Merged The Disturbences in Ferguson Missouri...

[WildCat]

Why are you pushing conspiracy theories?

Anyway, since it is not disputed that the police wildly overreacted to peaceful protestors, and that they have monitored social media in order to monitor said people, it's not a shock that, in the end, someone gets hurt over suspicions of posting plans on social media. It's sad, but it's very clear by now that the Ferguson police are not acting in the public's best interests.

What conspiracy theory did I push?

Some of the police response was an overreaction, but much of it was justified by the rioting and looting. And there would have no doubt been far more rioting and looting if the police had not responded in force.

 

[Mumbles]

What conspiracy theory did I push?

You claimed that that random guy in the picture was wearing a Cabela's hat, thus riots because something something.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

You claimed that that random guy in the picture was wearing a Cabela's hat, thus riots because something something.

Is he(?) the one who also defaced the mail box?

 

[Mumbles]

Is he(?) the one who also defaced the mail box?

TL: DR.

 

[WildCat]

You claimed that that random guy in the picture was wearing a Cabela's hat, thus riots because something something.

1. He was wearing a Cabela's hat. Here's a clearer picture.

2. I never said it had anything to do with riots.

Perhaps you should slow down and read what I wrote again.

 

[Aepervius]

Sort of like these "peaceful protestors"? You're at least partially right - most of them are on the sidewalk.

As always I have to ask whether this is a truly representative picture, IOW : most of the protester looted, or if this a unrepresentative one : IOW : some opportunist looted but most of the protester did not. I mentionned upthread why this is an important difference.

But I expect again that this will be lost in the rethoric noise.

 

[Mumbles]

As always I have to ask whether this is a truly representative picture, IOW : most of the protester looted, or if this a unrepresentative one : IOW : some opportunist looted but most of the protester did not. I mentionned upthread why this is an important difference.

But I expect again that this will be lost in the rethoric noise.

No, I agree, this is very important. And from everything I've seen, the answer is this: the looters were outliers among NG the protesters, and were actively denounced by the majority of protesters, but the cops in camouflage for no apparent reason, pointing guns at people, were representative of the police who were monitoring the protests.

You are, of course, free to make your own judgement on this. I've linked to people getting tear-gassed while standing in their back yards, recording footage for a news network, and so forth. There's plenty more like that, as any search engine should reveal.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

No, I agree, this is very important. And from everything I've seen, the answer is this: the looters were outliers among NG the protesters, and were actively denounced by the majority of protesters, but the cops in camouflage for no apparent reason, pointing guns at people, were representative of the police who were monitoring the protests.

I wonder how many of the peaceful protestors alerted the police when they saw thugs breaking into stores or throwing rocks? Probably the same number who called the police when the other peaceful protestors attacked the useful idiot in the church.

 

[tyr_13]

I wonder how many of the peaceful protestors alerted the police when they saw thugs breaking into stores or throwing rocks? Probably the same number who called the police when the other peaceful protestors attacked the useful idiot in the church.

As a matter of fact, several protestors started guarding the stores physically. They stood there, with cameras and cell phones ready, and prevented looting or more looting.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

As a matter of fact, several protestors started guarding the stores physically. They stood there, with cameras and cell phones ready, and prevented looting or more looting.

Perhaps they should have started earlier.

But it still doesn't answer my question.

 

[jimbob]

I don't, but I suspect the United States Post Office might.

As far as the rest goes: yt;dw

In this case the videos are not presenting arguments, where I would agree with you, the videos are evidence.

 

[Mumbles]

Perhaps they should have started earlier.

But it still doesn't answer my question.

Let's stop, right here.

You have now claimed that you are ignorant about what is going on in Ferguson. That's fine, but why are you trying to argue about what is going on there, after that admission?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

You have now claimed that you are ignorant about what is going on in Ferguson.

Where did I "claim" that?

Ironically, being about 10 miles away, I probably know more about what is going on than anyone else in this thread.

 

[Mumbles]

Where did I "claim" that?

Right here:

No, I refuse to watch videos. I don't have time.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Right here:

LOL!!! Yeah. No.

 

[tyr_13]

Perhaps they should have started earlier.

But it still doesn't answer my question.

It doesn't answer the question you literally asked but answers the insinuation you were making very well.

If you have an argument to make, make it openly and then maybe someone will care to try to answer your literal question.

Where did I "claim" that?

Ironically, being about 10 miles away, I probably know more about what is going on than anyone else in this thread.

Appeal to authority.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

It doesn't answer the question you literally asked but answers the insinuation you were making very well.

If you have an argument to make, make it openly and then maybe someone will care to try to answer your literal question.

Not making an argument, just gathering evidence.

Appeal to authority.

It's not an appeal to authority if someone is an authority. I hear/read a lot of things locally that never gets reported nationally.

 

[rwguinn]

It doesn't answer the question you literally asked but answers the insinuation you were making very well.

If you have an argument to make, make it openly and then maybe someone will care to try to answer your literal question.



Appeal to [bold] legitimate [/bold] authority.

ftfy

 

[tyr_13]

Not making an argument, just gathering evidence.

I do not believe you. You deliberately hand wave or by your own admission ignore evidence when it is presented to you. You're attempting to advance a narrative, and 'I'm just asking questions' should rightfully be laughed at on a skeptics board.

It's not an appeal to authority if someone is an authority. I hear/read a lot of things locally that never gets reported nationally.

And you, by your own words, ignore a lot of other evidence. You living there might give you to opportunity to see some evidence not widely available otherwise, but that by no means means you're actually availing yourself of that opportunity. Coming from someone who has already prided themselves on not looking at evidence presented, I doubt that you have.

You are not an authority simply because you live near there if you can't address the evidence others have provided and are not providing evidence yourself.

ftfy

He's not an authority (on this aspect) because he lives near there. Others live near there who are not advancing the same narrative.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I do not believe you. You deliberately hand wave or by your own admission ignore evidence when it is presented to you. You're attempting to advance a narrative, and 'I'm just asking questions' should rightfully be laughed at on a skeptics board.

When you ask anti-GMO nutwads a question about GMOs, invariable you are met with "here, watch this video". I don't do it then, so there's no reason to do it now. I don't have the time nor the interest.

He's not an authority (on this aspect) because he lives near there. Others live near there who are not advancing the same narrative.

I'm not advancing any narrative. Being a true skeptic, I'm waiting for the evidence to be evaluated. Thankfully, the grand jury is doing that now.

Of course, my question still hasn't been answered.