MO - Grief & protests follow shooting of teen Michael Brown #18

[LambChop]

?? So OW blocked Canfield with his SUV, knowing the ambulance was coming through?? JMO

No. I believe if you look at the pictures of the way the SUV was parked you will see there was enough room for the ambulance to get through on the other side of the road. You can see in the beginning of this video that there was room. However the tape was already up but they would have let the ambulance through.

http://aattp.org/video-shows-ferguson-police-dumping-michael-browns-body-into-suv-nsfw/

 

[MyBelle]

bbm sbm

Lovejac, brilliant.

Mo House of Reps & Senate use Robert's Rules of Order for committee hearings and floor debates on proposed laws
The obvious choice of ppl to explain, inform, educate are current & past Ferguson and/or St.L area legislators.
Ppl in those positions - in the political tent - know how the systems work.
Not talking about just RRoO, but logistics, mechanics, strategy, tactics that work,
not shrill screams, threats of violence, looting, Molotov cocktails.

JM2cts.

The tactics being used are embraced by the New Black Panthers and their followers. They advocate violence, which is why the original BP leaders have distanced themselves. This is why police have reacted as they have. The crowd was out of control almost immediately following the shooting and Brown's mother had to beg them to step back. That fact, in itself, shows some people not only are not afraid of cops but also that they were openly antagonistic of police prior to the shooting. My guess is that this is one and the same group that neighbors were complaining about to the media.

JMO

 

[katydid23]

Looks like they are going after the council members next....


https://twitter.com/FergusonMafia/status/509758163155832833/photo/1

 

[Dana]

I agree that the citizens at the council meeting were not following RRO however, there was no violence and it was considered Freedom of Speech - they would deem this to be violated by being escorted out.

Shouting, chanting and threats were, IMO, all that was accomplished. Maybe someone else saw this as productive. Unless the people attending get violent, there is no need for police control. Sending in more PD than was already there, would IMO, cite a riot among those attending (just like in the streets). I'm thinking some want to be arrested to show how overpowering and unfair the PD is in Ferguson not to mention their civil rights were taken away.

If a council meeting is met with only shouting, chanting, demands and threats, what's the point of the meeting? My thought would be to send in a few negotiators instead of an angry mob. Surely, at least ONE of these people can TALK and be heard but I don't see that happening from watching the last meeting.

 

[katydid23]

I agree that the citizens at the council meeting were not following RRO however, there was no violence and it was considered Freedom of Speech - they would deem this to be violated by being escorted out.

Shouting, chanting and threats were, IMO, all that was accomplished. Maybe someone else saw this as productive. Unless the people attending get violent, there is no need for police control. Sending in more PD than was already there, would IMO, cite a riot among those attending (just like in the streets). I'm thinking some want to be arrested to show how overpowering and unfair the PD is in Ferguson not to mention their civil rights were taken away.

If a council meeting is met with only shouting, chanting, demands and threats, what's the point of the meeting? My thought would be to send in a few negotiators instead of an angry mob. Surely, at least ONE of these people can TALK and be heard but I don't see that happening from watching the last meeting.

The best thing would be to get a negotiator they would respect, and get the crowd to listen, and be able to be productive. If they want to talk about getting a police review board, for example, they need to learn how to communicate their concerns effectively. Not just shout speakers down and then chant. They need to choose one or two good speakers to set forth their suggestions and criticisms concisely.

 

[reedus23]

I don't know about that- it seems he majority of witnesses did not see any reason why OW would perceive MB as a threat. That's concenring.
MOO.

That will be ignored. There are enough witnesses who, unless their testimony is different, who indicate MB wasn't a threat that I would think an indictment should be more likely than not because the standard is so much lower. A conviction is a whole different story.

 

[MyBelle]

But the I-70 protest was easier for the cops to justify. The people were about to do something very dangerous, thus arresting them was a given. It is a lot harder when the audience is sitting in at a council meeting, and wanting the chance to speak up. Not as easy to justify forcibly removing someone for not following Robertsons Rules of Order.

I disagree. I don't believe it is any more difficult for police to arrest someone who is disrupting a city council meeting than it is if they are disrupting the flow of traffic. While the public might be allowed at a legislative meeting, they also must follow the rules of procedure or they will be asked to leave. If they refuse, they will be arrested.

JMO

 

[reedus23]

ita - but imo the mayor at the last meeting made a wrong decision by answering one of the people's questions. i wonder why he did that?

You're right. He should ignore his constituents.

 

[MyBelle]

I agree that the citizens at the council meeting were not following RRO however, there was no violence and it was considered Freedom of Speech - they would deem this to be violated by being escorted out.

Shouting, chanting and threats were, IMO, all that was accomplished. Maybe someone else saw this as productive. Unless the people attending get violent, there is no need for police control. Sending in more PD than was already there, would IMO, cite a riot among those attending (just like in the streets). I'm thinking some want to be arrested to show how overpowering and unfair the PD is in Ferguson not to mention their civil rights were taken away.

If a council meeting is met with only shouting, chanting, demands and threats, what's the point of the meeting? My thought would be to send in a few negotiators instead of an angry mob. Surely, at least ONE of these people can TALK and be heard but I don't see that happening from watching the last meeting.

The council chose not to enforce the procedural rules and allowed people to be disruptive at the last meeting. I doubt they allow such disruptions at the next meeting. I think those that speak will be required to provide their name and address, for starters.

JMO

 

[MyBelle]

That will be ignored. There are enough witnesses who, unless their testimony is different, who indicate MB wasn't a threat that I would think an indictment should be more likely than not because the standard is so much lower. A conviction is a whole different story.

I think the Grand Jury will find Officer Wilson to be the most credible witness. They must determine what HIS perception was of Brown being a threat. Some guy standing 50 yards away has no clue as to what degree Officer Wilson was assaulted, the struggle for the weapon or what was said by Brown to Wilson.

JMO

 

[hambirg]

I actually think they should hold the council meetings and let them proceed just the way the last one did.

A la The Art of War . . .sometimes the best way to win is not to fight at all. Those speakers certainly didn't gain any credibility or legitamacy, did they? Let them destroy themselves.

 

[MyBelle]

I actually think they should hold the council meetings and let them proceed just the way the last one did.

A la The Art of War . . .sometimes the best way to win is not to fight at all. Those speakers certainly didn't gain any credibility or legitamacy, did they? Let them destroy themselves.

I don't believe a governmental body allowing anarchy is the answer.

 

[al66pine]

"ARTICLE VII. - PEDESTRIANS
Sec. 44-344. - Manner of walking along roadway.
(a)
Where sidewalks are provided, it shall be unlawful for any pedestrian to walk along and upon an adjacent roadway.
(b)
Where sidewalks are not provided, any pedestrian walking along and upon a highway shall, when practicable, walk only on the left side of the roadway or its shoulder facing traffic which may approach from the opposite direction.
State law reference— Similar provisions, RSMo 300.405." Mostly my bolding.
https://www.municode.com/library/mo...nces/PTIICOOR_CH44TRMOVE_ARTVIIPE_S44-345DUDR

Somebody on W/S posted - on the Canfield St where MB & DJ were walking, there were sidewalks on both side sides of street.
Jaywalking or not, whatever you want to call MB & DJ's actions, they were violating a city ordinance when OW passed them.

They may have violated another city ordinance if they failed to yield right of way to other vehicles, esp LE vehicle,
and forced vehicle(s) to get into oncoming traffic lane to avoid hitting them.
"Sec. 44-342. - When pedestrians to yield right-of-way. (a)
Every pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point, other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection, shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles upon the roadway."bbm, same link

As others have posted, walking along st., where sidewalks are avail, seems stoooooopid as well as unlawful.
Ditto, if MB & DJ's presence in st forced vehicles to go around, to avoid hitting them.
MB's violations of above sections of Ferguson city code are in addition to any violations of Mo. state criminal code sections.
JM2cts.

 

[hambirg]

I don't believe a governmental body allowing anarchy is the answer.

Well, to excert any control will just feed the fire. I don't think it was complete anarchy, just angry people making fools of themselves. My answer to that is let them. Shine the light on just how absurd some of their demands are. By doing so, they will lose support of the resonable masses.

 

[popsicle]

"ARTICLE VII. - PEDESTRIANS
Sec. 44-344. - Manner of walking along roadway.
(a)
Where sidewalks are provided, it shall be unlawful for any pedestrian to walk along and upon an adjacent roadway.
(b)
Where sidewalks are not provided, any pedestrian walking along and upon a highway shall, when practicable, walk only on the left side of the roadway or its shoulder facing traffic which may approach from the opposite direction.
State law reference— Similar provisions, RSMo 300.405." Mostly my bolding.
https://www.municode.com/library/mo...nces/PTIICOOR_CH44TRMOVE_ARTVIIPE_S44-345DUDR

Somebody on W/S posted - on the Canfield St where MB & DJ were walking, there were sidewalks on both side sides of street.
Jaywalking or not, whatever you want to call MB & DJ's actions, they were violating a city ordinance when OW passed them.

They may have violated another city ordinance if they failed to yield right of way to other vehicles, esp LE vehicle,
and forced vehicle(s) to get into oncoming traffic lane to avoid hitting them.
"Sec. 44-342. - When pedestrians to yield right-of-way. (a)
Every pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point, other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection, shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles upon the roadway."bbm, same link

As others have posted, walking along st., where sidewalks are avail, seems stoooooopid as well as unlawful.
Ditto, if MB & DJ's presence in st forced vehicles to go around, to avoid hitting them.
MB's violations of above sections of Ferguson city code are in addition to any violations of Mo. state criminal code sections.
JM2cts.

A couple nights ago I watched a brief stream where a rag tag bunch were protesting in the road and stopping traffic as they went along. The next morning, after several were arrested, they were complaining because of the charge...'manner of walk'.

 

[Dana]

A couple nights ago I watched a brief stream where a rag tag bunch were protesting in the road and stopping traffic as they went along. The next morning, after several were arrested, they were complaining because of the charge...'manner of walk'.

LOL that's weird, why not - Obstructing Traffic?

 

[i.b.nora]

For those who care about such things, I believe the upcoming meeting is a County Council meeting, not a City Council meeting. The meeting is in Clayton, not Ferguson. Its a different cast of characters. Since they have forewarning, I personally think they would be wise to put their planned agenda aside and listen to the people. If I was in charge that's what I would do.
Unless there is some utter emergency in the planned agenda, and I didn't notice anything when i scanned it, I would move the concerns of the people right to the top.

There are 7 Council Districts in St Louis County. Ferguson is in Council District 1. Hazel Erby is the council member from District 1. She is also currently the Chair of the Council. There are 7 Council members: 6 white, 1 black; 5 Democrats, 2 Republican.

 

[popsicle]

LOL that's weird, why not - Obstructing Traffic?

:dunno: I have to leave but I will try to dig it up when I get home.

 

[MyBelle]

Well, to excert any control will just feed the fire. I don't think it was complete anarchy, just angry people making fools of themselves. My answer to that is let them. Shine the light on just how absurd some of their demands are. By doing so, they will lose support of the resonable masses.

They never have had the support of the reasonable masses. What you are suggesting is for public officials to allow anarchy and not do the job they were elected to do. That won't happen, imo.

 

[DebinGA]

http://www.stlamerican.com/news/political_eye/article_52a2bcb2-3963-11e4-b463-9372ebfa5ff3.html

This article describes several different factions formed in the aftermath of MB's death/riots. One is called Ferguson United:

"At 1 p.m. the press conference tour moved to Plaza 51 on South Florissant Road in Ferguson, where a new coalition of African-American elected officials who represent parts of Ferguson announced a new campaign of civic engagement. State Rep. Courtney Curtis, St. Louis County Councilwoman Hazel Erby and Ferguson Township Committeewoman Patricia Bynes – all African-American Democrats – said they are starting weekly meetings intended to educate Ferguson residents about the political process and groom new candidates for elected and appointed office." ....
“There is this talk of recalling the mayor,” Bynes said. “We need to slow down and take a few steps first. First we should go to the City Council and ask for a vote of no confidence. We don’t want anybody to jump to conclusions. We need to start with very small steps.”

Left unanswered is why those Democrats failed to get more AA folks to vote much earlier.