What do you think about what's going on in Ferguson?

[Riviera de la Mancha]

I AM R U

Riviera de la Mancha

I AM R U

Riviera de la Mancha

I AM R U

Riviera de la Mancha

None of those concerns make an ounce of sense to me because we substantially don't know what actually happened. How then people are concerned about accountability makes little sense. Even the behavior of the police to the media is not that remarkable.

The police have shot tear gas at the media :/ they have harassed and intimated the media, the only ones who might actually be able to obtain any objective coverage of what happens - without their accounts, all we have is police v protestors' accounts of what is happening. That doesn't concern you at all? That the police want to get rid of people who might actually report on them abusing their power? People who would be believed whereas the protestors are discounted by many people?

"The media" here included student reporters not really indicating they were part of the media, so I sort of give them a pass. In any event, its still not that serious. As to the intimidation, I find it not very substantial - its a bureaucracy trying to flex imaginary muscles.

Alrighty then. I'm not really sure how you see it, but media staying in the designated zones and still having tear gas fired at them, being threatened and taking into custody for reporting... Okay then, not intimation at all, and the police flexing their muscles (which are apparently imaginary) is fine. Gotcha.

Was the tear gas fired with the specific intent to harm the reporters? Based on what I could find (http://www.ksdk.com/story/news/local/2014/08/14/crews-hit-with-bean-bags-tear-gas/14042747/), the reporter was outside of a designated media area covering a live police/citizen contact within close proximity of them when they were hit with a single bean bag round. Further, the officers were allegedly told that the reporters needed assistance and were responding. As always, a great deal more needs to be known before accusations of attacks on media can be made. When people just throw it out there, it cheapens the claim which well may be valid.

Sure - in some cases protestors have been attempting to imbed in the press for protection, I'm not going to dispute that, and it can be hard for the police to know who to hit in those situations. But forcing the press into corralled areas then arresting them as soon as they stray out of them?

I'd point to this article - while I do agree that its hard to know what's happening, its getting even harder to know given the fact that journalists, upon whom we rely on to report the truth, are not being allowed to do their jobs. In a Western society where freedom of the press is considered a right, it doesn't concern you that police consider it part of their job to prevent press access?

The article offers little other than one person's account. I take single accounts with nothing else to them, no matter who says them, with a grain of salt.

In the video, the reporter was not forced to stop. He was backed up and then allowed to proceed forward once the group he was with moved back.

I don't see the issue with police curtailing anyone's right to assemble or protest, be they citizens or reporters, where they are doing so under reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. They have long had that power since at least the 60's if memory serves. What I care about is whether or not that power is appropriately exercised. In a general sense, I would only like to see the interpretation for reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions contracted somewhat, but certainly not eliminated. People should not be allowed to protest in the middle of the freeway, or enter into my home and protest from within if I don't want them there.

[I AM R U]

Riviera de la Mancha

I AM R U

Riviera de la Mancha

I AM R U

Riviera de la Mancha

"The media" here included student reporters not really indicating they were part of the media, so I sort of give them a pass. In any event, its still not that serious. As to the intimidation, I find it not very substantial - its a bureaucracy trying to flex imaginary muscles.

Alrighty then. I'm not really sure how you see it, but media staying in the designated zones and still having tear gas fired at them, being threatened and taking into custody for reporting... Okay then, not intimation at all, and the police flexing their muscles (which are apparently imaginary) is fine. Gotcha.

Was the tear gas fired with the specific intent to harm the reporters? Based on what I could find (http://www.ksdk.com/story/news/local/2014/08/14/crews-hit-with-bean-bags-tear-gas/14042747/), the reporter was outside of a designated media area covering a live police/citizen contact within close proximity of them when they were hit with a single bean bag round. Further, the officers were allegedly told that the reporters needed assistance and were responding. As always, a great deal more needs to be known before accusations of attacks on media can be made. When people just throw it out there, it cheapens the claim which well may be valid.

Sure - in some cases protestors have been attempting to imbed in the press for protection, I'm not going to dispute that, and it can be hard for the police to know who to hit in those situations. But forcing the press into corralled areas then arresting them as soon as they stray out of them?

I'd point to this article - while I do agree that its hard to know what's happening, its getting even harder to know given the fact that journalists, upon whom we rely on to report the truth, are not being allowed to do their jobs. In a Western society where freedom of the press is considered a right, it doesn't concern you that police consider it part of their job to prevent press access?

The article offers little other than one person's account. I take single accounts with nothing else to them, no matter who says them, with a grain of salt.

In the video, the reporter was not forced to stop. He was backed up and then allowed to proceed forward once the group he was with moved back.

I don't see the issue with police curtailing anyone's right to assemble or protest, be they citizens or reporters, where they are doing so under reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. They have long had that power since at least the 60's if memory serves. What I care about is whether or not that power is appropriately exercised. In a general sense, I would only like to see the interpretation for reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions contracted somewhat, but certainly not eliminated. People should not be allowed to protest in the middle of the freeway, or enter into my home and protest from within if I don't want them there.

One issue is that the protestors claim they have indeed been doing that - they have freedom of association, and object to be tear gassed and sent home two hours before an established curfew. Now, the police in that incident claim someone through a firebomb of some kind... but its getting harder and harder to work out how is telling the truth, because of course the protestors allege that never happened - allowing the media to report and do their jobs would be helpful in establishing actual facts, rather than hearsay after accusation after claim from both sides.

[Riviera de la Mancha]

I AM R U

Riviera de la Mancha

I AM R U

Riviera de la Mancha

I AM R U

Riviera de la Mancha

"The media" here included student reporters not really indicating they were part of the media, so I sort of give them a pass. In any event, its still not that serious. As to the intimidation, I find it not very substantial - its a bureaucracy trying to flex imaginary muscles.

Alrighty then. I'm not really sure how you see it, but media staying in the designated zones and still having tear gas fired at them, being threatened and taking into custody for reporting... Okay then, not intimation at all, and the police flexing their muscles (which are apparently imaginary) is fine. Gotcha.

Was the tear gas fired with the specific intent to harm the reporters? Based on what I could find (http://www.ksdk.com/story/news/local/2014/08/14/crews-hit-with-bean-bags-tear-gas/14042747/), the reporter was outside of a designated media area covering a live police/citizen contact within close proximity of them when they were hit with a single bean bag round. Further, the officers were allegedly told that the reporters needed assistance and were responding. As always, a great deal more needs to be known before accusations of attacks on media can be made. When people just throw it out there, it cheapens the claim which well may be valid.

Sure - in some cases protestors have been attempting to imbed in the press for protection, I'm not going to dispute that, and it can be hard for the police to know who to hit in those situations. But forcing the press into corralled areas then arresting them as soon as they stray out of them?

I'd point to this article - while I do agree that its hard to know what's happening, its getting even harder to know given the fact that journalists, upon whom we rely on to report the truth, are not being allowed to do their jobs. In a Western society where freedom of the press is considered a right, it doesn't concern you that police consider it part of their job to prevent press access?

The article offers little other than one person's account. I take single accounts with nothing else to them, no matter who says them, with a grain of salt.

In the video, the reporter was not forced to stop. He was backed up and then allowed to proceed forward once the group he was with moved back.

I don't see the issue with police curtailing anyone's right to assemble or protest, be they citizens or reporters, where they are doing so under reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. They have long had that power since at least the 60's if memory serves. What I care about is whether or not that power is appropriately exercised. In a general sense, I would only like to see the interpretation for reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions contracted somewhat, but certainly not eliminated. People should not be allowed to protest in the middle of the freeway, or enter into my home and protest from within if I don't want them there.

One issue is that the protestors claim they have indeed been doing that - they have freedom of association, and object to be tear gassed and sent home two hours before an established curfew. Now, the police in that incident claim someone through a firebomb of some kind... but its getting harder and harder to work out how is telling the truth, because of course the protestors allege that never happened - allowing the media to report and do their jobs would be helpful in establishing actual facts, rather than hearsay after accusation after claim from both sides.

And they are free to object as they wish. I am more so interested in seeing if the complaint has bite. Simply put, no one I have seen has endeavored to explain what the standards are and argue using the facts that those standards were violated.

As I said at the beginning, from what I have seen the police have not really stopped the media from reporting on the events.

[N3bu]

Does the mayor have the legal authority to force a curfew?

Does anyone? Because it doesn't sound like anything I've ever seen with regards to the legal powers of the state.

[N3bu]

N3bu

Does the mayor have the legal authority to force a curfew?

Does anyone? Because it doesn't sound like anything I've ever seen with regards to the legal powers of the state.

And even then, either way doesn't it still violate the first amendment's right to assemble?

Even with parts of the protest forming into riots, a curfew still violates the constitutional rights of anyone who wants to assemble peacefully.

[Requiem ex Inferni]

Considering the ******** of misinformation, half-truths and biased opinions that always follow any incident like this, I've been staying away from this issue. I honestly don't trust anyone to be unbiased enough to give me a proper recounting of exactly what happened (so far all I'm aware of is a white cop shot a black guy who allegedly committed a crime, and Ferguson's black community is rioting because of it).

[Foot Nudist]

its a scary thing. if the police are acting like this there, it can happy anywhere. it looks to much like the past for it to not be scary. but i think the scariest part is that when all of this is over (just like the school shootings and all of those kids who were murdered and have been murdered in other school shootings since sandyhook) that people will just forget and turn their attention to something else and people will remember but the country will go back to "normal" that's scary.

[toasega]

I feel it's the start of another era of bloodshed.

On one hand, you have ISIS, who is threatening to "Drown us in blood" and are taking over all these countries. Their very arrival is dubious, since they came right the crap out of nowhere, fully armed with all sorts of weapons and like, billions of dollars at their disposal. The source of their money, weapons and steadily increasing power is a mystery. At the same time, our own government seems to be doing nothing, or at least very little (an ineffective little), to stop them. During all of this, everyone seems to have conveniently forgotten about Putin's little endeavors and the bit of a scare he gave everyone for a while, as well as North Korea and what they plan to do. Coincidence? I THINK NOT.

On the other hand, our own country is experiencing unrest and resentment at our lives in general; the government, taxes, our crappy jobs, and the police who shoot us whilst cheerfully raping our wives and daughters (and possibly sons), and most, if not all of them get away with it completely in the clear. Then this s**t with Ferguson happens, and the people over there finally snapped. If this continues, someone is going to die violently, and they are going to die on camera. It won't matter which side they're on, either. If a cop is killed, the other cops will retaliate and maybe gun down a few innocent bystanders. If a civilian is killed, then the people will fly into a rage, only to have many innocents gunned down by police. Regardless, if the situation is not resolved soon, there will be a good deal of bloodshed, and it will be very public. And the dominoes will fall.



To my paranoid mind, this all seems orchestrated by some shadow organization whose influence is greater than that of any government, including our own. The aftermath of 9/11 saw major increases in security and invasion of privacy, even the slow corrosion of the Constitution with the Patriot Act. With every disaster, the iron grip seems to increase. Suddenly, we seem to be on the brink of war on all fronts, foreign and domestic. What will they do to us in the name of "Safety" when it goes south THIS time?