Rioting in St Louis

[autry_denson]

Protesters training to shut down Clayton following Brown grand jury announcement | FOX2now.com

Roche Madden, Fox2



To punish the community where the St Louis Co. grand jury convenes even though the members of that jury live throughout St. Louis Co. and none of them may be from Clayton.

A lot of people don't seem to understand that the issue is not limited to one incident, to one grand jury, in one location. This is a reflection of anger and resentment about persistent, systematic mistreatment of the black community by the police and other public officials. This resentment crystallized around the deathr of one individual young man, but if you think that the resentment is limited to this single incident, or is contingent on one specific incident, then you don't get it. Your view is very narrow if you have to ask why protests might occur at this point. Think bigger. Think about why a segment of the population might feel systematically targeted by an institution like the police. Think about how years of racialized policing tactics, which have been documented among the entire police force, might come to generate anger over time. And how all of this anger may boil over when a specific incident, like the killing of a young man, occurs in public space.

Honestly, I have respect for BGIF and other posters who have weighed in on this issue. But I just don't understand how you can have such a simplistic understanding of this kind of issue. If you think it's about jurors in a specific county, or even the details of a specific incident, then you have a serious misinterpretation of what's going on in Ferguson.

 

[autry_denson]

Sucks for the family of the boy who was killed but this is freaking bull shit.

32 arrested, 2 officers injured after riots, looting, gunfire and chaos in Ferguson | KMOV.com St. Louis

this still strikes me as the most revealing post in this thread. Yeah, "sucks" that a kid got killed but "freaking bull shit" that people are upset about it. bizarre. a generous spirit would say that this thread is dominated by a lack of empathy. a less generous spirit would say that it's dominated by racial hatred.

 

[drayer54]

A lot of people don't seem to understand that the issue is not limited to one incident, to one grand jury, in one location. This is a reflection of anger and resentment about persistent, systematic mistreatment of the black community by the police and other public officials. cur at this point. Think bigger.

This was the worst rallying point ever if this was a "this is an example of what we deal with" kind of thing. Not a chance that this cop is found guilty, even if he is indicted. A thug, who is the size of the left tackle for the Rams, robs a convenience store and then gets into an altercation with a cop as he is walking away from the scene of the crime. He wasn't shot in the back. He wasn't shot in the inside of his arms. He was shot at close range in the hand.

The people who rallied on the word of the accomplice who told the so sweet innocent story should feel stupid. Mike Brown wouldn't be in college now, he would be in jail for robbery.

If people wanted to make a rallying point, pick the actual police misconduct and guy who wasn't a justifiable victim.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1ka4oKu1jo

Anger and resentment should not have this face:

My mother would have apologized for inexcusable actions. His mother stuck to Je$$e and Al and made it about the money. Michael Brown's mother accused in armed robbery of t-shirt vendors | Daily Mail Online.

 

[autry_denson]

This was the worst rallying point ever if this was a "this is an example of what we deal with" kind of thing. Not a chance that this cop is found guilty, even if he is indicted. A thug, who is the size of the left tackle for the Rams, robs a convenience store and then gets into an altercation with a cop as he is walking away from the scene of the crime. He wasn't shot in the back. He wasn't shot in the inside of his arms. He was shot at close range in the hand.

The people who rallied on the word of the accomplice who told the so sweet innocent story should feel stupid. Mike Brown wouldn't be in college now, he would be in jail for robbery.

If people wanted to make a rallying point, pick the actual police misconduct and guy who wasn't a justifiable victim.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1ka4oKu1jo

Anger and resentment should not have this face:

My mother would have apologized for inexcusable actions. His mother stuck to Je$$e and Al and made it about the money. Michael Brown's mother accused in armed robbery of t-shirt vendors | Daily Mail Online.

and a kid gets shot multiple times, with his hands up, and then left there for hours dead on the street.

you see a thug who committed a robbery, the people protesting see a kid murdered by a policeman and then left to die on the street.

just like the protesters' understanding of what happened doesn't matter to you, your understanding doesn't matter to them.

Again, it's not about whether Michael Brown was a good kid or not. It's hard to do, but please try to think beyond the details of this incident. If this was purely about Michael Brown, it wouldn't have generated such intense, sustained outrage. As long as you continue to think that your interpretation of who's at fault in this interaction is the key to interpreting Ferguson, you'll be unable to understand what's going on.

 

[T Town Tommy]

But I just don't understand how you can have such a simplistic understanding of this kind of issue. If you think it's about jurors in a specific county, or even the details of a specific incident, then you have a serious misinterpretation of what's going on in Ferguson.

Because the issue most have discussed out here is whether the policeman acted according to the law. It is not about sending the policeman to jail for doing his job. If people in Ferguson want to protest "the anger and resentment about persistent, systematic mistreatment of the black community by the police and other public officials" then they should feel free to do so... within the rule of law. Calling people racist because they want justice within the rule of law is racist in itself.

 

[drayer54]

and a kid gets shot multiple times, with his hands up, and then left there for hours dead on the street.

you see a thug who committed a robbery, the people protesting see a kid murdered by a policeman and then left to die on the street.

. As long as you continue to think that your interpretation of who's at fault in this interaction is the key to interpreting Ferguson, you'll be unable to understand what's going on.

If it doesn't matter that Mike Brown most likely had it coming by what he did to the officer and that the "at fault" doesn't matter... then why don't these protesters pick up and go somewhere where it is really clear that the innocent victim didn't have it coming??

The kid part is out the window to me. Old enough to commit a big mans robbery, well... They did leave him in the street for hours, which they acknowledged was wrong. They also had crowd control to deal with.

Mike Brown's responsible for his own resting place. The people responsible for the madness are the looters and the people dumb enough to get excited from the stories of this guy:

 

[drayer54]

Duplicate

 

[autry_denson]

Because the issue most have discussed out here is whether the policeman acted according to the law. It is not about sending the policeman to jail for doing his job. If people in Ferguson want to protest "the anger and resentment about persistent, systematic mistreatment of the black community by the police and other public officials" then they should feel free to do so... within the rule of law. Calling people racist because they want justice within the rule of law is racist in itself.

I don't see a genuine concern for "rule of law" in this post, or in this thread. I see a concern about rule of law that is based on an entirely simplistic, one-sided interpretation of this specific case. If there was genuine concern for rule of law then there would be at least a bit of nuance in your discussion of this case. Because, by any account, this case is quite a bit more complicated than an officer who was "doing his job." That lack of nuance reveals very clearly your biases in looking at the details of this case. And if there was true concern for rule of law you'd need to look beyond this case and call attention to, or at least acknowledge, the evidence of systematic mistreatment of the black population in and around St. Louis. I don't see that here, which makes me think that the attention on rule of law is not entirely genuine.

 

[autry_denson]

If it doesn't matter that Mike Brown most likely had it coming by what he did to the officer and that the "at fault" doesn't matter... then why don't these protesters pick up and go somewhere where it is really clear that the innocent victim didn't have it coming??

The kid part is out the window to me. Old enough to commit a big mans robbery, well... They did leave him in the street for hours, which they acknowledged was wrong. They also had crowd control to deal with.

Mike Brown's responsible for his own resting place. The people responsible for the madness are the looters and the people dumb enough to get excited from the stories of this guy:

Me: This incident matters in sparking the anger, but to understand things we have to think beyond this incident.
You: But this is my view of this incident.
Me: This incident matters in sparking the anger, but to understand things we have to think beyond this incident.
You: But this is my view of this incident.
Me: This incident matters in sparking the anger, but to understand things we have to think beyond this incident.
You: But this is my view of this incident.

we're not progressing here.

 

[drayer54]

I don't see a genuine concern for "rule of law" in this post, or in this thread. I see a concern about rule of law that is based on an entirely simplistic, one-sided interpretation of this specific case. If there was genuine concern for rule of law then there would be at least a bit of nuance in your discussion of this case. Because, by any account, this case is quite a bit more complicated than an officer who was "doing his job." That lack of nuance reveals very clearly your biases in looking at the details of this case. And if there was true concern for rule of law you'd need to look beyond this case and call attention to, or at least acknowledge, the evidence of systematic mistreatment of the black population in and around St. Louis. I don't see that here, which makes me think that the attention on rule of law is not entirely genuine.

If a white guy tries to take a gun from a police officer, odds are he will have about as good of a day as Mike Brown did. It wouldn't matter much. It didn't matter how the black community perceived their treatment, Darren Wilson had a robber who just tried to take his gun in front of him. His death shouldn't have been an outrage. It just seems like such a stupid battle to pick if this kind of crap is so frequent.

 

[drayer54]

Me: This incident matters in sparking the anger, but to understand things we have to think beyond this incident.
You: But this is my view of this incident.
Me: This incident matters in sparking the anger, but to understand things we have to think beyond this incident.
You: But this is my view of this incident.
Me: This incident matters in sparking the anger, but to understand things we have to think beyond this incident.
You: But this is my view of this incident.

we're not progressing here.

If I wanted to point out the flaws of a local police department, I wouldn't pick a case where the victim is far from innocent and the cop was justified. Cases do exist where the innocent victim is indeed, innocent. Why not go there? Why stand in front of a dead criminal and cry of mistreatment and then surely lead to outrage when the justified cop is not found guilty of a crime?

 

[T Town Tommy]

I don't see a genuine concern for "rule of law" in this post, or in this thread. I see a concern about rule of law that is based on an entirely simplistic, one-sided interpretation of this specific case. If there was genuine concern for rule of law then there would be at least a bit of nuance in your discussion of this case. Because, by any account, this case is quite a bit more complicated than an officer who was "doing his job." That lack of nuance reveals very clearly your biases in looking at the details of this case. And if there was true concern for rule of law you'd need to look beyond this case and call attention to, or at least acknowledge, the evidence of systematic mistreatment of the black population in and around St. Louis. I don't see that here, which makes me think that the attention on rule of law is not entirely genuine.

The details in the case apparently show that the officer acted according to his responsibilities and within the laws that govern deadly force. Wanting to find him guilty when there doesn't appear to be any evidence to support that is bias. As far as looking beyond this case, I posted as such when I said that if people wanted to protest PAST treatment, then do so. I don't know what was hard to understand about what I said.

 

[BobD]

If there are riots, the rioters will be helping the cause of the real haters.

 

[BGIF]

Interesting article about more "people that don't get it".

Interesting article about more "people that don't get it".

It's her Ferguson -- and it's not all black and white - CNN.com

By Moni Basu, CNN
updated 2:22 PM EST, Mon November 17, 2014

Ferguson, the quiet community she chose to make home, had become synonymous with racism, injustice and police brutality. Wheat wanted to scream.

Her Ferguson was not what it had become in the headlines.

For this 45-year-old white woman, things were far more complex than they appeared in the news. The world that she, like many others, saw as black and white had morphed into myriad shades of gray over the years.

She has been married to Ken, who is black, for almost two decades. She adopted Christopher, a black child from a foster home. In eight years, he will turn 18, Brown's age at the time of his death, and embark on life in a world she knows is still full of hate.
She raised him in a biracial home and tried to make race a nonissue. She wanted Christopher to grow up colorblind, even though America wasn't.

But after Brown's death, she couldn't shield him from race or anger anymore.
Ferguson changed overnight into what she describes as a poster child for the nation's racial woes.
"I do understand racial profiling exists," she says, explaining that she is not opposed to people demanding justice. "No one here has a problem with the peaceful protesters. But nothing good comes from violence."

...

She and her husband are active in community events. She used to run a basketball camp and cooking classes for kids. Her name is on a plaque at the newly opened community center. Ken volunteers at the Ferguson Farmers Market, held every Saturday.
For that, she says, her family is paying a price.

After Brown's death, Wheat says she and Ken discussed for the first time whether they should be seen in downtown as a biracial family.

They, like many other Ferguson residents, purchased a gun. They'd never had a firearm in their house before, but they no longer felt safe. This week, they had floodlights and a surveillance system installed.

In September, protesters marched through the farmer's market. "We're shuttin' it down," they chanted.

Ken Wheat told them they had no business protesting at the market -- that it was a community space and not an appropriate location. Later, at the Subway on South Florissant, one protester called Ken a police plant and threatened to cut him down.

...

Obviously Ken "doesn't get it" either.

 

[autry_denson]

It's her Ferguson -- and it's not all black and white - CNN.com

By Moni Basu, CNN
updated 2:22 PM EST, Mon November 17, 2014



Obviously Ken "doesn't get it" either.

people don't like when their daily lives are disrupted by unrest. I wouldn't either, esp if I feared for my family. incredibly, this is true for black people too.

 

[autry_denson]

There have been differing opinions from each side's own autopsies. Dr. Baden, the Brown families private hired ME, said he was shot on the inside of the arms indicating his hands were up. 3 other MEs have said differently. I'm hoping all the evidence comes public after the trial.

Living in St. Louis, this is a clusterfuck. I wife works downtown at a hospital and I'm legitimately concerned for her safety when the news breaks. It's honestly going to get really ugly, really fast.

autry, I get your sentiment, but I find a few issues with it. There were no outcries of police brutality in Stl before any of this started. There are no outcries when a young black kid dies at the hands of another black kid. And on that note, how about black youths stop breaking the law and police will stop profiling them. I have a good friend that works as a social worker in elementary schools in North St. Louis and it is amazing the stories she tells me of 5th and 6th grade kids being jumped in the bathrooms. At that age, all I was doing was trying to see a boob. This issue goes so much further than the police. It starts at home and in the communities. There needs to be a fundamental change about how kids are being raised and their expectations in life in the black communities in order for real progress to happen.

there were lots of outcries against police brutality in STL before this incident, some of them very high-profile. no single incident has generated such intense protest, obviously.

And let's please all agree to stop saying that black people don't protest black violence. They do, constantly. There are hundreds of marches, protests, vigils, and nonprofit organizations being formed all of the time to confront violence w/in the black community. please, stop saying this. it's entirely, 100% wrong. black organizations have led the fight against urban violence, and in most places they've been incredibly successful. the homicide rate is as low as it's been in 50 years, and it's dropped the most in the places that were most violent 20 years ago.

 

[connect the dots]

racial divide

racial divide

The details of this case have been presented to a Grand Jury. Based on reviewed evidence, it is this Grand Jury's decision to indict or to exonerate a police officer. As bystanders to this ongoing story, we have been given conflicting accounts of what happened. My concern here is that some posters on this thread are trying to draw diagonal lines across America's racial divide. That their rhetoric and opinions to this ongoing story are meant to mislead people rather than inform. That they are blowing smoke so that things will go up in smoke, confirming their suspicions, their biased views, and their convoluted world. Bad situation? Yes, but why try and make it worse then it really is. Keep in mind this story started before America became a republic, and its twists and turns require conscience.

 

[Booslum31]

there were lots of outcries against police brutality in STL before this incident, some of them very high-profile. no single incident has generated such intense protest, obviously.

And let's please all agree to stop saying that black people don't protest black violence. They do, constantly. There are hundreds of marches, protests, vigils, and nonprofit organizations being formed all of the time to confront violence w/in the black community. please, stop saying this. it's entirely, 100% wrong. black organizations have led the fight against urban violence, and in most places they've been incredibly successful. the homicide rate is as low as it's been in 50 years, and it's dropped the most in the places that were most violent 20 years ago.

Autry, it obvious you have passion for all that is being discussed here. I'm actually surprised at what i hi-lighted above. I haven't seen these marches, protests, etc. in these communities. If they are happening, this is positive and they are not getting the coverage that they should. I've always thought that the problems of the inner-cities could only be corrected from within with a grass-roots effort to change the culture. I've been disappointed with the lack of leadership in these communites and ofcourse the self-serving national "faces" that show up to kick the ant hill. Instead, they should be promoting staying in school, staying away from drugs, getting/staying married, and stop fathering children out of wed-lock. These notions have nothing to do with race. I pray that things proceed peacefully and faith/trust in the police force is restored.

 

[wizards8507]

There are hundreds of marches, protests, vigils, and nonprofit organizations being formed all of the time to confront violence w/in the black community.

Honest question. What good does a march, protest, vigil, or nonprofit organization do to fight street violence? Criminals and gangsters don't strike me as the type to be moved by such displays. I think marches and whatnot can be effective against perceived injustice perpetrated by groups in the power structure (police, politicians, business), but I don't see them having much of an effect on the average street criminal.

 

[autry_denson]

Honest question. What good does a march, protest, vigil, or nonprofit organization do to fight street violence? Criminals and gangsters don't strike me as the type to be moved by such displays. I think marches and whatnot can be effective against perceived injustice perpetrated by groups in the power structure (police, politicians, business), but I don't see them having much of an effect on the average street criminal.

it's an empirical question, I don't think great evidence exists but anecdotal evidence suggests that it has a large impact when a community organizes to reduce violence.

the point was made in response to someone's complaint that "There are no outcries when a young black kid dies at the hands of another black kid." That claim is made frequently on Fox and by people who don't live in communities where violence is a problem, and it is demonstrably wrong.

 

[wizards8507]

the point was made in response to someone's complaint that "There are no outcries when a young black kid dies at the hands of another black kid." That claim is made frequently on Fox and by people who don't live in communities where violence is a problem, and it is demonstrably wrong.

I'm not sure that's an entirely fair criticism (you mention FOX). I don't think the point is that the communities don't rise up / respond / protest / cry out. It's that the national media and the grievance industry of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson don't show up and get outraged.

 

[Booslum31]

This!

 

[autry_denson]

I'm not sure that's an entirely fair criticism (you mention FOX). I don't think the point is that the communities don't rise up / respond / protest / cry out. It's that the national media and the grievance industry of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson don't show up and get outraged.

the initial claim that was made was wrong. If you want to make a more narrow claim that specific individuals don't pay attention to black violence, then a starting point would be to spend a couple minutes to figure out if your suspicion is true. With these two individuals, my bet is that they both have been vocal about black violence. But that's a hunch, I'd suggest investigating it a bit to see if your claim is accurate. If you're referring to civil rights leaders more generally, then your claim is definitely wrong. Violence has been a central issue raised frequently by many different civil rights leaders who are black.

broader point is that if you don't follow the activities of civil rights leaders or black community organizations more generally, don't make assumptions about what they do or don't care about. do some research to find out.

edit: this was the 2nd link that came up when I googled sharpton anti violence. took all of 15 seconds to search and another minute to read. Rapper T.I. and Al Sharpton march in Harlem to stop gun violence - NY Daily News

a few more clicks down on the same search: Tony Bennett and Al Sharpton to March Against Gun Violence in Harlem - Central Harlem - DNAinfo.com New York

 

[peoriairish]

If you're honestly defending Sharpton or Jackson, you lose a lot of credibility in my book; just as those who defend Pat Robertson do. All Jackson and Sharpton do is come into an area and raise tension and racial divides. Instead of calling for more black cops or more black attorneys, why not just say there needs to be more equality. Why the fuck does color matter in this day? They come into these situations, speak a lot of words that rile up a community but when you listen to the words with the passionate rhetoric taken away, they say nothing besides anti-white remarks.

Stop marching. Instead, give your millions of dollars to the schools so their not using 20 year old textbooks that say the current president is George Bush of the HW variety. Build community pride by building parks and knocking down the vacant buildings for more parks. Marching just brings the attention onto the marchers and rarely does it make any real fundamental change for the good. Marching for a cause is the same thing as handing out sandwiches to the homeless then bragging about it on Facebook. On second thought, handing out sandwiches is actually far more proactive than marching. Follow my point?

 

[drayer54]

If you're honestly defending Sharpton or Jackson, you lose a lot of credibility in my book; just as those who defend Pat Robertson do. All Jackson and Sharpton do is come into an area and raise tension and racial divides.

This!

It's a money thing...


Violence over money 1

And 2
https://news.vice.com/article/mike-browns-mother-allegedly-involved-in-ferguson-assault

 

[wizards8507]

edit: this was the 2nd link that came up when I googled sharpton anti violence. took all of 15 seconds to search and another minute to read. Rapper T.I. and Al Sharpton march in Harlem to stop gun violence - NY Daily News

a few more clicks down on the same search: Tony Bennett and Al Sharpton to March Against Gun Violence in Harlem - Central Harlem - DNAinfo.com New York

Those protests are about gun control, not grassroots reform.

 

[autry_denson]

If you're honestly defending Sharpton or Jackson, you lose a lot of credibility in my book; just as those who defend Pat Robertson do. All Jackson and Sharpton do is come into an area and raise tension and racial divides. Instead of calling for more black cops or more black attorneys, why not just say there needs to be more equality. Why the fuck does color matter in this day? They come into these situations, speak a lot of words that rile up a community but when you listen to the words with the passionate rhetoric taken away, they say nothing besides anti-white remarks.

Stop marching. Instead, give your millions of dollars to the schools so their not using 20 year old textbooks that say the current president is George Bush of the HW variety. Build community pride by building parks and knocking down the vacant buildings for more parks. Marching just brings the attention onto the marchers and rarely does it make any real fundamental change for the good. Marching for a cause is the same thing as handing out sandwiches to the homeless then bragging about it on Facebook. On second thought, handing out sandwiches is actually far more proactive than marching. Follow my point?

holy shit. try, please, to follow the logic of the dialogue. I didn't say anything about Sharpton. Wizard did, making a claim about him and Jackson:

I'm not sure that's an entirely fair criticism (you mention FOX). I don't think the point is that the communities don't rise up / respond / protest / cry out. It's that the national media and the grievance industry of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson don't show up and get outraged.

I responded, demonstrating that a 30 second google search reveals this premise to be false. Sharpton does show up to anti-violence marches. He does express outrage. your assumption is wrong. your argument is wrong.

and then the next post suggests that I'm defending Sharpton and Jackson. b/c I did a google search to see if Wizard's assertion was supported?

at some point, when dialogue is not coherent, when the logic of one post is completely separate from the last, you give up. that point is now. i hope I have the willpower not to look at any other responses...

 

[peoriairish]

Are y'all really calling me a racist and a member of the WCC? I guess I'll just see myself out. Sorry for expressing the frustrations that many of those who actually live in the affected area are having. Bye.

 

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

The area/people affected are the citizens of Ferguson and the innocent people who have been arrested for expressing their First Amendment rights, as well as the dead.

 

[BGIF]

people don't like when their daily lives are disrupted by unrest. I wouldn't either, esp if I feared for my family. incredibly, this is true for black people too.

Did you read the article or stop when you saw the woman's picture? I ask because your response doesn't sound like you did. The article is about a family, a diverse family, WORKING to bring change in Ferguson. A White woman, Black husband of 20 years, and a Black adopted child. Sound like a loving family working hard to MAKE their community a good place for a family to live.

People don't like when their daily lives are disrupted by unrest.

More than a tad glib and grossly understated.

Two thirds of the people descibed in the article are black people who weren't just "disrupted" they were threatened with language that thugs have used to imitidate throughout time. They have since armed themeselves. Something they never had to do in their previous 20 years in Ferguson.

There's at least one business that they frequented in their community that was burned out by rioters/looters not by peaceful demonstrators. Other businesses in their community are boarded up. They've been threatened.

The Farmer's Market where the husband volunteers was threatened by a hostile crowd. It wasn't a police station, a courthouse, or city hall or some other symbol of oppression. A local market for the benefit of the community where people in the community can buy fresh vegetables at a reasonable price. Ken Wheat, the black husband, intervened noting that the market was not an appropriate forum for protest; For standing up for his community Wheat was called a police plant. They were told, "I KNOW WHERE YOU LIVE!"



You keep telling myself and others that we don't "get it". You tell us it's really not about the shooting but "other things". Is it the couple of hundred years of exploitation, and deprivation ... on both sides of the Atlantic? Did those "protesters" want to shutdown the Farmers Market as a response to NYC's Stop and Frisk program?

Please tell me which part of "I KNOW WHERE YOU LIVE!" was a protest to right a wrong?

It sounds like pure intimidation and hatred to me.