Anonymous Hacker Group Threatens Ferguson Police Department | Page 2 | INFJ Forum

Anonymous Hacker Group Threatens Ferguson Police Department

Entirely premature.

It's been only 4 days, yet people always seem to expect prejudicial behavior both causally and effectually.

The anger and outrage can wait until an official response is propositioned.

Well the only ones who have actually done anything wrong so far are the police. Anonymous made a threat but they haven't acted on it yet.

I don't think it's entirely unfounded to take a stance that ensures a response is evoked, and a bit of insurance to let them know that if the response is found to be lacking, there will be repercussions.
 
Also I don't think that it's wrong to demand that the government pass a law pertaining to this. You better damn well believe laws were passed when Brady was shot in the head during the Reagan assassination attempt, but when the police shoot an unarmed civilian, the response is called premature.

Edit:
Also interestingly James Brady died some days ago and they're trying to call it a homicide, charging John Hinckley with killing him more than 30 years ago.
 
Back in 2001 they passed legislation in the wake of the swine flu fears that allowed the declaring of martial law in the event of a pandemic

The government can enact a law which suspends property rights, gun ownership, your liberties, quarantine whole cities and towns etc

Also the World Health Organisation has spoken about restricting travel.

So everythings ramping up to the big event. Personally i think the people would be well advised to start taking the initiative back from these guys. We need a massive peaceful non cooperation movement and things like this anonynous thing wil at least draw more publicity and attention to the growing police state
 
There's a big problem with police corruption and brutality on both sides of the atlantic

The internet is now awash with videos of polcie brutality and police shootings, often of unarmed people

people have every right to be outraged; i'm not advocating that they go out and riot like they did here in the UK aftre the shooting of Mark Duggan but i do think people should verbalise their outrage at the very least, because the authorities work by seeing what they can get away with.

if there is no public response then they push a little further and they keep going bit by bit towards their totalitarian regime

Your characterization of the public is one composed of both an unrestrained outrage and a complacent, apathetic passivity at the same time. As if the public were mindless zombies only when they're not rioting. I do not subscribe to your unique cultural perception.

Well the only ones who have actually done anything wrong so far are the police. Anonymous made a threat but they haven't acted on it yet.

I don't think it's entirely unfounded to take a stance that ensures a response is evoked, and a bit of insurance to let them know that if the response is found to be lacking, there will be repercussions.

It appears that way, and I'm not going to disagree with that judgment. Key word though is that it appears that way. If I were to say that I was there and saw the whole thing happen and then tell you the same story being told, you'd understandably and reasonably state that you doubt that to be true even if my version of the story aligned with others or your own.

Outrage and anger is entirely appropriate. Patience is also appropriate. The two are not mutually exclusive either. A planned response is an effective response.

This appears to be nothing more than an idle threat borne out of anger and frustration.
 
Your characterization of the public is one composed of both an unrestrained outrage and a complacent, apathetic passivity at the same time. As if the public were mindless zombies only when they're not rioting. I do not subscribe to your unique cultural perception.

Nope that's not what i'm saying

There are those that are consciously aware of the growing police state and there are those that are not consciously aware of it

Rioting has nothing to do with it...in fact rioting is more a blind lashing out, which is something i do not recommend

What i'm recommending is that the public wake the fuck up to the fascist totalitarian regime that is grwoing in power by the day in their country

We need to be recognising it, acknowledging it, talking about it and strategising a way to deal with it

A growth in awareness is needed leading to a conscious wide spread mass movement of peaceful non cooperation that lasts until the police state is dismantled along with the military industrial complex and the corporatocracy

If we do not do that (and we won't yet because many are belligerantly refusing to face whats going on right in front of them) then the situation WILL GET WORSE as the regime pushes us deeper into the totalitarian system

What is likely to happen is that a trigger event sparks a widespread riot...could be economic upheval or food prices rising or police brutality which then allows the authorities to crack down hard on the public.....but you can feel the tensions rising...theyre palpable

Meanwhile the members of the public whos heads are still buried up their own schving-schvings will applaud the authorites for cracking down on the unruly mob....little realising that the 'mob' need to stick together if they are not going to get suckered into an orwellian nightmare

We need awareness and we need solidarity
 
Last edited:
Your characterization of the public is one composed of both an unrestrained outrage and a complacent, apathetic passivity at the same time. As if the public were mindless zombies only when they're not rioting. I do not subscribe to your unique cultural perception.



It appears that way, and I'm not going to disagree with that judgment. Key word though is that it appears that way. If I were to say that I was there and saw the whole thing happen and then tell you the same story being told, you'd understandably and reasonably state that you doubt that to be true even if my version of the story aligned with others or your own.

Outrage and anger is entirely appropriate. Patience is also appropriate. The two are not mutually exclusive either. A planned response is an effective response.

This appears to be nothing more than an idle threat borne out of anger and frustration.

I don't think the threat is idle. There will be an attempt if things don't pan out. I can't say whether it'll be successful nor how much of the personal police information they have or can get, but I can assure you that they more than likely will make good on this threat.
 
I don't think the threat is idle. There will be an attempt if things don't pan out. I can't say whether it'll be successful nor how much of the personal police information they have or can get, but I can assure you that they more than likely will make good on this threat.

"If things don't pan out" is not the context under which thhis person made their threat. They didn't wait to see how it pans out which is why I say it is entirely premature. The investigation may turn out exactly how we expect it to and will see the officer facing charges. We don't know that yet.

I'm waiting for something more substantial before I devote an emotional reaction to it.
 
"If things don't pan out" is not the context under which thhis person made their threat. They didn't wait to see how it pans out which is why I say it is entirely premature. The investigation may turn out exactly how we expect it to and will see the officer facing charges. We don't know that yet.

I'm waiting for something more substantial before I devote an emotional reaction to it.

Did you read carefully?

The hacker group Anonymous has posted a video showing their support for the demonstrators. They have threatened to hack the Ferguson police department if any protesters are harmed.

What's to wait for? The idea with a conditional threat is to make it BEFORE something happens.

Also it seems they can make good on it and intend to:

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...ife-children-of-st-louis-county-police-chief/
 
wakey wakey america

[video=youtube;IlY9C6pzxKc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlY9C6pzxKc#t=18[/video]
 
no one worried about the rise of police brutality across the US?

No?

Not bothered they are gunning you folks down and beating on ya?

No.....nothing...no emotional response to that?

I think there is emotion behind it, but I see it through multiple perspectives. Yes, on a larger scale the state can (and is) ruling us through force and restrictions...but at the same time, there are a vast number of police that truly go into the force to protect and serve- and they do it all the time.

I'm not discounting or trying to diminish police brutality- I think profiling, unnecessary force, brutal beatings, etc. all happen and are wrong- but on the same side, there's lots of great people in the police force doing great things. I don't think we can paint every police officer with the same brush. I guess that's a bit out of context with this thread, but my point is that if they release all personal information of the police force to the public, what's to stop someone going to the house of a standup cop and killing them? What will that serve the issue? I might be getting it wrong, but I just feel that's not the correct move.

I honestly don't know what the correct move is! And it's the same for what [MENTION=6917]sprinkles[/MENTION] ask me - I don't know! I have no idea how to make them accountable, but I just don't feel meeting violence with violence is the key.

How do you make them be accountable? Ask them nicely? What if they say no?

What do you do when the law breaks the law? When the government sanctions the law, and internal affairs covers for the law breakers among the law? Where is your recourse if not among the law?

If you're being beaten by a thug you call the police. If you're being beaten by the police, who do you call?
 
I don't know if this can add something to the conversation, but the 1970's Zimbardo study is an interesting display of how when people aren't accountable for their actions, they'll do almost anything.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment


I think this really displays how the culture of the policeforce can change a person. I honestly don't know how to change the culture, or increase accountability- but I certainly support it being done.
 
Last edited:
I think there is emotion behind it, but I see it through multiple perspectives. Yes, on a larger scale the state can (and is) ruling us through force and restrictions...but at the same time, there are a vast number of police that truly go into the force to protect and serve- and they do it all the time.

I'm not discounting or trying to diminish police brutality- I think profiling, unnecessary force, brutal beatings, etc. all happen and are wrong- but on the same side, there's lots of great people in the police force doing great things. I don't think we can paint every police officer with the same brush. I guess that's a bit out of context with this thread, but my point is that if they release all personal information of the police force to the public, what's to stop someone going to the house of a standup cop and killing them? What will that serve the issue? I might be getting it wrong, but I just feel that's not the correct move.

I honestly don't know what the correct move is! And it's the same for what [MENTION=6917]sprinkles[/MENTION] ask me - I don't know! I have no idea how to make them accountable, but I just don't feel meeting violence with violence is the key.

I'm not saying Anonymous is doing the right thing. The fact that they released info already is probably not the best thing, but I just now found out about it after I'd posted some things.

Also I do believe there are heroes and good people in the police department. However I think some times these heroes and good people need a bit of encouragement to stand up and hold their less scrupulous brothers and sisters accountable - because they're the only ones who can really do it. And some times it's all too easy to go with the flow when you're in power and maybe feel like you can't change something because it's too corrupt. Try anyway.
 
I think there is emotion behind it, but I see it through multiple perspectives. Yes, on a larger scale the state can (and is) ruling us through force and restrictions...but at the same time, there are a vast number of police that truly go into the force to protect and serve- and they do it all the time.

I'm not discounting or trying to diminish police brutality- I think profiling, unnecessary force, brutal beatings, etc. all happen and are wrong- but on the same side, there's lots of great people in the police force doing great things. I don't think we can paint every police officer with the same brush. I guess that's a bit out of context with this thread, but my point is that if they release all personal information of the police force to the public, what's to stop someone going to the house of a standup cop and killing them? What will that serve the issue? I might be getting it wrong, but I just feel that's not the correct move. .

What people will realise at some point is that we are at war

Each cop has a decision to make....they are either on the side of the people or they are on the side of the authorities and the monied interests they protect

if they want to fuck with the people then put all their damn details out there....maybe that will motivate the good cops to maybe start growing a pair and doing something about what is happening in the force

They need to start speaking out publically...they need to blow the whistle...if they are there to help the public then they need to act
 
Did you read carefully?

What's to wait for? The idea with a conditional threat is to make it BEFORE something happens.

Also it seems they can make good on it and intend to:

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...ife-children-of-st-louis-county-police-chief/

This isn't the same context. Passing judgment on the incident and passing judgment on the handling of the related riot is not the same thing. They are related in sequential order, but we're moving through issues here now.
 
This isn't the same context. Passing judgment on the incident and passing judgment on the handling of the related riot is not the same thing. They are related in sequential order, but we're moving through issues here now.

I think I understand what you're getting at now.

However I don't think it really matters if they nail it right in this specific case because this pertains to police brutality and abuses in general and I don't think it could ever be wrong to demand some more checks to help prevent that from happening, even if by chance it was some how set off by a shooting that - hypothetically - was somehow justified.
 
I don't know if this can add something to the conversation, but the 1970's Zimbardo study is an interesting display of how when people aren't accountable for their actions, they'll do almost anything.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment


I think this really displays how the culture of the policeforce can change a person. I honestly don't know how to change the culture, or increase accountability- but I certainly support it being done.

Its not just about removing accountability they are SELECTIVELY recruiting people they know will be bullies...people who exhibit the requisite personality traits

They then unleash those bullies with a gun, a taser and a badge on the public like a pitbull

This is not happening by chance....this is being mirrored in other areas of society for example with the passing of the NDAA, the buying of bullets by the DHS, the flights of drones overhead, the chemtrailing, the flouridated water, the economic boom and bust cycles, PRISM and other NSA spying, the vaccinations etc

They are waging a quiet war against the people...it's all there for anyone who is able to handle that truth
 
I never got the impression that most police officers joined the force so they could protect the rich and shoot down the poor. I don't think that it's necessarily human nature to seek out a career with the exclusive intent to gun people down. I am not saying that's true for all officers, but I do think that most don't WANT to kill, they don't WANT to deal with everything that comes after killing someone, but they have to. Their job is on the front lines dealing with a lot of shady and scummy people. I often think that sometimes if they don't learn to cope with that appropriately they end up in situations where they become so hyped up and over the top that there's a lot of over-reactive behaviour happening.

I also believe when you are in a career like that your fellow police officers become your brothers and they stick together no matter what. I also think that there is a hive mentality that begins to develop. If you get one corrupt officer it stands to follow that others will share in that corruption. Corruption is a disease that spreads and some people actively participate while it sneaks up on others.

I think problems started happening when the corruption started from the top down. Over time, it filters down through the ranks and if you're leading by example and others follow in your food steps then naturally that sort of corrupt abuse of power spreads like wildfire.

There is accountability but perhaps not in the way that many would like. There also seems to be this mentality among those not in the force that every killing by a police officer is a senseless one. This is why those cameras are necessary and should be MANDATORY. In most cases, we're dealing with circumstantial evidence with some he-said, she-said and cell phone shots that only capture part of the story.

These days, I do believe that the police forces have become much more militarized. They are there to "protect" people to a certain degree but mostly they are re-active as opposed to pro-active. There is no longer a healthy relationship between people and the police. They are now separate entities who work against each other for a common goal which should be peace, but often ends up only being resentment and violence and disdain.

I do believe that they are subject to their superiors. Combine the Top-Down power model and wanting to keep your job and not be ostracized or abused or whatever, you end up doing what you're told and piggy back on those few individuals who DID get into the force to brutalize and abuse power. As long as you can follow the Alpha Dog who wants to rip everyone to shreds, you can shrug off a bit of accountability and responsibility.

It's not as simple as "X Police officer Shot X Person in cold murderous blood!" It never will be that simple. We're not dealing with police forces that are comprised 100% of Psychopaths here. There is a bigger, deep issue at hand that can't be resolved until you start looking for the source of the problem.
 
Bunch of totally unaccountable liberal hoods seeking to use their superior knowledge to ruin peoples lives?

Aye, folk heroes for sure.

As bad or worse as the thing they are opposing in the first place. In fact probably will only confer some legitimacy upon what they oppose by opposing it in the way they do.

This is the history of the left though.
 
I like the idea of video cameras being worn. I think its valid and these days wouldnt cost that much anyway.
 
I never got the impression that most police officers joined the force so they could protect the rich and shoot down the poor. I don't think that it's necessarily human nature to seek out a career with the exclusive intent to gun people down. I am not saying that's true for all officers, but I do think that most don't WANT to kill, they don't WANT to deal with everything that comes after killing someone, but they have to. Their job is on the front lines dealing with a lot of shady and scummy people. I often think that sometimes if they don't learn to cope with that appropriately they end up in situations where they become so hyped up and over the top that there's a lot of over-reactive behaviour happening.

I also believe when you are in a career like that your fellow police officers become your brothers and they stick together no matter what. I also think that there is a hive mentality that begins to develop. If you get one corrupt officer it stands to follow that others will share in that corruption. Corruption is a disease that spreads and some people actively participate while it sneaks up on others.

I think problems started happening when the corruption started from the top down. Over time, it filters down through the ranks and if you're leading by example and others follow in your food steps then naturally that sort of corrupt abuse of power spreads like wildfire.

There is accountability but perhaps not in the way that many would like. There also seems to be this mentality among those not in the force that every killing by a police officer is a senseless one. This is why those cameras are necessary and should be MANDATORY. In most cases, we're dealing with circumstantial evidence with some he-said, she-said and cell phone shots that only capture part of the story.

These days, I do believe that the police forces have become much more militarized. They are there to "protect" people to a certain degree but mostly they are re-active as opposed to pro-active. There is no longer a healthy relationship between people and the police. They are now separate entities who work against each other for a common goal which should be peace, but often ends up only being resentment and violence and disdain.

I do believe that they are subject to their superiors. Combine the Top-Down power model and wanting to keep your job and not be ostracized or abused or whatever, you end up doing what you're told and piggy back on those few individuals who DID get into the force to brutalize and abuse power. As long as you can follow the Alpha Dog who wants to rip everyone to shreds, you can shrug off a bit of accountability and responsibility.

It's not as simple as "X Police officer Shot X Person in cold murderous blood!" It never will be that simple. We're not dealing with police forces that are comprised 100% of Psychopaths here. There is a bigger, deep issue at hand that can't be resolved until you start looking for the source of the problem.

I like your idea concerning cameras. Make it so. :)