Originally posted by Purple86GT: So, lets tackle the elephant in the room.... What can be done to end (or at least minimize) racism today?
For example. Stop treating people different, stop creating and defining the differences.. it perpetuates prejudice, it makes people think they are supposed to be separated, stop affirmative action, stop naming things like Black Entertainment Television, Black Movie awards, stop hiring quotas, stop assuming every time two different colored skin people have an issue that it revolves around or steps from race......etc
[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 08-21-2014).]
So, lets tackle the elephant in the room.... What can be done to end (or at least minimize) racism today? How can we get to a time and place where people would not be able to conceive how people used to be judged by the color of their skin? This is a crucial step in the evolution of humanity. Slap on your tinfoil hats folks! but if we encounter an alien race in the future, black, white brown, red, yellow, whatever color skin you have, it won't be relevant anymore....
I can see it now, Fiero enthusiasts solve world racism and manage to retrofit a Gen III Ecotec...
Taking away all government-sanctioned programs that involve helping "minorities" over Whites, the question on all applications of race, etc. will go a looooong way in White people not being racist. That is their only legitimate beef with race and it helps them justify the avalanche that starts with that snowball. Other than that, I say education focus. Bring up the history of the country, and of all other countries, but don't make a month of Black history. I know that I always felt like I needed to give my Black friends something during those times. They separate us. Also, education in general. The majority of crime happens in uneducated, poor areas. It is a little strange to me that so much tax goes to education, but each education center seems to exactly mirror the neighborhood it belongs to. If there wasn't such a disparity between the huge, stainless steel and windowed school in the rich suburb, and the 1940's brick school in the inner city, more higher qualified teachers would be willing to teach in those areas. Now the inner city just gets the bottom of the barrel, because nobody wants to teach there. Impress the importance of education early on, and keep open communication without making the school seem like a jail for 7 hours a day. These are just thought of right now, I don't know really how to change education for the better. I'm typically all for the free-market, and I want to say I'm the same way about schools, but if we really want everyone to at least have a shot at success, good quality education must be available for all. Also, at 15/16 you should be able to decide if you're going to go to college or not. If you aren't going to, trade schools should be more readily available, or they can just leave. I know there is somewhat of a system in place now, but I just remember a real lack of choice for my direction before college. If high school would have let me, I could have probably graduated early and started my career earlier. Testing out of classes should be a thing. Promote and reward smarts and success. People will strive to learn material on their own. Okay, I'm pretty much just spit-balling. To be honest, I don't know, but I think the major change in education needs to be around the mentality. Other things will follow suit.
Besides education and ending affirmative action, people will always classify others based on certain traits. And that's okay. Sometimes this will form into all-out racism. And you know what? That's okay too. As long as it isn't institutionalized. I believe racism will always exist in some fashion.
It's not pointless. IT IS the reason why we always seem to have this kind of crap going on in this nation. Nobody wants to deal with the REAL problem and it starts at the very top of our government. I ask again: HOW can you expect to hold someone accountable for something they do wrong in a low ranking position when you won't hold someone in a high ranking position accountable for doing something wrong? It is a top-down corruption problem.
If you are going to excuse/ignore/not care about what people do at one end of the spectrum, then you have no credibility when you want action taken on people at the other end.
Sorry, wrong is wrong no matter who does it. And the problems we have in this country can be attributed to the fact so many of our population only want to hold certain people accountable and not all, for each of their own actions.
I don't excuse or ignore the high-ranking position. But what do you want to do about it? I asked you. Your turn. What do you want to do about it? Right now.
You're right, but that's also because there hasn't been systematic Black on White oppression and racism in the area. If that were true, it could be perceived as a racially motivated attack instead of not.
I'm about as unapologetic as it gets. I'm a heterosexual, rich, White male and I love the **** out of myself and will never apologize for any of that. But there are differences.
In case youve been in a cave for 10 years, the white race is the oppressed one these days. Whites dont get away with 1/2 the things black/hispanic do because everyone is afraid it will be seen as racist if they say anything. We dont have any all white organizations (that are legal) like blacks do for themselves. Qualified whites get turned down for jobs/promotions because they want blacks to be equal so they get them instead...even if their not as qualified. The only reason it dont seem like that is because whites still outnumber black/hispanics in most places, but thats rapidly changing. It wont be long till white is the minority.
Steve, your right. If Brown would have simply got on the sidewalk and said yes sir, he probably would still be here. His own mouth and attitude is what got him killed.
Yelllowstone...no matter what ethenticity Luen is, shes smoking to anyone breathing....
Originally posted by rogergarrison: In case youve been in a cave for 10 years, the white race is the oppressed one these days. Whites dont get away with 1/2 the things black/hispanic do because everyone is afraid it will be seen as racist if they say anything. We dont have any all white organizations (that are legal) like blacks do for themselves. Qualified whites get turned down for jobs/promotions because they want blacks to be equal so they get them instead...even if their not as qualified. The only reason it dont seem like that is because whites still outnumber black/hispanics in most places, but thats rapidly changing. It wont be long till white is the minority.
Steve, your right. If Brown would have simply got on the sidewalk and said yes sir, he probably would still be here. His own mouth and attitude is what got him killed.
Yelllowstone...no matter what ethenticity Luen is, shes smoking to anyone breathing....
Uhh...
"You're right, but that's also because there hasn't been systematic Black on White oppression and racism in the area."
Well this is awkward.
You're talking about a national problem. Ferguson has its own special set of oppressions.
[This message has been edited by theBDub (edited 08-21-2014).]
This is making rounds... I agree with the police in this situation though. He kept his hands in his pockets like he had a weapon and approached them looking like he was about to attack.
For example. Stop treating people different, stop creating and defining the differences.. it perpetuates prejudice, it makes people think they are supposed to be separated, stop affirmative action, stop naming things like Black Entertainment Television, Black Movie awards, stop hiring quotas, stop assuming every time two different colored skin people have an issue that it revolves around or steps from race......etc
This is making rounds... I agree with the police in this situation though. He kept his hands in his pockets like he had a weapon and approached them looking like he was about to attack.
Looks like standard self-defense to me.
Hand in his pockets? I guess I dont see his hand in his pockets. Did they taze him or shoot him? (no audio here) Looks like they shot him. Sure he was asking for a self defense response but taze would do it I would think. Why cant anyone figure out taking pics and vids works beter with the phone sideways.
[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 08-21-2014).]
why hasn't the officer been arrested--the racial divide Before reading the article, here are the participants in the discussion in order of appearance, their pictures, and a little about them as well as their condensed opinions on the issue at hand: Professor Charles Ogletree: “I think the first thing that needs to happen: you need to arrest Officer Wilson,” Professor Ogletree said. “He shot and killed a man — shot him multiple times — and he’s walking free.” Age-61. Charles Ogletree, the Harvard Law School Jesse Climenko Professor of Law, and Founding and Executive Director of the Charles Hamilton Houston Institute for Race and Justice, is a prominent legal theorist who has made an international reputation by taking a hard look at complex issues of law and by working to secure the rights guaranteed by the Constitution for everyone equally under the law. Professor Ogletree opened the offices of The Charles Hamilton Houston Institute for Race and Justice.
Professor Alan Dershowitz: :" “We should not arrest [Officer Darren Wilson] until there’s a substantial level of proof of criminality,” even if it appeared that the police acted improperly." age 75. "Professor Alan M. Dershowitz is Brooklyn native who has been called “the nation’s most peripatetic civil liberties lawyer” and one of its “most distinguished defenders of individual rights,” “the best-known criminal lawyer in the world,” “the top lawyer of last resort,” “America’s most public Jewish defender” and “Israel’s single most visible defender – the Jewish state’s lead attorney in the court of public opinion.” He is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard Law School. Dershowitz, a graduate of Brooklyn College and Yale Law School, joined the Harvard Law School faculty at age 25 after clerking for Judge David Bazelon and Justice Arthur Goldberg."
Professor of Law Angela J. Davis: “Police officers are rarely arrested and indicted for a crime for their actions in the line of duty,” she says. “They are never arrested right away,” Davis says, acknowledging that despite the greater legal latitude afforded to police officers, “they can’t use deadly force in all circumstances.”
Even when someone kills in self-defense – the imminent fear or danger of bodily harm and death – the suspect is usually arrested first and then may be acquitted in a trial, she says.
Angela J. Davis, professor of law at AU's Washington College of Law, is an expert in criminal law and procedure with a specific focus on prosecutorial power and racism in the criminal justice system. Davis previously served as director of the D.C. Public Defender Service, where she began as a staff attorney representing indigent juveniles and adults. She also served as executive director of the National Rainbow Coalition and is a former law clerk of the Honorable Theodore R. Newman, the former Chief Judge of the D.C. Court of Appeals. Davis is the author of Arbitrary Justice: The Power of the American Prosecutor (Oxford University Press 2007). She is also the co-editor (with Professor Michael E. Tigar) of Trial Stories (Foundation Press 2007) and the 6th edition of Basic Criminal Procedure (Thomson West 2012) (with Professors Stephen Saltzburg and Daniel Capra). Davis' other scholarly publications include articles in the Michigan, Iowa, Fordham, and Hofstra Law Reviews. Davis won the Pauline Ruyle Moore award for Arbitrary Justice: The Power of the American Prosecutor in 2009 and for her Fordham Law Review article, Prosecution and Race: The Power and Privilege of Discretion in 2000. Davis was awarded a Soros Senior Justice Fellowship in 2003. Davis won the American University Faculty Award for Outstanding Scholarship, Research, Creative Activity, and Other Professional Contributions in 2009 and the American University Faculty Award for Outstanding Teaching in a Full-Time Appointment in 2002. Davis is a member of the Board of Trustees of the Peter M. Cicchino Social Justice Foundation, the Frederick Douglas Jordan Scholarship Board, the Southern Center for Human Rights, and the Sentencing Project. She was a reporter for the ABA Justice Kennedy Commission and a member of the ABA Commission for Effective Criminal Sanctions. Davis also serves as a member of the Advisory Board for the Vera Institute of Justice Prosecution and Racial Justice Program. She teaches Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure, and Criminal Defense: Theory and Practice.
Professor Lawrence Alexander: it's “irresponsible” for other academics to call for an arrest. “Those people don’t know the facts. You can’t just call someone to be arrested when you don’t have evidence that they committed a crime,” he says.
Alexander serves on the editorial boards of the journals Law & Philosophy, Ethics, Criminal Law and Philosophy, and the Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law. He is the co-editor of the international quarterly Legal Theory.
Key Works Alexander’s publications include Crime and Culpability: A Theory of Criminal Law (with Ferzan) (Cambridge University Press, 2009); Demystifying Legal Reasoning (with Sherwin) (Cambridge University Press, 2008); Is There a Right of Freedom of Expression? (Cambridge University Press, 2006); The Rule of Rules: Morality, Rules, and the Dilemmas of Law (with Sherwin) (Duke University Press, 2001); "With Me It’s All 'Er Nuthin: Formalism in Law and Morality" in 66 University of Chicago Law Review 530 (1999); "On Extrajudicial Constitutional Interpretation" in 110 Harvard Law Review 1539 (with Schauer) (1997); "Self-Defense, Justification, and Excuse" in 22 Philosophy & Public Affairs 53 (1993); and "What Makes Wrongful Discrimination Wrong?" in 141 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 149 (1992).
Prof. David Klinger of the University of Missouri-St. Louis: "“What does he (Ogletree) know? Has he seen the case file? Is he privy to the investigation,” asks Professor Klinger, saying that unless Ogletree reviewed witness statements, ballistic forensics and the autopsy, he should not call for an arrest. Klinger adds that such a demand “provides legitimacy to those in the mob… those who are looting, burning, throwing rocks and bottles at police, at reporters.”
David A. Klinger is an Associate Professor. He received a B.A. in History from Seattle Pacific University in 1980, a Masters in Justice from American University in 1985, and a Ph.D. in Sociology from the University of Washington in 1992. Prior to joining the Criminology and Criminal Justice faculty at UMSL, Professor Klinger was Assistant (1992-1998) and Associate (1998-1999) Professor of Sociology at the University of Houston.
Prior to pursuing his graduate degrees, Professor Klinger worked as a patrol officer for the Los Angeles and Redmond (WA) Police Departments. In 1997 he was the recipient of the American Society of Criminology's inaugural Ruth Caven Young Scholar Award for outstanding early career contributions to the discipline of criminology. Professor Klinger's research interests include a broad array of issues in the field of crime and justice, with an emphasis on the organization and actions of the modern police. He has published scholarly manuscripts that address arrest practices, the use of force, how features of communities affect the actions of patrol officers, and terrorism. He has conducted two federally-funded research projects dealing with the use of force by police officers; one on officer-involved shootings and the other on police special weapons and tactics (SWAT) teams.
Professor Dan Isom: "echoed Harvard's Ogletree that if Officer Wilson were a typical suspect in a homicide, based on known public evidence, he could have been arrested. But his status as a police officer – and not a civilian – may explain why Wilson has not been taken into custody. The key question, is “at what point in time… do you pivot from the police officer acting in the performance of his duty trying to apprehend the subject to the officer being the suspect and the person he shot, the victim,” Professor Isom asks.
Daniel Isom II is the E. Desmond Lee Professor of Policing and the Community. He is the retired Chief of Police for the Metropolitan Police Department-City of St. Louis appointed St. Louis' 33rd Chief of Police on October 6, 2008. He joined the St. Louis Police Department on August 29, 1988. He has worked in patrol, investigation, training, internal affairs, and management positions during his career. He was promoted through the ranks to Major before being selected Chief of Police.
He has received a Bachelor’s, Master’s and a Ph.D. in Criminology and Criminal Justice, all from the from the University of Missouri-St. Louis. He also holds a Master's in Public Administration from St. Louis University. He is a graduate of the FBI National Academy, FBI National Executive Institute, and the Police Executive Forum Senior Management Institute.
Davis and Dershowitz do agree on one thing: They're skeptical that the impaneled St. Louis grand jury will reach an impartial decision.
“In theory, it sounds good. The problem is that the grand jury is totally controlled by the prosecutor,” she says, listing problems such as the panel's private proceedings, no defense attorney present, and prosecutors don’t need to offer exculpatory evidence – or facts favorable to the defendant.
In this case, the St. Louis district attorney Bob McCullough has worked alongside Officer Wilson. Davis questions whether he can be impartial in the Brown case.
“[Mr. McCullough’s] father was killed in the line of duty” as a police officer, says Davis, adding, “he wanted to be a police officer himself until health issues intervened” and that he actively supports the local police benevolent association. St. Louis istrict Attorney Bob McCullough:
Its obvious Don. All the blacks want the cop arrested, all the whites say wait for some evidence of wrongdoing. A cop on duty, doing a shooting is presumed innocent just as any other citizen should be. What the blacks see as racism when they always arrest the black suspect asap is that they usually are fleeing or acting guilty by their actions. Those alone are reason for arresting or detaining someone far as I know. I was arrested and put in jail when I did absolutely nothing but walk down the sidewalk to get in my car at a friends. They were looking for a burglar and I was in the neighborhood...and nothing else. I did nothing to resist and answered everything voluntarily. Id have had a heyday if the officer had been black. Id have owned the police dept.
Cops are never arrested right away, but then it doesn't matter if they are black cops or white cops now does it. But it does matter to the racist rev Jackson and the rev Sharpton and the rest of those racists who only see the color of the mans skin and the uniform. They are adding fuel to the fire to promote the riots just by running off at the mouth about how this poor black kid was shot by a racist white cop. do you really think they would be saying anything close to that if it had been a black cop?
I have to wonder if they took Sharpton and Jackson out of the picture how bad it would be there.
Cops are never arrested right away, but then it doesn't matter if they are black cops or white cops now does it. But it does matter to the racist rev Jackson and the rev Sharpton and the rest of those racists who only see the color of the mans skin and the uniform. They are adding fuel to the fire to promote the riots just by running off at the mouth about how this poor black kid was shot by a racist white cop. do you really think they would be saying anything close to that if it had been a black cop?
I have to wonder if they took Sharpton and Jackson out of the picture how bad it would be there.
Steve
No they wouldn't have said a damn thing if the cop was black.Sharpton wanted first degree murder charges with out knowing any evidence.The cop was white and that was the only evidence he wanted.I was working in ferguson tues and wish I would have seen him so I could kick in his big mouth.He did nothing to help keep peace and order but instead enticed people to tear the crap out of what was a nice place to live.
[This message has been edited by davylong86 (edited 08-21-2014).]
I see things a bit differently. 1. I'm very much in favor of the grand jury doing it's job, but then too, I'm very much in favor of EVERYONE who shoots someone going in front of the grand jury. If all things are indeed equal, this protocol will go far in dimenishing the appearance that law enforcement gets special treatment above and beyond what the citizens they have sworn to protect and serve get. With very few exceptions, if a military member shoots someone off base, on US soil, they have to go in front of that jurisdiction's grand jury to decide if a trail is warranted. There's no reason all shouldn't have to do the same. The military usually does it's own investigation and can (often does) press it's own charges under UCMJ, but that is in ADDITION to what the state or county court does--not in leiu of.
2. I see a group of people who have been harassed, intimidated, assaulted, and insulted for years, with very little resulting from the complaints they have lodged against those of a different race. Most of the stops made in my little 7000 population town are of either Hispanic or African American heritage, but the majority of the total is caucasion. People will claim, "Well, they are the ones breaking the law or appearing to be." The other side of that coin is that if you continually stop and investigate any one ethnic group, your crime stats will show that that particular group is the demographic that is "doing the bad stuff", and it doesn't matter which demographic group you choose to be the object of the stops. Profiling. As most of the participants said, if this had been an ordinary non-uniformed citizen, odds are very much higher he would have been arrested and most likely charged the same day the shooting took place. This special immunity needs to end--or be afforded to all citizens-----equally.
I don't excuse or ignore the high-ranking position. But what do you want to do about it? I asked you. Your turn. What do you want to do about it? Right now.
What I want done is for some in the public & media to drop the double-standard of only holding some people accountable for their actions while not holding other people accountable [insert any reason you want here]. If somebody does something wrong, they should have to face the music no matter who they are.
The reason why I think so many people got upset over this incident is because they are under the impression that the police officer did something wrong and isn't going to be held to account for it. Now the educated person knows it takes a lot longer to process a crime scene, do a full and unbiased investigation, and to compile a case (if wrong-doing is discovered) than what some TV programs portray. Perhaps this is just a lack of proper education, or believing the misinformation pumped out of the Hollywood sewer pipe every day, or a combination of the two. But it doesn't help when we have agitators out there fueling the situation (for their own personal interests) either.
That having been said, I too have been targeted by the police over the years. So I can understand where the mistrust for law enforcement comes from as I too have felt the same way as many of these people do. But I also understand that two wrongs don't make a right, and vengeance isn't the same thing as justice. But these kinds of problems (as well as racism in general) are never going to go away until we as a people can start holding every individual accountable for their own actions regardless of what color their skin is, what position of power they occupy (if any), etc.
I see things a bit differently. 1. I'm very much in favor of the grand jury doing it's job, but then too, I'm very much in favor of EVERYONE who shoots someone going in front of the grand jury. If all things are indeed equal, this protocol will go far in dimenishing the appearance that law enforcement gets special treatment above and beyond what the citizens they have sworn to protect and serve get. With very few exceptions, if a military member shoots someone off base, on US soil, they have to go in front of that jurisdiction's grand jury to decide if a trail is warranted. There's no reason all shouldn't have to do the same. The military usually does it's own investigation and can (often does) press it's own charges under UCMJ, but that is in ADDITION to what the state or county court does--not in leiu of.
<snip>
Unfortunately a Grand Jury will simply do what the District Attorney wants. The proceedings are secret, there are no defense attorneys to refute any evidence, the DA can tell the Grand Jury damn near anything he/she wants to get the outcome they want. It's a very flawed process. You just had a Grand Jury indict your Governor for issuing a veto! Crazy. Myself, I do not put any credence into Grand Jurys.
".Allow the rule.oflaw to sort out Ferguson incident Those of us who admit that we were not there and do not know what-happened when Michael' Brown was shot by a policeman in Ferguson, Mo., seem to be in the minority. We all know what has hap, pened since then - and it has been a complete disgrace by politicians, the media and mobs of rioters and looters. Despite all the people who act as.if they know exactly what happened, nevertheless when the full facts come 'out, that can change everything. This is why we have courts of law, instead of relying on the media or mobs. But politics is undermining law. On the eve .of a grand jury being convened to gothrough the facts and decide whether there should be a prosecution of the policeman in this case, Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon has gone on television to say that there should be a "Vigorous prosecution. " There. was a time when elected officials 'avoided commenting on pending legal processes, so as not to bias those processes. But Nixon apparently has already received. death threats - truly are setting a new low. They seem to be making themselves judge, jury and executioner. Then there are the inevitable bullet-counters, asking, "Why did he shoot him six times?" This [s'the kind of thing people saywhen they aresatisfied with, talking points and see no need to stop and think seriously , about a life-and-death quesno fear of poisoning the jury tion. If you are not going to be pool. " '. , serious about life and death, The only alternative explana-. when-will you: be serious? tion is that this is exactly what Bywhat principle should he intends to do. It is,a disgrace someone decide how many either way. shots should be fired? The bul- .Race is the wild card in all let -counters seldom if ever ask this. The idea that you can tell that question, much less try to who is innocent and who is answer it. . . guilty by the color of their skin Since the only justifiable is a notion that w~s tried out for reason for shooting in the first ' generations, back in the days of place is self- protection, when the Jim Crow South. I thought should you stop shooting? Obwe had finally rejected that kind viously when there is no more , of legalized lynch law. But ap- ,danger. But there is no magic 0parently it has only been put number of shots that willtell under new management. you when you areout of danger. Television people who show Even if all your shots hit, that the home of the policeman doesn't mean anything if the involved and give his name and other guy keeps coming and is address - knowing that he has still a danger. You can be killed I. • • - Commentary Thomas Sowell IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII!IIIIIIII , Among the other unthinking phrases. repeated endlessly is "he shot an unarmed man." When does anyone know that someone Is-unarmed? by a wounded man. Different witnesses give contlicting accounts of exactly what happened in the shooting of Michael Brown: That is one.of the reasons why grand juries collect facts. But, if Brown - a 6-foot -4- inch, nearly 300- pound man - was still charging at the policeman, as some , allege, there is no mystery why the cop kept shooting. But, if Brown was surrendering, as others allege, then there was no reason to fire even one shot. But the number of shots tells us nothing. Noneof this.is rocket science. Why bullet -counters cannot be bothered to stop and think is a continuing mystery. Aniong the other unthinking phrases repeated endlessly is ~ ..__..._........•.. _. _'0.".''''''..1. "he shot an unarmed man." When does anyone know that someone is unarmed? Unless you frisk him, you don't knowuntil, of course, after you have . shot him. The only time I ever pointed a 'firearm at a human being, I had no idea whether he was armed , or unarmed. To this day I don't ' know whether he was armed or unarmed. Fortunately for both of us, he froze in his tracks. Was I supposed to wait until I made sure he had a gun before I used a gun? Is this some kind of sporting contest? Some critics object when someone With a gun shoots someone who only has a knife. Do those critics know that you are just as dead when you are killed with a knife as you are when you are killed by a gun? Ifwe can't be bothered to stop and think, instead ofrepeatiog pat phrases, don't expect to live under the rule oflaw. Do you prefer the rule of the media and/ or the mob? Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at Stanford University's "
Ive shot at people stealing on my property at least 2 times, once with a whole clip. Ive not been arrested for any of them. In fact I was back to watching tv in an hour.
While only nine of the persons arrested identified Ferguson as their city of residence, a more detailed analysis indicates:
9 arrests - Ferguson residents 72% - St. Louis City or other locations in St. Louis County 3% - elsewhere in the state of Missouri 21% - states outside of Missouri
Presumably, the "outside Missouri" group includes a substantial number from East St. Louis and other St. Louis suburbs in Illinois
[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 08-22-2014).]
"At a time of U.S. sanctions against Moscow for its meddling in Ukraine, the civil unrest over the police shooting of a black teenager in Ferguson, Missouri, has provided Russian politicians with munition to accuse their opponents of racism and evoke the U.S.' troubled past with the rights of African Americans.
In an interview with news agency ITAR-Tass published on Thursday, Igor Borisov, a member of the Kremlin's human rights council, called for an international peacekeeping mission of human rights observers "to prevent the unleashing in the U.S. of a full-scale genocide against its population."
... But while state-run Russian media have rushed to echo the Kremlin's accusations of hypocrisy — with military analyst Igor Korotchenkol, a frequent guest on television channel RT, dubbing the Ferguson riots "the protests of progressive African Americans against the totalitarian regime in the U.S." — other news outlets have been less eager to point fingers."
While only nine of the persons arrested identified Ferguson as their city of residence, a more detailed analysis indicates:
9 arrests - Ferguson residents 72% - St. Louis City or other locations in St. Louis County 3% - elsewhere in the state of Missouri 21% - states outside of Missouri
Presumably, the "outside Missouri" group includes a substantial number from East St. Louis and other St. Louis suburbs in Illinois
quote
Comment on the articleThe mainstream media has been pumping out the idea that the protests in Ferguson have been a non-stop stream of looting and violent behavior. These statistics show that has not been the case at all.
Who posts this crap. Just because there have been 20 some arrests for burglary cases (which is a lot in a few days) doesn't mean all the people are caught, and certainly doesn't mean it didn't happen.
To take it to the same thinking. Since the cop that shot Brown wasn't arrested the shooting didn't happen.
Florida neighborhood watchman George Zimmerman, who was acquitted in July of 2013 of all charges related to the shooting death of Trayvon Martin, was arrested Wednesday morning in Ferguson, Missouri after an altercation outside of a Dunkin’ Donuts, where Zimmerman allegedly aimed a handgun at two black teenagers who confronted him. Authorities say Zimmerman was exiting the Dunkin’ Donuts at approximately 9:45 am when he encountered the two teenagers, who are identified only as black males ages 16 and 17. In cell phone footage obtained by the police and shown, but not released, to the media, the two teens make every effort to evade Zimmerman, but finally confront him after he followed them for a short distance. “We just saw George Zimmerman, and he’s in Ferguson,” one of the teens says in the cell phone video. “He’s following us. We’re trying to walk away but he’s following us.” The camera shows Zimmerman, carrying a bag of food and a drink, who yells something illegible at the teens. “We don’t want anything to go down. We’re just minding our own business. We’re minding our business.”
I know this is satire, the comments are awesome, people just jump at anything. Click to show
I know this is satire, the comments are awesome, people just jump at anything. Click to show
I say, if Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton and the other racists "black panthers" went there to stir up hate, why cant any one else? Yes it would be a bad call, but he does have the right to protest just like anyone else.
I don't know why a military member should be shooting anyone off base on US soil.
It happens quite frequently--usually a domestic argument gets out of hand and a soldier/sailor etc shoots his wife or someone else. If not on federal property, (many thousands of military people live off base) the shooting (or other crime by a member of the armed forces) falls under local jurisdiction--(the city or county). The military usually allows the local jurisditction take lead in the case and trial, then court martials the defendant as well. I saw it happen numerous times when I was on active duty.
quote
If you shoot someone in self-defense, you shouldn't have to go to court. There should still be an investigation, but dragging innocent people into court is a waste of time. I do agree on a single set of rules. Again, these seem to be city problems.
There IS an investigation, It's called a grand jury investigation. If the DA thinks there is sufficient evidence, he sends the case to the grand jury. Sometimes, the DA can decide it himself, but more often than not, he lets the grand jury do it. (Gran Jury doesn't decide guilt or innocence--the either rule "no bill" which means they didn't feel there was enough evidence to go to a trial--or the rule "true bill" meaning they saw enough evidence to forward the case to a jury (guilt or innocence) trial. If the DA isn't sure, he lets the GJ take it or, if the DA feels he needs to recuse himself from the decision making process, he again lets the GJ make the decision. In years past, allowing the DA alone make the determination has led to all kinds of corruption, especially in small towns and graft, bribery, and other unseemly activities allowed many people of means to walk away without proper justice being served.
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 08-22-2014).]
I'm thinking CNN might end up having egg on their face with this one. I heard the audio three times and I have several questions. First, why was this guy making a recording of himself wooing some girl online? That's not weird to anyone? The other is that he never even stuttered while the gunshots were going on. Are you going to tell me that it's so common in that neighborhood that someone shooting in that neighborhood doesn't even warrant a "What was that?" I would say this sounds more like someone after their fifteen minutes. Maybe I'm wrong. Just doesn't seem to add up. Too many questions raised about the validity of it. If it's proven to be a phony, CNN's credibility will take yet another hit.
I still haven't heard enough evidence to decide one way or the other unlike so many who are sure that they know what happened. cnn made several remarks during that video saying that they didn't know whether it was authentic so they covered their butt. Stirring the pot? Sure, they all do. The more sensationalism, the more coverage.
I say, if Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton and the other racists "black panthers" went there to stir up hate, why cant any one else? Yes it would be a bad call, but he does have the right to protest just like anyone else.
I wonder why the KKK organization dont show up at these type of things for equal time. Oh, wait, I think the KKK is illegal. Someone will have to check on that for me.
I wonder why the KKK organization dont show up at these type of things for equal time. Oh, wait, I think the KKK is illegal. Someone will have to check on that for me.
The KKK isn't illegal as far as I know, perhaps they just have more sense than the New Black Panthers, or others that showed up?
Been watching this for a long time. Without guessing what Wilson did, I suspect that Brown was trying to intimidate again by his size. I also suspect that from the response that there has been police abuse for a long time. My opinion? We need police. We need police oversight. We need to end police immunity. I don't want to go back to the wild west and I can see how the police have a difficult job at times and there is risk involved in their job, but I have been subject to their abuse and I'll bet that lots of the rest of us have too. I'm not condemning all police. I don't think that we notice the good officers nearly as much as the bad ones. I think that we have too many bad ones. I just want more good cops and more effort to weed out the bad ones.
Well, the little dude had me till he started the "I'm for the white, Mexican, African American, etc...... Not much is going to change (with my attitude) until races let go of their special titles. With that said, I'm glad he stood toe to toe with the boneheads looting and spoke his mind.
This has been out of the news, at least around here. The last thing I saw on the news about it was the funeral. Ehat ever happened to holder and the Federal Investigation?
[This message has been edited by Rickady88GT (edited 09-02-2014).]
This has been out of the news, at least around here. The last thing I saw on the news about it was the funeral. Ehat ever happened to holder and the Federal Investigation?
Well, it does take a while to fabricate evidence....
Look up Jonathan Gentry on youtube and his views on ferguson,He has to be the new leader to stop this mess.But he has common since so that probably wont happen.Sorry I didn't know how to post link.(edit up date)The responses on this guy on youtube is pretty entertaining.
[This message has been edited by davylong86 (edited 09-02-2014).]
Who posts this crap. Just because there have been 20 some arrests for burglary cases (which is a lot in a few days) doesn't mean all the people are caught, and certainly doesn't mean it didn't happen. 
With that said, I'm glad he stood toe to toe with the boneheads looting and spoke his mind. 
