Iraq Or U.s.a.?

[John81]

The man knows what he's talking about but the audience he's trying to reach is full of the lost who love sin, love giving into the flesh, love the ways of the world and think it's fun serving the devil. That's why after 50+ years they continue in the same circle. How much easier to live like wild fools, take every opportunity to blame others for your prOBlems, jump at any chance to engage in theft and destruction, all while pointing to that boogey-man even many of them no longer believe in, the evil white man.

 

Rioting and looting, until after the middle of the 20th century, were consider extremely serious crimes. These crimes were considered as open rebellion and a matter of life and death. They were dealt with as such. As quickly as possible when such occurred, virtually regardless of nation, police were brought in to end the rioting and looting with full force if the rioters/looters didn't disperse. If force was necessary they didn't play around with rubber bullets or bean bags, they fired real bullets for real effect. Nothing ends mOB violence, and prevents it from coming back, like a few criminals being dropped by bullets and others being arrested on serious charges as they fail to allude the police charge.

 

Since the second half of the 20th century rioting and looting in America has become a non-serious offense, in some cases a "right", and nearly always something to tolerate for at least a day, sometimes longer. Then, after days of destruction, few (if any) of the criminals are charged; and if they are charged most get off or receive a slap on the wrist. Afterwards the government steps in and awards millions of dollars to benefit the very people who caused the destruction.

 

When strong application of law enforcement is necessary (meaning really needed) I'm all for it. Get in quick, hit hard.

 

For regular police duties, we need the peace officer, the officer who cares for the community and gets to know the people in the community. The peace officer who uses his head first and seeks fairness and justice.

[ThePilgrim]

From one of the conservatives favorite (although not mine) politicians.

http://time.com/3111474/rand-paul-ferguson-police/

[John81]

Overall an excellent article even if I disagree with him on a couple points and I don't believe he should have spoken to the specifics of the case until more is known.

 

There are several different stories out there of what occurred that night. There is the story this teen was walking in the street, the police drove up and told him to not walk in the street, then supposedly the cop shot him for no reason.

 

Then there is the story the teen pushed the cop in his car, made threats and was shot.

 

The other main story I've seen is that the teen not only pushed the cop but tried to get his gun, the gun fired in the car during the struggle and then the cop got control of the gun and shot the teen.

 

Those right there in Ferguson say the media is missing or twisting what's really going on.

 

The fact citizens have had their cell phones and video cameras illegally confiscated is a serious breech. There have also been several reports of the police targeting citizens in their own yards and ordering citizens in whole blocks to not come out their door for any reason.

 

Now the Governor of Missouri has ordered the local police to stand down and has sent the Missouri State police in to take over.

 

Meanwhile, those who keep trying to make this all about race are not helping. Neither are those taking sides when the facts are not yet available.

[DaveW]

Well there is (almost) no way that the police just drove up and shot him for the fun of it.
But level of action that provoked the reaction is what is apparently unknown.

It could be anything from the teen giving lip to an officer who had already had a really bad day, to the teen aggressively attacking the officer who feared for his life.

I am constantly amazed at hearing people tell stories about how they were unjustly treated, but on further investigation they were the instigator with their attitude and actions.
Like the guy who gets pulled over for speeding who tells the officer that they should be chasing "real criminals", then wonders why the police decide to search his car or book him for that broken tail light.

This does not discount the bad officers, of which there certainly are a few.

[John81]

Anyone seen the new reports and pictures coming out regarding the "little, innocent good kid" that was shot by a policeman? It seems, once again, the reported "innocent, good kid" was actually something else. In this case they are showing pictures of him flashing gang signs, and there are reports he was a thief and bully.

 

Also, when they reported the name of the officer who shot the "kid" (who was 16 and big enough built to pose a threat and hurt someone), they said the officer suffered injuries during the incident. That would suggest there was violent contact between the officer and "kid" prior to the shooting.

 

As the black man in the video from post #15 says, the main reason blacks get into trouble with police is because they start trouble with the police.

[Miss Daisy]

another Trayvon Martin incident in the making

[John81]

It's very similar, but thankfully the news media were busy with other stories so they didn't jump on this one as quick and didn't get a big false story widely spread.

 

However, the patter is the same. In the case of Martin, the media kept showing a picture of a 13 year old Martin without making it clear that's what they were doing. When pictures of the much older teen surfaced with him doing gangster poses and looking like a street punk, we got a much more clear and accurate picture of who he was when shot.

 

In this case, they showed an innocuous picture of the one shot while following the same story they did with Martin: they were both claimed to be innocent kids, good kids, wonderful kids who never did anything wrong.

 

Both cases also have the same outcome from actually looking into the lives of these "kids" (I really dislike when they call these 16, 17, 18 year old street thugs kids): both were criminals, both had disciplinary prOBlems, both thought they were some sort of "gangsta", both decided to look for trouble, both escalated a situation they could have avoided, both ended up shot dead.

 

Not surprisingly, most of the media and, of course, the race baiting "civil rights" hucksters, blamed everyone but the street thugs for what happened.

[John81]

The Missouri governor had placed 12:00 midnight curfew on Ferguson after more looting last night.

 

As reported, store owners called for police help, some citizens called for help and tried to keep back some of the looters, but the police refused to come to their assistance. After yet another mishandling of the situation, reporters today asked the governor how he expects to enforce the curfew when he's already said there will be no police violence and the police refused to respond to last nights looting. The governor said if arrests have to be made then people will be arrested. Not really answering the question, especially if the governor is standing by his "no violence by the police" position.

 

What a mess.

[ThePilgrim]

More newhttp://www.ijreview.com/2014/08/168698-eyewitness-recalls-important-detail-background-video-mins-ferguson-shooting/ stuff: 

[John81]

I watched that video the other day and wondered about that. Throughout the video you hear different ones talking about "the police shot him for no reason" but then when someone asks them if they saw it, all of them saying that said "no". Then some start saying, "well, they say he didn't do anything, the police just shot him for no reason" but nOBody ever says who "they " are. On and on different people keep saying the police shot him for no reason but admit they didn't see it happen and didn't get there until after the incident was over.

 

Then, there is that conversation in the background which I was straining to make out when I watched that video before and it seemed more like a first person account that didn't agree with what all those who didn't see it were trying to say happened.

 

That reminded me of back in the 90s during a bunch of drive-by shootings and there was a shoot out on a corner in Chicago and one of the "gangstas" grabbed a toddler and held in front of him as a shield and the child was shot and killed. Almost instantly there were all kinds of stories and excuses poured forth to make it seem as if what happened didn't really happen. Some were even trying to paint the "gangsta" as a hero who was trying to save the child. Then video came out of what happened and it was clear as day that big bad "gangsta" picked that small child up and held him in front of him to protect himself from being shot; willingly sacrificing that child's life in order to save his own. After that the story quickly died away.

[John81]

It seems the Missouri State Police are unable to contain the situation in Ferguson so the governor is now sending in the National Guard. It's also been reported the violence spread to another nearby suburb.

[ThePilgrim]

Seems like things are going the way TPTB wish.  Martial Law anyone?

[John81]

It's interesting that the local police, after totally dropping the ball on the first night, initiated virtual martial law while denying they were infringing on citizens constitutional rights; and the Missouri governor denounced that and said he was taking over. Then the governor sends in the State police with orders to put on kids gloves. When that didn't work, and he/State police dropped the ball and allowed more rioting/looting, they started adopting more of the tactics the locals had finally used but with nice words sprinkled about. That didn't work. Now the governor has called in the National Guard but as of yet I've not heard their rules of engagement.

 

Meanwhile, the citizens and business owners are taking big hits.

 

If what they (the police and media) reported earlier was true, that a few small groups broke from the main protest group and they were the ones who rioted/looted, why weren't forces deployed to surround and arrest these small groups? Why on the first night the State police were in charge did the police refuse to respond to calls for help from citizens and business owners when shops were being ransacked and looted? Why weren't they at least prepared to deal with the same thing after that?

[ThePilgrim]

It's interesting that the local police, after totally dropping the ball on the first night, initiated virtual martial law while denying they were infringing on citizens constitutional rights; and the Missouri governor denounced that and said he was taking over. Then the governor sends in the State police with orders to put on kids gloves. When that didn't work, and he/State police dropped the ball and allowed more rioting/looting, they started adopting more of the tactics the locals had finally used but with nice words sprinkled about. That didn't work. Now the governor has called in the National Guard but as of yet I've not heard their rules of engagement.

 

Meanwhile, the citizens and business owners are taking big hits.

 

If what they (the police and media) reported earlier was true, that a few small groups broke from the main protest group and they were the ones who rioted/looted, why weren't forces deployed to surround and arrest these small groups? Why on the first night the State police were in charge did the police refuse to respond to calls for help from citizens and business owners when shops were being ransacked and looted? Why weren't they at least prepared to deal with the same thing after that?

All good questions, John.  I don't know if they are rhetorical or not and I don't know if my answers are correct or not. (prOBably not)  I believe those in power desire things to get out of hand.  How else can they justify the Police State.  How else to justify their armed personnel carriers with mounted 50 cal. machine guns?  How else to justify military tactics against the populous?  We are not all rioters, we are not all criminals.  Only a tiny minority of even the black population is causing trouble . . . . but we need the National Guard?  Somebody thinks we need controlling and by any means necesary.

 

When they are out to get you, it is not paranoia that causes you to feel threatened, it is good sense.  

[John81]

I heard OBama today trying to talk out of both sides again, as in one breathe he said violence doesn't help but then started making excuses for blacks to be upset and violent, mostly because of "history".

 

So apparently a black born in 1995 is so weighed down by whatever was going on in 1795 that they must get upset and violent???

 

Is OBama really saying that every race of people on the planet has been and is capable of moving beyond the terrible things in their peoples past, except for black folk? That's the logical conclusion to this continual argument that what happened in the 18th and 19th centuries holds blacks down in the 21st century.

 

Oh, by the way, don't look around or someone might see the millions of blacks in America that have decided to do what's needed to make a good life in America. If someone does notice them, especially those who dare to speak up, just call them Uncle Tom's, white wannabes, house negroes, and be sure to act all indignant and curse a lot so they'll get the message.