StL County Cops Shoot Teen

[MakeItRain]

It sure didn't take long for some to make excuses as to why this kid was shot.
"Saint Louis area cop from police department with a documented history of racism shoots and kills unarmed black teen."
"Well I heard that the so called teen was a really big man and someone said he was standing in the way of the cop car trying to go somewhere?"
"Well couldn't the cop have used a tazer or pepper spray or something?"
"Didn't you hear me say he was a big black man, what if the tazer didn't work, what if he had a gun? The officer couldn't risk any of that, that boy was dangerous. Oh did I mention they are looting now, they never learn."

I didn't make any of those excuses and, in fact, said that the initial facts do not justify the shooting. I simply pointed out that some (including you, apparently) are ignoring the fact that the guy put himself in a very bad situation by attacking a cop.

Eye witnesses said he didn't attack anyone and was shot in the back, we're ignoring that?

[michigancat]

I'm reasonably sure that if I was a teenager growing up in the area and all my buds were looting, I would have joined right in, regardless of how I felt about the shooting. Teenagers are really stupid, and by stupid I mean their brains aren't fully developed and don't properly assess risk.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

It sure didn't take long for some to make excuses as to why this kid was shot.
"Saint Louis area cop from police department with a documented history of racism shoots and kills unarmed black teen."
"Well I heard that the so called teen was a really big man and someone said he was standing in the way of the cop car trying to go somewhere?"
"Well couldn't the cop have used a tazer or pepper spray or something?"
"Didn't you hear me say he was a big black man, what if the tazer didn't work, what if he had a gun? The officer couldn't risk any of that, that boy was dangerous. Oh did I mention they are looting now, they never learn."

I didn't make any of those excuses and, in fact, said that the initial facts do not justify the shooting. I simply pointed out that some (including you, apparently) are ignoring the fact that the guy put himself in a very bad situation by attacking a cop.

Eye witnesses said he didn't attack anyone and was shot in the back, we're ignoring that?

I'm not ignoring that he may have been shot in the back. That's what I've read, too, and that's why I question whether the shooting was justified. All the media reports I've read also indicate that Brown attacked the officer. I'm skeptical that the officer just decided to gun down a black guy totally unprovoked. You should be, too.

[chum1]

I've never heard of a riot that isn't started out of anger. Or of one that was purely the result of a single incident.

[steve dave]

I'm reasonably sure that if I was a teenager growing up in the area and all my buds were looting, I would have joined right in, regardless of how I felt about the shooting. Teenagers are really stupid, and by stupid I mean their brains aren't fully developed and don't properly assess risk.

yes

[kitten_mittons]

I'm reasonably sure that if I was a teenager growing up in the area and all my buds were looting, I would have joined right in, regardless of how I felt about the shooting. Teenagers are really stupid, and by stupid I mean their brains aren't fully developed and don't properly assess risk.

yes

I would have taken the tacquito rollers and had my friends take every box of tacquitos.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

[Headinjun]

I'm reasonably sure that if I was a teenager growing up in the area and all my buds were looting, I would have joined right in, regardless of how I felt about the shooting. Teenagers are really stupid, and by stupid I mean their brains aren't fully developed and don't properly assess risk.

yes

I would have taken the tacquito rollers and had my friends take every box of tacquitos.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

I would have tried to make my own personal panini.  Maybe a pretzel  w cheese.  Definitely beer.

[Headinjun]

Comparing this shooting to that of Treyvon Martin is an emotional reaction that doesn't seem to be based in fact and is somewhat ironic considering the weight of the evidence in the TM case pointed to a justifiable shooting, whereas the initial facts here do not.

And, while I'll repeat that the initial facts do not support this shooting, can we please drop the "blacks are being hunted in the streets" bullshit? This started with the guy attacking the cop. That alone doesn't justify the shooting but let's not pretend that he didn't put himself in a bad situation (hey, on that point, it is a good comparison to TM). Pro tip - black or white, don't pick fights, especially with cops.

Finally, as others have noted , it's not fair to equate the looters with the ones seeking justice. The looters are opportunistic animals who probably don't give a crap about this shooting.

Do you ever call white people who do foolish things "animals"?

Did you just make the assumption that all the looters here were black or otherwise non-white? I have no idea what the racial composition was, and I use the term animal without respect to race. The label fits the conduct. Stop tossing around accusations of racism.

So the answer is no?

No, the answer is that you automatically assumed that the looters are 100% black, which seems pretty raaaacist if you ask me. Also lol at describing the looting as "foolish." Not that I can prove it or that you'd believe me, but I've previously referred to George Tiller as a monster and an animal - the same as Gosnell - and I've used the same terminology for that white murderer who raped and buried alive the little girl in Florida while clutching her pink elephant. But good job on the race baiting - you've really advanced the narrative.

So the rioters are as bad as child murderer/rapists in your mind?

From a pure evil standpoint, of course not. From a breakdown of society standpoint, absolutely. These looters have abandoned the restraints we impose upon ourselves to have a civilized society in favor of their baser slash/burn/steal animal impulses. Which is why I call them animals. Because they are, or they're at least behaving that way while looting.

Considering how KSU comes off as a middle aged EMAW, it would be quite special if he participated in the Aggieville riots of the 80s. 

[dmartin]

I've never heard of a riot that isn't started out of anger. Or of one that was purely the result of a single incident.

Sports Riots

[michigancat]

I've never heard of a riot that isn't started out of anger. Or of one that was purely the result of a single incident.

Sports Riots

Animals tearing down goalposts

[Rage Against the McKee]

I'm reasonably sure that if I was a teenager growing up in the area and all my buds were looting, I would have joined right in, regardless of how I felt about the shooting. Teenagers are really stupid, and by stupid I mean their brains aren't fully developed and don't properly assess risk.

I probably would have stayed home and found new friends.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Clearly the victim here is the black race, not the dead kid or the merchant's whose businesses were destroyed.

Thanks for the levity

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

It makes me sad to think they would burn down a QT when there isn't one within 200 miles of me. 

Some people don't realize how good they have it.

[chum1]

I've never heard of a riot that isn't started out of anger. Or of one that was purely the result of a single incident.

Sports Riots

Well, that's interesting!  I guess what I was trying to get at is that plenty of riots happen when lots of people are super angry about something.  That is to say that they wouldn't have happened otherwise.  Why do the thoughts, intentions, or lack thereof of the rioters matter in these cases?  They seem to me to be more side effects than causes.

[CNS]

I've never heard of a riot that isn't started out of anger. Or of one that was purely the result of a single incident.

LA Lakers NBA Champy?

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

I've never heard of a riot that isn't started out of anger. Or of one that was purely the result of a single incident.

Sports Riots

Well, that's interesting!  I guess what I was trying to get at is that plenty of riots happen when lots of people are super angry about something.  That is to say that they wouldn't have happened otherwise.  Why do the thoughts, intentions, or lack thereof of the rioters matter in these cases?  They seem to me to be more side effects than causes.

People don't just decide "Man, I'm really pissed about this and you know what will make me feel better? Stealing a new pair of Air Jordans." Looters take advantage of disruptive events - for example, a hurricane or protest crowds assembling in response to a racially-charged issues - and the diversion of law enforcement resources to manage those events, to start looting. They then hide behind the guise of "I'm just so hurt and angry about police oppression that I gotta steal some stuff!" as an excuse for their lawless thuggery. To be fair to the looters, though, most of them aren't actually saying this - the media paints the narrative for them.

[michigancat]

I'm reasonably sure that if I was a teenager growing up in the area and all my buds were looting, I would have joined right in, regardless of how I felt about the shooting. Teenagers are really stupid, and by stupid I mean their brains aren't fully developed and don't properly assess risk.

I probably would have stayed home and found new friends.

That's very easy to say.

[michigancat]

Clearly the victim here is the black race, not the dead kid or the merchant's whose businesses were destroyed.

Thanks for the levity

I think the martial law discussion is pretty important. It's much more concerning than a looted Quiktrip. (Granted, they're related)

[CNS]

I am assuming the delay here is that the police are doing some sort of internal investigation on the shooting, or are they just trying to make sure their stories all match up and have enough vagueness built in before coming forward with any real proclamation? 



Also, how do these guys not have dash or on-person cams?  KMBZ radio had a stat this morning from a study done on such cams.  They said that incidents where excess of force was used by officers went down 50% over a one year period when cams were introduced.   First that means, get the rough ridin' cams, but second that means that cops have a work culture problem.  Perhaps new regulations/requirements on who can be hired and what training they need? 

[chum1]

I've never heard of a riot that isn't started out of anger. Or of one that was purely the result of a single incident.

Sports Riots

Well, that's interesting!  I guess what I was trying to get at is that plenty of riots happen when lots of people are super angry about something.  That is to say that they wouldn't have happened otherwise.  Why do the thoughts, intentions, or lack thereof of the rioters matter in these cases?  They seem to me to be more side effects than causes.

People don't just decide "Man, I'm really pissed about this and you know what will make me feel better? Stealing a new pair of Air Jordans." Looters take advantage of disruptive events - for example, a hurricane or protest crowds assembling in response to a racially-charged issues - and the diversion of law enforcement resources to manage those events, to start looting. They then hide behind the guise of "I'm just so hurt and angry about police oppression that I gotta steal some stuff!" as an excuse for their lawless thuggery. To be fair to the looters, though, most of them aren't actually saying this - the media paints the narrative for them.

Would you say that no riots have been caused by angry people, only opportunists?  Do you think that every time there is a disruptive event, there is also a riot?  Why do you care about correctly classifying the intentions of the rioters?

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

I missed the Martial Law discussion.  Sounds dumber than the everybody's (society included) racist discussion.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Would you say that no riots have been caused by angry people, only opportunists?

You've substituted "riot" for "looting" - I'm not sure if there's a reason for that or if you mean the same thing, but I'll take it to mean looting. In answer to your question, I have no idea. Never say never, I suppose.

Do you think that every time there is a disruptive event, there is also a riot?

Of course not. What's your point?

Why do you care about correctly classifying the intentions of the rioters?

I think it's important to correctly identify the intentions of the looters because attributing the looting to the Brown shooting (1) is making excuses for lawless behaviour, and (2) unfairly tarnishes the lawful protests.

[Rage Against the McKee]

I'm reasonably sure that if I was a teenager growing up in the area and all my buds were looting, I would have joined right in, regardless of how I felt about the shooting. Teenagers are really stupid, and by stupid I mean their brains aren't fully developed and don't properly assess risk.

I probably would have stayed home and found new friends.

That's very easy to say.

It's also very easy to do. I can say with 100% confidence that I wouldn't have helped to ransack a gas station and then set it on fire just because some of my friends were doing it.

[Fedor]

I'm reasonably sure that if I was a teenager growing up in the area and all my buds were looting, I would have joined right in, regardless of how I felt about the shooting. Teenagers are really stupid, and by stupid I mean their brains aren't fully developed and don't properly assess risk.

I probably would have stayed home and found new friends.

That's very easy to say.

It's also very easy to do. I can say with 100% confidence that I wouldn't have helped to ransack a gas station and then set it on fire just because some of my friends were doing it.

Yes, this question seems designed to differentiate the alphas and the betas.

[michigancat]

I'm reasonably sure that if I was a teenager growing up in the area and all my buds were looting, I would have joined right in, regardless of how I felt about the shooting. Teenagers are really stupid, and by stupid I mean their brains aren't fully developed and don't properly assess risk.

I probably would have stayed home and found new friends.

That's very easy to say.

It's also very easy to do. I can say with 100% confidence that I wouldn't have helped to ransack a gas station and then set it on fire just because some of my friends were doing it.

Yes, this question seems designed to differentiate the alphas and the betas.

Is "ransacking a gas station" more or less reckless or irresponsible than driving while drunk? (Not saying drunk driving is a peer pressure thing, but a poor decision making thing.)