Ferguson Cop Points Gun At Protesters And Press, Screams "I Will F***ing Kill You", Has Been "Relocated"

Tyler Durden's picture

In the aftermath of recent violent events and now that even the US Attorney General has arrived, one would assume that the Ferguson police had at least some "sensitivity" training about how to approach protesters, especially those "armed" with cameras. Not in this case. The footage below out of Ferguson shows a police officer pointing his gun directly at protesters and reporters while screaming "I’m going to f***ing kill you!"

The clip shows a Ferguson officer with his gun raised pointing it directly at a citizen journalist who was live streaming at the time: the incident was witnessed by Infowars reporter Joe Biggs who was also filming the incident.

"My hands are up bro, my hands are up," states the journalist before the cop responds, "I’m going to f***ing kill you, get back, get back!"

"You’re going to kill him?” asks another individual before the journalist asks, “did he just threaten to kill me?"

When the cop is asked for his name he responds, "go fuck yourself."

It didn't end there.

As Infowars reports, "another clip shows the officer pointing his gun as protesters demand he lower the weapon. A second cop intervenes to make the officer lower his weapon as more irate demonstrators demand to know the officer’s name."

The officer’s response to people asking for his name almost immediately prompted the launch of the Twitter hashtag #officergofuckyourself.

Biggs live tweeted the incident, and also took this photograph of the cop.

The incident is certain to provoke curiosity as to just how the local Police department is handling the de-escalation of local tensions.

As for police officer #officergofuckyourself, it appears he is no longer "on location."

One also wonders: if not in Ferguson, just where can this pleasant, if "relocated", individual be encountered?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
disabledvet's picture

There's a policy that no one talks about in Missouri and everyone knows what it is. Trust me...this has nothing to do with race. There's only one reason you point a gun at an unarmed journalist and then thhreaten to kill him. "Everybody knows it just can't be published."

Flagit's picture

Forgive me's Comrad, did not means to blow your covers.

 

Keyser's picture

This is what happens when you hire rejects as police officers... 

Lost Word's picture

Or when only rejects apply for the job ....

Agent P's picture

At least he applied and got a job, unlike many others in the crowd. 

hedgeless_horseman's picture

 

 

Even a name tag would be an improvement.

That is a very intelligent observation.

If the rioters and cops all had jerseys with names on them, then things would likely be very different.

Cognitive Dissonance's picture

The first step to abusing someone is to be/become desensitized to the humanity of the person or people you are going to abuse.

<Blacks/Negros/African Americans have been dehumanized in the eyes of non blacks for centuries, so doing so today ain't that difficult.>

Liberty2012's picture

Add cops to your list. That's what's going on now.

Ol Man's picture

I thought they called that the NFL...

Cognitive Dissonance's picture

Ouch....that's gonna leave a mark.

Spumoni's picture

That's right in  line with my favorite cure for the violence in the Middle East: new clothing requirements: Everyone must wear baggies, flip-flops and tee-shirts, without exception. You can't hide a bomb in your baggies.

HardAssets's picture

Usually they like to wear the Darth Vader costumes with their faces covered up.

"Land of the free, home of the brave." 

Yeah . . . . . right.

Colonel Klink's picture

They couldn't fit "Officer Gofuckyourself" on the name tag.

Looney's picture

How ‘bout mandatory testing for DONUTS every 30 minutes? ;-)

Looney

SWRichmond's picture

You must be a special kind of stupid to try to engage a roided out cop with a shaved head holding a rifle at the ready in a stressfull situation like a mob.

Do you understand how close we are to a "Boston Massacre" moment?  Do you understand the implications of that?  Are we supposed to be kind and understanding to them while they point guns at us?

hedgeless_horseman's picture

 

 

Are we supposed to be kind and understanding to them while they point guns at us?

Are you blind to the context?

SWRichmond's picture

Are you blind to the context?

No, but I think you are.

If (when) we push them over the edge, we win.

hedgeless_horseman's picture

 

 

 

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-08-19/under-what-conditions-can-us-ar...

stopping the damn looting and arson and enforcing the laws

A)  A job for the police

B)  A job for the Second Amendment

C)  A job for American soldiers

D)  A and B

E)  None of the above (Let 'em burn their own neighborhood and kill each other)

 

No easy solutions, but I would choose "D". 

What would you pick? 

 

PS:  If you push that cop over the edge, you are dead.  To what end?  There are better solutions.

chumbawamba's picture

I accept and adopt both your positions and lay them one upon the other to arrive at the heart of the matter.

-Chumbz.

SWRichmond's picture

The police have proven time and again that they do not work for us, do not care what we think, do not care about our welfare or property.  I do not currently trust them to do anything.

Let me amend that; I trust them to do our recruiting for us.  They have proven how adept they are at pushing fence-sitters off the fence and into the camp of the resistance / liberty-minded.  But that is all I trust them to do.

They are what they are.  They can't help it.

hedgeless_horseman's picture

 

 

So you pick B, C, E, or what, exactly, as a solution to a fucked up situation?

SWRichmond's picture

I reject your false list of "exclusive" choices.

hedgeless_horseman's picture

 

 

...or what, exactly, as a solution to a fucked up situation?

This isn't multiple choice.  You can write an essay if you so desire. 

Complain about the problem and the solution, but won't offer a solution?  I see a lot of that these days.

SWRichmond's picture

1.  Find out who the fucking idiot asshole was who, after the history of officers pointing rifles at unarmed civilians, decided to put officers on the street with...rifles.  Fire his stupid ass, immediately, and tell the public on national TV, right away.  Now.

2.  Get all the police with rifles off the street.  Now.  Right fucking now.

3.  Collect all of the police rifles and put them in a special locked safe which reads "In Case of Al Qaeda Attack".  Never get them out again.  Or send them back to the Army.

4.  Collect all of the police SWAT hardware and put in the safe as well.  Put laws in place which place a specially trained group of people in charge of SWAT callouts, and make them forfeit $2500 of pay each time they authorize a SWAT mobilization for any raid which turns out to be against unarmed civilians.

5.  When you call the police, the government wins and everyone else loses.

hedgeless_horseman's picture

 

 

So, in essence, you say "A" with the caveat that the police don't carry rifles? 

That sounds reasonable to me, except for one thing... 

What do you think about "B" - is it also a job for the Second Amendment?

Are you ok with citizens defending their lives and property with firearms, including rifles?  Should the good citizens of that town be able to sit on their front porches, with their rifles, and enjoy the evening Negro Spring?

SWRichmond's picture

I reject the notion that the police are "special".  I reject the notion that the judicial system exists to serve the people...it does not.  It exists to maintain the status quo,  to control the masses, and to keep the tax revenue flowing.  That is all.  So I reject any solution that involves the police, because they have become part of the problem.

The police have no rights or privileges which I do not have, in spite of all-too-numerous judicial decisions to the contrary..  I have a right to defend myself from injury, and some lesser right to protect my property.  If I cannot trust the police to do it (I cannot) then I retain the right to do it myself.

Is any of this controversial or hard to understand?

hedgeless_horseman's picture

 

 

Yes, it is a bit hard to understand you, but I do want to try.  It sounds like you have essentially changed your choice to:

B)  A job for the Second Amendment

Is that correct?

No response to my simple question about rifles for the citizens?

SWRichmond's picture

I have explained it in much more detail than your simplistic choices.  Why do you persist in trying to characterize my ideas into your framework?

The 2nd amendment merely recognizes a right I already have.  If confers nothing.

cougar_w's picture

I might have a serious man-crush at this point.

X.inf.capt's picture

h a v e 'n t  b e e n  t h i s  t h i n  i n  y e a r s ! ! !

X.inf.capt's picture

h a v e 'n t  b e e n  t h i s  t h i n  i n  y e a r s ! ! !

hedgeless_horseman's picture

 

 

Why do you persist in trying to characterize my ideas into your framework?

Because I am human. And because I am making the effort to hold a discussion with the hope of maybe learning something.

tarsubil's picture

You are arguing that you are right because you can't admit you're wrong or accept when someone else feels that way.

chumbawamba's picture

Well played.  But don't dismiss Article II of the Bill of Rights.  The Bill of Rights confer nothing upon you, this is true.  However, it is the foundation upon which this government rests, and the unwavering principals that its officers take an oath to observe when dealing with you, the people.

I realize it's not always perfect (in fact presently, I'm with you, it is far less than even adequate in some cases), but I think HH's point is that it would be better to have properly equipped police on the streets (and I think you would agree here) in order to maintain a semblance of law and order, and to protect those citizens and those businesses that want nothing to do with the protests and especially not the rioting, than nothing at all.  As bad as they are, those cops are probably what's preventing the situation from devolving into violent chaos where innocent people start being slaughtered (think Reginald Denny during 1992 L.A. Riots).

The rioters are law breakers and they ought to be punished, and the cops out there were hired by the other 95+% of the people to ensure shit like that didn't happen.  Was there an over-reaction?  Fuck yes.  Do we need cops?  Well, I would say we need peace officers, not police officers.

Police officers enforce policy.  What policy?  The policy of the incorporated city.  They are a "private" police force for the municipality.  Just like Walmart has it's security guards, so too do the cities.  They are both there to prevent loss for the business (the City/Walmart).

Peace officers are a different species.  They are there to keep the peace.  That means making sure people are obeying the agreed upon community rules, like speed limits and keeping an eye on the commons, and breaking up the occasional fight.  It doesn't mean handing out citations for policy violations, that's what police officers do.  Again, peace officers are just there to keep the peace.

Today, we still have peace officers but they are hidden behind the guise of police officers.  Under California law (and I suspect it's basically the same everywhere else in the USA), all police officers are also peace officers.  So it's why on the one hand a cop can take you into custody for being drunk in public but then just let you dry out in the drunk tank and let you go in the morning without any booking or further trouble; in that case he is acting in the role of a peace officer, keeping the peace (getting your sorry drunk ass off the street) while also looking after you to make sure you don't hurt yourself if you're three sheets to the wind (his brother's keeper).  But when a cop gives you a citation for something and there's no complaining party, i.e. jaywalking, most any traffic violation, etc., then he's acting in the role of a police officer; he's enforcing policy (code).

The problem today is we have too many damn POLICE officers and not nearly enough PEACE officers.  Which is to say they are trained to be a POLICE officer first and a PEACE officer second, when it should be exactly the opposite.  They should be in mind to be PEACE officers keeping the peace, and only invoke their POLICE powers when absolutely needed, or otherwise when there's no complaining party and the activity is egregious enough that it needs to be stopped.

I am not against cops, despite the fact that I've been arrested and/or detained and incarcerated several times for bullshit and been abused during the process.  I dislike the ones that have wronged me and they will be dealt with in time, according to the law.  But I also know several cops that I like and respect very much because they are in the uniform for the right reason: first and foremost because they are keeping the peace, and only when necessary they invoke their police powers.

I hope my little dissertation was useful.  I think we can fix everything with knowledge and education.  It'll take time, but if enough people finally get educated enough to understand how things work we can then begin making them what we want them to be, or just learn how to interact with them more effectively.  For the heathens that don't or won't elevate their consciousness...the policy officers will deal with them.

I am Chumbawamba.

SWRichmond's picture

The cops played their hand when they rolled out with full armor and long arms in response to the protests, which hadn't yet turned violent.  The violence didn't start until the police showed up.  This is a pattern.  They rolled everyone into the "bad guy"  mold and threatened them all with deadly force.

And then they did it again.

If you are going to assume I am a bad guy who must be threatened with deadly force, do not expect me to support you or your presence in my community.

Zadok's picture

May I just suggest honest warrents where liability is assumed in writing in the warrent.  Damages, injury, etc are all on the back of those bringing the charges, warrent, and executing it.  Honest consequences to real crimes would put the brakes on real quick.  All SWAT cops would be working for us for life in less than a year.  Soon, no one would want to do it.  They do it because they can play dress up and play the tyrant without consequences.  Add consequences, morning invaders are just that, criminals.  

chumbawamba's picture

Pretty soon you're going to be hearing about indictments coming down from Common Law Grand Juries that have been formed and are being formed all over the country.

I do not endorse the group because they are operating under a fundamental flaw (that may or may not matter ultimately) but they are making interesting things happen.

http://nationallibertyalliance.org

I am Chumbawamba.

Zadok's picture

Thanks Chumbawamba.  I'll check it out.  

Spumoni's picture

Cops are not policymakers. Their orders come from well outside of the city limits of Ferguson. They get paid to follow orders, and are given the means to enforce their directives. The fact that a cop and a civilian started this campfire is as irrelevant as King George was at the Boston Massacre (I like the comparison, HH). Yeah, he started it, but Atticus paid the price. Out of that moment came a long hard fight, a great nation full of people from all over the place, and of course, the Fed. It is clear that at some point in the not-too-distant-future, we are going to have to rethink the structure of our society. As Hagbard Celine said, the bureaucracy will be the last thing to change, because it is the crystallization of who and what we are as a 'civilization' (loose use). The big question for all of us is: what are we going to put in place of the structure we're tearing down? Any ideas? If ZH'ers are the ones making policy, I sure hope they vet for as much IQ as they want from the police force. Much of what gets said here these days (present company mostly excepted) sounds like it came from Idiocracy.

Damn right that cop is scared. It proves he isn't a psychopath - he should be scared. And not holding a weapon, of course. 

 

Two movies for your entertainment:

Idiocracy

The Accident of Birth

James_Cole's picture

E)  None of the above (Let 'em burn their own neighborhood and kill each other)

The protestors themselves were actually stopping the looters after the police decided not to. Some of the people defending the stores were actually dispersed by tear gas by police which lead to more looting. All on video (I've sene too much of ferguson..).

PS:  If you push that cop over the edge, you are dead.  To what end?  There are better solutions.

Push them over the edge? So much bullshit. Lots of people have stressful jobs. My dr. was really stressed so he decided to prescribe anthrax to his patients, sure - it was wrong - but the guy was really stressed!

CIA had to torture folks 'cause they were 'stressed', police threaten to kill people, more stress. Is Obama stressed? Well, I guess just excuse every dumb thing he does then. 

Obama dron'd some kids, but you know, he was really stressed at the time!!

hedgeless_horseman's picture

 

 

Push them over the edge? So much bullshit. Lots of people have stressful jobs.

There are many people who feel the same way as you that have suffered from terrible dog bites. 

Maybe it is because I live on a farm and am around animals that I am not blind to the emotions of others...especially the obvious ones like fear.  It keeps me out of the healthcare system.  A pissed-off mare can ruin one's beautiful day in a heart beat.

James_Cole's picture

I am not blind to the emotions of others...especially the obvious ones like fear and rage.

Rage about what? People legally protesting the police shooting an unarmed teen?

OMG i'm sorry, guy was totally within reason pointing a gun at unarmed protestors and saying "I will fucking kill you."

Of course, if they felt 'stressed' about having their lives threatened...

Thank gawd for you HH, someone to defend those who are supposed to uphold the law flagrantly breaking it because of 'stress'. 

If you want a solution how about the police who break the law are treated with the full force of it? No bullshit excuses about stress. 

hedgeless_horseman's picture

 

 

Rage about what?

Maybe the shitty job?  Maybe his pension was cut?  Maybe the steroids and crappy diet?  Maybe he is angry his father made him join the police academy when all he really wanted to do was be a dancer?  Maybe the citizen journalists get all the hot chicks on Facebook? 

He is a human being...with human emotions...not a robot. 

...guy was totally within reason pointing a gun at unarmed protestors and saying "I will fucking kill you."

Where did I say anything like that? 

However, I do know that if I choose to go to a riot, then I shouldn't be shocked to have riot police point a gun at me and shout profanity.  In fact, I expect it. 

James_Cole's picture

Maybe the shitty job?  Maybe his pension was cut?  Maybe the steroids and crappy diet?  Maybe he is angry his father made him join the police academy when all he really wanted to do was be a dancer?  Maybe the citizen journalists get all the hot chicks on Facebook? 

Are you trolling or what? I'm sure everyone has personal problems. We're not talking about some guy losing his temper in the office, this is a police officer pointing a guy at people and threatening to kill them without legal (or seemingly any) cause. 

He is a human being...with human emotions...not a robot.  

Must be trolling. 

BlindMonkey's picture

Guys, guys....chill the fuck out.

Ebola has got this....

hedgeless_horseman's picture

 

 

We're not talking about some guy losing his temper in the office...

I agree. 

That is called context. 

If I choose to go to a riot, then I shouldn't be shocked to have riot police point a gun at me and shout profanity.  In fact, if I am an intelligent human being, then I should expect it.

The Great Riots of New York, 1712 to 1873, by Joel Tyler Headley


James_Cole's picture

If I choose to go to a riot, then I shouldn't be shocked to have riot police point a gun at me and shout profanity.  In fact, if I am an intelligent human being, then I should expect it.

1) it was not a riot

2) definitely this is more important to ask the cop. Why, if he couldn't handle the situation - AT ALL - did he put himself there? Was he forced by his superior to go?? Obviously not. 

Gawddamn hedgeless, I can't believe you're arguing at length in defence of this guy. I have nothing against police, but I hold them to a MUCH MUCH higher standard than this.

I'd be in the 'fire the officer immediately' group for a lot less than this. A democracy has no place for police who threaten to kill citizens without lawful reasoning, no matter how much 'stress' they are under.