http://youtu.be/uT0uaZ5Ymeo
This is pretty darn convincing:
This is what Che Lank says: “Para-military Police CAUGHT ON FILM methodically setting fire to a vehicle in front of Advance Auto Parts in St. Louis MO. This happens on W Florissant Ave., the same street where nearly every fire occurred. Despite having this building locked down, Advance Auto Parts burnt down to the ground!
Here is smoking gun irrefutable proof that police were methodically and deliberately setting the fires after the announcement of the Grand Jury Decision not to indict Darren Wilson in the shooting of Michael Brown.
I think the owner of that building might want to see this footage!
UPDATE: The white pickup truck seen in the Fox News photograph of the Advance Auto Parts building can also be seen in the original footage of the police lighting a car on fire. Also, I have confirmed that these are SWAT personnel as can be seen by the matching uniforms and vehicles of SWAT on W. Florissant in the following video @ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyt7G…
Also notice that the nearby buildings are on fire but “rioters” are no where to be seen. I suggest these buildings were being methodically torched by SWAT/Para-military Police operatives to create the illusion that this was done by Protesters/Looters.”
That’s a rhetorical question right? If the police weren’t directly involved in fostering crime the crime rate would dramatically decline and they would be out of work. If the crime rate fell then for-profit prisons would go bankrupt. It’s all kind of a neat little circular package. It works because most people seldom explore under the surface of anything or become informed. For example Arabs and Jews are Semites. (Abraham and his sons Isacc and Ishmael.) So which of the following graffiti is more anti-Semitic? Swastika’s spray painted on a synagogue or as was done this past weekend “Death to Arabs” and “There is no coexistence with cancer” spray painted on an Arabic-Hebrew bilingual school in Jerusalem which also had a first grade classroom torched?
If you view the mid-piece about the concussive and flash forces of these grenades its apparent that’s not what they did. There is no evidence of incendiary explosion and the cops do not take cover or try to get away. The so-called fire in the vehicle is just the ambient illumination of the flashlights.
The accusation is demonstrably false. If you watch the video demonstrating concussion or flash grenades, you see the moderator stand 50 feet away behind bullet proof shielding when detonating the device. The officer accused of tossing such a grenade into the car stands with a foot or two and doesn’t move when the “flash” occurs. You also see a large flash and a fair amount of smoke in the Nation Geographic piece, and absolutely none in the car. The light you did see was the reflection of a flashlight. In fact, was it proven the the car even burned? The narrator said because there was “hose water” in the area of the car two days later, and stains on the ground (very common around an auto parts store) that it shows the car burned. And the row of cars on fire? As a 27 year firefighter, I have worked parking lot fires, and that is exactly what I would expect to find. No surprise or conspiracy.
The Ferguson situation is bad enough, with a number of questions that I feel have not been adequately answered by the police, but this is ridiculous. It may not rise to the level of yelling “Fire” in a crowded theater, or even “Burn the bitch down”, but its false rhetoric that should not be promoted by those who want to promote meaningful and fair change.
Actually, the pattern of cars burning in the auto lot is more convincing to me of planned demolition than the alleged ignition footage. No explosive flash and ensuing smoke and the concussive sound seems to far away (muted). The vehicles along the front of the lot that supposedly burned all look like law enforcement vehicles (their lights are on). My question is, how does a secured law enforcement staging area and everything around it burn to the ground? After spending considerable time and effort, as demonstrated by the video, to secure the place, they just abandoned it to its ‘fate?’
Meaningful and fair change is an interesting phrase. One commentator today said that the police must be militarized because the citizenry is militarized. The public is allowed to own military style weapons and body armor. So now we have a which came first the chicken or the egg situation. Let’s leave the NRA out of this discussion for the moment and concentrate on who became militarized first. Are the citizens arming themselves in response to a militarized police force or vice versa? The most deadly jobs in America are #1 Arborists and #2 Loggers. Being a cop is the sixth most dangerous job. People believe otherwise because of the corporate (1%) media propaganda. The law enforcement industrial complex grows the prison industrial complex. And poverty grows criminals. Crime, in large part, is a wealth distribution issue.
There are 700,000 law enforcement officers in America. So why is Obama funding only 50,000 cameras? Every cop should be filming everything all day long.
Well, Imhotep, the answer to your first question is, the public ramped up the armament versus the cops. Not even close or up for debate. I’m against seeing armored vehicles in our cities, but its a response to a definite problem. As for Obama and the cameras, I would like to see every cop, by law, required to wear a body camera, and if they took action without it, that in itself would be a crime.
None of this has anything to do with Che Lank’s bogus accusation that cops started these fires.
And Ron, that’s a car lot, not a police parking lot. What are you talking about?