protesters throw bricks and bottles at riot police as six officers are injured in clashes after young black father, 25, dies after being arrested in routine traffic stop

Six police officers have been injured after rioters launched bricks, bottles and lit street fires over the death of a young black father-of-one.

The family of Edir 'Edson' Frederico Da Costa claim he was 'brutally beaten' and left with a broken neck after he was stopped by the Met in Newham, east London on June 15 - he died in hospital six days later.

Police admit they used CS spray and some force to arrest him but believe he fell ill because he had 'swallowed a large quantity of drugs' - a post-mortem found no neck or spinal injuries.

Last night a march in his memory from Forest Gate to Stratford turned violent after protesters chanting 'f*** the police' clashed with officers in riot gear.

Protesters, many with their faces obscured by scarves and t-shirts, hurled bricks and glass bottles, attacked police cars and lit fires in the road.

Four police officers were taken to hospital - including a female officer with head injuries and a male sergeant with facial injuries - and two others were treated at the scene.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4637904/Campaigners-confront-police-death-man-east-London.html

More like 'black lies matter'...

Lock and Load !!

"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical." --Thomas Jefferson

Professional yobs, all they are doing is hurting their own communities....though they probably don't even live in the area and have never met the dead man or his family.

Syl wrote:Professional yobs, all they are doing is hurting their own communities....though they probably don't even live in the area and have never met the dead man or his family.

But they vote.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:Professional yobs, all they are doing is hurting their own communities....though they probably don't even live in the area and have never met the dead man or his family.

But they vote.

Meaning?

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

But they vote.

Meaning?

Meaning, it's not significant if protesters are paid.  You hear this argument all the time, as if to suggest that there is something spurious in a paid political protest.  

The payment is for the means, but the protesters still have their political ends.  The currency of politics is votes; money is helpful, but not determinative.  I think because money is so often an illicit motive, we overlook the fact that it can also go along with an entirely proper motive.

I'm pretty sure Donald Trump paid a lot to have people show up for his rallies.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

Meaning?

Meaning, it's not significant if protesters are paid.  You hear this argument all the time, as if to suggest that there is something spurious in a paid political protest.  

The payment is for the means, but the protesters still have their political ends.  The currency of politics is votes; money is helpful, but not determinative.  I think because money is so often an illicit motive, we overlook the fact that it can also go along with an entirely proper motive.

I'm pretty sure Donald Trump paid a lot to have people show up for his rallies.

I don't know whether they were paid or not, there is an element of society who seem to latch on to tragedies of any sort to cause trouble....I think its the football hooligan mentality, anything to vent their anger out on society.
What they do is make it worse for the genuine victims....in this case the dead mans family and the local community.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Meaning, it's not significant if protesters are paid.  You hear this argument all the time, as if to suggest that there is something spurious in a paid political protest.  

The payment is for the means, but the protesters still have their political ends.  The currency of politics is votes; money is helpful, but not determinative.  I think because money is so often an illicit motive, we overlook the fact that it can also go along with an entirely proper motive.

I'm pretty sure Donald Trump paid a lot to have people show up for his rallies.

I don't know whether they were paid or not, there is an element of society who seem to latch on to tragedies of any sort to cause trouble....I think its the football hooligan mentality, anything to vent their anger out on society.
What they do is make it worse for the genuine victims....in this case the dead mans family and the local community.

That's just a matter of whether the cause if just or not. I agree...football hooligans, no...but to express how you feel about a political matter, maybe yes.

Our Congressmen hold Town Hall meetings, and they serve pretty well.

Another example of morons threatening to damage people's property, using the death of a black person as an excuse.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

I don't know whether they were paid or not, there is an element of society who seem to latch on to tragedies of any sort to cause trouble....I think its the football hooligan mentality, anything to vent their anger out on society.
What they do is make it worse for the genuine victims....in this case the dead mans family and the local community.

That's just a matter of whether the cause if just or not.  I agree...football hooligans, no...but to express how you feel about a political matter, maybe yes.

Our Congressmen hold Town Hall meetings, and they serve pretty well.

Town hall meetings, peacful protests, hassling local governments if they are not performing  well = good.  

Bashing policemen up, setting alight fires, throwing bricks, looting and terrorising neighbourhoods = bad.  
No matter what the cause is they are jumping on.

Raggamuffin wrote:Another example of morons threatening to damage people's property, using the death of a black person as an excuse.

There'll always be rabble rousers masquerading as some political faction or 'worthy cause'. The reality is they just want their 15 minutes of fame and don't really give a shit about the 'cause' they claim to champion.

I sometimes think live rounds should be used on these waste of space scum, or at least Rubber Bullets !

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

That's just a matter of whether the cause if just or not.  I agree...football hooligans, no...but to express how you feel about a political matter, maybe yes.

Our Congressmen hold Town Hall meetings, and they serve pretty well.

Town hall meetings, peacful protests, hassling local governments if they are not performing  well = good.  

Bashing policemen up, setting alight fires, throwing bricks, looting and terrorising neighbourhoods = bad.  
No matter what the cause is they are jumping on.

Well, but that's your feeling. Others feel differently. There are no boundaries in the state of nature. It's difficult for an American to argue that violence is out of order...how did we get our independence? Talk 'em to death?

The intensity of the crowd is determined by the wrongs about which they complain. Everybody's going to have a different middle-point.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

Town hall meetings, peacful protests, hassling local governments if they are not performing  well = good.  

Bashing policemen up, setting alight fires, throwing bricks, looting and terrorising neighbourhoods = bad.  
No matter what the cause is they are jumping on.

Well, but that's your feeling.  Others feel differently.  There are no boundaries in the state of nature.  It's difficult for an American to argue that violence is out of order...how did we get our independence?  Talk 'em to death?

The intensity of the crowd is determined by the wrongs about which they complain.  Everybody's going to have a different middle-point.

There's no excuse for it. The people they were targeting didn't do anything wrong. I remember you defending yobs who set people's cars on fire though, so I'm not surprised.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Well, but that's your feeling.  Others feel differently.  There are no boundaries in the state of nature.  It's difficult for an American to argue that violence is out of order...how did we get our independence?  Talk 'em to death?

The intensity of the crowd is determined by the wrongs about which they complain.  Everybody's going to have a different middle-point.

There's no excuse for it. The people they were targeting didn't do anything wrong. I remember you defending yobs who set people's cars on fire though, so I'm not surprised.

Of course not. Haha...we kicked British ass twice, I hear. If you think it's justified, go for it. If you think peace and order is the way to go, then that's for you. That's what revolution is all about.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

There's no excuse for it. The people they were targeting didn't do anything wrong. I remember you defending yobs who set people's cars on fire though, so I'm not surprised.

Of course not.  Haha...we kicked British ass twice, I hear.  If you think it's justified, go for it.  If you think peace and order is the way to go, then that's for you.  That's what revolution is all about.

What are you talking about? You defended yobs in the US who set fire to people's cars - nothing to do with kicking "British ass". We don't want your sort of behaviour here thank you.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Of course not.  Haha...we kicked British ass twice, I hear.  If you think it's justified, go for it.  If you think peace and order is the way to go, then that's for you.  That's what revolution is all about.

What are you talking about? You defended yobs in the US who set fire to people's cars - nothing to do with kicking "British ass". We don't want your sort of behaviour here thank you.

It's all about degrees...at what point are you willing to revolt against an oppressive regime?  It's in that tradition that the US Constitutional right to bear arms was created.

Hell, President Trump ran on the notion that the deep state was oppressing the people. That's his beef against the Washington DC crowd.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

What are you talking about? You defended yobs in the US who set fire to people's cars - nothing to do with kicking "British ass". We don't want your sort of behaviour here thank you.

It's all about degrees...at what point are you willing to revolt against an oppressive regime?  It's in that tradition that the US Constitutional right to bear arms was created.

They're not doing that though are they? They're threatening ordinary people living ordinary lives, and trashing their property.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

It's all about degrees...at what point are you willing to revolt against an oppressive regime?  It's in that tradition that the US Constitutional right to bear arms was created.

They're not doing that though are they? They're threatening ordinary people living ordinary lives, and trashing their property.

If they are doing that, I guess the excuse is 'collateral damage'.  When we had our Revolution, there was a huge internal battle between the revolutionaries and the loyalists.  My mother's family had to flee to the Bahamas because they were loyalists.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

They're not doing that though are they? They're threatening ordinary people living ordinary lives, and trashing their property.

If they are doing that, I guess the excuse is 'collateral damage'.  When we had our Revolution, there was a huge internal battle between the revolutionaries and the loyalists.  My mother's family had to flee to the Bahamas because they were loyalists.

As I said, you defend these yobs, but I do not. I'll just repeat to you that if anyone set fire to my car during a protest or a riot, I would expect them to be arrested and prosecuted for criminal damage, regardless of what "excuse" they came up with.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

If they are doing that, I guess the excuse is 'collateral damage'.  When we had our Revolution, there was a huge internal battle between the revolutionaries and the loyalists.  My mother's family had to flee to the Bahamas because they were loyalists.

As I said, you defend these yobs, but I do not. I'll just repeat to you that if anyone set fire to my car during a protest or a riot, I would expect them to be arrested and prosecuted for criminal damage, regardless of what "excuse" they came up with.

Well, I don't think anybody makes a permanent decision, yea or nay. It depends on the specific cause.

I like to think I would have sided with the revolutionaries on American independence, but I surely wouldn't join in on a Trump rally today. It depends upon which side you are on, and how passionate you are.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

As I said, you defend these yobs, but I do not. I'll just repeat to you that if anyone set fire to my car during a protest or a riot, I would expect them to be arrested and prosecuted for criminal damage, regardless of what "excuse" they came up with.

Well, I don't think anybody makes a permanent decision, yea or nay.  It depends on the specific cause.  

I like to think I would have sided with the revolutionaries on American independence, but I surely wouldn't join in on a Trump rally today.  It depends upon which side you are on, and how passionate you are.

Of course they do. Criminal damage should be punished - there's no two ways about it. In this country, you can't just trash someone's car because you're pissed off about something else, or just pissed.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Well, I don't think anybody makes a permanent decision, yea or nay.  It depends on the specific cause.  

I like to think I would have sided with the revolutionaries on American independence, but I surely wouldn't join in on a Trump rally today.  It depends upon which side you are on, and how passionate you are.

Of course they do. Criminal damage should be punished - there's no two ways about it. In this country, you can't just trash someone's car because you're pissed off about something else, or just pissed.

Unless it's during a revolution. I'm speaking of the subject in the abstract, allowing for all other possibilities.

On the other hand, some of these riots by RW white-supremacists I would oppose. But I'm speaking abstractly, and not specifically right now.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Of course they do. Criminal damage should be punished - there's no two ways about it. In this country, you can't just trash someone's car because you're pissed off about something else, or just pissed.

Unless it's during a revolution.  I'm speaking of the subject in the abstract, allowing for all other possibilities.

On the other hand, some of these riots by RW white-supremacists I would oppose.  But I'm speaking abstractly, and not specifically right now.

Well there isn't a revolution - just a group of morons thinking they can do what they like. I hope they all go to prison.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Unless it's during a revolution.  I'm speaking of the subject in the abstract, allowing for all other possibilities.

On the other hand, some of these riots by RW white-supremacists I would oppose.  But I'm speaking abstractly, and not specifically right now.

Well there isn't a revolution - just a group of morons thinking they can do what they like. I hope they all go to prison.

Haha...my, my, you are in a tizzy. Perhaps when there is a revolution, you'll feel differently.

Britain is the one country in which there has never been a true revolution. Everything there moves like molasses.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

Town hall meetings, peacful protests, hassling local governments if they are not performing  well = good.  

Bashing policemen up, setting alight fires, throwing bricks, looting and terrorising neighbourhoods = bad.  
No matter what the cause is they are jumping on.

Well, but that's your feeling.  Others feel differently.  There are no boundaries in the state of nature.  It's difficult for an American to argue that violence is out of order...how did we get our independence?  Talk 'em to death?

The intensity of the crowd is determined by the wrongs about which they complain.  Everybody's going to have a different middle-point.

The feeling of most civilised people is its wrong to bash policemen up, set cars alight, throw bricks at police officers, and terrorise neighbourhoods because you feel an injustice has been done.
And as pointed out many of the people who act like this do so because they are yobs feel like a ruck, not because they have a social conscience.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Well, but that's your feeling.  Others feel differently.  There are no boundaries in the state of nature.  It's difficult for an American to argue that violence is out of order...how did we get our independence?  Talk 'em to death?

The intensity of the crowd is determined by the wrongs about which they complain.  Everybody's going to have a different middle-point.

The feeling of most civilised people is its wrong to bash policemen up, set cars alight, throw bricks at police officers, and terrorise neighbourhoods because you feel an injustice has been done.
And as pointed out many of the people who act like this do so because they are yobs feel like a ruck, not because they have a social conscience.

Yes, on the other hand, the Americans had a revolution, the French had a revolution, the Chinese and Russians had a revolution...and we, the western nations, have on occasion supported revolutions. Apparently there are times when people get fed up with the established order, and take up arms. It depends upon the circumstances, and we can't judge except on a case by case basis.

One very famous fellow, Thomas Jefferson, said: "I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical." But I don't recommend it as I would, say, daily vitamins. Lol.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

The feeling of most civilised people is its wrong to bash policemen up, set cars alight, throw bricks at police officers, and terrorise neighbourhoods because you feel an injustice has been done.
And as pointed out many of the people who act like this do so because they are yobs feel like a ruck, not because they have a social conscience.

Yes, on the other hand, the Americans had a revolution, the French had a revolution, the Chinese and Russians had a revolution...and we, the western nations, have on occasion supported revolutions.  Apparently there are times when people get fed up with the established order, and take up arms.  It depends upon the circumstances, and we can't judge except on a case by case basis.

One very famous fellow, Thomas Jefferson, said: "I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical."  But I don't recommend it as I would, say, daily vitamins.  Lol.

We are usually more inclined to have a cup of tea and complain about the weather....

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Yes, on the other hand, the Americans had a revolution, the French had a revolution, the Chinese and Russians had a revolution...and we, the western nations, have on occasion supported revolutions.  Apparently there are times when people get fed up with the established order, and take up arms.  It depends upon the circumstances, and we can't judge except on a case by case basis.

One very famous fellow, Thomas Jefferson, said: "I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical."  But I don't recommend it as I would, say, daily vitamins.  Lol.

We are usually  more inclined to have a cup of tea and complain about the weather....

Haha...I know. Much more civilized.  The spirit of revolution never reached Britain.  They ameliorated with a more gentle labour movement...and, as you say, warm tea.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well there isn't a revolution - just a group of morons thinking they can do what they like. I hope they all go to prison.

Haha...my, my, you are in a tizzy.  Perhaps when there is a revolution, you'll feel differently.  

Britain is the one country in which there has never been a true revolution.  Everything there moves like molasses.

This country has taken up arms against the ruling elite many times in the past.
In fact it has done this on quite a few occasions and how we came to have the Magna Carter and Charles the First lost his head. The War of the Roses, shows actually the English as a people have risen up many times.
They may not be classed as what later became known as revolutions, but this country has had a history of standing up to injustices. However, there is no  excuse for the violence for today, when we have a very good justice system, far exceeding that of the US. Its because the US is corrupt by the fact of its federal system and massive differences in poverty. Also a problem is the growing hate between left and right fueled by social media. That the US has been in recent times more prone to violence. If it had a fairer system. There would be less incidents that led to violence.

[*]Death of Edir Frederico Da Costa sparked riots in east London over the weekend
[*]Police watchdog warned of 'false information' being shared on social media
[*]Met Police said he died after swallowing drugs following claims he was beaten
[*]Pathologist found 'a number of packages' in his throat, IPCC revealed today


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4644146/Man-death-sparked-riots-packages-throat.html#ixzz4lEUy1pf5 

Thorin wrote:[*]Death of Edir Frederico Da Costa sparked riots in east London over the weekend
[*]Police watchdog warned of 'false information' being shared on social media
[*]Met Police said he died after swallowing drugs following claims he was beaten
[*]Pathologist found 'a number of packages' in his throat, IPCC revealed today


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4644146/Man-death-sparked-riots-packages-throat.html#ixzz4lEUy1pf5 

So, who spread the false rumours about his neck being broken etc? The British faction of Black Lives Matter?

HoratioTarr wrote:

Thorin wrote:[*]Death of Edir Frederico Da Costa sparked riots in east London over the weekend
[*]Police watchdog warned of 'false information' being shared on social media
[*]Met Police said he died after swallowing drugs following claims he was beaten
[*]Pathologist found 'a number of packages' in his throat, IPCC revealed today


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4644146/Man-death-sparked-riots-packages-throat.html#ixzz4lEUy1pf5 

[*]

So, who spread the false rumours about his neck being broken etc?   The British faction of Black Lives Matter?

[*]


That would be very interesting to find out or whether it was individuals or that it was a website that gained grounding through social media. This is the problem with social media today, that before even a pathologist report, people are making unfounded claims to incite hatred and violence. In order to hype up anger and hatred. The fact that the family have been appalled how their son was here by those committing violence and unrest says it all to me. They want justice, but never called for any of this hate and violence. To me this could have very well been politically engineered and who has been calling for such a thing recently or the entire country?

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well there isn't a revolution - just a group of morons thinking they can do what they like. I hope they all go to prison.

Haha...my, my, you are in a tizzy.  Perhaps when there is a revolution, you'll feel differently.  

Britain is the one country in which there has never been a true revolution.  Everything there moves like molasses.

Don't be silly Quill. We're talking about criminal damage caused by yobs, not a "revolution".

HoratioTarr wrote:

Thorin wrote:[*]Death of Edir Frederico Da Costa sparked riots in east London over the weekend
[*]Police watchdog warned of 'false information' being shared on social media
[*]Met Police said he died after swallowing drugs following claims he was beaten
[*]Pathologist found 'a number of packages' in his throat, IPCC revealed today


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4644146/Man-death-sparked-riots-packages-throat.html#ixzz4lEUy1pf5 

[*]

So, who spread the false rumours about his neck being broken etc?   The British faction of Black Lives Matter?

[*]


You were right Horatio.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4641594/Family-s-fury-fake-claims-arrest-death-sparks-riot.html

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Haha...my, my, you are in a tizzy.  Perhaps when there is a revolution, you'll feel differently.  

Britain is the one country in which there has never been a true revolution.  Everything there moves like molasses.

Don't be silly Quill. We're talking about criminal damage caused by yobs, not a "revolution".

Revolution is a suspension of law...indeed, of all governing.  That is the question.  So, if the legitimacy of government is in question, per force the legitimacy of laws are in question.  If there are no laws, there are no crimes.

Of course, it all depends upon who wins.  But as they say in football, that's why you play the game.  View it as a continuum, if you like:

Laws and lawful government....................lawlessness and breakdown of legitimacy

In the American Revolution, the Colonists were undertaking a huge gamble. They could be hanged. Indeed, the Boston massacre showed the magnitude of the gamble. But lo, the Americans won and they won their own lives and political self-determination. The French did as well. The old order broke down (lost legitimacy) and the new legitimacy took over. Such is the nature of the stakes.

Sometimes you talk bollocks !

nicko wrote:Sometimes you talk bollocks !

Meh...so you say. Read a book by Herbert Marcuse, Reason and Revolution: Hegel and the Rise of Social Theory (1941). I'm sure he explains it much better.

"Lawyer Speak" never use one word when a dozen sounds better, [to a Lawyer] I hate Lawyers !

nicko wrote:"Lawyer Speak"     never use one word when a dozen sounds better,  [to a Lawyer]    I hate Lawyers !

Lawyers are supposed to be hated. That means they are successful.

That's what they get paid for.

Can't argue with that !

Traffic wardens, paedophiles and bullies are also hated....doesn't mean they are successful.

Original Quill wrote:

nicko wrote:"Lawyer Speak"     never use one word when a dozen sounds better,  [to a Lawyer]    I hate Lawyers !

Lawyers are supposed to be hated.  That means they are successful.

That's what they get paid for.  

Jesus...just go out and buy yourself a lycra one piece with the slogan 'SuperLawyer' on it and be done with it.

lawyers are also the ultimate conservatives....

why do you THINK they oppose the translation of law into commom english, and a simple easily understood form?

FOR THEIR OWN SELF INTEREST...

Syl wrote:Traffic wardens, paedophiles and bullies are also hated....doesn't mean they are successful.

Yes, but not for profit. A lawyer is supposed to undertake the hatred that people have for one another, and turn it into a foil to get results (whatever the client wants, within legal bounds).

Lawyers step right into a pool of hatred...that's their job. If they are good at it and accomplish favorable results, they make lots and lots of money. Their own clients love them.

The legal system is adversarial for a reason. When it was invented the founders believed there is no absolute 'good' and therefore no Solomon, with all the right answers. So, they devised a kind of contest (adversarial system), in which the winner would prevail. At first, when religion reigned, it was who would survive the dunking. As reason began to reign, it became a system of rules and laws, with arguments, such as we have today.

But the litigants don't care about all that. They want to win. Thus, the idea of a good lawyer came about...loved by his own client, hated by all others.

Lord Foul wrote:lawyers are also the ultimate conservatives....

why do you THINK they oppose the translation of law into commom english, and a simple easily understood form?

FOR THEIR OWN SELF INTEREST...

If only it were that easy.  There's a lot of flim-flam in law, but it isn't in being secretive.  It's in winning...get a reputation for being the winner, and clients flock to your door.

That's why you see a lot of lawyers caught up in ethical violations.  They cut corners to win.  And what client isn't all right with that?  But the Bar Association clamp down on them, because it spoils the reputation of lawyers generally.

After Nixon,--and watch it happen post-Trump--Bar Associations flocked to rewrite the rules of conduct for lawyers.  Trump poses the same wicked conditions: lots of money, an adversarial environment (politics is just another courtroom), and a boss/client who wants to cut corners and win at all costs.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:Traffic wardens, paedophiles and bullies are also hated....doesn't mean they are successful.

Yes, but not for profit.  A lawyer is supposed to undertake the hatred that people have for one another, and turn it into a foil to get results (whatever the client wants, within legal bounds).  

Lawyers step right into a pool of hatred...that's their job.  If they are good at it and accomplish favorable results, they make lots and lots of money.  Their own clients love them.

The legal system is adversarial for a reason.  When it was invented the founders believed there is no absolute 'good' and therefore no Solomon, with all the right answers.  So, they devised a kind of contest (adversarial system), in which the winner would prevail.  At first, when religion reigned, it was who would survive the dunking.  As reason began to reign, it became a system of rules and laws, with arguments, such as we have today.

But the litigants don't care about all that.  They want to win.  Thus, the idea of a good lawyer came about...loved by his own client, hated by all others.

I don't know how a decent person can ever become a defence lawyer who takes on cases where the most heinous crimes have been committed...knowing they are defending some monster or other.
Morally, I don't know how they can justify doing what they do....no matter how many riches it may bring their way.