Missouri Riots
Discussion
carinaman said:
Jimbeaux said:
True; however, I would suggest we stick to this issue not the one 22 years ago.
At least they shot Kajieme Powell dead and didn't torture him like Kelly Thomas:http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/02/15/la-cop-who-m...
And at least Kelly Thomas wasn't black, just a homeless man with mental health issues.
..........................Guess not.Jimbeaux said:
Qwert1e said:
Well Jimbeaux, one still wonders today how those police officers got acquitted of the Rodney King beating.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SW1ZDIXiuS4
"The jury deadlocked at 8–4 in favor of acquittal at the state level. The acquittals are generally considered to have triggered the 1992 Los Angeles riots, in which 53 people were killed and over 2,000 were injured, ending only when the military was called in.
"The acquittals also led to the federal government's obtaining grand jury indictments for violations of King's civil rights. The trial of the four in a federal district court ended on April 16, 1993, with two of the officers being found guilty and subsequently imprisoned."
True; however, I would suggest we stick to this issue not the one 22 years ago.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SW1ZDIXiuS4
"The jury deadlocked at 8–4 in favor of acquittal at the state level. The acquittals are generally considered to have triggered the 1992 Los Angeles riots, in which 53 people were killed and over 2,000 were injured, ending only when the military was called in.
"The acquittals also led to the federal government's obtaining grand jury indictments for violations of King's civil rights. The trial of the four in a federal district court ended on April 16, 1993, with two of the officers being found guilty and subsequently imprisoned."
Unfortunately, it's idiotic to pretend past events like that haven't influenced events now. Once a group of people stop trusting police, you can bleat all you want about what some dead kid shouldn't have done if he didn't want to be shot - it won't make them trust the police any more. Events like this will not stop until the relevant group (in this case, black folk) trust the police again.... or until they're all dead a la Iraq.
Bit like pretending Hungerford never happened & changing the gun ownership rules back to what they were here in the mid 1980's. Hey - the massacre was nearly 30 years ago, what relevance does it have these days? 
Pretending that the LA race riots don't influence the way a President reacts to current racial issues re/ a shooting is a complete non-starter. In fact it's idiotic.
Pretending that the LA race riots don't influence the way a President reacts to current racial issues re/ a shooting is a complete non-starter. In fact it's idiotic.
redtwin said:
Qwert1e said:
I realise police don't usually "shoot to wound" but it would have been a good idea to shoot the bloke in the legs in this particular situation.
No-one should be shooting to wound. Even private citizens who choose to arm themselves for self defence (in the US obviously) should always shoot to kill. The premise of using deadly force in self defence falls apart if you admit (or it is suspected) you were aiming for legs or arms in order to wound or incapacitate your attacker.To do so would suggest that you did not genuinely feel your life was in danger therefore would not have been justified in using deadly force. You need to convince the police, the prosecutors and ultimately (but hopefully it doesn't get that far) the jury that you thought you were going to die and you were doing all you could to survive.
Mention, or even give them reason to think, that you were aiming for a leg or arms and it starts to look like you had time to think about shot placement and take aim...time that you could have used to run the other way.
Not saying it's right, it's just the way it is.
Alfa numeric said:
redtwin said:
Qwert1e said:
I realise police don't usually "shoot to wound" but it would have been a good idea to shoot the bloke in the legs in this particular situation.
No-one should be shooting to wound. Even private citizens who choose to arm themselves for self defence (in the US obviously) should always shoot to kill. The premise of using deadly force in self defence falls apart if you admit (or it is suspected) you were aiming for legs or arms in order to wound or incapacitate your attacker.To do so would suggest that you did not genuinely feel your life was in danger therefore would not have been justified in using deadly force. You need to convince the police, the prosecutors and ultimately (but hopefully it doesn't get that far) the jury that you thought you were going to die and you were doing all you could to survive.
Mention, or even give them reason to think, that you were aiming for a leg or arms and it starts to look like you had time to think about shot placement and take aim...time that you could have used to run the other way.
Not saying it's right, it's just the way it is.
ktards had been killed 
Alfa numeric said:
redtwin said:
Qwert1e said:
I realise police don't usually "shoot to wound" but it would have been a good idea to shoot the bloke in the legs in this particular situation.
No-one should be shooting to wound. Even private citizens who choose to arm themselves for self defence (in the US obviously) should always shoot to kill. The premise of using deadly force in self defence falls apart if you admit (or it is suspected) you were aiming for legs or arms in order to wound or incapacitate your attacker.To do so would suggest that you did not genuinely feel your life was in danger therefore would not have been justified in using deadly force. You need to convince the police, the prosecutors and ultimately (but hopefully it doesn't get that far) the jury that you thought you were going to die and you were doing all you could to survive.
Mention, or even give them reason to think, that you were aiming for a leg or arms and it starts to look like you had time to think about shot placement and take aim...time that you could have used to run the other way.
Not saying it's right, it's just the way it is.
Trained Police officers responding to an incident with known perpetrators would potentially have the advantage of foresight and planning. They would possibly also have authority to shoot to eliminate threat, even if it wasn't their life in danger.
In the Lee Rigby case if the responding officers arrived on scene, couldn't identify the perpetrators and had to search the area for them resulting in one of them popping out from behind a fence or similar and charging the officers I doubt very much they would have the opportunity (or take the risk) to aim for appendages.
zygalski said:
Bit like pretending Hungerford never happened & changing the gun ownership rules back to what they were here in the mid 1980's. Hey - the massacre was nearly 30 years ago, what relevance does it have these days?
Pretending that the LA race riots don't influence the way a President reacts to current racial issues re/ a shooting is a complete non-starter. In fact it's idiotic.
But of course, if you say so. Pretending that the LA race riots don't influence the way a President reacts to current racial issues re/ a shooting is a complete non-starter. In fact it's idiotic.
paranoid airbag said:
Jimbeaux said:
Qwert1e said:
Well Jimbeaux, one still wonders today how those police officers got acquitted of the Rodney King beating.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SW1ZDIXiuS4
"The jury deadlocked at 8–4 in favor of acquittal at the state level. The acquittals are generally considered to have triggered the 1992 Los Angeles riots, in which 53 people were killed and over 2,000 were injured, ending only when the military was called in.
"The acquittals also led to the federal government's obtaining grand jury indictments for violations of King's civil rights. The trial of the four in a federal district court ended on April 16, 1993, with two of the officers being found guilty and subsequently imprisoned."
True; however, I would suggest we stick to this issue not the one 22 years ago.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SW1ZDIXiuS4
"The jury deadlocked at 8–4 in favor of acquittal at the state level. The acquittals are generally considered to have triggered the 1992 Los Angeles riots, in which 53 people were killed and over 2,000 were injured, ending only when the military was called in.
"The acquittals also led to the federal government's obtaining grand jury indictments for violations of King's civil rights. The trial of the four in a federal district court ended on April 16, 1993, with two of the officers being found guilty and subsequently imprisoned."
Unfortunately, it's idiotic to pretend past events like that haven't influenced events now. Once a group of people stop trusting police, you can bleat all you want about what some dead kid shouldn't have done if he didn't want to be shot - it won't make them trust the police any more. Events like this will not stop until the relevant group (in this case, black folk) trust the police again.... or until they're all dead a la Iraq.
Jimbeaux said:
It is silly how you all fall for the narrative of the commiunity not trusting the police, the police are consistently bad, etc. Have you ever considered the possibility that certain pockets of some communities simply have no respect for the law or orderly behavior because they were not taught to do so, or choose not to?
Ah, your usual thinly veiled and snidey attack on African Americans.Here's a view from the political right, although obviously well to the left of you on such matters.
Rand Paul said:
Given the racial disparities in our criminal justice system, it is impossible for African-Americans not to feel like their government is particularly targeting them. This is part of the anguish we are seeing in the tragic events outside of St. Louis, Missouri. It is what the citizens of Ferguson feel when there is an unfortunate and heartbreaking shooting like the incident with Michael Brown. There is a legitimate role for the police to keep the peace, but there should be a difference between a police response and a military response. The images and scenes we continue to see in Ferguson resemble war more than traditional police action. Washington has incentivized the militarization of local police precincts by using federal dollars to help municipal governments build what are essentially small armies.
Unfortunately the community in Ferguson and in many other places in the US have every right not to trust their police. There was a public meeting in Ferguson last night attended by many whites who were anxious to tell the (white) mayor to his face how much they disapproved of the actions of his police department.unrepentant said:
Jimbeaux said:
It is silly how you all fall for the narrative of the commiunity not trusting the police, the police are consistently bad, etc. Have you ever considered the possibility that certain pockets of some communities simply have no respect for the law or orderly behavior because they were not taught to do so, or choose not to?
Ah, your usual thinly veiled and snidey attack on African Americans.Here's a view from the political right, although obviously well to the left of you on such matters.
Rand Paul said:
Given the racial disparities in our criminal justice system, it is impossible for African-Americans not to feel like their government is particularly targeting them. This is part of the anguish we are seeing in the tragic events outside of St. Louis, Missouri. It is what the citizens of Ferguson feel when there is an unfortunate and heartbreaking shooting like the incident with Michael Brown. There is a legitimate role for the police to keep the peace, but there should be a difference between a police response and a military response. The images and scenes we continue to see in Ferguson resemble war more than traditional police action. Washington has incentivized the militarization of local police precincts by using federal dollars to help municipal governments build what are essentially small armies.
Unfortunately the community in Ferguson and in many other places in the US have every right not to trust their police. There was a public meeting in Ferguson last night attended by many whites who were anxious to tell the (white) mayor to his face how much they disapproved of the actions of his police department.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02kbhnp
That was an interesting listen on the World Service.
It seems St Louis is made up of almost 100 little municipal districts that are all trying to raise money to run themselves. It seems one of the main ways to get that money is to target motorists.
It seems that they could be having a bigger war against the motorist than Cameron and BRAKE! combined.
That was an interesting listen on the World Service.
It seems St Louis is made up of almost 100 little municipal districts that are all trying to raise money to run themselves. It seems one of the main ways to get that money is to target motorists.
It seems that they could be having a bigger war against the motorist than Cameron and BRAKE! combined.
Edited by carinaman on Friday 27th February 11:45
dudleybloke said:
Its kicking off again.
The head of Ferguson police has quit and during a protest 2 police officers have been shot.
Ferguson PD should be disbanded, it's more institutionally racist than the Met. I'm assuming that now Jackson is going there will be moves to overhaul it and make it more representative of the community ot "serves". Jackson should have gone a while ago and needs to be followed through the exit by Mayor Knowles.The head of Ferguson police has quit and during a protest 2 police officers have been shot.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff