Riots in St Louis?

[RickOShea]

Some of those "Ace" reporters seem under qualified as well.

[Boondock]

Yup. There's a reason why I quit the news biz. Amateur night.

[Anianna]

Some of those "Ace" reporters seem under qualified as well.

I thought that was a joke.

-.-

[Old_Man]

Regarding #2, the suggestion that there arent enough qualified to be on the police force, isnt surprising if one dives into the education side of the demographics situation. Majority in Ferguson have only HS degree or less (88% for 25 and older). Most police departments require at least an associates. If the education system for lower earning areas such as Ferguson are any indication ( ex NYC HS grads..80% require remedial eduction assistance after graduation http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2013/03/07/ ... -colleges/ ) it isnt surprising. Most likely, kids being churned out simply dont have the education to move on, thus the community suffers.

It has nothing to do with race and everything to do with a degrading education and to some extent family (41% never marry, over 38% are single parent households). No not saying one has to be married or single parents cannot successfully raise kids, but statistics are against the kid. School systems with high parental involvement have substantially higher rates of successful kids.

Some demographics http://www.city-data.com/city/Ferguson-Missouri.html

As can be seen, income is well below average, coupled with low education just sets the stage for an ever degrading situation. Interestingly, the total population regardless of race makeup has stayed nearly the same since the 1960s but has clearly showed a consistent decline ( so has STL metro) for the last several years. Migration of high wage/skill workers, regardless of race, tends to cause education and other services to degrade with.

Some flashier graphs.. http://www.realtor.com/local/Ferguson_MO/lifestyle

[RickOShea]

Some of those "Ace" reporters seem under qualified as well.




http://i1012.photobucket.com/albums/af2 ... -idiot.jpg

I thought that was a joke.

-.-

Nope. The Boy Wonder was serious.....the jokes came later:

[Kilo147]

DoJ will conduct a second autopsy. Thank fucking God.

[Woods Walker]

2.
Im not sure why one poster in the thread would think that Ferguson wouldn't be able to turn out qualified black applicants to the force. Thats a pretty goddamned offensive comment, actually.

I hope that wasn't directed towards me cuz that's not what I said. This is what I said.

But beyond the surface numbers what does that prove? Surely there are standards and qualifications which must be met. In order to prove discrimination someone would have to review all the applicants then see if their hire or lack of was based on meeting/exceeding those standards and qualifications or something else. Also those standard would have to be reviewed as well. I don't know if there is a problem with their hiring practices as don't have enough information to draw an educated conclusion.

People are people and I don't see any reason why Ferguson couldn't turn out qualified applicants of any race. However to prove discrimination one must review the entire process including all the applicants, those who got the job and those who didn't.

[Kilo147]

People are people and I don't see any reason why Ferguson couldn't turn out qualified applicants of any race. However to prove discrimination one must review the entire process including all the applicants, those who got the job and those who didn't.

Of course. During these events I've called St Louis County all sorts of horrible things, but not racist. At this point in time, we still know literally nothing about the shooting besides a number of shots were fired and a young man is dead.


What pisses me off is the term strong-arm robbery. It was shoplifting, with the store employee blocking his path, an action that is nothing short of escalation, and illegal in many states. Hell, the store didn't even want to press charges.

Plus, the incident at the store had absolutely nothing, nothing to do with the shooting. There was literally no reason to release that video.



Oh, and the fact that idiots on Twitter can be considered the press is absolutely insane. By that right with my point and shoot camera I'm a fucking journalist.

[Stercutus]

Rubber bullets, I laughed till I cried. I am guessing they were controlled pairs.

2.
Im not sure why one poster in the thread would think that Ferguson wouldn't be able to turn out qualified black applicants to the force. Thats a pretty goddamned offensive comment, actually.

I hope that wasn't directed towards me cuz that's not what I said. This is what I said.

But beyond the surface numbers what does that prove? Surely there are standards and qualifications which must be met. In order to prove discrimination someone would have to review all the applicants then see if their hire or lack of was based on meeting/exceeding those standards and qualifications or something else. Also those standard would have to be reviewed as well. I don't know if there is a problem with their hiring practices as don't have enough information to draw an educated conclusion.

People are people and I don't see any reason why Ferguson couldn't turn out qualified applicants of any race. However to prove discrimination one must review the entire process including all the applicants, those who got the job and those who didn't.

I don't think he was talking bout you.

One shot by police and seven arrested last night.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/1 ... 74173.html

Around 1 a.m. on Wednesday, St. Louis County police responded to reports of shots being fired and four or five armed suspects, wearing ski masks, running near the intersection of Chambers Road and Sheffingdel Court in Ferguson, Valerie Schremp Hahn, a reporter for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, reported.

Officers arrived on the scene, saw "multiple subjects running" and gave chase, police spokesman Officer Brian Schellman told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

Upon approaching one of the suspects, the man allegedly pointed a handgun at the officer, police said. In response, the officer opened fire.

A gun was reportedly recovered at the scene.

Makes you wonder about this:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/08/17/po ... on-curfew/

As officers put on gas masks, a chant from the distant crowd emerged: "We have the right to assemble peacefully." A moment later, police began firing canisters into the crowd. Protesters said their faces and eyes had been burned. Others screamed in pain.

Jayson Ross, who was leading the protesters toward police, said: "They got guns. We got guns. We are ready."

Things seem to still be headed in the wrong direction.

[ZombieGranny]

...

[Kilo147]

It was shoplifting, with the store employee blocking his path, an action that is nothing short of escalation, and illegal in many states.

It is illegal to try to stop someone from stealing from you?

Yeah. It's considered escalation. Also, common sense. 50 bucks of cigars isn't worth getting in a fight, or worse, shot over. Most all Convienice store chains will fire your ass for doing anything but cooperating. Up here its outright illegal, and for good reason.

[RickOShea]

It was shoplifting, with the store employee blocking his path, an action that is nothing short of escalation, and illegal in many states.

It is illegal to try to stop someone from stealing from you?

I guess so, ZG. And when someone puts there hands on you in a threatening manner, it is no longer considered "assault"......oh, these crazy days.

[Browning 35]

What is strong-arm robbery? (*Click*)

St. Louis County Prosecutor Bob McCulloch gave the following definition for strong-arm robbery:

"The use of physical force in a robbery. If someone is stealing, and another person makes an attempt to stop them, and then physical force is used to complete the act that is strong-arm robbery.

It's also called 'robbery in the 2nd degree,' and there is no weapon other than physical force used.

If a weapon is used in a robbery, then the charge would be 'robbery in the 1st degree.'"

http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C500-599/5690000010.HTM

569.010. As used in this chapter the following terms mean:

(1) "Forcibly steals", a person "forcibly steals", and thereby commits robbery, when, in the course of stealing, as defined in section 570.030, he uses or threatens the immediate use of physical force upon another person for the purpose of:

(a) Preventing or overcoming resistance to the taking of the property or to the retention thereof immediately after the taking; or

(b) Compelling the owner of such property or another person to deliver up the property or to engage in other conduct which aids in the commission of the theft;

(2) "Inhabitable structure" includes a ship, trailer, sleeping car, airplane, or other vehicle or structure:

(a) Where any person lives or carries on business or other calling; or

(b) Where people assemble for purposes of business, government, education, religion, entertainment or public transportation;

Hmm, sure sounds like robbery to me.

He didn't even have to touch the clerk (which he did), he just had to 'Prevent or overcome resistance to the taking of the property or to the retention thereof' (which he also did).

People can come up with all kinds of excuses because they're pissed off about the shooting after, but it doesn't change anything. Still just excuses.

Shoplifting is stealthy. Nothing stealthy about that incident.

[Kilo147]

What is strong-arm robbery? (*Click*)

St. Louis County Prosecutor Bob McCulloch gave the following definition for strong-arm robbery:

"The use of physical force in a robbery. If someone is stealing, and another person makes an attempt to stop them, and then physical force is used to complete the act that is strong-arm robbery.

It's also called 'robbery in the 2nd degree,' and there is no weapon other than physical force used.

If a weapon is used in a robbery, then the charge would be 'robbery in the 1st degree.'"

http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C500-599/5690000010.HTM

569.010. As used in this chapter the following terms mean:

(1) "Forcibly steals", a person "forcibly steals", and thereby commits robbery, when, in the course of stealing, as defined in section 570.030, he uses or threatens the immediate use of physical force upon another person for the purpose of:

(a) Preventing or overcoming resistance to the taking of the property or to the retention thereof immediately after the taking; or

(b) Compelling the owner of such property or another person to deliver up the property or to engage in other conduct which aids in the commission of the theft;

(2) "Inhabitable structure" includes a ship, trailer, sleeping car, airplane, or other vehicle or structure:

(a) Where any person lives or carries on business or other calling; or

(b) Where people assemble for purposes of business, government, education, religion, entertainment or public transportation;

Hmm, sure sounds like robbery to me.

He didn't even have to touch the clerk (which he did), he just had to 'Prevent or overcome resistance to the taking of the property or to the retention thereof' (which he also did).

People can come up with all kinds of excuses because they're pissed off about the shooting after, but it doesn't change anything. Still just excuses.

I'm used to a completely different set of laws. It's a whole hell of a lot different up north.

[williaty]

People can come up with all kinds of excuses because they're pissed off about the shooting after, but it doesn't change anything. Still just excuses.

OTOH, to a lot of us, waiving the prior robbery around like it means something sounds an awful lot like someone trying to come up with an excuse for killing the guy. Robbery happened. Fatal shooting happened. Morality and ethics of the two events are unrelated. The first event does not justify the second event in exactly the same way that the second event (shooting) cannot justify the 3rd event(s) (rioting/looting).


W.R.T. the surprise that it might be illegal to get in the way of a robber, the legal reasoning behind those laws is this: People are more valuable than stuff. The defense of stuff is never a justification to take action that makes it more likely that a person, including yourself may come to harm or may be killed. In context, getting in the way of the robber makes it more likely that the robbery will escalate to a lethal force situation. In other words, the law says that defending your TV does not justify the increased risk of the neighbor kid acting as a bullet backstop when the robber tries to shoot you because you tried to prevent him from leaving.

All of us, I'm sure, can come up with situations in which we're justified in taking action to prevent a criminal from stealing from us. However, the law has to play the averages and that means that stuff is always less valuable than people in the eyes of the law.

[RickOShea]

I'm used to a completely different set of laws. It's a whole hell of a lot different up north.

Not according to Seattle.gov:

http://www.seattle.gov/police/prevention/property.htm

[Stercutus]

It was shoplifting, with the store employee blocking his path, an action that is nothing short of escalation, and illegal in many states.

It is illegal to try to stop someone from stealing from you?

Yeah. It's considered escalation. Also, common sense. 50 bucks of cigars isn't worth getting in a fight, or worse, shot over. Most all Convienice store chains will fire your ass for doing anything but cooperating. Up here its outright illegal, and for good reason.

Bullshit

Is not illegal "up there" unless the "up there" is Canada. According to the code in Washington state:

RCW 9A.56.190
Robbery — Definition.


A person commits robbery when he or she unlawfully takes personal property from the person of another or in his or her presence against his or her will by the use or threatened use of immediate force, violence, or fear of injury to that person or his or her property or the person or property of anyone. Such force or fear must be used to obtain or retain possession of the property, or to prevent or overcome resistance to the taking; in either of which cases the degree of force is immaterial. Such taking constitutes robbery whenever it appears that, although the taking was fully completed without the knowledge of the person from whom taken, such knowledge was prevented by the use of force or fear.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.56.190

AND

9A.16.080
Action for being detained on mercantile establishment premises for investigation — "Reasonable grounds" as defense.

In any criminal action brought by reason of any person having been detained on or in the immediate vicinity of the premises of a mercantile establishment for the purpose of investigation or questioning as to the ownership of any merchandise, it shall be a defense of such action that the person was detained in a reasonable manner and for not more than a reasonable time to permit such investigation or questioning by a peace officer, by the owner of the mercantile establishment, or by the owner's authorized employee or agent, and that such peace officer, owner, employee, or agent had reasonable grounds to believe that the person so detained was committing or attempting to commit theft or shoplifting on such premises of such merchandise. As used in this section, "reasonable grounds" shall include, but not be limited to, knowledge that a person has concealed possession of unpurchased merchandise of a mercantile establishment, and a "reasonable time" shall mean the time necessary to permit the person detained to make a statement or to refuse to make a statement, and the time necessary to examine employees and records of the mercantile establishment relative to the ownership of the merchandise.

Nearly every state in the country has similar laws on the books.

[Kilo147]

Weird. I could have sworn they made it illegal after security chased a woman out of a Ross and into the parking lot and she ended up killing a kid in her escape.

[Browning 35]

OTOH, to a lot of us, waiving the prior robbery around like it means something sounds an awful lot like someone trying to come up with an excuse for killing the guy. Robbery happened. Fatal shooting happened. Morality and ethics of the two events are unrelated. The first event does not justify the second event in exactly the same way that the second event (shooting) cannot justify the 3rd event(s) (rioting/looting).

It does mean something, it speaks to Brown's state of mind. Also gives him a pretty big reason to both assault the cop and possibly try to grab his gun.

If what the Chief says is correct however Officer Wilson was unaware that Brown and Johnson were related to the robbery call, so then again it kind of doesn't have anything to do with the shooting.

As far as a small time robbery that consisted of intimidation, a shove and the theft if the cigars and other small items doesn't equal out to that he deserves a death sentence over the shit either. That's not what got him shot dead though.

If he did in fact assault the cop and try to get his gun and then run away and then run back like that one guy in the video was saying then Wilson is entitled to defend himself up to and including lethal force to defend himself and effect an arrest.

W.R.T. the surprise that it might be illegal to get in the way of a robber, the legal reasoning behind those laws is this: People are more valuable than stuff. The defense of stuff is never a justification to take action that makes it more likely that a person, including yourself may come to harm or may be killed. In context, getting in the way of the robber makes it more likely that the robbery will escalate to a lethal force situation. In other words, the law says that defending your TV does not justify the increased risk of the neighbor kid acting as a bullet backstop when the robber tries to shoot you because you tried to prevent him from leaving.

That's the thing that people never understand, it isn't the stuff. Fuck the cigars. It's the violence, the intimidation and the threat of force.

Why do you think citizens are able to legally use lethal force against burglars and robbers? Is their flat screen or the $20 in their wallet really worth killing someone over someone might ask? Maybe or maybe not, but the violence and even the threat of force sure is.

Doesn't the person being ripped off have a right to defend themselves when someone's using force or trying to use the threat of force and intimidation to steal their property?! Or do they have an obligation to just be a punching bag and a piggy bank?

[williaty]

It does mean something, it speaks to Brown's state of mind. Also gives him a pretty big reason to both assault the cop and possibly try to grab his gun.

Those things may or may not be true, but it doesn't matter in determining whether the shoot was good or not. The guy could have been the evilest person in the world and, if he wasn't in the process of actively attempting to kill or inflict grievous bodily harm, the shot is not justified. Similarly, he could be a saint with no priors and an unbelievable record of helping people but if he's attempting to kill or inflict grievous bodily harm, shoot the bastard dead. The law is very clear that what he's done even shortly before (for instance, threatening you that he's going to go home and come back with a gun to kill you) is not justification for using lethal force now.

The only thing that matters in this case was whether he was doing something, at the time he got shot, that established Ability, Opportunity, and Jeopardy that justified the shooting at that moment.

That's the thing that people never understand, it isn't the stuff. Fuck the cigars. It's the violence, the intimidation and the threat of force.

Doesn't the person being ripped off have a right to defend themselves when someone's using force or trying to use the threat of force and intimidation to steal their property?! Or do they have an obligation to just be a punching bag and a piggy bank?

Look closely at the law and you'll find there's a clear distinction drawn between the theft and the violence in some places. In a fair portion of the states, a person does not have a legal right to use force to prevent property theft if the criminal isn't presenting an explicit, overt threat to the property owner. To provide an example, if I walk up on your front lawn, waive at you, grab your lawnmower, and walk away, you are not (in some places) legally allowed to use force to prevent me from taking your lawnmower. In a similar situation, if I walk up onto your lawn, walk right up to you, and start trying to punch you so that you can't yell as I take your lawnmower, you're legally able to use force to defend yourself, not your property. Where that becomes a mess is when I don't make an overt threat. What if I walk up to you and say "That's a nice looking lawnmower you got there. It'd be shame if something happened to it because you didn't let me borrow it for a while". The implication is clearly that if you object to my taking it, I'm going to do violent things to you, your family, or possibly your dog. However, in that situation, you'd probably be unable to clearly articulate the necessary conditions for you to respond with force to defend yourself from me. Again, the law has to work with the average situation and sometimes that sucks for us.

It also sucks that this is an area that varies by jurisdiction. Some states protect property owners better than others. This was covered during the 12 hour CCW class you're mandated to take to get your CHL here. In order to burn some of the time the state says you have to spend in class, they brought in a lawyer to talk about issues related to traveling with a firearm. This issue (use of force to defend property) is one he brought up as varying a lot between states. However, his warning on the issue was something like "I am a lawyer, but I am not your lawyer. If you want to travel to CA, IL, or to the East of here with a gun or knife, you'd be well served to spend some money and sit down for a few minutes with a lawyer that specializes this area of the law because the situation is more complicated that we can cover in two hours of generalities".

[Aikibiker]

There have been several cops killed by people they stopped for a minor infraction that had recently committed a major crime the officer was unaware of.

I think that this is one of those cases except the good guy lived and the bad guy died.

Also the only witness we have saying that Brown was shot after he surrendered is his accompice who has every reason to lie. Heck he even said in his CNN interview that he did not see the shooting that he was running away at the time.

[Stercutus]

It does mean something, it speaks to Brown's state of mind. Also gives him a pretty big reason to both assault the cop and possibly try to grab his gun.

Those things may or may not be true, but it doesn't matter in determining whether the shoot was good or not. The guy could have been the evilest person in the world and, if he wasn't in the process of actively attempting to kill or inflict grievous bodily harm, the shot is not justified. Similarly, he could be a saint with no priors and an unbelievable record of helping people but if he's attempting to kill or inflict grievous bodily harm, shoot the bastard dead. The law is very clear that what he's done even shortly before (for instance, threatening you that he's going to go home and come back with a gun to kill you) is not justification for using lethal force now.

The only thing that matters in this case was whether he was doing something, at the time he got shot, that established Ability, Opportunity, and Jeopardy that justified the shooting at that moment.


You are missing the point. Brown was trying to escape from the police after a robbery. Some people will use any means necessary to escape from the police. If you think that is not relevant in some way you should give it some more thought.

That's the thing that people never understand, it isn't the stuff. Fuck the cigars. It's the violence, the intimidation and the threat of force.

Doesn't the person being ripped off have a right to defend themselves when someone's using force or trying to use the threat of force and intimidation to steal their property?! Or do they have an obligation to just be a punching bag and a piggy bank?

Look closely at the law and you'll find there's a clear distinction drawn between the theft and the violence in some places. In a fair portion of the states, a person does not have a legal right to use force to prevent property theft if the criminal isn't presenting an explicit, overt threat to the property owner. To provide an example, if I walk up on your front lawn, waive at you, grab your lawnmower, and walk away, you are not (in some places) legally allowed to use force to prevent me from taking your lawnmower. In a similar situation, if I walk up onto your lawn, walk right up to you, and start trying to punch you so that you can't yell as I take your lawnmower, you're legally able to use force to defend yourself, not your property. Where that becomes a mess is when I don't make an overt threat. What if I walk up to you and say "That's a nice looking lawnmower you got there. It'd be shame if something happened to it because you didn't let me borrow it for a while". The implication is clearly that if you object to my taking it, I'm going to do violent things to you, your family, or possibly your dog. However, in that situation, you'd probably be unable to clearly articulate the necessary conditions for you to respond with force to defend yourself from me. Again, the law has to work with the average situation and sometimes that sucks for us.

Don't forget in many states the laws are written so that store owners can defend their stuff even other people can not.

[Browning 35]

Those things may or may not be true, but it doesn't matter in determining whether the shoot was good or not. The guy could have been the evilest person in the world and, if he wasn't in the process of actively attempting to kill or inflict grievous bodily harm, the shot is not justified. Similarly, he could be a saint with no priors and an unbelievable record of helping people but if he's attempting to kill or inflict grievous bodily harm, shoot the bastard dead. The law is very clear that what he's done even shortly before (for instance, threatening you that he's going to go home and come back with a gun to kill you) is not justification for using lethal force now.

Beating a cop in the head and trying to grab his gun isn't attempting to kill or inflict grievous bodily harm?

The only thing that matters in this case was whether he was doing something, at the time he got shot, that established Ability, Opportunity, and Jeopardy that justified the shooting at that moment.

Yes, what I stated above. Guess you just disagreed with the way it was worded. If there's a trial over this the robbery will ended up being included as motivation for the assault and gun grab. Watch.

Look closely at the law and you'll find there's a clear distinction drawn between the theft and the violence in some places. In a fair portion of the states, a person does not have a legal right to use force to prevent property theft if the criminal isn't presenting an explicit, overt threat to the property owner. To provide an example, if I walk up on your front lawn, waive at you, grab your lawnmower, and walk away, you are not (in some places) legally allowed to use force to prevent me from taking your lawnmower. In a similar situation, if I walk up onto your lawn, walk right up to you, and start trying to punch you so that you can't yell as I take your lawnmower, you're legally able to use force to defend yourself,...

You really didn't need to write that whole thing about the lawn mower. I already talked about the property not being as important as the threat of violence.

If you come into my property or try to steal anything from me and then I go to grab that property back from you and you use any physical force against me then I'm entitled to use physical force in return to defend myself.

If you want to travel to CA, IL, or to the East of here with a gun or knife, you'd be well served to spend some money and sit down for a few minutes with a lawyer that specializes this area of the law because the situation is more complicated that we can cover in two hours of generalities".

That's the thing, I have absolutely no interest in even visiting any of places precisely because of the retardation present there. So that time would pretty much be wasted for me.

[Kilo147]

Beating a cop in the head and trying to grab his gun isn't attempting to kill or inflict grievous bodily harm?

There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support this. Stop parroting this damn line, we'll know what's up after the autopsies and FBI investigation.