We may use cookies to help customize your experience, including performing
analytics and serving ads.
Learn More
Forums → WEPR → Ferguson, Missouri protests
| 22 | 4289 |
Thoughts?
In my opinion, its basically the beginning of a police state. With all the police militarisation that has been going on I feel that people should protect themselves from their own governments more and more. Since I am in the UK and Guns have been banned the fact sickens me. I'll probably buy one off the black market in the near future if I feel I must.
- 22 Replies
I feel like this is a very shallow conclusion. I do not protect the police officers who shot the two guys in Ferguson, as I am convinced in both cases it would have been possible to handle the situation without shooting someone dead; this is likely due to a certain racism, as is criticised by many.
However the presence of all the officers during the protests is in some way justified by all the people using the (originally certainly peaceful) demonstrations to wreck things and loot shops. Secondly, I am no friend of local resident milicia. That people help the police by notifying them if something is suspect, is fine; but however biased the individual officers may be, the police as a whole still does its job, and they are specially trained to handle such situations which is not the case of voluntary milicia.
In my opinion, its basically the beginning of a police state. With all the police militarisation that has been going on I feel that people should protect themselves from their own governments more and more. Since I am in the UK and Guns have been banned the fact sickens me. I'll probably buy one off the black market in the near future if I feel I must.
It is sad that losers take advantage of a peaceful protest to cause trouble. Hopefully, the cops will arrest them all eventually (the troublemakers) so that the legitimate protesters can continue their protest peacefully. It has to stop eventually though. The message was heard even around the World.
Lot of innocent people are losing business because of the looting and also because people are scared to go about their everyday routines (business owners and shoppers).
The so-called militarization of the police is somewhat justified since ordinary people obsessed with guns arm themselves to the teeth.
What are the cops supposed to do? Get shot by some lunatics armed with military weapons? They have to protect themselves too in order to do their job.
Hopefully the law will prevail and if this cop was in the wrong, he will be held accountable.
In my opinion, its basically the beginning of a police state
No it isn't. I'm right by Ferguson, and it literally is both sides overreacting to the other side.
A kid gets shot and his friend and witnesses lie about the scene (as discovered by the autopsy report) and people began rioting.
Police step in to quell the riots.
People get upset about this and start saying stuff like "**** the police", "the only good cop is a dead one", etc etc
Police become more militaristic in response.
All hell broke loose
Oh, and it should be noted the the Darrel Wilson had his Orbital bone broken by Mike Brown, which if none of you are aware is a very very painful thing to have happen to someone, and police are taught to take such an event as a high risk event, especially when said person that broke it was facing him and possibly moving towards him again.
Frankly, most people I know around here are tired about hearing about it and tired that it is still going on. To be frank, it's annoying.
Reporters are being threatened to be shot, provocateurs are being allowed to run a muck and all this is under police "rotection". Shame the looting and all the anarchy is going on otherwise the police are overstepping their boundaries.
Reporters are being threatened to be shot,
Unless I've missed anything, no they aren't. Yes guns will be pointed at them, but they aren't being actively threatened. The only reason the guns are even being pointed at them is because we have officers being militarized without the military know-how of what they are doing.
So what do you think will ultimately happen? Will it come to anarchy, will people just give up and go home, will the police kick it up a notch and physically remove people from the street?
Could go either way. If the police play the long safe game,the riots fizzle out. If use of police force increases, that will cause in an escalation of hostilities.
Yes guns will be pointed at them, but they aren't being actively threatened.
Pretty sure pointing a gun at an innocent person is an active threat. Counts as assault with a deadly weapon.
So what do you think will ultimately happen? Will it come to anarchy, will people just give up and go home, will the police kick it up a notch and physically remove people from the street?
It'll slowly die. It's already starting to now it seems
Pretty sure pointing a gun at an innocent person is an active threat. Counts as assault with a deadly weapon.
They weren't threatening to shoot, just using the weapon in itself as a means of intimidation. Like I said, these are people not trained like military men being made to act like they are
They weren't threatening to shoot, just using the weapon in itself as a means of intimidation.
The possession of a gun can in itself be seen as intimidation. Pointing your gun at someone is more than that, it (at the very least) implies a threat to shoot. Also, basic rules of safety and conduct dictate that you do not point your weapon at someone else. No need to be a military drill sergeant to know that.
Now, to be a bit more on topic. I often say in similar topics that I am certain police officers could avoid shooting someone dead. It seems I found an article saying that experts are not of that opinion:
US police should shoot to kill or not at all, law and justice experts say
One of the point where I now have to agree is that shooting to wound, as it is called in the article, would lead to even more incidents as it would allow police officers to fire the gun in more situations.
However in this particular conflict it still has to be established whether a dangerous enough situation happened when both of the people were shot in Ferguson.
Fact: Michael Brown, according to MO state law, committed a Class A misdemeanor (petty theft of an item below $500 in value), punished by up to one year in jail and a fine of up to $1,000, and a Class C misdemeanor (third-degree assault), punished by 15 days in jail and a fine of $500.
I totally agree with you, he was a thief because he stole something.
I wonder if it's really about Michael Brown though?
I think it's just one too many young black man who got shot by cops that started it all.
I think it's just one too many young black man who got shot by cops that started it all.
This is almost definitely the reason for the scale of the reaction, yeah.
I'm just wondering, though the protesters ( i think ? ) said something about why not aim for the arm or legs instead of the center body mass, did they not think about just how hard that would be to hit it? an arm or a leg is many times harder to hit than the center body mass, especially against a charging person brandishing a knive. have any of them protesters never played FPS games and try to hit the hostiles arms and legs? it's just freaking impossible. and even if they managed to hit it, there is no guarantees that the criminal, possibly laden with adrenalines, will flinch or even realize that they are being shot at and stop their assault. most likely end result: death of the police officer and the escape of the criminal
I'm just wondering, though the protesters ( i think ? ) said something about why not aim for the arm or legs instead of the center body mass, did they not think about just how hard that would be to hit it?
It's also a matter of not killing innocent bystanders.
It's easier to miss while aiming for the leg and a possible bullet rebound could hit someone else.
I've heard it said that this is no longer about justice, law or police brutality. This is about a white cop shooting a black man. I doubt that the protesters even care what the facts are anymore, and I'm willing to bet most of them have never done any actual research on the case. I believe, given the evidence, Michael Brown attacked the officer (who he thought was there to arrest him for the crime) and the officer fired in self-defense. I find that much easier to believe than Brown raising his hands to surrender and having the cop shoot him six times for no reason.
Do people really think Wilson (the officer) shot a man who had his hands up SIX TIMES with no motive? After all, Wilson didn't know Brown had committed aggravated robbery. He didn't have a reason to draw his gun in the first place...unless he was in danger. Considering how Brown responded to the shop employee trying to stop him, and how big he was, I find it highly likely that Brown attempted to intimidate or harm the officer, who drew his gun and fired to defend himself, and until I see some hard evidence suggesting otherwise (witnesses have testified both ways on Brown's conduct), I'm sticking with that explanation.
I agree
There has been zero evidence that the officer's actions were racially motivated. This event took place in the ghetto where blacks tend to feel as if they're victims due to their skin color and not the fact that they act like thugs associated with gang violence. This is why everyone is calling Michael a "gentle giant" when it's very likely he was just another thug.
I love how the protest started before anyone knew what was going on. Why? Because a white officer shot an unarmed black teenager. For many people in Ferguson, that's all that matters. The facts themselves don't. It's sad.
I'm just wondering, though the protesters ( i think ? ) said something about why not aim for the arm or legs instead of the center body mass, did they not think about just how hard that would be to hit it?
One thing that they tell you in classes for getting a concealed handgun (I didn't go obviously) is that if you shoot someone (obviously not just shooting someone for the sake of it), shoot to kill because if you just injure them they can sue you and you'll be getting into trouble too. Not sure if the same applies with police officers but I would only assume so.
There has been zero evidence that the officer's actions were racially motivated. This event took place in the ghetto where blacks tend to feel as if they're victims due to their skin color and not the fact that they act like thugs associated with gang violence. This is why everyone is calling Michael a "gentle giant" when it's very likely he was just another thug.
Thank you. thank you for making so much sense when everyone else (not talking about this thread) refuses to listen to anything that doesn't involve it being racist.
I know at one point at least people were calling for a new judge because the current one "didn't have to vote of the black community". They said that and petitioned regardless of the fact that the judge (who was white by the way) was elected 3 days prior to the event in the black majority city. It's completely ridiculous! As NoName just said, they completely ignore the facts and won't be satisfied until everything and everyone involved is as racially motivated as the protesters are!
~Manly
You must be logged in to post a reply!