Ferguson No-Fly Zone Revealed As Anti-Media Tactic 265
The AP (here, carried by the San Francisco Chronicle) reports that recorded conversations reveal flight restrictions requested in August by the police force of Ferguson, MO, and agreed to by Federal aviation safety officials, were specifically intended to limit the access of journalists to the area, rather than purely in response to safety concerns. One FAA manager in Kansas City was recorded saying police "did not care if you ran commercial traffic through this TFR (temporary flight restriction) all day long. They didn't want media in there."
"There is really ... no option for a [Temporary Flight Restriction] that says, you know, 'OK, everybody but the media is OK,'" he said. The managers then worked out wording they felt would keep news helicopters out of the controlled zone but not impede other air traffic.
The conversations contradict claims by the St. Louis County Police Department, which responded to demonstrations following the shooting death of 18-year-old Michael Brown, that the restriction was solely for safety and had nothing to do with preventing media from witnessing the violence or the police response.
Police said at the time, and again as recently as late Friday to the AP, that they requested the flight restriction in response to shots fired at a police helicopter.
But police officials confirmed there was no damage to their helicopter and were unable to provide an incident report on the shooting. On the tapes, an FAA manager described the helicopter shooting as unconfirmed "rumors."
While I hate the media circus... (Score:5, Informative)
This is illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.allposters.co.uk/-s... [allposters.co.uk]
Re:While I hate the media circus... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:While I hate the media circus... (Score:5, Insightful)
Funny, I always assumed that that only applied to handset printing presses such as existed during the 18th Century, and reporters who travelled by sailing ship, horse, or foot to find and spread the story....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
... and to a "well regulated militia"...
Re: (Score:2)
2007? What happened in 2007? Run up to the financial crash when Wall Street screwed everyone?
I think we should go back to 1776 to get the real story.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The second amendment does not say "in order to maintain a well regulated militia". There is no constraining clause at all. There is a justifying phrase. Whether or not you think that justifying phrase applies today or not makes no difference. That clause does not constrain the amendment in any way. nor is it in anyway a prerequisite of the amendment.
The Supreme Court has allowed a lot of bullshit, yes. Just because they're in a position of authority doesn't make them correct.
Re: (Score:3)
illegal
What statute has been violated?
The First Amendment prohibits the prior restraint of speech except in *very* narrow circumstances.
Lots of things are illegal without violating a statute--they may violate the Constitution, or a regulation promulgated pursuant to a statute, for example.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm staying, I'm finishing my coffee. Enjoying my coffee.
Re: (Score:2)
Flying helicopters over a city is speech now?
Read the amendment, shitwick. Not only does it apply to speech, it applies to the explicitly to the press, enabling them to both get the news and tell the news, regardless of what the government wants.
whoever is responsible... (Score:3, Interesting)
And there are probably at least a dozen. They should all do at least 20 years. They are the worst evil garbage imaginable.
Re:whoever is responsible... (Score:5, Insightful)
Aiming guns at currently non-violent protesters was not enough to cause outrage (among a great many more blatant violations, but this is?!
Face it, those in charge will get a slap on the wrist at best at this point. Power has corrupted, and it is too late to do anything meaningful. If you try expect to get on a secret list and have your life screwed with royally. Hunker down and hope you aren't alredy on a list to get "disappeared".
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Pants Up, Don't Loot!
What a surprise (not) (Score:5, Insightful)
Somebody should go to jail over this.
It won't happen, though.
Re:What a surprise (not) (Score:5, Insightful)
There are too many he said she said. Unconfirmable statements, only muddy it further. Unless an insider blows the whistle, the guilty will walk.
A really nasty federal grand jury could put the screws on those who deserve to be punished. They might have to dig into their retirement fund to pay for legal advice. Some pain, less than what most of them deserve. The ones simply following orders don't need a lawyer. The truth, my boss told me to do this and I believed him/her, should protect them. They didn't commit a crime. Don't kill the messenger.
Perhaps the idiot at the FAA that accepted this may pay. Probably not fired, but at least enough damage to make someone else think twice before accepting a sack of bull$#1t.
Re:What a surprise (not) (Score:5, Insightful)
A really nasty federal grand jury could put the screws on those who deserve to be punished.
Yeah, good luck finding a prosecutor who will go after the State for protecting its power by hiding its abuses from the press. That's a career-killer for any ladder-climbing prosecutor, and it appears all the other types have been driven from the vocation at this point.
Re:What a surprise (not) (Score:4, Insightful)
Though unfortunate, I believe you are correct. There is a lot of abuses in Ferguson which should have already landed officials in jail, outside of the obvious. Police have repeated targeted journalists, even firing Tear Gas directly at an Al Jazeera TV crew, and after chasing them away turned off their cameras and turned down their lights. RT and Infowars also had crews attacked by police. Before you "but but those guys are *insert something silly* they provide information which no other agency is providing.
People in power _WANT_ to take out media so that the only thing people see is what they script. They want the issue to be black vs. white, because if it looks that way instead of corruption people poke at each other instead of looking at officials. The agenda behind all of this is easy to see, because they do it all the time. Citizen and Blog media is blowing their cover, and they really hate it.
Back on point, they have already said that the cop that shot Michael Brown would probably not face any charges, even what should be obviously excessive use of force. So the trend of Police brutality and corruption will continue, until of course people just start killing dirty cops. I don't advocate vigilantism, but at a certain point people will see there is no choice.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So the guy commits a strong arm robbery on video, then attacks a cop who's investigating and gets shot while going for the cops gun at close range, and it's police brutality?
I'm all for making police accountable, but this seems like a bad ticket to ride on.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The cop had no idea about the robbery at the time of the shooting. He was reprimanding them for blocking traffic by walking in the middle of the street.
The perp however knew he just robbed a place and that probably drove his action to attack the cop and try for his gun. I believe the cop had reasonable fear for his life because without knowledge of the robbery, the actions seem like that of a crazy person hell bent on harming him. Had the cop known of the robbery, i suspect the entire approach as well as th
Re:What a surprise (not) (Score:5, Insightful)
That might explain the shooting that occurred at the police car, but it doesn't justify the fatal shots. You just don't get to claim self-defense when your adversary is running away! (Or when the adversary has given up trying to run and has decided to surrender instead, for that matter.)
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't say it excused anything, i said i can see why/where the cop was afraid for his life.
Make no mistake, i belive this cop was in the wrong but not because of any ill or malicious intent. I believe he was scared out of his mind and acted on that fear when bullshit jaywalking stop turned life threatenting.
Re: (Score:3)
Really? Scared out of his mind... why? He's a goddamned cop! He's supposed to be trained to deal with exactly that kind of confrontation without overreacting that way! For that matter, he's supposed to be trained to manage the situation so that he doesn't put himself in that position to begin with!
Think about it: the asshole cop pulled up alongside and tried to talk
Re: (Score:3)
According to witnesses, the officer started shooting while Brown was still running away: "The cop gets out of his vehicle shooting," Mitchell said. "(Brown's) body jerked as if he was hit from behind, and he turned around and he put his hands up. ... The cop continued to fire until he just dropped down to the ground, and his face just smacked the concrete."
Brown must have been some kind of acrobat, in order to 'lunge for the cop' while facing the opposite
Re: (Score:2)
Brown must have been some kind of acrobat, in order to 'lunge for the cop' while facing the opposite direction!
Sure, or maybe eyewitness testimony is the least reliable form of evidence because people get shit wrong all the time.
There have been 3 autopsies; none have shown any evidence that he was shot in the back.
Re: (Score:3)
Unfortunately for your argument, even that circumstance is under dispute. By some accounts, the officer tried to quickly open his car door while he was too close to Brown, the door bounced off him and hit the officer, and then the officer shot Brown (the first time) in retaliation for his own stupidity.
(Continuing the same account) after getting
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe Brown had been playing too much GTA. I cannot even pretend to understand all of his motivations. But we do know he robbed a store and would likely be facing jail time. Perhaps he just though the jail time would have been pound me in the ass penetentry time?
Re: (Score:2)
As others have pointed out the Cop did not know about the robbery so it was not a factor. Now, let us say he did.. was it armed robbery? No. Even if the Cop knew about the robbery deadly force was not required. Every police department I know of has non-lethal weapons and more than 1 officer, meaning that there are obvious options outside of shooting to kill.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Trying to grab your gun isn't "surrender" in white cop guy land.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And if he had been shot to death while struggling for the cops gun I'd agree with you. But you don't get to shoot the guy when he is yards away with his hands up in the air. The fact the cop was able to empty the entire clip into him, including two shots to the head, strongly suggests that control of the officers weapon was not in question.
Re:What a surprise (not) (Score:5, Interesting)
They found the deceased's blood *in* the cop car and on the cop's uniform and *on his gun*. Multiple witnesses said the scuffle and shootings happened inside the car (even the guy's buddy who tried to make it sound like the cop pulled the huge guy INTO the cop car while sitting in it, LOL).
http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/18/... [cnn.com]
"FBI forensic tests showed the gun was fired twice in the car, with one bullet hitting Brown's arm while the second one missed, the newspaper said.
In addition to Wilson's uniform and gun, forensic tests found the teen's blood on the interior door panel of his car, The Times said."
Although I bet you'll claim CNN is some left wing news outfit making shit up and the FBI is in on it.
Re: (Score:3)
You completely missed the point in my GP about controlling narrative. I don't trust CNN as far as I can spit. In fact the one of the forensics experts was on the local radio here (910AM in the Bay Area) and has threatened to sue at least one media outlet for fabricating information and taking some of her work out of context, taking quotes from an off the record interview and using those with evidence instead of the correct quotes.
CNN has a very long history of fabricating stories as "news" and being an es
Re: (Score:2)
Could you perhaps post some kind of evidence to the contrary of the FBI's current findings?
If anyone is attempting to control the narrative, it seems to be you.
Re: (Score:2)
Riight I need to prove your lies. Gotcha.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Going for a cop's gun is not anyone's definition of surrendering.
Re: (Score:3)
No. Nobody fucking did! Why? Because there weren't any! If there were, he would have gone to the fucking ambulance and had them treat him instead of standing around.
The officer only decided to seek treatment later, because he realized it might help his bullshit excuse. That is the action of someone who not only wasn't hurt, but who knew he was wrong.
I deny jack-booted t
Re:What a surprise (not) (Score:4, Insightful)
You have more logical fallacies in your post than you do sentences.
The problem is that many things that are "obvious" to you are wrong. Did you inspect officer Wilson's injuries? The problem is that many things that are "obvious" to you are wrong. Did you inspect officer Wilson's injuries?
TFA and my argument was regarding the establishment abusing power in order to control the narrative. Officer Wilson's alleged injuries are not relevant. Worse, the officer was not reported to be harmed at the scene, received no medical treatment on the scene, or even after he was removed from the location. So you start with a Strawman and cum hoc ergo propter hoc, then move to Argumentum ad verecundiam and appeal to assertion.
Do you deny officer's the right to self defense? Or is it open season for police officers for you?
Ahh, the ole ad hominem based on a argumentum ad misericordiam. Obviously if I'm against police brutality I must be supporting people randomly shooting cops, because there is no place between those two points.
I guess we know now.
Argumentum ad populum, or perhaps argumentum ad numerum. No you don't know, and no the populace does not agree with you.
Will no one rid me of the troublesome priest?
False dichotomy based on previous fallacy arguments. There are countless options in between promoting vigilante killing of dirty police and allowing police free reign to abuse the populace they are sworn to protect.
Would you care to go another round shill? I do mean shill with all of it's interesting implications, since whether you are paid or not you have a history of arguing as a pro-establishment mouth piece.
Re: (Score:2)
Killing one innocent person is a problem, but impeding the press is actually worse because it allows them to cover up the fact that the killing wasn't an isolated incident, but rather a pattern of systemic police abuse. Places like Daily Kos are compiling lists... but of course, they can't get heard on the mainstream media so nobody but the partisans has the opportunity to care.
Re: (Score:2)
There are other cases too, like Milt Olin.
Political science (Score:5, Funny)
This is why we need to give power back to the states!
Oh, wait, that didn't work.
Give it to the feds!
Honestly? They were pretty shit too.
Hail the king!
Ehh, he really made a mess of things last time.
Power to the corporations!
No, wait, that was a complete disaster.
We could try giving it to the people again, but let's face it: they're as selfish and shortsighted as the rest.
Okay, I'm open for suggestions at this point. Horses, maybe?
Re:Political science (Score:4, Informative)
One word: Kodos.
Re: (Score:2)
pshaw! Vote Kang!
Re: (Score:2)
Kang's a genocidal alien monster.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Give it to God?
So... you want to go back to Israel's period of being rule by judges?
Bold. I love it.
Re: (Score:2)
No problem, just have him stop by any time and he can have it.
Re: (Score:2)
nope.
the whole system has become shit.
We need a better septic system.
Re: (Score:2)
Any position of power is going to get abused by someone. Period. This is why we have checks and balances.
Checks and balances means that anyone in a long chain can "veto" use of force, and prevent it from being used:
0. The Constitution has to grant the legislature powers to propose a law
1. The legislature has to propose a law granting powers to the executive branch
2. The executive has to sign it into law
3. The treasurer has to put money towards enforcing the law
4. The sheriff has to begin enforcement of the
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And what do you propose we do when all the people in power have decided to solve their Prisoner's Dilemma and collude?
Ideals are a fine thing, in theory. In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, theory and practice are nothing alike.
Re: (Score:2)
Most democracies outside the US handles it by having at least one check/balance that is NOT elected and thus not subject to the same corruptive influences as the elected parts of government - while simultaneously having no power of their own to make laws, only the power to scrap laws the elected part wrote (thus limiting the effects of their different corruptive influences).
In England and Canada the Queen is theoretically doing that job (though in practise she hasn't vetoed a law in decades so it's pure the
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Citizens selected by lot. It worked in Athens. [marxists.org]
Re: (Score:2)
How about the method of selection of the Doge of Venice [hp.com]? A mix of super-majority voting (to force compromise), combined with selection by lot (to break voting blocks). Works a bit like evolution by natural selection. Each round effectively selects better candidates for the next. Almost guarantees a wise and benevolent dictator.
Re: (Score:2)
Moreover, for all the talk about democracy and equality in Athens, everything important was run by a small set of elites who wielded enormous power not because of official position but because of wealth and influence.
So select the officials by lot from the general population, not only the racially privileged males.
and there's the reality of a state that never worked very well
Compared to what? States that oppressed even their elites?
acted as a tyrant over its fellow Greeks
Which is how governments have always acted, and how most of them still act
and was defeated both by the Spartans and by Philip largely because of its own dysfunctions.
Isn't that always the way? Every system seems to lead to this eventually.
Re: (Score:2)
Horses, maybe?
Sure, if they're Houyhnhnms.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like Kaze no Stigma [wikipedia.org] (if you like anime).
BTW, if you do but haven't seen that series: if you don't like the first few episodes, you may want to keep on watching. It gets better.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like Kaze no Stigma [wikipedia.org] (if you like anime).
BTW, if you do but haven't seen that series: if you don't like the first few episodes, you may want to keep on watching. It gets better.
Gah! Sorry, I'm juggling too many series lately. I meant Psych-Pass [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
An AI.
That [wikipedia.org] may not work out so well either.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean "let's", as in "let us". But who actually institutes the laws? That's the "power" that pushing-robot is referring to.
Give it to the people ("us") and it's mob rule. Give it to anyone else and they'll entrench their own power or the power of their supporters/backers/financiers.
Personally I think a systematic version of mob rule is the least dangerous, but there's something of a memetic-hatred of giving power to the masses, "Tytler Calumny" and all that.
Re: (Score:2)
The law, justly and equally, forbids a man from panhandling in the street or sleeping under a bridge, regardless of whether than man is rich or poor.
Not saying your sentiment is wrong, just that it's never that straight-forward.
Re: (Score:3)
he also made it clear that we had to vote for a lizard, otherwise the wrong lizard might get in...
Re: (Score:2)
Why did the FAA go along? (Score:5, Insightful)
If they knew the police were just trying to impede the media, why did they go along? Heads should roll at multiple levels.
at least now we know. (Score:2)
Legal requirements (Score:5, Insightful)
I wonder what the legal requirements for filing these restrictions are, I know most similar documents require those filing them attest to the real reason for the request under penalty of perjury. If that's the case for these documents then someone effectively committed a felony punishable by up to 5 years in prison. Also a quick browse of the relevant advisories in regards to Temporary Flight Restrictions does not suggest there is any allowance for "because we don't want the media to see", National security (specifically mentioning the DOD), High ranking politicians movements, Spacecraft launches, major sporting events, hijacking incidents & wildfires, but nothing about the press so I doubt that was the reason put down on the forms.
http://www.faa.gov/documentLib... [faa.gov]
Re: (Score:3)
You realize how many things have to be attested to under penalty of perjury? You realize how many times people have gone to jail for the most straight-forwardly blatant fail statements in such cases? Next to none if any.
Any doubt? DMCA takedown requests have to be attested to under penalty of perjury. Ever hear of a false/improper DMCA request? How about someone going to jail for making a false one? (Keep in mind a statement made under penalty of perjury by an automated system does not make the person whos
Re: (Score:2)
A common misconception. The penalty of perjury only applies to the statement that the complaining party is acting on behalf of someone else.
Re: (Score:2)
The wording of U.S. Code 17 Â 512(c)(vi) has been interpreted that way, and to cover the entirety of the notification. Not sure what the case law is.
My professors that I've spoken with on the matter are of the opinion that either it applies to both or that if it doesn't apply to the entirety of the notification, that it be on par with statements in a federal criminal complaint (in though it's a civil matter, because of the criminal implications of copyright infringement), which if knowingly false would
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think that a court has looked at it yet, so I am going to believe that the plain text means what it says and that the penalty of perjury only applies to the part: "and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed." Especially, since part (v) expl
Re: (Score:2)
First, yes, It's all just theoretical discussion until there's case law. Something like this, that's pretty unlikely to happen. This is a discussion on a Internet forum, one would think discussions are just that. I don't see the need to get belligerent about it.
As I said, beyond the explicit perjury penalty, there would certainly be (in theory) penalties for falsifying information in the notification.
Personally, don't think they'd actually be criminal beyond (vi)'s explicit perjury penalty (if it applied in
Re:Legal requirements (Score:5, Informative)
Keeping the press away is a matter of National Security. That's how it is in every police state.
Re: (Score:3)
major sporting events
I'm pretty sure chasing black people around with hound dogs qualifies as a major sporting event down south.
Media in the are for the Verdict (Score:2)
I hope this means they know people are watching now, and there will be media in the air for when the verdict is read.
Re: (Score:2)
>> I hope this means they know people are watching now
Doubt it. I hadn't read anything about this story for the past few weeks until this Slashdot article.
Re: (Score:2)
Sigh. It is terrible seeing shitheads giving opinions on things they are ignorant of , like not knowing that grand juries don't return indictments, they return true bills/no bills.
Screw those hicks (Score:5, Insightful)
Since when is a suburb allowed to declare "no-fly" zones.
Not only have we militarized local police, but it looks like we've now given them the power generally reserved for the State Department and Justice Department.
If we had an Attorney General who was worth a damn, there would be a bunch of Ferguson officials and police facing charges and civil rights suits right now. Instead, we've had an AG who was only concerned with making sure that no Wall Street banking criminal got his hair mussed.
Re:Screw those hicks (Score:5, Interesting)
It's not quite the army, but I feel a Posse Comitatus kinda thing goin' on.
After seeing some photos from Fergeson and other police response scenes I am hard pressed to tell the difference between the police and the military. And this is coming from someone who served in the US Army for 6 years as a combat arms MOS (M1A2 crewman to be exact). The only difference seems to be that the military has a much more stringent rules of engagement.
Re: (Score:3)
After seeing some photos from Fergeson and other police response scenes I am hard pressed to tell the difference between the police and the military.
The police have poorer trigger and muzzle discipline, and less training overall. That's the difference. They're less qualified to carry around all the shiny shiny.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not quite the army, but I feel a Posse Comitatus kinda thing goin' on.
After seeing some photos from Fergeson and other police response scenes I am hard pressed to tell the difference between the police and the military. And this is coming from someone who served in the US Army for 6 years as a combat arms MOS (M1A2 crewman to be exact). The only difference seems to be that the military has a much more stringent rules of engagement.
Police wear black, military wears camo. That's about it as far as I can tell.
Re: (Score:2)
The only difference seems to be that the military has a much more stringent rules of engagement.
True that bro. I couldn't believe how many cluster bombs the police dropped on the streets of Ferguson.
Obvious (Score:3)
Of course it was about the media. Photographs without on-the-ground context, for example, could spark further public demonstrations and there could be safety concerns.
That's not a good trade-off between public safety and freedom of the press, but the reasoning wasn't really a secret.
Personal liability is the key (Score:2)
We need to make infringement of a constitutionally protected right both by the government and its agents personally liable in a civil suit. I would say a minimum of $100,000. Then these rights violations will come to a rapid stop.
Re: (Score:2)
Check out section 1983 of the civil rights act of 1871. Still in force, and has been for nearly 150 years. It was used pretty effectively after the Civil War, when the sheriff might also be a member of the Klan...
Re: (Score:2)
I've seen it but it also requires a prosecutor to bring the suit.
The citizens need a direct cause of action and it needs to be made clear that no privileges or immunities can apply in cases when a protected right was infringed.
s/USA/$hellhole/g (Score:2)
This is something you'd expect of some place like China or worse.
I hope the rogue drone operators get rich from this.
Worst PR firm ever... (Score:2)
It would appear the only choice this police department is going to have soon enough to be completely dispanded and taken over by the state police. Then an entirely new group of officers with new commanders and a new chief need to be put in place.
If these off
Re: (Score:2)
You're not even a member, not even a greenhorn, how would you know what this website is about? Answer, of course, you have no idea.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, what they did was disingenuous and immoral but not illegal - they really didn't want the eyes of the world judging them if they had to pull out the beanbag rounds and teargas (i.e. Everything is legal if no-one catches you doing it).
They're behaving like children when caught stealing candy or going out joyriding. They don't understand that what they're doing is wrong and they don't respond with remorse. They basically respond by trying to cover up what they're doing. Point at someone else. Choose a diff
Re:News For Nerds Please (Score:5, Insightful)
What relevance does this story have with respect to nerd news? The answer: none. Where were your other Ferguson stories??
Timothy, this is not your personal blog. Post this on your own soapbox.
This is outrageous political trolling and you should be ashamed and fired.
Nerds and geeks and general information-types are all about the free exchange of ideas. Censorship is anti-nerd.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I wouldn't call it news for nerds or stuff that matters. Many cities already ban news flights over them and have done so for years. The reasoning seems to be with police flights and reletive dangers of closeness when they respond to incidents.
No they don't. You are wrong. Cities don't have the authority to ban flights, only the FAA does. I'm a commercial pilot, airplane owner and a flight instructor, so I know what I'm talking about.
Re:News For Nerds Please (Score:5, Informative)
Many cities already ban news flights over them and have done so for years
I call total bullshit on this.
First of all, cities are unable to ban anything, it is the FAA that sets up no-fly zones. Second, if there are no-fly zones, they would be documented as restricted areas on sectional charts. You show me any sectional FAA approved chart that specifically forbids news flights, and I shall eat the dust from underneath your shoes.
Even NYC has most of its airspace as open (class B and C). As long as flights maintain the proper altitude (usually at least 1000ft AGL), everyone holding a private pilot's certificate can fly there.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
What on earth would make you say something like that? Everyone who isn't blinded by ideology knows that Ferguson is a mountain made out of a mole hill for political reasons and ratings. Shit like what happened there happens all over the place with at least three incidents i know of happening after it and no one is excited about them. Ferguson just happens to be in the right place to muster the troops so to say.
It has nothing to do with anyone's citizenship and everything to do wiyh motivating the right peop
Re: (Score:2)
It has nothing to do with anyone's citizenship and everything to do wiyh motivating the right people to the polls. We've already seen the flyers claiming some are will be turned into ferguson if certain people are elected.
How exactly?
There is no US Senate race in Missouri for 2014 and Obama and co really only care about keeping the Senate.
So you would have to be claiming they are trying to influence elections in other states.
How? Are you trying to link the Missouri local politics to the national Republican party? Because that is a reach I don't think the average voter on the fence will make.
Re: (Score:2)
Who said ferguson was about any senate race? It is being used in them though, someone is distributing flyers in minority neighborhoods claiming if republicans are elected, those neighborhoods would turn into Ferguson.
However, right about the time ferguson happened, Tavis Smiley was blasting about how the black community has suffered under this administration, about how the hopes for improvement were shattered, and how many blacks feel taken advantage of. Along comes ferguson, you have armies of outside prot
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
First, people should be pissed off about the other incidents too.
Second, Ferguson is where the "troops are being mustered" because its officials (not just the officer who perpetrated the shooting, but pretty much every other official in the entire metro area) are acting so incredibly
Re: (Score:2)
What on earth would make you say something like that? Everyone who isn't blinded by ideology knows that Ferguson is a mountain made out of a mole hill for political reasons and ratings. Shit like what happened there happens all over the place with at least three incidents i know of happening after it and no one is excited about them. Ferguson just happens to be in the right place to muster the troops so to say.
It has nothing to do with anyone's citizenship and everything to do with motivating the right people to the polls. We've already seen the flyers claiming some are will be turned into ferguson if certain people are elected.
It has to do with the systemic violence directed toward black people, young black men more specifically. Like you said, it happens all the time. It's wrong, and it's past time that the nation dealt with it. Yes, the incident in Ferguson was just one example, but it has become a flash point for the larger issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Bingo, we have a winner. This is a legitimate use of a TFR; to prevent mid-air collisions over things like this. While it's a jesse jackson created disaster (the rioting, not the murder), the purpose of the TFR is to allow the police to fly safely.
I'm half surprised they haven't fitted their helicopter with stingers to just shoot down any pesky media trying to see what's going on. Not like we should expect the pilots to have situational awareness and be good enough not to crash into things.
If the case was pure police safety then a height restriction is adequate, not a full on no fly zone.