One News Page reports:
A reporter for Glenn Greenwald's news agency, the Intercept, is the latest to be targeted by police in Ferguson, Mo.
Intercept editor-in-chief John Cook said a St. Louis County police tactical team shot reporter Ryan Devereaux in the back with a non-lethal projectile and subsequently arrested while him while his hands were raised in the air and he shouted, "Press! Press! Press!"
Cook said the police also shot Lukas Hermsmeier, a German reporter for De Bild, with a projectile and arrested him.
The Freedom of the Press Foundation reports that at least 13 journalists have been arrested in Ferguson, Missouri since August 13 amid the protests.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
More Journalists Arrested Covering Ferguson Protests
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 73 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by ksarka on Thursday August 21 2014, @08:32PM
Hey, this sounds like a nice starting ground for a good, relaxing civil war!
(Score: 5, Insightful) by BsAtHome on Thursday August 21 2014, @09:15PM
Civil war is when you have opposing sides of (ideological) groups confronting each other.
When the people riot and fight against the government, it is called revolution.
Either way, people get killed, sanity is lost and the result is never predictable. Everybody loses and the outcome is rather unpredictable. I share the sentiment that a "fight" can clear the air, but it is not a good starting point and it will cause lots of resentment on many fronts for a long time to come.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Nerdfest on Thursday August 21 2014, @09:19PM
Frequently the "everybody loses" part is only short-term. As things are going right now, a significant percentage seem to be losing anyway.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by BsAtHome on Thursday August 21 2014, @10:38PM
I do not condone the current situation. It is wrong, plain and simple. Oppression and inequality are wrong IMO and so is violence.
However, an eye for an eye reaction is not preferred as it (often) results in extremes on /both/ sides and that means everybody loses more than just lives. There surely are situations where you cannot get around if both sides refuse to change. The reactions are understandable, maybe inevitable, but that does not make them right.
No conflict can be resolved with violence unless one side is completely wiped out. If the status quo changes based on suppression or reversed oppression, then you have not resolved the problem and just created a new starting point for a new conflict in the future.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Freeman on Thursday August 21 2014, @10:56PM
By your standards, the American Revolution would have only worked, if we wiped out Great Britain. I also doubt that the French Revolution completely wiped out the other side.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday August 22 2014, @03:29PM
Britain was occupying a different continent for monetary reasons (mercantilism [wikipedia.org]). Add in the colonists "defending" their homes, and after a certain point it becomes more trouble than it's worth. Armies are expensive (just look at our budget). At least Britain had the good sense to call it off after only...8 years. Hmmm. Okay forget that last part.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Friday August 22 2014, @07:02PM
You left out that this was a side-show war, and that the real focus was on trouble with France.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by PinkyGigglebrain on Friday August 22 2014, @01:36AM
I agree with you that vilence is the last resort but as JFK once said
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
If the government keeps suppressing/ignoring peoples rights and continues to impose a police state in spite of peaceful attempts to make changes through voting and legal action the only option that will be left will be to get violent.
.
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 22 2014, @02:16AM
While not advocating violence, this does give me hope that the spirit of your forefathers may still be alive in some of you.
Although, in spite of modern pretence, neoliberalism is not the path to freedom.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Friday August 22 2014, @04:42PM
>Oppression and inequality are wrong IMO and so is violence.
No, violence is not wrong. How else are you going to stop oppression and inequality? Appealing to the humanity of the oppressors? That didn't exactly work with Nazi Germany, did it? When the oppressors only understand force, the only thing that'll stop them is force.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Friday August 22 2014, @07:11PM
Are you arguing tactics, strategy, or morality?
In the case of morality, the traditional spokesmen (i.e. those that various power structures allowed to transmit their words) you are correct. And clearly Ghandi and Martin Luther King agreed with you.
In the case of tactics, you are often wrong, but right when the other side has more available physical power.
In the case of strategy...this depends on your nature and the nature of your opponent. If you think that he's more like a Nazi than like a British trooper in India, then violence is the only viable path. If you think he has not divorced himself from traditional morality, and feels guilt at injuring the harmless, then non-violence can, with sufficient discipline, be very effective. But you've got to be prepared for many of your people to be killed and maimed without your reacting if you hope to be effective. Dedicated followers of this path have even set themselves on fire as a form of protest. Sometimes it's quite effective, but could *you* do that?
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Friday August 29 2014, @12:45AM
Me? Hell no. I don't believe in killing myself to further a goal. I believe in survival, but that doesn't mean avoiding all risks. But I'm not going to kill myself so that I can avoid killing other people who are doing evil, in order to stop oppression. I'd rather kill the oppressors.
I guess I just don't believe much in appealing to the humanity of the oppressors. I feel the losses are too great and that it's more just to use force. The only way the nonviolent path, IMO, is worth it, is if the amount of suffering and losses on your side (the oppressed) is less than by choosing the violent route. (Obviously, quantifying both routes with any accuracy is rather difficult.) I don't give a shit about the side of the oppressors and what losses they take; they earned this treatment by being oppressors.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 21 2014, @08:36PM
That was the title, as submitted.
The editor didn't think that the gunshots were significant enough to include in the re-vamped title. 8-(
The cops are still shooting people.
The cops are still aiming at people's backs.
No lessons have been learned in Missouri.
The "Protect and Serve" motto that is on the side of so many police cars in the USA should be change in many places to "Occupy and Suppress".
-- gewg_
(Score: 2) by nukkel on Thursday August 21 2014, @08:42PM
Or as in Grand Theft Auto V: "Obey and Survive"
(Score: 5, Insightful) by JeanCroix on Thursday August 21 2014, @08:44PM
(Score: 5, Informative) by takyon on Thursday August 21 2014, @08:46PM
Here is another aspect to the story, about the second killing:
Cell Phone Video Contradicts Police Report on St. Louis Shooting Death [photographyisnotacrime.com]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0, Troll) by Hairyfeet on Thursday August 21 2014, @09:37PM
Sorry but I've watched the video and its classic "suicide by cop". he robs a store, sits the cokes on the middle of the sidewalk and threatens anybody that walks near them and when the cops show up he immediately starts going for them while saying things like "shoot me fucker" while pulling a knife. As for those that say "why didn't they use a taser" the answer is simple...the taser is NOT a replacement for the gun, its a replacement for the nightstick which is why I was against them in the first place as its only really used AFTER they have the situation somewhat under control and then its used....well as a torture device really. Its NOT gonna keep 'em off you if they are within 10 feet (as the suspect was) and its really easy to miss with them when compared to a pistol...they are kinda pointless really.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 21 2014, @09:55PM
the taser is NOT a replacement for the gun, its a replacement for the nightstick
That's just outright false. They are called "less-lethal weapons" because they are less lethal than a gun, not because they are more lethal than a nightstick. Taser's own propaganda [taser.com] explicitly refers to firearms fatalities.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 22 2014, @12:19AM
the taser is NOT a replacement for the gun, its a replacement for the nightstick
That's just outright false. They are called "less-lethal weapons" because they are less lethal than a gun, not because they are more lethal than a nightstick. Taser's own propaganda explicitly refers to firearms fatalities.
I think the GP didn't mean the marketing. I think he was suggesting that a taser as a replacement for firearm is bogus. If he wasn't, I will. The excuse for providing LEO's with tasers is usually that they are less lethal than a gun. The reality is, if someone has to react quickly to a possibly lethal situation and their choices are:
A: a single shot weapon that may or may not stop the other guy from stabbing/shooting them (either through missing, or just because they don't always stop people)
B: a multiple shot weapon that, if it is not effective with the first shot, you can keep trying.
The person that picks 'A' is some combination of stupid/brave and it will likely not be the normal reaction for most humans.
If, on the other hand, the situation is more under control (the guy is staying mostly stationary, there are multiple cops), then one of the cops could possibly decide to use the taser. If it doesn't work, there are others that can shoot or physically intervene. This is a situation a taser might get used.
In other words, despite the marketing, tasers are likely to only be used in situations that would otherwise require other 'less than lethal' responses (nightstick, fists, grappling, pepper spray, torture, respect-my-authority, etc...). But in a deadly force situation, tasers aren't really that useful. There may be some good reasons to allow LEO's to use tasers. A decent argument could possibly be made that shooting someone with a taser is better than hitting them in the head with a stick. It would perhaps be better to accept the reality of taser use as opposed to the marketing when deciding whether the police should or should not have tasers. I certainly have an automatic distrust in the competence of any police force which argues for tasers based on the marketing.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 22 2014, @12:47AM
All that only applies if you accept that police do not have an obligation to de-escalation.
Which I can totally see the OP believing.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by strattitarius on Thursday August 21 2014, @10:03PM
Shut down any help for mentally disabled people, suicidal people, and for-fucking-sure the PTSD crap... or quit killing those same people when they try "suicide by cop".
ps. I am not usually for shooting to disable as that requires so much more skill than most people realize, but this actually might be a place to try that.
Slashdot Beta Sucks. Soylent Alpha Rules. News at 11.
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Friday August 22 2014, @08:07AM
Being crazy doesn't make them less dangerous ya know, if anything it makes 'em MORE dangerous as they can often take blows and shrug them off do to...well being batshit.
And they DO have a non shooty way to handle it but the left wing and community leaders scream bloody murder...its called riot shields. With a riot shield you have an unbreakable barrier between you and them and if they touch it they get tased...works quite well but as we have seen with MO cops aren't allowed to wear protective gear because its "gestapo" so its back to shooting, blame the left if you want to blame somebody.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 22 2014, @08:37AM
Wow you guys are completely out there.
I was witness to a police intervention of a crazy man a few days back. He wasn't armed but really looked like he was out of his mind. The cops came in started talking to him in a calm and gentle voice, he followed them to the squad car and they didn't even have to cuff him or anything. I didn't see what happened next as they drove off, but I expect they took him to the station, find out who he is and take him home/to the hospital.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 22 2014, @10:53AM
[Citation Needed]
(Score: 2) by strattitarius on Friday August 22 2014, @04:22PM
Most of the backlash about the cops and riot gear has really been due to factors other than a shield. Guns (with frikin lasers) pointed at protesters, rubber bullets fired, guys with a 50 caliber on top of a tank (that's a bit over stated, but not by much), journalist being arrested, trying to squash protests, and quite a few other incidents.
I really doubt the "left", who are more likely to be anti-gun (or at least not pro-gun) are to blame for this. In fact, I doubt you can blame it on any group, but it does raise some interesting points.
Pro-gun (right): this is good? Surely not.
Anti-gun (left): This is bad.
Pro-government (left): This is good? Hope not.
Anti-government (right): This is bad.
Pro-cops (right): This is good.
Anti-cops (left?): This is bad.
So I don't know which side would be okay with this, but in general the "right" doesn't seem too worried about this incident. Which is funny because the anti-government TEA party should be all up in arms about this, seeing as how the Police force is the first step in a Police State.
I have been thinking a lot about this whole situation and left/right. There are so many logical inconsistencies in the reasonings for both sides.
For instance I was shown a picture that I was told was of Michael Brown. The man was holding a gun, with a wad of cash in his mouth and there was a bottle of liquor next to him. The person that showed me this said "Here's our young innocent kid in Ferguson". Ironically this same guy likes to talk about how "Jack will cure that" and how a long day should be treated with a beer. He has no problem with the drinking of hard liquor and alcohol. He is about the biggest gun nut you can meet. Goes to swaps, owns more guns than you would ever need and even works on them. He obviously has no issue with guns. This same guy also has a good job and a nice car and a nice house. He, like most anyone, has no issue with the accumulation of money.
Oh, but show a picture of a black guy liking money, guns and liquor and somehow this guy is the dredge of society. But the old white guy that likes all that same stuff is just a good-ol-boy.
And after about 5 minutes of investigation I found that the picture was not of Michael Brown. But that isn't going to stop the email chain from giving ignorant old white guys a reason to justify this shooting.
Slashdot Beta Sucks. Soylent Alpha Rules. News at 11.
(Score: 1) by mrider on Friday August 22 2014, @07:13PM
Oh, but show a picture of a black guy liking money, guns and liquor and somehow this guy is the dredge of society. But the old white guy that likes all that same stuff is just a good-ol-boy.
It's too bad you didn't or can't dredge up a photo of him drinking a beer and cleaning one of his firearms. :)
Doctor: "Do you hear voices?"
Me: "Only when my bluetooth is charged."
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Friday August 22 2014, @05:42PM
I'm inclined to agree, except for one thing -- if the cops themselves actually thought their actions were justified, they wouldn't have lied and invented that ridiculous Hollywood narrative that they originally released.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by strattitarius on Thursday August 21 2014, @09:42PM
Get back in the car. Taze him. Call for backup. Try to de-escalate the situation. Nah, fuck it. Kill the black guy.
I hadn't seen that yet. Thanks for the link.
Slashdot Beta Sucks. Soylent Alpha Rules. News at 11.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Phoenix666 on Friday August 22 2014, @03:11AM
Yes, and the backup arrived about, what, 90 seconds after the first squad car arrived on scene? They could have delayed and had 12 other officers there to tackle him.
I always had the impression that police have many non-lethal ways to deal with situations like this, such as verbal judo, nightsticks, tasers, mace, pepper spray, bean bag rounds, rubber bullets, or good-old fashioned compliance holds. They way they summarily shot him, and Michael Brown before him, has no connection to any notion of policing I've ever had. Here in Brooklyn, too, a couple weeks ago another cop choked a man to death on suspicion he was selling loose cigarettes, which ranks just below jaywalking on the NYC scale of offenses.
We have passed some point of no return.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Friday August 22 2014, @04:44PM
>Here in Brooklyn, too, a couple weeks ago another cop choked a man to death on suspicion he was selling loose cigarettes, which ranks just below jaywalking on the NYC scale of offenses.
I think you're talking about Staten Island.
And that guy wasn't even selling loose cigarettes, he had only been known to do so before; that day, he didn't actually have any cigarettes on him. The cops murdered him for nothing at all.
(Score: 2) by strattitarius on Friday August 22 2014, @06:44PM
Slashdot Beta Sucks. Soylent Alpha Rules. News at 11.
(Score: 1) by DrkShadow on Thursday August 21 2014, @09:04PM
While the gist of your comment is correct, they did not shoot the journalists in the back -- they shot one in the knee and one in the hip.
http://www.bild.de/news/ausland/proteste/usa-fergusen-so-wurde-der-bild-reporter-festgenommen-37314152.bild.html [www.bild.de]
(Google Translate works semi well for this.)
(Score: 4, Informative) by takyon on Thursday August 21 2014, @08:37PM
No link to the Intercept?
Intercept Reporter Shot With Rubber Bullets and Arrested While Covering Ferguson Protests [firstlook.org]
A Night in Ferguson: Rubber Bullets, Tear Gas, and a Jail Cell [firstlook.org] (this is the reporter's take on what happened)
U.S. Military Bans The Intercept [firstlook.org] (bonus)
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by opinionated_science on Thursday August 21 2014, @08:52PM
thanks :-)
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Thursday August 21 2014, @09:17PM
That's what I was wondering -- why cite a secondary source who cites a source which can be linked in just as easily? It looks shady to fail to do that, as if there is some reason SN wants to avoid sending traffic to FirstLook. I don't believe this is the case, but it does have enough of that appearance that people could wonder.
(Score: 2) by n1 on Friday August 22 2014, @02:58PM
I was the editor for this story.
The source provided by the submitter was the one used. Not including The Intercept also was an oversight and not intentional. We have sourced directly before but it's not essential in my view, although I personally prefer doing so.
I occasionally use my discretion on linked sources, but it is my subjective opinion on what are appropriate sources and what are not. As an editor, I always endeavor to use the sources provided by the submitters, but if the story exists from a credible source and the linked one has little, the story shouldn't be dismissed. This was not one of those situations.
Additionally, the second link was not in the original submission. Reason for the inclusion being, it is important and directly related to the story.
Thanks for making the point, hope I provided some clarity.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Blackmoore on Thursday August 21 2014, @09:28PM
Charlie Stross pipes in
http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2014/08/ferguson.html [antipope.org]
boing boing
http://boingboing.net/2014/08/21/fergusons-free-speech-zone.html [boingboing.net]
http://boingboing.net/2014/08/19/documenting-the-arrests-of-jou.html [boingboing.net]
MSNBC
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/aclu-first-amendment-suspended-ferguson [msnbc.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 21 2014, @10:00PM
He was on Democracy Now too:
http://www.democracynow.org/2014/8/20/rubber_bullets_tear_gas_and_jail [democracynow.org]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Horse With Stripes on Thursday August 21 2014, @08:42PM
We all were concerned about the militarization of local law enforcement and how it was always just one event away from getting out of control. Well, here we have that tipping point.
The murder of Mr Brown was enough to get the nation's attention, and now the abuse of, and arrests of, journalists have guaranteed that this will remain a national and international story. The press often acts as though they are above the law and are entitled to information and access to everything at anytime. Oppressing them is only going to make them mad. Remember what Ben Franklin said "Never argue with a man who buys his ink by the barrel".
(Score: 5, Insightful) by nukkel on Thursday August 21 2014, @08:47PM
This incident will either evolve into something bigger, or it will lose momentum and vanish from the front pages.
However, in the latter case, there will be similar incidents in the future, as nothing will really have changed. It will be a matter of time until the Big One.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by AnonTechie on Thursday August 21 2014, @08:49PM
It seems to me that most people here (and in the US) condemn the police actions in Ferguson and yet the police there seem not to care what people think. If what the police are doing is wrong, is there not any authority who can put a stop to these cops ?? Why are the state authorities silent ? Can the state and federal authorities not gauge the public mood ?
Albert Einstein - "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
(Score: 4, Informative) by Nerdfest on Thursday August 21 2014, @09:22PM
Screw mood, how about upholding the constitution and the law for starters.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 21 2014, @09:25PM
Don't duck jury duty.
When on the jury, don't surrender to authoritarian groupthink.
If you find that the state's case stinks, don't vote for a guilty verdict.
If you think the charges are bullshit, vote to acquit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification_in_the_United_States [wikipedia.org]
The jury foreman can make a statement before the verdict is rendered.
Become that guy or convince him to speak out about any injustice in the process.
Name and shame.
-- gewg_
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Alfred on Thursday August 21 2014, @09:38PM
The cops know that before long no one will care what almost anyone thinks about it. Even in very publicized cases:
Trayvon Martin? Who's that? Does anyone care? /sarcForEmphasis
The powers that be roll with the fact that people have short attention spans and short memories. They are counting down the days to being back to business as usual.
To cause any kind of reform you need time, money and memory(amongst other things) and we the people tend to have not enough of any of them.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Phoenix666 on Friday August 22 2014, @02:45AM
I see this meme a lot, that the American people have a short attention span and can't focus long enough to tackle hard problems, and it's often mentioned as a reason why the status quo will not change.
It seems to me the key drivers of destabilization in a system have nothing to do with the public's attention span. The key drivers are real, deep, material, and systemic, and they are pushing, pushing, pushing 24/7 no matter if Joe Q. Public is paying attention or not. The ongoing implosion of real incomes for 99% of Americans is a real thing that gnaws away at stability every day. Outsourcing entire industries and radically disenfranchising people who had previously considered themselves valued, productive citizens, is a real thing that intrudes upon and sours every moment of mindless escapism. So what we're looking for here is not a conscious itemization of issues and their challenges, though some here and elsewhere do that, but the kind of subconscious rage that builds until it explodes.
Perhaps the delay in the wider reaction is because those who are focused on this know if there's no plan to enact when that rage explodes then utter ruin will ensue. Time will tell if they have enough time to figure out how to get it right after things fall apart, before they do.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by sjames on Friday August 22 2014, @06:50AM
That can work for a single incident, particularly where the waters are muddy. But this isn't a single incident, it just started with one. One young man dead is easier to forget with a good old fashioned police character assassination. But here the scars from the rubber bullets will last a lifetime. The journalists who were shot, gassed, and jailed aren't likely to forget.
Every day the strong arm tactics continue brings them that much closer to a tipping point. Every time regular average citizens with regular average lives become just a little more likely to believe the police are a force to oppose.
If they kill a protestor (rubber bullets are less lethal, not non-lethal), their goose is cooked.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 21 2014, @10:29PM
> yet the police there seem not to care what people think
They've had decades of experience with doing that shit without serious consequences Mostly because it wasn't caught on video and without video he-said she-said always goes in favor of the cops.
They aren't going to immediately change their ways even though the circumstances have changed because they don't believe they are doing anything wrong. It's just the way the job has always been done and they've never really had to confront the possibility of their own immorality before. No one wants to think they are a bad guy, so they've been rationalizing it away for most of their careers. That kind of thing doesn't just turn on a dime. You kill a guy, and all your buddies tell you it was the right thing to do, you've got every incentive to accept that as the truth rather than consider that you might be a murderer. Only bad guys are murderers and you are good guy.
(Score: 1) by nyder on Friday August 22 2014, @12:03AM
I'm thinking the government is purposely waiting for a revolution to start so they can suppress our freedoms even more.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Friday August 22 2014, @12:28AM
Perhaps that would be a "good" move. It's likely to escalate things, or?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 22 2014, @12:36AM
How about we wait for the FBI investigation to be completed before we riot for vengeance... oops I mean protest peacefully for justice. And by peacefully I mean looting, shooting, throwing rocks and Molotov cocktails. Nothing says peace like homemade firebombs.
I'm not saying there aren't equality issues, I just don't like knee-jerk reactions. We don't know what happened yet.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 22 2014, @01:46AM
the reaction of the cops from the beginning to the end sure made them look guilty.
as for the rioting - protests were peaceful enough when they had that black cop walk with them.
I'm not surprised with the rioting etc given the cops keep shooting people in the back. what they're doing can't even count as "peacekeeping".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 22 2014, @01:16PM
How about trying to prevent an angery mob from taking matters into their own hands? Crowds of stupid angry people. Do you think Dr. King would approve?
Did you know the store keeper feared retaliation so much that he's denied Michael Brown's involvement in the robbery?
Michael's own friend has already admitted it was him in the video.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by tangomargarine on Friday August 22 2014, @03:17PM
When they take away or ignore your nice options to express your disapproval, you resort to not-nice ones.
Part of why when they're not attacking hospitals I'm a fairly big fan of Anonymous.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday August 22 2014, @02:19AM
I wonder when recently returned veterans in that community will set up a mortar or other military surplus weaponry and show the militarized police what it means to declare war on American citizens.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday August 22 2014, @02:33AM
I can't tell if the limp official response is because the authorities are too arrogant to change course, or too scared to make a false move. Much like the crackdown on Occupy Wall Street and the NSA threat, it feels a bit like they're hoping it will all blow over.
At the same time, they're not moving particularly decisively in the international sphere, either. ISIS is running amok. Russia is running amok. Our European allies don't like us much anymore (thanks, NSA).
So things are piling up abroad and at home, and Washington DC has its head so far up its own ass that they are magnifying the damage.
For the first time in my life I'm seriously considering buying an automatic weapon.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Friday August 22 2014, @05:52PM
Perhaps because even senators are getting gassed and assaulted in Ferguson. [msnbc.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 22 2014, @01:08AM
"The murder of Mr. Brown"? I must have fallen asleep for a few years and missed the verdict that the jury handed down. Could you provide me a link?
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 22 2014, @02:22AM
Perhaps you missed the bit where an unarmed man - man, not "nigger" - was shot to death by a police officer, and then the police have acted to obfuscate any further attention on the matter.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 22 2014, @02:38AM
The police department may have not have acted exactly like we would all like, but their conduct is entirely unrelated to the issue at hand, which is whether the officer was justified in shooting this man. That can only be determined by a jury.
It's my guess that the officer was indeed justified, as it appears he was attacked. But again, that is why we have a legal system.
And where the hell did "nigger" come from? Who said that, and why is the race of anyone involved in the least bit relevant? Are you some kind of racist?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 22 2014, @01:49PM
How many of the six shots would be justified, in your opinion?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 22 2014, @01:57PM
As many shots as needed to stop a 300lbs stupid black man from charging me. I'd empty the clip and reach for another.
There will be a public outcry when the officer is cleared. I just know groups of black men and teens will go around beating up white people while screaming "Justice for Michael Brown!" They did so for Trayvon at least. I also hope one if their victims is you or a loved one.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 22 2014, @08:55AM
Unfortunately the current civil rights leaders are to blame for whipping the community into this frenzy.
It really doesn't matter to them if the man was armed or unarmed. The only thing that matters to them is the soapbox they stand on, or in this case a corpse of a young black male.
He robbed a store, assaulted a police officer, tried to take his gun, beat him enough to blind him in one eye, ran from him, and lastly taunted and charged at him to his death. The truth is his friend lied to police, because hands up don't shoot makes him a martyr, instead of the stupid punk he really was.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 22 2014, @10:25AM
[Citation Needed]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 22 2014, @12:02PM
I really don't like the news source.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/08/20/missouri-cop-was-badly-beaten-before-shooting-michael-brown-says-source/ [foxnews.com]
Furthermore, one shot was fired inside the officer's car DURING A STRUGGLE FOR THE GUN... How exactly do you overlook/excuse that? Was Michael Brown attempting to disarm the officer for his own safety now? I can't wait to hear that spun into martyrdom. Hands up don't shoot, cough (after I tried to steal the officer's gun), cough.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Friday August 22 2014, @05:59PM
Bigger questions:
People are saying he had an orbital fracture, that he was blinded in one eye. There's video of him walking around after the incident. Not in pain. Not seeking medical attention. Not bleeding. Nobody called him an ambulance.
If he was injured so severely, how did he only decide that *days* later?
And why wouldn't the police department release that information officially? Would make their case a hell of a lot stronger. They have nothing to lose and everything to gain from releasing that information -- unless it's false.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 22 2014, @06:21PM
Good justification for dismissing it. Hell, let's just let all black men assault people as long as they don't require emergency treatment afterwards.
(Score: 1) by matlockheed on Friday August 22 2014, @01:45PM
A lot of this has been rumored over the past few days. Most references to it are unconfirmed, but there's usually nothing proving that it did or did not happen.
Just googling "ferguson cop skull", I found tons of links (though the top one is Fox news, so take it with a grain of salt). Here's a link to some of it:
http://hotair.com/archives/2014/08/19/was-the-cop-injured-during-his-altercation-with-michael-brown/ [hotair.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 22 2014, @01:59PM
You're willing to believe his accomplice in a robbery earlier but not the officer? Glad I don't live in the US anymore, you people are fucking retarded.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday August 22 2014, @03:01AM
The press is not a monolith. Journalists might tend to be more liberal than average, but publishers and owners of the companies they work for are on the same team as the government and industry people they're "covering." I believe corporate journalists will not be the ones who break this all wide open, but bloggers and indies. They have broken many of the major stories in the last 10 years.
The video of the Ferguson cops executing the man (Powell) in broad daylight was shot by an ordinary citizen on a camera phone, not by journalists from the New York Times or Fox. Thanks to it and others like it we can now all be eye witnesses to the facts, rather than the targets of elaborate media and PR spin campaigns. That's a powerful factor causing the powers-that-be to lose control of the narrative.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 22 2014, @03:39AM
That was St. Louis city police, not Ferguson.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 22 2014, @03:45AM
Kissing cousins.
(Score: 2) by Rivenaleem on Friday August 22 2014, @09:32AM
It's refreshing to know that the US will always be there to divert attention from embarrassing situations in other countries. Just recently, on Irish media they were pointing out that Ireland was a laughing stock internationally because of issues arising from the Garth Brooks concerts (and their subsequent cancellation). But good old 'murica comes to the rescue again with another killing and then shooting journalists. Number 1 indeed!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 22 2014, @12:06PM
Does anybody care about Ireland?
I never heard anything about it, and I still don't care to look it up now.