August 14, 2014

Police officer drags woman out of car...

... caught on video.

109 comments:

jacksonjay said...

I see what you did there.

A little Ferguson Rage misdirect.

MadisonMan said...

I wonder if he's the kind of Police Officer who is disgusted by the tactics used in Ferguson. I hope so.

I often read how moderate Muslims should stand up and speak out against things like ISIS. More police ought to break the Blue Wall Of Silence, too.

Shawn Levasseur said...

jacksonjay,

Now you've spoiled it. We were supposed to let people fly off the handle, proving they didn't follow the link for context.

Ah well. It's still a learning opportunity. Just with less smug shaming on my part.

madAsHell said...

Good for the policeman!

I probably would have stuck with the original she's-trying-to-get-out-of-a-ticket hypothesis until it was too late.

rspung said...

I agree with MadisonMan. It's disgusting what is going on in Ferguson. Homemade molitov cocktails are being thrown around indiscriminately (a police officer was hit in the head by one of them), a women was shot in the head during a drive-by, bricks are being thrown at police (one police officer's ankle was broken), shots are being fired at helicopters, the FAA had to declare the area a no-fly zone, gangs are walking around in the middle of the night armed with shotguns and handguns (one offender aimed a handgun at police and was shot/arrested), stores are being burnt to the ground and looted...

Yep, the tactics are disgusting.

harrogate said...

rspung would have made a great Brownshirt apologist.

Ann Althouse said...

"Now you've spoiled it. We were supposed to let people fly off the handle, proving they didn't follow the link for context."

Some are proving it anyway.

harrogate said...

Seems to me like everyone commenting followed the link.

Yay! A policeman protected and served!

Birkel said...

harrogate:
What did rspung write in support of fascism? Please be specific.

harrogate said...

To riff of an earlier thread, Birkel, if you cannot see the connection maybe you didn't take enough humanities classes.

But I kid. Sort of.

RecChief said...

wow are you auditioning for a buzzfeed headline writing job?

richard mcenroe said...

An Inauthentic Black Man Speaks: http://tinyurl.com/mylqgqq

(Don't tell Crack)

CatherineM said...

Preach Madison Man!

What was irritating during that video. besides the ad for Jim Norton Toyota, is that they stop the video to advertise themselves right before he gives her the Heimlich.

Newsy stinks.

Real American said...

no chickenshit ticket? He left money on the table!

richard mcenroe said...

harrogate: Maybe you've taken too many?

SeanF said...

rspung: ...the FAA had to declare the area a no-fly zone...

They "had" to?

Nonapod said...

Apparently police in Ferguson are teargasing news crews now. This is getting bad.

damikesc said...

rspung would have made a great Brownshirt apologist.

For a change, I agree with harrogate (and I saw the video of the cop last night and he is an example of what the police should be)

Ferguson is an example, sadly, of what they are: overly armed wannabe soldiers trying to intimidate people and suppress freedoms.

The whole unrest was caused BY their actions initially and THEIR response is intesifying the problem. If your fuck up caused the problem, you should be apologetic, not belligerent.

I hope the next President starts to take back the military crap we've given PD's for years. That was a huge error and the local cops love to exacerbate issues with it.

And the treatment of the press and innocent citizens has been abhorrent and officers should be fired and jailed for their actions.

traditionalguy said...

I prefer my police to use this un-choker hold.

EDH said...

Good thing he's not a campus police officer, he'd have to answer a sexual assault charge before a kangaroo court.

rspung said...

Yes, they had to. Like I said, shots were fired from the ground at a helicopter.

And for those who want to blame the police, how about waiting for the facts to come in before rendering judgement?

The office who shot Brown was assaulted prior to the shooting. His face was visibly bruised and swollen. His handgun went off inside the vehicle when Brown tried to take it from him. He was a six year veteran with no prior issues of racism or excessive force.

Stop jumping to conclusions and let the investigators do their work.

As far as the media, they are at fault for going outside the designated police zones and inserting themselves into dangerous riot situations. It should be obvious to anyone - if the tear gas is getting to you, then you are too close to the action.

harrogate said...

"The office who shot Brown was assaulted prior to the shooting. His face was visibly bruised and swollen. His handgun went off inside the vehicle when Brown tried to take it from him. He was a six year veteran with no prior issues of racism or excessive force."

According to whom?

"As far as the media, they are at fault for going outside the designated police zones"

Media should only go where the police tell them they can go?

"and inserting themselves into dangerous riot situations. It should be obvious to anyone - if the tear gas is getting to you, then you are too close to the action."

We saw the video of the cops throwing the canisters at the news trucks and then disassembling the equiptment as the crew scattered. But yeah, I guess one was of interpreting that is that the newscrews were "too close to the action"

Anonymous said...

Put this guy in Ferguson with some riot gear on and the love of this guy will quickly turn to hate by the MadisonMan types on this site.

Disgusting.

Anonymous said...

"Media should only go where the police tell them they can go?"

During a riot, yes.

MadisonMan said...

BTW, I see people eating in the car all the time. This video is one more reason not to.

And for those who want to blame the police, how about waiting for the facts to come in before rendering judgement?

Why should the benefit of the doubt go to the State? The lack of Community Leadership from elected officials and the Police in Ferguson is distinctly unimpressive, and I'm supposed to nevertheless trust them? Sunshine is the best disinfective, IMO -- and if the Police had been a bit more open from the start in what happened -- how many times young Mr. Brown was shot, who the Police Officer was that shot him -- there would be less of an appearance that they are trying to hide something, or to cook the books in the investigation. (It also seems as though they are trying too hard to avoid liability).

harrogate said...

Especially when it's a police riot! Convenient logic, that.

Anonymous said...

The police are rioting?

Who knew?

harrogate said...

"The police are rioting?

Who knew?"


Everyone paying attention to the video.

Birkel said...

harrogate:
I asked for specifics. You provided none. Therefore your ad hominem is meaningless drivel.

One police officer may have done a very bad thing. If he is found to have done the alleged bad thing I hope he serves hard time for his crime.

Simultaneously, I hope the people who have subsequently committed crimes of assault, breaking and entering, vandalism and so on are caught, given their due process and convicted if they did the bad thing.

The proceeding two paragraphs are not mutually exclusive.

So again, I ask, what was written above that supported fascism? Be specific. Avoid ad hominem.

LarsPorsena said...

Blogger harrogate said...
"The office who shot Brown was assaulted prior to the shooting. His face was visibly bruised and swollen. His handgun went off inside the vehicle when Brown tried to take it from him. He was a six year veteran with no prior issues of racism or excessive force."

According to whom?
-----------------------------

So Brown was shot while meekly surrendering to police.
According to whom?

Apparently, no one has learned about rushing to judgment from the Trayvon Martin episode.

Anonymous said...

"Everyone paying attention to the video"

You clearly need to re watch the video. The police are saving a woman who is choking.

harrogate said...

Again, my response to THIS video is a cheerful "Yay! A policeman protected and served!"

Also you can have a cookie.

Robert Cook said...

"'Media should only go where the police tell them they can go?'

'During a riot, yes."


Ah, yes...the well-established "riot exception" to the First Amendment.

LarsPorsena said...

Blogger Robert Cook said...
"'Media should only go where the police tell them they can go?'
--------------------------------

Sure. The media followed the Hamas rules in Gaza. They should follow the police rules in Ferguson.

Birkel said...

Madison Man:
I agree the police should be more forthcoming, where possible. Perhaps keeping details out of public is for the purpose of cross-checking potential witness statements. It might do well to know that alleged witness statements do not conform to the physical evidence. If the police released certain information 'witnesses' might step forward telling stories that were false, but suddenly contained the pertinent, newly publicly released information.

Rushes to judgment must be avoided if any who are potentially guilty are to be convicted. We must protect the guilty from due process violations as well as the innocent.

n.n said...

While it is not unknown, tabloid headlining is a rare occurrence.

rspung said...

There have been multiple news reports documenting statements made by Ferguson police chief Jackson about the injuries to the face of the police officer who shot Brown. I found confirmation at Jackson's statements at VOX (!) and cbs.local.stl.

I am amazed at the hyperventilation and rush to judgment by people who don't understand that it takes more than a few days for all the facts to come out.

The rule of thumb in these type cases is ALWAYS: the first few reports are one-sided, inaccurate and subject to significant revision, once a more complete picture of the evidence can be drawn.

Birkel said...

Robert Cook:
You may want to research the First Amendment.

Robert Cook said...

"Robert Cook: You may want to research the First Amendment."


Well, let's go straight to it:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Yes, there it is; you have to read between the lines and do a little reading of tea leaves, but, clearly, the press must follow the orders of the police during times of public tumult, or...just because!

What is also illuminating is that we find here on close reading the prohibition on the right of the people to "peaceably assemble" when the police are violating the peace.

Birkel said...

Swing and a miss, Robert Cook.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

I'm not reflexively pro-police by any stretch of the imagination, but once you start throwing Molotov cocktails at anyone I think the normal rules are off and I won't feel bad if you catch a beatin' or a bullet as a result. Same thing went for Tahrir square, by the way--I supported the protestors' cause but absolutely did not blame the security forces for firing when they were attacked with Molotovs.

Anonymous said...

"Ah, yes...the well-established "riot exception" to the First Amendment."

The first amendment doesn't give you a right to go wherever you want to go. Here is the first amendment, for your viewing pleasure:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

No exception needed.

Anonymous said...

"Robert Cook:
You may want to research the First Amendment."

I should have read further before responding, didn't see he'd already made a fool of himself.

Birkel said...

Asked on another thread:
What wars would be legal Robert Cook.

Birkel said...

eric:

I feel sure Robert Cook is comfortable with penumbras and emanations in the 14th Amendment but somehow thinks the text of the First Amendment is dispositive without condition.

Odd, that.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Well, yeah, "peaceably assemble," that seems like what's at issue here.

"You made me prepare and throw those Molotov cocktails, loot those stores, and burn down that QT because you're such meanies" doesn't really work for me, but YMMMV. Devil's advocate on clearing the press out of the street (although not by firing tear gas at them!) would be to point out that if the cops didn't clear them from the area and the journalists were in fact injured by rioters the media would almost certainly blame the cops for not protecting them/quelling the violence. I think you have to balance that reality against the need to have the press document what's actually going on and end up establishing "safe zones" where the press can set up and use a zoom to capture the action; at the very least I think you have to acknowledge "I'm with the press!" doesn't give you the right to do whatever you want in a difficult situation like this.
Disabling their equipment, though, that's harder to justify.

Robert Cook said...

"There have been multiple news reports documenting statements made by Ferguson police chief Jackson about the injuries to the face of the police officer who shot Brown. I found confirmation at Jackson's statements at VOX (!) and cbs.local.stl."

Chief Jackson's statements may be factual, (i.e., true), or they may not; "news reports documenting statements made" by Chief Jackson do not constitute proof of the claims made in those statements. There have been, after all, rare (very rare!) occasions where public officials have been known to dissemble.

Let's assume at some point in the officer's interaction with Michael Brown that the police officer was struck or otherwise suffered an injury to his face, possibly by a blow from Michael Brown. There are eye-witness claims--again, not proof, but it is reported that eye-witnesses claim that when Michael Brown was shot, he was kneeling, already wounded by at least one shot, with his arms raised. If this is true, any alleged or potential danger Brown posed had been neutralized, and no need to shoot Brown several more times was necessary. The officer having been somehow injured does not warrant his discharging his firearm at a fleeing suspect, or, in this case, a kneeling suspect many feet away from the officer.

Smilin' Jack said...

Yay! A policeman protected and served!

And got blogged here as the exception that proves the rule.

Robert Cook said...

"Asked on another thread:
What wars would be legal Robert Cook."


I answered on that thread: in short: almost none.

richard mcenroe said...

"Ah, yes...the well-established "riot exception" to the First Amendment."

Press should be allowed to go wherever they want. For example, in Bosnia, they were excellent for clearing minefields...

Robert Cook said...

"Press should be allowed to go wherever they want. For example, in Bosnia, they were excellent for clearing minefields..."

That's as may be, and many journalists have been wounded or killed in the pursuit of their jobs. But it is their choice to make to place themselves at risk, not the place of the authorities to prohibit them from taking those risks.

Mark said...

"I am amazed at the hyperventilation and rush to judgment by people who don't understand that it takes more than a few days for all the facts to come out.

The rule of thumb in these type cases is ALWAYS: the first few reports are one-sided, inaccurate and subject to significant revision, once a more complete picture of the evidence can be drawn."

I assume rsprung spends his days defending Obama here using the same logic, right?

For a site where the commentariat is so quick to draw conclusions, rsprung's whole line of argument is hilarious.

Yep, it's the internet. Let's not rush to judgement, make sweeping overgeneralizations, or antagonize each other.

ThreeHeaded Throop said...

In other news, man bites dog....

rspung said...

"Let's assume at some point in the officer's interaction with Michael Brown that the police officer was struck or otherwise suffered an injury to his face, possibly by a blow from Michael Brown."

Ok, let's do that. It means the eyewitnesses are lying.

Thanks for your help!

Birkel said...

Query these, Robert Cook:
A gas main is leaking and the gas company, in coordination with police, clear the likely blast area. All people are forced to comply with the evacuation order. Is that a violation of the First Amendment?

A train has derailed carrying a dangerous chemical. It is not known if the chemical has leaked but if it does another Bhopal, India scenario will play out. All people, including police, are excluded from the area and forced to evacuate pending experts determining that the rail car can be safely offloaded. Is this a First Amendment issue?

I have more scenarios with which to mock you. Just ask.

Anonymous said...

"Ok, let's do that. It means the eyewitnesses are lying."

Maybe. Or it means what they said wasn't reported in full context. Or they were mistaken. Or a bunch of other things.

Regardless, doesn't justify rioting.

Birkel said...

Vanishingly few wars are ever legal according to Robert Cook.

Tells you everything you need to know about his thoughtfulness.

exhelodrvr1 said...

Good column on a related topic.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/joseph-epstein-whats-missing-in-ferguson-mo-1407885042

exhelodrvr1 said...

Remember - the police officer also deserves the presumption of innocence here, when the issue is a potential crime by him.

John Lynch said...

Hah. Way to check if commenters are going to the link.

Paul Brinkley said...

Media should only go where the police tell them they can go?

We should only believe happened what the media tell us happened?

Hammond X. Gritzkofe said...

...the officer grabbed the choking woman from the car, spun her around, snatched down her pants and delivered a huge wet gobsmacking kiss on each butt cheek.

Thereupon the astonished woman coughed, sputtered, and straightened up - ejecting the offending food particle.


Yep, that hind lick maneuver will do it every time.

damikesc said...

A gas main is leaking and the gas company, in coordination with police, clear the likely blast area. All people are forced to comply with the evacuation order. Is that a violation of the First Amendment?

A train has derailed carrying a dangerous chemical. It is not known if the chemical has leaked but if it does another Bhopal, India scenario will play out. All people, including police, are excluded from the area and forced to evacuate pending experts determining that the rail car can be safely offloaded. Is this a First Amendment issue?


Neither seem comparable to Ferguson.

The police shot an unarmed person. Was it justified? I on't know --- but the one group putting as much gas on the fire as possible are the police.

It seems that are TRYING to really piss off the citizenry, which seems foolish.

If the cop is innocent, then great. If he is not, he should be prosecuted harshly. Police have exactly ZERO rights that ordinary citizens do not have.

harrogate said...

The idea that people didn't check the link keeps coming up, but doesn't get any smarter.

traditionalguy said...

What is special about Missouri is the obvious attempt to bait the black residents into some riotous actions so the local gestapo can run them out of town.

The first night there was no police sent to the looted QT Store, only videotaping crews were sent to document several looters in action.

After that there have been no riots at all, but only angry locals standing in the streets and yards carrying signs and chanting, then being being attacked by an army shooting at them with flash bang grenades and tear gas cannisters portrayed as " another night of violence by angry blacks."

The McDonalds was attacked only because the outside video tapers and reporters were using it for their Wi-Fi connection and for a recharging point. Why was it a priority to shut off competing video tape and reports?

This seems like a premeditated race war being started to clear out a valuable area near the airport about to go black politically in the next election cycles.

There is no rational reason releasing statements about the shooting event are being so cleverly stonewalled. If they wanted to start riots, they could not have done it any better. Ergo: they want riots.

BTW Missouri was a border state in the Civil war that wanted to stay neutral like Kentucky, but spent the entire war occupied by a Union military government. It never seceeded except merely symbolicly in a rumph convention held in Texas that never governed anything.

exhelodrvr1 said...

"This seems like a premeditated race war being started to clear out a valuable area near the airport about to go black politically in the next election cycles."

There's absolutely no evidence of that - that's the kind of asinine, inflammatory statement that just makes racial relations worse here.
Think Al Sharpton and Tawana Brawley.

Ann Althouse said...

"wow are you auditioning for a buzzfeed headline writing job?"


Police officer drags woman out of car and what happens next will restore your faith in humanity.

Anonymous said...

"This seems like a premeditated race war being started to clear out a valuable area near the airport about to go black politically in the next election cycles."

Also, we never landed on the moon and aliens are being kept in area 51.

MadisonMan said...

A day on Althouse of all Buzzfeedy headlines. Is that too much to ask?

Beaumont said...

"Police officer drags woman out of car..."

An interesting demonstration as to how many media pundits (and outlets) with rigid pre-existing ideologies work .......arriving at definitive conclusions with limited information.

Birkel said...

damikesc:

The point I was making with my examples was in response to Robert Cook's absurd position that the police cannot tell reporters they cannot go somewhere, anywhere, those reporters want "Because First Amendment".

Robert Cook is wrong, as per usual.

Robert Cook said...

"Vanishingly few wars are ever legal according to Robert Cook.

"Tells you everything you need to know about his thoughtfulness."


That you don't recognize virtually all wars as terrible crimes tells one everything needs to know about you...it what it tells ain't good!

richard mcenroe said...

"...not the place of the authorities to prohibit them from taking those risks."

and of course they are entitled to demand other people take those risks to enable them, like for example the McDonald's manager who can't close his store (he had already asked the reporters to leave as they were drawing unfriendly attention to the business), or the people the reporters would expect to come get them if they did get into trouble...

Robert Cook said...

"'Let's assume at some point in the officer's interaction with Michael Brown that the police officer was struck or otherwise suffered an injury to his face, possibly by a blow from Michael Brown.'

"Ok, let's do that. It means the eyewitnesses are lying."


Not at all...at least, not necessarily. Reality is not binary.

The police could be telling the truth and the eyewitnesses are mistaken or lying;

The eyewitnesses could be telling the truth and the police are mistaken or lying;

or,

What actually happened could correspond to certain aspects of the police version and to some aspects of the eyewitnesses' version.

Robert Cook said...

"We should only believe happened what the media tell us happened?"

No, who ever suggested that? The media are frequently wrong.

Robert Cook said...

"Query these, Robert Cook:
A gas main is leaking and the gas company, in coordination with police, clear the likely blast area. All people are forced to comply with the evacuation order. Is that a violation of the First Amendment?

"A train has derailed carrying a dangerous chemical. It is not known if the chemical has leaked but if it does another Bhopal, India scenario will play out. All people, including police, are excluded from the area and forced to evacuate pending experts determining that the rail car can be safely offloaded. Is this a First Amendment issue?"


As Damikesc pointed out, these are not at all comparable to Ferguson, but to answer you: I doubt most reporters would risk their lives in such scenarios as you present and would happily stay away for their own safety, but if there were any reporters who were determined to get closer to the scene to report what they could, and if they were able to do so and escape safely from the scenes to file their reports, good for them. I don't think they would be prosecuted for trespassing and they should not be.

Birkel said...

Wars aren't crimes.
Wars are terrible.

You are a thoughtless dolt.

Birkel said...

Robert Cook:

Type "Because First Amendment" as much as you like. That doesn't make you correct.

Find the case law that says a member of the press cannot be force to leave some area. I'll wait here.

Robert Cook said...

"Wars aren't crimes."

Oh, yes...they are the greatest crimes.

harrogate said...

In the sense that the people who cause and start wars generally are never held accountable for the horror they have wrought and get to continue to move about in great comfort and are treated with great respect and are spoken of as though they possess dignity. In that sense it's true, wars are not crimes.

Anonymous said...

"The office who shot Brown was assaulted prior to the shooting. His face was visibly bruised and swollen. His handgun went off inside the vehicle when Brown tried to take it from him. He was a six year veteran with no prior issues of racism or excessive force."

Seeing how they refuse to even release his name they can say anything they want to say about the officer and his previous record. There is no way for anyone to check up on it.

harrogate said...

Eventually the name of the killer as well as his abettors all will be released and so too will the names of every single officer who has donned riot gear and tossed tear gas at crowds and arrested reporters. Not a one should be protected by anonymity

Robert Cook said...

"In the sense that the people who cause and start wars generally are never held accountable for the horror they have wrought and get to continue to move about in great comfort and are treated with great respect and are spoken of as though they possess dignity. In that sense it's true, wars are not crimes."

So, a murderer who kills another person but is never caught or punished has not committed a crime?

Wars are mass murder; they are crimes. That the perpetrators are rarely brought to justice for their crimes does not remove the stink of criminality.

I understand your point, but our refusal to face the reality of what people in power do or to name it for what it is is to be complicit with their crimes, and is to give permission for them to carry on with more crimes.

Birkel said...

Robert Cook:

Just to be clear I want you to type that you believe there is no difference between self defense and naked aggression. After all, if war is a crime then any participant is a criminal. And it matters not who caused the fight initially. Right? Spell it out.

You believe there is a moral equivalence between the woman attacked by a mugger and the mugger if she tries to defend herself. Right?

Or is it only state actors who bear this burden according to you?

CWJ said...

traditionalguy @ 2:56,

Where the "H" do you live? You're comment makes little sense. Lambert Field is not prime real estate. Just the opposite. And spare us your "knowledge" of Missouri during the Civil War. What are you trying to prove? Accurate or not, it's irrelevant.

CWJ said...

OK, I'm sorry to have even commented, and to have provided Althouse with one more snicker at how far off topic this post has gone.

Robert Cook said...

Oh, for Pete's sake! Of course there's a difference between aggressors and those defending themselves. But those defending themselves often commit crimes in war, as, how can they not? The aggressors always claim self-defense as an excuse--as Hitler did when he invaded Poland.

traditionalguy said...

@CWJ...The irrational handling of this shooting is in its speculative stage. Here in Atlanta the land near the airport is constantly being redeveloped for expansion of runways and Airline related businesses. Inside knowledge of a coming expansion brings out land speculators with political connections.

No one knows yet, but the motive to act the coordinated way to start a race riot seems obvious. It could simply be the biggest motivator in today's jobless recovery which is getting and keeping of government career jobs with benefits. The military is being RIF'ted now and the need for new domestic army related jobs may be a strong bureaucratic temptation. USPS jobs are not growing and State Patrol jobs are not either. Where do ex-military get a new careers?

Missouri's status as Confederate State was raised by someone in earlier posts asserting it to be a southern state.

Feel free to make comments yourself.

Birkel said...

Ah, so there's a difference between aggressors and victims. But victims "often commit crimes in war" so they become just as bad as the aggressors.

So what you're saying is that victims aren't as bad as aggressors. But usually through their response to unprovoked aggression they become as bad as the aggressors by defending themselves?

Got it. And your Godwin issue is duly noted.

Birkel said...

traditionalguy:
The sort of hypothesizing you're engaging is getting well out in front of any facts. Perhaps you are right. But Occam's Razor strongly suggests an opposite conclusion.

The facts are likely to be revealed in due course. Until then, we should all wish comfort for the family that lost a son while prosecuting any criminal activity by any actor in this tragic situation.

rspung said...

Normally I hate Jane Velez-Whatever, but she made a great point tonight.

What if they hadn't spent God-knows-how-much on military gear and military vehicles, etc.? And, instead, they spent money on dash cams and button cams for every officer.

We would already know what happened and there would probably not be any riots. And, IF the cop was at fault, maybe he would have done things differently, knowing he was being recorded.

Good idea, Jane.

MadisonMan said...

And, instead, they spent money on dash cams and button cams for every officer.

The Police Union would have to agree to this. And because it could potentially lead to a Policeman being held accountable, and losing their job (and therefore not pay Union dues), of course the Union will be against it.

Smilin' Jack said...

Police officer drags woman out of car and what happens next will restore your faith in humanity.

You really think so? You only blogged it because it's a man bites dog story.

Annie said...

traditionalguy @ 2:56

You are spectacularly wrong on all counts. Police went to the Quick Trip and rescued the employees out the back, who were in fear for their lives.

But go back to right after the initial shooting. When backup arrived, they were shot at. Just for showing up. Before the rioting. Many in Ferguson are saying a lot of these thugs are coming in from other communities. They want it to stop. Even residents, black and white are getting harrassed while showing up to clean up.

Oh, and Ferguson is nearly 70% black. The rioters are vandalizing and thieving their own. Fool.

Annie said...

MadisonMan, it works both ways. The police and the citizen will behave better if they knew they were being videotaped. I can't remember the city who put cameras on every cop - can't search for it on this device I'm on - but it worked. Complaints went down on both sides.

Problem with smaller towns like Ferguson, whose police aren't paid very much, is lack of funds..not unions trying to cover for bad cops. I would think police would welcome such a thing if it could exonerate them at some point.

Rusty said...

Smilin' Jack said...
Yay! A policeman protected and served!

And got blogged here as the exception that proves the rule.

If I can be anecdotal for a moment. In my long and often legally questionable, well, certainly unhealthy, existence I have found the police more often helpful.

Except for the Wisconsin DNR which for the most part are a bunch of pricks.

Rusty said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Robert Cook said...

"Ah, so there's a difference between aggressors and victims. But victims 'often commit crimes in war' so they become just as bad as the aggressors.

"So what you're saying is that victims aren't as bad as aggressors. But usually through their response to unprovoked aggression they become as bad as the aggressors by defending themselves?"


"As bad?" That depends. Could be. "Bad?" Yes.

You simply appear obtuse when you pretend not to understand the obvious: when I say "wars are crimes" I obviously mean that "wars are crimes" (usually) committed by one party or parties against another party or parties (except when all parties are mutually belligerent and aggressive); those warred against must defend themselves or surrender themselves.

We started the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (and Pakistan and god knows wherever else we're killing people now), so we are the criminals in our current wars. Yet we falsely claim a self-defense justification. (Preemptive reminder: neither Afghanistan nor Iraq attacked us.) Many Americans believe we are acting in self-defense, and thus any crime we commit is justified in their minds. Many or most of those we call "terrorists"--simply because they fight back against our aggression--may be mostly just nationalists defending their homelands, people who won't abide foreign troops shooting up their homes or our sending robot-flown bombs to blow up their weddings and funerals and town squares.

If another nation invaded ours or sent a sortie of bombers over our skies or fired ICBMs at us from afar--absent any self-defense necessity against us on their part--they would be the aggressors and the criminals; we would have have a right of necessity to defend ourselves.

However, all participants in war become criminals, as those defending themselves usually end up committing atrocities and killing innocents as well as the military forces against which they're defending. (And, as I say above, the aggressors pretend--and the citizens of the aggressor nations often believe--that they are acting in self-defense.)

In the "fog of war" all become monsters.

Birkel said...

Alright, Robert Cook. I'm the obtuse one.

Name one war in which one side remained "not criminals".

You see, if there is only a theoretical chance that people can avoid becoming criminals in defense of themselves but it never actually happens -- then you are full of shit. And all of the words you typed were a dodge. But no. You're right. I'm the obtuse one.

For extra points, Mr. Non-Obtuse, I will note your romanticization of non-Americans.
Noble savages? Check.
Godwin violation? Check.

You are dim.

Robert Cook said...

"I will note your romanticization of non-Americans."

How do you perceive I have romanticized non-Americans?

"Name one war in which one side remained 'not criminals.'"

That's a tough one. There may not be one.

Which proves my point.

Birkel said...

No, Robert Cook, it does not prove your point. What that means is that eventually those defending themselves and the aggressors who drag them into a war are equivalent morally in your world view.

Quit fighting the inevitable conclusion. It's unseemly to watch you squirm so.

I understand your frustration at realizing difficult things about yourself. I'm sure you've got the mental agility to deny what I am making obvious.

Robert Cook said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Robert Cook said...

"What that means is that eventually those defending themselves and the aggressors who drag them into a war are equivalent morally in your world view."

They become so, eventually, yes.

"It's unseemly to watch you squirm so."

Heh. I'm not squirming. I'm quite comfortable that I have described reality accurately and succinctly.

You can choose to disagree, of course, but your disagreement bothers me not.

Birkel said...

Fine, let me spell it out for you, Robert Cook. You are a moral coward. You cannot confront reality and therefore have fashioned a worldview that allows you a feeling of superiority by rationalizing the horrible things that happen in the world and calling both the victims and the aggressors morally equivalent.

I wish that I could believe you are a 17 year old who will come to understand foolishness. But I'm relatively certain you're just a fully formed moral coward.

Kirk Parker said...

Robert,

How about if we edit your remarks as follows:

"I doubt most people would risk their lives in such scenarios as you present and would happily stay away for their own safety, but if there were any people who were determined to get closer to the scene, and if they were able to do so and escape safely from the scenes afterward, good for them. I don't think they would be prosecuted for trespassing and they should not be."

Still OK?

Robert Cook said...

Birkel: as you please. I'm no more bothered by your opprobrium than by your disagreement.

Birkel said...

I am indifferent to you, Robert Cook. If I believed you capable of embarrassment I might care to offer opprobrium.

But as a moral coward I know you are shameless and any attempt to shame you would be a foolish wasted effort by me. Instead, I engage you so that any who read these comments will see the evidence you have provided about your own moral cowardice. And then we can place appropriate discount factors to all future comments.

Drago said...

Cookie: "Oh, yes...they are the greatest crimes"

No, the greatest crimes in the history of humanity were the inevitable 10's of millions of human beings being massacred on the altar of leftism.

It's easy to see how you might have missed that.

You'd be better off coming up with even crazier conspiracy theories.

MadisonMan said...

I can't remember the city who put cameras on every cop - can't search for it on this device I'm on - but it worked.

Someplace in California, I think. Smallish town. That's my recollection.