Protesters storm police headquarters in downtown St. Louis; 5 arrests made

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: onequestion

So when the police officers were protesting how come riot squads weren't mobilized by the national guard and the police werent dispersed using violence and charged with multiple charges?

Because they are the police.

And predominantly white, that part is really important in America.

Derek

a reply to: Viesczy

Im white and ive been treat just as poorly as anyone by police.

It's about time they actually protested in the right place, they should have started at the police station and not destroyed local businesses. That would have made a better point than hurting others in the community. Looting your local grocery store because you are mad at the cops doesn't make sense. ..hopefully they can keep it in the right place this time.

They should hit up all the police stations and the mayor's office and/or house. To quote my friends in the "K Wild" band - "Shut the Mother F_ _ _ er Down!"

originally posted by: DrJunk
This is far from over, folks.

The Civil Rights Movement didn't have a turning point until the Watts Riots.

The Civil Rights movement and protesters whining about thugs suffering the consequences of being thugs have zero in common.

Protesting for the sake of protesting when the cause has no moral high-ground is idiotic. It's like the protesters in San Diego stopping traffic on the I-5 until a black dude got out of his car and told them they were idiots.

When asked what they wanted, the reply was, "An end to the police state.... and we want that by making sure all the police wear cameras so they can record our every movement."

Idiots.

originally posted by: Jamie1


When asked what they wanted, the reply was, "An end to the police state.... and we want that by making sure all the police wear cameras so they can record our every movement."

Idiots.

The parallel your trying to draw makes no sense. Cameras on police vests hold the officer accountable for their actions. And it points only where his eyes can see so there will be no additional abuse of privacy like you were insinuating.

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: Jamie1


When asked what they wanted, the reply was, "An end to the police state.... and we want that by making sure all the police wear cameras so they can record our every movement."

Idiots.

The parallel your trying to draw makes no sense. Cameras on police vests hold the officer accountable for their actions. And it points only where his eyes can see so there will be no additional abuse of privacy like you were insinuating.

Yes, it makes total sense if you want to live in a police state where every citizen's movements are recorded.

Cameras on citizens aimed at officers would be what hold the officers accountable, not the other way around.

originally posted by: Jamie1

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: Jamie1


When asked what they wanted, the reply was, "An end to the police state.... and we want that by making sure all the police wear cameras so they can record our every movement."

Idiots.

The parallel your trying to draw makes no sense. Cameras on police vests hold the officer accountable for their actions. And it points only where his eyes can see so there will be no additional abuse of privacy like you were insinuating.

Yes, it makes total sense if you want to live in a police state where every citizen's movements are recorded.

Cameras on citizens aimed at officers would be what hold the officers accountable, not the other way around.

The police have always been able to see. The camera will not see anything the officer could not have seen on their own. Putting electronic devices on citizens LMAO, is not the way around a police state.

originally posted by: Jamie1

originally posted by: DrJunk
This is far from over, folks.

The Civil Rights Movement didn't have a turning point until the Watts Riots.

The Civil Rights movement and protesters whining about thugs suffering the consequences of being thugs have zero in common.

Protesting for the sake of protesting when the cause has no moral high-ground is idiotic. It's like the protesters in San Diego stopping traffic on the I-5 until a black dude got out of his car and told them they were idiots.

When asked what they wanted, the reply was, "An end to the police state.... and we want that by making sure all the police wear cameras so they can record our every movement."

Idiots.

Thanks for the input.

originally posted by: Jamie1

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: Jamie1


When asked what they wanted, the reply was, "An end to the police state.... and we want that by making sure all the police wear cameras so they can record our every movement."

Idiots.

The parallel your trying to draw makes no sense. Cameras on police vests hold the officer accountable for their actions. And it points only where his eyes can see so there will be no additional abuse of privacy like you were insinuating.

Yes, it makes total sense if you want to live in a police state where every citizen's movements are recorded.

Cameras on citizens aimed at officers would be what hold the officers accountable, not the other way around.

Interesting premise... Please continue...

Apparently they are inside the building now looking for a good link. Its on the twitter feed earlier on page 1.

I am down with this.

Let the chaos begin!

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: Jamie1

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: Jamie1


When asked what they wanted, the reply was, "An end to the police state.... and we want that by making sure all the police wear cameras so they can record our every movement."

Idiots.

The parallel your trying to draw makes no sense. Cameras on police vests hold the officer accountable for their actions. And it points only where his eyes can see so there will be no additional abuse of privacy like you were insinuating.

Yes, it makes total sense if you want to live in a police state where every citizen's movements are recorded.

Cameras on citizens aimed at officers would be what hold the officers accountable, not the other way around.

The police have always been able to see. The camera will not see anything the officer could not have seen on their own. Putting electronic devices on citizens LMAO, is not the way around a police state.

We already have cameras on our phones. We can use them to record LEO when they're abusing us. The Garner case is a perfect example. A camera on the officer would have done zero good.

I would rather see all officers have public GPS signals showing where THEY are at, and have cameras aimed at them, not us.

LEO often demand search and seizure without warrants, and use your resistance as de facto probable cause.

No thank you.

If you like your every move recorded on video, move to London. It's not reasonable that every citizen be subjected to video surveillance based on a cop's warrentless whims.

Most of their requests should be for the Mayor. I definitely wouldn't be asking the police for these: "Their request also include amnesty for protesters who have been charged with non-violent offenses, a creation of a diverse citizens review board with subpoena power."

I'm proud of those people and how they are handling their protest, taking it to the source. GO PEOPLE!

originally posted by: Jamie1

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: Jamie1

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: Jamie1


When asked what they wanted, the reply was, "An end to the police state.... and we want that by making sure all the police wear cameras so they can record our every movement."

Idiots.

The parallel your trying to draw makes no sense. Cameras on police vests hold the officer accountable for their actions. And it points only where his eyes can see so there will be no additional abuse of privacy like you were insinuating.

Yes, it makes total sense if you want to live in a police state where every citizen's movements are recorded.

Cameras on citizens aimed at officers would be what hold the officers accountable, not the other way around.

The police have always been able to see. The camera will not see anything the officer could not have seen on their own. Putting electronic devices on citizens LMAO, is not the way around a police state.

We already have cameras on our phones. We can use them to record LEO when they're abusing us. The Garner case is a perfect example. A camera on the officer would have done zero good.

I would rather see all officers have public GPS signals showing where THEY are at, and have cameras aimed at them, not us.

LEO often demand search and seizure without warrants, and use your resistance as de facto probable cause.

No thank you.

If you like your every move recorded on video, move to London. It's not reasonable that every citizen be subjected to video surveillance based on a cop's warrentless whims.

The officer who did the choking camera would be no help but the other officers cams would have. If you reach into your pocket for your phone while engaging the officer, that might be a bad idea. Sure the smart way would be to have it out and ready but you cannot have it out all the time.

It doesn't seem realistic to camera all the citizens. A lot might not bother. It would be much easier to put them on police. It's not perfect but it is a step in the right direction.

If you want the cops to wear cameras make it a law the criminals have to. Arrested without a camera 2 more years to your sentence!!!

Happy New Year

a reply to: mikell

That's freaky.

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: Jamie1

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: Jamie1

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: Jamie1


When asked what they wanted, the reply was, "An end to the police state.... and we want that by making sure all the police wear cameras so they can record our every movement."

Idiots.

The parallel your trying to draw makes no sense. Cameras on police vests hold the officer accountable for their actions. And it points only where his eyes can see so there will be no additional abuse of privacy like you were insinuating.

Yes, it makes total sense if you want to live in a police state where every citizen's movements are recorded.

Cameras on citizens aimed at officers would be what hold the officers accountable, not the other way around.

The police have always been able to see. The camera will not see anything the officer could not have seen on their own. Putting electronic devices on citizens LMAO, is not the way around a police state.

We already have cameras on our phones. We can use them to record LEO when they're abusing us. The Garner case is a perfect example. A camera on the officer would have done zero good.

I would rather see all officers have public GPS signals showing where THEY are at, and have cameras aimed at them, not us.

LEO often demand search and seizure without warrants, and use your resistance as de facto probable cause.

No thank you.

If you like your every move recorded on video, move to London. It's not reasonable that every citizen be subjected to video surveillance based on a cop's warrentless whims.

The officer who did the choking camera would be no help but the other officers cams would have. If you reach into your pocket for your phone while engaging the officer, that might be a bad idea. Sure the smart way would be to have it out and ready but you cannot have it out all the time.

It doesn't seem realistic to camera all the citizens. A lot might not bother. It would be much easier to put them on police. It's not perfect but it is a step in the right direction.

I understand why it's easy to believe this. I really do. I hate the semi-police state in SoCal. I hate border guards stopping me in the middle of the state on the way to Palm Springs.

I personally don't see how it's going to benefit me if they have the camera aimed at me while they pull me over for questioning. An entire country of LEO with 24/7/365 videos being recorded just doesn't seem like something that will benefit us. It does sound like something that will be abused by those in power.

You have more faith in politicians than I do.

a reply to: onequestion

as long as they do not yell for peace,violence and war and if they remain steadfast and absolute in their resolve then they will overcome the current situation there withour any harm.

originally posted by: Chrisfishenstein
THERE HAS TO BE AN EASIER AND NON VIOLENT WAY TO GET THIS ACCOMPLISHED!!! I would think anyways....What do you think?

In general, peoples' attention spans are too short to do what has to happen "the right way". And that is, when a few years pass and it's election time again for that judge or that DA or the mayor or the city councilmen or however it's set up in that municipality, that you let them know they are fired. And you let the ones coming in know they won't GET in unless they promise to put in initiative and recall, if you don't have it, and unless they agree to do what needs done with the local cops.

Up against you, you've got the cops' pull with the DA and the mayor, and the power of the police unions, and their hold on the local media.

But, if you can get into law a tool to remove politicians from office, right then, then the electorate can begin to compel the pols to do what they want.

As is, if you can't oust the mayor with a petition and a vote he can't bollix, then he will wait and the news will go quiet and everyone will forget. Being able to put the DA on the street with a recall would be superb, then he'd REALLY have to make a decision - am I more afraid to lose my job because of the police unions, or because the public will toss my ass on the bricks? That's why you will never see that one.