Saint Louis Mayor Will Permit Limited Amount of Riots, Arson and Looting, But Murder Will Probably Be Frowned Upon…

The mayor has not fully identified the amount of allowable violence he will permit, which leaves Saint Louis citizens to wonder what will be the allowable quota for businesses to be looted, torched, and/or individuals to be attacked?  Will murder be discouraged, or frowned upon?… so many questions.

ST. LOUIS (KMOX) – St. Louis Mayor Francis Slay has requested 400 members of the National Guard to help in the city after the grand jury’s decision is announced in the Michael Brown case.

Saint Louis Mayor Slay

He has also agreed to some of the Don’t Shoot Coalition’s proposed rules of engagement.

In a letter to the St. Louis Board of Aldermen and the Public Safety Committee, the mayor said he considers “rules of engagement” a military term, and would prefer to call them “rules of conduct.”

He has agreed to let protesters occupy public spaces and even be “disruptive but not violent.”

“Like blocking the street or blocking a sidewalk for a specific period of time,” Slay told KMOX.

He also agreed not to shut down safe houses – where protesters meet to strategize.

The mayor wrote that the city will use the Guard troops to patrol with officers who are not at organized protests, and will assist individual officers to patrol and watch for random acts of violence or property damage.

Concerning the use of protective gear, the mayor said officers will be in normal uniform and only switch to protective gear if public safety becomes a concern.

“We have met many dozens of times with each other, with federal, state and other local officials, with protest leaders and protesters themselves. … I am absolutely convinced that the leaders of the demonstrations and the vast majority of demonstrators themselves are committed to non-violence,” the mayor said in the letter. “Change is necessary, inevitable and irreversible.”  (read more)

anderson cooper ferguson

 

This entry was posted in Agitprop, BGI - Black Grievance Industry, Big Stupid Government, Conspiracy ?, CRS, Cultural Marxism, Dem Hypocrisy, Dept Of Justice, Fabian Socialists - Modern Progressives, media bias, Police action, Political correctness/cultural marxism, Professional Idiots, propaganda, Racism, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

186 Responses to Saint Louis Mayor Will Permit Limited Amount of Riots, Arson and Looting, But Murder Will Probably Be Frowned Upon…

  1. Centinel2012 says:

    Reblogged this on Centinel2012 and commented:
    Limited looting — my that will work out really well this man is either a total idiot or a Democrat — oh I’m sorry I repeat myself!

    Liked by 2 people

    • doodahdaze says:

      Actually managed. Similar to Obamas managed health care. Managed looting. Managed rioting. All for the collective greater good. Makes sense if one is a progressive fanatic.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. benzy says:

    Unfortunately, Mayor Slay neglected to demand one thing from the “peaceful protesters” in exchange for all the concessions he gave them regarding their 19 rules of engagement. He should have required that they leave the St. Louis Gateway Arch standing… the city has grown rather fond of it. /sarc

    Liked by 1 person

  3. The Missouri legislature passed this statute in 2014 but it is scheduled to go into effect in 2017:
    Beginning January 1, 2017–Justification generally.

    563.026. 1. Unless inconsistent with other provisions of this chapter defining justifiable use of physical force, or with some other provision of law, conduct which would otherwise constitute any offense other than a class A felony or murder is justifiable and not criminal when it is necessary as an emergency measure to avoid an imminent public or private injury which is about to occur by reason of a situation occasioned or developed through no fault of the actor, and which is of such gravity that, according to ordinary standards of intelligence and morality, the desirability of avoiding the injury outweighs the desirability of avoiding the injury sought to be prevented by the statute defining the offense charged.

    Like

    • auscitizenmom says:

      I read it three times, but I have no idea what that is saying.

      Like

      • ackbarsays says:

        I read that to say that you can commit what would otherwise be a felonius act (but nothing as serious as a class A felony or higher) in order to prevent anything worse from occurring to yourself or someone else, in private or in public. So, for instance, if you see someone who is threatening to shoot someone or is committing a first degree burglary (burglary with a weapon or causing injury or threatening to injure someone), then you would have the right to shoot that person to prevent the crime from being committed. The key is that the crime being committed must appear to a sensible person to be of such a nature that the outcome of your act, while extreme, is considered more desirable than the act you are preventing. So, you couldn’t see someone shoplifting and shoot them for it to prevent the crime from taking place. I’m not a lawyer, but that sounds like what they’re trying to say.

        Class A felonies include murder, first degree kidnapping, forcible rape of a child under twelve years old, first degree robbery, and some drug crimes.
        Class B felonies in Missouri include voluntary manslaughter and first degree burglary.
        Class C felonies can include involuntary manslaughter in the first degree (can be a Class B or Class C felony), statutory rape in the second degree, possession of a controlled substance, and theft.
        Class D felonies are crimes such as fraud, resisting arrest, and passing a bad check.

        Liked by 1 person

  4. This is in effect now:
    563.031. 1. A person may, subject to the provisions of subsection 2 of this section, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he or she reasonably believes such force to be necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful force by such other person, unless:

    (1) The actor was the initial aggressor; except that in such case his or her use of force is nevertheless justifiable ;
    2. A person may not use deadly force upon another person under the circumstances specified in subsection 1 of this section unless:

    (1) He or she reasonably believes that such deadly force is necessary to protect himself, or herself or her unborn child, or another against death, serious physical injury, or any forcible felony;

    (2) Such force is used against a person who unlawfully enters, remains after unlawfully entering, or attempts to unlawfully enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle lawfully occupied by such person; or

    (3) Such force is used against a person who unlawfully enters, remains after unlawfully entering, or attempts to unlawfully enter private property that is owned or leased by an individual claiming a justification of using protective force under this section.

    1. A person does not have a duty to retreat from a dwelling, residence, or vehicle where the person is not unlawfully entering or unlawfully remaining. A person does not have a duty to retreat from private property that is owned or leased by such individual.

    Note: you may use force to protect even if someone is just trying to enter your “castle” and there is NO duty to retreat.

    Like

  5. Now I see why the police have been telling all law abiding people to get guns for protection.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. mills says:

    So your saying I can run up to the first black I see and smash it’s head in with my NBGStick

    Like

  7. whodoneit says:

    The Mayor’s concessions are the equivalent of making deals with terrorists. The only statement he should be making to “anybody” is that if you break the law, you get smacked down – period – no exceptions! This idiot is literally encouraging them.

    Like

  8. How does this not violate the Constitutional protections granted to the people of St. Louis? Should be tried for 300k violations of willful endangerment?

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s