State of Emergency Declared in Ferguson - Curfew from 12 am to 5am - Now National Guard

originally posted by: kosmicjack
a reply to: BobAthome

You need to read more of the various threads. Dorian Johnson didn't steal a thing. Watch the video. His statement to local and Federal investigators is corroborated by the video.

u mean his lawyer plea bargained , already?? for his story ??

The police might get a pass on shooting looters. From what I find, In most states, a private citizen wouldn't. Being inside your business at the time might help one's case.

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: OptimusCrime
You have your timeline wrong.

Okay, so if they weren't at a protest, where were the police while QT burned?

They were told not to intervene . . and if you read the thread you would see my opinion on why. Funny how you don't like the police involved and now you want them involved. What is your argument btw?

originally posted by: BobAthome

originally posted by: kosmicjack
a reply to: BobAthome

You need to read more of the various threads. Dorian Johnson didn't steal a thing. Watch the video. His statement to local and Federal investigators is corroborated by the video.

u mean his lawyer plea bargained , already?? for his story ??

Hey Bob, if they really thought he committed a crime, why didn't they ever try to arrest him?
Or question him?
Or even talk to him?

But I see what you've done now. You're using a Mail story from the 14th which claims he is a suspect. The Ferguson Police Chief said on the 15th that he was totally innocent of any crime. So you're:
A) Ignorant of what happened
B) Mistaking a news report from days ago for current information
or
C) Willfully trying to mislead fellow ATS members

Choose carefully.

a reply to: hillbilly4rent

I second and third that it'll be Chicago

originally posted by: OptimusCrime
They were told not to intervene . . and if you read the thread you would see my opinion on why. Funny how you don't like the police involved and now you want them involved. What is your argument btw?

Were they?

— A staff photographer for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported that when the looting began, there were no police at or around the QuikTrip. As looting continued, police helicopters moved into the area. A SWAT team moved in and used tear gas to disperse the looters.

— As of Thursday morning, the total amount of damage caused Sunday night hadn't been calculated. The Ferguson Police Department told Los Angeles station KTLA that at least 20 police cars were damaged. Police did not tell the Washington Post how many people were arrested, but reports indicate "dozens" of arrests:

— Ferguson Police Chief Tom Jackson told reporters on Wednesday that 32 people were arrested during the looting on Sunday.

Sounds like they were just a bit slow in getting there.

Constructing a strawman regarding my opinion in the matter is funny, by the way.

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: BobAthome

originally posted by: kosmicjack
a reply to: BobAthome

You need to read more of the various threads. Dorian Johnson didn't steal a thing. Watch the video. His statement to local and Federal investigators is corroborated by the video.

u mean his lawyer plea bargained , already?? for his story ??

Hey Bob, if they really thought he committed a crime, why didn't they ever try to arrest him?
Or question him?
Or even talk to him?

But I see what you've done now. You're using a Mail story from the 14th which claims he is a suspect. The Ferguson Police Chief said on the 15th that he was totally innocent of any crime. So you're:
A) Ignorant of what happened
B) Mistaking a news report from days ago for current information
or
C) Willfully trying to mislead fellow ATS members

Choose carefully.

C) Willfully trying to mislead fellow ATS members

C I PICK c,,,AND LET THE MEMBERS DECIDE.

Here's stuff from London during WWII:
WW2 Crime

One of the most shocking crimes committed during wartime was the looting from bombed houses. In the first eight weeks of the London Blitz a total of 390 cases of looting was reported to the police. On 9th November, 1940, the first people tried for looting took place at the Old Bailey. Of these twenty cases, ten involved members of the Auxiliary Fire Service.
The Lord Mayor of London suggested that notices should be posted throughout the city, reminding the population that looting was punishable by hanging or shooting.

Hard to find much ATM as searching the word “looting” pulls up pages and pages of stuff about Furguson.

Kind of talks about it here:
Terror of Example” Crime and Punishment in the British Army in 1812
Part One: Capital Punishment

When in a foreign country like Spain and Portugal, the provost marshal and his deputies, acting in the role of military police, served to deter unsanctioned looting, plundering and other civil abuses, along with executed sentences for military abuses that required a General Court Martial.

Punishment:

When it came to hanging as a capital punishment, the military often copied the civil traditions.  However the military also used the firing squad for executions, and, in the East India Company, the horrific practice of executing the convicted by placing him in front of the muzzle of a cannon and firing. [7]     When a soldier was executed for a capital offence, regulations ordered that the punishment be always in the day light and that a label was fixed to the prisoner stating the crime he is being put to death for. [8]   However the regulations and the Mutiny Act were less clear on when a soldier was to be shot and when he was to be hung.  One contemporary military law author wrote: “The appropriate capital punishment of a soldier is to be shot to death; but capital crimes, when attended with peculiar infamy, are expiated by the more infamous punishment of hanging by the neck.” [9]    In studying the various military executions, it appears theft or plundering was considered of “peculiar infamy” and produced the majority of military hangings. [10]   

Plundering is looting BTW...

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: OptimusCrime
They were told not to intervene . . and if you read the thread you would see my opinion on why. Funny how you don't like the police involved and now you want them involved. What is your argument btw?

Were they?

— A staff photographer for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported that when the looting began, there were no police at or around the QuikTrip. As looting continued, police helicopters moved into the area. A SWAT team moved in and used tear gas to disperse the looters.

— As of Thursday morning, the total amount of damage caused Sunday night hadn't been calculated. The Ferguson Police Department told Los Angeles station KTLA that at least 20 police cars were damaged. Police did not tell the Washington Post how many people were arrested, but reports indicate "dozens" of arrests:

— Ferguson Police Chief Tom Jackson told reporters on Wednesday that 32 people were arrested during the looting on Sunday.

Sounds like they were just a bit slow in getting there.

Constructing a strawman regarding my opinion in the matter is funny, by the way.

You have no clue what you're talking about.

Stand Down


Furthermore, when 100's of people are rioting and looting, it's going to take time to get enough cops there. You want me to post a video of a cop car in town with looters kicking as it drives by??

i'd like to see an investigation into the details of the actual business owners, who lost their businesses.
were they:

1. white
2. jewish
3. christian
4. conservative
5. from an unpopular strain of islam
or
5. about to go bankrupt

and compare it to the neighboring businesses that weren't destroyed and their details.

originally posted by: OptimusCrime
You have no clue what you're talking about.

Stand Down

Furthermore, when 100's of people are rioting and looting, it's going to take time to get enough cops there. You want me to post a video of a cop car in town with looters kicking as it drives by??

You sure?

The QT being looted and burned happened on the 10th-11th. You're quoting stuff that happened on the 16th as backing you up. Hmm... kinda sounds like you're describing yourself.

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: OptimusCrime
You have no clue what you're talking about.

Stand Down

Furthermore, when 100's of people are rioting and looting, it's going to take time to get enough cops there. You want me to post a video of a cop car in town with looters kicking as it drives by??

You sure?

The QT being looted and burned happened on the 10th-11th. You're quoting stuff that happened on the 16th as backing you up. Hmm... kinda sounds like you're describing yourself.

There were multiple lootings and nights. What are you referring to? I'm not even sure wth your argument is. Do you want cops there or do you not?

originally posted by: OptimusCrime

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: OptimusCrime
You can google the videos. There's over 100 people running around outside smashing windows and stealing.

Okay, so where were the police?

Oh right, they were elsewhere, shooting tear gas, wooden plugs, and rubber bullets at reporters and protestors holding signs.

You have your timeline wrong.

Also, your statements are false. You can get valuable information from google. If you use it correctly, you'll see that another "protester" pointed a gun at police and was shot dead. I'm surprised they didn't riot over that, too. But that's ok, you'll omit that fact just to try and prove a point that is false.

I'd argue that you have your distinctions wrong. I break down who may be present at a protest by these three categories and definitions:

Protesters--those who are present to actively highlight an issue through speech or action with the tendency towards non-aggression.

Looters--opportunists who descend upon a situation where they may be most able to break the law and get away with it. Are not related to the protesters directly as you will find looters in other opportunity-laden situations such as a natural disaster or a power outage.

Rioters--may be a more aggressive/violent form of protester or may be someone who simply wants to watch the world burn and is going for it.

You can't look at a protest and assume that any and all individuals acting within it are of the same mind and intent. Not all protesters are looters and I'd say that the looters were not protesters at all. Some rioters may have been protesters who feel that more aggressive action is needed or may be acting in order to undermine the cause that the protesters are presenting. Or they may just want to watch the world burn.

Ferguson is an impoverished area. Looters are going to happen and if not from within the community, then from neighboring communities because that's where the opportunity is. Whoever they are, they don't care about any cause because if they did, they'd know that their actions would be broadcast in such a way as to paint the entire protest ill. Technically, same might actually be said of rioters. Helps to make distinctions about those in any protest than paint all of those acting in various ways under the same brush.

originally posted by: WhiteAlice

originally posted by: OptimusCrime

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: OptimusCrime
You can google the videos. There's over 100 people running around outside smashing windows and stealing.

Okay, so where were the police?

Oh right, they were elsewhere, shooting tear gas, wooden plugs, and rubber bullets at reporters and protestors holding signs.

You have your timeline wrong.

Also, your statements are false. You can get valuable information from google. If you use it correctly, you'll see that another "protester" pointed a gun at police and was shot dead. I'm surprised they didn't riot over that, too. But that's ok, you'll omit that fact just to try and prove a point that is false.

I'd argue that you have your distinctions wrong. I break down who may be present at a protest by these three categories and definitions:

Protesters--those who are present to actively highlight an issue through speech or action with the tendency towards non-aggression.

Looters--opportunists who descend upon a situation where they may be most able to break the law and get away with it. Are not related to the protesters directly as you will find looters in other opportunity-laden situations such as a natural disaster or a power outage.

Rioters--may be a more aggressive/violent form of protester or may be someone who simply wants to watch the world burn and is going for it.

You can't look at a protest and assume that any and all individuals acting within it are of the same mind and intent. Not all protesters are looters and I'd say that the looters were not protesters at all. Some rioters may have been protesters who feel that more aggressive action is needed or may be acting in order to undermine the cause that the protesters are presenting. Or they may just want to watch the world burn.

Ferguson is an impoverished area. Looters are going to happen and if not from within the community, then from neighboring communities because that's where the opportunity is. Whoever they are, they don't care about any cause because if they did, they'd know that their actions would be broadcast in such a way as to paint the entire protest ill. Technically, same might actually be said of rioters. Helps to make distinctions about those in any protest than paint all of those acting in various ways under the same brush.

If you've read my posts, you'll see that I'm not arguing the fact that all people are rioters, or all people are looters, or all people are protesters.

I'm arguing the point that some people are rioters, some people are looters and some people are protesters. I know the difference between the three but thank you for the clarification.

I don't believe that some are acting to undermine the cause. I believe that every single one of the rioters/looters who were not only stealing but destroying property, took it as an opportunity to:

1) Steal for the hell of it because it's fun
2) Damage property for the hell of it because it's fun

No human being with any form of empathy or ability to think first before acting would destroy and ruin a town like that and I think it's disgusting. My argument has been that when a town is basically torn to pieces by animals, you lose your right to protest until the animals are under control, which they are not.

originally posted by: OptimusCrime
My argument has been that when a town is basically torn to pieces by animals, you lose your right to protest until the animals are under control, which they are not.

And you can't see how that one sentence, undermines the founding of America.

originally posted by: jholt5638

originally posted by: OptimusCrime
My argument has been that when a town is basically torn to pieces by animals, you lose your right to protest until the animals are under control, which they are not.

And you see how that one sentence, undermines the founding of America.

It's not about undermining the founding of America. It's about protecting the rest of the people that have to live there. I'm all about people voicing their opinions and being able to protest in a calm manner. I'm not about rioting and looting being ignored by most people on ATS and blaming every police officer out there.

a reply to: [post=18298885]OptimusCrime[/post

you lose your right to protest until the animals are under control, which they are not.

No you do not!

How does that make sense to you? It goes 100% against the right to protest!
You know that the protestors are different from the looters and rioters but agree to punish them over the actions of the few?
Since there are thousands that have been protesting to your 100's that have been looting

We are not ignoring the looting, we just can see the striping of the rights of those NOT LOOTING getting stripped is the bigger issue.
We see the lack of response to the looters by the police, but a heavy handed one to the protestors.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: [post=18298885]OptimusCrime[/post

you lose your right to protest until the animals are under control, which they are not.

No you do not!

How does that make sense to you? It goes 100% against the right to protest!
You know that the protestors are different from the looters and rioters but agree to punish them over the actions of the few?
Since there are thousands that have been protesting to your 100's that have been looting

Can you read? How many times do I have to repeat myself to you. Get a pen, write this down and reread it every time you ask me the same question.

"YOU CAN PROTEST ALL YOU WANT IN A PEACEFUL MANNER AFTER THE RIOTING/LOOTING/DESTRUCTION IS OVER"

I get it, you're a criminal apologist, that's cool, but 100's of people burning/breaking and destroying things is a pretty big deal. I'm shocked you can't see this.

a reply to: OptimusCrime

If you start making exceptions to the Bill of Rights or the Constitution then you render the whole document worthless and powerless. And when that happens there won't be an America anymore. It will be something else, and in my opinion something far worse.

a reply to: OptimusCrime

"YOU CAN PROTEST ALL YOU WANT IN A PEACEFUL MANNER AFTER THE RIOTING/LOOTING/DESTRUCTION IS OVER"

And how many times do we need to tell you that you can not strip the rights of the many for the actions of the few!