How does vandalism and looting accomplish anything???

[Gumbo4x4]

by that logic, all social protest is disrespectful. Rosa parks refused the cops orders to get up. so by your logic she should have cooperated with the cops?

The colonist not buying British tea was I'm sure to the Brits, disrespectful.

to some cops, the very audacity of questioning them is disrespectful.

Rosa Parks was fully prepared to be arrested to make her stand though. Not everyone is. But, I agree with your point.

Now, the whole tea thing got a little "disrespectful"

 

[Geoff_M]

Now I am not going to escalate the situation but I am always going to ask, "is there a problem". If the officer says "no problem" than no I am not telling you my name, no I am not showing you id. In this country I get to walk down the street without id or telling my name to anyone be they, doctor, lawyer, indian chief or a cop.

Unfortunately, what you describe is not Constitutionally protected. Our courts have ruled that state "Stop and Identify" statutes are perfectly legal. The reason is that rarely, if ever, is your name or place of residence considered self-incriminating information. You're lucky enough, however, to live in a state that doesn't have such a law on the books, but 24 other states do have them (including next-door NY). While such laws require a "reasonable suspicion" of criminal activity or intent (such is a lesser standard than "probable cause") in order to ask someone to identify themselves and their business, there is no obligation for the officers to engage in a dialog beforehand with that person in order to justify why they want that information. If there's any explanation owed, it's to a judge after-the-fact.

So your approach may work in your home state, but if you're visiting NYC or Orlando, the outcome may be very different. You could be arrested and changed with other offenses such as "resisting", "obstruction" or "delaying a peace officer" if you refuse a request to provide your basic information because the officer won't provide sufficient justification beforehand in your eyes. You can fight the charges or course, and hope a judge will decided that there was no compelling reason to make the request of you in the first place, but that's your choice and gamble.

All of this is the reason, as pointed out here by others, that even hard-core civil libertarian organizations such as the ACLU advise against your approach and say that unless you think your name alone is self-incriminating, then it's best to give the police your name if asked. While I suppose you might say that your scenario only applies to when the cop say "There's no problem", I doubt your questions would end if the officer simply replied "Yes, there is".

 

[eliza61]

You seem to maintian hostility towards law enforcement. You must evolve as they must evolve to get to the point where it works. If you continue to think poorly of them based solely on the past, it can never work.
They may be acting on information that you are not aware of, such as a report that someone in the bar has just come from the scene of a violent crime, and is in possession of a firearm, and is still considered very dangerous. In that case, why not cooperate? You hold them in contempt, and therefore make their job that much more difficult.

I don't think it's hostility per se, after all my dad and my sisters were both nypd cops so I do have a lot of inside information on exactly what police do.

I will admit that I, like many in the African American community do not trust police.
Sure it must evolve but as of 2014 African American unarmed males are still being killed. This is the first time in this community sure, it is not the first time in Philly, NYC and countless other Urban areas.


And if you ask just about any African American person they will tell you, not a thing will happen to this cop. This will die down, he'll apply for disability claiming he can't work anymore, probably move and continue on with his life.
At most the parents will sue for wrongful death, which if he's in a union the insurance will cove the suit and by next year it will have blown over.

then next summer another unarmed black kid will get shot and killed.
You are absolutely correct they could have come from another scene but why is cooperation only one way?

Why aren't they required to make their job easier. Why is simply asking "why" they need the information making their job more difficult?


See is what baffles me, no where in these public places is it required to have id? You have to be over 21 to drink. the establishment can ask to prove it but you can go to most places, sit down, eat, drink pop without having to prove any thing. I was in Chilis last night, never once got carded.

And yes, if I'm walking I don't all the time carry my wallet. I stick a few dollars in my pocket and roll.

I thought it was only in Arizona that people could roll up on you and ask for "papers"

So basically we're at an impasse. Most folks in the AA community don't trust the police, have very good reason NOT to trust the police, have not plans on trusting them without those in charge show some "cooperation" also, so we will continue to protest (please make note that I said PROTEST AND NOT RIOT).

 

[sunshinehighway]

Wrong.

"I'd rather not answer your questions without an attorney"
"Screw you, I don't have to answer your questions".

One is respectful, one isn't.

Nobody is saying " screw you". You keep taking things posters say and making them something there aren't. It's the same when someone mentioned walking and being stopped for no reason. You changed it to walking down the middle of the road. You keep making assumptions that people are saying they will be rude, disrespectful and belligerent when nobody has described that.

The problems come from when saying " I'd rather not answer without an attorney" means you are in for trouble that isn't necessary. That's what I am talking about. I've gotten the impression that some poster think just saying something like that is enough that you should expect trouble.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

Are they supposed to teleport?

They're supposed to leave when employees ask and then later tell them to leave. And then when the cops tell them to leave, again leave. They were already guilty of trespassing before the cops arrived. Not exactly the time to stop & argue with the cops.

Did the cops cross a line in how they approached it? Maybe. 2 wrongs don't make a right. But, the reporters were clearly in the wrong even before the police arrived.

 

[Luvchefmic]

You seem to maintian hostility towards law enforcement. You must evolve as they must evolve to get to the point where it works. If you continue to think poorly of them based solely on the past, it can never work.
They may be acting on information that you are not aware of, such as a report that someone in the bar has just come from the scene of a violent crime, and is in possession of a firearm, and is still considered very dangerous. In that case, why not cooperate? You hold them in contempt, and therefore make their job that much more difficult.

You are trying to reason with someone that believes " nothing has changed since 1619 " Why bother?

 

[sunshinehighway]

They're supposed to leave when employees ask and then later tell them to leave. And then when the cops tell them to leave, again leave. They were already guilty of trespassing before the cops arrived. Not exactly the time to stop & argue with the cops.

Did the cops cross a line in how they approached it? Maybe. 2 wrongs don't make a right. But, the reporters were clearly in the wrong even before the police arrived.

The only place I've read that employees asked them to leave is on this thread. The manager of the McD's did speak out about what happened and did not say that. I believe a link or quote was posted earlier.

 

[eliza61]

You are trying to reason with someone that believes " nothing has changed since 1619 " Why bother?

You're right, it so much better and easier to do nothing, not bother to talk. Definitely right "why bother", these results are definitely much better.

 

[pioneer89]

They're supposed to leave when employees ask and then later tell them to leave. And then when the cops tell them to leave, again leave. They were already guilty of trespassing before the cops arrived. Not exactly the time to stop & argue with the cops.

Did the cops cross a line in how they approached it? Maybe. 2 wrongs don't make a right. But, the reporters were clearly in the wrong even before the police arrived.

If the employees asked them to leave, it certainly changes the situation. I didn't know they did that, the limited information I saw didn't say anything about it.

 

[Luvchefmic]

You're right, it so much better and easier to do nothing, not bother to talk. Definitely right "why bother", these results are definitely much better.

As my Dad used to say " Don't roll your eyes at me".

I meant that you have it ingrained deep inside of you how you feel. The remark you made about 1619 and still being a disposable people is telling me that trying to change your opinion on those two things alone is an exercise in futility.

 

[The Mystery Machine]

Well they released his name finally, Darren Wilson. Thank goodness that bit is over.

 

[Colleen27]

If it's publicized that looters will be shot on sight, and they choose to loot, it's not the death penalty so much as it's suicide.

Act like an animal, die like an animal.

Until one of the people shot isn't actually a looter, but just "looks like" the people who are "known" to commit those sorts of crimes. That's the problem with vigilante justice - it doesn't pause to ascertain guilt.

In my hometown and elsewhere around the country there have recently been cases of people shot for knocking on a door for help in the night because they happen to "look like" the people who are most likely to be breaking in. We all want to pretend race isn't an issue but you don't hear about white people shot on doorsteps when looking to use the phone after a car accident, or for "looking threatening" walking home from the store, or otherwise just going about their lives.

I...don't even know how to respond to that. You can't just walk around shooting people. You can't do that. We have an entire country founded on the principal that you can't do that. I don't care if you wear a badge or not. You're advocating a complete break down of the entire civil and criminal court process. Hasn't this been page after page of saying that vigilante justice is BAD? So, it's awful and bad for a group of people to steal shoes but it's just and moral for them to be shot on site by an equally civilian group of people? And would it then be ok for THAT group of people to be stabbed because killing people is as illegal as shoe stealing?

Ironic, isn't it, that people on this thread condemn the rioting mobs for reacting badly in the face of generations' worth of evidence that the legal system is not likely to produce justice in cases like this, but in the same breath advocate shooting on sight as a reaction to the fear that the ACLU and other rights organizations might hinder the prosecution of looters?

The Second Amendment doesn't count.

Or only the Second Amendment counts, depending on which side of the fence you're on.

 

[pooh4evr]

So now on all the local stations- KMOV, KSDK, KTVI- reporters are reading through the police report that was just released.

11:51 - strong armed robbery call comes in- suspects 2 African american males both fitting descriptions of Mike brown and his friend the witness Dorian. With stills from the store video cameras, of the robbery and the 2 guys assaulting the store owner.
12:02 officer Wilson encounters 2 suspects, and altercation/shooting occurs

12:04 second officer on scene

12:05 senior officer on scene

the race of the officer has not been confirmed, there are officers of different races with the same name in the STL/Ferguson area

Wow. Does this change anything?

 

[Airship Ariadne]

They're supposed to leave when employees ask and then later tell them to leave. And then when the cops tell them to leave, again leave. They were already guilty of trespassing before the cops arrived. Not exactly the time to stop & argue with the cops.

All the major news outlets are reporting that the cops decided to close the McDonalds and ordered everyone out, there is no mention of the employees wanting just the reporters out, in fact they escorted all the paying customers out as well, sounding to me like the whole "the employees asked the reporters to leave" is just an invented story, only place you see it mentioned is on this thread.

 

[The Mystery Machine]

Holy crap. So now on all the local stations- KMOV, KSDK, KTVI- reporters are reading through the police report that was just released.

11:51 - strong armed robbery call comes in- suspects 2 African american males both fitting descriptions of Mike brown and his friend the witness Dorian. With stills from the store video cameras, of the robbery and the 2 guys assaulting the store owner.
12:02 officer Wilson encounters 2 suspects, and altercation/shooting occurs

12:04 second officer on scene

12:05 senior officer on scene

and if it matters not that is should - the officer involved is African American

Wow. Does this change anything?

Pretty much, my account was almost on the money, except for the part of the stealing of the cigarillos at a different location.

People are pissed off! The cops did not give out details. Dummies.

 

[Colleen27]

If the employees asked them to leave, it certainly changes the situation. I didn't know they did that, the limited information I saw didn't say anything about it.

I agree. The account I read seemed to suggest the employees were too intimidated/scared by everything that was going on to ask anyone to leave and had the police handle it for them. Either that or the police, rather than employees/management, made the decision to shut down the McDs because of proximity to the unrest. It wasn't just the reporters that were asked to leave - the police ame in to "clear" the McDs. If the employees didn't make a request before calling in the police or announce the impending closure to their customers, it isn't unreasonable to expect a little time to pack up their notes and computers, clear their area, and leave in an orderly manner.

 

[sunshinehighway]

Holy crap. So now on all the local stations- KMOV, KSDK, KTVI- reporters are reading through the police report that was just released.

11:51 - strong armed robbery call comes in- suspects 2 African american males both fitting descriptions of Mike brown and his friend the witness Dorian. With stills from the store video cameras, of the robbery and the 2 guys assaulting the store owner.
12:02 officer Wilson encounters 2 suspects, and altercation/shooting occurs

12:04 second officer on scene

12:05 senior officer on scene

and if it matters not that is should - the officer involved is African American

Wow. Does this change anything?

I don't think it's enough information to form an opinion on the shooting being justified or not.

 

[Mokat76]

Meant to say does NOT. Sorry about that. Let me go back and correct my mistake.

My apologies, then. Sorry in a big way.

 

[pooh4evr]

At least it gives some answers and some background on why the guys were being followed. I guess.

If the narrative had been from the beginning that a robbery suspect was shot by police in north St Louis - would this have even been a story.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Holy crap. So now on all the local stations- KMOV, KSDK, KTVI- reporters are reading through the police report that was just released.

11:51 - strong armed robbery call comes in- suspects 2 African american males both fitting descriptions of Mike brown and his friend the witness Dorian. With stills from the store video cameras, of the robbery and the 2 guys assaulting the store owner.
12:02 officer Wilson encounters 2 suspects, and altercation/shooting occurs

12:04 second officer on scene

12:05 senior officer on scene

and if it matters not that is should - the officer involved is African American

Wow. Does this change anything?

I saw that as well, but MSNBC is reporting that the officer is white.


http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/ferguson-police-name-michael-brown