Ferguson Riots

[StrangeSox]

the police said days ago that Wilson suffered facial injuries in the struggle, I'm not sure what "the media" did wrong there?

 

edit: the national media ignored this story for several days. there was anger and frustration in Ferguson well before it became a national news story.

Edited August 19, 2014 by StrangeSox

[Rowand44]

<!--quoteo(post=3041301:date=Aug 19, 2014 -> 01:05 PM:name=Chisoxfn)-->

<!--quotec-->Here is what I don't understand. How were there all these bad reports and then it has taken this long for this information to come out. Seems like a lot of bad information started the process, followed by good info. If this info comes out 10 days ago, we don't have this situation. Again, not saying it is easy and investigations have to be done, but seems like there should have been pretty strong statements coming from the government denying reports, etc.

 

Easy: the media. They are 100% to blame. Show up, shove microphones in people's faces, get "statements," report them as fact, and then get the country in a frenzy.

 

 

"No, we actually haven't seen it Tom, we're just reporting it."

Perfect.

[caulfield12]

I've seen them arresting and assaulting journalists for being in a McDonalds. I've seen them tear-gassing journalists and disassembling their video equipment. I've seen them launching tear gas and smoke into neighborhoods. I've seen them aim loaded weapons at unarmed protesters. I've seen them arrest councilmen and refuse to give name or badge number. I've seen them threaten to shoot people. I've seen them use smoke and tear gas to break up 100% peaceful gatherings. I've seen them demand that all video recording be stopped.

 

They also killed the power a couple of nights ago and used all of their night-vision goggles/equipment.

 

Think that's going to freak some people out? This isn't Iraq or Afghanistan. They're not conducting covert operations in Abbotobad to draw out bin Laden.

[Jenksismyhero]

the police said days ago that Wilson suffered facial injuries in the struggle, I'm not sure what "the media" did wrong there?

 

edit: the national media ignored this story for several days. there was anger and frustration in Ferguson well before it became a national news story.

 

And the anger and frustration was based on unknown information. The people in the neighborhood saw "black kid shot dead by cop" and immediately concluded it was unjustified murder. The news media grabbed ahold of that narrative and ran with it. Never once have I read or heard anyone from the media say "that's just what one witness says, we don't actually know the full story yet."

[Chisoxfn]

And the anger and frustration was based on unknown information. The people in the neighborhood saw "black kid shot dead by cop" and immediately concluded it was unjustified murder. The news media grabbed ahold of that narrative and ran with it. Never once have I read or heard anyone from the media say "that's just what one witness says, we don't actually know the full story yet."

Exactly. It seems to me that the police, media, everyone should have been jumping to the fact that none of the information was confirmed, etc. Instead it was encouraged and created a gigantic fire.

 

Note: Who knows, maybe that happens anyway, and I'm not blaming the media for what ultimately happened and the rioting as the rioting was a problem of the people and the police had initial major issues in how they handled the response to what happened. Again though, so many areas to point fingers at and so many places where things were poorly handled.

[bmags]

Exactly. It seems to me that the police, media, everyone should have been jumping to the fact that none of the information was confirmed, etc. Instead it was encouraged and created a gigantic fire.

 

Note: Who knows, maybe that happens anyway, and I'm not blaming the media for what ultimately happened and the rioting as the rioting was a problem of the people and the police had initial major issues in how they handled the response to what happened. Again though, so many areas to point fingers at and so many places where things were poorly handled.

 

Instead they rolled up a tank and refused to answer questions, meanwhile there was a dead body in the street whom witnesses say was shot dead by a policeman.

 

Wouldn't really say that's the media's fault. The media was barely on that story until the sunday night riots a day later. Unless you had friends in missouri no way you caught it then.

[StrangeSox]

And the anger and frustration was based on unknown information. The people in the neighborhood saw "black kid shot dead by cop" and immediately concluded it was unjustified murder. The news media grabbed ahold of that narrative and ran with it. Never once have I read or heard anyone from the media say "that's just what one witness says, we don't actually know the full story yet."

 

Well, it's been multiple witnesses that said that, plus leaving his body laying in the street for four hours, plus the police immediately circling the wagons that drove the initial events. The news media was barely covering the story the first weekend, so it doesn't seem correct to say that the reaction was driven by the media.

 

edit: do people really need disclaimers that "a witness says" isn't meant to be a 100% accurate and complete report of the events?

Edited August 19, 2014 by StrangeSox

[LittleHurt05]

Another police-involved shooting in St. Louis, about 4-5 miles from Ferguson today.

 

This time the victim was wielding a knife, refused to put it down and attacked the officers, who shot and killed him.

 

http://fox2now.com/2014/08/19/officer-invo...rth-st-louis-2/

[illinilaw08]

And the anger and frustration was based on unknown information. The people in the neighborhood saw "black kid shot dead by cop" and immediately concluded it was unjustified murder. The news media grabbed ahold of that narrative and ran with it. Never once have I read or heard anyone from the media say "that's just what one witness says, we don't actually know the full story yet."

 

My two cents...

 

There's a distinction between "media" - talking heads, whatever CNN was doing in the wake of the Boston bombings and the Malaysian flight disappearance... and journalists. Journalists captured the initial, extraordinarily heavy handed response to protestors in Ferguson.

 

The picture that SS likes to post is powerful evidence of that. The early response that involved disassembling cameras, shooting tear gas at the Al-Jazeera truck, or being very quick to arrest.

 

To me, there are two bad acts that have been proven without a doubt. First, the early police response was terribly heavy handed and exacerbated the future protests. The second point is that opportunists (whatever you want to call them) took advantage of the unrest to harm the community (looting, etc.). Both are important points; both should be focused on and condemned.

 

On the bold, however, the anger and frustration probably had more to do with the historical treatment of poor, black communities. The early information allowed that frustration to boil over... which is quite understandable...

[cabiness42]

Another police-involved shooting in St. Louis, about 4-5 miles from Ferguson today.

 

This time the victim was wielding a knife, refused to put it down and attacked the officers, who shot and killed him.

 

http://fox2now.com/2014/08/19/officer-invo...rth-st-louis-2/

 

Everybody knows you don't bring a knife to a gunfight.

[Jenksismyhero]

Well, it's been multiple witnesses that said that, plus leaving his body laying in the street for four hours, plus the police immediately circling the wagons that drove the initial events. The news media was barely covering the story the first weekend, so it doesn't seem correct to say that the reaction was driven by the media.

 

edit: do people really need disclaimers that "a witness says" isn't meant to be a 100% accurate and complete report of the events?

 

Are you serious? Go read the first 5-10 pages of this thread. It was a constant argument about how s***ty police are and how this guy murdered a wonderful, saint of a human being in cold blood. I'm sure there were plenty of unwritten disclaimers that those opinions were all pending confirmation of what actually happened, right?

[RockRaines]

And the anger and frustration was based on unknown information. The people in the neighborhood saw "black kid shot dead by cop" and immediately concluded it was unjustified murder. The news media grabbed ahold of that narrative and ran with it. Never once have I read or heard anyone from the media say "that's just what one witness says, we don't actually know the full story yet."

They are also reporting that the police are using unjust force when the media wont listen to them for their own safety. When the police ask you 25 times to move back or to go to another location because there is violence, you refusing and then inhaling tear gas is your own fault.

 

When the narrative changes so much in a few days, you know this is the typical "first person to report a story" nature of today instead of actually waiting for the facts.

[Jenksismyhero]

My two cents...

 

There's a distinction between "media" - talking heads, whatever CNN was doing in the wake of the Boston bombings and the Malaysian flight disappearance... and journalists. Journalists captured the initial, extraordinarily heavy handed response to protestors in Ferguson.

 

The picture that SS likes to post is powerful evidence of that. The early response that involved disassembling cameras, shooting tear gas at the Al-Jazeera truck, or being very quick to arrest.

 

To me, there are two bad acts that have been proven without a doubt. First, the early police response was terribly heavy handed and exacerbated the future protests. The second point is that opportunists (whatever you want to call them) took advantage of the unrest to harm the community (looting, etc.). Both are important points; both should be focused on and condemned.

 

On the bold, however, the anger and frustration probably had more to do with the historical treatment of poor, black communities. The early information allowed that frustration to boil over... which is quite understandable...

 

I don't disagree, but when you use an event to propel a national conversation on a long-term problem (or perceived problem), it would be helpful to have a legitimate event to stand on. As always, the media - and by that i'm mostly referring to talking heads, but journalists looking to make news are just as guilty of this - WANTS that to be the story because it'll drive ratings. Tragedy AND controversy? Sign us up! This same crap happened with Trayvon Martin and the Duke Lacrosse scandal. The initial reaction is propelled due to speculation and incomplete information.

 

Also, it's been over a week and people are still protesting. Why? For what? Because a dead guy is on the street after being killed by a cop? Or because the police overstepped and came out meeting the protests a little too hard? It's mostly still #1.

 

[StrangeSox]

Are you serious? Go read the first 5-10 pages of this thread. It was a constant argument about how s***ty police are and how this guy murdered a wonderful, saint of a human being in cold blood. I'm sure there were plenty of unwritten disclaimers that those opinions were all pending confirmation of what actually happened, right?

 

I read through the first six pages and there wasn't anything like that. There was strong criticism of the actions of the police, but that criticism was related to the after-shooting actions, not the shooting itself.

[Jenksismyhero]

They are also reporting that the police are using unjust force when the media wont listen to them for their own safety. When the police ask you 25 times to move back or to go to another location because there is violence, you refusing and then inhaling tear gas is your own fault.

 

When the narrative changes so much in a few days, you know this is the typical "first person to report a story" nature of today instead of actually waiting for the facts.

 

Right, and remember it's media members complaining about the mistreatment of media members. No bias there.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

I read through the first six pages and there wasn't anything like that. There was strong criticism of the actions of the police, but that criticism was related to the after-shooting actions, not the shooting itself.

 

You're right, page 3 is when I cited that moronic "America isn't for black people" post, and around 10 we started talking about the logistics of what happened. Start from there.

Edited August 19, 2014 by Jenksismybitch

[illinilaw08]

They are also reporting that the police are using unjust force when the media wont listen to them for their own safety. When the police ask you 25 times to move back or to go to another location because there is violence, you refusing and then inhaling tear gas is your own fault.

 

When the narrative changes so much in a few days, you know this is the typical "first person to report a story" nature of today instead of actually waiting for the facts.

 

Is it also the media's fault when police disassemble cameras, make arrests when members of the media are eating at McDonalds, or when tear gas canisters are fired directly at a news van (see the Al-Jazeera incident).

 

I'm not saying there aren't instances like what you describe. Your posts, however, have seemed to ignore the obviously heavy handed early police response - a response that helped fuel the protests for days...

 

As to the bolded, reports seem to be that the police response has been better in the last couple days. No one has backed off on the stance that the initial reaction by the Ferguson Police was extremely over the top and unnecessary.

[StrangeSox]

They are also reporting that the police are using unjust force when the media wont listen to them for their own safety. When the police ask you 25 times to move back or to go to another location because there is violence, you refusing and then inhaling tear gas is your own fault.

 

I don't know why you keep depicting the situation as that. Maybe that has happened in some cases, but there's already a bunch of incidents of police arresting or gassing or assaulting journalists and non-violent protesters who are nowhere near a violent crowd.

[illinilaw08]

I don't disagree, but when you use an event to propel a national conversation on a long-term problem (or perceived problem), it would be helpful to have a legitimate event to stand on. As always, the media - and by that i'm mostly referring to talking heads, but journalists looking to make news are just as guilty of this - WANTS that to be the story because it'll drive ratings. Tragedy AND controversy? Sign us up! This same crap happened with Trayvon Martin and the Duke Lacrosse scandal. The initial reaction is propelled due to speculation and incomplete information.

 

Also, it's been over a week and people are still protesting. Why? For what? Because a dead guy is on the street after being killed by a cop? Or because the police overstepped and came out meeting the protests a little too hard? It's mostly still #1.

 

It might still be a legitimate act to move on. And regardless of the facts surrounding Brown (and nothing that has come out is dispositive on either side yet - both sides are happily cherry picking experts and facts at this point), two points stand out to me.

 

1) The heavy handed police response;

 

2) The early acts to demonize Brown. Here's a picture of him flashing what might be a gang sign! Hey, he was in a robbery early (even though the robbery wasn't directly linked to the shooting)!

 

Regardless of whether the shooting ultimately was justified or not, those two points are worthy of protest (peaceful protest - I think some people have been too quick to lump protestors and looters in the same breath).

 

And the media was largely responsible for reporting the early stuff on #1. The pictures of police in full camo with guns drawn on a kid with arms in the air carrying a backpack. The early direct coverage of the protests. There's a difference between the news (cameras on the ground reporting what happened on night __ of protesting) and editorializing - largely the purview of talking heads.

 

[StrangeSox]

http://gawker.com/cop-pens-touching-op-ed-...wont-1623985263

 

This mindset is absolutely part of the problem, that police are never to be questioned and always to be obeyed.

Even though it might sound harsh and impolitic, here is the bottom line: if you don't want to get shot, tased, pepper-sprayed, struck with a baton or thrown to the ground, just do what I tell you. Don't argue with me, don't call me names, don't tell me that I can't stop you, don't say I'm a racist pig, don't threaten that you'll sue me and take away my badge. Don't scream at me that you pay my salary, and don't even think of aggressively walking towards me. Most field stops are complete in minutes. How difficult is it to cooperate for that long?

[RockRaines]

I don't know why you keep depicting the situation as that. Maybe that has happened in some cases, but there's already a bunch of incidents of police arresting or gassing or assaulting journalists and non-violent protesters who are nowhere near a violent crowd.

so they never told the people to move for a legit reason, they just pulled up to a crowd and gassed people? LOL, come on.

[Jenksismyhero]

It might still be a legitimate act to move on. And regardless of the facts surrounding Brown (and nothing that has come out is dispositive on either side yet - both sides are happily cherry picking experts and facts at this point), two points stand out to me.

 

1) The heavy handed police response;

 

2) The early acts to demonize Brown. Here's a picture of him flashing what might be a gang sign! Hey, he was in a robbery early (even though the robbery wasn't directly linked to the shooting)!

 

Regardless of whether the shooting ultimately was justified or not, those two points are worthy of protest (peaceful protest - I think some people have been too quick to lump protestors and looters in the same breath).

 

And the media was largely responsible for reporting the early stuff on #1. The pictures of police in full camo with guns drawn on a kid with arms in the air carrying a backpack. The early direct coverage of the protests. There's a difference between the news (cameras on the ground reporting what happened on night __ of protesting) and editorializing - largely the purview of talking heads.

 

It's really not though. You've got a big kid that both witnesses and the cops agree attacked the cop in question. That alone makes him the least sympathetic victim possible. But on top of that, the big rallying cry was an unconfirmed - and at this point I think completely discredited - "my hands are up, don't shoot!" situation. That never happened. The only evidence of that was a witness statement coming from Brown's partner in crime.

 

The police response I completely get. Not all of it, but some of it. But again, I don't think that's why the people are protesting. They feel like one of their people were wronged, as others have in the past, and they're tired of it. The problem is Brown wasn't an innocent victim here based on everything we've heard/read so far.

[StrangeSox]

so they never told the people to move for a legit reason, they just pulled up to a crowd and gassed people? LOL, come on.

Yes, they absolutely did just that, just like when they arrested journalists for being in a McDonalds and slammed them into the pop machine on the way out the door. I mean, this isn't even controversial at this point. The ridiculous overreaction is exactly why state police were brought in, because the county SWAT assholes had no idea what they were doing.

 

edit: here is video of the al jazeera incident. notice the wanna be rambo in the background pointing his M4 down the street at the journalists who ran back from the tear gas.

 

http://www.ksdk.com/videos/news/local/2014/08/14/14042891/

 

 

Edited August 19, 2014 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

It's really not though. You've got a big kid that both witnesses and the cops agree attacked the cop in question. That alone makes him the least sympathetic victim possible. But on top of that, the big rallying cry was an unconfirmed - and at this point I think completely discredited - "my hands are up, don't shoot!" situation. That never happened. The only evidence of that was a witness statement coming from Brown's partner in crime.

 

That is false. At least two other independent witnesses said the same thing.

 

Why do you feel that the shooting was completely justified at this point?

 

[RockRaines]

Yes, they absolutely did just that, just like when they arrested journalists for being in a McDonalds and slammed them into the pop machine on the way out the door. I mean, this isn't even controversial at this point. The ridiculous overreaction is exactly why state police were brought in, because the county SWAT assholes had no idea what they were doing.

 

edit: here is video of the al jazeera incident. notice the wanna be rambo in the background pointing his M4 down the street at the journalists who ran back from the tear gas.

 

http://www.ksdk.com/videos/news/local/2014/08/14/14042891/

LOL, the video starts at the firing of the gas, most likely after many warnings were given to clear the area. Once again there is no way they fired gas without warning.