Police Fire Tear Gas On Al Jazeera Crew And Then Take Their Equipment

[Lemongrass Gogulope]

Last night, police in Ferguson, Missouri, attempted to disperse several hundred protesters with tear gas, stun grenades, and smoke bombs (http://www.businessinsider.com/pictures-ferguson-protests-2014-8). It was the fourth night of demonstrations in response to the death of Michael Brown, an unarmed black teenager, at the hands of a Ferguson police officer.
News organizations have had a notoriously difficult time covering the demonstrations in recent days as the FAA has enacted a no-fly zone over the area (http://tfr.faa.gov/save_pages/detail_4_2599.html), preventing news helicopters from covering the scene, and police have often turned away and arrested journalists (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/13/ryan-reilly-_n_5677060.html).
Last night, local news channel KSDK caught footage and photos of a SWAT team firing tear gas at an Al Jazeera America TV crew that was covering the events behind the police barricade. The SWAT team then moved to dismantle and carry off their camera equipment.


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/police-fire-tear-gas-on-al-jazeera-america-tv-crew-and-then-take-their-equipment-2014-8#ixzz3AO6Yt1ai

I guess the revolution really won't be televised!

[Drummond]

Last night, police in Ferguson, Missouri, attempted to disperse several hundred protesters with tear gas, stun grenades, and smoke bombs (http://www.businessinsider.com/pictures-ferguson-protests-2014-8). It was the fourth night of demonstrations in response to the death of Michael Brown, an unarmed black teenager, at the hands of a Ferguson police officer.
News organizations have had a notoriously difficult time covering the demonstrations in recent days as the FAA has enacted a no-fly zone over the area (http://tfr.faa.gov/save_pages/detail_4_2599.html), preventing news helicopters from covering the scene, and police have often turned away and arrested journalists (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/13/ryan-reilly-_n_5677060.html).
Last night, local news channel KSDK caught footage and photos of a SWAT team firing tear gas at an Al Jazeera America TV crew that was covering the events behind the police barricade. The SWAT team then moved to dismantle and carry off their camera equipment.


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/police-fire-tear-gas-on-al-jazeera-america-tv-crew-and-then-take-their-equipment-2014-8#ixzz3AO6Yt1ai

I guess the revolution really won't be televised!

Congrats to that SWAT team !! I thoroughly approve !!

[Lemongrass Gogulope]

Congrats to that SWAT team !! I thoroughly approve !!
Why?

[NightTrain]

Last night, police in Ferguson, Missouri, attempted to disperse several hundred protesters with tear gas, stun grenades, and smoke bombs (http://www.businessinsider.com/pictures-ferguson-protests-2014-8). It was the fourth night of demonstrations in response to the death of Michael Brown, an unarmed black teenager, at the hands of a Ferguson police officer.

I guess it can be called 'demonstrations'... but usually the only 'demonstrating' done at night is looting, rioting and arson.


News organizations have had a notoriously difficult time covering the demonstrations in recent days as the FAA has enacted a no-fly zone over the area (http://tfr.faa.gov/save_pages/detail_4_2599.html), [preventing news helicopters from covering the scene,

That's because there are drones circling overhead, recording video and snapping closeups. Watch how many of the looters get caught this time in High-Def Color Glossies.


and police have often turned away and arrested journalists (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/13/ryan-reilly-_n_5677060.html).

Having journalists roaming around in a riot zone is dangerous for their health... can't fault the cops for that.


Last night, local news channel KSDK caught footage and photos of a SWAT team firing tear gas at an Al Jazeera America TV crew that was covering the events behind the police barricade. The SWAT team then moved to dismantle and carry off their camera equipment.

This doesn't make any sense. Everyone has a video cam with them on their cellphone and shutting down a news crew isn't going to reduce photographic coverage... obviously the Al Jazeera crew did something. Maybe they had armed bodyguards with them and the cops spotted weapons - pure speculation on my part, but cops don't attack journalist crews for no reason. It's a quick way to end your career and end up in a 8'x10' lovenest with Bubba.

I'm no fan of Al Jazeera, I myself have picked apart many of their 'stories' that were 99% bullshit... like that mosque that the kid fired a BB gun at and the headlines at Al Jazeera were screaming of a military-grade assault against a mosque in mid-west America. They definitely have an agenda that's unfriendly to infidels like you and I. However, if they did nothing wrong, then the cops responsible will be sued in short order and fired.

[Abbey Marie]

[/FONT][/COLOR]
I guess it can be called 'demonstrations'... but usually the only 'demonstrating' done at night is looting, rioting and arson.



That's because there are drones circling overhead, recording video and snapping closeups. Watch how many of the looters get caught this time in High-Def Color Glossies.



Having journalists roaming around in a riot zone is dangerous for their health... can't fault the cops for that.



This doesn't make any sense. Everyone has a video cam with them on their cellphone and shutting down a news crew isn't going to reduce photographic coverage... obviously the Al Jazeera crew did something. Maybe they had armed bodyguards with them and the cops spotted weapons - pure speculation on my part, but cops don't attack journalist crews for no reason. It's a quick way to end your career and end up in a 8'x10' lovenest with Bubba.

I'm no fan of Al Jazeera, I myself have picked apart many of their 'stories' that were 99% bullshit... like that mosque that the kid fired a BB gun at and the headlines at Al Jazeera were screaming of a military-grade assault against a mosque in mid-west America. They definitely have an agenda that's unfriendly to infidels like you and I. However, if they did nothing wrong, then the cops responsible will be sued in short order and fired.


Recruiting young black males into Islam comes to mind... :rolleyes:

[Lemongrass Gogulope]

Recruiting young black males into Islam comes to mind... :rolleyes:
Link, please.

[Abbey Marie]

Link, please.

Lol, it's not a "link" type thing; it's a wry observation with a winky face. But if you want some evidence of black US men converting in large numbers, you can start at any State prison.

[Lemongrass Gogulope]

Lol, it's not a "link" type thing; it's a wry observation with a winky face. But if you want some evidence of black US men converting in large numbers, you can start at any State prison.
What does that have to do with the Al Jazeera journalists getting hit with tear gas?

They were screaming, "We are the press," (not that it wasn't obvious from their vehicle) and were not trespassing. So, what's the justification for the conduct of the police officers?

[jimnyc]

The police should clear the streets until the violence and destruction stops. I don't blame them in the slightest when you have this many people rioting.

[Lemongrass Gogulope]

The police should clear the streets until the violence and destruction stops. I don't blame them in the slightest when you have this many people rioting.
Their motive wasn't to clear the streets but to prevent reporters from filming them while they fired rubber bullets and tear gas containers at mostly peaceful protesters. This is America. Our free press is supposed to be sacred. But I guess all that talk about upholding the constitution is really just bullshit since so many of you are willing to wipe your ass with it as long as it's convenient for you to do so.

This is over reach by a militaristic police force which kinda gives some credibility to the notion that maybe Michael Brown wasn't doing anything wrong when he was shot - after all, this police force has no problem arresting and detaining innocent journalists and firing tear gas on others. Why is it somehow beyond the pale that one of them might have killed an innocent kid?

[jimnyc]

Their motive wasn't to clear the streets but to prevent reporters from filming them while they fired rubber bullets and tear gas containers at mostly peaceful protesters. This is America. Our free press is supposed to be sacred. But I guess all that talk about upholding the constitution is really just bullshit since so many of you are willing to wipe your ass with it as long as it's convenient for you to do so.

This is over reach by a militaristic police force which kinda gives some credibility to the notion that maybe Michael Brown wasn't doing anything wrong when he was shot - after all, this police force has no problem arresting and detaining innocent journalists and firing tear gas on others. Why is it somehow beyond the pale that one of them might have killed an innocent kid?

No thanks, I respect our COTUS more than you'll ever know, as I do our troops and veterans and even old glory. You can place the comment in bold exactly where you think I'm wiping and twist it sideways. Are you going to be a prick to everyone who responds and doesn't have the same view as you do?

[Lemongrass Gogulope]

No thanks, I respect our COTUS more than you'll ever know, as I do our troops and veterans and even old glory. You can place the comment in bold exactly where you think I'm wiping and twist it sideways. Are you going to be a prick to everyone who responds and doesn't have the same view as you do?
If you respect the constitution, why are you defending a police that was trying to silence journalists? Isn't "freedom of the press" a little bit important here? Since when are so many on the right so hellbent on defending the police in this situation when just a bit ago, so many of you were defending Clive Bundy and his band of merry militia men for standing up to the police?

And I'll ignore the backhanded swipe at me.

[jimnyc]

If you respect the constitution, why are you defending a police that was trying to silence journalists? Isn't "freedom of the press" a little bit important here? Since when are so many on the right so hellbent on defending the police in this situation when just a bit ago, so many of you were defending Clive Bundy and his band of merry militia men for standing up to the police?

And I'll ignore the backhanded swipe at me.

Can you show me where I defended them for anything? I simply stated, based on the violence and destruction that was going on out there, it makes sense to clear the streets, which eliminates any threats to police and citizens and protects homes and businesses. My response had nothing to do with defending the police nor silencing journalists.

[NightTrain]

Their motive wasn't to clear the streets but to prevent reporters from filming them while they fired rubber bullets and tear gas containers at mostly peaceful protesters. This is America. Our free press is supposed to be sacred. But I guess all that talk about upholding the constitution is really just bullshit since so many of you are willing to wipe your ass with it as long as it's convenient for you to do so.

You don't know what was going on, and neither do I. I speculated and qualified that I was doing so, but I'll withhold judgement until the facts arise - whereas it would seem you've already passed judgement and are painting the cops trying to control a rioting populace, protect journalists as jack-booted thugs out to trample and oppress everyone in the area.

Don't you think it would be wise to wait for the facts and supporting video before crying "Police Brutality"?

I know a few cops, and while there are some shitty ones that should never have been issued a badge & gun, most are great people that are raising families as best they can and try to do their difficult jobs to the best of their abilities.


This is over reach by a militaristic police force which kinda gives some credibility to the notion that maybe Michael Brown wasn't doing anything wrong when he was shot - after all, this police force has no problem arresting and detaining innocent journalists and firing tear gas on others. Why is it somehow beyond the pale that one of them might have killed an innocent kid?

Again, you don't know that. You're awfully quick to pass judgement with very limited info.

Regarding Micheal Brown, it is known that there was a scuffle inside the cop car between Brown and the cop over a gun. When someone fights with a cop over a firearm, the overwhelming odds are you're going to get shot. Allowing someone to take a gun from you is a huge no-no, and more than likely the cop will be shot in a situation like that.

But, again, I'm waiting for the facts to arise before passing judgement on Brown and the cop.

[Lemongrass Gogulope]

Can you show me where I defended them for anything? I simply stated, based on the violence and destruction that was going on out there, it makes sense to clear the streets, which eliminates any threats to police and citizens and protects homes and businesses. My response had nothing to do with defending the police nor silencing journalists.
It would make sense to clear the streets, but the police never asked the journalists to leave the street. They simply fired tear gas canisters at them while the reporters were screaming that they were part of the press.

The journalists who were arrested were inside of a McDonald's at the time.

[aboutime]

Jim. How bout we play a little game of Devil's advocate for Lemongrass?

Lemongrass. Let's imagine YOU are somehow chosen to be one of those police officers YOU HATE, with all of the demonstrators who are intent on causing destruction, and injury to 'THE PIGS' there.

Would you simply walk up to the demonstrators with a sign...like RODNEY KING, that reads "Why can't we all get along?"...just as a brick, stone, or other object comes screaming toward your head.

Would you continue to hold the sign, or pretend the blood running down your face might become fatal?

It's always so easy for the COWARDS to accuse the police, until the COWARDS become the victims.

Then the COWARDS wonder why they are being cheered on by RADICAL, RACISTS who pretend to be victims too?

[Lemongrass Gogulope]

Jim. How bout we play a little game of Devil's advocate for Lemongrass?

Lemongrass. Let's imagine YOU are somehow chosen to be one of those police officers YOU HATE

Stopped reading. Assumes facts clearly not in evidence.

[Drummond]

Why?

To be clear about the focus of my previous comment, Lemongrass .. I felt like congratulating the SWAT team for the action that the Al Jazeera 'crew' suffered. I had only that in mind.

As to your other reactions, which I've since read, tell me this. Am I correct in thinking that you regard Al Jazeera as a reputable news media service ??

Incredible, if true.

Imagine a supposedly 'reputable' broadcaster giving hours of air time to broadcasts which served the interests of a serial-killing axe murderer. Now, would you disapprove of any broadcaster favouring such a 'person', or not ?

If you would disapprove - and I'm assuming you would - reflect on the fact that, in having a lengthy history of accepting, then broadcasting, Al Qaeda terrorist messages .. what they have willingly, consistently done is orders of magnitude worse than this !!

By no stretch of the imagination, on those grounds alone, is Al Jazeera 'reputable', or a 'decent', broadcaster. So, why would I mind what the SWAT team did ??

The sheer arrogance of Al Jazeera 'reporters' conducting themselves as though they were 'decent', 'professional' figues is surely offensive.

Can you explain to me why these comments hadn't already occurred to you as being my likely motivation for my earlier post ?

[Drummond]

Stopped reading. Assumes facts clearly not in evidence.

You have no interest in identifying with anyone possessing a mindset at all different to your own ?

[Lemongrass Gogulope]

You have no interest in identifying with anyone possessing a mindset at all different to your own ?

That's not true. I just don't appreciate it when people attribute emotions and thoughts to me that clearly have not been exhibited. Neither you nor abouttime can point to any of my posts and say they are indicative of me "hating cops." So, why should I give a serious response to a bullshit inflammatory post?

[aboutime]

You have no interest in identifying with anyone possessing a mindset at all different to your own ?



Sir Drummond. There you have it, for all to see. Just more proof about how they instantly point the accusing finger to distract, and re-direct all attention from their own Racist tactics.

You are correct. There is no need, or interest from them when opinions, facts, and mindset's do not agree with their own.

[Lemongrass Gogulope]

To be clear about the focus of my previous comment, Lemongrass .. I felt like congratulating the SWAT team for the action that the Al Jazeera 'crew' suffered. I had only that in mind.

As to your other reactions, which I've since read, tell me this. Am I correct in thinking that you regard Al Jazeera as a reputable news media service ??

Incredible, if true.

Imagine a supposedly 'reputable' broadcaster giving hours of air time to broadcasts which served the interests of a serial-killing axe murderer. Now, would you disapprove of any broadcaster favouring such a 'person', or not ?

If you would disapprove - and I'm assuming you would - reflect on the fact that, in having a lengthy history of accepting, then broadcasting, Al Qaeda terrorist messages .. what they have willingly, consistently done is orders of magnitude worse than this !!

By no stretch of the imagination, on those grounds alone, is Al Jazeera 'reputable', or a 'decent', broadcaster. So, why would I mind what the SWAT team did ??

The sheer arrogance of Al Jazeera 'reporters' conducting themselves as though they were 'decent', 'professional' figues is surely offensive.

Can you explain to me why these comments hadn't already occurred to you as being my likely motivation for my earlier post ?

They are a news source whether you like it or not. Unless you can show that their reporters do not carry ID and credentials, then whatever point you are trying to make about them not having business there because you don't like their style of reporting is moot. Also, if you look at the video, there are no identifying marks on the vehicle, so I seriously doubt the police knew they were from Al Jazeera, but only that they were journalists who were filming them.

[Lemongrass Gogulope]

Sir Drummond. There you have it, for all to see. Just more proof about how they instantly point the accusing finger to distract, and re-direct all attention from their own Racist tactics.

You are correct. There is no need, or interest from them when opinions, facts, and mindset's do not agree with their own.
Do you ever post to the topic?

And the last I checked, I'm only one person.

Oh and I see that you, once again, called me a racist. Again - keep it up. It's hilarious.

[Abbey Marie]

What does that have to do with the Al Jazeera journalists getting hit with tear gas?

They were screaming, "We are the press," (not that it wasn't obvious from their vehicle) and were not trespassing. So, what's the justification for the conduct of the police officers?

I'm not sure where you are used to posting, but here we allow a casual ebb and flow to conversation. Had I intended to make a serious point about a direct link between the two, I would not have phrased my post the way I did. I thought I had already made that clear, but if I need to spell it out- There is no evidence of any link between the Al Jazeera press corp in the story, and recruitment of black males into Islam.

[DLT]

What does that have to do with the Al Jazeera journalists getting hit with tear gas?

They were screaming, "We are the press," (not that it wasn't obvious from their vehicle) and were not trespassing. So, what's the justification for the conduct of the police officers?


The justification is safety. It's at 2.31 of the video that YOU posted....where the swat officer says "We don't want you here. Somebody's gonna get hurt. We don't want to see you guys get hurt". It's pretty much a common sense issue. Common sense being a trait that lefties have never had and never will have, of course.

[aboutime]

The justification is safety. It's at 2.31 of the video that YOU posted....where the swat officer says "We don't want you here. Somebody's gonna get hurt. We don't want to see you guys get hurt". It's pretty much a common sense issue. Common sense being a trait that lefties have never had and never will have, of course.


Xenalee. But that kind of stuff, coming from police officers is always INFRINGING on someone's constitutional rights...according to Liberal brainwashed, thinking. Any time they use the very Constitution they Hate, and Wish to get rid of to defend themselves. Just proves how deeply their hatred for Laws, and Order is. The only time they hide behind the constitution is when IT SUITS THEIR SELFISH INTERESTS.

[Noir]

Having journalists roaming around in a riot zone is dangerous for their health... can't fault the cops for that.

Yeah so the police detained those silly journalists for their own good!..

[tailfins]

Last night, police in Ferguson, Missouri, attempted to disperse several hundred protesters with tear gas, stun grenades, and smoke bombs (http://www.businessinsider.com/pictures-ferguson-protests-2014-8). It was the fourth night of demonstrations in response to the death of Michael Brown, an unarmed black teenager, at the hands of a Ferguson police officer.
News organizations have had a notoriously difficult time covering the demonstrations in recent days as the FAA has enacted a no-fly zone over the area (http://tfr.faa.gov/save_pages/detail_4_2599.html), preventing news helicopters from covering the scene, and police have often turned away and arrested journalists (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/13/ryan-reilly-_n_5677060.html).
Last night, local news channel KSDK caught footage and photos of a SWAT team firing tear gas at an Al Jazeera America TV crew that was covering the events behind the police barricade. The SWAT team then moved to dismantle and carry off their camera equipment.


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/police-fire-tear-gas-on-al-jazeera-america-tv-crew-and-then-take-their-equipment-2014-8#ixzz3AO6Yt1ai

I guess the revolution really won't be televised!

If this is the incident mentioned on Limbaugh today, it involved a news team attempting to take over a boarded up McDonald's and commandeer it as a "base station". That news crew should be grateful they didn't face criminal trespass charges.

[jimnyc]

If this is the incident mentioned on Limbaugh today, it involved a news team attempting to take over a boarded up McDonald's and commandeer it as a "base station". That news crew should be grateful they didn't face criminal trespass charges.

I saw video footage of the authorities in the McDonalds, and they were ordering everyone out of the premises. They weren't there to arrest and even told them they could go, move their cars or whatever. A few of them refused, and ended up arrested. I don't know if management at McDonalds were involved at all, as that would in fact matter, but telling people to leave the premises is not an overreach. And when they refuse a lawful order to vacate the premises, they are then open to arrest. If the protests were being held in mcdonalds, then it would be different, but there was nothing going on in there.

[Noir]

Them streets ain't safe for Journalists, nor for Senators it would seem.

http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j176/jonathan-mcc/A447D4AF-887D-4A5A-8BA1-1A99F5F4E468_zpsd0r51a7c.png (http://s80.photobucket.com/user/jonathan-mcc/media/A447D4AF-887D-4A5A-8BA1-1A99F5F4E468_zpsd0r51a7c.png.html)

Maybe the police should start denying her access too.

[jimnyc]

I'm watching and they are stating the news were in there for the free wi-fi and did in fact make it their mini base. The reason the police went in is supposedly the clashes started flowing into the mcdonalds and they were clearing out the premises. The press were more than free to continue with their reporting and filming in the mcdonalds situation, they just refused to move from that premises.

[jimnyc]

Maybe the police should start denying her access too.

Why, was she in an eatery and refusing to leave when chaos erupted?

[jimnyc]

Them streets ain't safe for Journalists, nor for Senators it would seem.

Maybe the police should start denying her access too.

Btw, she chose to be an activist. She chose to go down there and protest, knowing the violence was there. People chose to stay when the police asked the public to be free of the streets by a certain time. The police then used tear gas to disperse the area. And she is shocked when she runs into the smoke?

[Noir]

I'm watching and they are stating the news were in there for the free wi-fi and did in fact make it their mini base. The reason the police went in is supposedly the clashes started flowing into the mcdonalds and they were clearing out the premises. The press were more than free to continue with their reporting and filming in the mcdonalds situation, they just refused to move from that premises.

The videos from inside the McDonalds don't show the jurnos resisting at all.

[Noir]

Btw, she chose to be an activist. She chose to go down there and protest, knowing the violence was there. People chose to stay when the police asked the public to be free of the streets by a certain time. The police then used tear gas to disperse the area. And she is shocked when she runs into the smoke?

Attend a peaceful protest - expect to be gassed.

[jimnyc]

The videos from inside the McDonalds don't show the jurnos resisting at all.

I didn't mean to say resisted, if I did? But they wouldn't leave then the police were repeatedly asking them to leave. Several times they were asked to leave and given time to vacate, but they argued to stay instead. If the clash between police erupted into chaos, and had overflowed into the store, they have the right to continue clearing the premises. They verbally told them to vacate - they didn't. They were still 100% free to perform their duties, they just needed to leave mcdonalds.

[jimnyc]

Attend a peaceful protest - expect to be gassed.

Attend protest where there is non-stop violence, looting, destruction... Do you REALLY think the community in that area, in their protesting have been peaceful? Apparently you missed the rioting.

rioting is not equal to peace.

[jimnyc]

Here's some footage in addition to the peaceful people, can someone point me to the peaceful people here?

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.liveleak.com/ll_embed?f=59dcdf74c281" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[jimnyc]

More peaceful protesting via looting. "Who got da lottery tickets"

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.liveleak.com/ll_embed?f=9852d66b4425" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[jimnyc]

Another part of a "peaceful" rally

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.liveleak.com/ll_embed?f=e4302b3b4137" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Noir]

Attend protest where there is non-stop violence, looting, destruction... Do you REALLY think the community in that area, in their protesting have been peaceful? Apparently you missed the rioting. rioting is not equal to peace.

So if you attend a peaceful protest in a city, and somewhere else in the city people are rioting, you should expect your peaceful protest to be set upon by tear gas etc?

I also see the policeman who shot the teenager dead has been found on facebook, after chosing to 'change his name' so 'nobody will find me' good gravy its like a b-rate movie.

[Noir]

I didn't mean to say resisted, if I did? But they wouldn't leave then the police were repeatedly asking them to leave. Several times they were asked to leave and given time to vacate, but they argued to stay instead. If the clash between police erupted into chaos, and had overflowed into the store, they have the right to continue clearing the premises. They verbally told them to vacate - they didn't. They were still 100% free to perform their duties, they just needed to leave mcdonalds.

Yeah they didn't 'pack up their bags fast enough'. They were also told to stop filming (illegal). Good times.

It'll be interesting to see what the police reports on the arrests have to say as both newspapers involved have requested statements on the matter.

[jimnyc]

So if you attend a peaceful protest in a city, and somewhere else in the city people are rioting, you should expect your peaceful protest to be set upon by tear gas etc?

I also see the policeman who shot the teenager dead has been found on facebook, after chosing to 'change his name' so 'nobody will find me' good gravy its like a b-rate movie.

No, there was an emergency order and they weren't even supposed to be on the streets due to the violence. Then the police used microphones, then they sent out the tear gas.

Yes, I find it worrisome that people are going to once again try and chase someone down, even before knowing all the facts, before a trial, and likely making threats and harassing.

[jimnyc]

Yeah they didn't 'pack up their bags fast enough'. They were also told to stop filming (illegal). Good times.

It'll be interesting to see what the police reports on the arrests have to say as both newspapers involved have requested statements on the matter.

They were not stopped from filming, which would have been illegal. Stating it, likely to get them to turn them down, in itself is not illegal. Nonetheless, they weren't detained for filming, they weren't following lawful orders. They weren't on public property either.

[Noir]

No, there was an emergency order and they weren't even supposed to be on the streets due to the violence.
Then the police used microphones, then they sent out the tear gas. Yes, I find it worrisome that people are going to once again try and chase someone down, even before knowing all the facts, before a trial, and likely making threats and harassing.

Right to peaceful protest - revoked.

[aboutime]

Right to peaceful protest - revoked.


Noir. All peaceful, legal protesting ended the moment one of the protesters decided to attack the police, and incited the rioting to become destruction of private property.

If anyone had anything Revoked. It was the intentional LAW BREAKERS who stayed there to RIOT.

[Jeff]

If you watch the video's Jim posted those folks aren't there to peacefully protest, they are there to riot, hell they think Christmas came early, they are there to loot and cause as much trouble as they can, I wonder how many even know why they are allowed to go back to school shopping for free.

[Noir]

Noir. All peaceful, legal protesting ended the moment one of the protesters decided to attack the police, and incited the rioting to become destruction of private property. If anyone had anything Revoked. It was the intentional LAW BREAKERS who stayed there to RIOT.

I swear you guys could learn a heap from our wee country, did you know its possible to have violent riots on one section of a city, while also having peaceful protests in another section?

[jimnyc]

Right to peaceful protest - revoked.

No, the area was shut down due to the riots. The blame goes to the endless amount that were trashing the area and stealing. They were more than allowed to protest during the day, just not after dark on that evening.

[jimnyc]

I swear you guys could learn a heap from our wee country, did you know its possible to have violent riots on one section of a city, while also having peaceful protests in another section?

While that's all great, the first priority should be ending the riots.

[aboutime]

I swear you guys could learn a heap from our wee country, did you know its possible to have violent riots on one section of a city, while also having peaceful protests in another section?


Looks like we have learned all the wrong things Noir. How's your Unemployment numbers doing, and how secure is any part-time job there?

[Gaffer]

This is a bunch of outside agitators using a tragedy to to conduct thuggery and looting. They need a curfew established and arrest everyone on the street after dark.

Who is out there rioting and protesting....liberals. The shooting is just an excuse.

[Drummond]

I swear you guys could learn a heap from our wee country, did you know its possible to have violent riots on one section of a city, while also having peaceful protests in another section?

I've already learned an awful lot from UK society, thanks very much, Noir. And you see the results on this forum !!

Besides ... Northern Ireland doesn't have an enviable record, when it comes to 'peaceful protests' ... or even, its own terrorism ....

[Drummond]

So if you attend a peaceful protest in a city, and somewhere else in the city people are rioting, you should expect your peaceful protest to be set upon by tear gas etc?

I also see the policeman who shot the teenager dead has been found on facebook, after chosing to 'change his name' so 'nobody will find me' good gravy its like a b-rate movie.

As a matter of principle, Noir, you can expect the police to be, at minimum, primed to expect a 'peaceful' protest to turn into something else at a moment's notice. These days ... protesters carry mobile phones (cellphones in US parlance). One quick call, or text, from one organiser in one locality to another in another locality, can see a riot generated in seconds.

Consider the spread of the UK riots. One day, Tottenham. Within 24 hours, another in a nearby area unconnected to the original problem ... Enfield, the borough to the immediate north of Tottenham. In the days that followed, widespread riots and looting broke out across England, all of them in areas unconnected, in social terms, with the original cause of the first one.

Police have to be prepared and to move with all appropriate force in a matter of SECONDS. Little wonder if nerves become frayed, I'd have thought. This is the reality of modern living.

[Drummond]

They are a news source whether you like it or not. Unless you can show that their reporters do not carry ID and credentials, then whatever point you are trying to make about them not having business there because you don't like their style of reporting is moot. Also, if you look at the video, there are no identifying marks on the vehicle, so I seriously doubt the police knew they were from Al Jazeera, but only that they were journalists who were filming them.

... seriously ? So, your method of judgment as to the worth of 'reporters' is just the paperwork they can produce ?

Their 'style of reporting' doesn't begin to cover a deliberate policy of disseminating terrorist hate propaganda !!!!!! This is what Al Jazeera has been pleased to do, for several years !

Jihadist websites are closed down for pro-terrorist material in a fraction of the time that Al Jazeera has been playing Al Qaeda's game !!!

And you don't know what advance information the police might've had. You're just guessing on that point.

Lemongrass -- here, you've done the bog standard Leftie thing of finding 'politically correct' defences for friends of terrorists. I'm not surprised, of course, because one could expect that of the Left.

But it is a sad indictment of the nature of Leftieism, I think ...

[Noir]

Looks like we have learned all the wrong things Noir. How's your Unemployment numbers doing, and how secure is any part-time job there?

Unemployments here is about 5.9% and falling. Lower than the rest of the UK, USA, and almost half the level of Ireland. What that has to do with the topic idk.

[Noir]

I've already learned an awful lot from UK society, thanks very much, Noir. And you see the results on this forum !! Besides ... Northern Ireland doesn't have an enviable record, when it comes to 'peaceful protests' ... or even, its own terrorism ....

Yeah but our police force have half a mellon what to do when riots erupt. Its difficult not to conclude that the police force in Furgusson are making the situation worse with the tactics employed.

[Noir]

As a matter of principle, Noir, you can expect the police to be, at minimum, primed to expect a 'peaceful' protest to turn into something else at a moment's notice. These days ... protesters carry mobile phones (cellphones in US parlance). One quick call, or text, from one organiser in one locality to another in another locality, can see a riot generated in seconds. Consider the spread of the UK riots. One day, Tottenham. Within 24 hours, another in a nearby area unconnected to the original problem ... Enfield, the borough to the immediate north of Tottenham. In the days that followed, widespread riots and looting broke out across England, all of them in areas unconnected, in social terms, with the original cause of the first one. Police have to be prepared and to move with all appropriate force in a matter of SECONDS. Little wonder if nerves become frayed, I'd have thought. This is the reality of modern living.

Right, so the police should pre-emptively gas and LRAD any peaceful protestors incase one of them gets a text and starts a riot.

[Noir]

Look away Drummond, the protests are spreading!

http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j176/jonathan-mcc/FCE870DE-0D55-4619-A0CA-374636405A65_zpsvwm0dnzv.jpg (http://s80.photobucket.com/user/jonathan-mcc/media/FCE870DE-0D55-4619-A0CA-374636405A65_zpsvwm0dnzv.jpg.html)

Happening NOW: Thousands of New Yorkers are staging a sit-in in the middle of Times Square chanting, &ldquo;Hands up, don&rsquo;t shoot&rdquo; to support the people of #Ferguson.

Thankfully there were only a few arrested, and the demonstration was allowed to continue peacefully, as it appears most people left their mobile phones at home, as a precaution.

[Jeff]

Look away Drummond, the protests are spreading!

http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j176/jonathan-mcc/FCE870DE-0D55-4619-A0CA-374636405A65_zpsvwm0dnzv.jpg (http://s80.photobucket.com/user/jonathan-mcc/media/FCE870DE-0D55-4619-A0CA-374636405A65_zpsvwm0dnzv.jpg.html)


Thankfully there were only a few arrested, and the demonstration was allowed to continue peacefully, as it appears most people left their mobile phones at home, as a precaution.

Noir that is Time Square ( which I am sure you realize ) but my point is that is a much different place than where the protest ( RIOT ) is taking place, once the police have lost control of the city all bets are off, the first thing they have to do is gain control again. Without control of any part of the city they have no control !!

[jimnyc]

Right, so the police should pre-emptively gas and LRAD any peaceful protestors incase one of them gets a text and starts a riot.

They preemptively closed things down as a precaution to keep the peace. People didn't listen. Tear gas was then used to clear the streets. What they were doing was unlawful. I understand protesting, and freedoms and all the other stuff we should all support. But safety and the law comes first, and once people are safe, let them perform as they wish. You're acting as if they are running around purposely gassing innocent people who were not breaking the law and following peaceful orders. Again, these people were free to do anything during the day, and for a night because of the dark they put out limitations for safety reasons.

Why couldn't they wait till the next morning and evening? Why did they HAVE to break the law that evening? When the police used loudspeakers and asked everyone to disperse, do you think they should have listened? Knowing a lawful order was in effect?

But you think they should have shrugged their shoulders and hoped for the best. Hope there is no violence and no more thousands and thousand and thousands of dollars in damage and looting.

[Noir]

They preemptively closed things down as a precaution to keep the peace. People didn't listen. Tear gas was then used to clear the streets. What they were doing was unlawful. I understand protesting, and freedoms and all the other stuff we should all support. But safety and the law comes first, and once people are safe, let them perform as they wish. You're acting as if they are running around purposely gassing innocent people who were not breaking the law and following peaceful orders. Again, these people were free to do anything during the day, and for a night because of the dark they put out limitations for safety reasons. Why couldn't they wait till the next morning and evening? Why did they HAVE to break the law that evening? When the police used loudspeakers and asked everyone to disperse, do you think they should have listened? Knowing a lawful order was in effect? But you think they should have shrugged their shoulders and hoped for the best. Hope there is no violence and no more thousands and thousand and thousands of dollars in damage and looting.

Peaceably assemble in a public area - you're breaking the law.

It's a funny sort if freedom when the over-arching rule is 'do what we tell you to do' don't you think?

[jimnyc]

Peaceably assemble in a public area - you're breaking the law.

Why do you keep stating this when I said several times that there was an emergency order in effect for the evening and everyone was to be off the streets. You say they are breaking the law for assembling peacefully, but it's because they defied the order, which you keep ignoring and changing the context.


It's a funny sort if freedom when the over-arching rule is 'do what we tell you to do' don't you think?

All fun and games until people die - and then folks go nuts blaming the police for letting things get out of hand. Or people threatening with deaths left and right.

[Noir]

Why do you keep stating this when I said several times that there was an emergency order in effect for the evening and everyone was to be off the streets. You say they are breaking the law for assembling peacefully, but it's because they defied the order, which you keep ignoring and changing the context.

Because its important to keep saying that these people don't have the right to assemble peacefully.


All fun and games until people die - and then folks go nuts blaming the police for letting things get out of hand. Or people threatening with deaths left and right.

Yeah i heard about this one guy that got shot nine times in broad daylight on the street, shame the police weren't there to stop that getting out of hand.

[jimnyc]

Because its important to keep saying that these people don't have the right to assemble peacefully.

But they do! They just couldn't on that one particular evening when an emergency order was in effect. A few hours set aside for safety shouldn't be that big of a deal. But they CHOSE to break the law. Again, as soon as the light came up, they could have assembled until they bled for anyone else cared, and the order was only in effect for one evening as far as I know.

What if 7 people were assaulted and in the hospital, 4 shops destroyed & 6 of them looted to the tune of thousands. WHO is responsible for protecting these businesses? WHO is responsible for ensuring the safety of the public when this chaos sets in?


Yeah i heard about this one guy that got shot nine times in broad daylight on the street, shame the police weren't there to stop that getting out of hand.

Shame that I heard a guy that tried to take the gun of a police officer, and left the officer with a severely swollen face, ended up getting shot.

[Noir]

But they do! They just couldn't on that one particular evening when an emergency order was in effect. A few hours set aside for safety shouldn't be that big of a deal. But they CHOSE to break the law. Again, as soon as the light came up, they could have assembled until they bled for anyone else cared, and the order was only in effect for one evening as far as I know.

That one particular evening? And all the other evenings were because....?
In any case, your rights don't go down with the sun.


What if 7 people were assaulted and in the hospital, 4 shops destroyed & 6 of them looted to the tune of thousands. WHO is responsible for protecting these businesses? WHO is responsible for ensuring the safety of the public when this chaos sets in?

The police are a reactive force, not pro-active, gassing peaceful protestors because they might turn into violent protestors ain't the way they should be going about policing.


Shame that I heard a guy that tried to take the gun of a police officer, and left the officer with a severely swollen face, ended up getting shot.

Yeah i heard the police officer was beat up so bad, and face so swollen, that the photos he posted to his Facebook in the days following of his face were gruesome to behold. Though somewhat lacking in any actual swelling, bruises, cuts and the like...

[jimnyc]

The police are a reactive force, not pro-active, gassing peaceful protestors because they might turn into violent protestors ain't the way they should be going about policing.

I love ya, Noir, but this is useless. You keep repeating this same falsehood over and over. You may naively think this was the reason, but here in the USA the police try to enforce the law. The law was set in place. The people didn't listen. The cops enforced the law and dispersed the area. You want to re-word it to sound like they had fun gassing people because they "might" get violent at a later time. Rewording might work in your neck of the woods, but I've been clear several times, and you keep at it with the rewording. No offense to you, but here that is a liberal tactic, change the goal posts, change reasoning and try to vilify others to make their point. The police followed their orders and dispersed the area. Those protesting ignored the law.

Btw, the police ARE supposed to be proactive, ESPECIALLY in protecting businesses and citizens. You can thank the animals in the videos I posted in several threads. Without the animals on the loose, destroying their own environment, none of the crackdowns are even remotely necessary. Some over here seem to want to loot/steal/destroy & become violent NO MATTER the reason. If in my neighborhood, I hope the police crackdown on these folks and even arrest every last one of them. And until people stop the destruction and violence, I would hope the entire city, every single block is closed down until the animals are off the streets.

But of course you are free to disagree. Wouldn't be the first time you and I were at opposite ends!

A beer for you, since I love you, buddy! :)

http://www.wholesalerollingpapers.com/assets/images/products/cansafes/images/bud_light_cs_1.gif

[jimnyc]

Yeah i heard the police officer was beat up so bad, and face so swollen, that the photos he posted to his Facebook in the days following of his face were gruesome to behold. Though somewhat lacking in any actual swelling, bruises, cuts and the like...

Before I bail (off to NYC), please post the dated pictures and associated comments for the rest of us to see, I honestly haven't seen them yet!

[Noir]

Before I bail (off to NYC), please post the dated pictures and associated comments for the rest of us to see, I honestly haven't seen them yet!

Meet Scooby.
http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j176/jonathan-mcc/F0497FB8-2252-4335-AE56-C02715E6F1E0_zpsj4ljqyug.png (http://s80.photobucket.com/user/jonathan-mcc/media/F0497FB8-2252-4335-AE56-C02715E6F1E0_zpsj4ljqyug.png.html)

The police have denied he works for the force, despite the staff directory showing he does, and the previous profile picture of him in his uniform, and the comments. Who knows, i'm sure the police have a good and lawful reason to lie.

[jimnyc]

Meet Scooby.

The police have denied he works for the force, despite the staff directory showing he does, and the previous profile picture of him in his uniform, and the comments. Who knows, i'm sure the police have a good and lawful reason to lie.

That picture could have been old, and he just changed his profile picture, no?

[Noir]

That picture could have been old, and he just changed his profile picture, no?

Could have been, but it was a new to his Facebook certainly.
Maybe its not him at all, but the pieces certainly fit, and the police denying he is a policeman, when he so obviously is, is a worry.

[jimnyc]

Yeah i heard the police officer was beat up so bad, and face so swollen, that the photos he posted to his Facebook in the days following of his face were gruesome to behold. Though somewhat lacking in any actual swelling, bruises, cuts and the like...


Could have been, but it was a new to his Facebook certainly.
Maybe its not him at all, but the pieces certainly fit, and the police denying he is a policeman, when he so obviously is, is a worry.

I asked in reference to the above post, as you seemed to imply that the photos, as in multiple, lacked in the swelling I mentioned. I don't think that one photo hopes clear that up. With that said, I would believe that IF there were in fact injuries, they would have done as Zimmerman did, record it immediately and have it looked at by medical for additional documentation. It's possible we may not see such pictures until the investigation is over and/or in a trial.

[Noir]

I asked in reference to the above post, as you seemed to imply that the photos, as in multiple, lacked in the swelling I mentioned. I don't think that one photo hopes clear that up. With that said, I would believe that IF there were in fact injuries, they would have done as Zimmerman did, record it immediately and have it looked at by medical for additional documentation. It's possible we may not see such pictures until the investigation is over and/or in a trial.

Quite possible, as i say the pieces fit for now, though possibly to another puzzle, but all the same we'll find out in time.

EDIT - New name has been added to the mix, Darren Wilson, details to follow...

[jimnyc]

Here's more details Noir. Here, the authorities allowed the entire city to have their protest. They didn't bug them. They didn't engage them. Is this the type of result you would have expected? This is what happens when you don't let them do what is best to protect the city, the businesses, the community. Whether you like it or not, there are simply some places that need protection, even from their own citizens.

---

FERGUSON, Mo. (KMOV.com) -- Multiple police agencies were called to Ferguson early Saturday morning following reports of violence.

About 200 protesters clashed with police at the height of the disturbance at the Ferguson Market, where they began looting. Police said they tried to set the store on fire.

St. Louis County Police tell News 4 there has been more looting of stores near West Florissant. According to police, a liquor store, an electronics store, and a beauty supply store were looted,

About 100 police officers in riot gear moved in to disperse the crowd. One officer was injured by a thrown brick or rock.

Police said there was also at least one shooting victim rushed to Christian Northeast Hospital. No other details about that shooting have been released, other than it took place at the intersection of West Florissant and Canfield Drive.

At one point, protesters locked their arms and turned their backs to police.

There are reports that peaceful protesters, including Alderman Antonio French, attempted to calm tensions. Groups were seen blocking entrances to local stores to keep looters from entering.

There are no official reports of arrests being made. As looting occurred, police dressed in riot gear mainly stood and watched, apparently under orders not to engage.

News 4's Russell Kinsaul reported police arrived on scene around 6:15 a.m. to make sure only authorized people were inside businesses as well as clearing parking lots.

Community members also arrived to start the clean-up process for businesses damaged by looters.

http://www.kmov.com/news/local/Another-night-of-protests-violence-in-Ferguson-271489771.html

[NightTrain]

Noir, no one is disputing the right to peacefully assemble and protest.

Where things start getting muddy is when those 'peaceful' protesters start looting and setting buildings on fire.

It is at that point that the cops are on high alert and violence occurs. You are not 'protesting' when you are grabbing armfuls of stuff in a store that 'protesters' broke into. At that point you are a criminal and should be treated as such.

Many of us watch this shit going on, and see it for what it is : an excuse to run amok and grab as much free shit as you can before the cops restore order. In the meantime, you'll see Sharpton and Jackson with other idiots on any TV station that will air them saying that all the rampant crime going on during this phase is because they're protesting because of blahblahblah - the looting is opportunistic criminal behavior under the guise of protesting.

No one has a problem with peaceful protesting. Criminal behavior like looting, breaking & entering, destruction of property, arson, and vandalism are entirely different matters altogether.

[aboutime]

Here's a reminder of WHO exactly has arrived in Furguson to INCITE the riots to a fever pitch, with out-of-towners who the New Black Panthers, also known today as the "New Obama/Holder Civilian Strike Force".


Anyone who denies this...probably is ONE......http://icansayit.com/images/blackpanlead.jpg

[jimnyc]

And as I stated it should be, so long as the violence and looting continues...

---

Gov declares emergency, imposes curfew in FergusonFERGUSON, Mo. (AP) — Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon declared a state of emergency and imposed a curfew Saturday in the St. Louis suburb where a black teenager was shot to death by a white police officer a week ago.

Nixon said that though many protesters were making themselves heard peacefully, the state would not allow a handful of looters to endanger the community. The curfew will run from midnight to 5 a.m.

http://news.yahoo.com/police-protesters-clash-again-ferguson-085511380.html

[aboutime]

And as I stated it should be, so long as the violence and looting continues...

---

Gov declares emergency, imposes curfew in FergusonFERGUSON, Mo. (AP) — Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon declared a state of emergency and imposed a curfew Saturday in the St. Louis suburb where a black teenager was shot to death by a white police officer a week ago.

Nixon said that though many protesters were making themselves heard peacefully, the state would not allow a handful of looters to endanger the community. The curfew will run from midnight to 5 a.m.

http://news.yahoo.com/police-protesters-clash-again-ferguson-085511380.html


Jim. Perhaps most of us will understand WHY such stuff is continuing there by also reminding everyone...The GOV. and the State are Democrat run?

When's the last time we heard of any of this happening in TEXAS...with Perry? Who is now being Indicted for Another Democrat Railroad Job?

[Drummond]

And as I stated it should be, so long as the violence and looting continues...

---

Gov declares emergency, imposes curfew in Ferguson

FERGUSON, Mo. (AP) — Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon declared a state of emergency and imposed a curfew Saturday in the St. Louis suburb where a black teenager was shot to death by a white police officer a week ago.

Nixon said that though many protesters were making themselves heard peacefully, the state would not allow a handful of looters to endanger the community. The curfew will run from midnight to 5 a.m.

http://news.yahoo.com/police-protesters-clash-again-ferguson-085511380.html

Completely agree that such measures are called for, and need to be kept in place for the duration.

I don't understand Noir's attitude to all this, unless he's thought of this as an excuse to gratuitously criticise America ? The situation this thread covers is very reminiscent of the UK riots of a couple of years ago ... some definite similarities. Noir must have been aware of it at the time and known of our own authorities' approach to it, and particularly, the debates it generated as to why MORE wasn't done to implement curbs on street freedoms than actually was.

Our own society is no stranger to exercising such curbs when it officially sees a need for it, and legislation is in place to permit it. For an example of a specimen of it (and there ARE others), see ..

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/part-4-of-the-anti-social-behaviour-act-2003


This circular describes the provisions contained in Part 4 of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003, which received Royal Assent on 20 November 2003. It gives details of guidance which will be produced. This Part comes into force on 20 January 2004.

Part 4 of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 provides the police with powers to disperse groups of 2 or more and return young people under 16 who are unsupervised in public places after 9pm to their homes. The powers can only be used in areas where members of the public have suffered intimidation, harassment, alarm or distress due to the presence of groups and where anti-social behaviour is a significant and persistent problem.

The aim of these powers is to prevent people from feeling frightened and discouraged from using public spaces because they feel threatened by groups of people hanging around. It also aims to protect children and young people from the risks of being unaccompanied on the streets late at night - risks of older peers encouraging them into criminal activities.

These new powers will enable police and local authorities to work together to identify particular problem areas that need targeted action to help local communities to remove intimidation and anti-social behaviour from their streets. These powers are not intended to be used in isolation, but should form part of an integrated response to tackling crime and disorder in local areas.

An officer of at least the rank of superintendent can make an authorisation where he or she has reasonable grounds for believing that members of the public have been intimidated, harassed, alarmed or distressed; as a result of the presence or behaviour of groups of two or more people in public places in any locality in his police area and that anti-social behaviour is a significant and persistent problem in that relevant area.

“Anti-social behaviour” is defined in section 36 as “behaviour by a person which causes or is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to one or more other persons not of the same household as the person.”

An authorisation may be made for a period not exceeding six months. The area to which the authorisation applies to must fall within the officer’s police area. It must be in writing, signed by the officer giving it and must specify the area it covers (the ‘relevant locality’), the grounds on which the authorisation is given and the period for which it valid.

Before an authorisation can be given the relevant officer must obtain the agreement of the local authority. Local authority for these purposes is defined for England as a district council, a unitary authority, the Common Council of the City of London or the Council of the Isles of Scilly and for Wales as a county council or a county borough council.

It's a bit top-heavy on bureaucracy, admittedly. However, my reason for posting this is to show that Noir's protestations about the robbing of others' freedoms, as he's pressed them here, has little correlating basis within the culture in which he, and I, live.

The fact of the matter is that where a need is identified for the implementation of police powers to stop a likelihood of antisocial disorder, we have no problem in introducing legislation to permit that.

Besides which .. Noir's Northern Ireland has had MORE experience of civic unrest than is true of 'mainland' Britain. Noir has to know of the need to restrict such freedoms under certain circumstances even more than do most Brits !!

[jimnyc]

Peaceably assemble in a public area - you're breaking the law.


Because its important to keep saying that these people don't have the right to assemble peacefully.

Have you been following things, Noir?

The police have backed off, handed off the majority to the state police, 2 nights ago they allowed a full peaceful assembly. Last evening they didn't setup the curfew until midnight, and lifted at 5am this morning. Riots and looting continued, someone was shot... Still think the police should stay out of it and let them assemble peacefully during those hours? The police should stand down and not interfere?

Sorry, but the lives of everyone in that community is more important, as are the businesses and their investments - at least so long as many think it's shopping season and arson season.

[jimnyc]

There was more peaceful assembling last night. Not sure why anyone would complain about allowing them these folks being allowed to have their say. Anyone preventing them from this peace is just dead wrong! :rolleyes:

---

Missouri governor sends National Guard to FergusonFERGUSON, Mo. (AP) — Missouri's governor on Monday ordered the National Guard to a St. Louis suburb convulsed by protests over the fatal shooting of an unarmed black teen, after a night in which police used tear gas to clear protesters off the streets well ahead of a curfew.

Gov. Jay Nixon said the National Guard would help "in restoring peace and order" to Ferguson, where protests over the killing of 18-year-old Michael Brown by a white police officer entered their second week. Police said they acted in response to gunfire, looting, vandalism and protesters who hurled Molotov cocktails.

"These violent acts are a disservice to the family of Michael Brown and his memory and to the people of this community who yearn for justice to be served and to feel safe in their own homes," Nixon said in a statement.

The latest confrontations came on the same day Attorney General Eric Holder ordered a federal medical examiner to perform another autopsy on Brown, and as a preliminary private autopsy reported by The New York Times found Brown was shot at least six times, including twice in the head.

As night fell in Ferguson Sunday, another peaceful protest quickly deteriorated and the streets were empty well before the midnight curfew.

"Based on the conditions, I had no alternative but to elevate the level of response," said Capt. Ron Johnson of the Missouri Highway Patrol, who is command in Ferguson. At least two people were wounded in shootings by civilians, he said.

http://news.yahoo.com/missouri-governor-sends-national-guard-ferguson-074910472.html

[jimnyc]

Here's something quite interesting too. The TRUTH mixed in here, which no one there will want to hear, and sure explains a lot.

---

A previously unnoticed detail in a background conversion of a video taken minutes after the Ferguson shooting could change the course of the investigation into Mike Brown’s death.

The original video poster appears sympathetic to the narrative that Mike Brown was shot unarmed with his hands in the air. But he unknowingly picks up conversation between a man who saw the altercation and another neighbor.

An approximate transcription of the background conversation, as related by the “Conservative Treehouse” blog, who originally discovered the conversation:

@6:28/6:29 of video
#1 How’d he get from there to there?
#2 Because he ran, the police was still in the truck – cause he was like over the truck
{crosstalk}
#2 But him and the police was both in the truck, then he ran – the police got out and ran after him
{crosstalk}
#2 Then the next thing I know he doubled back toward him cus - the police had his gun drawn already on him –

[there is dispute here whether he says "doubled back" or "coming back."]
#1. Oh, the police got his gun
#2 The police kept dumpin on him, and I’m thinking the police kept missing – he like – be like – but he kept coming toward him
{crosstalk}
#2 Police fired shots – the next thing I know – the police was missing
#1 The Police?
#2 The Police shot him
#1 Police?
#2 The next thing I know … I’m thinking … the dude started running … (garbled something about “he took it from him”)

This is terribly important because if Mike Brown had been shot, and he advanced towards the cop instead of surrendering, it would substantiate the narrative that the policeman shot in self-defense due to the fact that he was being threatened with severe bodily harm. This corroborates an account of the event given by a friend of Officer Darren Wilson:

Well, then Michael takes off and gets to be about 35 feet away. And, Darren’s first protocol is to pursue. So, he stands up and yells, “Freeze!” Michael and his friend turn around. And Michael taunts him… And then all the sudden he just started bumrushing him. He just started coming at him full speed. And, so he just started shooting. And, he just kept coming. And, so he really thinks he was on something.”

t’s far too unlikely that these two accounts are similar accidentally, having been from such disparate sources. The apparent witness in the background conversation is speaking with detail about the tragic shooting, and in a manner that runs contrary to the widespread version. Those who watch the video need to judge for themselves if the witness sounds reliable (but he would seemingly have nothing to gain by telling such a story.)

A third piece of the puzzle would be the toxicology report. If there happens to be anything found that might explain how Mike Brown might have been shot and kept advancing toward the officer, then the defense becomes even more believable. Unless someone is emotionally invested in an alternative narrative to the extent that one might ignore plain facts.

http://www.ijreview.com/2014/08/168698-eyewitness-recalls-important-detail-background-video-mins-ferguson-shooting/