The PokéCommunity Forums

The PokéCommunity Forums (https://www.pokecommunity.com/index.php)
-   Off-Topic (https://www.pokecommunity.com/forumdisplay.php?f=23)
-   -   Modern Racism: Officer Wilson Walks (https://www.pokecommunity.com/showthread.php?t=339221)

Magic Christmas Lights November 25th, 2014 1:20 PM

Modern Racism: Officer Wilson Walks
 
So you've no doubt heard about what's going on in Ferguson. Or maybe you haven't. Officer Darren Wilson shot and killed college-bound and unarmed Black teen, Michael Brown. Riots were had, the police acted with unnecessary and egregious force against people exercising their freedom of assembly, speech, and press, and finally Officer Wilson was brought before a jury to answer for what he did. Only, the jury found that there was "insufficient evidence" to convict the officer, and so he walked. More can be read here: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/11/25/366507379/ferguson-docs-how-the-grand-jury-reached-a-decision

What does everyone think about these events? I find them appalling, and I hope this wakes America up to the sad fact that racism is alive and well. It probably won't - the only people I see lamenting over these events are people who were already open to the idea of modern racism, but I can dream.

Corvus of the Black Night November 25th, 2014 1:31 PM

My only major opinion is that I really wish the rioting would stop. Regardless of the side of the fence you're on, it's not going to help a single person. At. All. This **** is causing *******s to justify everything. It's not helping anyone. Yes, people are PISSED. Do you really think though that going around and setting fire to things, raiding buildings, ect. is going to solve anything but cause damage to people, many of which probably don't even have any relation to the problem in question whatsoever? Hell I'm willing to bet some of the anti-riot police/firefighters ect. actually support the Brown family. I swear to god people. This **** only separates people further and further apart.

Detroit tried that almost 50 years ago and only recently has begun any ability to recover. Literally one of the greatest cities in the United States fell to this **** and Ferg is quickly on that route.

I also send the Browns my condolences. I don't think their son deserved to die. I can't imagine being them right now, I would find it so difficult to find solace because of the condition of this situation. The rioting, the national news coverage of their tragedy, the misinformation that's going around on BOTH sides... man. I can't even think about it dude.

Clairissa November 25th, 2014 4:22 PM

This really wasn't a race issue until it was made into one, police have killed people under more suspicious circumstances than this, with less evidence released, and less media coverage.

I watched streams of the events, police responded by blocking "protestors" from the court house and police station, there were 69 arrests and 21 fires according to the Ferguson PD, the store Michael Brown robbed was also hit fairly hard, here's a short video of the store owner in the aftermath.

Here's everything the grandjury saw.

Here's Michael Brown robbing a store for a 50 dollar cigar box, which is why the police were called to arrest him.

The events were poorly handled by the media, who do what they enjoy doing and misrepresenting or reporting on unconfirmed facts or pure speculation, even witnesses that lied and recanted after being proven wrong.

I have no sympathy for Michael Brown, his family I do because of the media circus and hypocritical support of those that turned to violence and destruction in the name of their son, I also feel for the officer who will now be a target by people with the wrong intentions due to this event.

Again, this is not a race issue in the way you may think it is, I'm sure this would play out the same were Michael Brown white, and the police officer black (sarcasm), this is an issue of people with agendas looking to misinform and cause tension/violence.

Corvus of the Black Night November 25th, 2014 5:03 PM

My two cents after your post - I agree with everything except that he deserved to die. Petty theft doesn't really deserve death. Not even armed robbery really - because we don't do this to other armed robbers.

I honestly think the officer made a mistake. A similar, sad story occurred locally and people wanted the officer hung. Thing is, this **** can happen. A few months ago there was this absolutely tragic story about an officer who killed a 7 year old black child, and the officer was white, so you did get a few people protesting. But every time I heard it I was like, "dude, he could have easily ****ed up. It's just so sad all around". I'm glad that he didn't get charged with murder. Just from all the information that was available after the hearing and all that there was no way you could say he was guilty.

EDIT: Also... pretty much all the protest is pretty ****ing insane right now. I honestly don't really understand it. Yes, it's a "race" crime technically, but let's be real here - if the officer was black, or he was white, would any of us really know about this?

Stuff like this happens a LOT in Detroit and surrounding areas all the time and it's extremely upsetting, far, far FAR worse stories than what is going on at Ferguson, but I guess that city knows better by this point.

Shame on all the rioters.

Emboar November 25th, 2014 5:29 PM

I would have sympathy for Michael Brown if people had not reacted the way they did. Protesting itself is unnecessary, as most protests get protesters absolutely nowhere, so protesting the death of one person is pretty useless. Riots and violence is not going to solve anything, they just induce more damage than necessary. I do have sympathy for the residents of Ferguson who don't take part in these riots, as they are intelligent enough not to take part in the violence, but unfortunately some of them have had their property damage thanks to these violent rioters.

Clairissa November 25th, 2014 6:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daigonite (Post 8509352)
My two cents after your post - I agree with everything except that he deserved to die. Petty theft doesn't really deserve death. Not even armed robbery really - because we don't do this to other armed robbers.

I honestly think the officer made a mistake. A similar, sad story occurred locally and people wanted the officer hung. Thing is, this **** can happen.

I never said Michael Brown deserved to die, I said I had no sympathy for him because of his actions leading up to and including his death, it is regrettable, but he made incredibly poor choices.

Corvus of the Black Night November 25th, 2014 6:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clairissa (Post 8509420)
I never said Michael Brown deserved to die, I said I had no sympathy for him because of his actions leading up to and including his death, it is regrettable, but he made incredibly poor choices.

Sorry, I interpreted that incorrectly.

I don't agree with that though, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. Yes, he made poor decisions but most people don't get killed when they do that.

Like I stated in my last post, it's really just sad all around.

ShinyUmbreon189 November 25th, 2014 6:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daigonite (Post 8509352)
My two cents after your post - I agree with everything except that he deserved to die. Petty theft doesn't really deserve death. Not even armed robbery really - because we don't do this to other armed robbers.

I honestly think the officer made a mistake. A similar, sad story occurred locally and people wanted the officer hung. Thing is, this **** can happen.

Imma ask you a simple question. What would you do if someone 200+ pounds shattered your face, tried to steal your gun, wouldn't obey orders, and charged you to take you down? This isn't about whether he deserved to die or not, it was a matter of life and death. The officer did what he had to do. If Brown wouldn't of charged him he'd still be alive today and if Wilson wouldn't of killed Brown he'd probably be dead and nobody would know about it because the media only targets white on black crime. Granted he'd be incarcerated but he'd still be alive. Brown was a thug just like the rest of the rioters in Ferguson, it's a black majority area that's gang affiliated. Brown was far from an innocent man, he had a rap sheet.

@Clairissa, so true. If the officer was black and Brown was white nothing would of happened, look up Dillon Taylor, it's a perfect example. The media and Ferguson just wanted their 15 minutes of fame and they got it.

Corvus of the Black Night November 25th, 2014 7:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShinyUmbreon189 (Post 8509429)
Imma ask you a simple question. What would you do if someone 200+ pounds shattered your face, tried to steal your gun, wouldn't obey orders, and charged you to take you down? This isn't about whether he deserved to die or not, it was a matter of life and death. The officer did what he had to do. If Brown wouldn't of charged him he'd still be alive today and if Wilson wouldn't of killed Brown he'd probably be dead and nobody would know about it because the media only targets white on black crime. Granted he'd be incarcerated but he'd still be alive. Brown was a thug just like the rest of the rioters in Ferguson, it's a black majority area that's gang affiliated. Brown was far from an innocent man, he had a rap sheet.

Dude, all I said was that I wish the kid didn't die. I'm not saying he's innocent, I'm not saying that the cop is guilty, I've said both were likely untrue both times.

I just feel sorry for the family because they lost their son. It's extremely unfortunate to lose your son or daughter to such a tragedy. Like I stated earlier, there was an altercation in Detroit that happened two years ago that just had it's trial like 3 months ago and I felt so bad for the officer because it was like, you knew he wasn't guilty. Nothing could ever take that 7 year old girl back, but was the cop guilty? Not from the evidence. It sounded purely accidental. And it hurts, but the thing is, there is no answer to something like that. It just is.

Just because a lot of people are playing the race card doesn't mean that you can't feel sympathy for the fact that someone died. Realistically, I would have hoped that he would be sentenced to rehabilitation so that he could work towards improving his life away crime than anything, but now that's impossible. And ultimately - that's the biggest tragedy of all - that he really can't be redeemed for his crimes. He has no possibility for redemption because he is dead.

And if you're wondering, it is exactly that why I'm against the death penalty. But that's for another time.

Timbjerr November 25th, 2014 7:48 PM

My only gripe is with people instigating the whole thing as a race issue. There's absolutely no evidence that supports the idea that Wilson targeted Brown because he was black. In fact, he was working off of a profile that the 911 dispatcher gave him.

Central to the story is that an officer of the law used lethal force on someone suspected of a $50 theft. The fact that the victim was black is absolutely irrelevant, and making it out like some sinister hate crime to engorge the passions of an already downtrodden community is only asking for trouble when the facts come back and there's no evidence to back the claim up.

The Brown family still has a civil lawsuit pending...and honestly, that looks to be where their biggest victory will come.

Keiran November 25th, 2014 7:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clairissa (Post 8509320)
This really wasn't a race issue until it was made into one, police have killed people under more suspicious circumstances than this, with less evidence released, and less media coverage.

I watched streams of the events, police responded by blocking "protestors" from the court house and police station, there were 69 arrests and 21 fires according to the Ferguson PD, the store Michael Brown robbed was also hit fairly hard, here's a short video of the store owner in the aftermath.

Here's everything the grandjury saw.

Here's Michael Brown robbing a store for a 50 dollar cigar box, which is why the police were called to arrest him.

The events were poorly handled by the media, who do what they enjoy doing and misrepresenting or reporting on unconfirmed facts or pure speculation, even witnesses that lied and recanted after being proven wrong.

I have no sympathy for Michael Brown, his family I do because of the media circus and hypocritical support of those that turned to violence and destruction in the name of their son, I also feel for the officer who will now be a target by people with the wrong intentions due to this event.

Again, this is not a race issue in the way you may think it is, I'm sure this would play out the same were Michael Brown white, and the police officer black (sarcasm), this is an issue of people with agendas looking to misinform and cause tension/violence.

I'm fairly certain this is about race and IS a race issue when the KKK is openly supporting a killer cop.

Here's the rest of the video showing Mike Brown pay for whatever you think he stole. Darren Wilson stopped Mike Brown for jaywalking, not theft.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Limerent (Post 8509449)
I think we've come a long way from the 90's with the Rodney King beatings where the case was much more clear cut, especially in hindsight, yet the jury still said not guilty. Accusations of racism or misconduct are purely circumstantial with this case, I have confidence that the jury have done their job properly, both the officer and the suspect made mistakes but Wilson has been found not criminally liable by what would have been a carefully selected jury for impartiality with an extensive FBI information to get all the facts, the government and legal system have not done a halfhearted job.

SJW's and African Americans will jump to what they want to believe and throw a tantrum by rioting when the facts don't match their agenda, which is a vendetta against the hated white man.

White people riot all the time when their sports team loses. Also, for your information, the violent rioters have been identified as mostly white males. So..your generalization isn't very accurate. :<

Timbjerr November 25th, 2014 8:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keiran (Post 8509515)
I'm fairly certain this is about race and IS a race issue when the KKK is openly supporting a killer cop.

I'm not sure what you're getting at with this. I, as a Pokémon fan, can openly show my support for the Brown family, does that make them Pokémon fans by association?

Unless there is any hard evidence that Wilson targeted Brown because of his race, there is no need to make this a race issue.

ShinyUmbreon189 November 25th, 2014 8:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keiran (Post 8509515)
White people riot all the time when their sports team loses. Also, for your information, the violent rioters have been identified as mostly white males. So..your generalization isn't very accurate. :<

What? They don't riot like the blacks did in Ferguson by destroying their community by burning buildings down. I don't understand why you're trying to compare riots like that.

Reliable source please? Last time I checked it was blacks that was breaking into stores and burning them down, not whites. Ferguson's got a 90% black population with blacks throwing a tantrum because they didn't get their way so I find the violent rioters being white extremely far fetched. I don't know if you read an false article or if you're black and trying to justify what your people did isn't wrong, there's even videos of blacks doing violent rioting, it was all over the news last night. If you are black, I feel sorry for you because those few black looters make the black race as a whole look bad. Either way, it was blacks and only black people rioting because they feel it's a race issue. It's unacceptable behavior, whites didn't riot when OJ Simpson was found not guilty. They feel they're the victim when they're not, they can't get over something that happened over a century ago.

Keiran November 25th, 2014 8:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShinyUmbreon189 (Post 8509541)
What? They don't riot like the blacks

Riots in Denver after a football game.

Riots in New Hampshire after a festival last month.

Riots after the infamous firing of Joe Paterno.

Riots in Huntington Beach after a surf competition.

Riots in Seattle after the Superbowl.

What event are you referencing that "happened over a century ago"? Slavery was made illegal about 150 years ago, sure, but segregation is still recent. Innocent black people being killed by cops at a rate of 2 a week is happening now.

Her November 25th, 2014 8:53 PM

before any of you read this, bear in mind that i am white. but since, when i started writing this, no one in this thread has had the heart to do anything but vilify the protestors, i need to speak.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShinyUmbreon189 (Post 8509429)
Imma ask you a simple question. What would you do if someone 200+ pounds shattered your face, tried to steal your gun, wouldn't obey orders, and charged you to take you down?

'shattered your face'
tell me if he looks shattered to you
https://38.media.tumblr.com/6274b629b2b4b0f4c2c598452e054ba3/tumblr_nflboh5qpX1rg4fw0o1_500.png

'tried to steal your gun, wouldn't obey orders, and charged you to take you down?'
the ferguson police department has been notorious throughout this entire ordeal for falsifying evidence, outright lying and then admitting the lies
and then when you're done reading that, read this
it shows that not only are the ferguson police (therefore darren wilson) lying about what happened, they've got untold levels of protection behind them for these lies

and just a little kick in the pants for the rest of you
https://33.media.tumblr.com/ffca56b5ff2a1db59368e4c89de2c907/tumblr_nfm6c6B8Z91t6wyt3o1_1280.jpg

michael brown's autopsy report (may he rest in power amen) shows that the bullet wounds could only enter in a way that shows that he had his arms up - as if he was saying don't shoot
so
you are wrong about that too

furthermore, the numerous eyewitness reports are pretty much all unanimous on the view that brown had his hands up
and did not reach for the cops weapon
and if you read the links i showed you earlier, you would see that he was well over 100 feet from wilson at the time of the shooting anyway

and by the way
just look at this
https://38.media.tumblr.com/e88644077f9a1fef1504fafdae2f647a/tumblr_nfkr5r9mw71r0woubo1_1280.jpg

Quote:

This isn't about whether he deserved to die or not, it was a matter of life and death. The officer did what he had to do.
as shown earlier, it was not
besides
all cops are trained & shown how to apprehend or take down a suspect without lethal force
regardless of if michael brown WAS charging darren wilson, wilson had the training necessary to not unload six shots into him
furthermore, at least in the area of ferguson, cops are allowed to use lethal force when the suspect is within 25-30 yards of them
but michael brown was over 100 yards away, as i have to say again
so

Quote:

If Brown wouldn't of charged him he'd still be alive today and if Wilson wouldn't of killed Brown he'd probably be dead and nobody would know about it because the media only targets white on black crime. Granted he'd be incarcerated but he'd still be alive. Brown was a thug just like the rest of the rioters in Ferguson, it's a black majority area that's gang affiliated. Brown was far from an innocent man, he had a rap sheet.
you have clearly been misled & either willingly or out of ignorance hold on to the belief that if a black person has a criminal record, they deserve to die
by the way, mike brown did pay for the cigarillos.

Quote:

@Clairissa, so true. If the officer was black and Brown was white nothing would of happened, look up Dillon Taylor, it's a perfect example. The media and Ferguson just wanted their 15 minutes of fame and they got it.
this is just not worth commenting on

moving on
protesters have been protesting peacefully for the last three months, with the rage of a few outlier civilians resulting in looting and rioting
a lot of this has changed over the last 24 hours due to the non-indictment, but most protests around the country are still non-violent

listen to the words of mike brown's family, the center of this tragedy, who have been pleading for peace & for the rioting to stop

https://38.media.tumblr.com/3f999b60d3086ac2f3d14a67ccf6d935/tumblr_nfkpzihWlp1qz581wo1_1280.png

in every protest where violence has been reported over the last three months, nearly every time (saying nearly because i don't know about every incident) was the result of overzealous police aggression
bringing up riot gear, shooting rubber bullets, firing tear gas canisters

https://31.media.tumblr.com/533e011f6fb704da7812073c1243d110/tumblr_inline_nfkq07XTXp1rfaadj.jpg
https://38.media.tumblr.com/67bbf2efa9cb18ca41fe41738aae3691/tumblr_nbmilsepMz1s5kgq3o5_1280.jpg
https://38.media.tumblr.com/3df49ee4b8b6fd53437daa7aeab6c791/tumblr_nbmilsepMz1s5kgq3o6_1280.jpg
https://38.media.tumblr.com/67a9626d69e65214cf462424f20e0109/tumblr_nbmilsepMz1s5kgq3o8_1280.png

does this look acceptable?

are you all forgetting that the kkk is marching?

if this was not related to race, why is the kkk out in full gear? why are they not being arrested? why are they not being attacked at this very moment?

how dare any of you vilify the protestors for wanting human rights and referring to them as mere thugs and rioters
because we know you weren't saying that when people looted & rioted over the joe paterno case, the numerous sports games that resulted in rioting, so much more

i'm jumping around and trying to get many points out into the open so forgive me for not going as in depth into each of them as i should
but read & listen to what i have shown you and stop letting misinformation & racism rule your judgement on this tragedy

rest in power, mike brown

Corvus of the Black Night November 25th, 2014 9:05 PM

@Keiran

Things happened, so that means that that's totally true all the time!

I think ultimately the thing we need to recognize that yes, segregation does exist. It exists in many forms. ****, I spend a lot of my free time actually helping fight a specific form of segregation, which needs supporters due to the lack of knowledge of the problem. I've spoken on this publicly and have future appearance dates, and want to become more fully integrated with the issue. Nobody is ultimately denying that segregation exists, not from what I've read in this thread anyways.

But ultimately, and I think this is very important to know, is that we look at the greater picture of things. First off, many many many people in the United States are actually very comfortable with different races. Many of these people agree that the idea of "race crimes" simply doesn't work because by claiming that someone died because of their race as opposed to any other reason (or any other crime for that matter) means that it's somehow more important. Someone died. Reasons aren't really important. If they died because they were cheating on their girlfriend or because they were black, that information is ultimately not going to bring back an innocent person's life. And the more that we value the deaths of those who were lost due to racism, the more that we devalue the loss of life for other reasons.

Regardless of the reason, the loss of someone's life against their own will is the loss of their life against their own will. End of story. No amount of mental gymnastics will take away from the fact that such an idea ultimately shafts a victim of some form.

Victimization is a blind reaper. He takes from anyone. He may occur in certain groups more than others, but he can appear, and will appear, to almost any kind of individual, any creed, any form. That is how he works.

Ultimately, this rioting is not acceptable, regardless of how you feel about the decision. To me, I personally feel that the whole thing is a tragedy, but it doesn't deserve a riot. What does a riot, or even a protest, hope to achieve, in that sense? If there is a legal problem, then address the legality of the issue, don't burn down someone's business who may not even have been involved. If there is a discrepancy in the police department, then address that, don't try to kill some police riot force that's doing their job and duty as a police riot force. It's just sad how many people have forgotten Martin Luther King's message of how peaceful protest is something that can resonate among so many individuals. Just because we are angry doesn't make it right, and anger ultimately scares away people who we need to ally ourselves with. By saying "white versus black" you alienate the white and black individuals who don't see it that way. By saying "white versus black" you're siding with the idea that somehow these differences are not reconcilable. By saying "white versus black" you ultimately become part of the problem, even if this problem has existed for 500 years, for refusing to change the problem that exists.

People are angry. Okay. So how do you make someone listen to you when you're angry? Do you shout in their face? Do you make them tremble in fear? Do you try to kill them? No. Those things make people fear you, not respect you. You add tension in a situation that already has tension. You have to reason with people who disagree with you. We all have times when we disagree, because we are human. These different ideals are bound to happen due to differing perspectives. Perhaps they don't understand because they haven't been in your shoes. But why should they even bother if you're going to spend all your energy trying to destroy, defame or be a compete ******* to them? Why should they give you the respect of listening to you if you're not going to be reasonable with them? Why? Because you're upset?

What about the people who you disagree with? Don't you think that, if things had been different, that they would be upset too? Does that give them the right to attack you, to make you tremble in fear, to make you feel afraid to even approach them?

I see so many people using this strategy, and it's scary. They don't know how much damage they are doing to themselves and others. They're furthering segregation by scaring people away. I've already gone over this many times, but the last time a huge race riot occurred in the US, it took down one of its major cities with it, and there's a ****ing reason why.

People tell others to not see colour not because they are ignorant to a problem that exists, I think that most people who say this are aware of inequalities that do exist, it's that they understand that propagating a recognized problem is the last thing you should be doing to attempt to fix it.

Her November 25th, 2014 9:24 PM

mlk certainly did propagate non-violent tactics, peace, anti-rioting and so forth
and he was shot in the head regardless

Corvus of the Black Night November 25th, 2014 9:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mariah Carey (Post 8509593)
mlk certainly did propagate non-violent tactics, peace, anti-rioting and so forth
and he was shot in the head regardless

Yes, because the actions of an individual, or even a small set of individuals, reflect that of an entire race of hundreds of millions of people.

And that because of actions completely out of his control, this somehow invalidates his arguments. Seriously, screw that MLK, he had no idea what he was talking about! He got assassinated! That sure shows how much he's worth!

You must be fun at parties.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mariah Carey (Post 8509608)
regardless of the methods of protest, white america (and really, antiblackness around the world) will come after you and blame you, vilify you and kill you
telling people to 'pull their pants up', so to speak, does nothing

Oh my god your americo-centricism is so bad it ****ing HURTS

1. Simplifying Martin Luther King's words into "pulling your pants up" is such a disgusting, uneducated, weak, pathetic gross misinterpretation of MLK's actual beliefs and teachings that even suggesting such a thing shows an extreme disinterest in what he actually did and represented. Please actually try reading the Papers from Birmingham Jail and actually try to comprehend it before saying something so completely obscenely wrong next time. You're becoming a punch line at this point. plz learn to activist

2. "Antiblackness" only occurs in specific areas in the world. For example, there's plenty of evidence to show that there is quite a bit of anti-white racial tension in Zimbabwe. So let me guess before you say it - it's alright because they're white, right? And these people today have done so much damage to these black people in power that they totally deserve it, right? That's why they're facing eviction and murder and actual ****ing oppression, right?

Her November 25th, 2014 9:47 PM

what i'm saying is that

regardless of the methods of protest, white america (and really, antiblackness around the world) will come after you and blame you, vilify you and kill you
telling people to 'pull their pants up', so to speak, does nothing

edit: i am referencing those who using mlk to support the idiotic pull up your pants mantra, as that mantra seems to be one of the more pervasive thoughts in this current situation
ie: bill cosby
ie: the numerous billboards and slogans going up in support of that mantra

edit2: when that story broke i was specifically telling people not to praise mugabe in any way whatsoever given his history as a frankly evil and violent drain on zimbabwe
but the difference between antiblackness and this situation is that antiblackness is more or less supported worldwide, whereas this is a very rare situation

Lord Raven November 25th, 2014 10:32 PM

I'm very curious daigonite, and don't mind me if this comes off as a little offensive or bold, but what is your racial/cultural heritage?

I, as an American-born Pakistani, experienced firsthand the idea of white america and have been in situations where I have been singled out for my race. I've also had plenty of family - also US citizens - under the same treatment. On top of that, having grown up in Bel Air, Maryland whose makeup was 90% white I've been singled out many times as one of the only if not the only non-white kid in many of my classes. Racism due to the idea of "white america" is a very real thing, and I'm getting the impression that you don't believe so.

Many of my friends are African-American that have been through similar treatment. It's at best subtle and at worst makes you prone to being isolated from your peers. And this is really just suburbia (at best, because some of my friends definitely grew up in areas that were a cross between "run down" and "suburban"). Can't imagine what it's even like outside of suburbia or even in other parts of the US - ie, not Maryland.

It's not as bad as African American treatment, but I'm sharing my experiences as a cultural Muslim growing up in post-911 America. I cannot imagine what it's like to be an African American growing up in a post-segregated America where they always seem to get screwed in that department.

Entermaid November 25th, 2014 11:46 PM

10 Things

1. There needs to be a re-evaluation of media outlet restrictions and court proceedings. The fallout from high profile cases including the Casey Anthony and Trayvon Martin, are only high profile because of media outlets agenda setting. Notice black on black travesties are never given notice? It leads to these special cases being used as a heuristic, or simple logical bridge, in order for the viewer to get a sense of generally occurring phenomenon. 90%+ of African-American murders are committed by other African-Americans. (Due to structural deficiencies.)

2. Most crime is proportionally committed by Africa-Americans in the US. (Due to high poverty and other structural biases.)

3. African-Americans are attributed with crime, poverty, and other defective statuses as it relates to neoliberal paternalism. Meaning, the state seeks to punish those of the state that are "defective", and African Americans, as disproportionately impoverished, and therefore, more likely to commit crimes, are labeled and perceived as defective. The condition of being black is therefore transposed as being defective/criminal.

4. Volatile reactions in mobilized African-American groups only increases this perception of defectiveness.

5. Leaders of African American groups should be responsible for inciting volatility in many instances...therefore harming all groups, especially African Americans.

6. The distribution of welfare penalties and crime sentencing should be equal; it is not according to the major Race and Ethnicity literature in APSA and APSR. Blacks are highly penalized, being perceived as less deserving (more likely to remain defective, this is at a subconscious level.)

7. Adding to the point above, most laws, MOST laws, are neutral to race...rather, the implementation of law and policy contribute to biasness, and subsequently, African-American volatility. (Including law enforcement, education, welfare, among others.)

8. Back to the Furguson case, the riots are causing more damage, and the incitement of the riots can be blamed by many parties including, newsmedia, history of legislative and court decisions allowing newsmedia to cover cases with leaning and misleading information (regardless of right/left media), inept police training, biases of bureacracy policy implementation, black interest groups and political leaders, ect. ect. ect.

9. Interest groups, unions, organizations or collectives of any kind and at any level (local, state, national), should be institutionalized in a way that encourages multiethnic membership, and a decrease in these collectives that exclude (implicitly or not) any membership based on race. This includes African-American groups. Groups that don't actively recruit (or exclude) African-Americans should have compulsory mandates that encourage integration.

The idea is, when groups, which are collectives with similar interests are formed Social contact, is solidified as more positive, since groups seek mutual interests. Further, identity to race we perceive of ourselves and others is diluted. Much like the transformation of the racialized white ethnic enclaves during the Industrial Era, to the present, in which, ethnic conflict is not prevalent in the US. Though, the skin color, a visibly distinct difference, makes the dilution of ethnic fractionalization a more difficult task.

10. Integration policies have largely failed since social contact IS NOT preceded by forming a common interest or identity among groups.

Her November 25th, 2014 11:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Limerent (Post 8509449)
but Wilson has been found not criminally liable by what would have been a carefully selected jury for impartiality

there were 12 members in that jury, 3 black and 9 white
3 black jury members representing an area which has a (roughly) 67% black population

in order to pass the non-indictment, there needed to be a 9 out of 12 (or higher) vote
all 9 white jury members voted for non-indictment

carefully selected, yes
selected to clear wilson, that is

Lord Raven November 26th, 2014 12:26 AM

The way minorities are portrayed and treated in this country gives a large inherent bias against them in the minds of the majority. Granted, maybe this wasn't a direct thought, but I've seen a lot of sheltered white people who will think basically like this. It's very easy to call out racism in a situation defined by racism.

Question for you: have you ever accused or seen someone accusing an African American person of not acting "black enough"?

I'm mainly asking because I've seen a lot of white people doing this while growing up and I did it too before I hit undergrad. That's the kind of crap you never want to hear. It automatically gives the impression of a preconceived notion that black people are inherently thuggish and can't speak english well or something like that, and they're basically all like 2chainz or something. This is the kind of mentality we are talking about here, which I'm sure exists in the minds of many white people. It's considerably more subtle but it affects your judgment enough to actually favor one side over the other.

Her November 26th, 2014 12:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Limerent (Post 8509669)
You're being racist by assuming and jumping to conclusions that just because someone has a certain skin colour that they're going to unreservedly back someone else simply because they also have that skin colour. Never mind presented evidence, testimonials, stringent restrictions on the jurors prevent influence from outside media reporting... they're white, of course they're going to support the white guy because you know, white people have such a tight knit culture, they never have differences of opinion, they always back the words of another white man. That logic can also be applied to blacks so what are we going to do, make sure that nobody of the ethnicity of the accused or victim is involved in the court process, outsource it to all the Asians in China?

Just out of curiosity, what did the black members of the jury vote and in what number?

disregarding that spam about racism to whites... the black members of the jury all voted for non-indictment

i don't think you understand the power of white supremacy
it will do whatever it takes to protect itself
i'm not explicitly stating that the jurors voted to not indict him because they were white, but i'm not ruling it out and neither should you
the jurors voted for non-indictment a a direct result of white supremacy
white supremacy resulted in falsification of evidence, discrediting of witness testimonies, discrediting social media because they managed to put together sound evidence & probable cause
it resulted in a prosecutor who is also the president of a support darren wilson charity
it resulted in a sham trial, where darren wilson demonised michael brown and dragged his name through the mud even further
the jurors may not have consciously taken part in white supremacy, but they were most certainly complicit in its results

but honestly
when you really think about it
all the white jurors voting to not indict darren wilson can't be rationally justified no matter the spin anyone puts on it

Nyro November 26th, 2014 2:14 AM

Let me spread a little modern day wisdom. The government loves racial tensions....know why? Because it takes all the attention off of them and makes us all forget about how terrible a job they are truly doing. Just think about it...every time the government starts getting fingers pointed at them either a race war or foreign conflict is mentioned.

Ivysaur November 26th, 2014 4:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nyro (Post 8509731)
Let me spread a little modern day wisdom. The government loves racial tensions....know why? Because it takes all the attention off of them and makes us all forget about how terrible a job they are truly doing. Just think about it...every time the government starts getting fingers pointed at them either a race war or foreign conflict is mentioned.

A little modern day paranoia, you must mean. I'm pretty sure it was the Goverment that shot Michael Brown, we all know the Grand Jury who let Wilson off the hook was full of Representatives and Senators, and there are reports that Mr. Holder was seen around Ferguson gathering up people to set things on fire. Wait no- it was regular people who did all of that. Should the Government go and say "Oh please, don't start getting angry about the fact that a reportedly harmless person was shot six times in a town that has had racial problems for a long while- we are supposed to be talking about (insert latest media favourite here)".

Also, people aren't distracted that easily, just ask the Democrats about how much all those "racial tensions" and "foreign wars" helped them get votes a few weeks ago.

But seriously, in case you don't realize, the US has had racial tensions for about a couple centuries, and they have been involved in every major foreign conflict for the last century. Race wars affect the day-to-day lives of millions of US citizens, foreign conflicts have meant US troops being sent to fight and maybe die abroad for decades. Those are matters that directly affect many citizens, and the Government is obligued to pay attention to them. It's not like everybody is suddenly talking about the collapse of the Social-democrat coalition in Croatia, something nobody in the US cares about. It's a huge conflict in a US State, affecting US citizens, that has forced the Governor to call out the National Guard, for god's sake.

It reminds me of all those people who claim that the monthly mass-shootings are a plan of the Government to take down the second amendment or whatever nonsense. Politicians are supposed to react to major problems and try to find solutions. But you can't expect them to say "so this term will be all about jobs. If Canada tries to invade Michigan, there is a huge earthquake in California and a local conflict in Colorado results in the entire State erupting in flames, I'm sorry but we won't pay attention to those- we are focused in jobs! I'm sure you can all wait four years until we can pay attention to your problems."

Nyro November 26th, 2014 4:16 AM

You don't think any politicians are fueling this? Eric Holder for one fueled it all the way until the verdict by injecting himself into the situation and showing he has "NO TRUST" for a white DA. Whether he flat out said "I hate whites" or not his actions made his intention apparent. Do I think racial tensions are a conspiracy? Yes, of course I do. 20 years ago they were near extinct and now all of the sudden we are back to the 50's in the eyes of the African American community? Makes NO SENSE whatsoever.

Who imbedded this mindset? Are Whites really to blame? Do people like Sharpton or Jackson make things better?

When all is said and done these "Protests" only go as far as the government lets it go.

Ivysaur November 26th, 2014 4:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nyro (Post 8509828)
You don't think any politicians are fueling this? Eric Holder for one fueled it all the way until the verdict by injecting himself into the situation and showing he has "NO TRUST" for a white DA. Whether he flat out said "I hate whites" or not his actions made his intention apparent.

Well he's, you know, the Justice Secretary. And, in case you think he's getting "too involved" with this case, you should know that many, many racial cases in the Civil Rights era had to be brought up by the Federal Justice Department because the States would just ignore them.
And you know, thanks to politicians like some H. Truman "fueling" those cases back then, now blacks can, you know, vote. They clearly should have let things be instead.

Quote:

Do I think racial tensions are a conspiracy? Yes, of course I do. 20 years ago they were near extinct and now all of the sudden we are back to the 50's in the eyes of the African American community? Makes NO SENSE whatsoever.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_riots#Post_Civil_Rights_Era:_1978_to_today

1978: Houston's Moody Park on the first anniversary of Joe Campos Torres death.
1980: Miami Riots (Miami, Florida)
1980: Chattanooga Riot (Chattanooga, Tennessee)
1984: Lawrence, Massachusetts Race Riot: A small scale riot centered at the intersection of Haverhill and railroad streets between working class whites and Hispanics; several buildings were destroyed by Molotov cocktails; August 8, 1984.[46]
1989: Overtown Riot (Miami, FL) In a reaction to the shooting of a black motorcyclist by a Hispanic police officer in the predominately black community of Overtown in Miami, residents rioted for two nights. The officer was later found guilty of manslaughter.
1991: Crown Heights riot (Crown Heights neighborhood, Brooklyn, New York City)
1992: Los Angeles Riots (Los Angeles, California): In a reaction to the acquittal of all four LAPD officers involved in the videotaped beating of Rodney King and the murder of Latasha Harlins; riots broke out mainly involving black youths in the black neighborhoods and shop owners in Korean neighborhoods, but overall rioting was mainly to get out the frustrations of the racial groups over the racial tensions that were building in the South Central neighborhood for years[citation needed].
1996: St. Petersburg Riots (St. Petersburg, Florida): After Officer Jim Knight stopped 18 yr. old Tyron Lewis for speeding, his car lurched forward and Knight fired his weapon, fatally wounding the black teenager. Riots broke out and lasted for about 2 days.[citation needed]
2001: Cincinnati riots (Cincinnati, Ohio): In a reaction to the fatal shooting of an unarmed young black male, Timothy Thomas by Cincinnati police officer Steven Roach, during a foot pursuit, riots broke out over the span of a few days.
2003: Benton Harbor riots (Benton Harbor, Michigan)
2005: 2005 Toledo Riot (Toledo, Ohio): A race riot that broke out after a planned Neo-Nazi protest march through a black neighborhood.
2006: Fontana High School riot (Fontana, California): Riot involving about 500 Latino and black students[47]
2006: Prison Race Riots (California): A war between Latino and black prison gangs set off a series of riots across California[48][49]
2008: Locke High School riot[50] (Los Angeles, California)
2009: 2009 Oakland Riots (Oakland, California): Peaceful protests turned into rioting after the fatal shooting of an unarmed black man, Oscar Grant, by a BART transit policeman.
2014: Shooting of Michael Brown, later riots break out after the shooting was believed to be racially motivated.

Quote:

Who imbedded this mindset? Are Whites really to blame? Do people like Sharpton or Jackson make things better?
The one creating segregation between ethnic groups in the US? Well, you'll have to go back to the 1700's. It just hasn't fully left.

Quote:

When all is said and done these "Protests" only go as far as the government lets it go.
Obviously their job is to maintain order, so that's a given.

Her November 26th, 2014 4:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nyro (Post 8509828)
Do I think racial tensions are a conspiracy? Yes, of course I do. 20 years ago they were near extinct and now all of the sudden we are back to the 50's in the eyes of the African American community? Makes NO SENSE whatsoever.

...Boy If You Don't Get....

Nyro November 26th, 2014 4:40 AM

Can not speak for the older dates and neither can you i doubt unless you are like 40+. As for the 2000 era ALL were media fueled except the obvious prison wars and those were covered too and the ONLY reason we knew about them.. Prison ethnic gang wars happen daily.

I will admit I am biased on the race wars being Native American because we are the true minority and it really bothers me that people stand up for a 6'4 292 lb man being shot by a policeman, But don't even so much as give a 2 minute blurb about the weekly rapes at reservations at the hands of FBI agents or the fact that Native children still die from complications due to unsanitary conditions every year. People turn a blind eye to it all and then pay attention to garbage like this. The man was shot and killed, the jury found the evidence (particularly on Michael Browns friends testimony) lacking, it should be over but it isn't because they want this "eye for an eye" type of justice.

Clairissa November 26th, 2014 4:45 AM

It's amazing coming back and seeing exactly how much of an American problem this really is.

"It's a race issue because the KKK was involved!" Pretty sure the Black Panthers were also involved, another racist hate group.

"Antiblackness!" American fabricated social issue, racism exists everywhere, against every skin color, no it's not right but pretending this is against a specific group is ignorant.

"Most of the violent protestors were white (no evidence of this)/whites rioted too!" That doesn't justify anything, Ferguson was still hit very hard, it's as unacceptable as any riot or looting in any situation.

If there was REALLY a racial bias against black people, if America REALLY wanted to just kill or imprison every black person, where was the coverage of Dillon Taylor, the white man shot by a black cop during the same time? Seems like a perfect situation to ruin a black man's life for shooting a white man.

It's like I'm on tumblr or something, guess it always will be that way on the internet now.

Nyro November 26th, 2014 4:50 AM

People can find a way to justify any behavior as long as it suits THEIR purpose. But that is cool, that is why in America you can have debates like this so people can speak their mind. I like hearing opinions from others perspectives it makes me think. I don't always agree with them but hey, it is hard to when we were all raised differently and in different situations.

Keiran November 26th, 2014 5:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clairissa (Post 8509844)
It's amazing coming back and seeing exactly how much of an American problem this really is.

"It's a race issue because the KKK was involved!" Pretty sure the Black Panthers were also involved, another racist hate group.

"Antiblackness!" American fabricated social issue, racism exists everywhere, against every skin color, no it's not right but pretending this is against a specific group is ignorant.

"Most of the violent protestors were white (no evidence of this)/whites rioted too!" That doesn't justify anything, Ferguson was still hit very hard, it's as unacceptable as any riot or looting in any situation.

If there was REALLY a racial bias against black people, if America REALLY wanted to just kill or imprison every black person, where was the coverage of Dillon Taylor, the white man shot by a black cop during the same time? Seems like a perfect situation to ruin a black man's life for shooting a white man.

It's like I'm on tumblr or something, guess it always will be that way on the internet now.

I don't think you actually understand who the Black Panthers were, but can you offer any evidence of them being involved? What would they even be involved with? Before you ask for evidence of the KKK being directly involved with the Ferguson police dept., watch this interview with the leader of Ferguson's local KKK chapter where he admits to having direct relations with the police department.

Racism does not exist everywhere, and it does not affect every skin color.

Why is rioting unacceptable but ignorance and racism are not?

The shooting of Dillon Taylor was determined to be justified due to the victims actions. The differences in this case were that the officer wore a body cam, didn't lie repeatedly, didn't have a corrupt prosecutor supporting him, among other things.

I've noticed a trend among people who don't actually know the full scope of the situation: 1) they try to make the conversation about racism against whites and/or try to make the conversation about how it's not a race issue because they don't like thinking about race issues critically, and 2) they bring up Tumblr as an insult.

Nyro November 26th, 2014 5:28 AM

Not really my argument but this was just one of 40+ articles mentioning them involved with the issue.
http://www.theroot.com/articles/culture/2014/11/social_media_push_to_boycott_black_friday_in_wake_of_ferguson_decision.html

However I have seen photos also. THOSE are what I am looking for give me a minute.

EDIT: I would mention The Root is one of the top online news references for african americans.

EDIT: Will add more articles here and hopefully some pics also soon
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/22/us-usa-missouri-shooting-explosives-idUSKCN0J602N20141122
http://wtvr.com/2014/08/13/fbi-warns-of-new-black-panther-party-leader-inciting-violence-in-ferguson/

OH HERE IS A NICE VID
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwJrG2AMghw

Clairissa November 26th, 2014 5:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keiran (Post 8509877)
I don't think you actually understand who the Black Panthers were, but can you offer any evidence of them being involved? What would they even be involved with? Before you ask for evidence of the KKK being directly involved with the Ferguson police dept., watch this interview with the leader of Ferguson's local KKK chapter where he admits to having direct relations with the police department.

Racism does not exist everywhere, and it does not affect every skin color.

Why is rioting unacceptable but ignorance and racism are not?

The shooting of Dillon Taylor was determined to be justified due to the victims actions. The differences in this case were that the officer wore a body cam, didn't lie repeatedly, didn't have a corrupt prosecutor supporting him, among other things.

I've noticed a trend among people who don't actually know the full scope of the situation: 1) they try to make the conversation about racism against whites and/or try to make the conversation about how it's not a race issue, and 2) they bring up Tumblr as an insult.


Two Black Panthers members arrested, planning to bomb police after verdict rendered.


Racism does indeed exist EVERYWHERE, and it affects EVERY RACE, or do you think whites have never been discriminated against? Geez I guess South Africa just doesn't exist, try learning about more than your own country and the english speaking west before you start spewing garbage like that.

The riots were started because of ignorance, they always are, riots and looting are never an acceptable answer, not sure how you got something negative out of me saying "don't do it" to literally everyone, this was in response to your "but whites riot for stupid reasons too" argument.
Also noticed that I mentioned racism being wrong, here's what I said again, "racism exists everywhere, against every skin color, no it's not right", it was the line above your very next argument.

If you watched the video, there was more than enough reason for people to say it was a race issue, to make it as big of a thing as this Michael Brown incident is if it is all really about "keeping the black people down", but nothing happened, because the suspect was suspicious enough with his hands on his hips, much like Michael Brown was when he came running toward the officer with his gun drawn.

I've also noticed something about people who don't know anything, they're white, teenaged to early 20s, live in America, but then pretend they know everything, while literally speaking about things that aren't true in the rest of the world, like there somehow isn't racism all over the rest of the world.

It's only a race "issue" because ignorant people make it so, the situation is all around regrettable, but the actions of the officer were, if you read everything on the issue, justified in that lethal force was used against a suspect who was violent against the officer and in his initial crime.

Nyro November 26th, 2014 5:35 AM

I gave them some links also including a death chant lead by Black panthers in outfit actually lol.

Star-Lord November 26th, 2014 5:35 AM

Sure must be nice to completely disregard black people when they say it's a race issue. You'd think people would have enough common sense to you know, listen to the people who experience racism and whatnot. Ho hum.

Nyro November 26th, 2014 5:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moogles (Post 8509893)
Sure must be nice to completely disregard black people when they say it's a race issue. You'd think people would have enough common sense to you know, listen to the people who experience racism and whatnot. Ho hum.

You are right let's ask the Native Americans.

Clairissa November 26th, 2014 5:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moogles (Post 8509893)
Sure must be nice to completely disregard black people when they say it's a race issue. You'd think people would have enough common sense to you know, listen to the people who experience racism and whatnot. Ho hum.

Yes, completely ignore that this is more a police issue, with a deep rooted distrust of police inherent in the current young lower/middle class black America, while also ignoring any lower/middle class white people that also get killed by police.

Once again, it only became an issue to the media because Michael Brown was black, before that it was another case of a police officer shooting a suspect and if it was justified or not, which has been happening more often lately, and only added fuel to the third party lit fire.

Her November 26th, 2014 5:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clairissa (Post 8509844)
"It's a race issue because the KKK was involved!" Pretty sure the Black Panthers were also involved, another racist hate group.

firstly
black empowerment is most certainly not racism
secondly
the black panthers, in this particular scenario, are taking the role of supporting the community and urging for justice
whereas the kkk have explicitly stated that they will take violent action against protestors

Quote:

"Antiblackness!" American fabricated social issue, racism exists everywhere, against every skin color, no it's not right but pretending this is against a specific group is ignorant.
anti-blackness did not originate in america, it does not end with america. it's an issue pervasive in nearly all societies around the world, from south korea and sweden to name a few
antiblackness is against a specific group of people
it is called antiblack for a reason

Quote:

"Most of the violent protestors were white (no evidence of this)/whites rioted too!" That doesn't justify anything, Ferguson was still hit very hard, it's as unacceptable as any riot or looting in any situation.
the most violent people present at the various protest sites are police, the majority of the police present there are white
but continuing on
the church of michael brown sr was firebombed last night, clearly not an act of people rioting in protest of the non-indictment
there are numerous videos and photos circling right now of police being the ones starting the aggression, the ones who are firing at civilians and cracking down on them
they are the ones with weaponry


Quote:

It's like I'm on tumblr or something, guess it always will be that way on the internet now.
blaming tumblr for the inaccuracies in your arguments is hardly the way to go is it

edit:
also
Quote:

Racism does indeed exist EVERYWHERE, and it affects EVERY RACE, or do you think whites have never been discriminated against? Geez I guess South Africa just doesn't exist, try learning about more than your own country and the english speaking west before you start spewing garbage like that.
discrimination does not equal racism
secondly
discrimination against whites in south africa is a direct result of the system of apartheid that was there for 50 years, give or take about three years

Nyro November 26th, 2014 5:53 AM

Yes, asking for Wilsons death is supporting justice....if you believe in shari'ah. You sit here and openly oppose the killing of brown but openly support a group that is asking for another mans head. So now YOU decide what is justice? Come on just TRY and be a little objective. Is the situation sad? Yes. Do I wish an 18 yr old didn't die? Yes. HOWEVER the jury thinks the officer acted within his rights AND violence only breeds more violence. To assert your own justice is not only morally corrupt but who are any of us to judge this man?

Clairissa November 26th, 2014 5:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mariah Carey (Post 8509901)
firstly
black empowerment is most certainly not racism
secondly
the black panthers, in this particular scenario, are taking the role of supporting the community and urging for justice
whereas the kkk have explicitly stated that they will take violent action against protestors

"This racist racial empowerment group is wrong, but this racist racial empowerment group is right."
That's some grade A Colombian cut hypocrisy, and as linked above, they did plan for violence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mariah Carey (Post 8509901)
anti-blackness did not originate in america, it does not end with america. it's an issue pervasive in nearly all societies around the world, from south korea and sweden to name a few
antiblackness is against a specific group of people
it is called antiblack for a reason

Antiblack is a buzzword, the real word is just plain racism, which happens everywhere, and against everyone.
Also, Zwarte Piet isn't what you think it is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mariah Carey (Post 8509901)
the most violent people present at the various protest sites are police, the majority of the police present there are white
but continuing on
the church of michael brown sr was firebombed last night, clearly not an act of people rioting in protest of the non-indictment
there are numerous videos and photos circling right now of police being the ones starting the aggression, the ones who are firing at civilians and cracking down on them
they are the ones with weaponry

That's why multiple people arrested were carrying weapons? Police had weapons ready in case of violence, but they used teargas, not bullets.
I was watching the streams of it happening, including when the person who had the most viewers had his phone stolen while streaming.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mariah Carey (Post 8509901)
blaming tumblr for the inaccuracies in your arguments is hardly the way to go is it

It's more the prevalent mindset of the more vocal and ignorant users than the website itself.

Her November 26th, 2014 6:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nyro (Post 8509905)
Yes, asking for Wilsons death is supporting justice....if you believe in shari'ah.

although i cannot speak for all involved, most are not crying for wilson to be hung. what people want is for him to face some kind of punishment, anything at all. he got paid vacation for all of this, about $400k in donations and abc news paid him another $400k for an interview. he got married during this time. whether or not this was racially motivated, whether or not racism & anti-blackness does not feature in the treatment of this case (even though it does), whether or not michael brown did steal the cigarillos (he didn't), darren wilson has made nearly a million dollars off the killing of an unarmed teen. he deserves to feel the full force of justice.

Quote:

You sit here and openly oppose the killing of brown but openly support a group that is asking for another mans head. So now YOU decide what is justice?
again, the majority of people are not asking for his head.
and since the american legal system has failed once again, it is time for the people to decide what justice is, yes.

Quote:

Come on just TRY and be a little objective. Is the situation sad? Yes. Do I wish an 18 yr old didn't die? Yes. HOWEVER the jury thinks the officer acted within his rights AND violence only breeds more violence. To assert your own justice is not only morally corrupt but who are any of us to judge this man?
as mentioned before, the jury is highly suspicious at best and was intentionally falsified evidence that was in support of darren wilson. so, the jury's opinion is worthless. it is a binding opinion, but worthless.

and i don't know about you but
i have never gone out of my way to kill someone
so i believe i am in a perfect position to judge someone who killed where killing was not even remotely necessary.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clairissa (Post 8509910)
"This racist racial empowerment group is wrong, but this racist racial empowerment group is right."
That's some grade A Colombian cut hypocrisy, and as linked above, they did plan for violence.

there have always been those who do not follow with the main group, but the official message of the black panthers is that they want justice.

and yes, the kkk are wrong! don't quite get why you're not understanding that

Quote:

Antiblack is a buzzword, the real word is just plain racism, which happens everywhere, and against everyone.
Also, Zwarte Piet isn't what you think it is.
antiblackness is the most pervasive and damaging kind of racism out there, it is far more than a buzzword. to say it is just a buzzword is to spit on all of those who have suffered because of it.

zwarte piet has people dressing up in blackface. it is racism.

Quote:

That's why multiple people arrested were carrying weapons? Police had weapons ready in case of violence, but they used teargas, not bullets.
police have used rubber coated bullets (not rubber bullets, but bullets with a layer of rubber over them), and according to some reports over the last 6 to 9 hours, some real bullets have been fired too. at least one man has died as a result of police aggression, by the way.
that along with tear gas and full-on armoured vehicles and humans is hardly a way to respond to those with weapons of defense.

Nyro November 26th, 2014 6:17 AM

Is having to give up his law enforcement career permanently and start over with another vocation not a punishment? I would also note that money he gets will 90% go to civil reimbursement to Brown's family same as OJ paid for his doings.

EDIT: Sorry forgot important info...he now has ptsd almost assuredly and has blood on his hands. So getting another job will be near impossible. His interviews and maybe writing a book will be his permanent income and if that runs out...it is welfare time. I mention ptsd because I know what if feels like fearing for your life for a living(military) and this situation will most assuredly have a mental effect on this man unless he is simply inhuman.

Her November 26th, 2014 6:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nyro (Post 8509933)
Is having to give up his law enforcement career permanently and start over with another vocation not a punishment? I would also note that money he gets will 90% go to civil reimbursement to Brown's family same as OJ paid for his doings.

no, it is not. it is expected. giving up a career of being a say, construction worker, after, say, building a house that collapses and kills the occupants is not a punishment, it is expected. the punishment is going to prison for that. that worker would have to face that he did a crime and, as the saying goes, do the time.

i would also note that if the brown family (bless them) do win their case and receive 90% of his money (it will not be that much), that still leaves him with 10% of the money gotten for taking a life.
basically, a year or two's worth of what he gets as his annual salary. he will be doing fine in the monetary department.

Quote:

EDIT: Sorry forgot important info...he now has ptsd almost assuredly and has blood on his hands. So getting another job will be near impossible. His interviews and maybe writing a book will be his permanent income and if that runs out...it is welfare time. I mention ptsd because I know what if feels like fearing for your life for a living(military) and this situation will most assuredly have a mental effect on this man unless he is simply inhuman.
he killed a teenager and so far, it seems he will get away with it. in the eyes of the law, he has gotten away with it. but in the eyes of the people, he hasn't. he will be a hated man for the rest of his life, hate for him will seep from the bones of many for the rest of their lives. he should have stress. he should be fearing for his life. he is inhuman.

Nyro November 26th, 2014 6:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mariah Carey (Post 8509943)
no, it is not. it is expected. giving up a career of being a say, construction worker, after, say, building a house that collapses and kills the occupants is not a punishment, it is expected. the punishment is going to prison for that. that worker would have to face that he did a crime and, as the saying goes, do the time.

i would also note that if the brown family (bless them) do win their case and receive 90% of his money (it will not be that much), that still leaves him with 10% of the money gotten for taking a life.
basically, a year or two's worth of what he gets as his annual salary. he will be doing fine in the monetary department.

Shari'ah is what you want. That is not justice, that is fighting fire with fire and is a Sociopathic mindset.
There is no denying the fact he got punched by a 6'4 292 lb man. Only ONE witness said he didn't and what a surprise that witness was the buddy that was walking with Mr.Brown.

Also the Brown family would have probably had a day in real court if their hired Autopsy specialist was not caught lying about the trajectory of the bullet that grazed Michael's head.

EDIT: He may have been 18. But that 18 yr old is twice my size and I am a 27 yr old MAN.

Her November 26th, 2014 6:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nyro (Post 8509950)
Shari'ah is what you want. That is not justice, that is fighting fire with fire and is a Sociopathic mindset.

wanting a killer to face legal and social retributions for his crime is not sharia, it is not sociopathic and finally, what do you expect the people of ferguson to fight the fire with? paper?

Quote:

There is no denying the fact he got punched by a 6'4 292 lb man. Only ONE witness said he didn't and what a surprise that witness was the buddy that was walking with Mr.Brown.
there is denying it, actually.

there are the inconsistencies in wilson's testimony:
https://38.media.tumblr.com/073e6071a10c6b215d8746566568a007/tumblr_nfmupmeqX11qzsnxyo1_1280.png

the fact that there was no signs of struggle on michael brown's behalf as shown by the autopsy

the fact that there is a witness testimony describing exactly what michael brown did: surrender and get shot

the various other witness testimonies


Quote:

Also the Brown family would have probably had a day in real court if their hired Autopsy specialist was not caught lying about the trajectory of the bullet that grazed Michael's head.
michael brown was in the surrender pose when he was shot

Quote:

EDIT: He may have been 18. But that 18 yr old is twice my size and I am a 27 yr old MAN.
police are all taught how to apprehend suspects of all sizes using non-lethal force, and there was no reason for wilson to use lethal force on michael brown when he was a hundred yards away.

Keiran November 26th, 2014 6:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clairissa (Post 8509910)
"This racist racial empowerment group is wrong, but this racist racial empowerment group is right."
That's some grade A Colombian cut hypocrisy, and as linked above, they did plan for violence..

Black power is about standing up for oneself and their race. Overcoming hardship and oppression. White power is about maintaining that power over other races.

Also, 2 people allegedly getting arrested for unrelated charges, even if true, is not synonymous with a hate group having influence on a legal system.

Anyways, y'all are free to read the jury transcript here. If, after reading this, you still support Darren Wilson and can't realize this is about race & racist/corrupt legal systems then...I honestly don't know what to tell you. He wasn't even cross examined.

I'd also like to point out that those New Black Panther members allegedly getting arrested for planning to harm people whilst a group of KKK members HANDS OUT FLYERS AND ANNOUNCED ON LIVE TV that they're going to shoot/harm protesters and they aren't arrested is an example of white privilege.

ShinyUmbreon189 November 26th, 2014 6:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lord Raven (Post 8509673)
I'm mainly asking because I've seen a lot of white people doing this while growing up and I did it too before I hit undergrad. That's the kind of crap you never want to hear. It automatically gives the impression of a preconceived notion that black people are inherently thuggish and can't speak english well or something like that, and they're basically all like 2chainz or something. This is the kind of mentality we are talking about here, which I'm sure exists in the minds of many white people. It's considerably more subtle but it affects your judgment enough to actually favor one side over the other.

What you expect me to think when I see over half of the black people in my area (burbs of Chicago) doing gang handshakes, claimin colors hard, acting a damn fool and being ignorant, speaking their own language and using the n word every 3 words (english but it's impossible to understand them), and intentionally doing something to get the police involved or get them arrested? A majority of the black people in my area are THUGS, they come from the straight hood of south side Chicago. I can't even stress the amount of gangster disciples we have here, Gd's are a majority of the thugs in my area. Since a majority come from a specific folk set you don't witness a lot of gang affiliated crime involving other sets. You do, but not very often.

I came from a town near St. Louis where they had few thugs but they had black people. I didn't get that impression of them because I didn't have a reason to. But when I see a majority of the black people in my area now I'm forced to have that impression on them, or at least the ones in my area. If they don't wanna be perceived as a thug then don't act like one, act like a normal human being. If other blacks can do it they can.

Her November 26th, 2014 6:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShinyUmbreon189 (Post 8509969)
What you expect me to think when I see over half of the black people in my area (burbs of Chicago) doing gang handshakes, claimin colors hard, acting a damn fool and being ignorant, speaking their own language and using the n word every 3 words (english but it's impossible to understand them), and intentionally doing something to get the police involved or get them arrested? A majority of the black people in my area are THUGS, they come from the straight hood of south side Chicago. I can't even stress the amount of gangster disciples we have here, Gd's are a majority of the thugs in my area. Since a majority come from a specific folk set you don't witness a lot of gang affiliated crime involving other sets. You do, but not very often.

I came from a town near St. Louis where they had few thugs but they had black people. I didn't get that impression of them because I didn't have a reason to. But when I see a majority of the black people in my area now I'm forced to have that impression on them, or at least the ones in my area.

was that you marching with the kkk in the bright yellow belt earlier?

Nyro November 26th, 2014 6:57 AM

Lisa Bloom is a leech and the most rediculous attention seeking idiot on the face of this earth. Have you read any of her stuff?

Where did you read no signs of struggle and hands up surrendering? From the Browns Autopsy guy? The Federal Autopsy guy said he was shot 2inch to a foot from the barrel of the gun according to KMOV the St.Louis news station. If you have that article I would like to read it though. Pretty much all i have heard that agrees with you is word of mouth and protestors but I have seen no official statements validating those claims.

Nah November 26th, 2014 7:04 AM

Well, so much for hoping that this thread would turn out any differently than the million other threads related to racism on the internet.....

ShinyUmbreon189 November 26th, 2014 7:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mariah Carey (Post 8509972)
was that you marching with the kkk in the bright yellow belt earlier?

You obviously can't comprehend what I was saying so you're assuming I'm racist and did a KKK march? gtfo. READ THE FIRST PARAGRAPH AGAIN, better yet, read the whole post. Here it is to make it easier for yourself and I even bolded important parts.

Quote:

What you expect me to think when I see over half of the black people in my area (burbs of Chicago) doing gang handshakes, claimin colors hard, acting a damn fool and being ignorant, speaking their own language and using the n word every 3 words (english but it's impossible to understand them), and intentionally doing something to get the police involved or get them arrested? A majority of the black people in my area are THUGS, they come from the straight hood of south side Chicago. I can't even stress the amount of gangster disciples we have here, Gd's are a majority of the thugs in my area. Since a majority come from a specific folk set you don't witness a lot of gang affiliated crime involving other sets. You do, but not very often.

I came from a town near St. Louis where they had few thugs but they had black people. I didn't get that impression of them because I didn't have a reason to. But when I see a majority of the black people in my area now I'm forced to have that impression on them, or at least the ones in my area. If they don't wanna be perceived as a thug then don't act like one, act like a normal human being. If other blacks can do it they can.

A majority of the blacks in my area act like thugs and are thugs so I perceive them as thugs. I never said "all black people are thugs", I said "a majority of the blacks in my current area". Visit my area and see for yourself. They live here only temporarily, they still live in the ghetto of south Chicago where 90+% of them are thugs! Sorry, it's the facts. If you can't accept it then it's not my problem. If you don't believe me, go to south Chicago, but I'm not making any guarantee's you'll make it out alive regardless of your race. It's a scary area, the WARZONE of Chicago. Remember the 80+ people gunned down during the 4th of July weekend in Chicago this year? Where you think this took place? SOUTH CHICAGO! South Chicago is the reason Chicago is nicknamed "Chiraq". It's filled with nothing but gang bangers/thugs that commit felony's everyday, there's nothing but gunshots heard everyday, another body in the obituary, and countless assaults and home invasions everyday. With that being said, don't jump to assumptions. Besides, I'm not racist nor would I even consider joining the KKK. I look at the KKK as scum of this earth.

I also find it very hard to believe you're white too. Because you're trying awfully hard to back up the black thugs.

Nyro November 26th, 2014 7:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keiran (Post 8509968)
Black power is about standing up for oneself and their race. Overcoming hardship and oppression. White power is about maintaining that power over other races.

Also, 2 people allegedly getting arrested for unrelated charges, even if true, is not synonymous with a hate group having influence on a legal system.

Anyways, y'all are free to read the jury transcript here. If, after reading this, you still support Darren Wilson and can't realize this is about race & racist/corrupt legal systems then...I honestly don't know what to tell you. He wasn't even cross examined.

I'd also like to point out that those New Black Panther members allegedly getting arrested for planning to harm people whilst a group of KKK members HANDS OUT FLYERS AND ANNOUNCED ON LIVE TV that they're going to shoot/harm protesters and they aren't arrested is an example of white privilege.

Actually reading these testimonies and they are very interesting but I think they got it right sorry. I will read more and update this if I feel differently but so far the witnesses point to them getting this one right. However I do feel the witnesses have genuine distrust for cops that is apparent. I guess you can consider that a "race issue" if we are assuming all the cops are white. Hopefully that is not the case. Which witness did you think pointed the other way? I have a read a few that tried but the testimonies were kinda shaky and seemed a little unbelieveable.

EDIT: 64 #2 was really odd. They couldn't get their story straight with the previous day. There were actually a few like that but that one stuck out BIG TIME.

Lizardo November 26th, 2014 8:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timbjerr
Unless there is any hard evidence that Wilson targeted Brown because of his race, there is no need to make this a race issue.

It was always going to be a race issue, because the unfortunate fact of the matter is that we live in a country where police are historically notorious for harassing black people. The actions of the police in the outbreak of the protests and their strong-arm tactics against many of the protestors do not help their image, regardless of what really happened between Michael Brown and Darren Wilson. Whatever the facts are in this case, it’s natural for the death of an unarmed black teenage by the hand of a white police officer to raise eyebrows. And whites have no one to blame but themselves. They created the society where this has been, and very much still is, an issue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShinyUmbreon189
If you are black, I feel sorry for you because those few black looters make the black race as a whole look bad.

I’m a black man and, please, don’t feel sorry for me. The oppression against dark-skinned people all over the world for centuries, that exists to this day, makes the white race look even worse. So does trying to pretend it’s all over now.

Quote:

They feel they're the victim when they're not, they can't get over something that happened over a century ago.
What exactly do you mean by a century ago? Slavery ended over a century ago, but the Jim Crow era lasted well into the 20th Century, the Civil Rights Movement is still within living memory of many people today, and racism still exists today - especially within the American Criminal Justice system. Blacks will “get over it” when it no longer exists.

Quote:

Originally Posted by daigonite
And that because of actions completely out of his control, this somehow invalidates his arguments. Seriously, screw that MLK, he had no idea what he was talking about! He got assassinated! That sure shows how much he's worth!

Since we’re bringing up Martin Luther King, Jr. here’s a quote of his that’s especially relevant in this thread: “I contend that the cry of "black power" is, at bottom, a reaction to the reluctance of white power to make the kind of changes necessary to make justice a reality for the Negro. I think that we've got to see that a riot is the language of the unheard.”

I think it would do a lot of people well to remember what MLK actually said and did if we’re going to bring him up here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clarissa
"It's a race issue because the KKK was involved!" Pretty sure the Black Panthers were also involved, another racist hate group.

The KKK was the racist hate group, and from early on in its inception had dedicated itself to using violence to deny newly freed slaves the ability to use the political power they had won as a result of the Civil War. The Black Panthers adopted a militant stance, but its aim was to empower the black community not to destroy or re-enslave the white one. There’s a difference between the two.

Quote:

Racism does indeed exist EVERYWHERE, and it affects EVERY RACE, or do you think whites have never been discriminated against?
The difference here being that whites have historically been in control of this country, and have never been subjected to the kind of institutionalized racism that minorities (especially blacks) have. People need to realize this. It is not the same thing, it has never been the same thing.

Police can harass anyone, this is true. But blacks living in impoverished areas have been more likely to abuse from law enforcement than middle/upper-class whites. I’ve never met a white person who was ever afraid of the police, the way many even law-abiding blacks are. I would urge people to look into the history of race relations in America, and look into how the Criminal Justice system affects minorities before trying to pass judgement against an entire race. Because a lot of these posts do exactly that, and it says something very depressing about some of the people who post here.

Like anyone else, I don’t know exactly what happened in the Michael Brown-Darren Wilson case. I listened to the same news stories you did, weighed the factors like anyone else, and came to my own conclusion that Wilson at least deserved to be indicted. It doesn’t matter now, but trying to look into the black perspective on these things would do a lot more good than simply condemning them while pretending that racism no longer exists and that it’s all the blacks’ fault. It’s not that simple, and people need to realize that.

Corvus of the Black Night November 26th, 2014 9:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mariah Carey (Post 8509972)
was that you marching with the kkk in the bright yellow belt earlier?

Can you try to not be a complete insufferable ******* in this thread? You've done barely anything but attack other people. Seriously, we get it, you don't agree with the fact that some people want to question the traditional racist narrative. Perhaps there's something much deeper than that. Instead of automatically writing them off as racists because they don't agree with you, maybe you should take three seconds to actually understand what their argument is. Maybe they have an interesting point. Maybe they have something to ponder. Hell, maybe they're playing Devil's Advocate and are trying to make you think about what you say.

Then again, you are the same person who summarized MLK's works as "pull their pants up" so I guess that might be too much to ask for.

Regardless.

For example, earlier, the Black Panthers were brought up. You might as well call these guys the yang to the KKK's yin. Don't you think that both groups perhaps are problematic and that they both contribute to the furthering the misery that perpetuates this black versus white trope.

I heard from someone on facebook who asked me, "you people who say that we shouldn't see colour, you're all saying that because you're ignoring the problem that's existed for 500 years". And it just makes me ask, if this black versus white trope is the problem that we have been dealing with for 500 years, don't you think that doing the exact opposite is the only thing that is going to stop perpetuating this problem? There's a common saying - that if you're going to do the same thing over and over again and expect a different result, then that's the definition of insanty - but the truth is that by perpetuating that because it's the status quo that alternatives that seek to remove that should be ignored shows that people truly aren't ready to let go of those views just yet, on both sides.

And you know what?

Mind you, this is someone who really doesn't know how to feel about this whole thing other than the whole thing is a tragedy. I've already had people telling me to kill myself and how horrible and racist I am because I frankly have a lot bigger problems on my plate. Again, to me, I treat everyone with respect, and I try to help those who don't get it, but I can't throw myself out there when I'm already dealing with my own challenges with suicide and self harm. Problems so screwed up that I can't run away anymore. I'm not looking for sympathy, but it helps raise an important issue - the fact that people are so ****ing froth filled with rage while ignoring everything else that could possibly be happening in their world just shows how close minded they really are, and how desperately they cling to their presumed "open mindedness" in order to perpetuate their own self worth. Yeah, I don't think that my problems overshadow what's going on in Ferguson right now, but maybe my problems are making me unable to make a decision on how I feel about it. Maybe other people's problems affect how other people feel about it. Maybe the reason why people are saying the things that they are saying is because they have encountered things in their lives that have shown them to think otherwise, outside of the stereotypical "POOR BLACK PEOPLE" narrative.

If you have an opinion, that's fine. But you know what. People have opinions based on their history. Instead of going around and being a complete chucknugget, try actually trying to understand where the opposition is coming from. I have already come to agree to disagree with some people in this thread. Just because they don't agree with you doesn't mean that they secretly hate black people, or that they believe that the kid should have died, or that there isn't a problem. It means that they disagreed with you with how people are handling it. Perhaps you should show the same level of maturity.

Maybe this rage that people are doing in response to the incident reflects that people aren't ready to reconcile their differences and are unwilling to see the challenges that others face. And maybe, even just as this reaction on this forum alone along with the entire internet caught ablaze, shows that perhaps, we are not ready for that.

I guess it's time to return to my hut. Everyone's welcome besides those who scream, because those who scream have no consideration for others.

P.S. I'm tired as **** so sorry if this reads like a drunk sermon.

ShinyUmbreon189 November 26th, 2014 9:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lizardo (Post 8510058)
What exactly do you mean by a century ago? Slavery ended over a century ago, but the Jim Crow era lasted well into the 20th Century, the Civil Rights Movement is still within living memory of many people today, and racism still exists today - especially within the American Criminal Justice system. Blacks will “get over it” when it no longer exists.

Not speaking for every black person, just the ones that feel their being targeted when they're not because they're deciding to commit crimes. I'm talking about the ones that give the justice system a reason. When they stop giving them a reason it will begin to stop. Until then, it will continue. Watch this video and pay close attention from 3:00 and on, it comes from a man of your own race.. He's beyond accurate as well, I know from personal experience. Got pulled over with 2 black people in my vehicle.. Guess what? ONE HAD A UNREGISTERED GUN AND ONE HAD AN OUNCE OF WEED! With that being said, it's the reason I have trust issues with blacks. Those 2 black people damn near ruined my life so I have a valid reason to have trust issues with blacks. Doesn't mean I can't trust them, it means it's gonna take more time for me to trust them. They have to convince me they aren't going to **** me over by getting me arrested, almost put in prison, and getting my vehicle impounded. The black friends I do have, I trust because they've earned my trust and don't' act like like a damn thug and don't commit crimes.

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10152603552157512

Lizardo November 26th, 2014 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShinyUmbreon189 (Post 8510071)
Not speaking for every black person, just the ones that feel their being targeted when they're not because they're deciding to commit crimes. I'm talking about the ones that give the justice system a reason. When they stop giving them a reason it will begin to stop. Until then, it will continue.

Except this has never stopped with the blacks who are guilty. It also includes black men and women beaten and killed by police for protesting. It includes black children shot by police for holding toy guns, and unarmed black men shot for doing nothing at all. This also includes black inmates who receive longer sentences than white inmates for the same crimes committed, criminal laws and policies (e.g. the Drug War) that impact poor minority (black and Hispanic, mainly) communities more than white ones, police who racially profile minorities, etc. It has never been as simple as “don’t do bad things.”

Quote:

Watch this video and pay close attention from 3:00 and on, it comes from a man of your own race.. He's beyond accurate as well, I know from personal experience.

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10152603552157512
I made it to 0:56 in the video when I heard him say “Civil Rights... we won”. I have no issue with trying to promote personal responsibility, but that’s just plain wrong. And that belief is a big part of why people are having this argument.

Quote:

Got pulled over with 2 black people in my vehicle.. Guess what? ONE HAD A UNREGISTERED GUN AND ONE HAD AN OUNCE OF WEED! With that being said, it's the reason I have trust issues with blacks. Those 2 black people damn near ruined my life so I have a valid reason to have trust issues with blacks. Doesn't mean I can't trust them, it means it's gonna take more time for me to trust them. They have to convince me they aren't going to **** me over by getting me arrested, almost put in prison, and getting my vehicle impounded. The black friends I do have, I trust because they've earned my trust and don't' act like like a damn thug and don't commit crimes.
If the irresponsible actions of two black people are enough that you think you’re justified in having trust issues with blacks, an entire history of oppression from white authority figures (including police) against black people more than gives the latter justification for having problems with the former and the system set up by them.

This is not to say that there aren’t blacks who legitimately deserve to be punished by the law for the crimes they do. I’m saying that blacks are very much still disadvantaged in this country, racism still exists and did not end with the Civil Rights Movement, and that blacks have an understandable reason for being outraged when a white police officer shoots an unarmed black teenager and when the officer who shot him isn’t even indicted. It was the white man who made it that way in the first place.

ShinyUmbreon189 November 26th, 2014 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lizardo (Post 8510152)
I made it to 0:56 in the video when I heard him say “Civil Rights... we won”. I have no issue with trying to promote personal responsibility, but that’s just plain wrong. And that belief is a big part of why people are having this argument.

Should of finished the video, and you guys did win the Civil Rights. Did you not get granted the same rights and freedom as the whites?

Corvus of the Black Night November 26th, 2014 11:14 AM

Ultimately I think this boils down to a couple of things.

1. Groups of people who were regularly shifted to the bottom rungs of society through oppression, such as black people, tend to have struggles financially. This financial struggle eventually peters out once integration occurs, but this can take some time.

2. While financially struggling, regardless of race or income, most people view these people negatively. For example, locally, black middle class/upper class individuals have far more animosity towards lower class black people than middle class/upper class whites. This actually leads to a problem since people tend to focus on the racial side of the issue, which, while valid in many cases 60 years ago, is not true now, which causes the problem to avoid being targeted.

3. Because black people took until the 60's to be legally integrated in UNITED STATES culture, they still suffer stigma in the UNITED STATES because they still have financial catching up to do. Because of various conditions, including an over emphasis on black-versus-white mentality (one of the most dangerous mentalities and what holds so many black people back) and a well defined separate culture in many communities, integration is difficult. The combination of these tactics help perpetuate both coincidental disadvantageous individuals as well as perpetuate the logic of racist bigotry.

Unlike other minorities, they don't have the following advantages:

- Women can change class through marriage and usually adopt the class of their husbands. This can open up women to better oppporitunities as well as helping to raise their own female children to become independent.
- Due to the way immigration has changed in the last 40 years, Asians (who historically faced far more discrimination before reforming immigration than some other minorities, it's pretty screwed up how much erasure this gets) have transformed from a stereotype of complete idiots to very smart, which has helped push them from segregation considerably. This issue has historical context and shows how much what kind of people you let in your country affects how people view them (Originally they brought in blue collar workers who could barely understand english and were considered disposable, thus considered "idiots", now immigration makes the US prefer those in the sciences and technology)
- Jews have consistently been pushed out of work that is middle/lower class and adopted forms of work that turned out to be more profitable (i.e. white collar), which also leads to the stereotype of them being "greedy".
- The physically disabled, which frankly should receive far more attention than Ferguson should in my opinion, have one distinct advantage socially - harming a disabled person is usually considered extremely taboo. In fact, this turns into another problem - their problem is that people don't listen and are not empathetic towards their problems since they make assumptions or are unwilling to explore their perspective.

Ultimately, this leads to an intense divide that is perpetuated by both sides. Even someone who tries to integrate themselves are commonly told to "sit down and shut up" instead of, I dunno, actual integration between the races. Ultimately both sides of participants (not all people participate in this, which leads to people "blind to colour") end up having the exact same problem on the other side and continue to perpetuate a problem of "white versus black." Ultimately this is why it must be eliminated.

I'm not saying this structure is right (in fact I think it's pretty wrong and leads to why education and health care should be available to all individuals), I'm saying that I think it's less to do with "omg black people do this" and more to do with trend following tactics that people tend to use to try to curb behaviour. Ultimately, the real ultimate tragedy of the impoverished is that they struggle to survive and sometimes make extreme decisions to try to make their lives better, such as selling drugs, robbery or joining gangs. I know people who have been involved in all three, and it's all because of the same reason - they want a better life, and their poverty, more than anything, cuts them off. By consequence, most people who are upper or middle class, who are protected by the police force, end up forming a battle between the two, and because black people have faced the most challenges with financial integration, they have committed, proportionally, more crime than other groups.

This isn't because black people are inherently bad, it's because many black people are in a desperate situation, because of a difficulty with rising in class. Ultimately, because of this, it can justify racism, or induce profiling. In addition, people who are lower class (more likely to be black) have more inherent

What is troublesome here though is that activists are also blinded by the race card here. It's so easy to be entranced by the racist narrative to ignore other possibilities, which is prevalent in this thread. The reality is that these issues strike people of all colour, gender, whatever. It's just that because of other circumstances, some people are struck more often than others. Again, in Detroit, most of the population lives in pretty low conditions, despite the population only having 54% black population. Other surrounding cities with better living conditions such as Southfield have higher black populations, indicating that this, at least in this case, may be far less of a race issue than it is an income issue.

Perhaps in Ferguson it is a blend of both - where there is enough racism in the area to perpetuate this cycle even further.

But in all honesty. Sometimes I wish you people would wear a blindfold for a day. It would be pretty enlightening I think.

Star-Lord November 26th, 2014 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nyro (Post 8509974)
Lisa Bloom is a leech and the most rediculous attention seeking idiot on the face of this earth.

Regardless of your opinion of her she isn't the one who deserves to get disbarred right now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by daigonite (Post 8510060)
Can you try to not be a complete insufferable ******* in this thread?

People bending over backwards to try and defend Darren Wilson are a lot more insufferable than her.

Entermaid November 26th, 2014 11:53 AM

I wish this thread would be considered in terms of institutions and the identity/behavior established from institutions rather than the idea that groups of people are consciously deciding to have biases (this applies to all identities, minority/majority alike).

A. Some majority actors seek to maintain status quo. (Essentially no Minorities support this.)
1. Maintain income inequality and separation of culture.
2. Revert to older forms of status quo (turn the clock a decade or two in respect to race and political behavior/mobilization.)

B. Some majority and minority actors seek to incorporate/integrate minorities into the system better.
1. Assimilation - minority enveloped by majority
2. Pluralism - minorities and majorities being distinct groups with equal rights
3. Reciprocal Assimilation - All parties enveloped into a new system and identity (think white immigrant).

As a primarily white person, barring my other minority status outside of race, I tend to favor the third approach. Pluralism isn't effective, and leads to divisiveness rather than the desired effect of "egalitarianism", which has no clear definition. It forges separate and distinct interests, and thus, leads to a decrease in substantive representation...meaning, the total amount of constituents satisfied by policy and its implementation.

Those who are rioting are advocating the B2 approach to race/ethnicity in America. Further, most whites favor either the A1, B1, or B2 approaches. White Conservatives tend to favor A1/B1 and White Liberals tend to favor B2. These approaches are used in policy advocacy and political campaigning to garner votes.

The B3 response gives politicians no leverage over race and political campaigning, (since it is inherently non-divisive.)

The thread seems to be leaning towards the other responses I have listed, and they are all flawed, but it seem fair to assume the fault of these approach choices are based upon the simple heuristically employed in decisive political culture and political institutions.

Oryx November 26th, 2014 11:58 AM

I find it amusing how people are arguing so strongly about the actual case as if this was a trial. This was not a trial. This was a hearing to decide if there would be a trial. I think it's clear from the fact that a person was shot to death and there is confusion on what happened that it should have gone to trial.

You have to wonder why a grand jury, which are known for sending 99% of cases to trial, found this convoluted case open-and-shut enough that it didn't deserve one. It's also worth noting that in the grand jury hearing, there is no need to hear evidence against the prosecution. The prosecution chooses what is shown and, if they are doing their job correctly, choose the evidence that best shows that they have a case to bring it to trial. Instead, the prosecutor muddied the water with all the evidence, not even cross-examining Darren Wilson, and otherwise basically working for the defense. This was not a trial that the prosecution wanted to happen, so they gamed the system.

Regardless of your feelings on what the outcome of a trial should have/would have been, you have to agree that it should have had a trial.

Corvus of the Black Night November 26th, 2014 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moogles (Post 8510205)
People bending over backwards to try and defend Darren Wilson are a lot more insufferable than her.

What if he's right?

...Seriously, I mean this - what if he's actually telling the truth?

I can't make that decision, but seriously, what if he's honestly saying the honest to goodness truth? How do you know that he isn't? To a third party, there is compelling evidence brought up on both sides. Perhaps the reason why the evidence was withheld before the final decision was because they knew either way there would be a massive cluster**** on both sides.

How are you supposed to know any better than anyone else? Again, I find it extremely difficult to have an intense opinion on this - again, because I have bigger personal problems and I really can't deal with this **** right now - but from everything I've seen there's compelling evidence on both sides. Just because you want to selectively claim that somehow supporting him == racism doesn't actually mean that people who support him are racists. Why not listen to their opinion instead of automatically demonizing them?

It's actually a very healthy debate practice to observe and attempt to understand opposing debates. What you're doing is a very clear derivative of straw man - you're basically painting your opposition as racists or otherwise "bad" because you don't understand their debate. Why not ask the questions yourself that they're asking you so that you can gain some understanding for their debate, and possibly find ways to strengthen your argument?

Sure, there are certainly people who support him who are racists. There are also people supporting the Browns who are racists. Look at the people going around and using this to push a "white hate" agenda - is that not racism in of itself? What holds these arguments up besides the people's own bigotry? Nothing.

Ultimately, it's best to weed out opinions that hinge on bigotry on both sides and through those that I have seen, I think that both sides are focusing so much on specific information that both are failing to acknowledge the whole story. It is imperative, regardless of background, to focus on the entire story. And frankly, there's a lot to take in. There's a lot to weed out. There's a lot that you or anyone else could have missed. There isn't a smoking gun, because both sides are fighting over what that smoking gun is. A third party such as myself sees this as a problem with no clear cut answer.

Finally, regardless of the decision, I don't think the rioting is right, which is my ultimate problem here. If there is a problem with the law, address that, don't burn your city to the ground. As I said multiple times, that has happened in the past with a certain city and we all know what happened next. It's not justifiable, even if people are angry. If you try to hold people in fear, regardless of what side of the fence you are on, you only add tension to an already extremely tense situation. If the decision was reversed and the other side was rioting, do you think that you would hold the same support, even though it would have exactly the same consequences on the community? People will just get more pissed and more unwilling to work with you, especially if those individuals are individuals

That's why people STILL support MLK today but forget about many individual highly educated black activists throughout history who had various ideas from instantiating a civil war to migrating back to Africa - because someone like him actually supported actual EQUALITY as opposed to just dealing with the situation by pissing people off or running away. The former doesn't work because you piss people off and the latter doesn't work because you've already developed your own culture distant enough from Africa to actually be feasible and in a way you are invading THEIR land for your own needs, which usually ends not so well.

Lord Raven November 26th, 2014 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShinyUmbreon189 (Post 8510165)
Should of finished the video, and you guys did win the Civil Rights. Did you not get granted the same rights and freedom as the whites?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lizardo (Post 8510152)
This is not to say that there aren’t blacks who legitimately deserve to be punished by the law for the crimes they do. I’m saying that blacks are very much still disadvantaged in this country, racism still exists and did not end with the Civil Rights Movement, and that blacks have an understandable reason for being outraged when a white police officer shoots an unarmed black teenager and when the officer who shot him isn’t even indicted. It was the white man who made it that way in the first place.

He answered your question.

In short, by the law and in theory, yes, African Americans did receive the same rights.

But in actual application by those who are meant to enforce these laws? No.

Also, separate but equal stopped being a thing only half a century ago. People whose families were disadvantage as a result of segregation and Jim Crow laws will likely have offspring that will be disadvantaged for the same reason. Not only that, but opportunity doesn't come easy when you've grown up in a certain environment.

Sydian November 26th, 2014 12:34 PM

If the only posts you can make in this thread are to call people out with insults and inflammatory statements, you shouldn't post in this thread at all. Period. Ultimately the fate of this thread lies in Live's hands so if he has different plans for this thread, I'll let him decide. But for now, you all need to cool it. Infractions will be handed out next if it continues.

Thanks for understanding.

Sir Codin November 26th, 2014 1:04 PM

Racism or not, America has a serious problem with militarized police and a "shoot first, ask questions later mentality." Every cop I've seen has a taser on them. Wilson seriously couldn't have used his taser instead?

Cops are now asking for freaking drones for christ sakes. But of course, nobody is going to stand up and say enough because "not all cops are bad, m'kay?" right?

Enjoy your dystopian, Half-Life 2 police state future.

Grey Wind November 26th, 2014 1:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Limerent (Post 8509449)
SJW's and African Americans will jump to what they want to believe and throw a tantrum by rioting when the facts don't match their agenda, which is a vendetta against the hated white man.

Honestly what is this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by daigonite (Post 8510060)
Then again, you are the same person who summarized MLK's works as "pull their pants up" so I guess that might be too much to ask for.

She wasn't talking about MLK's ideals lol, she was talking about the people who preach that black people should act more civilised or w/e if they don't want to be profiled.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CarcharOdin (Post 8510307)
Racism or not, America has a serious problem with militarized police and a "shoot first, ask questions later mentality." Every cop I've seen has a taser on them. Wilson seriously couldn't have used his taser instead?

Apparently he didn't carry a taser because it was uncomfortable or s/t.


I agree with Oryx. Brown was unarmed, had surrendered and was on his knees; there was no need for him to be shot six times (or shot twice in the head). I'm not going to come out and say that Wilson should have been convicted of murder because blah blah we don't know everything but there is NO reason that it shouldn't have gone to trial. The verdict is ridiculous.

Sir Codin November 26th, 2014 1:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grey Wind (Post 8510353)
Apparently he didn't carry a taser because it was uncomfortable or s/t.

Wait, what the frig? Because it was uncomfortable? Oh, boo hoo hoo. Maybe next time he should suck it up and carry one so that we don't have a situation like this.

Seriously, why the hell is this guy even a cop?

Lord Raven November 26th, 2014 1:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grey Wind (Post 8510353)
Apparently he didn't carry a taser because it was uncomfortable or s/t.

I'd like to see a source on this.. it sounds way too stupid to be true.

Klippy November 26th, 2014 1:59 PM

Okay...I'm seeing a complete lack of fact-checking and misinformation in this thread and it's really irritating because it seems like some people aren't bothering to look at the evidence presented to the grand jury.

Here's an article done by NPR which also links to grand jury documents.

The comments I see in here display no concern for honest debate or real discussion because I see a lot of hearsay and straight-up false information. You're arguing whether or not the verdict is fair when the reality is that the grand jury used the evidence presented to them to render a verdict as accurately as possible. They can't use rumors and unreliable witness testimony. They can't use personal feelings.

The evidence presented to the grand jury matched Officer Wilson's version of events more accurately than any conflicting version of events. The physical evidence corroborates the story. Please stop posting false information and rumors. Read through the documents and see what evidence was given to the grand jury and then come to a conclusion. Don't just say whatever you feel about it and pretend the facts and evidence are not out there. All that matters to a grand jury is THAT information that was presented, not hearsay.

Her November 26th, 2014 2:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CarcharOdin (Post 8510358)
Wait, what the frig? Because it was uncomfortable? Oh, boo hoo hoo. Maybe next time he should suck it up and carry one so that we don't have a situation like this.

Seriously, why the hell is this guy even a cop?

interestingly enough, wilson's first job was in a department that was so at odds with its community that the entire department was fired

ShinyUmbreon189 November 26th, 2014 2:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CarcharOdin (Post 8510307)
Racism or not, America has a serious problem with militarized police and a "shoot first, ask questions later mentality." Every cop I've seen has a taser on them. Wilson seriously couldn't have used his taser instead?

Tasers don't always work, especially on someone that was the size of Brown with their adrenaline pumpin. There's been many cases where offers as a squad had to use their tasers to drop people. The currency and voltage of a taser is enough to tranquilize most people, but not always, especially if they're big or on drugs like PCP. Tasers are usually used when the victim is resisting, doesn't obey orders by getting on the ground, or is trying to flee. Charging an officer isn't resisting or fleeing, it's planning to assault so using his gun was necessary. If you claim he was on the ground when he got shot then explain why the jury didn't convict him? If he murdered him instead of killing in self defense then Wilson would be incarcerated for life without parole.

And to the people wondering why he shot Brown six times, it's not rocket science. A 9mm pistol doesn't have that much firepower so to drop someone the size of Brown it can take half the clip at times. Where as with a pistol like a .45 it would of been over after 1 or 2 shots. This is my personal opinion, he should of shot at the legs instead causing him to collapse and called for paramedics once he's in custody, he wouldn't bleed out instantly. I wasn't there, I don't know what exactly happened and how far away Brown was when he got shot. There's too many sources and any of them can be accurate.

Sir Codin November 26th, 2014 3:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Limerent (Post 8510442)
@CacharOdin, police militarisation is relevant to this topic but it also fits into gun control. Why shouldn't police have military equipment like armoured personnel carriers when the general populace has easy access to high powered rifles that can turn a regular patrol car into swiss cheese? If you want that stuff fine, but police deserve proper countermeasures to protect themselves if that's the case.

What, you mean like automatic weapons? Those are not easily available to any John or Jane willy-nilly, they're extremely regulated, far far more than semi-automatics and handguns, they have been for many years. Also, the majority of gun crimes in the United States are committed with handguns. Sure you have the occasional black market sale and semi-auto rifle school shooting committed by lunatics who don't give a damn about gun laws or gun-free zones to begin with, but in terms of everyday antics, the cops in many areas are horribly OP.

ShinyUmbreon189 November 26th, 2014 3:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CarcharOdin (Post 8510451)
the cops in many areas are horribly OP.

How so? Basic law enforcers are given 9mm pistols as the default weapon and they aren't all that powerful. I own one myself, and out of the 3 guns I have it's by far the weakest. I've never seen a cop carry a firearm with more power. In some counties depending on the state some may have a shotgun, but it's rare. The only law enforcers using military grade weaponry and armor is swat and riot teams and agencies like the FBI which isn't your everyday police officer. They're called in situations when it's out of a police officers hands and they need to use force. Of course an officer getting in a gun battle with someone carrying an AK 47 would require back-up but that's almost never the case.

Star-Lord November 26th, 2014 4:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Klippy (Post 8510375)
You're arguing whether or not the verdict is fair when the reality is that the grand jury used the evidence presented to them to render a verdict as accurately as possible. They can't use rumors and unreliable witness testimony. They can't use personal feelings.

The evidence presented to the grand jury matched Officer Wilson's version of events more accurately than any conflicting version of events. The physical evidence corroborates the story. Please stop posting false information and rumors. Read through the documents and see what evidence was given to the grand jury and then come to a conclusion. Don't just say whatever you feel about it and pretend the facts and evidence are not out there. All that matters to a grand jury is THAT information that was presented, not hearsay.

Except that Bob McCulloch is a joke of a prosecutor who actively defended Wilson instead of doing his job properly. That's the problem. I personally gave Wilson the benefit of the doubt for a long time because I understand that policing is a high stress job – Bob McCulloch set up the trial in such a way that there wouldn't even be an indictment when there should have AT LEAST brought this case to trial. Shame on you.

People talk about the physical evidence being on Wilson's side even though the hospital report shows that he wasn't at all injured, yet he was supposedly punched multiple times by Mike Brown? [x]

I was going to be surprised if this DID get an indictment because Bob McCulloch is human trash who clearly spun the trial in his own way.

Keiran November 26th, 2014 4:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lord Raven (Post 8510369)
I'd like to see a source on this.. it sounds way too stupid to be true.

http://media.tumblr.com/a5b95fd04891f8155ae1a0eb19d49848/tumblr_inline_nfmkrs1yGE1qbuxry.png

It's in the jury transcript that I posted. You can find many ridiculous things in it that easily show that this was thrown deliberately. My favorite part is where Wilson tells the jury that Brown was holding the stolen box of cigarillos in his right hand, while also punching him with his right hand.

Livewire November 27th, 2014 9:33 AM

A little late to the party here, but let's all collectively cool off, ditch the personal attacks and pettiness, and get back to debating the actual topic at hand please.

Kanzler November 28th, 2014 6:12 PM

Michael Brown was pretty scary doe. I saw that gif of him intimidating the shop owner on security camera and i was like daaaaamn he's big.

Also @ shooting for the legs just lol

I've shot rifles before and it is difficult as hell. Plus close quarters and aggression and all that. Also, sidearm. How would you even attempt such a thing?

Rogue planet November 29th, 2014 10:46 AM

Why does it matter how big Michael is? It obviously doesn't affect his chances when he's shot to death.

So he's intimidating, yes. That only suggests Darren lost his cool and panicked in the face of a big guy. That's not very professional; and it's not really an excuse for murder.

Nyro November 29th, 2014 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gold warehouse (Post 8513662)
Why does it matter how big Michael is? It obviously doesn't affect his chances when he's shot to death.

So he's intimidating, yes. That only suggests Darren lost his cool and panicked in the face of a big guy. That's not very professional; and it's not really an excuse for murder.

Have you ever had a 292 lb man charging you? I assumed you have and you just stared him down said "sir please stop being aggressive towards me I am just doing my job" and you guys then proceeded to go out and have coffee together like civilized people. If so you are truly amazing and should be giving speeches at Universities for years to come on self control.

Rogue planet November 29th, 2014 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nyro (Post 8513666)
Have you ever had a 292 lb man charging you? I assumed you have and you just stared him down said "sir please stop being aggressive towards me I am just doing my job" and you guys then proceeded to go out and have coffee together like civilized people. If so you are truly amazing and should be giving speeches at Universities for years to come on self control.

Right because the only options in that situation is A) murder B) unrealistic friendly scenario

I certainly wouldn't shoot him, because you know there's this thing called respect for life; not to mention the fact I wouldn't be carrying a firearm in the first place. What point are you trying to make?

Nyro November 29th, 2014 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gold warehouse (Post 8513717)
Right because the only options in that situation is A) murder B) unrealistic friendly scenario

I certainly wouldn't shoot him, because you know there's this thing called respect for life; not to mention the fact I wouldn't be carrying a firearm in the first place. What point are you trying to make?

what realistic option would you have taken?

Rogue planet November 29th, 2014 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nyro (Post 8513719)
what realistic option would you have taken?

I would have run. I supposed you're going to say it was Darren's job to deal with the situation so he "couldn't have run". I have a funny feeling it doesn't matter what I say I would have done.

How many fights do you think occur every day, and how many of them do you think result in somebody dead? How many disputes with an unarmed man leave only option being a bullet to the head? Arguably, none. He wasn't armed, but that doesn't matter to some of you; you're trying to portray him as some sort of titanic super human that could kill a man with a single punch.

Nyro November 29th, 2014 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gold warehouse (Post 8513740)
I would have run. I supposed you're going to say it was Darren's job to deal with the situation so he "couldn't have run". I have a funny feeling it doesn't matter what I say I would have done.

How many fights do you think occur every day, and how many of them do you think result in somebody dead? How many disputes with an unarmed man leave only option being a bullet to the head? Arguably, none. He wasn't armed, but that doesn't matter to some of you; you're trying to portray him as some sort of titanic super human that could kill a man with a single punch.

Yes, he could have ran and then another store clerk would get assaulted. That is actually an option and would have probably allowed Michael to live but does the next store clerk deserve the assault?

Now you will say assault is NOT death and of course it is not but innocent people should not be punished because someone refuses to follow the rules of society. Lets say he runs and gets back up, 1 of 3 things would happen. They never find him and he gets away with assault and theft, they find him and arrest him and he gets a month in jail for first offense assault and theft with good behavior or last and most likely he gets away with it and does it again to another old man in a convenience store.

Of course I guess assault is fine as long as no one dies. I mean it is not like the kid was innocent there is definitive video of him and the store clerk and as far as I am concerned going into someones place of business, threatening them and blatantly thieving from them is a crime that deserves harsh punishment. Death? No, definitly not but he waved that when he charged an officer.

If you want to be "realistic", lets be realistic and open minded. His best option was to call back up and tail them at a safe distance. This assures they DO NOT hit another store or assault another person before they get caught and yes i say "they" we forget that his buddy was right outside when he robbed that place. It also doesn't allow them to get away. But then again I wonder if they would throw stuff at the car or charge the car if he followed them. The sad thing is when someone knows a cop saw them they run and it can take weeks to track them down at times sometimes years or NEVER. More criminals get away then get caught that is a fact think of all the petty theft cases that never get caught...I mean go to a local store bathroom and you will see tons of packages open and stolen with the packages left on the floor. Sadly society is at this point whether you or any other person wants to admit it or not.

Anyways if we wanted to truly indict this man they should have focused on the obvious and given logical options he could have taken that insured Brown's and the communities safety until brown was caught but no one even discussed that they just made up lies and beat around the bush on BOTH sides of the court. Both sides had such insane and unbelievable testimony.

Keiran November 29th, 2014 5:49 PM

People like to talk about Michael Browns size to demonize him, but conveniently gloss over the fact that Darren Wilson was also 6' 4"... with a gun. And the autopsy reports and eyewitness accounts corroborate with each other in that Mike Brown was on the ground with his hands up - never charging or attacking his murderer.

Corvus of the Black Night November 29th, 2014 7:53 PM

You know, I think anyone would be pretty frightened if someone who was 289 lbs, regardless of height, would be frightened of that. Nyro puts it much better than I can.

Quote:

"Have you ever had a 292 lb man charging you? I assumed you have and you just stared him down said "sir please stop being aggressive towards me I am just doing my job" and you guys then proceeded to go out and have coffee together like civilized people. If so you are truly amazing and should be giving speeches at Universities for years to come on self control."
Unless you were absolutely massive I highly doubt that you would have the rationality to make the correct decision. You simply cannot put yourself in that position; to assume so is a false idealism. We say so often to ourselves that "we would do things differently", but with that same knowledge and understanding do you actually know if you were going to make that correct decision?

Also, you should probably actually show the autopsy report instead of just making claims so that people can decide for themselves with the actual evidence whether or not he was actually moving or not.

Keiran, your lack of sources on such claims is a little frightening. You absolutely need to back up your sources, and no, dailymail and huffpost aren't sources, they're news outlets who have an obvious political leaning. Most of the news outlets reporting on the story do.

Anyways.

Shot #1 was at "the vertex of the scalp".

http://bernsteinmed.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/images/avoiding-pitfalls-fig3.jpg

Shot #2 was on the central forehead. If Michael Brown was "on the ground with his hands up", this would not be possible unless he had his head up, especially with the prior injury. Also, the statement "on the ground with his hands up" doesn't really make sense unless he was kneeling. Please recall that witnesses are nowhere near as reliable as autopsy reports, as they can often mistaken information or even lie.

Based on the autopsy report, I would assume that Shot #2 occurred after Shot #1 with a minor difference in distance, due to the size of the abrasion marks, making me believe that Shot #2 was a shot that connected after the recoil. The shots must have been at least a few centimeters away from the point, although they were likely not long distance either (+15 meters). Again, I'm not a forensics expert so take it with a grain of salt.

It is however entirely possible that both of these shots could have occurred while the subject was running, first with a lowered head, and then rising his head upward out of recoil - this would also account for the distance between the shots. It is also possible that this injury could have been sustained while standing; again, recoil can explain the difference in distance between the shots, as well as the position of the shot. I'm not a forensics expert, so I believe that it's best for people to evaluate the evidence for themselves. However, I can conclude that logically his head was not at ground level when shot. Again, I do not know whether or not the man was shot while attacking or in a docile position. Therefore I cannot conclude innocence or guilt, and would rather leave that to an individual with a far more stable existence than what I have right now.

Overall, the situation is a tragedy, but perhaps what is even more tragic is that people are using this as an excuse to burn their city to the ground as opposed to actually criticizing the actual problem. Again, this rioting will do nothing but destroy people's lives, and it already has. Perhaps another tragedy oft forgotten here as well is the overemphasis on the idea of "race crime" - as if somehow a black man killed by a white cop makes it somehow worse than a white man killed by a white cop. I've always hated the idea of "race crime", because ultimately, a dead person is dead, and the reasons for that person's death, whether fueled in hatred for their race or simply anger, retaliation or vengeance, will not matter in the end. Ultimately, if you believe that "race crime" is right and just, then you end up shafting the murders of those who aren't victims of race crimes. Are their deaths somehow less important because of the motive of the killer? Are their deaths any less of a tragedy? Why are we putting so much emphasis on what the killer wanted when it's the victim who lost their life?

It's a crime. End of story.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magic (Post 8514436)
So why make a lengthy post trying to be one?...

Because everyone else thinks that they can be one without even looking at the autopsy papers.

Besides, if we're supposed to have an opinion on it (other than those situated in knee-jerk reactions on both sides), like the jurors did, we have to look at the same evidence, regardless of our level of expertise. Ultimately, what would help me produce a conclusion would be a forensic's expert's opinion on the velocity of the shot because that could ultimately determine whether or not the boy was charging. The approximates of this information could be provided by such an expert from those papers.

Logically, as stated in the post, the wounds could not have been inflicted while the head is on the ground, which some people are trying to claim. You don't need to be an autopsy expert to realize that being shot in the forehead is impossible in this position.

Kanzler November 29th, 2014 8:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keiran (Post 8514010)
People like to talk about Michael Browns size to demonize him, but conveniently gloss over the fact that Darren Wilson was also 6' 4"... with a gun. And the autopsy reports and eyewitness accounts corroborate with each other in that Mike Brown was on the ground with his hands up - never charging or attacking his murderer.

This might be nit picky but weight is a lot more important than height. 290/210 is 38% more weight. I'm 160, and 38% more weight would be 220. I shudder at the thought of having to face someone that heavy in jiu jitsu.

I get heavier people on top of me all the time and it's scary because I know the longer the fight takes the more I'm at a disadvantage. That's why I try to go for a submission because the fact that I am lighter means that I cannot outlast a larger person. In my experience 20 pounds makes a big difference in a physical confrontation.

Mana November 30th, 2014 2:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daigonite (Post 8514108)
Again, I'm not a forensics expert so take it with a grain of salt.

So why make a lengthy post trying to be one?...

Tbh I think the real factor in this 'shoot or flee' dilemma is the taser - which the policeman forewent carrying. Saying that, we could do this all day and it wouldn't change facts or give us a clearer incite into what has happened.

There are far too many opinions and not enough concrete facts. At this stage we'll probably never have a definite answer, short of time-travel.

RIP Michael Brown, may such incidents (no matter the cause) be avoided in the future.

Nah November 30th, 2014 4:57 AM

Apparently Darren Wilson resigned last night:
http://www.aol.com/article/2014/11/29/ferguson-officer-darren-wilson-resigns/21000493/?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D572732

Oryx November 30th, 2014 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nyro (Post 8513755)
Yes, he could have ran and then another store clerk would get assaulted. That is actually an option and would have probably allowed Michael to live but does the next store clerk deserve the assault?

Now you will say assault is NOT death and of course it is not but innocent people should not be punished because someone refuses to follow the rules of society. Lets say he runs and gets back up, 1 of 3 things would happen. They never find him and he gets away with assault and theft, they find him and arrest him and he gets a month in jail for first offense assault and theft with good behavior or last and most likely he gets away with it and does it again to another old man in a convenience store.

It really sounds like you're arguing that killing him for robbing someone is the ideal option here.

Corvus of the Black Night November 30th, 2014 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oryx (Post 8514851)
It really sounds like you're arguing that killing him for robbing someone is the ideal option here.

Where are you drawing that conclusion? Nyro does not suggest that at all.

Let's dismantle what Nyro actually said.

Quote:

Yes, he could have ran and then another store clerk would get assaulted. That is actually an option and would have probably allowed Michael to live but does the next store clerk deserve the assault?

Now you will say assault is NOT death and of course it is not but innocent people should not be punished because someone refuses to follow the rules of society.
This I think we can all agree on. Since Brown did rob a store, it is very likely that simply fleeing the scene as a cop is not the ideal solution, regardless of whether or not you're good cop or bad cop. Nyro is right - if you are someone who legally can apprehend this individual and you flee, you open other people to more harm - which is the exact opposite of what a good cop should be doing. And Nyro's conclusion is right - by running or backing down, you put other people in danger. Your responsibility as an officer is to protect the public.

Quote:

Lets say he runs and gets back up, 1 of 3 things would happen. They never find him and he gets away with assault and theft, they find him and arrest him and he gets a month in jail for first offense assault and theft with good behavior or last and most likely he gets away with it and does it again to another old man in a convenience store.
This is Nyro's analysis of possibilities if Wilson fled the supposed attack instead of engaging him. He leaves us the following possibilities:
  • He gets away with assault and theft. but doesn't commit another crime (as suggested by the qualifier on his final statement).
  • He is located later and serves some time or punishment.
  • He is never caught, but unlike the first option, he commits the crime again. Considering he is a repeat offender, this is most likely.

The reason why it is a terrible idea to flee from a charging suspect is because if you do, you put people who are likely not armed and unable to deal with that suspect in complete danger. It would be like if I decided to shoot up a building, then charged at an officer with a machete or something - what makes you think that if I was doing that, that I wouldn't do it to someone else, especially someone unarmed? And even if he doesn't hurt another individual, he still gets away scott-free from a crime, which encourages him to try again.

Also, talk about cherry picking. Nyro said the following right after that statement.

Quote:

If you want to be "realistic", lets be realistic and open minded. His best option was to call back up and tail them at a safe distance. This assures they DO NOT hit another store or assault another person before they get caught and yes i say "they" we forget that his buddy was right outside when he robbed that place. It also doesn't allow them to get away.
It's very clear that Nyro thinks that the best possible option was to call for back up, but it's possible since the situation was tense that such a knee-jerk reaction is completely plausible - it is also plausible that Wilson perceived that he didn't have time to call for back up at that exact moment. This is all assuming that Michael Brown charged at the officer. In no way does he even suggest that death was the best option, he says that death is not a completely unreasonable and hate filled option and that it is possible that it was an act in self defense - and if he was charging, I would agree with that statement.

If you're going to criticize someone's opinion, it is imperative that you actually criticize their opinion.

Nah November 30th, 2014 10:44 AM

So something I was wondering: who here actually read the entirety of the grand jury report? Because I'm looking at it right now and that thing is absurdly long.....the autopsy report is a much easier read.

Oryx November 30th, 2014 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daigonite (Post 8514885)
This is Nyro's analysis of possibilities if Wilson fled the supposed attack instead of engaging him. He leaves us the following possibilities:
  • He gets away with assault and theft. but doesn't commit another crime (as suggested by the qualifier on his final statement).
  • He is located later and serves some time or punishment.
  • He is never caught, but unlike the first option, he commits the crime again. Considering he is a repeat offender, this is most likely.

I'm not going to respond to an entire worked-up post that doesn't really address my point, so I'm going to only respond to the point that does and suggest you calm yourself down a bit before you respond - when people get worked up they start writing pages and pages of posts and then people stop responding to them because who's going to fight with someone that will lecture you for a one-sentence post and then they think they've won through yelling other people down. When you're calm, you can cut your posts down to reasonable lengths and not repeat yourself and people respond to you as a reasonable debater.

The reality is that we're reading his posts differently: I read his third point as "he gets away with it" as in he does not get found guilty or is not caught at all, not simple a variation on point 1 as you seem to have read it. If he ignores the option that he's caught but there isn't enough evidence or the evidence isn't damning enough (e.g. video not clear enough, etc), then he's not listing all the options, thus I'm believing his assertion that he's listing all 3 things that could happen. In addition, a month is not a long time and to me the only reason why it would be pointed out that he would get a month in jail from a poster that has shown himself to be very against Michael Brown is to imply that it's not a big deal. He also claimed that assault on an officer is a crime deserving of death, so...there's that.

Corvus of the Black Night November 30th, 2014 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oryx (Post 8514902)
I'm not going to respond to an entire worked-up post that doesn't really address my point, so I'm going to only respond to the point that does and suggest you calm yourself down a bit before you respond - when people get worked up they start writing pages and pages of posts and then people stop responding to them because who's going to fight with someone that will lecture you for a one-sentence post and then they think they've won through yelling other people down. When you're calm, you can cut your posts down to reasonable lengths and not repeat yourself and people respond to you as a reasonable debater.

I don't want to come off as rude, but how in any way was I being "worked-up"? [post in question for easy access]

I'm not really sure how a post is "worked up" when it points out your ignorance to other people's posts. You completely ignored half of Nyro's post and claimed something that was completely incorrect. Anyone has any right to point out your fallacy.

I dismantled the post in a polite manner because of the fact that it was blatantly incorrect. Your point was claiming that Nyro believed that death was the best option. I highlighted that this was not correct. How is this not addressing your point? It's clear that Nyro (as well as myself) agree that an attack is not the best option, although an understandable option, so why even make such a statement?

Please locate exactly where in the post I was being rude in any way, because I will kindly correct it. However, I feel that this seems to be in your own perception to the fact that perhaps your criticisms were uncalled for, and rely on a false representation of Nyro's beliefs. I have little emotional investment in this issue because local and personal events hold far higher priority in my life currently, and therefore I have no need to really get upset over this issue. It's also why I don't have much of an opinion on it, outside of it being a tragedy. However, perhaps more galling is the incredible intellectual dishonesty on both sides here. Your inability to acknowledge a respectful rebuttal to your claim is just among the many in this thread.

To be frank, your inability to call out my perfectly legitimate accusations of strawmanning his opinion kind of comes off like back-pedalling.

http://images.rapgenius.com/0882520425eca1b586265b1ebece108d.500x281x102.gif

It's perfectly okay to disagree with your opponent, but please have the common courtesy to represent their opinion as accurately as possible.

Quote:

The reality is that we're reading his posts differently: I read his third point as "he gets away with it" as in he does not get found guilty or is not caught at all, not simple a variation on point 1 as you seem to have read it.
No, this doesn't fly with me, at all. You ignored half of Nyro's post. You only quoted half of it. If you read the portion that I quoted directly underneath it you would realize that such an accusation is woefully incorrect. It is clear that Nyro believes the following:
  • That running up and attacking an officer is something that is likely to cause your death.
  • That Wilson's options were limited.
  • That, if he was being attacked, Wilson's actions were not unjust and were a method of self defense.
  • That other options were available but due to the circumstances, self defense was the quicker resolution to resolve a dangerous situation.

I'm sorry, but I'm not going to let you just claim that you were 100% innocent when your tactics are clearly manipulative. If you want to criticize someone else, it is imperative that you are at least honest about the representation of their opinion. Otherwise, you are strawmanning your opponent. If anything, your reliance on oversimplifying Nyro's opinion for the sake of your opinion, your refusal to apologize for such an obvious mistake, as well as refusing to acknowledge a rebuttal with valid criticisms of your claim against Nyro shows that you are not interested in honest debate tactics.

Quote:

He also claimed that assault on an officer is a crime deserving of death, so...there's that.
That's his own opinion. It does not imply that this was the best possible option. It has been suggested by many that charging an officer "deserves" death because of the relative foolishness of such an action. I don't necessarily agree with it but I would agree that charging a police officer is an incredibly stupid thing to do.

The concept of "deserving" isn't really a healthy one to throw in judicial debate, anyways. It leads to loaded questions, such as "well did he deserve to die?" and has nothing of value outside of emotional pleading. Of course nobody deserves to die. But sometimes, doing certain things makes you far more likely to die. The same could be said of someone who rushes across the train tracks while a train is approaching, or lights a match in a heavy gas leak.

Nyro November 30th, 2014 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oryx (Post 8514902)
I'm not going to respond to an entire worked-up post that doesn't really address my point, so I'm going to only respond to the point that does and suggest you calm yourself down a bit before you respond - when people get worked up they start writing pages and pages of posts and then people stop responding to them because who's going to fight with someone that will lecture you for a one-sentence post and then they think they've won through yelling other people down. When you're calm, you can cut your posts down to reasonable lengths and not repeat yourself and people respond to you as a reasonable debater.

The reality is that we're reading his posts differently: I read his third point as "he gets away with it" as in he does not get found guilty or is not caught at all, not simple a variation on point 1 as you seem to have read it. If he ignores the option that he's caught but there isn't enough evidence or the evidence isn't damning enough (e.g. video not clear enough, etc), then he's not listing all the options, thus I'm believing his assertion that he's listing all 3 things that could happen. In addition, a month is not a long time and to me the only reason why it would be pointed out that he would get a month in jail from a poster that has shown himself to be very against Michael Brown is to imply that it's not a big deal. He also claimed that assault on an officer is a crime deserving of death, so...there's that.

I ignored the option of there not being enough evidence because there WAS enough evidence. WHICH set of crimes we have evidence for is the issue.

Was he guilty of Theft+Assault+Fleeing the police? This is the situation if the witnesses in Brown's favor told the truth. Lets analyze the facts IF this situation was the case:

*He was caught on video stealing from a convenience store. (THEFT)

* He ran from the store with the product and a buddy after being confronted (Fleeing the scene of a crime)

*He choked and pushed the store clerk ( assault )

* He was fleeing from the officer (Fleeing from the police)

(The last thing was proven wrong in the autopsy reports because the same witnesses that said he ran were confronted as to the trajectory of the bullets coming from the front when THEY said he was shot from behind. The the SAME witnesses stumbled and said "well his hands were up". The problem is when you lie once to a court a lawyer is going to point out you not being a credible witness)

THIS first set is the most POSITIVE situation that Brown could have possibly been charged with if he was captured instead and given the violent nature of the crimes and obvious attempts to run in this situation he would have probably got 5 years but being as the store clerk stated how terrified he was they may aim higher who knows.


Now lets look at the other POSSIBLE situation had he survived the encounter with Wilson and Wilson's story was still found to be true by the jury:

* Caught on video stealing from the store (Theft)

* Caught on Video choking and pushing the store clerk (assault)

* Caught leaving the store after committing the crime and being confronted ( fleeing from the scene of a crime)

* He assaulted Officer Wilson by punching him in the face (assaulting a police Officer)

* Refused to stop after a police officer told him to when he was charging ( failure to comply )

If these were right it would be at least 10 years but since the officer had to shoot it may be even more sadly.


The thing is you people forget the guy DID commit a crime, NO ONE can deny that he was caught on video. So no matter what he was NOT an innocent child. Not only did he commit a crime but but even if you do not agree he attacked the cop he still did assault the store clerk that is a FACT and on video THEREFOR he committed a VIOLENT crime. An innocent child does not commit a VIOLENT crime.

I do not understand why we can't just say this was a "misguided young man with no real role models ".

Oryx November 30th, 2014 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nyro (Post 8514928)
I ignored the option of there not being enough evidence because there WAS enough evidence. WHICH set of crimes we have evidence for is the issue.

Was he guilty of Theft+Assault+Fleeing the police? This is the situation if the witnesses in Brown's favor told the truth. Lets analyze the facts IF this situation was the case:

*He was caught on video stealing from a convenience store. (THEFT)

* He ran from the store with the product and a buddy after being confronted (Fleeing the scene of a crime)

*He choked and pushed the store clerk ( assault )

* He was fleeing from the officer (Fleeing from the police)

(The last thing was proven wrong in the autopsy reports because the same witnesses that said he ran were confronted as to the trajectory of the bullets coming from the front when THEY said he was shot from behind. The the SAME witnesses stumbled and said "well his hands were up". The problem is when you lie once to a court a lawyer is going to point out you not being a credible witness)

THIS first set is the most POSITIVE situation that Brown could have possibly been charged with if he was captured instead and given the violent nature of the crimes and obvious attempts to run in this situation he would have probably got 5 years but being as the store clerk stated how terrified he was they may aim higher who knows.


Now lets look at the other POSSIBLE situation had he survived the encounter with Wilson and Wilson's story was still found to be true by the jury:

* Caught on video stealing from the store (Theft)

* Caught on Video choking and pushing the store clerk (assault)

* Caught leaving the store after committing the crime and being confronted ( fleeing from the scene of a crime)

* He assaulted Officer Wilson by punching him in the face (assaulting a police Officer)

* Refused to stop after a police officer told him to when he was charging ( failure to comply )

If these were right it would be at least 10 years but since the officer had to shoot it may be even more sadly.


The thing is you people forget the guy DID commit a crime, NO ONE can deny that he was caught on video. So no matter what he was NOT an innocent child. Not only did he commit a crime but but even if you do not agree he attacked the cop he still did assault the store clerk that is a FACT and on video THEREFOR he committed a VIOLENT crime. An innocent child does not commit a VIOLENT crime.

I do not understand why we can't just say this was a "misguided young man with no real role models ".

You're strawmanning. Please tell me where I said he was innocent of the crime - if you watch the video at the store, it's actually very grainy, which is what I pointed out. Proving something without a reasonable doubt is more difficult than you seem to think it is. Also, if you watch the video at the store, you see him reaching across the counter and that's it as far as assault goes. He never got a trial for that case so we'll never see all the evidence that could have come out and the arguments against that evidence. If you're against the court of public opinion for Darren Wilson, then you should be against the court of public opinion for Michael Brown. Declaring Brown guilty of robbery when he never stood trial while decrying the public declaring Wilson guilty of murder is pure hypocrisy.

I understand what you were trying to say now in your initial post though. I still don't necessarily agree with your overall points but knowing you left out that possibility entirely clears up your initial meaning which makes me retract my original post.

Nyro November 30th, 2014 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oryx (Post 8514937)
You're strawmanning. Please tell me where I said he was innocent of the crime - if you watch the video at the store, it's actually very grainy, which is what I pointed out. Proving something without a reasonable doubt is more difficult than you seem to think it is. Also, if you watch the video at the store, you see him reaching across the counter and that's it as far as assault goes. He never got a trial for that case so we'll never see all the evidence that could have come out and the arguments against that evidence. If you're against the court of public opinion for Darren Wilson, then you should be against the court of public opinion for Michael Brown. Declaring Brown guilty of robbery when he never stood trial while decrying the public declaring Wilson guilty of murder is pure hypocrisy.

I understand what you were trying to say now in your initial post though. I still don't necessarily agree with your overall points but knowing you left out that possibility entirely clears up your initial meaning which makes me retract my original post.

Ok, now I can't take you seriously. Come on "The store video is grainy" that creates reasonable doubt. I sit in courtrooms weekly and I HAVE NEVER seen that argument EVER. First off ALL surveillance systems are grainy for any business that IS NOT a multi million dollar corporation. These mom and pop shops are working on probably 20 year old technology. Also your comment shows you DID NOT watch the full videos because the store clerk obviously was "in front" of the counter and he pushed him into the rack and then proceeding to intimidate him backwards like a freaking bully.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkOfqIXkBRE

Entermaid November 30th, 2014 1:10 PM

The big issue with this case is the media misinformation and misdirection.

The media has racialized the case in respect to the white officer and black citizen.

Many people have made up their minds about the case with no or little regard to the evidence or legal provisions provided on either side.

When the media "informs", there is always an agenda, whether political or commercial.

Why was this case chosen? If it was indeed to open a productive dialogue about racism in America, did it succeed in doing so? Who is benefited from this coverage of the case, along with the manner it was covered? No one.

Race should not be ignored in this case, but for a different reason than one might suspect. Race should be addressed not in this particular case on the initial crime. Young poor black men are not inherently criminal, there is often a blaming of either "white" police force or the black men who engage in crimes. But why was the theft/assault/battery committed?

Is this idea of assigning blame to individuals in respect to a larger racial schema dangerous, as actors are held responsible for actions which are caused by structural deficiencies? While yes, we should hold those responsible, as a means of deterrence, does discussing this actually help with addressing the structural deficiencies? If not, why are we talking about his case and ignoring the root issues?

The issue with this case is that it addresses individual behaviors and specific circumstance, and as evident in the thread, we are not discussion modern racism or the issues I have presented in previous posts. If anything, these specific and racialized cases cause more harm to society, and distance us from discussing the actual causes of racial tension. No one cares why Brown decided to rob from and assault a store owner rather there is only concern over the aftermath, if we truly want to reduce these incidences from occurring in the future the first priority is to reduce crime rates among black men as well as aggression toward police officers (seeded in mistrust). During the upsurge of policing black neighborhoods from the 80's onward, we have had little success, that is why I propose other methods of addressing the issue through reciprocal assimilation.

Further, the identity of black men as criminals extends to welfare systems in which all things being equal blacks are distributed more penalties than whites. (read Joe Soss's "Disciplining the Poor") White bureaucrats subconsciously perceive blacks as less "reformable" under the system of neoliberal paternalism. Identity of blackness and defectiveness, become entangled over time. This only increases the perceived identity blacks ascribe to themselves, assuming the identity of a criminal/defective citizen.

Blacks are policed more severely, and there are greater proportions of black men being the receiving end of police brutality, though many white men do as well. The disparity in the proportion of brutality though is derived from identifying blacks as more defective as a precondition.

Riots paired with the misinformation, makes this case and it's media coverage more dangerous to racial tensions. Riots further the identity of blacks as defective or criminal, especially when the case being used as a mobilizer doesn't support their cause, and information is either unknown or false. Also, there is a "cry-wolf" effect, in that, though there is true racial bias in policing and laws, a concern of one single case, which likely doesn't have those elements makes the concern seem illegitimate. And thus, another block between achieving racial unity.


As heartless as it seems, I don't care that much, about either party involved in this case. I care about the effects this case and the media coverage of this case has on future cases and growing racial tension/divide being propagated among an entire society (even if unintentionally).

The discussion on here emulates the effects this case and its media portrayal (Fox, CNN, MSNBC or otherwise) have on the US constituency in regards to divisiveness and claims of absolutism about the case, and the unfounded generalizations about those claims. The actual structural issues related to race that cause this divide are ignored and dialogue is lost.

Kanzler November 30th, 2014 2:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oryx (Post 8514902)
The reality is that we're reading his posts differently: I read his third point as "he gets away with it" as in he does not get found guilty or is not caught at all, not simple a variation on point 1 as you seem to have read it. If he ignores the option that he's caught but there isn't enough evidence or the evidence isn't damning enough (e.g. video not clear enough, etc), then he's not listing all the options, thus I'm believing his assertion that he's listing all 3 things that could happen. In addition, a month is not a long time and to me the only reason why it would be pointed out that he would get a month in jail from a poster that has shown himself to be very against Michael Brown is to imply that it's not a big deal. He also claimed that assault on an officer is a crime deserving of death, so...there's that.

He didn't make that claim though.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:11 AM.


Like our Facebook Page Follow us on Twitter © 2002 - 2018 The PokéCommunity™, pokecommunity.com.
Pokémon characters and images belong to The Pokémon Company International and Nintendo. This website is in no way affiliated with or endorsed by Nintendo, Creatures, GAMEFREAK, The Pokémon Company or The Pokémon Company International. We just love Pokémon.
All forum styles, their images (unless noted otherwise) and site designs are © 2002 - 2016 The PokéCommunity / PokéCommunity.com.
PokéCommunity™ is a trademark of The PokéCommunity. All rights reserved. Sponsor advertisements do not imply our endorsement of that product or service. User generated content remains the property of its creator.

Acknowledgements
Use of PokéCommunity Assets
vB Optimise by DragonByte Technologies Ltd © 2023.