I've never seen a peaceful protestor wearing a balaclava, neither have I seen a "crowd" of peaceful protestors looking so happy at someone throwing a burning object at the police. Stop with the mental gymnastics.BiscuitTrouser said:
Rampant Police Brutality and Media censorship in Ferguson Missouri
- Thread starter Ratty
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Really? A simple google of occupy wallstreet will prove that incorrect. Unless masks dont count as balaclavas.ToastiestZombie said:
The object is a tear gas container. I would be happy to not be tear gassed, this isnt what i call mental gymnastics. This is the idea tear gas isnt a nice thing. This also explains the balaclavas. Tear gas isnt particularly pleasant. If this logic is gymnastics i dont really know how to find logic more basic to not call gymnastics, the third picture looks exactly like what i saw it described as by the person who took it.
Im not attempting to make any point on either side, im just saying the third picture was posted alongside a tweet that explained the protester was throwing BACK a tear gas container to not be tear gassed. Ill find this as evidence, no need to act defencively, like i said the first 2 pictures show exactly what you say they do. Im not building a narrative im correcting a lack of information regarding 1/3rd of what you posted. I have no arguement with the other 2 as im not attempting to defend anything. Merely correct.
Sorry for sounding so angry in my unedited post. I'm just annoyed at people calling violent protestors peaceful because the police are violent too. Both sides have their good guys and opportunistic shitheads, and the guy in that picture looks to me to be the latter.Lilani said:
My point was that the guy in that picture did not look peaceful, neither did the people behind him. I'm not defending either side, but the notion that people can do no wrong if police brutality is involved is nonsense to me.BiscuitTrouser said:
I understand that, and its perfectly valid to think so without the text that accompanies the image explaining what is actually happening, with the context that its a teargas container the actions of all involved make perfect sense. Tear gas bad, throw back tear gas. Be happy you are not being tear gassed. This is why i made a post explaining the image and didnt make a post explaining the other two images.ToastiestZombie said:
Journalists have reported being tear gassed and fired upon by police with rubber rounds, unless the journalists joined the riot (Al Jazeer are definitely trying something new if they are fighting rather than filming!) , the masks make perfect sense in this environment. Even a priest was shot at WHILE praying. Its a dangerous environment for ANY protest. The masks i feel are very justified. As an aside before im profiled by you like you did with lilani (that was very intellectually weak thing to do btw) I actually generally like the police, here in the UK at any rate i respect our police very much and have had very pleasant dealings with them. Im just pointing out that masks usually accompany any protest where gas is employed and for good reason. Gas hurts.
Its good im not arguing that second point nor is anyone else here, because then we might have an argument rather than an arrangement of scarecrows
I jest but really of course your statement is perfectly true and important to remember.
I'm not trusting any sources in this because both sides are incredibly biased. The police side are looking to be the side with the most to hide but with the recent Zimmerman incident and many other examples of police/vigilante violence bias is extremely prevalent. So until we get news from an unbiased source nothing can change my views.BiscuitTrouser said:I understand that, and its perfectly valid to think so without the text that accompanies the image explaining what is actually happening, with the context that its a teargas container the actions of all involved make perfect sense. Tear gas bad, throw back tear gas. Be happy you are not being tear gassed. This is why i made a post explaining the image and didnt make a post explaining the other two images.ToastiestZombie said:
Its good im not arguing that second point nor is anyone else here, because then we might have an argument rather than an arrangement of scarecrows
I added a lot of tweets from a journalist who refused to leave despite the media blackout. He was as unbias as i could find, i hope his views would be considered worth while, while i dont want to upload his entire twitter account you can find some of what he wrote here:ToastiestZombie said:
https://twitter.com/WesleyLowery
Bu unbiased I mean detached. When you're the one being fired on it's hard to see the rioters burning down homes and shops and legitimaly attacking police, the police are making it incredibly hard for unbiased sources to show themselves but that doesn't diminish what either side are doing. That and in "racially charged" incidents like this my skepticism levels are much higher than normal.BiscuitTrouser said:
I would say the Police attempts to stop coverage from Al Jazeera and other legitimate news sources, as well as squelch civilian footage where they can be heard saying things like "Bring it you animals" speaks volumes in and of itself. I don't deny that there probably were some violent protestors, but the action of the police here appears to be completely out of proportion. Their attempts at covering up exactly what's going on supporting this.ToastiestZombie said:I'm not trusting any sources in this because both sides are incredibly biased. The police side are looking to be the side with the most to hide but with the recent Zimmerman incident and many other examples of police/vigilante violence bias is extremely prevalent. So until we get news from an unbiased source nothing can change my views.BiscuitTrouser said:I understand that, and its perfectly valid to think so without the text that accompanies the image explaining what is actually happening, with the context that its a teargas container the actions of all involved make perfect sense. Tear gas bad, throw back tear gas. Be happy you are not being tear gassed. This is why i made a post explaining the image and didnt make a post explaining the other two images.ToastiestZombie said:
Its good im not arguing that second point nor is anyone else here, because then we might have an argument rather than an arrangement of scarecrows
Not to mention the fact that rolling up to a memorial service of an unarmed teen one of your coworkers just murdered, decked out like you're getting ready to go to war, is a provocative act to say the least.
Thats fine, but Al Jazeera really attempted to do that and had their cameras taken apart illegally. It seems like you sort of have a self fulfilling prophecy. Unbias source moves in, are attacked or stopped, becomes bias source by default. I appreciate that you have good reasons to stay skeptical, but im happy to have a working opinion based on what i have at the moment subject to change when more comes to light.ToastiestZombie said:
Ratty said:
Oh, you're misunderstanding me. I'm not denying either side and audio/visual(not just a picture) evidence with no ambiguity I'm not skeptical about. But "eyewitness accounts" and stories are what I'm careful around. And like I said in my first post both sides have their pricks which in the end means no real progress will come out of it. I'm gonna leave the debate now and go do something else that isn't about the breakdown of societal values and police power.BiscuitTrouser said:
But doesn't that basically mean that anybody who was still around to report after the media blackout was issued automatically counts as biased? Or to put it plainly: Anybody in a position to report the truth will uinevitably fit your description of "biased."ToastiestZombie said:
EDIT: Looks like somebody else asked this, and you replied.
Basically yes, which is a massive problem caused by the police. Media blackouts are one of the worst ways to deal with anything like this because it keeps detached, unbiased sources out and only leaves sources which can outright lie (on both sides) and their lies will be believed.Queen Michael said:
The problem is not the fact that they responded to violent protesters, it's the degree of the response and the fact that both violent and peaceful protesters are seeing the same tactics and material being deployed against them. We're seeing cops that are barely indistinguishable from soldiers, we're seeing the press being shut down, we're seeing sniper rifles being trained on your average protesters.generals3 said:
It's not the fact that there is a response to the violent parts of the protests, it's that the nature of the response is absolutely out of proportion. I mean, just take a look at war veterans replying to this, the tweets I posted before. And they were up against heavily armed extremist insurgents. What's the St. Louis police up against right now? At worst, hoodlums.
Something seemed to have gone incredibly wrong with American police forces in the past two decades. Cops were trained and equiped as soldiers to fight the war on drugs and terror. And now they're having to deal with regular police work and look how that's working out. As another veteran tweeted:
St. Louis county police seemed to be unable to figure that one out.
Also, I can never find something about the protests being illegal.
It's amazing how carrying loaded assault rifles into a restaurant in the same state [http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/05/nyregion/after-eric-garner-chokehold-prosecuting-police-is-an-option.html?_r=0] walk away because 2nd Amendment.Ratty said:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Open-carry-Chipotle-even-via-Facebook-615x345.png
Say, where are the gun rights activists and their well-armed militia? Aren't they going to come to Ferguson and exercise their 2nd Amendment rights by fighting against the oppression of an overreaching government?
Oh wait, never mind, it's only worth the effort when it's white people trouble [http://www.webcitation.org/6Pbb0yeTv].
You have peaceful protesters and then you have those that ruin it by attacking the police and trashing the police. Its hardly a fitting way for the victim to be remembered. It wont even be about his unlawful - it will be about black people rioting and burning their neighbourhood. Its just plays up to the sterotype.
In the UK we had some issues with the police. Now they are soon going to have the police where a camera so they film everything and that way any cases of racist issues will be easily dealt with. Maybe this should be something the USA should do also.....especially as the police carry guns.
In the UK we had some issues with the police. Now they are soon going to have the police where a camera so they film everything and that way any cases of racist issues will be easily dealt with. Maybe this should be something the USA should do also.....especially as the police carry guns.
First of all i would be quite saddened by any police force who would just not show up in case of riots and just let the innocent civilians suck it up. You know the difference between a cop and a soldier? A soldier's job is not to uphold the law while a cop's is. Doing something illegal results in making it the cop's jobs to stop you. So them not being present would mean they suck at their job.Cowabungaa said:The problem is not the fact that they responded to violent protesters, it's the degree of the response and the fact that both violent and peaceful protesters are seeing the same tactics and material being deployed against them. We're seeing cops that are barely indistinguishable from soldiers, we're seeing the press being shut down, we're seeing sniper rifles being trained on your average protesters.
It's not the fact that there is a response to the violent parts of the protests, it's that the nature of the response is absolutely out of proportion. I mean, just take a look at war veterans replying to this, the tweets I posted before. And they were up against heavily armed extremist insurgents. What's the St. Louis police up against right now? At worst, hoodlums.
Something seemed to have gone incredibly wrong with American police forces in the past two decades. Cops were trained and equiped as soldiers to fight the war on drugs and terror. And now they're having to deal with regular police work and look how that's working out. As another veteran tweeted:
St. Louis county police seemed to be unable to figure that one out.
Also, I can never find something about the protests being illegal.
And I was replying to that particular video. Which shows a bunch of provocateurs purposely ignoring various warnings and starting the hostilities. (And yes i know it were only two bottles thrown in total and many didn't initiate violence, but as a cop you have no way to know who threw them and also no way to know how it's going to stop at that)
And when it comes to legality, correct me if i'm wrong, but i'd assume standing in the middle of the streets making lots of noise at night is de-facto illegal.