Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
makodath

Protesting: What has it achieved?

38 posts in this topic

Is there really a point to the protesting going on in MO at the moment? What do they expect to achieve? I've seen that the Black Panthers and the Communists have already joined in, but I can't in recent years remember any protest actually accomplishing anything.

Possibly with the exception of the peaceful tea-party protests that have spawned a new breed of conservatives which have been pretty successful in gaining the GOP's ear on some issues.

But the Occupy protests lingered on and on and achieved absolutely nothing.

I'm sure these protests in St Louis will change nothing...

Prove me wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course there is a point to it. It will shed light on the problem of heavy handed cops picking on blacks or anyone. It let everyone get a look at how militarized our cops have become. If the violence continues though that is going to lessen any good their protests will do.

I don't see where the tea party accomplished anything.

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

posting on the internet... what will it achieve?

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there really a point to the protesting going on in MO at the moment? What do they expect to achieve? I've seen that the Black Panthers and the Communists have already joined in, but I can't in recent years remember any protest actually accomplishing anything.

Possibly with the exception of the peaceful tea-party protests that have spawned a new breed of conservatives which have been pretty successful in gaining the GOP's ear on some issues.

But the Occupy protests lingered on and on and achieved absolutely nothing.

I'm sure these protests in St Louis will change nothing...

Prove me wrong.

The founding fathers thought that protesting was very important, hence the 1st amendment. Protesting is the dialogue that initiates change. Just because they are angry and can't articulate the message clearly, doesn't mean there isn't a clear message.

On a more somber note, you do realize that protesting usually happens before violent revolution if the message is ignored?

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I'm not here to prove anyone wrong, all protests latch on to a point, whether one agrees with it or not. Also, no one should consider the people that are responsible for looting and or property damage a part of the protest; they are merely opportunists.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it gains nothing but making a problem notorious it has achieved something.

But for that you just need to protest, not riot.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm against protesting.

I'm just not sure how to show it.

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm against protesting.

I'm just not sure how to show it.

good one!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think if protesting increases the awareness of an issue, even by just one person, it's effective.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

posting on the internet... what will it achieve?

Nothing. Although, for some it seems to be their life.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the protesting will bring to light favoritism of police in the courts.

And the rioting will bring TVs, expensive shoes, and other consumer goods into the hands of looters.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only thing that the current protests will achieve is to perpetuate racial tensions. Every one of these protesters has already made up their mind that the police officer shot an unarmed black man for no reason. The fact is, no one knows what really happened. The possibility that Brown had just stolen from a store and that he may have reached for the officer's weapon during a scuffle are irrelevant. To them, white cop shoots black man = injustice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

reality tunnels determine perception which engenders what you believe about any and every topic and the defining principles of this were set in place by someone other than you. (culture, family)

this side

that side

right, wrong are both completely dependent upon value judgements formed in the first 7 or so years of life, by the influx of information from the conditions of your environment.

we then regurgitate responses in reaction to events with strong opinion where in most cases the one expressing the strong opinions has no actual experience in relation to what is being discussed, it's knee jerk reaction based on preformed ideas... it's just human nature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.ksbw.com/...7577754#!bFQlnK

According to the account on KTFK, phoned in by a woman who identified herself as "Josie," the altercation began after Officer Darren Wilson rolled down his window to tell Brown and a friend to stop walking in the street.

When Wilson tried to get out of his cruiser, Brown first tried to push the officer back into the car, then punched him in the face and grabbed for his gun before breaking free after the gun went off once, the caller said.

Wilson pursued Brown and his friend, ordering them to freeze, according to the account. When they turned around, Brown began taunting Wilson, saying he would not arrest them, then ran at the officer at full speed, the caller said.

Wilson then began shooting. The final shot was to Brown's forehead, and the teenager fell two or three feet in front of Wilson, said the caller, who identified herself as the officer's friend.

A source with detailed knowledge of the investigation later told CNN the caller's account is "accurate," in that it matches what Wilson has told investigators.

If true, the account represents the first telling of events from the perspective of Wilson, whose shooting of Brown has touched off nightly protests and violence in the suburban St. Louis city.

So it started because these young men (not boys) were walking in the street, not on the sidewalk.

And the shots supposedly were fired after Brown turned around.

"Given these deliberate, coordinated and intensifying violent attacks on lives and property in Ferguson, I am directing the highly capable men and women of the Missouri National Guard ... in restoring peace and order to this community," Gov. Jay Nixon said in a statement.
The family autopsy found that Brown was shot at least six times, including two shots to his head. Three of the bullets may have re-entered his body, causing additional damage, Baden said.

One wound to his arm was consistent with a witness statement that Brown was walking away and appeared to jerk, as if shot, Parcells said. The wounds to his arm could have also have occurred while he had his hands up, possibly in a defensive posture, Parcells said.

One of the bullets entered his head and came out through his eye; another -- likely the fatal wound, Baden said -- struck Brown on the top of his head and caused irreparable damage to his brain.

Family attorney Benjamin Crump said Brown probably would have been either kneeling or bending forward when he was struck with those bullets.

You can also get shot in the top of the head if you are charging with your head down. But I will admit that being shot kneeling would be more likely to make such a wound.

Is there any report on how Fast the bullets were fired? I mean, if someone is charging at me, I can fire off six rounds in like three seconds Maybe even two seconds.

Edited by DieChecker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably doesn't matter, but.....

In addition, Brown had marijuana in his system when he was shot and killed by a police officer on Aug. 9 in Ferguson, according to this person, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the ongoing investigation.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2014/08/18/county-investigation-michael-brown-was-shot-from-the-front-had-marijuana-in-his-system/

Residents and protesters have noted that allegations of marijuana use have been used in the past by some in an attempt to disparage the character of shooting victims, including in the Trayvon Martin case.
Crump said he didn’t know anything about marijuana being found in Brown’s body.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.ksbw.com/...7577754#!bFQlnK

So it started because these young men (not boys) were walking in the street, not on the sidewalk.

And the shots supposedly were fired after Brown turned around.

The autopsy states that one particular bullet entered the back of the skull and exited through his eye - ergo he was facing away from the officer. Unless of course it was another one of those infamous "magic bullets" I suppose.

You can also get shot in the top of the head if you are charging with your head down. But I will admit that being shot kneeling would be more likely to make such a wound.

Is there any report on how Fast the bullets were fired? I mean, if someone is charging at me, I can fire off six rounds in like three seconds Maybe even two seconds.

The faster the bullets were fired the faster Michael Brown must have been to act in turning around after being shot in the back of the head .....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brown was only shot from the front. So witnesses that said he was shot from behind were wrong. So are they wrong about him having his hands up? I'll be interested in toxicology reports on Brown because the officer that shot him said he acted like he was on something. Some say he was shot in the top of the head because he had his head down giving up but he could have also had his head down to butt the cop.

I was quick to believe Brown was executed by the cop because of how many times they do overreact where there is video but after reading this I'm wondering if Brown did attack the cop. There was a conversation picked up on someones phone taking a video of the body laying in the street. Sounds like they are confirming the cops story is true.

http://www.ijreview....guson-shooting/

Everyone keeps screaming for justice what if justice means letting the cop go free.

Edited by Ashotep

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The autopsy states that one particular bullet entered the back of the skull and exited through his eye - ergo he was facing away from the officer. Unless of course it was another one of those infamous "magic bullets" I suppose.

I did read that a bullet exited through an eye, but I had not heard that the bullet went in the back. I was supposing it came from his side. Where did you read that?

The faster the bullets were fired the faster Michael Brown must have been to act in turning around after being shot in the back of the head .....

He didn't look like a ballet dancer to me. I will admit that perhaps he was shot in the front through his arm a couple times and then he spun around to run, but got hit in the head. You don't make many muscular actions after you get hit in the head by a bullet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone keeps screaming for justice what if justice means letting the cop go free.

You will possibly see a major outbreak of riots and looting this time. It doesn't matter If he's proven innocent, if he goes free you might see it get worse then it already is now. It all depends on how quickly the police and other authorities contain and permanently break up the current protests.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did read that a bullet exited through an eye, but I had not heard that the bullet went in the back. I was supposing it came from his side. Where did you read that?

Hmm, you're right, it stated that it exited his eye but that all the gun shots were from the front, I am not sure how that is possible, although I guess it could have richoted from his jaw to his skull.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm against protesting.

I'm just not sure how to show it.

You could do it like in that college movie, "PCU", where they got the entire student body to hold up signs and chant "We're NOT going to protest!" over and over again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only thing that the current protests will achieve is to perpetuate racial tensions. Every one of these protesters has already made up their mind that the police officer shot an unarmed black man for no reason. The fact is, no one knows what really happened. The possibility that Brown had just stolen from a store and that he may have reached for the officer's weapon during a scuffle are irrelevant. To them, white cop shoots black man = injustice.

It's not too different from the Rodney King situation. In both cases, officers went overboard, although not out of malice or hatred. In both cases, the police didn't see their actions as being completely out of control (extreme, yes, but not out of control). In both cases, the protesters didn't really care about what might have prompted the beating.

Basically, racial tensions are ridiculously high. Segregation, for whatever reason it exists, has led to more and more insular racially divided groups forming, with self-affirmations that become self-actualized. How many black youths grew up thinking they wanted to become police officers? Why is it any surprise that the police force is, what 98% white? If a black youth grows up being told that he had to be extra careful and sneaky around cops because he is going to get shot otherwise, you end up with a culture full of black youths acting sneaky and careful around cops, which does indeed draw their interest, and considering the other cultural factors, particularly some of the anti-police songs and stances, yes, police officers would likely feel more of a threat from black youths.

This isn't as bad for Latinos. We have more of a reputation for listening and respecting what our elders say. I remember when Elian Gonzales was taken by officers in tactical gear, with crowds of Cubans standing outside in protest. I remember the police having retrived Elian, moving backwards towards their escape, and being rushed by two or three young guys. There was an entire line of officers, one with a tear gas sprayer who was firing warning puffs, but not a single shot was fired from any of the ones with the rubber bullet shotguns. They simply didn't feel an imminent threat. Sure enough, before those three guys had made it half-way to the officers, a single older man, possibly in his 60's, stopped them just running in from of them and holding out his arms. They almost fell over themselves to stop before running into him, and while they were obviously very agitated and easily outweighed the older man, they didn't even try to push him out of the way.

Now, in Chile, we have the carabineros. Unlike most police forces in South America, not only are they respected, they are not uncommonly referred to as the "incorruptibles", or "the untouchables", to use an American phrase. There have actually been situations where foreign countries have called on them for aid (the carabineros also undergo military training and serve as the country's militia). They aren't too different from how the U.S. views the Canadian Mounties.

There's a lot of theories and arguments about this, but for me, the most likely reason has always been this: In Chile, the adoption rates have always been shamefully low. There is no foster program either. Children without parents or guardians grow up in old fashioned orphanages, usually staying there till they are 16 and have to go out into the world as adults. The orphanages in Chile, however, are run exclusively by the carabineros.

This means that these children basically grow up surrounded by cops all their lives, learning from them, playing with them, and occasionally attending their funerals. It is no surprise that 9 out of 10 of them join the police force at 16, nor any surprise that to them, the concepts of law and order are as deeply ingrained as any family lesson can be. To the carabineros, their motto of "Orden Y Patria" aren't just something they wear on their sleeves; they really do feel that each one of them individually has a duty to keep order and maintain the peace of the land.

As I mentioned earlier, I tend to think that our ad-hoc police system has reached its limits. In order for our police force to successfully serve the people, it needs to be re-structured into a more centralized, better funded, better regulated, force, much like the militias of early U.S. had to be restructured away from the ad-hoc state groups into a more centralized federal system.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not too different from the Rodney King situation. In both cases, officers went overboard, although not out of malice or hatred. In both cases, the police didn't see their actions as being completely out of control (extreme, yes, but not out of control). In both cases, the protesters didn't really care about what might have prompted the beating.

Basically, racial tensions are ridiculously high. Segregation, for whatever reason it exists, has led to more and more insular racially divided groups forming, with self-affirmations that become self-actualized. How many black youths grew up thinking they wanted to become police officers? Why is it any surprise that the police force is, what 98% white? If a black youth grows up being told that he had to be extra careful and sneaky around cops because he is going to get shot otherwise, you end up with a culture full of black youths acting sneaky and careful around cops, which does indeed draw their interest, and considering the other cultural factors, particularly some of the anti-police songs and stances, yes, police officers would likely feel more of a threat from black youths.

This isn't as bad for Latinos. We have more of a reputation for listening and respecting what our elders say. I remember when Elian Gonzales was taken by officers in tactical gear, with crowds of Cubans standing outside in protest. I remember the police having retrived Elian, moving backwards towards their escape, and being rushed by two or three young guys. There was an entire line of officers, one with a tear gas sprayer who was firing warning puffs, but not a single shot was fired from any of the ones with the rubber bullet shotguns. They simply didn't feel an imminent threat. Sure enough, before those three guys had made it half-way to the officers, a single older man, possibly in his 60's, stopped them just running in from of them and holding out his arms. They almost fell over themselves to stop before running into him, and while they were obviously very agitated and easily outweighed the older man, they didn't even try to push him out of the way.

Now, in Chile, we have the carabineros. Unlike most police forces in South America, not only are they respected, they are not uncommonly referred to as the "incorruptibles", or "the untouchables", to use an American phrase. There have actually been situations where foreign countries have called on them for aid (the carabineros also undergo military training and serve as the country's militia). They aren't too different from how the U.S. views the Canadian Mounties.

There's a lot of theories and arguments about this, but for me, the most likely reason has always been this: In Chile, the adoption rates have always been shamefully low. There is no foster program either. Children without parents or guardians grow up in old fashioned orphanages, usually staying there till they are 16 and have to go out into the world as adults. The orphanages in Chile, however, are run exclusively by the carabineros.

This means that these children basically grow up surrounded by cops all their lives, learning from them, playing with them, and occasionally attending their funerals. It is no surprise that 9 out of 10 of them join the police force at 16, nor any surprise that to them, the concepts of law and order are as deeply ingrained as any family lesson can be. To the carabineros, their motto of "Orden Y Patria" aren't just something they wear on their sleeves; they really do feel that each one of them individually has a duty to keep order and maintain the peace of the land.

As I mentioned earlier, I tend to think that our ad-hoc police system has reached its limits. In order for our police force to successfully serve the people, it needs to be re-structured into a more centralized, better funded, better regulated, force, much like the militias of early U.S. had to be restructured away from the ad-hoc state groups into a more centralized federal system.

I think it is very different from Rodney King. At this point, the facts are not clear as to what actually happened. The Rodney King incident was on tape for all to see.

It is natural to form an opinion based on the information at hand. It's different story to MAKE UP YOUR MIND based on what you know. There is a big difference. Personally, I think that it is far more plausible that the police officer's account of the events is accurate. However, I would not participate in a demonstration or rally to support the officer because there is no evidence yet to exonerate him. I also will be the first to call for his arrest if there is evidence that he murdered an innocent man.

On the contrary, these protesters/looters/anti-cop/Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton types have already made up their minds that this was murder. Even if concrete evidence is revealed to completely justify the officers actions, none of them will believe or acknowledge it, and will certainly not change their opinion or apologize for their actions.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is very different from Rodney King. At this point, the facts are not clear as to what actually happened. The Rodney King incident was on tape for all to see.

It is natural to form an opinion based on the information at hand. It's different story to MAKE UP YOUR MIND based on what you know. There is a big difference. Personally, I think that it is far more plausible that the police officer's account of the events is accurate. However, I would not participate in a demonstration or rally to support the officer because there is no evidence yet to exonerate him. I also will be the first to call for his arrest if there is evidence that he murdered an innocent man.

On the contrary, these protesters/looters/anti-cop/Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton types have already made up their minds that this was murder. Even if concrete evidence is revealed to completely justify the officers actions, none of them will believe or acknowledge it, and will certainly not change their opinion or apologize for their actions.

I agree. I still find it hard to swallow in the Rodney King case how badly they beat that man into submission. That was abuse. It was over and above.

But, the only 'justice' any of these race-baiters are after now is for that cop to serve a life sentance in prison. Anything less than that will be viewed as 'yet another injustice' to this crowd.

Edited by supervike
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I've read and heard on radio, the locals believe that most of the rioters are from the other side of Saint Louis.

I also agree with a radio commentator who said... If Wilson was trying to execute Brown. Shoot him down like a dog. Then why didn't he shoot Brown's friend? Remove the immediate witness...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.