Posted on 08/13/2014 4:52:35 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan
You know, you folks are obviously in over your head here.
We have a riot situation now for several nights, and you’re upset because the local authorities made a show of force.
And when I mention this, you say, “No we’re not really supporting rioters.” What the hell are you doing then?
You don’t want the officers out there. You can’t grasp why the police want the public to go home. No businesses are open. There’s no reason to be out there, and with thugs coming in from out of the area, the cops want everyone off the street.
But here you are, trashing the police non-stop.
You folk are seriously challenged on this one.
Pray tell, what would it take for you to grasp why officers might arm up and come out to a place like this, and tell people to go home and clear the streets?
Would it have been better if the police just stayed away and the rioters and the protesters went at each other?
There are a bunch of nutter on this thread.
In a situation like this, the police would be wrong not to be out there armed to the teeth.
I don’t like the SWAT mentality either, but at some point the police have to get things back under control, and the best way to do it is to completely clear the streets in the area where they problems have been.
Ever hear of water cannons, batons, shields and so on?
You see nothing wrong with cops armed with Mp4s, .50 cal mounted weapons on MRAPS and body armor SIGHTING IN CIVILIANS is not a problem for you????????
This is a LOT bigger than cops controlling a riot scene.
Or are we already comfortable living in a police state with being in the constant sights of guns and drones?
>> the shooting death of an unarmed 18 year old by a cop MULTIPLE TIMES while he was running away.
Are you suggesting that the cop shot without provocation?
Big mistake which hopefully LE and elected officials will learn from. Don't know this to be true but could the elected officials, of Furguson, be being advised not to place a curfew in place for some sort of confused reasoning?
Crim, calling me son won’t make you look any more sane here.
After nights of rioting the local police have every right to demand people clear the streets.
The National Guard is not the first line of defense in this situation.
It is not abuse of the public to demand people clear the area. There has been a riot situation going on, and the officers want everyone out of the area. There is absoltely nothing abusive about that.
And if the officers declare the area to be off limits, then the area is off limits.
Buy a clue “SON”.
I don't think anyone here said that. I certainly didn't.
How many of you are actually in the area here? They are not censoring the media or the protesters. It all over the local news with video showing the protesters refusing to leave in the evening or throwing stuff at the police and so on. The ones that come out at night that are getting radical. LE wants the protesting wrapped up each night by dusk. So that people who live right in the area can get some rest. Many of the radical protesters are coming in from the north part of St. Louis City during the night. The gang bangers and so on.
Also the heavy armor is because of ruthless gang bangers. If any of you actually lived in this area you would clearly understand what is going on and why they are doing it.
The first order of business last Monday by city council should have been a curfew...and the national guard should have been on scene by Monday afternoon
But as someone pointed out earlier...Democrats run the town and county...
So everyone hops onto a thread discussing the issue of the police demanding the streets in the riot area be cleared, and folks use this as a place to trash the police.
Whew. The police have the right to revoke people’s right to peaceful assembly in special circumstances. I wouldn’t be backing this play, if it weren’t for the riots. A peaceful assembly on the sidewalks in normal circumstances is protected.
It isn’t protected in a riot zone.
May you and yours Stay Safe, Stlnative.
Unless the kid was armed and posing an immediate threat to his life - THEN YES, the cop shot without provocation.
Why can’t the laws imposed on lawful gun owners defending their own lives and property not also be applied to cops?
I can’t shoot someone unless it can be demonstrated that my life or someone else’s was in immediate jeopardy.
The kid was shot multiple times running AWAY. I would be in prison if someone broke into my house and I shot him in the back as he was running away. Why can’t cops be held to the same standard???
Was he too fat to run after the kid if he was assaulted and make a physical arrest??? He had to shoot the kid in the back MULTIPLE times??
I see no justification for this based on the reports from the scene and confirmed.
Officers have the right to tell the public what to do in special circumstances. This is a special circumstance, and trying to make hay off the officers trying to clear the streets for everyone’s safety is idiotic.
Trying to defend the defenseless as you are, just makes it clear you can’t grasp the deeper issues here.
Sometimes, you can’t go protest in a sensitive potential combat zone. Who knew?
Would be interesting to know exactly why no curfew is in place. Another one of those unknown forever type of things one supposes ....
And if Brown was running away after attacking the cop?
Now you are switching terms....first you said the cops should be able to tell people to go home....they can’t legally tell you that unless there is a curfew in place.....now you are saying “clear the area”....well that isn’t the same thing is it....
Yes they can order people to disperse....but they cannot tell them to “go home”
After nights of riots, the police want everyone off the streets. Why is that? It couldn’t be because it would make it easier to identify who rioters were from protesters would it? Oh well, perhaps so huh.
If rioters come back in, the police don’t want to have to protect some well meaning idiots from them and any other people driving by wanting to take a slice of revenge.
Surely you folks can’t be this dumb.
Very well stated.
So it’s your take that’s a 50 caliber weapons right?
I don’t believe it is. I could be wrong.
Frankly, if the police did want to bring a 50 cal to a looting riot, it would be fine with me.
The old adage, shoot rioters on sight works for me.,
>> He had to shoot the kid in the back MULTIPLE times??
Reports I have read describe a fight in the car and a gunshot, followed by a fleeing Brown “feeling” a shot and then turning and raising his hands, and then additional shots killing Brown.
I have not read any reports of Brown being shot in the back multiple times.
Look at this thread and tell me folks didn’t mind the officers being out there.
And if they hadn’t been out there in force and some deaths took place, who would be the first folks to blame? Any idea?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.