White teenager shot in back

[guncrasher]

do you  still do it is that the question...?

question is have you ever done it?


semp

[craz07]

No time for that just drink beer thats only....

[craz07]

direct explains what i'm doin right now....

[SysError]

Ok.  Tell me what you'd have said if the quote would have read, "St. Louis Police Chief Jon Belmar, who was present during the protests on Monday, embraced the presence of the Oath Keepers, describing the group as being a "lawful, polite, and completely within their rights as citizens."

Without knowing how he really feels, I have a hunch he'd have said what he said regardless.  Police chiefs aren't usually quick to admit their departments can't handle rioting/protests when a reporter is the one asking the question.

So let me get this straight. 

You want me to pretend that the Police Chief didn't say what he said. 

And Then:

You want me to, I guess, Magic Think that he said the Oath Keepers were from some sort of Sisters of Mercy cloister,  because, -- wink - wink -- we really know what he meant to say. 

OK, give me a minute to do that.


You know, as hard as I try, I still see the same outcome.


Look, it is really disappointing all  around.  The whole thing shows a complete failure of leadership at the local, county and State level.  And yes, you have to question local community leaders and wonder what they did, or perhaps didn't do, to mark the one year anniversary.

It appears as if the Oath Keepers did not help to diffuse the situation.  The piece says that the Southern Poverty Law Center identifies them as a “fiercely anti-government, militaristic group”.  And "Dennis Kenney, a professor of criminal justice at John Jay College in New York, said that the organization prides itself on being provocative."...."They are as much trying to pick a fight with the police as anyone else.”

Not helpful.

I think that the term that comes to my mind is vigilante.

And BTW, IMO, as things stand right now, we will be discussing the exact same stories from Ferguson a year from now.

[craz07]

no not vigilante peacekeeper...

[SysError]

no not vigilante peacekeeper...

vig·i·lan·te
ˌvijəˈlan(t)ē/
noun
a member of a self-appointed group of citizens who undertake law enforcement in their community without legal authority, typically because the legal agencies are thought to be inadequate.

[craz07]

you'd be surprised with all the unpeacekeeping that goes round the city day after day..

[SysError]

you'd be surprised with all the unpeacekeeping that goes round the city day after day..

To me, a peacekeeper is someone like my Dad, who spent two years as a civilian medical logistics officer in Bosnia first with IFOR and then with SFOR with nothing more than a blue helmet and flak jacket for protection.

Those guys are vigilantes and they did not, and they are not, helping the community.

[Triton28]

So let me get this straight. 

You want me to pretend that the Police Chief didn't say what he said. 

And Then:

You want me to, I guess, Magic Think that he said the Oath Keepers were from some sort of Sisters of Mercy cloister,  because, -- wink - wink -- we really know what he meant to say. 

OK, give me a minute to do that.


You know, as hard as I try, I still see the same outcome.


Look, it is really disappointing all  around.  The whole thing shows a complete failure of leadership at the local, county and State level.  And yes, you have to question local community leaders and wonder what they did, or perhaps didn't do, to mark the one year anniversary.

It appears as if the Oath Keepers did not help to diffuse the situation.  The piece says that the Southern Poverty Law Center identifies them as a “fiercely anti-government, militaristic group”.  And "Dennis Kenney, a professor of criminal justice at John Jay College in New York, said that the organization prides itself on being provocative."...."They are as much trying to pick a fight with the police as anyone else.”

Not helpful.

I think that the term that comes to my mind is vigilante.

And BTW, IMO, as things stand right now, we will be discussing the exact same stories from Ferguson a year from now.

No.  I'm saying that politically the chief needed to say what he said, regardless of how he felt personally or any impact the group may have had.  It's not hard to understand why.

How did the Oath Keepers further inflame the situation? Because The Guardian wrote a titled article and the SPLC thinks guns are icky and labels most who own them extremists?  Seems to me one year ago things were a bit worse, what with the fires and looting and whatnot.  Was that because they were there this time?  Dunno, but it wasn't any worse than the first time the news was covering this. 

[Guppy35]

Again I ask, who asked those guys to show up armed to keep the peace?

If I make a decision to go to some other neighborhood with my AR-15 with a bullet proof vest and my AR equipped like I think I'm some sort of combat commando, how do you know or the police know what my intentions are?

How would that not be seen as provocative?  What gives me the right to take the law into my own hands?  Defending my home I get.  Deciding to "defend" someone else's home without checking with the police or the homeowner to me is crossing the line.

[SysError]

No.  I'm saying that politically the chief needed to say what he said, regardless of how he felt personally or any impact the group may have had.  It's not hard to understand why.

How did the Oath Keepers further inflame the situation? Because The Guardian wrote a titled article and the SPLC thinks guns are icky and labels most who own them extremists?  Seems to me one year ago things were a bit worse, what with the fires and looting and whatnot.  Was that because they were there this time?  Dunno, but it wasn't any worse than the first time the news was covering this.

I would agree that the chief needed to be careful in want he said.  And once you get to be Chief, you must learn to be pretty careful with your words.  I think that we agree on that.  In fact, from what I can tell, the next day the chief refused comment and stood behind the county exc. (I think that is who it was).  But you know, as long as we are playing make believe, this is sort of what I think he might have said if he really wanted the Oath Keepers around but could not say so.

"We appreciate the well meaning sentiments and offers of assistance we are receiving from throughout the country during this difficult time.  But right now our focus is to work with local and state law enforcement to bring claim to the situation."

As for charges against the Guardian, I think that you guys have presented sometimes weak, and in all honesty sometimes silly, arguments for an egregious bias on the part of the paper and the reporter.

In the space of about 10 minutes, I sequentially collected, (in order) a number of news links from Google as they popped up.

There is everything from the left to the far right (and a bunch of stuff in the middle) in the array list that came up.  They all had a common theme.  Any guesses as to what that theme might be? 

NPR
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/08/12/431978076/oath-keepers-say-theyre-defending-ferguson-others-say-theyre-not-helping

… some local officials say the Oath Keepers aren't helpful, or even welcome. …

Another protester, Mary Chandler, said the police failed to confront the Oath Keepers in the way they challenge some of the protesters in Ferguson. "We can't even stand on this side of the street without the weapons being pointed at us," Chandler said during a street demonstration on Tuesday night. "But yet you can bring those people that can come in, no questions asked, with rifles and things strapped across their body and everything is OK and you don't feel any sense of danger at all."

Both St. Louis County Police Chief Jon Belmar and County Executive Steve Stenger say the Oath Keepers aren't welcome in Ferguson.

Stenger told St. Louis Public Radio's Jason Rosenbaum, "The last thing you need in a situation like we have are people walking around with semi-automatic weapons. It's inflaming a situation that's already inflamed."


NBC
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/michael-brown-shooting/oath-keepers-turn-michael-brown-protests-ferguson-missouri-n407696

…, St. Louis County Police Chief Jon Belmar described their presence as "both unnecessary and inflammatory."

The organization — which claims to have more than 30,000 members — was founded in 2004 by former U.S. Army paratrooper and Yale Law School graduate Stewart Rhodes.

Rhodes has referred to Hillary Clinton as "Hitlery" and earlier this year said that Sen. John McCain should be tried for treason and "hung by the neck until dead" for going "along with the program of the destruction of this country."


Bearing Arms - Guns & Patriots - SAVING LIBERTY AND LIVES
http://bearingarms.com/oath-keepers-go-home/

It seems quite clear that the four white Oath Keepers self-deployed to a black neighborhood in which there is considerable racial tension, in what many regard as nothing more or less than a show of force. They interjected themselves into a community where they were neither wanted nor requested, and raised tensions instead of assuaging them as the prior group of Oath Keepers did in December of 2014.

I don’t know anything about the individual Oath Keepers involved in this most recent appearance of the Oath Keepers in Ferguson, but then again, their intentions and pedigrees are all but irrelevant. The public perception of what they were doing, and why they were there, is what matters.

Oath Keepers, go home.


Chicago Tribune
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-ferguson-oath-keepers-armed-militia-20150811-story.html

Nabeehah Azeez called the presence of the armed men "a contradiction in how things work."

"The rules don't apply to everyone," she said. "If those were black men walking around with rifles, they probably wouldn't be living today

County police ordered them [Oath Keepers] to leave then, but group members intermittently returned.


PSMAG
http://www.psmag.com/politics-and-law/oath-keepers-and-twisted-legacy-of-american-vigilantism

Why is it that white Americans carry high-powered weapons openly in the name of "property," while African Americans constantly risk the full wrath of state power for virtually no reason?


BBC
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-33867245

One protester was filmed asking an Oath Keeper member "If you're armed, why can't the protesters be armed? Doesn't the second amendment apply to them too?"

Another man remarks, "what about protecting black people?", to which the so-called Oath Keeper replied: "All lives matter, sure."


St Louis Today
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/armed-members-of-oath-keepers-return-to-ferguson-streets/article_e1275f62-db42-5cf5-9bac-6b5c8fb43981.html

St. Louis County Executive Steve Stenger however decried the arrival of the Oath Keepers on Ferguson streets.
"Their presence is unnecessary and it is inflammatory," the county executive told reporters Tuesday evening. "The last thing we need in this situation is people walking around with automatic weapons. They are inflaming a situation that is already inflamed."


Newsmax
http://www.newsmax.com/US/oath-keepers-ferguson-missouri-riots/2015/08/11/id/669497/

"You're going to bring some uncommissioned citizens, white citizens, into a black community like this? It's disrespectful," said Talal Ahmad, 30, who is black and has been a fixture of the last year's protests, which prompted a Justice Department review that found Ferguson's police department routinely violated city residents' civil rights.

[Triton28]

You'd think there would have been, you know, like violence and stuff since these racist,  trigger happy,  machine gun toting white guys were running around pointing guns at everyone.     

[Guppy35]

You'd think there would have been, you know, like violence and stuff since these racist,  trigger happy,  machine gun toting white guys were running around pointing guns at everyone.   

was thier presence requested?  Do you believe it is reasonable for them to have placed themselves into a situation as they did.  You seem to be suggesting that somehow they are responsible for less violence.  Do you really believe there would have been more violence without them?  Do you believe the police couldn't handle things on thier own?
Do you believe they went to Ferguson for some higher calling or might thier motivation have been a bit more self serving?

[SysError]

You'd think there would have been, you know, like violence and stuff since these racist,  trigger happy,  machine gun toting white guys were running around pointing guns at everyone.   

I never said that these guys are racist.  Now, as I understand it, they have a membership of around 30,000.  Within that population I would not be surprised if there were some, but I have no reason to a priori paint the entire group with that brush.  (BTW, and this may go to a point closer to yours, I would not be surprised if there was a high degree of tolerance for such people within the group.  I may be wrong.)

What is clear, however, is that they are maneuvering within a volatile environment where racial prejudices (whether conscious or unconscious) are a significant factor in bringing significant risk to life, liberty and property. 

When they freely roam the streets with exposed armaments which (and here I’m going to lose a whole bunch of you guys) to the general population appear to be instruments of violence teleported in from some far off distant savage conflict, it is not unreasonable for people to feel and express a strong concern.  And when they freely roam the streets unchallenged while local residents of the community are swiftly and forcible pounced upon based on nothing more than an anonymous tip at a police station, a strong sense of concern easily transforms into a sense of alarm and perhaps fear or terror.

A failure in civic agency does not dictate that we should turn to a Thunderdome theory of justice.

They are not helping.  They are inflaming the situation.  They need to go home.

[SlipKnt]

I am more a Patriot than most.  I am a ][][][%er and I understand what you are trying to say, Ink, however I refuse to believe the rioters and looters are trying to do anything patriotic for the good of the country and an American way of life.

I am against big government. 

The Boston Tea Party was about oppressive and over taxing government.  Taxation without representation. They rose against a tyrannical government.

Law enforcement isn't collecting the King's taxes and they are not taking up residence in the people's quarters.

There is a huge difference between the Ferguson / Baltimore rioters and the Boston Tea Party.  HUGE difference...