Anger in San Francisco over subway police shooting

[Guest lazyphil]

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=_hTGX6_C4fM&feature=related

 

classic harry!

[Flashermac]

Eastwood as his finest. You tell 'em, Josey.

 

 

[Steve]

This has to do why there was a riot.

 

There was no reason for there to be a riot.

 

The rioters were hotheads and criminals.

 

 

rogie you are so far out of touch with reality it makes me only laugh.

When something happens like the shooting and if it isn't handled properly' date=' we can expect civil unrest. It is that simple. It doesn't mean that rioting is justified but it is a way that many people vent their angers. It is called human nature, something that can be predicted.

 

[/quote']

 

When many inner cities erupted in flames in the '60s it was for a myriad of reasons. One of the main ones was perceived police brutality. I don't think many can dispute that many police officers at that time violated not only their own code of conduct but the law in how they treated segments of the population.

 

I've seen it personally. I do not in anyway advocate rioting but when the government either doesn't care or doesn't believe you and police brutality becomes routine rather than the exception then I can understand why.

 

I'm not saying its the case in the BART matter but there has to be some level of sympathy when civil unrest happens when peoples civil liberties and rights are routinely violated and the government does nothing to address it. What are the people to do?

 

I recall DWB was not taken seriously until some high profile people who were subjected to it made a stink about it. Again, justified stops and what is deemed harrassment are sometimes in the high of the beholder. I was stopped in south central recently by two cops but I didn't feel it was DWB. It was drizzling and I think I may have been driving at a speed a bit faster than everyone else on the road. Justified stop in my opinion but not to someone else because of their history of being stopped for no justified reason. I have been stopped for no forseeable reason before as well. I like to give cops the benefit of the doubt and what they do after they stop you reveals a lot with regards to their motivation for stopping you in the first place.

 

Philly had a very high incident of police brutality. Some may recall Mayor Rizzo in the '70s and '80s. The exception to the rule was if you found a black or puerto rican male between the ages of 14 and 30 who was NOT stopped and at least verbally harrased for no reason. I can think of more than a few incidents personally. RY likes to call those things 'sanctimonious'. I prefer the more accurate: 'facts'.

 

I have a certain level of sympathy for the cop who tells a suspect to stop and shoots someone who was trying to remove a wallet from a breast pocket in a high crime area and the person did not follow instructions. Or they enter a high rise project in pursuit of an armed suspect and some kid has a toy gun and its dark and they mistake it for a real one. I may not like it but a reasonable case can be made depending on the circumstances. Perhaps they got a call that a suspect, armed and dangerous is in the area and the person fits the description.

 

However, this cop drew his gun when in no forseeable danger. They are taught to remove it only when they intend to use it. How many times have we all laughed at the 'oops, I didn't mean to shoot...": the prowler, my wife, etc. by citizens. That defense doesn't hold water with juries. Cops are held to a higher standard (and should). This cop has done an act that many who have firearms and far less training would not have done.

 

Finally, interesting we talk about civil unrest and the revolution that the country was founded on was on the back of civil unrest where the British were attacked. Boston had more than a few incidents a few hundred years ago. Didn't one of the founders say something to the effect that open rebellion is the right of the people for a tyrannical government? hehehe...seriously though, a case can't be made for rioting nowadays. More than ample avenues for matters to be addressed, starting with the ballot box. We have to demand the government we want because you end up with the one you deserve.

 

 

[Bangkoktraveler]

Good points CS.

 

I don't think rioting is right but in many cases, the problem begins as a demonstrations and when the police arrive, it becomes a riot.

[rogueyam]

I don't think rioting is right but in many cases, the problem begins as a demonstrations and when the police arrive, it becomes a riot.

 

Bullshit.

 

Many or most people who riot arrive at the demonstration itching for the chance.

 

The rioters use the demonstrators as cover.

[Bangkoktraveler]

I don't think rioting is right but in many cases' date=' the problem begins as a demonstrations and when the police arrive, it becomes a riot. [/quote']

 

Bullshit.

 

Many or most people who riot arrive at the demonstration itching for the chance.

 

The rioters use the demonstrators as cover.

 

What is bullshit, rogie? My position that I don't believe believe that rioting is right?

 

[Hugh_Hoy]

Good points CS.

 

I don't think rioting is right but in many cases, the problem begins as a demonstrations and when the police arrive, it becomes a riot.

 

Nonsense. The police respond to disorder or the threat/liklihood of it. No reason to cause a riot if police come unless you're asking for a controntation. Fuck em. The rioters aren't "activists"; they're criminals and, in some cases, less worthy of breathing our precious oxygen than fish.

 

HH

[Steve]

I don't think rioting is right but in many cases' date=' the problem begins as a demonstrations and when the police arrive, it becomes a riot. [/quote']

 

Bullshit.

 

Many or most people who riot arrive at the demonstration itching for the chance.

 

The rioters use the demonstrators as cover.

 

There are riots that start out for 'honorable' reasons. The original rioters feel they had no other choice for a wrong they feel that the powers that be ignored, usually after warning signs.

 

Then the riot gets co-opted by anohter element. Those that use it as cover for something else.

 

Riots can take stages. The LA riots after Rodney King started out by those who felt rightful indignation. For years, black angelenos complained about police brutality and felt that most angelenos outside of south central either didn't believe them or care. They felt the verdict was the majority cultures way of saying 'so what, we don't care'.

 

I'm not saying that feeling was justified just repeating the prevailing sentiment.

 

Later on many just wanted to loot and it wasn't about police brutality any longer. People who were not party to the original feeling. The riots spread to Hollywood and I recall hearing that anywhere from 15-20% of the looters were white.

 

 

 

[Steve]

I don't think rioting is right but in many cases' date=' the problem begins as a demonstrations and when the police arrive, it becomes a riot. [/quote']

 

Bullshit.

 

Many or most people who riot arrive at the demonstration itching for the chance.

 

The rioters use the demonstrators as cover.

 

Knowing the neighborhood where you patrol comes into this sometimes.

 

There was a free jazz concert in a public park in Gardena, CA this summer. Slightly older crowd because it was jazz and not hip hop.

 

I went because I knew women would be there..hehehe

 

Being a free concert, younger folks came. Gardena police monitered it and were fairly non existent. When they were involved, it was to offer advice on where to park or where not to park, etc. They knew the area, knew the crowd or type of crowd.

 

LA sherriff's department showed up later on as well and had a different 'attitude'. Far more combative. There were guys that looked like gangbangers in dress but the 'vibe' of the place was unity and fun and loads of food

 

The atmosphere got a little more tense when it didn't have to be. A show of force can be warranted at times but this time it made matters worse. Nothing serious happened but there was a bit more of an edge and it spoiled it somewhat. Had something happened we would have read about people arguing with law enforcement and the sheriffs justifiably arresting folks and taking care of a situation that in reality they helped inflame in the first place.

 

To be fair, I've been to a few gatherings where I wish they would have been there..lol.

 

Overall, my point is the cops have to be a good judge of the place and people and know when to escalate and when not to.

 

 

[rogueyam]

There are riots that start out for 'honorable' reasons. The original rioters feel they had no other choice for a wrong they feel that the powers that be ignored, usually after warning signs.

 

Bullshit. No one is entitled to perfect institutions. No one is entitled to threaten or commit mahem in order to extort that which they are unable to get legitimately through existing institutions, or to otherwise seek "justice" (i.e. vengance).

 

 

The LA riots after Rodney King started out by those who felt rightful indignation.

 

Bullshit. Damian "Football" Williams was a racist savage who deserved to be shot on sight. The reason why you want to kiss his salty "chocolat" balls instead of shooting him, steve, is because you yourself are racist and stupid.

***************************

RougueYam

 

Flaming is NOT tolerated! It is an absolute certain way of getting banned from the board.

 

Definition of flaming; an abusive or personally insulting message. This includes insulting or inflaming remarks concerning the character, or personality, of another poster. It also includes innuendos, snide remarks, and any overtly negative connotations towards a fellow board member.

 

You can disagree with a poster's message, but an attack personally on the poster him/herself will result in a deleted post and/or banishment from the board, depending on severity of offense. There are very likely posters on this board with different beliefs than your own. Please respect those beliefs, even if you don't agree with them.

 

-Board Moderator-