Merged The Disturbences in Ferguson Missouri...

The Central Scrutinizer said:
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.
Click to expand...

And? You wanted evidence, there is video evidence, and you refuse to watch it because of anti-GMO nuts and others who link to YouTube? That's a dodge. Anti-GMO people also link to news articles, and type out reasoning, so are you going to ignore evidence in news articles or typed out reasoning? (Oh, wait...)

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.
Click to expand...

No, you are not being a true skeptic and yes you are advancing a narrative. Have the intellectual fortitude to make an argument and support it publicly. You are trying, very hard, to paint all the protestors are looters, thugs, and troublemakers. There are those, but there are also actual peaceful protestors, legitimate journalists, and people defending their community from the troublemakers. You also try to paint all the police actions as justified. Some of them are, but there are also undeniable over-reaches and abuses.

The grand jury isn't discussing the disturbances in Ferguson. Whatever they find would not justify looting or bad police actions. That's a non-sequiter.


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

Your question is meaningless. Support it with reasoning. JAQing isn't a True SkepticTM tactic.
 
tyr_13 said:
Whatever they find would not justify looting or bad police actions.
Click to expand...

What does justify at least some of these actions (of course, without context, we don't know the exact circumstances surrounding each particular event) is the shooting of civilians, looting, arson, assault against police, etc. necessitated a state of emergency proclamation which armed the police with these powers -- and responsibilities.

You cannot objectively evaluate police response without also evaluating what they were responding to.
 
Cylinder said:
What does justify at least some of these actions (of course, without context, we don't know the exact circumstances surrounding each particular event) is the shooting of civilians, looting, arson, assault against police, etc. necessitated a state of emergency proclamation which armed the police with these powers -- and responsibilities.

You cannot objectively evaluate police response without also evaluating what they were responding to.
Click to expand...

Correct, and I'm not trying to. You also cannot evaluate if police actions were justified or not when you don't show what those actions were. 'There was looting, therefore the police were justified' is faulty reasoning. It leaves out what the police did. I believe there were very justified police actions, as well as completely unjustified police actions. Just as I believe there was both looting and people defending from looting. I believe these things based on the available evidence, which in this case includes video.
 
tyr_13 said:
Correct, and I'm not trying to. You also cannot evaluate if police actions were justified or not when you don't show what those actions were. 'There was looting, therefore the police were justified' is faulty reasoning. It leaves out what the police did. I believe there were very justified police actions, as well as completely unjustified police actions. Just as I believe there was both looting and people defending from looting. I believe these things based on the available evidence, which in this case includes video.
Click to expand...

Indeed, and there is significant evidence that the police acted beyond their legal powers in trying to control the press. The reporter for the Washington post made accusations of brutality whilst he was being wrongfully arrested. Given that the disturbances were founded in part on a belief that the police were acting as though they were above the law, this is support for that narrative.
 
tyr_13 said:
Correct, and I'm not trying to. You also cannot evaluate if police actions were justified or not when you don't show what those actions were. 'There was looting, therefore the police were justified' is faulty reasoning. It leaves out what the police did. I believe there were very justified police actions, as well as completely unjustified police actions. Just as I believe there was both looting and people defending from looting. I believe these things based on the available evidence, which in this case includes video.
Click to expand...

The guy who made that last video I posted, either on his podcast or on a news show, pointed out that when the cops weren't driving towards them firing rubber bullets or tear gas, you could hear crickets in the background.

Crickets.

And he is correct.

I'm fine if police react to actual looting - but in this case, they often didn't. But they do have the time to dress in camo (which makes no sense except as intimidation), and point guns at some unarmed guy on the sidewalk. This is exactly what any responsible gun owner would *not* do.

I'll make it clear - when it comes down to it, this is not a story about the media. It's a story about the people who live in Ferguson who, whether right or wrong, believe that they are being vilified by the local police. Some fools rob a local business, so days later, and really one day before, the police insist that they can't be outside of their homes.

Now, let's get serious. The people who often insist that this is perfectly reasonable, are often the same people who insist that George Zimmerman, the guy who chased after a guy who was just "walking around, looking about", and who by his own admission shot and killed said guy, should not have been charged, because the person he was chasing was a "thug" or he was "making lean".

Hmm...
 
tyr_13 said:
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.





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.



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

He lives near there and he's been advancing a narrative that fits every piece of evidence that's come out: the robbery, Wilson's injuries to his face, Brown being shot in the car, tox report.

So I would pick Scrut as an "authority" over the people still clinging to the "gentle giant" narrative.
 
tyr_13 said:
And? You wanted evidence, there is video evidence, and you refuse to watch it because of anti-GMO nuts and others who link to YouTube? That's a dodge. Anti-GMO people also link to news articles, and type out reasoning, so are you going to ignore evidence in news articles or typed out reasoning? (Oh, wait...)



No, you are not being a true skeptic and yes you are advancing a narrative. Have the intellectual fortitude to make an argument and support it publicly. You are trying, very hard, to paint all the protestors are looters, thugs, and troublemakers. There are those, but there are also actual peaceful protestors, legitimate journalists, and people defending their community from the troublemakers. You also try to paint all the police actions as justified. Some of them are, but there are also undeniable over-reaches and abuses.

The grand jury isn't discussing the disturbances in Ferguson. Whatever they find would not justify looting or bad police actions. That's a non-sequiter.




Your question is meaningless. Support it with reasoning. JAQing isn't a True SkepticTM tactic.
Click to expand...

Question. Unanswered.
 
Fudbucker said:
He lives near there and he's been advancing a narrative that fits every piece of evidence that's come out: the robbery, Wilson's injuries to his face, Brown being shot in the car, tox report.

So I would pick Scrut as an "authority" over the people still clinging to the "gentle giant" narrative.
Click to expand...

Those are sometimes referred to as the "dead enders".
 
Fudbucker said:
He lives near there and he's been advancing a narrative that fits every piece of evidence that's come out: the robbery, Wilson's injuries to his face, Brown being shot in the car, tox report.

So I would pick Scrut as an "authority" over the people still clinging to the "gentle giant" narrative.
Click to expand...

Is anyone actually clinging to the "gentle giant " narrative? I don't think there is anyone on this thread.

I am saying that the police in Ferguson had a reputation for victimising a section of the population and acting with excessive force. When this all kicked off, they then behaved in a way that demonstrated a lack of respect for the law.

I consider that illegal actions by state agencies against citizens are more noteworthy and important than criminals doing what criminals do.
 
Fudbucker said:
He lives near there and he's been advancing a narrative that fits every piece of evidence that's come out: the robbery, Wilson's injuries to his face, Brown being shot in the car, tox report.

So I would pick Scrut as an "authority" over the people still clinging to the "gentle giant" narrative.
Click to expand...

This thread is not about if the Brown shooting was justified or not. That thread is here.

Even if it were on that subject, what you've said is still fallacious reasoning. What do the actions of the police after the shooting have to do with if the shooting was justified or not? More importantly because it's the subject of this thread, what does if the shooting was justified or not have to do with if the bad actions by police and protestors were justified or not? If the shooting had been unjustified, does that make the looting better? If the shooting is justified, does that make the tanks, rubber bullets, violence against reporters, lying to close airspace, and all the other power abuses good things? Of course not.

No one is still advancing the 'gentle giant' narrative here, and I never did. And also, Brown is dead. He wasn't looting and his actions could not possibly justify police actions now.

It's an easy trap to fall into, this black and white, us vs them, thinking. It is not, and could not be, that all the protestors are right and all the police wrong, or all the police are wrong and all the protestors right. Some of the protestors (most from what I've seen) have been decent, and many have gone out of their way to protect the community. Some have been very, very bad doing things like looting and other violence. Some of the police actions have been justified because of the latter, but much of the police actions have been beyond what is acceptable. It isn't as simple as 'police good, protestors bad' or the other way around. One can very well hold the view that the shooting was justified but other police actions haven't been, or the other way around, or a bunch of variables. Arguing against police abuse (either parsing of that phrase!) doesn't mean one is arguing about the nature of the Brown shooting at all.

The Central Scrutinizer said:
Question. Unanswered.
Click to expand...

You refuse to explain yourself. You don't care about the answer to your question. Your question deserves unanswered. Besides that, you seem to believe that you're in the best position to find that information, seeing as you're a True Skeptic and authority on this. So how about you look into it and provide us with the answer?

You don't care so you won't.
 
tyr_13 said:
You refuse to explain yourself. You don't care about the answer to your question. Your question deserves unanswered. Besides that, you seem to believe that you're in the best position to find that information, seeing as you're a True Skeptic and authority on this. So how about you look into it and provide us with the answer?
Click to expand...

Zero.

tyr_13 said:
You don't care so you won't.
Click to expand...

Apparently, you are incorrect.
 
The Central Scrutinizer said:
Zero.



Apparently, you are incorrect.
Click to expand...


You don't explain why your question is important, haven't expanded on reasoning, haven't tried to answer it yourself, so you don't care about the answer. It's rhetorical tactic trying to 'score points' like some debate format.

It would be pointless to try to answer your question because no one would have a way to know how exhaustive an answer you want, to which incidents, and who you would accept as a 'protestor'. You can move the goalpost all around because you haven't set a goalpost. If you cared about the answer, you'd see that there are several potential answers to your question, in this thread, before you asked it. You could expound on how those don't meet your expectations, but that would actually set goal posts. The only reason for your question is to bludgeon people that any answer is unacceptable. It's a trick, a trap. Stomp your feet all you want about people not wanting to play your game, but it doesn't advance your point or the discussion at all.

And again, you claim to be the one who could answer the question. Answer it.

I'm sure the local police appreciate the uncritical support of citizens like you as they drag reporters away.

EDIT: Anyone who might be under the illusion that his question has any validity can answer it with five seconds of Google searching.
 
Last edited:
The Central Scrutinizer said:
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.
Click to expand...

OK, and what has that to do with the price of fish?

The answer could be evidence that the local community has lost all trust in the police.


Even if it hasn't, how does that justify the wrongful arrests that have been well documented?
 
jimbob said:
OK, and what has that to do with the price of fish?

The answer could be evidence that the local community has lost all trust in the police.


Even if it hasn't, how does that justify the wrongful arrests that have been well documented?
Click to expand...

The Anonymous Operation #HoodsOff has been doxxing KKK members in MO. Among the usual gun-loving tea-partiers, you'll find cops, prison guards and lawyers. At least three Klan members were at the rally for Darren Wilson.

So yeah, maybe the black community has a reason to distrust the police and the legal system.
 
Jay Nixon's executive order declaring a state of emergency:

Executive Order 14-14
WHEREAS, the City of Ferguson and the St. Louis region have experienced periods of unrest over the past three months; and

WHEREAS, the United States Department of Justice and St. Louis County authorities are conducting separate criminal investigations into the facts surrounding the death of Michael Brown; and

WHEREAS, the United States Department of Justice and St. Louis County authorities could soon announce the findings of their independent criminal investigations; and

WHEREAS, regardless of the outcomes of the federal and state criminal investigations, there is the possibility of expanded unrest; and

WHEREAS, the State of Missouri will be prepared to appropriately respond to any reaction to these announcements; and

WHEREAS, our citizens have the right to peacefully assemble and protest and the State of Missouri is committed to protecting those rights; and

WHEREAS, our citizens and businesses must be protected from violence and damage; and

WHEREAS, an invocation of the provisions of Sections 44.010 through 44.130, RSMo, is appropriate to ensure the safety and welfare of our citizens.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, JEREMIAH W. (JAY) NIXON, GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF MISSOURI, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and Laws of the State of Missouri, including Sections 44.010 through 44.130, RSMo, do hereby declare a State of Emergency exists in the State of Missouri.

I further direct the Missouri State Highway Patrol together with the St. Louis County Police Department and the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department to operate as a Unified Command to protect civil rights and ensure public safety in the City of Ferguson and the St. Louis region.

I further order that the St. Louis County Police Department shall have command and operational control over security in the City of Ferguson relating to areas of protests, acts of civil disobedience and conduct otherwise arising from such activities.

I further order that the Unified Command may exercise operational authority in such other jurisdictions it deems necessary to protect civil rights and ensure public safety and that other law enforcement agencies shall assist the Unified Command when so requested and shall cooperate with operational directives of the Unified Command.

I further order, pursuant to Section 41.480, RSMo, the Adjutant General of the State of Missouri, or his designee, to forthwith call and order into active service such portions of the organized militia as he deems necessary to protect life and property and assist civilian authorities and it is further directed that the Adjutant General or his designee, and through him, the commanding officer of any unit or other organization of such organized militia so called into active service take such action and employ such equipment as may be necessary to carry out requests processed through the Missouri State Highway Patrol and ordered by the Governor of the state to protect life and property and support civilian authorities.

This Order shall expire in thirty days unless extended in whole or in part by subsequent Executive Order.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused to be affixed the Great Seal of the State of Missouri, in the City of Jefferson, on this 17th day of November, 2014.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon
Governor

ATTEST:

Jason Kander
Secretary of State​


TLDR version:

- A state of emergency exists in St. Louis county and other jurisdictions as determined by the Unified Command for 30 days unless extended by further executive order.

- The Missouri State Highway Patrol together with the St. Louis County Police Department and the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department will create a Unified Command to protect property and rights in the Ferguson and St Louis metro area.

- The SLCPD is in command of security inside Ferguson.

- The Missouri National Guard is instructed to activate organized militias [nudge, nudge]as needed. These forces are authorized to "take such action and employ such equipment as may be necessary to carry out requests processed through the Missouri State Highway Patrol and ordered by the Governor of the state to protect life and property and support civilian authorities."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom