SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
From Yahoo News:
A man was gravely wounded in a gun battle with police in Ferguson, Missouri on Sunday night after a day of peaceful rallies to mark the fatal shooting of an unarmed black teenager by a white officer one year ago. Several volleys of gunshots rang out as police in riot gear tried to disperse demonstrators blocking traffic and smashing storefront windows along a street that was a flashpoint of last year's unrest in the St. Louis suburb after Michael Brown, 18, was slain. Police later said the gunfire began with two groups of agitators apparently shooting at each other.
http://news.yahoo.com/ferguson-protests-mostly-peaceful-anniversary-brown-shooting-015555407.html
...
Anniversary commemorations had begun hours earlier with a peaceful march through the St. Louis suburb. The scene changed dramatically after dark. Dozens of protesters converged on West Florissant Avenue, which bore the brunt of last summer's rioting, and chanted: "Shut it down" in the midst of a severe thunderstorm.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by CRCulver on Monday August 10 2015, @05:28PM
Most of the businesses that were destroyed were owned by people from outside the community, often the same people who voted for gerrymandering politicians and ensured that Ferguson's local government and police force looked nothing like the actual demographic makeup of the area.
Not in a democracy. Once the violence has subsided, the rage behind the riots may persist until the next elections, when people will be less apathetic about voting. As Killer Mike of Run the Jewels has said on nearly every medium that gave him airtime in the last year, riots work [bbc.com].
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday August 10 2015, @06:20PM
Citations needed. As I recall, locally owned shostring budget businesses were destroyed.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2014/11/25/most-businesses-destroyed-in-ferguson-minority-owned/ [breitbart.com]
http://brennerbrief.com/list-ferguson-businesses-destroyed/ [brennerbrief.com]
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2014/11/25/40-ferguson-area-businesses-trashed-vandalized-or-destroyed-by-protestors/ [breitbart.com]
I can't be sure, but aside from the banks and Walgreen's, it looks like most of those businesses didn't have insurance to rebuild.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Dunbal on Monday August 10 2015, @06:28PM
Insurance does not cover acts of god, war, nuclear war, revolution or civil disturbances (riots). Read your policy.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday August 10 2015, @06:38PM
http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/news/2014/08/12/ferguson-crisis-most-business-insurance-covers.html [bizjournals.com]
http://theandrewagency.com/617/insurance-policy-cover-riot-damage/ [theandrewagency.com]
I'm no insurance expert, but I THOUGHT that vandalism and looting were covered by insurance. I think it depends on the policy you purchase, more than anything. If you opt for the cheapest policy, with only the most common, bare essential coverage, you may NOT be covered for riot damage. More mainstream policies are going to cover some or all of the damage. Very expensive policies most certainly cover it.
Unless and until the government declares war, then there is no war. Who is Uncle going to declare war on, anyway? Another "War on Terra" maybe?
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Monday August 10 2015, @06:53PM
Cos protecting a fucking storefront is worth shooting any number of darkies?RIght?
That's your moral equation.
You're betting on the pantomime horse...
(Score: 2) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Monday August 10 2015, @06:57PM
Don't you see, how you go STRAIGHT to incidents of riot and looting THAT DID NOT HAPPEN LAST NIGHT.
That is the effect of PROPAGANDA. It displays lack of intellectual integrity and civic APATHY.
You're betting on the pantomime horse...
(Score: 2) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Monday August 10 2015, @07:02PM
http://www.vox.com/a/police-shootings-ferguson-map?utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=voxdotcom&utm_content=sunday [vox.com]
You're betting on the pantomime horse...
(Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Monday August 10 2015, @09:29PM
From news reports I read, there were both rioting and looting last night.
(Score: 2) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Tuesday August 11 2015, @06:50AM
Right.
But I showed you how to get REAL TIME LIVE on Twitter and Periscope, but you go to the mediated corporate outlet, which quotes police as authoritative.
You're betting on the pantomime horse...
(Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Tuesday August 11 2015, @12:19PM
Just because you *don't* see it on Twitter, etc, does not mean it didn't happen.
(Score: 3, Flamebait) by Runaway1956 on Monday August 10 2015, @07:30PM
Protecting my place of business and/or my home is worth shooting any number of RIOTERS. I don't give a small damn if the rioters are black, white, brown, yellow, red, or polka dotted. What gives ANYONE the "right" to destroy my source of income - the business that feeds my children? You got a beef with the cops, take your happy ass down the street to the cop shop, and deal with issues there. You have no right to loot MY BUSINESS, unless and until I have committed some offense against you and your kin.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by pe1rxq on Monday August 10 2015, @09:12PM
The rioters are wrong and should be punished.
But putting your income above human lives????? Your moral compass is really fucked up.
Your BUSINESS is NOT more important than a human live!
(Score: 4, Insightful) by frojack on Monday August 10 2015, @09:51PM
Where did you get this silly idea that human life was either rare, unique, or valuable?
Everything In our history suggests the opposite. We have been slaughtering people for lesser offences since someone noticed the jawbone of an ass made a good weapon.
If the looters instead rolled up to your house and ordered you and your family out on the street, would you NOT call the police (who would show up with guns), and just calmly go camp in the park?
In the real world, there are consequences [amazon.com] for bad actions.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 10 2015, @09:57PM
> Where did you get this silly idea that human life was either rare, unique, or valuable?
Jesus.
Where did you get the idea that it isn't?
(Score: 2) by pe1rxq on Monday August 10 2015, @10:12PM
Your example is flawed. It involves a family being in danger, not just a shop. human lives vs human lives is a totally different equation.
And just because we as a species have a violent past doesn't mean we have to stay that way.
We have evolved far enough to be capable of having morals. We can define basic human rights. We can grow beyond just greed.
Unless you actually like the old barbaric ways.....
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 10 2015, @11:46PM
> Unless you actually like the old barbaric ways.....
That seems to be a pretty good working definition of conservatism. Not that everyone who self-identifies as conservative likes all of the old barbaric ways, but whenever you find someone arguing for the preservation of an old barbarism, its someone who identifies as conservative.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday August 11 2015, @08:09PM
human lives vs human lives is a totally different equation.
Human lives are what a shop is. Those things don't just magically grow like mushrooms. People devoted their lives to making and running them.
Unless you actually like the old barbaric ways.....
Destroying someone's livelihood is the old barbaric ways. Stop being a tool.
(Score: 2) by pe1rxq on Wednesday August 12 2015, @10:21PM
You are seriously overvalueing the shop.
It is just a thing. If it is gone the owner might feel bad for a while and suffer from the consequences, but that is in no way comparable to killing.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday August 12 2015, @10:36PM
If it is gone the owner might feel bad for a while and suffer from the consequences, but that is in no way comparable to killing.
You just stated a way it is comparable. And let us note here we're not speaking of the abstract act of just killing someone, but the very specific act of killing someone who is causing a tremendous amount of suffering.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Tuesday August 11 2015, @06:55AM
This is an inflammatory hypothetical race-baiting lie.
Protesters are overwhelmingly peaceful, and surrounded by cops with ARs and Tanks.
If they were Ukrainians i the same situation, you'd be BEGGING for intervention on the part of the activists.
We know you for what you are.
Meanwhile?
The real problem comes to town, "Oathkeepers" flooding Ferguson tonight, armed and loaded.
You're betting on the pantomime horse...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 10 2015, @11:04PM
I agree with the OP.
Rioting is a case when society has failed to do its job. Business owners dutifully pay protection money to the government for... protection.
Irrespective of how you want to define a social contract, if you suppose that one exists, a mob of people who are rioting and destroying the livelihood of an uninvolved bystandard are clearly in violation of that contract. Additionally, if the police do NOTHING to protect the innocent from mob violence, what the fuck good are they?
Both the rioters and the police forces have dropped the ball on their respective ends of living in a civilized world.
If people want to exit civilization, I'm happy to use my superior intelligence and firepower to help them, especially if it comes down to my continued comfort or their continued feral wilding.
Society isn't going to go and rebuild the businesses that were destroyed by the rioting. If society gives up on me, I'm happy to give up on society.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 11 2015, @12:18AM
Ah, the cold calculus of authoritarianism.
So seductive to the empathy impaired.
(Score: 2) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Tuesday August 11 2015, @06:56AM
This is how disinfo works: THERE IS NO RIOTING IN FERGUSON.
You're betting on the pantomime horse...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday August 11 2015, @08:17PM
But putting your income above human lives?????
What's supposed to be so controversial about that? In one corner we have a considerable good for society. It's not just an income, it's also the benefit to everyone in the community. In the other corner, we have a loser who is willing to harm his neighbors for generations just to get a little bit of swag. It's pretty cut and dry, morally speaking.
Your moral compass is really fucked up.
Back at you.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by khallow on Tuesday August 11 2015, @08:13PM
Cos protecting a fucking storefront is worth shooting any number of darkies?RIght?
Any number of imaginary "darkies" who are dumb enough to wade into bullets for the slim chance of destroying another part of their community? That would be evolution in action.
That's your moral equation.
Morality? Sounds more like basic hygiene. Just because there are legitimate grievances here doesn't give anyone an excuse to destroy someone's livelihood and property. And if that means that this hypothetical vandal and looter should catch a bullet while caught in the act of destruction? That's a win for society as well as the business. If you want to win something on moral grounds then you have to be moral not merely make excuses for wrongdoing. The above bullshit doesn't fly.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Monday August 10 2015, @07:32PM
"Shoot someone, lock up the peacemakers, then declare a state of emergency. The recipe for an atrocity."
https://twitter.com/AnonCopWatch/status/630822983771119616 [twitter.com]
You're betting on the pantomime horse...
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Monday August 10 2015, @07:39PM
Breitbart?
Why not just go to David Duke or Stormfront?
You're betting on the pantomime horse...
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Monday August 10 2015, @07:50PM
It's not my problem that you refuse to read information that is easily found from any number of other sources. Do a google search for "insurance" and "riot". I had a couple million hits, and the articles I cited came up on the first page. Do you suppose that every one of those couple million hits were written by racists, in response to Ferguson?
You're ranting, man. Take a chill pill.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 11 2015, @12:15AM
> I had a couple million hits, and the articles I cited came up on the first page.
Because all of the other hits that were even relevant were bloggers citing the breitbart pages. That's how google's pagerank algorithm works.
I get it, reading breitbart gives you a hard-on and posting links to their shit is like public masturbation. But, just like public masturbation, nobody wants to see that shit. If all you want to do is stimulate your pleasure neurons, keep doing what you are doing. If you want to convince anyone else reading along, cite better sources.
(Score: 2) by albert on Tuesday August 11 2015, @12:50AM
You're living in your own little echo chamber, isolated from opinions that might challenge your own opinions. Are you opinions really so fragile? If they are so fragile, might that imply something about correctness?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 11 2015, @06:33AM
The problem with breitbart is that it is entertainment, not journalism. They don't do fact checking, they don't do background research. They have a POV and they are happy to only report the half of the story that promotes their POV. I wouldn't cite them any more than I'd cite something from huffpo.
Use them as a starting point and follow-up on the sources if you are so inclined. But if you aren't going to do that research yourself and post the direct sources, don't expect anyone who doubts you to do it for you. You can post to make yourself feel good or you can post to inform other readers. Citing breitbart is only good for the former.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday August 11 2015, @07:50PM
Most of the businesses that were destroyed were owned by people from outside the community
So what? That doesn't give anyone a blank check to destroy those businesses and incidentally harm their community.
Once the violence has subsided, the rage behind the riots may persist until the next elections
Which I think is the point here of the protests in the first place. FWIW, this is in part how democracy works. Problems simmer for decades until someone in power needs that little extra to win an election.