Mike Brown shooting/Ferguson, MO

it was a bad shoot regardless if he tried to take the officers gun or not.

after the scuffle with the officer he took of running with no weapon and the officer exited his car and ran after him firing his weapon, the guy stops and puts his hands in the air and gets smoked a few more times.

this is what at least 3 eyewitnesses have said.

 

i give it six months until the officer starts selling photoshopped paintings

 

based on what i read earlier today, he did not. the ferguson pd learned about this the same way we did: from tv. the st. louis pd called them and they were unaware of the incident.

 

twitter timeline who watched it happen live.

 

and then the media is going to quote this guy, like he is a reputable source. and maybe he could be, but his spelling indicates otherwise. just like you wouldn't trust an interviewee who was slurring his words.

twitter makes everyone a "source," all you gotta do is be there, or at least say you were there (no fact checking necessary!!!). they'll just correct your e-slurring with a "[sic]" and everything is copacetic.

... see this is why we can't have nice things.

 

are you drunk when you post shit like this?

there are some definite problems with our justice system's reliance on eyewitness testimony and on the media's tendency to pull anyone close to an event for on air coverage, but your attacks on this guy are pretty thin. yeah, the main requirement for being an eyewitness is to actually be there. that's kind of a simple point, and yes it can be anyone. it could even be people who you don't deem worthy of being a witness . could he be posting fake pictures? could it all be fake? i suppose so, but i think that would be hard to do, and i'm not posting this link as evidence in a court of law. the threshold here is much lower.

and a person's ability to spell doesn't really have a whole lot to do with their ability to articulate what they actually saw.

 

midnight curfew.

because as every parent will tell you, curfews always work and never result in the exact opposite outcome they want.

 

has martial law been declared?
edit: never mind. it looks like a state of emergency has been declared.

 

exactly. there is a wide line in the sand between a protestor and rioter. a protestor does not want their message screwed up with senseless violence, theft and vandalism. especially when it was senseless violence that started this bullshit in the first place.

 

you're proving my point.

those peaceful protesters (who i greatly respect) are going to abide by it because part of their stance is abiding by the law.

the people who break curfew, are out to break a lot more than curfew. and they give exactly zero damns as to why that curfew was put into place in the first place. they're gonna break it just to break it, and because "no authority is gonna tell me what to do," hell, let's destroy and loot some shit for good measure.

 

at least from my understanding of a "curfew," anyone seen out past that point in time is subject to immediate search/arrest because they are breaking a law (the law being curfew), correct?

so yeah, it'll make it much easier for the police to arrest the "bad guys" because once midnight passes, anyone they see who is not a cop = "bad guy."

but it also kind of entices those people who want to and are going to do criminal behavior, to (further) violence.


i get the idea of a curfew; from a logistics standpoint, it makes sense. but it's also like saying "don't loot that store after midnight" to criminals. well guess what? once you say that, they're gonna wait to 1 am to loot that store, because in their twisted head that means sticking it to the po-po's.

 

this is important. during the day, there are other things going on - people conducting legitimate business, random passersby, protestors, etc. during the night, there's nothing going on. by declaring a curfew, the police are basically saying, "because of this curfew, we are going to establish that anyone outside after midnight is up to no good." they're removing the plausible deniability of the looters. "no, i wasn't doing anything. i just felt like taking a walk." now, the cops can detain these people before they commit crimes.

the real debate is going to be over civil liberties. "you're doing minority report shit! there are lots of law-abiding citizens who are doing legitimate things at 2 in the morning! you have no right to detain them!"

personally, i think that a curfew is a perfectly reasonable measure to take; done correctly, it should dramatically decrease the looting and let the protestors actually get their message out instead of having nutballs rioting in their name.

 

the police are saying this is not a hard curfew, but there seems to be a lot more of them out tonight. it looks like they bused quite a few more police in tonight

let's just hope for a quiet night.

 

and what pisses my pickle is that every time they show him on tv doing some badass samuel l jackson press conference, where he gives a middle finger to the media and microphones and talks directly to the people he's actually talking to, cnn still has to comment on it like there's some debate about his message.

yeah, no. there's no debate. i don't know the guy's name, but actions (and photo ops) speak louder than words, which for him speak pretty loud on their own.

 

from an hour ago:

 

whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty" and all that?

oh, that's right, twitter happened.