought attack dogs and swat teams to a peaceful candle light vigil, then refused to release any information regarding the state of the investigation.
What hypothetical?

The idiotic one you presented.
I take back my level-headed comment.

Do you really think someone is going to report on some looters/trespasser/etc?

Yes. Because they do and continue to. What closed minded echo chamber are you living in?
It takes a might ethical person to tweet that the police had reason to tear gas a crowd he was in because there was shenanigans going on.
A journalist would. A protester, after being gassed for it, is likely not.
But it happened. What are you even arguing here?

This assumes:
1. the looter is stupid enough to say "I did this"

No, it only requires them to be caught on camera, which they were. Your willful ignorance is astounding.
Oh good, and looting was only after the police arrived?
Yep.

2. the peaceful protesters are aware of what others are doing
Oh, are they omnipresent now? Omniscient?
Of course they're not, which is why a true full objective story is not. To some protesters, the police showed up for no reason, and gassed them. Naturally, they're be angry.
Neither are likely.
Neither are necessary.

As far as using tear gas goes, what would you have riot police do?

Not shoot innocent and peaceful civilians with gas and rubber bullets.
Not an answer.

Yeah, it is. Don't shoot protesters with tear gas, don't shoot the media with rubber bullets and tear gas. This is simple $hit.

Telling them what not to do is not the same as telling them what they should have done.
It's not our job to tell them what to do, but I can sure as hell tell them what not to do.
They respond to a protest (for some reason). What should they have done?
NOTHING. Because it's a protest and we have the right to do that!

Because this is AMERICA. Where we have the right to assembly.
Not if it infringes upon the rights of others, and even a peaceful protest does that.

You're obviously ignorant of the rights given by the constitution. Peaceful protests are not illegal, and do not infringe upon the rights of others, as they are peaceful protests.

Oh, so I can just start a parade down the middle of the street. That doesn't affect anyone else?
A parade isn't a protest.

Read the first amendment.
I have.
Now, tell me, where does it say that your right to assemble trumps my ability to get to work?
It never says you have the right to work. In fact, if that was true, there wouldn't be a problem with jobs.