Forums / Discussion / Serious Debate

I just heard about what is happening in Ferguson.

I hope all you guys in/near that area are safe and OK.

What exactly is happening in Ferguson? All I recall hearing about it was something involving riots.

Apparently, Anonymous is getting involved with the Ferguson Riots because of someone named Michael Brown dying. But that's all I know about the Ferguson Riots.
I haven't gotten anything else than that.

A bunch of people are burning down parts of the city I guess due to Mike Brown's death, and anonymous is getting involved for whatever retarded reason.

> people are burning down parts of the city

> I guess due to Mike Brown's death

Why am I reminded me of the riots over MLK JR's death back in 1968?

Finally Americans are learning how to riot.

Here's related videos.

Here's a related article

To sum up all that happened in Ferguson, a black kid named Michael Brown was shot by a white policeman. Reason according to the cops is he was trying to steal something. Eyewitnesses say otherwise; Michael was killed for Jaywalking; the whole crime scene report from the police is full of holes with a lot of their patches contradicting eyewitnesses and the police don't want anybody touching anything (e.g. the police in question's face isn't being shown, the police are shooting at reporters attempting to catch a scoop of the scene) Ferguson is a real isolated city from what I've heard with 60% of the population black and 40% white. The 40% white people are the majority of the officials and officers of Ferguson (to put into perspective, the mayor is white, and out of around 150 cops there are only 4 black cops.) So… Yeah. People are saying there's a bit of racism involved here, and the majority of Ferguson is taking this opportunity to riot, loot, and plunder the poor town's small-time shops and businesses.

While I do think there is a bit of racism here and action must be taken, I definitely think the rioters are just opportunity seekers; justice isn't coming out from rioting at all. I didn't know Anonymous is involved in this whole mucky mess.

People on both sides are in the wrong, and everything is just a giant clusterfuck.
…
Hey look, I just described every single human conflict in the history of time!

that is simply not true.

Did you pull all of your information off of Reddit?

Because half that shit is wrong.

• Ferguson is NOT isolated. It's a suburb of St. Louis, with a population in the 20,000s (putting it quite up there in comparison to other Missouri towns and cities). It's only a few miles from an international airport for fucks sake.
• The city's divisions aren't just from public officials and police being primarily white, though that plays a part in it. That district is poor in comparison to the other suburbs, and much of the poverty flows along racial lines. After the auto manufacturing plant closed years ago, several other local businesses closed right along with it. The loss of jobs heavily damaged the community, and it hasn't really recovered since. I think Emerson is the only company still headquartered there.
  • This has caused a "ghetto" situation. The poor area means the school isn't worth much, and kids do not receive much of an education. The local police tend to stay out of bad neighborhoods, which causes them to become run down – and when police DO intervene in a situation, they're more likely to use excessive force.
• The majority of Ferguson is not "taking this opportunity to riot, loot, and plunder", this is from a small few who have decided to take advantage of the chaos and cash in. The majority of people are staying inside to avoid the trouble, and the majority of protesters are being peaceful. Looting isn't common, it's just what is being focused on for the issue to seem more like a battle on both sides than what it currently is. The fact that you consider them opportunists really points to you not knowing jack-fucking-shit about the city district and the people in it.
  
  

TL;DR:
Shut the fuck up.

Also, Anonymous tried to put its Cheeto-dusted fingers into the debacle by trying to dox drop the police officer – Darren Wilson.

Of course, they got the wrong Darren Wilson – some black guy who is president of the Ethical Society of Police, and a police officer of 18 years experience (the one that shot Brown has six years experience). So, of course, Anonymous threw its arms up in the air and said, "Well, who woulda known that??"

Here's what (the actual) Darren Wilson looks like:

Onion Syrp said:

Reason according to the cops is he was trying to steal something.

Incorrect. According to police, the reason he was shot was his altercation with Officer Wilson wherein he attempt to take the Officer's gun, which prompted him to retaliate.

Eyewitnesses say otherwise…

Several of the eyewitness statements (he was shot in the back twice) have been proven false by the private autopsy. In addition, a Youtube video shot moments after it happened also lends credence to the cop's version of events:

I mean, the police was in the truck [sic] and he was, like, over the truck--So then he ran, police got out and ran after him. The next thing I know, he comes back towards them. The police had his guns drawn on him.

the police in question’s face isn’t being shown…

Considering some protestors have chanted "Who do we want? Darren Wilson. How do we want him? Dead." I think it's perfectly reasonable not to release his picture or his location.

…the police are shooting at reporters attempting to catch a scoop of the scene…

Unconfirmed. The only confirmed shooting came from protesters. If reporters are coming under fire, it's likely due to them being in the crossfire. Police established a media area specifically so that sort of thing wouldn't happen.

Ferguson is a real isolated city…

It's a suburb of St. Louis. It's no more isolated than Westland, Mi is.

The 40% white people are the majority of the officials and officers of Ferguson (to put into perspective, the mayor is white, and out of around 150 cops there are only 4 black cops.) So… Yeah

Welcome to democracy. Surprisingly, when people vote, their candidates are elected. The only people to blame for a "white" government are the ones who couldn't take a few hours a year to go to the booth and check a few boxes.

I didn’t know Anonymous is involved in this whole mucky mess.

They're not what they used to be. Anonymous has barely done anything. They doxxed Wilson--only for it to be quickly revealed the person they doxxed was the wrong one. Then their Twitter account got banned for releasing personal info and they whined about it. Then an "anti-anonymous" person released a website that proported to DDoS government websites--only for it, after hundreds of visits, to actually be a "honey hole" and it log people's IP addresses to report them to the FBI. Much lulz was had at their expense.

xTSGx wrote:

Welcome to democracy. Surprisingly, when people vote, their candidates are elected. The only people to blame for a “white” government are the ones who couldn’t take a few hours a year to go to the booth and check a few boxes.

The main issue here isn't the white mayor, it's the fact that the police department is whiter than vanilla pudding. That is a serious imbalance of power with little to do with the democratic process.

I see my "TL;DR: Shut the fuck up" was unpopular with a couple people. Let me explain.

My sister teaches near Ferguson, MO. I have relatives that live there. A significant portion of my family has been in the suburbs of St. Louis for a long time. So when I see people throwing out false information as fact, accusing the locals of being attention seeking, saying the majority are nothing but looters, with all this is literally (not figuratively like Tumblr's definition) close to home, it kind of pisses me off.

I've been worried about this mess since it started. Jay Nixon's shitty heavy-handedness has escalated the issue. Things have gotten worse. I'm real fucking worried about people I love in that area.

Please do not circulate bullshit in the name of fact. It just makes the problem worse, and further upsets the people who have a real concern with the issues going on.

So when I see people throwing out false information as fact, accusing the locals of being attention seeking, saying the majority are nothing but looters, with all this is literally (not figuratively like Tumblr’s definition) close to home, it kind of pisses me off.

If your reason for posting is that you're mad, then don't post.

There's a difference between a debate and an argument.

There's a difference between posting bullshit and posting information too.

You can look at xTSGx's post for a good example of how to resolve an issue like this.

Telling a user they know jack-fucking-shit doesn't add much to your statement.

It works when they know jack-fucking-shit though.

We done here, Taryn?

Your complete ignorance of the point of this forum, as a forum mod, is remarkable.

We are definitely done.

A police officer shot an unarmed person (who was reportedly surrendering) at least 6 times, twice in the head. The autopsy also revealed that there was no gunpowder or muzzle burns on Brown, meaning he was never shot at close range.

Sorry, but you cannot justify that. I don't care if the guy was "charging" and I don't care if he was throwing punches. The bottom line is that when a cop shoots a person 6 times, he isn't trying to subdue them, disable them, or incapacitate them. When an officer shoots someone 6 times he is trying to kill them. There is no excuse for an officer trying to kill an unarmed person 20-35 feet away. Cops have pepper spray and tasers for a reason.

And before you spout, "but the cop's life was in danger!". Well then, explain to me how UK cops are able to handle situations like these without weapons? They do just fine with less than lethal gear and hand-to-hand.

American cops are armed like soldiers and it is completely messed up. They are completely under-trained are rarely held accountable for their actions. Hell, there are even videos of police officers pointing their gun at non-threatening people. Even war veterans are criticizing them for it as you NEVER point your gun at someone who you aren't planning to shoot.

I mean, bringing in armor vehicles, m4 snipers, automatic rifles, full body armor to a simple riot? It's disgusting.

thefrozenone said:

The autopsy also revealed that there was no gunpowder or muzzle burns on Brown, meaning he was never shot at close range.

The coroner didn't have access to Brown's clothing, which is where most of the residue would be. It also only has a range of a few feet (3-5), so just because there isn't any doesn't discredit any claims made by the police.

I don’t care if the guy was “charging” and I don’t care if he was throwing punches.

You don't care that if someone was threatening a police officer, he can't defend himself?

The bottom line is that when a cop shoots a person 6 times, he isn’t trying to subdue them, disable them, or incapacitate them.

Contrary to what you may have seen in a movie, shooting someone once will not immediately incapacitate them unless shot in a vital area (head, heart, etc). Bullets are very small objects that don't impart much kinetic force on a large object like a body. Given the fact that, per the autospy, four of the six shots hit him in the arm, it's unlikely that would have substantially impaired him. Which means he would keep shooting until Brown was stopped.

When you shoot someone, it's supposed to mean your life's in jeopardy. You don't have time to shoot, pause for ten seconds to see what effect it had, and then shoot again--especially if the person you're shooting at is charging at you as the police claim.

When an officer shoots someone 6 times he is trying to kill them.

That's exactly what you're supposed to do when you fire a gun at someone. It's a rule of self defense classes: never shoot someone unless you're intending to kill them. After all, if they're not dangerous enough to kill, they're not dangerous enough to shoot.

Well then, explain to me how UK cops are able to handle situations like these without weapons?

They don't.

to a simple riot?

You make sound like an easy thing. Riots are never fun. They're never simple. And they're never pretty. What are they supposed to do? Just let the rioters burn down half the town and loot it? A few squad cars aren't going to do anything against Molotov cocktails (which have been used).

Why aren't you guys watching the ongoing happening?

i used to laugh so much at this scene.

now im just…

While I agree that he should not have fired while Brown was running away, you should stop pretending that Brown was a cherub. Around 15% of officers are killed by their own firearms. If someone is about to use deadly force, a police officer should be able to use deadly force to defend himself.

"And before you spout, “but the cop’s life was in danger!”."

Uh, American police have GUNS. FUCKING FIREARMS. If he's reaching for his gun do you expect him to just say, "Hay pls don't grab my gun." It's a life or death situation, whether you like it or not.

@xTSGx
I don't understand what you're trying to prove with that list of killed British police officers.
If you're implying that more of them die because they're unarmed, that's simply not true.
There have been no British officers killed this year. One run over in 2013. Four in 2012 (and one of those was a heart attack). And none again in 2011 and 2010.
If you look at American police officers: 67 have been killed already this year, 105 in 2013, 126 in 2012, 179 in 2011, and 177 in 2010. Source.
I think Britain's score of 5 since 2010 definitely beats America's 654 in the same time.

xTSGx wrote:

They don’t.

(Erin the Furry ninja'd me) There is nothing resembling equivalence here. If the source which you've provided is to be believed, then no cops were killed in action in 2011 in Britain. According to the American counterpart of that page: "The FBI reported that in 2011, "72 law enforcement officers from around the nation were killed in the line of duty…"

You make sound like an easy thing. Riots are never fun. They’re never simple. And they’re never pretty. What are they supposed to do? Just let the rioters burn down half the town and loot it? A few squad cars aren’t going to do anything against Molotov cocktails (which have been used).

Standard riot police would be enough. The vast majority of the protests have been peaceful; the community has begun self policing and riots which have occurred have been comparatively small. The police, however, has decided to respond with equipment of this magnitude:

That is a police officer, dressed in commando gear, pointing a military-grade rifle, riding an armored vehicle. This is what a soldier in a warzone should look like. I'm not expecting the local government to be senseless enough to only send a few squad cars, but what Ferguson has been getting has been an absurd overkill. America is beginning to look dangerously like a police state.

Several of the eyewitness statements (he was shot in the back twice) have been proven false by the private autopsy.

Could you please provide a link to some of these statements? None of the eyewitness accounts which I've found thus far have mentioned Mr. Brown being shot in the back.

Particle Mare said:

Could you please provide a link to some of these statements? None of the eyewitness accounts which I’ve found thus far have mentioned Mr. Brown being shot in the back.

Johnson, Brown's friend who accompanied him, said

He shot again, and once my friend felt that shot, he turned around and put his hands in the air, and he started to get down. But the officer still approached with his weapon drawn and fired several more shots

Full video:

Mr Bolsey, the attorney representing Johnson, further stated

The officer chases Big Mike. He fires a shot and hits Big Mike in the back. Big Mike turns around. [Brown] puts his hands up. The officer shoots him five or six more times

Theepharoh apparently livetweeted the shooting as it happened. He said:

Piaget Crenshaw stated only yesterday:

I'm hearing shots fired. Clearly none of them hit him, but one I think did graze him as they said on the autopsy report, and at the end he just turned around…

I find it weird she'd stick to that version of events even after the report was released.

Alright, fair enough, so several of the eyewitnesses gave accounts which are, as far as the autopsy is concerned, slightly off the mark. But this does not change the fact that virtually every single eyewitness thus far – including the ones who have not mentioned Mr. Brown being shot in the back – has agreed that Mr. Brown surrendered before being shot several more times.

The only notable dissenting account has, at this point, been the one issued by the police. Keep in mind that it was, as you have stated multiple times yourself, merely a claim – we have so far seen no solid evidence in support of said account.

So in terms of whether or not the killing was justified, the evidence in place at the moment (as shaky as it is) points towards 'no'. Whether or not Mr. Brown physically assaulted the officer is up for debate, as is whether or not he tried to take the officer's weapon; however, whether or not he ultimately surrendered before his death is the end-all be-all question.

I think what makes my blood boil are the people claiming that the cop did nothing wrong, that brown was solely responsible for what happened to him.

Sorry, but it has already been established that Brown was not shot when he was "reaching for the cop's gun", he was shot after, from a distance. Brown was not using "deadly" force when he was shot. Had Brown been shot when they were struggling with the gun, that would be forgivable, but no, Brown was shot after the fact from a distance.

All American police should be required to have tasers on them at all time. The fact that a cop's first reaction is to pull their gun, is an issue. American cops not trained to use adequate force, they are trained to use excessive force. That is why you always see 5 or 6 cops jumping on a single person, sitting on their bodies and putting their knees on their head. There lies the problem. American police don't understand restraint.

That is, until you force them to wear a camera at all times.

1.) I trust the profession coroner's expertise over yours. He said that it wasn't likely he was shot up close. Until tests are finished on his clothes, that's what I'm going with.

2.) An officer has every right to defend himself, however, there is such a thing as restraint. Deadly force should only be used in the face of deadly force. The cop's life was not being threatened when Brown was shot. And no, a 'potential' fist fight doesn't count as a life threatening situation. Unless the officer was on the ground or backed into a corner, he should never have shot his gun. However, there was a clear distance between the officer and Brown. Whether Brown was facing forward or backward doesn't matter. If I'm not allowed to shoot someone throwing punches at me, then neither should a cop. Police officers are not above the same laws that we are all subjected to.

If I had been the one to shoot Brown "in self defense", you are damn well sure I'd be arrested and pending criminal charges for shooting an unarmed person. Officers are subject to the same laws we are, and yet they are allowed to get away with breaking them. I don't care if you agree if the cops actions. The bottom line is that he BROKE THE LAW and is not suffering consequences.

3.) I'm not an idiot. I own plenty of guns and understand that a single round fired would most definitely not stop an attacker unless it was lethal. However, current evidence supported the idea that all 6 rounds that hit Brown were fired at a distance. The graze wounds on his palm and inner arm support that his hands were in the air. If Brown had been shot while struggling for the gun, Brown would have most likely been hit in the gut or chest one one two times.

4.) Sorry, but a handful of officer deaths mean nothing, especially compared to the fact that there are many, many more American officer death. Honestly, I'm shocked that you would even consider that to be "evidence" of any sort.

5.) Yes, a simple riot. As someone who has experience with riots, the Ferguson riot is rather tame and blown out of proportion. It certainly doesn't call for police officers that are more heavily armed than marines.

Cops have weapons that aren't guns. They have tazers, pepper spray, and bean bag guns. The cop wasn't pinned down or restrained in any way when he started shooting. He could have used any form of defense at his disposal yet he chose to kill.

Also, on xTSGx saying "the cop's life was in danger. That's why he started shooting. You shoot because you're in danger"

You sound awfully too trusting of the officer's intentions. Officers can be bad people. If everyone only shot because their life was in peril, the world would be a much better place.

thefrozenone said:

…he BROKE THE LAW…

I'm really glad you're not on the jury.

The graze wounds on his palm and inner arm support that his hands were in the air.

Note the autopsy picture.

In order for the wound on his thumb to occur, the bullet has to be traveling parallel to the position of the hand. If he was shot while holding his hand up to surrender, the bullet would have cleanly penetrated his hand. There's only two ways that could happen. Either the bullet ricocheted and then hit his hand, or his hand was parallel to the bullet's trajectory.

The autopsy report says he was shot four times in the right arm. That means the wound wasn't caused from a bullet ricocheting off of his body but would have to ricochet off of the ground and, in a one in a million shot, angle precisely to strike him while he had his hand in the air.

I'm more inclined to believe his hand was parallel to the bullet's trajectory.

Apparently the KKK is now getting involved. The Happening is upon us.
http://www.alan.com/2014/08/18/kkk-heads-to-ferguson-to-guard-white-businesses-and-protect-innocent-whites/

xTSGx wrote:

If he was shot while holding his hand up to surrender, the bullet would have cleanly penetrated his hand.

There is no reason to believe that such a thing would have happened. Since Mr. Brown had been injured by the shot preceding his surrender, it is a bit of a stretch to simply assume that he surrendered in the conventional way, i.e. whole body facing towards the officer, arms fully outstretched and so on.

Also, it is possible that the shot to the hand was not sustained during his surrender. It could have been the original shot fired during the claimed assault at the beginning of the incident; assuming that he did, in fact, reach for the officer's gun, it is reasonable to assume that his hand was grazed when the gun went off.

So I come back to this thread and see that nearly everything I typed out was off the mark. I would like to apologize about that, I thought my sources albeit unofficial were credible given how plausible their reports are for previous similar situations. As much as I found Princess Celestia's response to be… peculiar for a mod, to say the least, I don't exactly feel like I want to retaliate. I should have problem typed a "from what I've seen/heard" at the beginning of my post. I was about to bring up the alleged reports that Brown was in fact caught committing a crime but that's already brought up. Well hey, one thing that isn't brought up yet is that apparently (as seen only in a tumblr post that seems to be a screen cap of two tweets I scrolled by quickly) looters are breaking open a Mcdonald's chain and pouring milk and fluids into the eyes of their tear gassed fellows. When all is in chaos it's good to be in the chaotic good I suppose.

BREAKING: Ferguson Police Department confirms that Brown attempted to run away while officer Wilson shot at him

As Officer Wilson got out of his car, the men were running away. The officer fired his weapon but did not hit anyone, according to law enforcement officials.

So are they saying that Michael Brown got fatally wounded and then ran away?

The exactly details are still unclear, though its almost certain that he was fatally wounded after trying to run away. Eyewitnesses report that he surrendered soon after trying to escape, so it's possible that he may have realized that Wilson was trying to shoot him, and decided to respond by stopping and surrendering, at which point Wilson fired the shot which ultimately killed him.

The current police account goes something like this:

1. Wilson stops Brown
2. They get into an altercation, Brown assaults Wilson and attempts to take his gun
3. A shot is fired by Wilson at this point, causing a non-fatal injury to Brown
4. Brown attempts to flee, Wilson fires several shots but misses

The police department has not elaborated on the events after this point. According to eyewitnesses, the incident finished like this:

5. Brown surrenders
6. Wilson exits his car with his gun drawn and approaches Brown (according to some eyewitness accounts, Wilson was still shooting at this point)
7. Upon reaching Brown, Wilson fires several more shots. One of them is fatal.

Erin the Furry said:

So are they saying that Michael Brown got fatally wounded and then ran away?

The autopsies have indicated that the wound to the upper head was the fatal shot and "most likely" was the last one fired. All other gunshot wounds were non-fatal.