Unlimited Ferguson Thread of police state nightmare fuel.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

you're a tremendous fucking faggot.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Von, whether or not you love the cock, this isn't 4chan. Repeat after me. This. Isn't. 4Chan.

You can't just casually throw slurs around. It's guaranteed to get us to dismiss anything you're saying.

That said, Hoops did miss your point, which I caught the second time you said it. But it did seem at first like you were comparing the two groups ideologically.

No, I totally understood his point and found it to be completely fucking irrelevant to anything being discussed.  He has no evidence either organization is "infiltrated", and he referred to both groups as hate groups. Which one is clearly not.

Please do not mistake me ignoring his point for misunderstanding it.

Regardless of the whole infiltration thing, you can't really say that the new black panthers aren't a hate group.  Unless hate against white people isn't actually hate, but is instead reverse hate.  like reverse racism, which is actually just racism.
Anyways, I'm not saying that the two are comparable, because the KKK have done way more fucked up things than the BPP have, but they aren't exactly sunshine and rainbows.

Here's one of their leaders taking about how bad he would like to kill white people, even if he has to start with just babies.
(nsfw) Kill the Crackers, Kill them all: http://youtu.be/DDb2byj74oY

I'm going to disagree strongly with this yet again.

"The" modern ku klux klan is in fact a series of small, incompetent groups that have very VERY little to do with the post-1915 "second klan" that most people think of when they think of the segregation/civil rights era KKK.
For the most part, these variegated modern klans are just loud mouthed racist propaganda pushers and protesters, and in reality, aren't that far removed from the NBPP in terms of the scope of their operations. The most these modern klans have really done in terms of violent atrocities has been a beating or two between all of these organisations since 1990. The majority of their IRL activities is nothing more than embarassingly fail-filled protests...
references:
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/groups/knights-of-the-ku-klux-klan
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/groups/imperial-klans-of-america
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/groups/church-of-the-national-knights-of-the-ku-klux-klan
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/groups/brotherhood-of-klans

concerning the NBPP:
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/groups/new-black-panther-party

There is nothing in this world funnier than a Klan apologist.  Nothing.

[hooplala]

My feelings, exactly.

[Suu]

It doesn't. But it's always lulzy if not horrormirthy to see the wafflers who go on and on about America bringing about the police state or some shit turn around and laud this approach for the greater good.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Oh, and there's a video of the "brutal robbery", you know.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maA1FUJqhew

There Brown is, paying for his cigars. (at 36 seconds)

Ferguson police's attempts to demonize Michael Brown, the unarmed African-American teen killed by Officer Darren Wilson, may have hit a small snag. The very video they released at the same time as they identified Wilson as the officer responsible for shooting Brown six times, including twice in the head, may show the opposite of what they intended.

Supposedly, the video shows Brown robbing the store, taking a box of cigars. However, the attorney for Ferguson Market says that it was not anyone from the store that called police to report a robbery. In fact, a customer called to report what he viewed as a robbery.

How, then, did police get the tape? According to St. Louis News, the attorney said, "'during the course of Ferguson's investigation, the police department from Ferguson, came to the store and asked for to review the tape." In other words, the tape was not viewed by police until after Michael Brown was dead in the street.

In their fervent effort to cast Brown in a  negative light, they missed that the video seems to show Brown paying for the Swisher Sweets.

The confrontation between Brown and the clerk may have been because Brown impatiently reached across the counter. Perhaps it was wrong for Brown to shove the employee (it is impossible to know what words were exchanged) but this footage seems to exonerate him. It is important to note that Brown only shoved the clerk after he put his hands on him.

In any case, neither the employee nor the store owner called law enforcement–something that would surely happen if Brown committed a "strong-arm robbery."

So, Von, care to explain why it was a "brutal robbery"? 

Not that it's really necessary, of course.  Your standards for what constitutes a criminal are painfully obvious by this point.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

It doesn't. But it's always lulzy if not horrormirthy to see the wafflers who go on and on about America bringing about the police state or some shit turn around and laud this approach for the greater good.

Yeah, but that joke has been done.

Pretty sure it was in Munich, in the 30s. 

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Oh, and there's a video of the "brutal robbery", you know.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maA1FUJqhew

There Brown is, paying for his cigars. (at 36 seconds)

Ferguson police's attempts to demonize Michael Brown, the unarmed African-American teen killed by Officer Darren Wilson, may have hit a small snag. The very video they released at the same time as they identified Wilson as the officer responsible for shooting Brown six times, including twice in the head, may show the opposite of what they intended.

Supposedly, the video shows Brown robbing the store, taking a box of cigars. However, the attorney for Ferguson Market says that it was not anyone from the store that called police to report a robbery. In fact, a customer called to report what he viewed as a robbery.

How, then, did police get the tape? According to St. Louis News, the attorney said, "'during the course of Ferguson's investigation, the police department from Ferguson, came to the store and asked for to review the tape." In other words, the tape was not viewed by police until after Michael Brown was dead in the street.

In their fervent effort to cast Brown in a  negative light, they missed that the video seems to show Brown paying for the Swisher Sweets.

The confrontation between Brown and the clerk may have been because Brown impatiently reached across the counter. Perhaps it was wrong for Brown to shove the employee (it is impossible to know what words were exchanged) but this footage seems to exonerate him. It is important to note that Brown only shoved the clerk after he put his hands on him.

In any case, neither the employee nor the store owner called law enforcement–something that would surely happen if Brown committed a "strong-arm robbery."

So, Von, care to explain why it was a "brutal robbery"? 

Not that it's really necessary, of course.  Your standards for what constitutes a criminal are painfully obvious by this point.

Where did Von go?  He was just here a minute ago.   

[Suu]

It doesn't. But it's always lulzy if not horrormirthy to see the wafflers who go on and on about America bringing about the police state or some shit turn around and laud this approach for the greater good.

Yeah, but that joke has been done.

Pretty sure it was in Munich, in the 30s.

I always recall you saying something about "missing the punchline."

[von]

Oh, and there's a video of the "brutal robbery", you know.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maA1FUJqhew

There Brown is, paying for his cigars. (at 36 seconds)

Ferguson police's attempts to demonize Michael Brown, the unarmed African-American teen killed by Officer Darren Wilson, may have hit a small snag. The very video they released at the same time as they identified Wilson as the officer responsible for shooting Brown six times, including twice in the head, may show the opposite of what they intended.

Supposedly, the video shows Brown robbing the store, taking a box of cigars. However, the attorney for Ferguson Market says that it was not anyone from the store that called police to report a robbery. In fact, a customer called to report what he viewed as a robbery.

How, then, did police get the tape? According to St. Louis News, the attorney said, "'during the course of Ferguson's investigation, the police department from Ferguson, came to the store and asked for to review the tape." In other words, the tape was not viewed by police until after Michael Brown was dead in the street.

In their fervent effort to cast Brown in a  negative light, they missed that the video seems to show Brown paying for the Swisher Sweets.

The confrontation between Brown and the clerk may have been because Brown impatiently reached across the counter. Perhaps it was wrong for Brown to shove the employee (it is impossible to know what words were exchanged) but this footage seems to exonerate him. It is important to note that Brown only shoved the clerk after he put his hands on him.

In any case, neither the employee nor the store owner called law enforcement–something that would surely happen if Brown committed a "strong-arm robbery."

So, Von, care to explain why it was a "brutal robbery"? 

Not that it's really necessary, of course.  Your standards for what constitutes a criminal are painfully obvious by this point.

Where did Von go?  He was just here a minute ago.   

I went to work, thats where.
cant view the video on this phone. Give me around 16 hours, ill have a response by that point.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Oh, and there's a video of the "brutal robbery", you know.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maA1FUJqhew

There Brown is, paying for his cigars. (at 36 seconds)

Ferguson police's attempts to demonize Michael Brown, the unarmed African-American teen killed by Officer Darren Wilson, may have hit a small snag. The very video they released at the same time as they identified Wilson as the officer responsible for shooting Brown six times, including twice in the head, may show the opposite of what they intended.

Supposedly, the video shows Brown robbing the store, taking a box of cigars. However, the attorney for Ferguson Market says that it was not anyone from the store that called police to report a robbery. In fact, a customer called to report what he viewed as a robbery.

How, then, did police get the tape? According to St. Louis News, the attorney said, "'during the course of Ferguson's investigation, the police department from Ferguson, came to the store and asked for to review the tape." In other words, the tape was not viewed by police until after Michael Brown was dead in the street.

In their fervent effort to cast Brown in a  negative light, they missed that the video seems to show Brown paying for the Swisher Sweets.

The confrontation between Brown and the clerk may have been because Brown impatiently reached across the counter. Perhaps it was wrong for Brown to shove the employee (it is impossible to know what words were exchanged) but this footage seems to exonerate him. It is important to note that Brown only shoved the clerk after he put his hands on him.

In any case, neither the employee nor the store owner called law enforcement–something that would surely happen if Brown committed a "strong-arm robbery."

So, Von, care to explain why it was a "brutal robbery"? 

Not that it's really necessary, of course.  Your standards for what constitutes a criminal are painfully obvious by this point.

Where did Von go?  He was just here a minute ago.   

I went to work, thats where.
cant view the video on this phone. Give me around 16 hours, ill have a response by that point.

Spoiler alert. It shows the deceased acquiring cigars by legal means.

[Da6s]

More of the same as soon as the sun went down. Saw a tweet that the Constitution doesn't seem to apply when it's dark.

Apparently media blackout was issued. Journalists forced into a press area and told if they do coverage alongside protesters they'll be arrested.

Still a few criminal instigators making it worse for everyone. Police chief and governor have been eerily quiet tonight too.

Oh, and a conflict of interest was discovered. The prosecutor on the brown case has FOUR family members on the Ferguson police force. Totally going to be a fair trial.

[von]

 

Oh, and there's a video of the "brutal robbery", you know.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maA1FUJqhew

There Brown is, paying for his cigars. (at 36 seconds)

Ferguson police's attempts to demonize Michael Brown, the unarmed African-American teen killed by Officer Darren Wilson, may have hit a small snag. The very video they released at the same time as they identified Wilson as the officer responsible for shooting Brown six times, including twice in the head, may show the opposite of what they intended.

Supposedly, the video shows Brown robbing the store, taking a box of cigars. However, the attorney for Ferguson Market says that it was not anyone from the store that called police to report a robbery. In fact, a customer called to report what he viewed as a robbery.

How, then, did police get the tape? According to St. Louis News, the attorney said, "'during the course of Ferguson's investigation, the police department from Ferguson, came to the store and asked for to review the tape." In other words, the tape was not viewed by police until after Michael Brown was dead in the street.

In their fervent effort to cast Brown in a  negative light, they missed that the video seems to show Brown paying for the Swisher Sweets.

The confrontation between Brown and the clerk may have been because Brown impatiently reached across the counter. Perhaps it was wrong for Brown to shove the employee (it is impossible to know what words were exchanged) but this footage seems to exonerate him. It is important to note that Brown only shoved the clerk after he put his hands on him.

In any case, neither the employee nor the store owner called law enforcement–something that would surely happen if Brown committed a "strong-arm robbery."

So, Von, care to explain why it was a "brutal robbery"? 

Not that it's really necessary, of course.  Your standards for what constitutes a criminal are painfully obvious by this point.

Where did Von go?  He was just here a minute ago.   

I went to work, thats where.
cant view the video on this phone. Give me around 16 hours, ill have a response by that point.

Spoiler alert. It shows the deceased acquiring cigars by legal means.

Huh, interdasting.
Ill be waiting for a video explaining how the shooting officer received a fractured eye then.

Concerning journalists:
although unfortunate, keeping them in press areas is good for their safety considering recent events such as msnbc correspondants being pelted with rocks, vice correspondants being pelted with bottles, and several miscellaneous blog-tier journalists getting robbed.

either way, im sure the window repair market in ferguson will be booming in the coming months.

[minuspace]

More of the same as soon as the sun went down. Saw a tweet that the Constitution doesn't seem to apply when it's dark.

Apparently media blackout was issued. Journalists forced into a press area and told if they do coverage alongside protesters they'll be arrested.

Still a few criminal instigators making it worse for everyone. Police chief and governor have been eerily quiet tonight too.

Oh, and a conflict of interest was discovered. The prosecutor on the brown case has FOUR family members on the Ferguson police force. Totally going to be a fair trial.

Oh, why the fuck is it not a General court-martial?

[The Johnny]

Oh, and there's a video of the "brutal robbery", you know.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maA1FUJqhew

There Brown is, paying for his cigars. (at 36 seconds)

Ferguson police's attempts to demonize Michael Brown, the unarmed African-American teen killed by Officer Darren Wilson, may have hit a small snag. The very video they released at the same time as they identified Wilson as the officer responsible for shooting Brown six times, including twice in the head, may show the opposite of what they intended.

Supposedly, the video shows Brown robbing the store, taking a box of cigars. However, the attorney for Ferguson Market says that it was not anyone from the store that called police to report a robbery. In fact, a customer called to report what he viewed as a robbery.

How, then, did police get the tape? According to St. Louis News, the attorney said, "'during the course of Ferguson's investigation, the police department from Ferguson, came to the store and asked for to review the tape." In other words, the tape was not viewed by police until after Michael Brown was dead in the street.

In their fervent effort to cast Brown in a  negative light, they missed that the video seems to show Brown paying for the Swisher Sweets.

The confrontation between Brown and the clerk may have been because Brown impatiently reached across the counter. Perhaps it was wrong for Brown to shove the employee (it is impossible to know what words were exchanged) but this footage seems to exonerate him. It is important to note that Brown only shoved the clerk after he put his hands on him.

In any case, neither the employee nor the store owner called law enforcement–something that would surely happen if Brown committed a "strong-arm robbery."

So, Von, care to explain why it was a "brutal robbery"? 

Not that it's really necessary, of course.  Your standards for what constitutes a criminal are painfully obvious by this point.

Where did Von go?  He was just here a minute ago.   

I went to work, thats where.
cant view the video on this phone. Give me around 16 hours, ill have a response by that point.

Spoiler alert. It shows the deceased acquiring cigars by legal means.

Huh, interdasting.
Ill be waiting for a video explaining how the shooting officer received a fractured eye then.

Concerning journalists:
although unfortunate, keeping them in press areas is good for their safety considering recent events such as msnbc correspondants being pelted with rocks, vice correspondants being pelted with bottles, and several miscellaneous blog-tier journalists getting robbed.

either way, im sure the window repair market in ferguson will be booming in the coming months.

Yes citizen, why dont you keep to protest designated areas in the middle of nowhere and obey curfew? Why wont you let us "safety" you and your fellows? Why do you force me to pacify you?

[Junkenstein]

So. Much. Dumb.

>suspect refuses, goes nuts and starts making threats and pull a gun (suspect just elevated shit immensely)

That's still to be determined and I doubt it's as clear as that. Either way it's a radical escalation in force with questionable intent at best.

Concerning journalists:
although unfortunate, keeping them in press areas is good for their safety considering recent events such as msnbc correspondants being pelted with rocks, vice correspondants being pelted with bottles, and several miscellaneous blog-tier journalists getting robbed.

Journalists, like other adult humans are capable of making judgements about their own safety. This is why some go and sit with soldiers in war-zones and other interview the elderly in TV studios. Restricting the movement of a journalist implies there is something occurring that is A)newsworthy and B)negative for you/others in your group.

Let's be perfectly honest here, have you read Vice? If so, then throwing a brick at some of their writers is understandable.

Here's the thing, it makes no sense. Protesters aren't going to get better media coverage by attacking/intimidating/whatever journalists. So this could be a deliberate bout of idiocy, or perhaps, somewhat more likely, shit was being flung about and among those injured are a few journalists.


Finally, has anyone mentioned that these cops have shot another kid? Because they have. Hands up if you're surprised.


Anyone?


Anyone at all?