Modern Racism: Officer Wilson Walks

[Star-Lord]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

@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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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.