Hmmm, 'strong-arm' robbery? Were firearms involved? Admittedly it shows Brown capable of having aggressive actions which leads credibility to the reports that there was a physical scuffle before Brown was shot.

However, there's still open questions here that are set aside from the death of Brown, questions that I hope won't be swept under the carpet in the light of this new information.

That's the risk you run by having a welfare system, short of exterminating the poor (which I am quite sure some governments would just love to do) you really can't avoid that. You can make life hard for those on welfare, but eventually they will bite back and you will also wind up persecuting thousands of innocent claimants, but if you make it too easy for them then they will stay on it and you'll wind up with more claimants than workers.
However, even if the entirity of Ferguson are on welfare checks and rob QuikTrips on a daily basis, does that really give the police a blank card to use rubber bullets, tear gas, and sonic dispersal methods against people legitimately protesting? I'm sure there was something in the First Amendment about the right to freedom of assembly, wasn't there? :hmmm:

Well, how about if we have jobs for them...say, the jobs we have 10 million illegal aliens doing? No, wait. Those are not jobs Americans will do. Nevermind.

Seriously, no one is talking about exterminating anyone, that's a pretty poor argument. This country has a lot of opportunity, free basic education, laws against discrimination. I think the onus is on the individual to take care of himself, unless he is sick or crippled. Short time welfare, sure. Long term, that's counterproductive to society. As we can see in today's America. "Give us welfare, housing, health care, and food stamps or we'll rob you and kill you". Basically, what you are saying is "let's buy off the criminal element in our society".

Oh, goodness, I know, I wasn't suggesting that anyone was talking about exterminating them, that was an off the cuff remark really :03:. Long term welfare is quite detrimental I guess, when you look at it, but it's finding a way of balancing it without screwing up the lives of those who have been on long term welfare but who aren't thieves or murderers. How does welfare for people registered as disabled work in the US? Because in the UK there's been problems with people who are disabled being classed as not disabled enough and being told they have to work or lose their benefits, and that has lead to more than a few suicides as people who can't work are told they have to or they'll have no money to exist with. Thankfully ATOS (the privatised French-based company that was responsible for assessing people) have had the contract taken away from them, but it's still a mess and there are still a lot of people who are going through the system and the system is failing them.
Obviously is a person is fully fit and healthy and still refuses to find employment then there is a problem and I won't deny that there are people who have that problem, I've seen a high number of them come through my workplace, usually lasting no more than a week (if that), but as...I believe it's Sailor Steve's signature rightfully says "A right should not be with-held from the people because of the abuse of that right by a minority" (or something along those lines) and protection from poverty, that safety net, should be a right that the government should provide its citizens. 'Freedom from want' I believe Roosevelt put it. :yep:

I sometimes wonder if the solution is to get rid of welfare and like programs and go back to state/county homes where the homeless/indigent can receive food, a safe place to live, and supervised treatment/rehabilitation/training in a controlled and restricted environment.

Perhaps the social experiment of giving poor people money and hopping they will become productive members of society doesn't work.

Running county/state homes/farms may be less expensive in the long run too. These county/state homes/farms should be nice clean and safe places to live. But I think that chances of encouraging people to get off social support may be better if they are required to live in controlled environments.

If we want to help the poor survive, then give them food and shelter. Giving them money and hoping they use it for food and shelter may not be the practical solution.

I dunno. Maybe my "solution" ain't such a good one. :06: But I do think the current solution ain't so hot either. :yep:

So maybe you and I agree in general but differ in specifics.

What is your workplace? These folks coming in, they are disabled or "underprivileged"/poverty?

You know, there is that elephant in the room: drugs. The selling and use, the cost, how drugs effectively take people out of the workforce and cause crime. I think its a shame that the people affected by drugs, probably a sizable portion of the unemployed in Ferguson, (see Act Four. Invisible Man. http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radi...157/transcript ) can't expect help from law enforcement. Wait, maybe that's what this 20% unemployment is about? :hmmm:

I know a few people who are on Social Security disability. That's not counting the customers I took credit apps for at the motorcycle shop who were trying to buy a $5000 motorcycle using their SS disability as their sole income ("I have other money but its all off the books".... I heard that a few times!). One woman has a visual impairment, she can see but not well enough to drive, she gets a check for that. Who would argue that she doesn't need help? Not me. But I am 99% certain that if she did not get something from the govt., she would not start robbing and assaulting convenience store clerks. I guess my main point is, people who need our help should get it, people who do not need it should not get it, and those who are providing that help should have all the say in how it is distributed.

Even then, some times you cannot help no matter how sweet the deal

You can tell I listen to this program a lot :) Here's an interesting social experiment to help poor city folks... listen and comment, I am interested in what you think.

Also, I cannot say I will ever accept a few molotovs as a legitimate exercise of the First Amendment. :cool:

They have those now. They're called county jails.:shucks:
At any rate, you're suggesting that the poor don't deserve the same freedoms as the tax paying public? That they should be locked away under the supervision of guards and wardens? To be told how to live. How to work. How to eat. You're right. Not a good solution at all.
Suffice it to say that the governments aren't receptive to spending money to train or hire poor people for work. That would cut into the gravy jobs for their relatives and they won't allow their nepotism to be threatened by anyone. It's easier for them to pay the poor to stay at home.


As for the tax money, that gets stolen by the biggest welfare queens to ever tread the good earth. They're called politicians.:-? Mostly successful lawyers who get tired of working to bilk their pay out of clients and retire to the house and the senate to lounge around in their leather chairs a few hours a day dreaming up new ways to screw us all in perpetuation of their species and then spend their afternoons at the club or on the golf course. Laughing at all of us voters who think they have the power of choice.

Ubirats love government cheese. It tastes like freedom.:haha:

I think we do agree to be honest, Neal, I don't see anything that unreasonable in what you've said, I just tend to have some sympathy for those on unemployment benefit or disability benefit who are legitimately so, having known a few who have been through the rather humiliating process of having to prove that they are disabled, which is mentally degrading at the best of times, but equally that tends to depend on who you see when you have your medical examination (note, I'm not suggesting for a second that you're unsympathetic towards the aforementioned people, I'm just explaining where I'm coming from when I take the...softly-softly approach to welfare...that and there's also the factor that I'm a complete softie who tends to fall for most sob stories... :03: :haha:)

It's at a hotel, I don't recall us ever hiring any physically disabled people, but we've had some...special cases. In regards to underprivileged, none that I can think of, however I live on the Suffolk coast, it really doesn't get very underprivileged out here, especially in comparison to the inner cities.
There's a few trouble spots around, but in comparison to places like London and Birmingham, it's a picnic.

That's not just an elephant, that's a floating pink elephant...no, wait, I digress. It is a big problem, and not many of the solutions that we've thrown at it have worked, I'm interested to see how...was it Colorado who legalised weed? How they get on with overall drug crime, whether it decreases or increases as a result.

Not going to argue there, however that's an awful lot of power to put in one organisation, it is in some cases a literal life or death scenario, and unfortunately the human factor means that no matter who you put in charge of sorting the real claimants from the fakers, some of either sort are going to slip through the net, but there certainly are ways you can improve matters...for example not shipping the decision making process to a privatised company who is completely inept, that helps. :haha:

I shall load it up tomorrow while I'm tooling around in Minecraft and have a listen. From the quote you've highlighted though I can agree that there are quite a few people out there who are completely unequipped for work. I must admit some days I fear that I am one of them, however I do have a job, it's not a full-time one, but it is one nonetheless, and I consider myself better off than many. :yep:

Understandable, however if I recall my Wednesday night time-line correctly the molotovs happened after the police cracked out the tear-gas, sonic weapons and rubber bullets. I believe what actually triggered the police was an empty plastic bottle bouncing off one of the cars, the bullhorn then said something along the lines of "This is no longer a peaceful protest, there is a threat to public safety" and less than fifty seconds later the first tear gas canisters came bouncing down the road.

Al and Jesse getting things under control

Huh, well that was unexpected. When I went to bed last night it was fairly quiet, but then it seems it all kicked off. :nope:
Well, they've ruined their chances of peaceful dialogue it seems, which is a shame, but then after the news released yesterday about Brown, I guess it's possible that they thought that there would be no chance of a dialogue anyway. Still, on the up side, it's got people talking about the wisdom of arming the police better than the National Guard. :yep: So if any good is going to come out of this sorry mess, I guess that's it.
Still, the police seem to have reacted a bit better, they backed up and reorganised themselves before attempting to regain order, I expect tonight will see a heavier, more armed police presence if this is the way things are going to roll. :hmmm: Kudos to the community leaders and members of the crowd attempting to control the looting and rioting though, goes to show that they're not all bad eggs.

EDIT:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BvI7DYSIAAAyBz_.jpg

Take a look at this pic, at first glance it looks like they're looting the store, but actually, they're protecting it. The Beauty Supply store was broken into by rioters, but they were chased off and these men arrived to protect it from other opportunists.

If there's more looting, there should be a curfew, anyone found on the streets after that arrested. As always, not much concern for those that do business, but they should be protected.

I am not getting why "at first glance it looks like they're looting the store"

What did you mean by that?

All good opinions for the most part, but I think the police should be trained out of this shoot to kill attitude they've adopted. They're supposed to be marksmen and wounding a suspect can be just as effective IMHO. Unless the perp is armed and shooting back at them, then they can use deadly force with impunity. Better to record it too.

oh please Wolferz....most police aren't trained marksmen, nor or they trained to shoot to wound, they shoot to kill. The police see these cities of gangs as warzones and I'm sure for the most part it's a one size fits all approach.

I doubt we'll ever know the truth. I don't trust the so called witnesses claims, I would expect them to say that. The only hope of the truth is through legal inquiry, courts, cross examination, etc.. That's the process we should be waiting for, not all the race baiting, looting, etc.

It's not about truth anymore, it's about lawsuits, money, lawyers, media, race baiters like Al and Jesse fanning the flames. The looting is just a big opportunity for people to use this to get some free stuff.

I do agree the police are getting out of control, ignoring the constitution and becoming to militaristic in their approach.

Well, to the untrained eye, a group of tough looking black men standing around a store with its windows broken in would probably not jump to the first conclusion that they are protecting the store from looters.

will get interesting....curfew, but the crowds are getting larger. also some businesses are arming themselves.

get ready to watch the flames..