“Protesters”? No, this is what a riot looks like:
In what was slated as a peaceful “March to the Arch” by Ferguson demonstrators, more than two dozen people were arrested and pepper spray was used by police. The melee unfolded as protesters tried to storm the St. Louis Metropolitan Police headquarters building.
About seventy-five people marched through the downtown area and eventually went to police headquarters. There, with the building on lockdown, the group took the opportunity to rush an open door. Several people pushed in.
Upon entry, protesters read a list of demands to department officials. Those demands included a meeting with Chief Sam Dotson, Mayor Slay and Board of Aldermen President, Lewis Reed. They also requested an immediate termination of Officer’s Hayes and Flannery. They want amnesty for protesters who have been charged with non-violent offenses, the creation of a diverse Citizens Review Board with subpoena power and a seven day release of all information regarding police shootings, not limited to transparent release of all unedited videos and audio.
(Via Memeorandum.) These “protesters” are anti-democratic, pro-criminal anarchists. The city of St. Louis has an elected government, and the police are hired by that government to enforce law in the city. If a majority of the citizens are dissatisfied with their government, their laws or their police, they may make their grievances known at public meetings, or they may elect a new government.
What these “protests” are about is a lawless minority, who are in fact supporters of the city’s criminal element, attempting to impair law enforcement by creating public disturbances. Their liberal sympathizers in the media are enabling these advocates of anarchy by depicting the rioters as representatives of legitimate interests.
UPDATE: Daily Caller reports:
Mckesson’s videos show protesters walking in chanting, “Hands up, don’t shoot.” Later, they can be seen sitting on the floor, hands raised chanting, “No justice, no peace.” One video shows protesters fighting with officials to get through the doors while chanting, “This is what democracy looks like.”
No, this is what anarchy looks like.
This is what incipient fascism looks like. These are brownshirt tactics, representing a menace to public safety by dangerous people whose real goals have nothing to do with either “justice” or “peace.”
Some cops. Not all. What I meant was that if you take away law enforcement, then you have citizen enforcement.
If you’re as similar in attitude as me as I think you are, than I’m pretty sure I’d rather take my chances with the cops than have to answer to you.
Boy, that was an ugly sentence.
I like it!
When people are saying he was murdered I’d call that a hoax. In fact thousands of people are arrested like that each week. If it’s such an obvious risky problem that so obviously leads to death then you protest before the fact, not after. In fact the reason people don’t is because it is so rare and because Garner died because of his health, not because he was mishandled. if Garner played softball he’d die. Is softball risky? No. Saying it is a murderous game if someone dies of a heart attack is perpetrating a hoax and lying. You are lying now. Why not get on your soapbox and whine about lightning strikes?
What do you mean “we”? In the 19th century, 26% of Southern families owned 1 or more slave. Simple mathematics can demonstrate that even in the South, the majority of families did not own slaves. (For that matter, not all slaves were black, and not all slave-owning families were white.) My family didn’t own slaves. We were poor farmers.
Thus, I don’t care what low-lifes might falsely believe that I’m somehow responsible for. And even if my family did own slaves – which we didn’t – the sins of my forefathers are not visited upon me. I have no “white guilt” of any kind, and only morons do anyway (e.g., MSM, liberals).
The salient difference here is between decent people and low-lifes. Please read Taleeb Starkes’ The Un-Civil War.
I think you’re wrong. I think both sides see the same truth. The difference is that one side deliberately chooses to avail themselves of any excuse to violently act out, regardless of how flimsy. This is because they are used to being catered to and appeased, and they have grown to like and expect it. But they know good and full well what the truth is.
“Appealing” to them is the cause of the problem.
The answer is, “Here is a set of black and white striped pajamas with DOC stenciled on the back, and here is a 9-hour per day hard labor gang. Enjoy your next 6 months”. Or until they learn the difference between civil protest/complaint and burning stuff down/robbing your own peeps.
Bubbles burst; pits don’t. The proliferation of billionaires is because of trickle-down economic stimulation methods that benefit the wealthiest first. It’s very inefficient, since rich people have a very small velocity of money — no one ever got rich by spending — but for the people in charge of the policy, that’s a feature, not a bug.
This kind of thing will make real Americans cling to their guns even harder. The day may come when these trust fund protesters who have aligned themselves with anarchists and criminals will push through the wrong door and a number of them will get killed. That should be enough to get them back to the classroom where their pretend Marxist bravado is applauded by their grey pony-tailed professors.
I agree with much of your post. However. The answer is to elect politicians who actually follow the constitution. (A tall order, I grant you.) Any protest that uses illegal force will not only fail, but will make the problems that you rightly point out far, far worse.
Actually, Europe in the 70’s and 80’s had some pretty spectacular acts of mayhem. Google the Baader-Meinhof Komplex.
I’m surprised but not. It figures that there would be real consequences for defying upper-middle class white women. No doubt this is somehow evidence for the existence of the patriarchy.
how to stop constant ringing in ears
Anti-Police Rioters Storm Police Headquarters in St. Louis : The Other McCain
“…no one ever got rich by spending…”
I’m sorry but that is wrong on so many levels. One basic example, a shopkeeper who buys merchandise and sells it for a higher price.
No, it’s not black and white. The media sells it’s products through headlines, not mind control.
Government on the other hand sells it’s “products” through proclaiming crisis and emergencies.
A call for “law and order” can contribute just as much to problem as accusations of racism. In fact, they tend to reinforced each other in a feedback loop.
That depends on the politicos you voted for and what they did in your name, doesn’t it?
Yes I am.
But when our nation excuses people from personal responsibility, you’d better believe it’s our responsibility.
It’s not about racism and it’s not about slavery. It’s about power.
Specifically the assumption behind certain laws that people weren’t capable of making their own decisions.
These laws are incredibly widespread, every thing from cosmetology requirements for commercial hair braiding to the number of taxi medallions to laws governing in home child care. That doesn’t even cover things like the minimum wage or the “War On Drugs.”
Oh I don’t know. I’ve had some experience.
Just ask some of the folks here.
And if the only answer you’re willing to accept is their imprisonment at the point of a gun, then tell me.
Why should they even talk to you?
The truth is that many actors on “both” sides are manipulating the story so they can get more power.
There are more than two sides.
That’s one reason why we must accept that government is not infallible. Nor are it’s agents.
I don’t think you can trust politicos, especially not professional politicos.
Government is not your friend.
As far as illegal force used by a minority, it has worked out in just a few cases. The most recognized “noble” example is probably the American Revolution. A less “noble” one was in November 1979.
The difference is that I think the table stakes have gotten much, much, much higher.
“All hail Caesar!”
I missed this one the first time around. Yes, you could have an Eisenhower. You could also have a Julius Caesar or a Ulysses S. Grant.
I’m not a fan of the Big Man theory of history.
Why 1938?
Arrgh! It’s a figure of speech, the point being that no matter how much you earn, you have to spend less than that to accumulate wealth. All rich people are thrifty by definition, or they don’t stay that way for long.
Well, that’s not exactly true either. At least, not at all times.
I do think it’s a good idea as a general rule. And I think it is a Really Bad Idea® to live mostly or exclusively on credit. That’s true if you are an individual, company or government.
No.
It’ll come to you. Think about the circumstances….
“Brownshirts.” Still hilarious! Start with wikipedia on European history. It’s fairly simple but even so is probably beyond you. Give it a try, though. Anything’s better than your current “understanding.”
Best order them new assault rifles right quick!!
What’s almost funny, btw, is that it’s your ilk, that stocks up on guns and worships a total of one amendment, will invariably be on the side of a fascist government when it destroys dissent.
No, fool, that wasn’t what I was implying.
However, since you mention it, as a completely different point, most people who are in prison in the US of course do not belong there. For two centuries we imprisoned only a small fraction of those we currently imprison. Or do you think the US of 1950 or 1970 was inferior to the US of today?
Do some basic research before continuing the conversation. 8% of those imprisoned are imprisoned for violent crimes. Millions have been imprisoned for nonviolent drug offenses. Start with Michelle Alexander’s The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness.
The US incarcerates at a higher rate than Stalin’s Soviet Union did, or South Africa did under apartheid. Do you not see something wrong with this?
“Brownshirts! Brownshirts!” I can only assume you just don’t know what they are.
They were Hitler’s foot soldiers. Now, tell us how the handful of unarmed protestors resemble Hitler’s foot soldiers while, magically, those who kill them with literal impunity, and who are armed with military grade equipment, are not.
I’ll wait. You’re a funny guy. Start w wikipedia, I guess. Try to learn at least a little something before you depart this world.
But you did compare Polish Jews to Black criminals. You then added insult to bigotry by claiming Blacks were more heavily imprisoned than Polish Jews. In the span of three or four years all, or nearly all of the Polish Jews were ”policed, arrested, and imprisoned” None of them were tried yet 90% were executed.
Boy I’m glad I didn’t waste any money on Michelle Alexander’s tome and only had to squander a few minutes at Wikipedia. Do you actually believe she has compelling arguments? I mean you may find them compelling but do you think sentient life does? At any rate you need to do what that nice mental health professional told you, not what the voices in your head tell you.
So you fault folks for breaking laws that you want nothing to do with.
Pardon, but that doesn’t seen to have anything to do with the rule of law.
Did you mean Kristalnacht? Why Polish Jews though? Hardly anything to do with them.
So you’d rather showcase your ignorance than learn about people you just meet.
Good luck with that.
The problem isn’t that they break laws that shouldn’t have passed. The problem is that they’re under more scrutiny, more police presence because of all the violent crime committed in their communities. There aren’t more Black people in jail for pot because they’re being picked on, but because they smoke and possess pot where there are a lot more cops. They caused them to be there through violence and general disorderly conduct. As for ”racial disparatey” in jail sentencing for pot, it would be interesting to see some stats on the plea bargaining that precedes those sentencings. I’m not responsible for the laws they’re breaking or whether or not they break them. If some one wants to protest unjust drug or other laws by breaking them, have at it. But let’s not pretend that’s why there are so many Black guys in prison for pot violations. They’re breaking drug laws for the same reasons I did when I was younger, to get high and attempt to make money. When I got busted I didn’t whine about the law I just got a lawyer.
“our nation” isn’t excusing them. It’s the elected officials, and their appointees, who ignored their personal responsibility to uphold the Constitution.
The American people are guilty of ignoring their own personal responsibilities, as set up by the Founding Fathers. They ignored civic duties in voting intelligently, and not paying attention to local government, in favor of their bread and circuses.
The system works, when people accept their personal responsibility. By playing the blame game like you’re doing, you’re letting these creatures off the hook by giving them an excuse.
So stop apologizing for them. Go forth and show them how to solve their problems. Don’t blame the responsible people for the actions of these creatures.
Ah, I see. From this, and your above comments, you see some of us as part of the problem. Because, by your lights, we are “responsible” for the decisions and actions of anti-police rioters. And because we aren’t accepting your ideas (i.e., “not listening”), we are “emotive”.
The possibility that we (or most of us, I concede) are adhering to personal standards simply does not compute to you, eh? We lack “passion” because we have reason, based on standards, hmmmmm?
Bravo, sir, bravo! Well done! For a while, I actually mistook you as being a person seriously concerned for the future of this nation.
But, no, you are sympathetic to the anti-police rioters to the point of apologizing for them. And your sympathies may well extend beyond that. I expect that you favor a nation of men, not a nation of laws. A nation of laws requires reason AND passion. Passion you have, but your reasoning is not there.
For that reason, you will fail in your proselytizing to them, in spite of your passion. Because you will be among like minded people, and their passion will overwhelm you.
Black lives have to hold currency with blacks themselves- especially when blacks themselves are involved in their own stigmatizing, devaluation, and ruination. Then they might be taken seriously.
Yep.
He pepper sprayed a bunch of losers who were sitting on a sidewalk exercising their First Amendment right to be losers.
He was fired after eight months on paid administrative leave.
He was still eligible for retirement benefits for his eleven years as a campus cop.
He cost the university 1 million dollars in settlement money.
He collected $38k in workman’s compensation money for his pain & suffering as well as emotional distress .
Now, I don’t give a darn about Occupy protesters or their b.s. “demands”, but this pile of #$%& is a bully who abused the power that he thought his university police badge gave him. In the end, in the spirit of yet another public sector union employee, he whined and cried while milking the taxpayers of California and got himself a good chunk of money out of it.
The Old Sarge thinks he’s a pu_ _y and wishes him a long and miserable life. All that aside, a bunch of losers got to taste some extreme discomfort and received $30k apiece for it while the State of California got screwed out of a lot of money coming and going so….meh.
I heard a discussion about this subject on the radio today (again).
While 93+% percent of blacks are killed by other blacks what nobody seems willing to say publicly is that the reason they were killed by other blacks is that they were engaging in behavior that once in a great while (comparatively) gets them killed by a police officer who is just doing his job.
The black community from the ghetto to the White House seems unwilling to confront this fact. It’s as if playing the role of victim has become embedded in their DNA. Evolution working backwards?
Not me bub. That was some other fellow.
WE have to obey the law, culpable or not.
Something never brought up in this “racial disparity in jail sentencing” nonsense is recidivism.
If black fellow has been arrested repeatedly and not learned from his mistakes then of course that next joint he gets caught with is going to cost him more time in jail. Same would happen if he was white.
You do it. I’m busy working for a living and paying for my house.
Between that and the occasional game of golf, I’m too busy for social work.
Not just the violent crime or drug crime.
A few months ago I was surprised to learn how much communities around St. Louis depend on fines for their revenues. In many cases it’s well over 30%, and those fines are paid mostly by lower class families.
http://reason.com/blog/2014/09/03/a-visit-to-the-numerous-fiefdoms-of-st-l
Scary stuff. And another reason to distrust police.
Actually depending on the city, it does matter if the accused is black or white.
Just like the alcohol laws are not nearly as severe as the drug laws.
And why are those elected officials still elected officials?
The fact is that there aren’t that many responsible people. Many of those look the other way when it’s their Congressman or city councilman. As a Arizona citizen, I’ve been asking since the Keating 5 scandal how John McCain is still a Senator.
If you’ll check my posts you’ll see I’m not apologizing for anyone. I am saying that the “system” and the rule of law have been corrupted. We let that happen.
You can’t trust the system to watch itself. Government is not your friend.
Does that mean that in some city’s, whites are sentenced more harshly than blacks or are blacks the only group treated unfairly?
Could part of the reason for blacks being handed harder sentencing be the lack of sufficient funds to hire an attorney and thus using public defenders?
No arguments from me about income disparity ( though plenty about the reasons for it). Proportionately whites are more likely to be able to secure better legal representation but that is not because they are white. Neither is the income disparity there because they are black.
Offhand I can think of several reasons we should not.
I’d say that we should oppose any law that opposes liberty. Like those “free speech areas” that keep popping up.
The Constitution is a contract. If government doesn’t honor the Constitution, then why should we honor the government.