Did Police Set Autos On Fire During Ferguson Protests?

[MrScorpio]

By Che Lank
November 30th, 2014

This video captures images worthy of investigation. The video seems to show military-clad police setting fire to a car outside of auto parts store. The store and the one next to it burned down. In other videos where fires were started or stores had windows broken you can hear protesters saying ‘leave that store alone’ or ‘don’t start a fire’. We know organizers in Ferguson trained 600 people in nonviolent resistance tactics. Burning cars and looting building is not part of that training, indeed typically people are taught that the idea is to grow the movement into a larger movement and that looting and rioting is counterproductive. We are not saying that all the fires were started by police, but this one raises questions that deserve investigation — were fires started by police?

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.


https://www.popularresistance.org/did-police-set-autos-on-fire-during-ferguson-protests/

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

1. Careful....You might get in trouble for posting this...

just sayin

[MrScorpio]

2. Right.

What about the video?

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

6. You dont have to sell me, I have no doubt who started all the damage in Ferguson

[helpmetohelpyou]

17. In the first thing he talks about I don't see a flame in the car

He said you can see the flame rise but to me it still looks like a flashlight beam
If that was a flashbang in the car it would have blown out the windows and no way would
the guy still be standing that close to the window when he threw a flash bang grenade

[Warpy]

29. A flash-bang grenade produces a strong flash, something I didn't see happening

in that car. The one grinning goon that was shown as being arrested for setting cars on fire looked for all the world like he knew his name would never hit the police blotter, though. Of course, he might have been just plain nuts, too, these things tend to bring out the head cases.

(oh shut up, I went through the 60s)

I think there was very likely a lot of false flag shit flying. I just don't think a flash-bang dumped into this particular car was part of it. However, it does seem very odd that the part of Florissant that was blockaded off seemed to experience the worst damage. Now that sends my cynic meter into the red zone.

[marym625]

34. You made me giggle

With the little talking to yourself about the 60s

[Warpy]

37. I was talking to the busybodies

who saw words like "head case" and would be tempted to alert.

[marym625]

39. oy!

That's worthy of an alert?

I thought you were talking to yourself

Still made me smile

[kjones]

42. Flashbang, see here.

[Warpy]

43. Thanks.

In darkness, it would have lit up half the block. It didn't.

[kjones]

45. They definitely aren't little whipper-snappers

That someone would think you can throw one in a car and ignite it,
and yet do so completely casually...they just aren't something you
throw like it's no big deal. Even if those guys were wearing ear
protection, they'd all have wanted to look away given the flash
it would have made, yet the guy who "threw it" doesn't look away at
all. Not to mention, who would throw one so close to themselves?
Hasn't DU torn apart the dangers of flashbangs? Hurt that baby,
has killed people even.

All in all, people should have more common sense on here.
Healthy questioning is one thing, perpetuating something
like this is another. I wouldn't aspire to be anything like, or
a counterpart to, my grandpa, a right-wing CT guy.
Anyway, kind of struck me like what I remember from
a while back. Some journalist or such saw earplugs on
the ground and thought they were rubber bullets. Now,
I don't even know what rubber bullets look like really (bullets
made of/covered in rubber I assume), but mistaking earplugs
for them? How do you get through life and never see earplugs?
Donno...
More understandable than this though. Part of it should be
common sense, and part of it should be diligence in researching
your own claims. If someone thinks something was a flashbang,
a little looking around could show that it almost certainly is not.

Sorry, it's the kind of thing that annoys me.
Though sometimes, a nice rant after lunch can do you well.
Better than yoga!

[helpmetohelpyou]

3. INFOWARS , the same people who still say Obama was born in Kenya

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

4. the person showing the video and talking about it is not infowars, I cant stand that ass Jones e

either, but this person is simply using the video to make a point

[helpmetohelpyou]

7. I'll watch it then , I stopped watching as soon as I saw infowars

[MrScorpio]

14. The posted video wasn't from infowars.

Inforwars hosted someone else's video and the poster gleaned information for that video.

[helpmetohelpyou]

18. I'm watching it now , I think the poster is wrong about the fire in the car at AutoZone

[Voice for Peace]

33. did you see what he was describing? I could not.

[brooklynite]

26. The person showing the video is a "PATRIOT".....equally dubious.

[MrScorpio]

8. No, it's not. By the way, I found the article on Buzzflash

Since when has Buzzflash been linked to Inforwars?

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

11. to be fair the video seems to have come from infowars, but that doesnt mean anything as it seems

legit

[loyalsister]

5. Outside agitators is also a possibility

Of course, we're not seeing much about this, though. There seems to be a reluctance to believe that these agitators are most likely Americans. How long is the media and Americans in general going to give racists the benefit of the doubt? I have no evidence that is the case, but I am outraged that no one seems to be considering that possibility.

The ABC News report says, “The FBI assesses those infiltrating and exploiting otherwise legitimate public demonstrations with the intent to incite and engage in violence could be armed with bladed weapons or firearms, equipped with tactical gear/gas masks, or bulletproof vests to mitigate law enforcement measures.”

------------------------

The FBI report confirms what we reported back in August—that terrorist elements have been active on the scene. We said, “Ferguson has become a ‘war zone’ because of outside agitators…The real story out of Ferguson is that a national network of agitators is ready, on a moment’s notice, to arrive on the scene to cause violence and mayhem.”

Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/outside-agitators-militarized-police-ferguson/#WsRepw7cbmzaiY1S.99

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

9. I think some of us are thinking it but dont feel safe discussing it

[loyalsister]

16. Thanks for pointing that out

I read in another article that NYPD is "studying" them to find out how to prepare. I couldn't quite figure out if they were actively doing something about it. But, I couldn't help but wonder if they were letting STL burn so that they could protect a larger city where they believed more damage could be done.

I'm not talking about conspiracies. I see it more as a question of competence.

[olddots]

10. I get weird feelings about the media sometimes .

You know they need exiting coverage ...........

[ProdigalJunkMail]

12. while they might have set a fire or two...

no one in this video drops a flash-bang into a car. did the guy watching the video not SEE the whole video inclusive to this which shows how a flash-bang works? he even says at one point, "i am not sure how he doesn't burn his hand" or something to that effect... guess that little slice of logic evaded the rest of his brain as he was putting this together.

sP

[Warpy]

30. Exactly, those things are bright, even in sunlight.

The James Boyd homicide video shows that. WARNING extremely graphic after the grenade goes off near Boyd, so you might want to stop it then. Also gives a lot of background on why this particular case brought in the Feds. http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/20/us/albuquerque-police-investigation/

With the grenade providing such a bright flash in daylight, there is no way it could have gone unnoticed even behind a car door in the foot well at night.

[sadoldgirl]

13. Even if they did not,

I don't think that they did anything really to stop it.

[MrScorpio]

15. Absofreakinglutely nt

[Travis_0004]

19. It looked like light from a flashlight and not a fire.

Also, video the next day there is no burned out car in the spot, and no signs of a car burning in that spot.

[wercal]

20. I'm really not sure what I see in the car

But this guy is trying to make a connection between the allegedly burning car and the building igniting. He goes to a photo of the burnt out building and suggests there are multiple burn spots in the parking lot and those burnt cars have been removed....those aren't burn marks...they are oil stains....very common in parking lots of auto parts stores. Also, there is no indication that external fire got to the building near where the car was. Not enough.

[X_Digger]

21. Looks like a flashlight beam.. no flames.

They wouldn't be standing around when a flash-bang goes off- it's meant to stun with pressure, light, and sound.

Tea-leaves reading.

[Hekate]

22. KnR, Mr. S. ~~~ So many unanswered questions. So many unasked questions. nt

[immoderate]

23. This coincides with the notion of agent provocateurs.

I find it odd that there have not been (at least I haven't heard of) arrests of arsonists, or the alleged Molotov cocktail hurlers of the early demonstrations. The police, or their supposed allies are in a position to feed the fears of the people who vote.

--imm

[Initech]

24. Is it me or does that look like a Crown Vic in that first photo?

If so it makes me question whether or not the police were setting their own cars on fire.

[justiceischeap]

25. I'm no firearms expert but it's quite plain to me

the sound he attributes to the flashbang, is in actuality, a gun shot from a distance. A flashbang is a grenade without shrapnel, it's going to explode like a grenade, it's going to be loud and concussive, it's going to blow out windows and probably damage body parts if the cop stood there and dropped one.

I've no doubt that there are agent provocateur at every protest that ever takes place (with any kind of seriousness--I don't mean tea party rallies where they have more Johnny On the Spots than protestors) but I don't think the video is the "smoking gun" people are looking for.

[mountain grammy]

27. I really have wondered if there was something more going on

this doesn't convince me, but I'm still suspicious. The whole grand jury fiasco and announcement is like some bizarre scene from another world. Who wouldn't be suspicious of official misconduct? It seems to be rampant there.

[JonLP24]

28. I find it very likely

I think these protests are about a lot more than Brown, I think it is about a community that have spent generations profiled, discriminated against, saw the rules bent right in front of them, basically a whole lot of unjust shit and the shooting of Michael Brown was the fuse that blow.

They say the riots are the language of the unspoken though aside from some looting & a things going too far here or there--these protests aren't riots--I think it is very clear what they're saying.

COINTELPRO was an example of law enforcement planting evidence, doing things to discredit them. I find it very likely a police unit would torch a car with the implication the protesters did. Police have significant power to make things look a certain way as well as doing things that won't come back on them.

I think people would be very surprised if they knew what went on behind the scenes. They'll say a "few bad apples" but even though something like corruption for personal gain or physical/psychological abuse may not be widespread in most departments, noble cause corruption is. Police officers may strongly believe someone is guilty but something like the constitution gets in the way so they'll jazz up the police reports, lie on the stand, frame, or give someone a beating no one will find about because they feel like he deserves one.

The Wire is a good example. It was portrayed a department where everyone bent the rules. A detective like Kima Greggs was very unusual in that she didn't cut corners, objected to the phony wiretap of Marlo Stanfield (good example of noble cause corruption) of all people, and even didn't finger the likely shooter because she didn't see him (it also showed how cops could get potential witnesses to finger shooters they didn't factually see). He explained the pop can & the prints & footprints, the log on the wire all within an hour of the shooting. She already knew Wee-bey was an enforcer with bodies on him but it wasn't enough for her.

However, she didn't have a problem with brutality and was quick to jump at an opportunity to join one herself. The beating of Bird--I can totally see scenarios of someone talking non-stop shit to the point where the cops agree among st themselves to beat the shit out of him in an interrogation room. Also killing a state's witness probably had something to do with that even though it was perjured testimony that convicted him.

Interestingly, none of the detectives were even interested in the subject of whether he was actually there or not. They were just glad to have someone willing to testify (most often in the series people are too scared to testify). However, Greggs had reservations almost immediately but Freeman talked her down by going into the art of interrogation.

I liked Freeman a lot, he was portrayed as the most competent at his job but he showed he was an "ends justify the means" kind of guy.

I explain all that in the hopes to show what I mean in what cops can & do get away with, why they do start crossing lines putting pressure on the other cops to either do the same things or don't inform on them. Lieutenant Daniels was interesting, one of the detectives engaged in a senseless beating where even all the cops seemed to have a problem with but coached him on his story because he felt a duty to protect his men, even one who he thought was a worthless incompetent that made boneheaded mistakes, whose motivation didn't involve interest in protecting the image of the department.

Though it is implied he has skeletons in his closets as well back from his Western days though the series never gets into except to mention an "assets investigation" -- something to do with why a salary policeman has so much as all this money or how he can afford to live in such a nice house.

[Kalidurga]

31. Of course they did.

Some of it might have been on accident though.

[progressoid]

32. It's possible but it seems a stretch to think the video is proof.

[99th_Monkey]

35. Highly unlikely, otherwise eye-witnesses would surely have surfaced by now. nt

[truedelphi]

48. Were you watching CNN at all the night of the announcement?

On one occasion, one of the younger reporters was out on a street, and she was reporting ona store burning (which for all I know could be the store referred to in the above video as being across the street, and on fire.)

She is told by the older reporter who is the central reporter, to clear the area, as the station higher ups do not like the fact that rocks are being thrown at her.

the woman reporter replies that no rocks have been thrown at her.

But the older reporter persists - she is in danger, and she needs to leave the area. (Now if there had been rocks thrown at her, I assume we in the TV audience would have seen the rocks, but we didn't see anything.) The photojournalist with her does a broad screen shot of the whole street, and there is no group of people throwing rocks.

Anyway then her live time viewpoint is cut off, and we don't see her again.

For all anyone knows, the woman reporter was made to leve before the incident in the video occurs??

[cheapdate]

36. That wasn't a flash-bang grenade.

Cop was looking in the car with a flashlight. There was a crack from down the street, maybe a .22. There was no recoil or reaction from the cop with the flashlight. The cops around him looked off toward the distance where the sound came from.

That's what it looked like to me anyway.

[NuclearDem]

38. Oh for crying out loud.

Because it simply couldn't have been black bloc, militia members, or any of the protestors. If any bad things happen at protests, it's obviously a police plot to discredit the protestors.

[Igel]

40. At least as likely that the flames that are barely visible "in the car" aren't.

Flames are reflected in the Autozone's windows. It's not much of a stretch to imagine that other glass windows--say, the car's--can also reflect.

Which removes the last bit of "evidence" that the "Patriot" claims. The grenade's already been discussed.

The rest is post hoc reasoning. If the SWAT team was there, it must have always stayed there. If it was in the front, it must also have been in the back. If the SWAT team was there, it must be entirely responsible for anything that happened there. Even if it might have finished checking out the car and left.

Motivated thinking. "My group must be good because I'm good and it's my group; their group must be bad because they're bad. If something bad happened, must absolve my group and blame theirs." Meh.

[Downwinder]

41. Everyone knows it was those pesky Commies or Anarchists

who caused the fires.

[blackspade]

44. Not that I doubt that agent provocateurs were behind the rioting....

But the video does not show police 'burning' a vehicle. What they were doing is an open question though, as are the causes of all of the arson that occurred in an area obviously crawling with cops?

I think the PTB got what they wanted. I just don't think it is quite working out the way they envisioned it.
I think that there is far broader support for the protesters that they considered.

[SomethingFishy]

49. +1 They got their marching orders.. too bad they didn't realize that

Frank Luntz's "THUG" meme would fall flat on it's face.

Sorry Fox News, when you continually call the POTUS a "thug" for 6 years it kind of takes the sting out of that word.

[Judi Lynn]

46. Thank you. This is deeply important. n/t

[NightWatcher]

47. I saw a flashlight and never saw the 'flames'

I love a conspiracy theory about 'the man' as much as the next guy, but that was some pretty thin shit. It looked like they shined their lights into the car and then shined them away. I never saw flames in the car in front of the store.