Ferguson Riots

[Sylar]

After the Grand Jury decision to not indict Darren Wilson after shooting dead Michael Brown, unsurprisingly, riots have erupted in Ferguson over night with 150 shots fired at police, looting, burning of vehicles/buildings...

Perhaps I'm alone but I simply can't think of this as entirely a black vs white issue.

The trigger happy nature of law-enforcement in the USA adds a catalyst to a wholly complex issue here but I suppose the race issue makes for better press.

I've no argument that police have a stereotype perception of black communities in the USA and that stems from a much deeper place of prejudice (especially in the southern states) but to chalk this entire fiasco up to the fact that Michael Brown was black and Darren Wilson was white is folly IMO.

The fact that police feel justified in shooting down an unarmed man after an 'altercation' (it seems, from his testimony, that Michael Brown punched Darren Wilson whilst he was in his vehicle) is a disproportionate application of law and did not merit a lethal action on the part of the officer.

I think he should have been charged but the entire race element of the story doesn't sit well with me as it's a much more complex issue.

[snooky]

Given the fact that loads of the population carry guns, and that includes the nutters remember, I would hate to be a cop in the good old US of A.
I'm not condoning the Ferguson shooting, but law enforcement over there is surely a whole different ball game.

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

I would imagine there were a lot of opportunists that couldnae give a flying one about the result of the case, but, saw a chance to get themselves a new flat screen telly or pair of sneakers.

[Pretty Boy]

It comes at a very bad time sadly. This happened at the weekend in the US as well:

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-30181338

I'm not sure if this says more about me than anything but I do wonder if the Officer involved would have been so quick to make his 'split second decision' had the child in question been white or any other non black or Hispanic race.

This happened last year:

http://m.nydailynews.com/news/national/florida-police-shoot-unarmed-black-man-driveway-article-1.1412206

This a couple of months ago:

http://newsone.com/3048753/caught-on-tape-fla-cop-threatens-to-put-a-round-in-black-men-during-traffic-stop-video/


This in January:


http://gawker.com/cop-avoids-charge-for-shooting-unarmed-young-black-man-1506692164


This in September

http://m.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2014/0925/S.C.-cop-in-trouble-for-shooting-unarmed-man-Sir-why-was-I-shot-video

There have of course been other high profile incidents in the last couple of years. It's estimated about 500 people are shot dead by Police Officers in the US every year, that's a horrifying number and I'm not sure how it fits with innocent until proven guilty tbh.

I'm not convinced it's as simple as black v white either, I'm sure a number of those 500 were white and I dare say a few of the Police Officers may have been black. I think Ferguson has been a cumulative effect of numerous similar stories in the last 2 or 3 years and the continuing lack of charges brought against those responsible. Add to that continued resentment at racial profiling and a few people keen to jump on a bandwagon and you have a recipe for scenes like we are seeing.

[hibsbollah]

I have to disagree, sylar. I think race is the main factor, simply because the mostly white police force do profiling that targets black neighbourhoods. Which happens in many cities across the US and is clearly a big reason why the figures for young black males being sent to prison at some time in their lives (33%) is so ridiculous...

http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2014/05/22/philadelphia-crime-goffman

I would recommend this book 'On the Run, Fugitive Life in an American City' by Alice Goffman.

[over the line]

I really don't think we in the UK can even begin to comprehend the perverse gun culture they have in the US. There are something like 8500 gun related murders in the US every year. The police shoot about 400 people dead every year and about 150 police officers are killed every year (not all by being shot).

The death of that young lad is particularly sad obviously but with rampant gun crime and the ridiculous amount of guns in the US, its a wonder the police's fatal shooting figures aren't higher still.

[silverhibee]

How the police officers in this case were found not guilty is unbelieveable.

Warning

Video is horrific.

http://photographyisnotacrime.com/2014/01/fullerton-cops-found-guilty-beating-death-homeless-mentally-ill-man/

[Gatecrasher]

After the Grand Jury decision to not indict Darren Wilson after shooting dead Michael Brown, unsurprisingly, riots have erupted in Ferguson over night with 150 shots fired at police, looting, burning of vehicles/buildings...

Perhaps I'm alone but I simply can't think of this as entirely a black vs white issue.

The trigger happy nature of law-enforcement in the USA adds a catalyst to a wholly complex issue here but I suppose the race issue makes for better press.

I've no argument that police have a stereotype perception of black communities in the USA and that stems from a much deeper place of prejudice (especially in the southern states) but to chalk this entire fiasco up to the fact that Michael Brown was black and Darren Wilson was white is folly IMO.

The fact that police feel justified in shooting down an unarmed man after an 'altercation' (it seems, from his testimony, that Michael Brown punched Darren Wilson whilst he was in his vehicle) is a disproportionate application of law and did not merit a lethal action on the part of the officer.

I think he should have been charged but the entire race element of the story doesn't sit well with me as it's a much more complex issue.
Did he not charge at the officer when he had his gun drawn?

[Tyler Durden]

Did he not charge at the officer when he had his gun drawn?

Pains me to link to the Daily Mail but I think Piers Morgan gives a good account here
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2849133/PIERS-MORGAN-farce-Ferguson-Darren-Wilson-6ft-4in-210lb-five-year-old-history.html

The outrage here is not just the killing but the prosecutors appalling handling of the case. I've been following a US reporter Lisa Bloom on Twitter and she has poked hole after hole in the investigation. This McCulloch is a dangerous buffoon.

The system simply does not value the life of a black man. Disappointing that Obama has not felt able to offer any meaningful response to this or halt gun culture in the slightest

[Gatecrasher]

Pains me to link to the Daily Mail but I think Piers Morgan gives a good account here
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2849133/PIERS-MORGAN-farce-Ferguson-Darren-Wilson-6ft-4in-210lb-five-year-old-history.html

The outrage here is not just the killing but the prosecutors appalling handling of the case. I've been following a US reporter Lisa Bloom on Twitter and she has poked hole after hole in the investigation. This McCulloch is a dangerous buffoon.

The system simply does not value the life of a black man. Disappointing that Obama has not felt able to offer any meaningful response to this or halt gun culture in the slightest
I don't know that much about it but the guy seemed like a bit of a ****bag and according to some of the reports he reached into the police car to get the officers gun then tried to flee and then turned around and charged at the officer who then shot him. IF that's what happened I can see why the officer shot at him. I do realise this is big news because of racial tensions and I don't know about the way the case was handled but going on what I have read that's what I think.

Sorry Piers Morgan is a sarcastic arse, because his daughter broke his wife's nose with a headbutt means Michael Browns punches should have done a lot more damage?

[Sir David Gray]

How the police officers in this case were found not guilty is unbelieveable.

Warning

Video is horrific.

http://photographyisnotacrime.com/2014/01/fullerton-cops-found-guilty-beating-death-homeless-mentally-ill-man/

I'm someone who normally sticks up for the Police but there is no justification for that.

I've also just watched another video that was linked at the end of the one you posted and it gives very graphic footage of the facial injuries that this man suffered during the attack by those Police officers.

It's so graphic that I won't put any links to it on here but it's easy enough to find.

I can't believe that there was a not guilty verdict in that case.

[mikewynne]

The U.S. is full of undertrained, under resourced and militarized cops policing dysfunctional, heavily armed, crime ridden and police hating neighbourhoods. Add to that a healthy dose of arrogance and racism (on both sides) and it's not surprising this level of violence continues.

[snooky]

.. and still they believe that they are the best country in the world.

"God Bless America" - and screw the rest of us.

[Hibrandenburg]

People + Guns = Trouble

[Tyler Durden]

I don't know that much about it but the guy seemed like a bit of a ****bag and according to some of the reports he reached into the police car to get the officers gun then tried to flee and then turned around and charged at the officer who then shot him. IF that's what happened I can see why the officer shot at him. I do realise this is big news because of racial tensions and I don't know about the way the case was handled but going on what I have read that's what I think.

Sorry Piers Morgan is a sarcastic arse, because his daughter broke his wife's nose with a headbutt means Michael Browns punches should have done a lot more damage?

Forget about his sarky comments and look at the facts. Wilson washed the blood off him when arriving back at his station - destroying evidence. The police didn't take photos at the sceneas their camera had apparently ran out of batteries.

His story doesn't add up, worried about a fatal punch when the 2 he apparently received caused no damage at all. Firing 12 shots when the unarmed man ran away. He only mentions fear of Brown being armed when lead down that road by the corrupt prosecutor. A prosecutor who failed to ask any pertinent questions during his "investigation".

For a case not to raise charges after going to Grand Jury happens less than 1% of the time!

Total stitch up.

[Hibbyradge]

O J Simpson was innocent too.

[over the line]

Forget about his sarky comments and look at the facts. Wilson washed the blood off him when arriving back at his station - destroying evidence. The police didn't take photos at the sceneas their camera had apparently ran out of batteries.

His story doesn't add up, worried about a fatal punch when the 2 he apparently received caused no damage at all. Firing 12 shots when the unarmed man ran away. He only mentions fear of Brown being armed when lead down that road by the corrupt prosecutor. A prosecutor who failed to ask any pertinent questions during his "investigation".

For a case not to raise charges after going to Grand Jury happens less than 1% of the time!

Total stitch up.

Wouldn't you wash someone else's blood off you if you were covered in it? I don't see how him washing his hands is destroying evidence, as far as I'm aware he has never denied being at scene and never denied being the shooter.

[Hibbyradge]

Wouldn't you wash someone else's blood off you if you were covered in it? I don't see how him washing his hands is destroying evidence, as far as I'm aware he has never denied being at scene and never denied being the shooter.

Someone had been killed.

I can't think of a more blatant way to destroy evidence than to wash the dead person's blood away.

[hibsbollah]

Pains me to link to the Daily Mail but I think Piers Morgan gives a good account here
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2849133/PIERS-MORGAN-farce-Ferguson-Darren-Wilson-6ft-4in-210lb-five-year-old-history.html

The outrage here is not just the killing but the prosecutors appalling handling of the case. I've been following a US reporter Lisa Bloom on Twitter and she has poked hole after hole in the investigation. This McCulloch is a dangerous buffoon.

The system simply does not value the life of a black man. Disappointing that Obama has not felt able to offer any meaningful response to this or halt gun culture in the slightest

The NAACP guy was on the radio yesterday. He claimed their organisation reported the local police five times for brutality and in every case the prosecuter threw out the case. So he has previous for ignoring racial violence by the police.

[over the line]

Someone had been killed.

I can't think of a more blatant way to destroy evidence than to wash the dead person's blood away.

Go on then, what does the blood on his hands prove, what extra evidence does it provide in this specific case?

[JimBHibees]

Go on then, what does the blood on his hands prove, what extra evidence does it provide in this specific case?

It may not prove anything but it may. It may prove through gun residue or the amount of blood how close he was to the person, or the direction of any of the 12 shots. Bottom line is that if that was a normal murder inquiry there is no way that the accused would have been able to just clean off stuff prior to a thorough forensic examination including numerous photos of scene and also of him with blood.

[over the line]

It may not prove anything but it may. It may prove through gun residue or the amount of blood how close he was to the person, or the direction of any of the 12 shots. Bottom line is that if that was a normal murder inquiry there is no way that the accused would have been able to just clean off stuff prior to a thorough forensic examination including numerous photos of scene and also of him with blood.

The big difference between this and many murder scenes, is that the person responsible for the killing isn't disputing being there and isn't disputing being responsible for the killing. There is no disputing that he killed the guy, its a question of if it was a justifiable action or not. I don't see how a sample of blood would prove or disprove anything in this case.

Just to make it clear, I am neither saying this guy was, or wasn't justified in his actions. I am merely debating the relevance of the washing his hands comment.

[Sylar]

It may not prove anything but it may. It may prove through gun residue or the amount of blood how close he was to the person, or the direction of any of the 12 shots. Bottom line is that if that was a normal murder inquiry there is no way that the accused would have been able to just clean off stuff prior to a thorough forensic examination including numerous photos of scene and also of him with blood.

Have to agree with E-port.

Gunshot residue is only used in circumstances where efforts are made to identify a shooter. It can be used to track distance from target but not from the shooter - if it were detected on Brown's body at all, it would suggested proximity of around 4-5 feet. Of course there would be residue on the officer - he fired the weapon and that he killed Michael Brown isn't in dispute.

The direction or trajectory of the bullets also wouldn't be determined by blood on the officer - simply entry/exit wound analysis dictates the direction of fire and also the distance from target based on how much residual damage it does on the way through.

And your premise (or bottom line) is wholly flawed because it ISN'T a normal murder inquiry. It's not 'murder' at all (in any premeditated sense), unless you wish to call it 'state-sanctioned' but that's another thread altogether.

I still don't subscribe to this being a simple case of race. It plays a huge part and it's certainly important but it's intertwined with the fact that police officers are given licensed weapons and almost granted immunity to use them - the militarisation of their police force and lack of judicial accountability are equally as concerning as the stigma that's associated with black communities and the media are doing their best to deflect from some of these other issues that are pertinent to why this whole sorry saga came about.

[Hibbyradge]

I didn't realise Hibs.net were blessed with so many forensic scientists.

[Sylar]

I didn't realise Hibs.net were blessed with so many forensic scientists.

MSc Environmental Forensics :greengrin

[Hibbyradge]

The police officer says he shot the teenager (12 times) in self defence.

Isn't there even the slightest possibility that the blood could have helped get to the truth?

If I am unfortunate enough to kill someone in self defence, what would the police/jury thithink if one of my first acts was to take a shower?

Or clean myself up?

[Sylar]

The police officer says he shot the teenager (12 times) in self defence.

Isn't there even the slightest possibility that the blood could have helped get to the truth?

If I am unfortunate enough to kill someone in self defence, what would the police/jury thithink if one of my first acts was to take a shower?

Or clean myself up?

It's not like he fled the scene to wash away any evidence though, is it? He stayed around (according to the photos/accounts) to do post-incident investigation and cleaned himself when he got back to the station.

[over the line]

The police officer says he shot the teenager (12 times) in self defence.

Isn't there even the slightest possibility that the blood could have helped get to the truth?

If I am unfortunate enough to kill someone in self defence, what would the police/jury thithink if one of my first acts was to take a shower?

Or clean myself up?


But in this case there is no doubt who killed the guy and there is no doubt that he would have bled. I don't see how any blood would prove or disprove if the cop was acting justifiably. Plus the fact that we know he washed the blood of his hands would suggest that it wasn't an attempt to cover anything up. It would seem that he has disclosed the fact he had blood on his hands and that he washed it off. Any analysis of the blood would only confirm it belonged to the dead guy and that isn't in dispute is it?

[Hibbyradge]

The blood on the pavement was evidence.

The bullets in Michael Brown were evidence.

The blood on the officer's hands was evidence.

As a police officer, I would have expected him to know not to destroy evidence.

Even if he, or you, think it's significant or not.

You never know, a clever criminal foresin scientist may have been able to provide insight which would have expelled doubt about the officer's innocence.

[over the line]

The blood on the pavement was evidence.

The bullets in Michael Brown were evidence.

The blood on the officer's hands was evidence.

As a police officer, I would have expected him to know not to destroy evidence.

Even if he, or you, think it's significant or not.

You never know, a clever criminal foresin scientist may have been able to provide insight which would have expelled doubt about the officer's innocence.

I certainly don't claim to have all the answers to this one and none of us will ever know exactly what went on in this case but with all the forensic analysis in the world, the blood on his hands would not prove if the cop was justified in his actions would it? What would a forensic scientist find in that blood sample that would prove or disprove whether the cops actions were justified?

[Mikey09]

I certainly don't claim to have all the answers to this one and none of us will ever know exactly what went on in this case but with all the forensic analysis in the world, the blood on his hands would not prove if the cop was justified in his actions would it? What would a forensic scientist find in that blood sample that would prove or disprove whether the cops actions were justifiably?


I get what you're saying but let's turn the tables for a second..... Do you think if Michael Brown had shot the Police Officer he would have been allowed to wash blood from himself so quickly and casually?? Not a chance, and quite rightly so. There would be strict procedures to follow and because it's a cop shooting someone this does not change. It absolutely reeks of cover up, I'm sure you will agree, but if you're a young, disadvantaged black kid in America looking for justice against the Police, well, let's say you're pissing against a hurricane.... I would suggest a film for anyone who hasn't seen it. It's called The House I Live in. Won't say anymore, just watch it....

[over the line]

I get what you're saying but let's turn the tables for a second..... Do you think if Michael Brown had shot the Police Officer he would have been allowed to wash blood from himself so quickly and casually?? Not a chance, and quite rightly so. There would be strict procedures to follow and because it's a cop shooting someone this does not change. It absolutely reeks of cover up, I'm sure you will agree, but if you're a young, disadvantaged black kid in America looking for justice against the Police, well, let's say you're pissing against a hurricane.... I would suggest a film for anyone who hasn't seen it. It's called The House I Live in. Won't say anymore, just watch it....

Just to clarify again, I am not saying the cops actions were, or weren't justified, that I don't know.

If the tables were turned, it is highly likely that the suspect (or whoever) would have fled the scene and/or tried to deny their involvement. In such circumstances blood on the hands of the alleged suspect would undoubtedly be crucial evidence, as it would link them to the incident and put them at the scene. But even in this scenario it wouldn't prove that his actions were or weren't justified, it would just prove he was involved.

The cop neither fled the scene, nor denied the killing. Evidence is only useful and relevant if it proves or supports something. I think the hand washing story is a total red herring in this case. There may or may not be evidence to suggest the cops actions were justified or not, but the blood on the hands proves nothing.

[over the line]

Just like to add, that I think the whole gun culture in the US is ridiculous and terrifying! I am so glad it is nothing like it over here. I would hate to be in a situation where the UK police had to carry guns routinely. As I said in an earlier post, gun crime is so rampant in the US, its a wonder there aren't more police shootings. Very sad situation to be in.

[CapitalGreen]

Just to clarify again, I am not saying the cops actions were, or weren't justified, that I don't know.

If the tables were turned, it is highly likely that the suspect (or whoever) would have fled the scene and/or tried to deny their involvement. In such circumstances blood on the hands of the alleged suspect would undoubtedly be crucial evidence, as it would link them to the incident and put them at the scene. But even in this scenario it wouldn't prove that his actions were or weren't justified, it would just prove he was involved.

The cop neither fled the scene, nor denied the killing. Evidence is only useful and relevant if it proves or supports something. I think the hand washing story is a total red herring in this case. There may or may not be evidence to suggest the cops actions were justified or not, but the blood on the hands proves nothing.

He justified the shooting by claiming that Brown ran at him and that he felt his life was in danger. Witnesses suggest that Brown was not running and was at least 10 foot from the officer when first shot. The amount of Browns blood on the officer would be useful in determining how close Brown was to the officer when he was shot.

[over the line]

He justified the shooting by claiming that Brown ran at him and that he felt his life was in danger. Witnesses suggest that Brown was not running and was at least 10 foot from the officer when first shot. The amount of Browns blood on the officer would be useful in determining how close Brown was to the officer when he was shot.

Ok, not sure I understand that. How does the distance support or disprove the justification of shooting him? I think sylar touches on this subject in an earlier post anyway.

[Mikey09]

Just to clarify again, I am not saying the cops actions were, or weren't justified, that I don't know.

If the tables were turned, it is highly likely that the suspect (or whoever) would have fled the scene and/or tried to deny their involvement. In such circumstances blood on the hands of the alleged suspect would undoubtedly be crucial evidence, as it would link them to the incident and put them at the scene. But even in this scenario it wouldn't prove that his actions were or weren't justified, it would just prove he was involved.

The cop neither fled the scene, nor denied the killing. Evidence is only useful and relevant if it proves or supports something. I think the hand washing story is a total red herring in this case. There may or may not be evidence to suggest the cops actions were justified or not, but the blood on the hands proves nothing.


Yeah I understand what you're saying which makes total sense. In a court of law if there is evidence to suggest a suspect has washed a victims blood off there hands it can make them look foolish and guilty of something they are completely innocent of. I was a cop for 5 years and the one thing that was drummed was justification. To justify everything you do. Was there justification in shooting someone, unarmed 12 times?? You're right that it's a blessing we don't have the gun culture here in the UK that the states have.... That's the real reason of the violence and deaths over there.

[over the line]

Yeah I understand what you're saying which makes total sense. In a court of law if there is evidence to suggest a suspect has washed a victims blood off there hands it can make them look foolish and guilty of something they are completely innocent of. I was a cop for 5 years and the one thing that was drummed was justification. To justify everything you do. Was there justification in shooting someone, unarmed 12 times?? You're right that it's a blessing we don't have the gun culture here in the UK that the states have.... That's the real reason of the violence and deaths over there.

Totally agree, him washing his hands has worked against him in this case. The blood would have proved nothing but as is evident from the reactions on here, it has caused an unnecessary doubt or suspicion. In this case I can't see a problem in justifying the washing his hands bit. It would seem he has disclosed doing it and not hidden the fact.

Justifying shooting an unarmed man 6 times (12 shots, 6 missed), may (and should) be more difficult. But I'm still sat on the fence, none of us were there and none of us are getting the true picture are we. If a jury has had a reasonable doubt in a court of law, then they are right not to convict him (or anybody in that position).

I am sure as an ex cop you must know how easy it can be to make a poor or ill judged decision in the heat of a stressful, scary moment? (And also how easy it is for people to criticise from the safety of their couch, or office chair). The difference is in this country it doesn't usually end up with a fatal shooting (thank god) does it?

Unfortunately this whole sorry and sad tale, is just another example/symptom of the whole out of control, perverse obsession with guns and violence in the US. Can't see it changing in a hurry either I'm afraid.

[silverhibee]

Did the police officer not have the use of a taser gun that he could have used instead of his real gun, or was the victim suspected of carrying a gun himself.

[over the line]

Did the police officer not have the use of a taser gun that he could have used instead of his real gun, or was the victim suspected of carrying a gun himself.


I've not seen any mention of a tazer (that I can remember anyway). There has been mention of a baton and pepper spray though.

[CapitalGreen]

Ok, not sure I understand that. How does the distance support or disprove the justification of shooting him? I think sylar touches on this subject in an earlier post anyway.

Ok, what would be perceived to be more life threatening:

A) a man couple of feet away running to attack you (Officers description of events)
B) an unarmed man at least 10 feet away, not running to attack you (multiple witness statements)

The blood on the officer could be used as evidence to support his version of events and therefore justify his use of deadly force to stop an attack on his life.

[Beefster]

Did the police officer not have the use of a taser gun that he could have used instead of his real gun, or was the victim suspected of carrying a gun himself.


I've not seen any mention of a tazer (that I can remember anyway). There has been mention of a baton and pepper spray though.

The officer didn't have a taser on him, which is ludicrous.

[silverhibee]

The officer didn't have a taser on him, which is ludicrous.

I was under the impression all uniformed police officers had tasers issued to them while on duty.

[over the line]

Ok, what would be perceived to be more life threatening:

A) a man couple of feet away running to attack you (Officers description of events)
B) an unarmed man at least 10 feet away, not running to attack you (multiple witness statements)

The blood on the officer could be used as evidence to support his version of events and therefore justify his use of deadly force to stop an attack on his life.

According to Sylar (who is apparently a forensic scientist), the distance that MB was shot from is calculated by examining the wounds, rather than if the shooter has some blood on his hands. Plus do we know if the blood in question was transfered to the officer after the shooting?

I think it has been established via the blood trail that MB was moving toward the officer, whilst being shot. Do you think this suggests anything about the situation?

Still think the washing the hands thing is a red herring.

[over the line]

The officer didn't have a taser on him, which is ludicrous.

Does seem ridiculous doesn't it. Can you use a tazer on someone if you are in physical contact with them, or do you also get zapped?

[Sylar]

According to Sylar (who is apparently a forensic scientist), the distance that MB was shot from is calculated by examining the wounds, rather than if the shooter has some blood on his hands. Plus do we know if the blood in question was transfered to the officer after the shooting?

I think it has been established via the blood trail that MB was moving toward the officer, whilst being shot. Do you think this suggests anything about the situation?

Still think the washing the hands thing is a red herring.

I'm a hydrologist not a forensic scientist - I just have a Masters in Environmental Forensics :greengrin

The distance would be calculated by basic geometry though based on the height of the officer and the angle the bullet passed through MB.

As a police officer, the likelihood is that he would have approached the body afterwards to check him to either ensure he was dead or check whether CPR/ambulance was required. The blood could have gotten onto his body in a number of ways that wasn't splatter from the shot.

[Hibbyradge]

Still think the washing the hands thing is a red herring.

It doesn't matter. He shouldn't have done it and nothing was said about it in the grand jury hearing.

I absolutely guarantee you, that if this had made it to trial, the prosecuting lawyer would have made a great deal out of the fact that he washed his hands of the blood.

Even if nothing could have been proved by the presence or by the amount of blood, the fact that he washed it off would have cast doubt over his innocence.

As it already has.

The whole episode stinks.

[Sylar]

It doesn't matter. He shouldn't have done it and nothing was said about it in the grand jury hearing.

I absolutely guarantee you, that if this had made it to trial, the prosecuting lawyer would have made a great deal out of the fact that he washed his hands of the blood.

Even if nothing could have been proved by the presence or by the amount of blood, the fact that he washed it off would have cast doubt over his innocence.

As it already has.

The whole episode stinks.

I'm curious as to what you think he should have done and what a 'suitable' timeline would have been, since you seem so fixated on this issue.

The blood would have proven nothing, ergo, what does it add as 'evidence'? And evidence of what - Darren Wilson shot and killed him, no questions asked. He's 'guilty' of that - whether you view it as doing his job or state-sanctioned-murder is another issue.

[Tyler Durden]

Did the police officer not have the use of a taser gun that he could have used instead of his real gun, or was the victim suspected of carrying a gun himself.

Wilson did not carry his Taser, apparently as he found it "uncomfortable".

He apparently made no mention of fearing Brown was armed. His story is that he felt like a five year old up against Hulk Hogan, despite the fact they are both 6"4. He knew by claiming to fear for his life, the law is on his side.

Back to blood gate! I wasn't suggesting it was some smoking gun. It is however indicative of this case, where due process has been abandoned. There are countless inconsistencies in Wilson's story and he hasn't been cross examined at all. It's farcical that their system allows this.

[Hibbyradge]

Back to blood gate! I wasn't suggesting it was some smoking gun. It is however indicative of this case, where due process has been abandoned. There are countless inconsistencies in Wilson's story and he hasn't been cross examined at all. It's farcical that their system allows this.

Exactly.

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

I wish Quincy was a Hibs fan, he would've had this blood thing sorted out by now.

[over the line]

Wilson did not carry his Taser, apparently as he found it "uncomfortable".

He apparently made no mention of fearing Brown was armed. His story is that he felt like a five year old up against Hulk Hogan, despite the fact they are both 6"4. He knew by claiming to fear for his life, the law is on his side.

Back to blood gate! I wasn't suggesting it was some smoking gun. It is however indicative of this case, where due process has been abandoned. There are countless inconsistencies in Wilson's story and he hasn't been cross examined at all. It's farcical that their system allows this.

But your opening gambit was that he destroyed evidence by washing his hands. The debate since then has been about what that 'evidence' would in fact prove. Myself and Sylar say it proves nothing, others say it does prove something but don't/can't say what. You are right to say its not a smoking gun, its not even relevant as evidence IMHO.

Now inconsistencies in his account may well be evidence of wrong doing. What are the inconsistencies?

[Tyler Durden]

But your opening gambit was that he destroyed evidence by washing his hands. The debate since then has been about what that 'evidence' would in fact prove. Myself and Sylar say it proves nothing, others say it does prove something but don't/can't say what. You are right to say its not a smoking gun, its not even relevant as evidence IMHO.

Now inconsistencies in his account may well be evidence of wrong doing. What are the inconsistencies?

Yes and I disagree with you and Sylar, despite his Masters:wink:

Read this http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/seemingly-unorthodox-police-procedures-emerge-in-grand-jury-documents/2014/11/25/48152574-74e0-11e4-bd1b-03009bd3e984_story.html

[mikewynne]

I was under the impression all uniformed police officers had tasers issued to them while on duty.

The police force in Ferguson have fewer tazers than police officers so they leave it up to the individual cop to decide whether they carry one or not.

Personally I'd rather they all wore body cameras than tazers.

[over the line]

Yes and I disagree with you and Sylar, despite his Masters:wink:

Read this http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/seemingly-unorthodox-police-procedures-emerge-in-grand-jury-documents/2014/11/25/48152574-74e0-11e4-bd1b-03009bd3e984_story.html

I don't know if the shooting was justified or not, I've not got access to anywhere near enough of the evidence for me to make an informed and unbiased decision. I think it is fair to say that also applies to all of us on here. It took a jury a week to examine something like 5000 pages of evidence, plus listening to numerous accounts from people involved in some way, before making their decision, we mainly have journalists opinions and versions of events to guide us.

Seeing as I think you started 'bloodgate' on here, its only fair that you get your chance to explain how it proves, or supports the theory that the shooting wasn't justified.

[over the line]

The police force in Ferguson have fewer tazers than police officers so they leave it up to the individual cop to decide whether they carry one or not.

Personally I'd rather they all wore body cameras than tazers.

Body cameras would indeed be a good idea. I wonder if the cop in this case wishes he was wearing one, or do you think he is glad he wasn't?

[Sylar]

Some interesting figures (I had a spare hour or so this evening and was curious):

Since the beginning of the year, 207 people have been killed whilst 'unarmed' (according to press reports on the cases) - 42 of those are black. 43 of those are 'other' race (e.g., Hispanic, Asian etc) and 122 of them were white.

Would be interesting to see much longer statistics but it made for interesting reading.

[over the line]

Some interesting figures (I had a spare hour or so this evening and was curious):

Since the beginning of the year, 207 people have been killed whilst 'unarmed' (according to press reports on the cases) - 42 of those are black. 43 of those are 'other' race (e.g., Hispanic, Asian etc) and 122 of them were white.

Would be interesting to see much longer statistics but it made for interesting reading.

That is surprising isn't it. You would think that it would be the exact opposite from the way the press seem to portray the situation over there.

[Killiehibbie]

Body cameras would indeed be a good idea. I wonder if the cop in this case wishes he was wearing one, or do you think he is glad he wasn't?I think he will be very glad he wasn't wearing a camera.

[Killiehibbie]

That is surprising isn't it. You would think that it would be the exact opposite from the way the press seem to portray the situation over there.
About 6 times as many whites as blacks in the country.

[Hibrandenburg]

I don't know about the rest of you but I'd wash off blood from another person as soon as I could and to hell with protecting evidence. The problem with human blood is that it carries human diseases, the longer you have contact the higher the risk you'll contract something. Self protection is priority.

[over the line]

I don't know about the rest of you but I'd wash off blood from another person as soon as I could and to hell with protecting evidence. The problem with human blood is that it carries human diseases, the longer you have contact the higher the risk you'll contract something. Self protection is priority.

This is one of those rare moments where both me and you agree on something! Someone mark it on the calendar. :D

[over the line]

About 6 times as many whites as blacks in the country.

So a bit of rough maths means that it seems you are twice as likely to be shot if you are black then. I suspect this is reflected in the crime and poverty rates in the areas where these shooting generally take place. Crazy how they have become such a violent and unjust/unbalanced society isn't it?

[Gatecrasher]

http://mirror.ninja/tn8j

[over the line]

About 6 times as many whites as blacks in the country.

Apparently you are ten times more likely to get killed by being shot in the US if you are black, than if you are white. This is includes all shooting related deaths, where they are shot by someone else.

But suicides with guns, white people have nearly triple the rate, over black people.

And if my maths is right, you are about 117 times more likely to get killed with a gun in the US, as you are in the UK.

Land of the free, no thank you! So glad I live here!

[PeeJay]

So a bit of rough maths means that it seems you are twice as likely to be shot if you are black then. I suspect this is reflected in the crime and poverty rates in the areas where these shooting generally take place. Crazy how they have become such a violent and unjust/unbalanced society isn't it?

You don't think it used to be much worse than it is now?

[over the line]

You don't think it used to be much worse than it is now?

In what respect?

[PeeJay]

In what respect?

Not so long ago (in my lifetime) they used to hang black people up on trees ... I think we've moved on some way, although obviously not far enough yet ...

[over the line]

Not so long ago (in my lifetime) they used to hang black people up on trees ... I think we've moved on some way, although obviously not far enough yet ...

Oh yes there has been huge improvements with regards to racism. Do you think racism within the US police is still a big problem, or is it just reported that way by elements of the media?

It's the economic inequalities and the huge amount of guns and violence are still a ridiculous problem though. Why is the US so different to the UK and any other developed country, in these respects?

[Mikey09]

Totally agree, him washing his hands has worked against him in this case. The blood would have proved nothing but as is evident from the reactions on here, it has caused an unnecessary doubt or suspicion. In this case I can't see a problem in justifying the washing his hands bit. It would seem he has disclosed doing it and not hidden the fact.

Justifying shooting an unarmed man 6 times (12 shots, 6 missed), may (and should) be more difficult. But I'm still sat on the fence, none of us were there and none of us are getting the true picture are we. If a jury has had a reasonable doubt in a court of law, then they are right not to convict him (or anybody in that position).

I am sure as an ex cop you must know how easy it can be to make a poor or ill judged decision in the heat of a stressful, scary moment? (And also how easy it is for people to criticise from the safety of their couch, or office chair). The difference is in this country it doesn't usually end up with a fatal shooting (thank god) does it?

Unfortunately this whole sorry and sad tale, is just another example/symptom of the whole out of control, perverse obsession with guns and violence in the US. Can't see it changing in a hurry either I'm afraid.


You are spot on mate. It can be easy to make an ill formed decision at an incident. However, if I had made a bad choice of action I would have to justify this to my superiors who would then take appropriate action. Personally I think it must be so easy for a cop in the states to pull there fire arm in situations where it isn't justified just because they have the weapon. I was threatened numerous times, punched, spat upon. You name it, cops in the UK face it. The difference being they don't have a hand gun to pull in the blink of an eye. Once that gun is out there is no backing down from that where the cop is concerned. I pray the day will NEVER come that our police officers are armed this way. The stats that people are quoting re gun crime in the states will never go down until the US government take down the NRA..... Which I'm afraid to say won't happen. Americas fascination with there "right to bare arms" is slowly destroying them, deviding there country and causing the deaths of innocent children. There answer to it?? Buy more guns. One thing people are forgetting is a young man has lost his life, a mother and father have lost there son. The question America should be asking itself is why does this keep happening?? Until they face this and do something about it then NOTHING will change. There will be thousands of Michael Browns to come..... And that's the sad part.

[PeeJay]

Oh yes there has been huge improvements with regards to racism. Do you think racism within the US police is still a big problem, or is it just reported that way by elements of the media?

It's the economic inequalities and the huge amount of guns and violence are still a ridiculous problem though. Why is the US so different to the UK and any other developed country, in these respects?

I find it interesting that you insinuate that racism may be a "police" problem ... seems to me it's more of a societal issue - it works both ways too, lest we forget...

[over the line]

I find it interesting that you insinuate that racism may be a "police" problem ... seems to me it's more of a societal issue - it works both ways too, lest we forget...

I only mention the alleged police racism, as it is alleged by certain groups to be part of the reason for this shooting. I am far from a critic of the police and I think my previous posts on this thread show that.

Racism is in all walks of life and always will be. It is just unfortunate for the police that it is massively highlighted when it is alleged against them. You rarely see a news story involving a racist baker, brick layer or accountant do you. I think it is an easy allegation to make against the police and I have no doubt it is unfounded in the vast majority of cases, but it makes the news doesn't it.

[PeeJay]

I only mention the alleged police racism, as it is alleged by certain groups to be part of the reason for this shooting. I am far from a critic of the police and I think my previous posts on this thread show that.

Racism is in all walks of life and always will be. It is just unfortunate for the police that it is massively highlighted when it is alleged against them. You rarely see a news story involving a racist baker, brick layer or accountant do you. I think it is an easy allegation to make against the police and I have no doubt it is unfounded in the vast majority of cases, but it makes the news doesn't it.

Fair points, no arguments there - I do think however, that some people may be forgetting what police officers in the US have to "put up with" in their line of duty ... whether they are black, white or whatever - these guys get shot too.

[Hibbyradge]

"right to bare arms"

I may be mistaken, but that's only a right in Newcastle, isn't it?

[over the line]

Fair points, no arguments there - I do think however, that some people may be forgetting what police officers in the US have to "put up with" in their line of duty ... whether they are black, white or whatever - these guys get shot too.

Absolutely, I wouldn't do their job for a gold clock.

[Hibbyradge]

13%
of the US population is black

28% of suspects arrested in the US in 2010 were black

32% of people killed from 2003 to 2009 in arrest-related incidents were black

42% of inmates on death row in 2012 were black

Source: US Census Bureau, US Bureau Of Justice Statistics

[Beefster]

13%
of the US population is black

28% of suspects arrested in the US in 2010 were black

32% of people killed from 2003 to 2009 in arrest-related incidents were black

42% of inmates on death row in 2012 were black

Source: US Census Bureau, US Bureau Of Justice Statistics

The stats on their own don't really prove (or say) anything. Those could be used to argue that black people commit a disproportionate amount of crime in America (which, again, could be down to any number of causes) or that the American justice system is racist.

Like most things, I suspect the stats are down to a complex mix of reasons, such as poverty, racism, attitudes towards law enforcement, failings of an educational system, lack of social mobility etc.

[over the line]

13%
of the US population is black

28% of suspects arrested in the US in 2010 were black

32% of people killed from 2003 to 2009 in arrest-related incidents were black

42% of inmates on death row in 2012 were black

Source: US Census Bureau, US Bureau Of Justice Statistics

I suppose the death row figure will be partly linked to the statistic I've used on here before: you are 10 times more likely to be shot and killed in the US, if you are black, than if you are white. Which would mean there are likely to be a disproportionate amount of black murderers.

[hibsbollah]

The stats on their own don't really prove (or say) anything. Those could be used to argue that black people commit a disproportionate amount of crime in America (which, again, could be down to any number of causes) or that the American justice system is racist.

Like most things, I suspect the stats are down to a complex mix of reasons, such as poverty, racism, attitudes towards law enforcement, failings of an educational system, lack of social mobility etc.

I think the evidence is pretty strong that its down to police profiling. Years and years of surveillance and targeting poor black neighbourhoods and the people who live there. The Alice Goffman book ive posted a link to earlier in the thread is an amazing eye opener (although watchers of TVs The Wire will be familiar with the realities too).

[Phil D. Rolls]

I think there's some well meaning naivety on hear. To compare the police in the deep south of USA and the police in the UK is not productive.

Has anybody seen the kind of kit the Ferguson police have access to. Rocket launchers, armoured cars etc should be used by trained soldiers, not a bunch of plods.

What are they doing with that much hardware anyway unless they are waging war on their citizens?

People should bear in mind that USA is a young country and is still learning to find its way. Comparing what happens there to what happens in Europe is not valid.

[CapitalGreen]

I think there's some well meaning naivety on hear. To compare the police in the deep south of USA and the police in the UK is not productive.

Has anybody seen the kind of kit the Ferguson police have access to. Rocket launchers, armoured cars etc should be used by trained soldiers, not a bunch of plods.

What are they doing with that much hardware anyway unless they are waging war on their citizens?

People should bear in mind that USA is a young country and is still learning to find its way. Comparing what happens there to what happens in Europe is not valid.

I think you are naive if you think Ferguson is in the Deep South.

[over the line]

I think the evidence is pretty strong that its down to police profiling. Years and years of surveillance and targeting poor black neighbourhoods and the people who live there. The Alice Goffman book ive posted a link to earlier in the thread is an amazing eye opener (although watchers of TVs The Wire will be familiar with the realities too).

But surely the police are duty bound to target areas with high crime aren't they? I mean if crime is happening in a specific area, the police are bound to be there more often and get involved aren't they?

The reasons and causes behind why there is more crime in black neighbourhoods is down to society surely, rather than anything to do with police tactics isn't it?

[Phil D. Rolls]

I think you are naive if you think Ferguson is in the Deep South.

Thought I'd take a punt. :whistle:

[Hibbyradge]

All minorities suffer at the hands of the police...

http://i.imgur.com/TsHYTBp.gif

[Phil D. Rolls]

[QUOTE=Hibbyradge;4243621]All minorities suffer at the hands of the police...

http://i.imgur.com/TsHYTBp.gifUOTE]

Don't suppose you've got a vid of the mime he used to call an ambulance?

[Hibbyradge]

[QUOTE=Hibbyradge;4243621]All minorities suffer at the hands of the police...

http://i.imgur.com/TsHYTBp.gifUOTE]

Don't suppose you've got a vid of the mime he used to call an ambulance?

This is the best I can do.

http://www.picgifs.com/graphics/a/ambulance/graphics-ambulance-662290.gif

[hibsbollah]

But surely the police are duty bound to target areas with high crime aren't they? I mean if crime is happening in a specific area, the police are bound to be there more often and get involved aren't they?

The reasons and causes behind why there is more crime in black neighbourhoods is down to society surely, rather than anything to do with police tactics isn't it?

It's pointless getting into a chicken and egg discussion about why its come about, but after having lived in the states myself the reality is there is a lot of crime in middle class white areas that goes largely unpunished, and where you rarely see cops. Drink driving is widespread for example, and more socially acceptable than in this country. And loads of kids are off their faces on crystal meth, but drugs policy is focused on crack cocaine, which is a 'black' drug. Go into a black area and you immediately become aware of a heavier police presence than you see in the suburbs.

Don't take my word for it though, others may have different experiences. If you're interested check out the the Goffman book.

[over the line]

It's pointless getting into a chicken and egg discussion about why its come about, but after having lived in the states myself the reality is there is a lot of crime in middle class white areas that goes largely unpunished, and where you rarely see cops. Drink driving is widespread for example, and more socially acceptable than in this country. And loads of kids are off their faces on crystal meth, but drugs policy is focused on crack cocaine, which is a 'black' drug. Go into a black area and you immediately become aware of a heavier police presence than you see in the suburbs.

Don't take my word for it though, others may have different experiences. If you're interested check out the the Goffman book.

I don't doubt there is crime in middle class areas and also a higher police presence in poorer areas. That would be very similar to everywhere else in the world I imagine, regardless of race. Poorer areas have more crime and therefore tend to have a higher police presence. Poor white areas in this country have a higher police presence than affluent areas.

Unfortunately violence and crime rates in general are far higher in black neighbourhoods in the US, so its inevitable there will be more police intervention isn't it? At the risk of sounding like a broken record, a black person is ten times more likely to die from being shot, than a white person in the US (I still can't get my head round that statistic!). So if the police had less of a presence in black neighbourhoods, I can't see that statistic improving, can you?

[over the line]

I think there's some well meaning naivety on hear. To compare the police in the deep south of USA and the police in the UK is not productive.

Has anybody seen the kind of kit the Ferguson police have access to. Rocket launchers, armoured cars etc should be used by trained soldiers, not a bunch of plods.

What are they doing with that much hardware anyway unless they are waging war on their citizens?

People should bear in mind that USA is a young country and is still learning to find its way. Comparing what happens there to what happens in Europe is not valid.

I think it is extremely difficult for us in the UK to even comprehend the levels of violence there are in the US. You are about 70 times more likely to be murdered with a gun in the US, than in the UK. The general murder rate is nearly 5 times higher in the US, than in the UK.

[Hibrandenburg]

Here's another statistic to muddy the waters. 60 police officers in the US have been shot dead with their own weapons since 2001 whilst trying to arrest suspects. Might explain why they're so jerky.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Oh yes there has been huge improvements with regards to racism. Do you think racism within the US police is still a big problem, or is it just reported that way by elements of the media?

It's the economic inequalities and the huge amount of guns and violence are still a ridiculous problem though. Why is the US so different to the UK and any other developed country, in these respects?

Yes it is.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-police-in-america-are-becoming-illegitimate-20141205

The US is different from the UK in the way their race problem developed. They are still adjusting to the abolition of slavery whereas ours came about as a result of immigration. I've said before, you can't compare the US with the UK.

Just over 100 years ago they had a civil war. In the Southern states not much has changed really - they were still fighting for a front seat on the bus 50 years ago. It's only 30 years since the black staff in the Whitehouse were paid the same wages as the white staff.

The economic equalities are a direct result of a war on black people which has been going on since the first slaves arrived. The war has now been ramped up to the extent that cops in places like Ferguson have got better kit than some divisions of the British army.

Nobody should think those people with the words "police" written on their back are nothing more than storm troopers deployed to suppress any hint of dissent from the black population. That's why Americans are so fond of our police, who (on the whole) operate to serve the public rather than to contain them.

And one last thing, who in their right mind would restrain anybody by the neck?

[Hibbyradge]

Great points, although they won't be unerversally accepted.

Did you mean the double negative in the following sentence?

I assumed you meant to type "anything" instead of "nothing".

Apologies if I've misunderstood.




Nobody should think those people with the words "police" written on their back are nothing more than storm troopers deployed to suppress any hint of dissent from the black population.

[hibsbollah]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-30340632

I thought this was a great polemic.

[silverhibee]

It's pointless getting into a chicken and egg discussion about why its come about, but after having lived in the states myself the reality is there is a lot of crime in middle class white areas that goes largely unpunished, and where you rarely see cops. Drink driving is widespread for example, and more socially acceptable than in this country. And loads of kids are off their faces on crystal meth, but drugs policy is focused on crack cocaine, which is a 'black' drug. Go into a black area and you immediately become aware of a heavier police presence than you see in the suburbs.

Don't take my word for it though, others may have different experiences. If you're interested check out the the Goffman book.

And you receive a bigger sentence for crack cocaine than you do for cocaine, are they not just the same drug. :confused:

[CropleyWasGod]

And you receive a bigger sentence for crack cocaine than you do for cocaine, are they not just the same drug. :confused:

Crack is much more addictive than conventional coke. As such, a bigger potential earner.

In the context of the (failed, IMO, but that's for another thread) war on drugs, that makes the crack dealers worth more to the authorities than a coke dealer.

[hibsbollah]

And you receive a bigger sentence for crack cocaine than you do for cocaine, are they not just the same drug. :confused:

It is the coke you smoke. Up to 2010 sentences for crack were 100x harsher than for 'snorting' cocaine (the 'white middle class' way of getting high). it Is now only 18x harsher. Which doesnt really make any sense, pharmacologically speaking. But how a society penalizes certain crimes tells you a lot about their priorities.


http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crack_cocaine

[Phil D. Rolls]

Great points, although they won't be unerversally accepted.

Did you mean the double negative in the following sentence?

I assumed you meant to type "anything" instead of "nothing".

Apologies if I've misunderstood.

I wanted to say they are just like storm troopers, if that's any help.

Thinking about it more, the USA is still a young country. 100 years ago (and maybe now) they used vigilantes and militias to crush strikes. With all their ideals of freedom of speech, they are equally ready to crush dissent.

[hibsbollah]

Thinking about it more, the USA is still a young country. 100 years ago (and maybe now) they used vigilantes and militias to crush strikest

Our Govt did similar in 1984-85, a cynic might say :greengrin

[Phil D. Rolls]

It is the coke you smoke. Up to 2010 sentences for crack were 100x harsher than for 'snorting' cocaine (the 'white middle class' way of getting high). it Is now only 18x harsher. Which doesnt really make any sense, pharmacologically speaking. But how a society penalizes certain crimes tells you a lot about their priorities.


http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crack_cocaine

The "war on drugs" saw a lot of black men sent to jail for supplying Marijuana. Now that it is legal across the US, and loads of white men are investing to make big money, many are calling for reparations to made to those victims of their ill thought out (or not) war.

The war was not a war on drugs at all, it was a war on black people. Just as the war against opium use in the early 20th C was a war on the Chinese.

Now (according to Rolling Stone), the war involves stopping black people for the most trivial offences. The guy who died in NYC was stopped for selling single cigarettes on the street.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Our Govt did similar in 1984-85, a cynic might say :greengrin

I know they used the army in 1926, but I don't recall armed militias in 1984. The big difference in this country is that guns are illegal, so private armies shouldn't be possible.

[Haymaker]

Interesting documentary on Netflix called "the house I live in" (or similar) about the war on drugs.

[over the line]

Yes it is.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-police-in-america-are-becoming-illegitimate-20141205

The US is different from the UK in the way their race problem developed. They are still adjusting to the abolition of slavery whereas ours came about as a result of immigration. I've said before, you can't compare the US with the UK.

Just over 100 years ago they had a civil war. In the Southern states not much has changed really - they were still fighting for a front seat on the bus 50 years ago. It's only 30 years since the black staff in the Whitehouse were paid the same wages as the white staff.

The economic equalities are a direct result of a war on black people which has been going on since the first slaves arrived. The war has now been ramped up to the extent that cops in places like Ferguson have got better kit than some divisions of the British army.

Nobody should think those people with the words "police" written on their back are nothing more than storm troopers deployed to suppress any hint of dissent from the black population. That's why Americans are so fond of our police, who (on the whole) operate to serve the public rather than to contain them.

And one last thing, who in their right mind would restrain anybody by the neck?

I mean its obvious that the racial inequalities in US society are huge and the criminal justice system and law and order policies over the last few decades have been largely ineffective in many ways. This is clear from the astonishing amount of serious violence and the huge murder rate they have.

There do seem to be some petty laws being enforced in some of these reports it would seem and I suppose that will always go on to a certain degree. But the fact remains that a hugely disproportionate amount of very serious and very violent crime goes on in black neighbourhoods in the US. It would seem some people are suggesting that there are too many police patrols in these areas. Do you think that fewer patrols would reduce the crime?

Although I agree with the rolling stone journalist with regards to the injustice of the bankers getting away with their white collar crimes etc. I think it is a pointless comparison to make with violent street crime. As far as I'm aware, no one has ever died from being mis sold PPI, or getting bad mortgage advice have they? Is he really suggesting the police should be using the exact same tactics to deal with crooked bankers, as they may use against violent street robbers and drug dealing street gangs. Nonsense. He is almost saying that because he has never been stopped by the police, they must have a racist agenda.

Most people on here seem to think the police tactics are to blame for a lot of the problem and that may, or may not be the case, to a certain degree. So if you believe this to be the case, what is the alternative, how would you police these areas? Would be interesting to hear your views.

[over the line]

It is the coke you smoke. Up to 2010 sentences for crack were 100x harsher than for 'snorting' cocaine (the 'white middle class' way of getting high). it Is now only 18x harsher. Which doesnt really make any sense, pharmacologically speaking. But how a society penalizes certain crimes tells you a lot about their priorities.


http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crack_cocaine

The big difference between crack and normal cocaine, it the destructive nature of crack. It takes over peoples lives and drives them to commit desperate crimes to raise the cash needed to support their addiction. Crack has a far greater effect on the communities it has taken hold in. The majority of users of "normal" cocaine, fund their addiction through work rather than crime, so having a much smaller impact on society.

I suppose its a bit like the duty on spirits is much higher than beer, due to the extra risk/damage potential of spirits.

[silverhibee]

It is the coke you smoke. Up to 2010 sentences for crack were 100x harsher than for 'snorting' cocaine (the 'white middle class' way of getting high). it Is now only 18x harsher. Which doesnt really make any sense, pharmacologically speaking. But how a society penalizes certain crimes tells you a lot about their priorities.


http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crack_cocaine

I watched "the house we live in" and some guy (black) who was caught with 5 grams of crack cocaine and got 30 years, a white lad caught with 500 grams of cocaine was given 5 years, folk in prison until they die because the were caught with a couple of hundred quids worth of dope, crazy, but they cant build prisons quick enough in the USA to house all these prisoners, at the last count 3.2 million people were in prison in the USA, crazy, no chance of rehabilitation just the prospect of dying in prison for some petty crimes, these private prisons are just money makers for the share holders who are making a fortune from sending folk to prison as quick as they can.

[silverhibee]

Interesting documentary on Netflix called "the house I live in" (or similar) about the war on drugs.

Just watched it the other night Hay, first they take there possessions, then they take them, then they lock them up in prison for life, then they bury them.

A big machine, and not a nice one.

[Haymaker]

Just watched it the other night Hay, first they take there possessions, then they take them, then they lock them up in prison for life, then they bury them.

A big machine, and not a nice one.

Yep. The prison industry is very lucrative in the US.

[degenerated]

Just watched it the other night Hay, first they take there possessions, then they take them, then they lock them up in prison for life, then they bury them.

A big machine, and not a nice one.
Check out the song full metal jack off by DOA and jello biafra, musically it won't be to everyone's taste :greengrin but the lyrics paint a harrowing picture of the war on drugs in America.

http://www.plyrics.com/lyrics/jellobiafra/fullmetaljackoff.html

Full Metal Jackoff - Jello Biafra & DOA: http://youtu.be/fyqzJoan6Bw

[hibsbollah]

The big difference between crack and normal cocaine, it the destructive nature of crack. It takes over peoples lives and drives them to commit desperate crimes to raise the cash needed to support their addiction. Crack has a far greater effect on the communities it has taken hold in. The majority of users of "normal" cocaine, fund their addiction through work rather than crime, so having a much smaller impact on society.

I suppose its a bit like the duty on spirits is much higher than beer, due to the extra risk/damage potential of spirits.

I think the idea that crack has a more 'destructive nature' than other hard drugs like crystal meth or cocaine is a fantasy. The reason it destroys communities is solely down to the socio economic position of those communities; ie-they can't afford to feed their habit so resort to crime.

Ive never taken cocaine or crack so I can't speak from experience. But i know its highly subjective tryinv to 'rank' drugs by which is most addictive. The idea that crack is far more addictive than snorting coke, crystal meth, heroin, alcohol or the myriad of benzos that we get free on prescription in this country is, according to what ive read, untrue. It all depends on the individuals reaction. Your point about beer and spirits and relative alcohol isnt comparable.

Even if it was far more addictive and destructive, it doesn't explain an 100x differential in sentencing vis a vis cocaine in the US. That is a political decision.

[over the line]

I think the idea that crack has a more 'destructive nature' than other hard drugs like crystal meth or cocaine is a fantasy. The reason it destroys communities is solely down to the socio economic position of those communities; ie-they can't afford to feed their habit so resort to crime.

Ive never taken cocaine or crack so I can't speak from experience. But i know its highly subjective tryinv to 'rank' drugs by which is most addictive. The idea that crack is far more addictive than snorting coke, crystal meth, heroin, alcohol or the myriad of benzos that we get free on prescription in this country is, according to what ive read, untrue. It all depends on the individuals reaction. Your point about beer and spirits and relative alcohol isnt comparable.

Even if it was far more addictive and destructive, it doesn't explain an 100x differential in sentencing vis a vis cocaine in the US. That is a political decision.

Crack cocaine is undoubtedly more destructive than "normal" cocaine, (don't know much about crystal meth, as thankfully it hasn't really caught on over here) how you can describe that as fantasy is beyond me. I have seen its effects up close numerous times and the two drugs share no similarities in the effects they have on the users lives, or the lives of the communities they plague. Heroin had a terrible effect when it became a big thing years ago, but crack took things to another level again and users themselves will tell you that.

The alcohol comparison was merely to show how substances are treated differently according to the risk and damage relating to them. You are no more likely to become an alcoholic from whisky than beer, but the duty if higher on whisky as it has the potential to do you in a lot quicker if you abuse it.

I accept that 100 X the sentence for crack as to cocaine does seem extreme though. Where is that figure from, is it an average, or from select comparisons?

[Hibbyradge]

The alcohol comparison was merely to show how substances are treated differently according to the risk and damage relating to them. You are no more likely to become an alcoholic from whisky than beer, but the duty if higher on whisky as it has the potential to do you in a lot quicker if you abuse it.



I understand your point, but it isn't really accurate.

Spirit is charged less per unit of alcohol than beer.

Beer is charged less than cider.

[over the line]

I understand your point, but it isn't really accurate.

Spirit is charged less per unit of alcohol than beer.

Beer is charged less than cider.

Fair enough, not the best comparison, but you see the point I'm trying to make.

Crack is more destructive than "normal" cocaine, that I do know for sure.

[Hibbyradge]

Fair enough, not the best comparison, but you see the point I'm trying to make.

Crack is more destructive than "normal" cocaine, that I do know for sure.

It's a difficult point to make though.

Alcohol kills many, many times more people than Crack.

Coke is a white, middle class drug. It's often glamorised in film and TV.

Crack is a black, lower class drug.

You really don't need to look any further for an explanation of sentencing profiles.

Black people in the USA get longer sentences, get killed more often by Police, are subject to more crime and have worse living conditions than white people.

This isn't a coincidence and shouldn't be conveniently explained away.

[over the line]

It's a difficult point to make though.

Alcohol kills many, many times more people than Crack.

Coke is a white, middle class drug. It's often glamorised in film and TV.

Crack is a black, lower class drug.

You really don't need to look any further for an explanation of sentencing profiles.

Black people in the USA get longer sentences, get killed more often by Police, are subject to more crime and have worse living conditions than white people.

This isn't a coincidence and shouldn't be conveniently explained away.

I can only speak from my own life experiences, having spent a lot of time in the North End of Birkenhead, which has huge drug, unemployment and crime issues, but it is predominantly a white area. I think some useful comparisons can be made, even without the question of race. The vast majority of the North End community, would gladly see the crack users and certainly the dealers targeted by the police and given large sentences by the courts. The users and dealers are not welcomed by the general residents in the community because of the negative impact it has on them. They are not considered as some poor old persecuted group that gets an unnecessarily hard time from the law, quite the opposite. It seems to be the middle classes looking on from a distance that feel that way. Both types of cocaine are available to who ever wants them and its down to the individual which route they take (I have chosen neither route, in case you were wondering). There are examples where brothers have chosen separate routes and the differences in their lifestyles is immense. No one can tell me that crack is not more destructive than "normal" coke, when it so obviously is.

Drugs are a choice, irrelevant of your race. If you choose crack, you are undoubtedly going to become more of an issue for the community you live in and society generally. The vast majority of people go into drugs with their eyes wide open. People know the likely outcome and impact it will have on their lives if they get into crack.

Put it this way, I am now lucky enough to live in a relatively affluent area, where I have little doubt people in my street will take cocaine, as it is in widespread use as a "recreational" drug in this area. They cause me no problems at all and seem to be living normal productive lives as far as I can tell. Compare that to a street that has several crack users in it and then tell me they are both the same drug. That same street is likely to have coke users as well and they again will have little or no negative impact on the street. I know who I would rather have as a neighbour don't you?

Neither are a great lifestyle choice IMHO, but one is very different to the other isn't it?

[mikewynne]

I can only speak from my own life experiences, having spent a lot of time in the North End of Birkenhead, which has huge drug, unemployment and crime issues, but it is predominantly a white area. I think some useful comparisons can be made, even without the question of race. The vast majority of the North End community, would gladly see the crack users and certainly the dealers targeted by the police and given large sentences by the courts. The users and dealers are not welcomed by the general residents in the community because of the negative impact it has on them. They are not considered as some poor old persecuted group that gets an unnecessarily hard time from the law, quite the opposite. It seems to be the middle classes looking on from a distance that feel that way. Both types of cocaine are available to who ever wants them and its down to the individual which route they take (I have chosen neither route, in case you were wondering). There are examples where brothers have chosen separate routes and the differences in their lifestyles is immense. No one can tell me that crack is not more destructive than "normal" coke, when it so obviously is.

Drugs are a choice, irrelevant of your race. If you choose crack, you are undoubtedly going to become more of an issue for the community you live in and society generally. The vast majority of people go into drugs with their eyes wide open. People know the likely outcome and impact it will have on their lives if they get into crack.

Put it this way, I am now lucky enough to live in a relatively affluent area, where I have little doubt people in my street will take cocaine, as it is in widespread use as a "recreational" drug in this area. They cause me no problems at all and seem to be living normal productive lives as far as I can tell. Compare that to a street that has several crack users in it and then tell me they are both the same drug. That same street is likely to have coke users as well and they again will have little or no negative impact on the street. I know who I would rather have as a neighbour don't you?

Neither are a great lifestyle choice IMHO, but one is very different to the other isn't it?

Good post. I agee 100%

[mikewynne]

It's a difficult point to make though.

Alcohol kills many, many times more people than Crack.

Coke is a white, middle class drug. It's often glamorised in film and TV.

Crack is a black, lower class drug.

You really don't need to look any further for an explanation of sentencing profiles.

Black people in the USA get longer sentences, get killed more often by Police, are subject to more crime and have worse living conditions than white people.

This isn't a coincidence and shouldn't be conveniently explained away.

And if as many people used crack as alcohol you think there wouldn't be many, many more crack related deaths than alcohol related deaths?

There are many complex reasons why black communities in the U.S. suffer so many problems: economic, cultural, educational, historical and yes racial issues but the use of crack cocaine (and legal punishment of that use) is well down the list.

[Hibbyradge]

And if as many people used crack as alcohol you think there wouldn't be many, many more crack related deaths than alcohol related deaths?

There are many complex reasons why black communities in the U.S. suffer so many problems: economic, cultural, educational, historical and yes racial issues but the use of crack cocaine (and legal punishment of that use) is well down the list.

I don't understand your point.

Or rather, I think I do understand your point. I don't know why you're directing it at me.

[Hibrandenburg]

http://conservativetribune.com/police-black-crime/

10 out of 10 that this guy still managed to hold it together.

[Kato]

Although I agree with the rolling stone journalist with regards to the injustice of the bankers getting away with their white collar crimes etc. I think it is a pointless comparison to make with violent street crime. As far as I'm aware, no one has ever died from being mis sold PPI, or getting bad mortgage advice have they?


You don't think there is knock-on effect of banking crimes whereby people lose their livihood, homes, marriage, kids get taken away and, in some cases, those knock-on effects lead to ill-health and death?


All the subject matter here, poverty, War On Drugs, black crime compared to white crime, "poor" crime compared "rich" crime is discussed brilliantly in this book. Includes a history of prohibition in the States as well as a break-down as to how people are criiminalised and how the prison system in the US makes some people pretty rich.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Candy-Machine-Cocaine-Took-World/dp/0141034467/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1418290111&sr=1-1&keywords=candy+machine

[over the line]

http://conservativetribune.com/police-black-crime/

10 out of 10 that this guy still managed to hold it together.



Excellent link. Well said that man, the voice of reality at last. There are far too many people jumping on the blame band wagon, being driven by their own agenda.

Racism and racial equality is obviously a problem in the US, as it is world wide. But I don't see how calling all cops and judges racist, like some seem to be doing, will help to balance, or correct these issues.

[over the line]

You don't think there is knock-on effect of banking crimes whereby people lose their livihood, homes, marriage, kids get taken away and, in some cases, those knock-on effects lead to ill-health and death?


All the subject matter here, poverty, War On Drugs, black crime compared to white crime, "poor" crime compared "rich" crime is discussed brilliantly in this book. Includes a history of prohibition in the States as well as a break-down as to how people are criiminalised and how the prison system in the US makes some people pretty rich.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Candy-Machine-Cocaine-Took-World/dp/0141034467/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1418290111&sr=1-1&keywords=candy+machine

Yes of course I recognise that losing your home etc will have a hugely negative impact on peoples lives, no doubt about it. The point I was trying to make was that the journalist seemed to be saying that because the bankers weren't subject to thr same police tactics as street criminals, therefore the police/system were/was racist, which of course is nonsense. (Inevitably elements of the police/sytem/the whole of society are racist).

It's a bit like comparing crime with sport in a way. It would be like saying you should use the same tactics and techniques to tackle someone in basketball as in rugby. Different rules apply in both situations and you play the game that you are involved in. I just thought the rolling stone article was lazy and inflammatory journalism, just to make a topically fashionable point.

[Kato]

Yes of course I recognise that losing your home etc will have a hugely negative impact on peoples lives, no doubt about it. The point I was trying to make was that the journalist seemed to be saying that because the bankers weren't subject to thr same police tactics as street criminals, therefore the police/system were/was racist, which of course is nonsense. (Inevitably elements of the police/sytem/the whole of society are racist).

It's a bit like comparing crime with sport in a way. It would be like saying you should use the same tactics and techniques to tackle someone in basketball as in rugby. Different rules apply in both situations and you play the game that you are involved in. I just thought the rolling stone article was lazy and inflammatory journalism, just to make a topically fashionable point.

OK, man.

Was just pointing out the way the banks have behaved since the deregulation became the fashion is despicable and there are many many victims of their practices, and those practices ruin and shorten lives.

FWIW I'd drug test all those working in a banks who have the power to influence markets and make far reaching decisions.

[over the line]

OK, man.

Was just pointing out the way the banks have behaved since the deregulation became the fashion is despicable and there are many many victims of their practices, and those practices ruin and shorten lives.

FWIW I'd drug test all those working in a banks who have the power to influence markets and make far reaching decisions.

Totally agree. I despise the bankers (and politicians that allowed it) that have caused so much unnecessary pain for millions of ordinary people and I think its an absolute scandal (not a strong enough word by a long way) that they have got away with it. The bankers are obviously protected by the governments, as they quite literally hold the purse strings for the world. Not sure that will change any time soon, but it certainly needs to.

[overdrive]

I've no idea whether US police are more likely to be heavy handed towards black people compared to other races, but they are heavy handed.

We were in Santa Barbara for a few nights in the Summer during our honeymoon and the "Old Spanish Days" fiesta was on. I've never seen so many police in such a small town before. We were asked a barmaid why they had so many cops there and she told us they pulled them in from other towns from miles around whilst the fiesta is on as they can use it as an excuse to arrest as many "drunk" people as they can as easy arrests. I say "arrest"; it was more like maul. I also say "drunk"; most of the people were of a state of inebriation that the police in this country would barely bat an eyelid at. They were kicking people so that their chests were hitting off the corner of the pavement. They had groups of police waiting in a hotel foyer ready to come out and pounce on groups of folk who had just come out of nightclubs nearby and were passing by the hotel but not causing trouble in anyway (other than possibly being under-age drinking). Crazy stuff.

[over the line]

I've no idea whether US police are more likely to be heavy handed towards black people compared to other races, but they are heavy handed.

We were in Santa Barbara for a few nights in the Summer during our honeymoon and the "Old Spanish Days" fiesta was on. I've never seen so many police in such a small town before. We were asked a barmaid why they had so many cops there and she told us they pulled them in from other towns from miles around whilst the fiesta is on as they can use it as an excuse to arrest as many "drunk" people as they can as easy arrests. I say "arrest"; it was more like maul. I also say "drunk"; most of the people were of a state of inebriation that the police in this country would barely bat an eyelid at. They were kicking people so that their chests were hitting off the corner of the pavement. They had groups of police waiting in a hotel foyer ready to come out and pounce on groups of folk who had just come out of nightclubs nearby and were passing by the hotel but not causing trouble in anyway (other than possibly being under-age drinking). Crazy stuff.

I think the police in virtually every other country in thr world are generally more heavy handed than the ones here. Everyone here seems to wet themselves every time a police officers wrinkles their nose at someone, or is a bit short with them. Even most of the European police would be considered brutal by the UK's standards.

Going slightly off topic, but I think people in this country are just too sensetive and soft nowadays.

Edit: not referring to you overdrive, or anyone else on here. Just a generalisation.

[Sylar]

Police have shot and killed a black teenager in St Louis (same city, different suburb as where Michael Brown was killed), sparking more riots.

In this instance, the teenager drew and pointed a gun at the officer who shot him yet STILL people are rioting :confused:

[Sylar]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-30596531

[over the line]

Police have shot and killed a black teenager in St Louis (same city, different suburb as where Michael Brown was killed), sparking more riots.

In this instance, the teenager drew and pointed a gun at the officer who shot him yet STILL people are rioting :confused:

I notice there weren't riots when two cops who were minding their own business got shot dead. Do these people really think that society would be better off without the police? Scary thought! There are about 40 people murdered everyday on average in the US, but no one riots over that. Twisted morals if you ask me.

[majorhibs]

Statistics! Too many stato experts on this thread. Try witnessing gun crime in Rio de Janeiro. Everyone, as in Everybody, dives for cover, in the event, cos. the Police will not be outgunned when the crims go for it. But, that means, at the end, nae mair bad guys, but it takes muito, muito bullets to get there! Scary for anyone within ANY distance. Dont come on here personally much but same impressions as before, many "experts" on "subjects" in "countries" they have never been to!

[Betty Boop]

What the ? Police shackle and handcuff a four year old child.



http://thefreethoughtproject.com/cops-handcuff-shackle-4-year-old-boy-haul-jail-temper-tantrum/

[over the line]

Statistics! Too many stato experts on this thread. Try witnessing gun crime in Rio de Janeiro. Everyone, as in Everybody, dives for cover, in the event, cos. the Police will not be outgunned when the crims go for it. But, that means, at the end, nae mair bad guys, but it takes muito, muito bullets to get there! Scary for anyone within ANY distance. Dont come on here personally much but same impressions as before, many "experts" on "subjects" in "countries" they have never been to!

I don't really understand your point?

[majorhibs]

I don't really understand your point?

Sorry. I think just about all you've added here is pretty spot on, I agree with most you've said, just that yesterday after I had had a few I was catching up on posts & IMO noticed a few of the same olds giving it the big one on gun crime etc, giving all their "stats", having personally been in a few very much gun ho (pardon the pun) countries, due to work commitments, I was just trying to put across, not very effectively, that my opinion varies quite a lot with what a lot was added on the thread, & when you are in countries where guns are accepted as the norm (not that I've ever been to North America, nor ever want to) but I just happen to have a difference of opinion on something like gun culture due to where I've been.
I have to say though your replies were pretty enlightening for the likes of me who never get much nearer than Breaking Bad. Sorry if you thought I was having a dig or anything.

[over the line]

Sorry. I think just about all you've added here is pretty spot on, I agree with most you've said, just that yesterday after I had had a few I was catching up on posts & IMO noticed a few of the same olds giving it the big one on gun crime etc, giving all their "stats", having personally been in a few very much gun ho (pardon the pun) countries, due to work commitments, I was just trying to put across, not very effectively, that my opinion varies quite a lot with what a lot was added on the thread, & when you are in countries where guns are accepted as the norm (not that I've ever been to North America, nor ever want to) but I just happen to have a difference of opinion on something like gun culture due to where I've been.
I have to say though your replies were pretty enlightening for the likes of me who never get much nearer than Breaking Bad. Sorry if you thought I was having a dig or anything.

Fair enough, we've all done it (I sometimes get grief on here for posts I don't even remember writing. Whisky eh!) no offence taken.

As you've seen from my posts, I also disagree with most of the other contributors on these kind of threads. Some (not all) seem to have a naive and blurred view of the criminal fraternity and view them with rose tinted spectacles. But they are entitled to their opinions I suppose, it would be no good if we all agreed on everything would it? ;)

[hibsbollah]

Statistics! Too many stato experts on this thread. Try witnessing gun crime in Rio de Janeiro. Everyone, as in Everybody, dives for cover, in the event, cos. the Police will not be outgunned when the crims go for it. But, that means, at the end, nae mair bad guys, but it takes muito, muito bullets to get there! Scary for anyone within ANY distance. Dont come on here personally much but same impressions as before, many "experts" on "subjects" in "countries" they have never been to!

So are you saying the police need to shoot more often or what? Do you have the courage to give your opinion on the OP or are you just slagging off unnamed posters withoit naming names, which is what it sounds like.

[majorhibs]

So are you saying the police need to shoot more often or what? Do you have the courage to give your opinion on the OP or are you just slagging off unnamed posters withoit naming names, which is what it sounds like.

Get outta here! I will slag off you as a poster if you like. What I meant before was, when the s##t hits the fan in situations in certain countries, it is effing frightening but, you are in their country, their rules, so you cannot really complain too much about how their authorities want to handle it. But it IS scary. My other view is, that there is a lot of "experts" with very loud views, who have effectively seen brussel sprout of guns & the people who use them. Lots of posters on here for long times, most know how most react, what their general views are, I know nothing about how "courageous" YOU are, but if your asking my opinion, it is that if you were not there then you dont have 100% the facts, & all this bandwagoning & "we are victims" stuff going on these days is just not my cup of tea, thanks.

[hibsbollah]

Get outta here! I will slag off you as a poster if you like. What I meant before was, when the s##t hits the fan in situations in certain countries, it is effing frightening but, you are in their country, their rules, so you cannot really complain too much about how their authorities want to handle it. But it IS scary. My other view is, that there is a lot of "experts" with very loud views, who have effectively seen brussel sprout of guns & the people who use them. Lots of posters on here for long times, most know how most react, what their general views are, I know nothing about how "courageous" YOU are, but if your asking my opinion, it is that if you were not there then you dont have 100% the facts, & all this bandwagoning & "we are victims" stuff going on these days is just not my cup of tea, thanks.

I still don't really know what you're saying:confused: is it 'unless you are at the scene yourself or live in the country concerned you're not allowed to have an opinion'? That seems a bit odd.


As it happens I used to live in the states and I think some of the other contributors on this thread have too. Not that it matters.

[majorhibs]

I still don't really know what you're saying:confused: is it 'unless you are at the scene yourself or live in the country concerned you're not allowed to have an opinion'? That seems a bit odd.


As it happens I used to live in the states and I think some of the other contributors on this thread have too. Not that it matters.

So you will be a persecuted downtrodden victim too? Living in the states is probably the ultimate for some, but having worked worldwide with plenty good ol boys USA #1 the rest of the world second, I have zero interest in anything more to do with that place & its bunch of misguided bigheads, but as to your question, I cant say exactly cos I wasnt there, same as most of the agitated/annoyed/rioters, same as you werent there, so all the social unrest from the "wannabee" victims, from my side of thinking, looks like lots of people taking liberties. A bit like when the Sex Pistols released Anarchy in the UK & God save the Queen, except the Sex Pistols were taking the piss, plenty getting knickers in a twist, but no real harm being done. Your "rioters" in good ol boy country arent.