Police Issues and Racial Profiling Protest Discussion

[Willy Wonka 4]

This. You'll find a MUCH LESSENED National Guard and usage of thugs/savages as a description.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B0UHfLACMAE0wrC.jpg:large

[craig 680]

I see no progress from this. It feels like Groundhog Day.

 

It predictably because all about black vs white, about the riots, and about vengeance on Darren Wilson. The issue about reforming police practices, the potential to link up with whites critical of heavy handed law enforcement, has sadly got lost.

[SKANK 14,288]

Because a lot of the language you use is loaded and has heavy history of racist connotations. (Not to mention the fact that the treatment of white riots is a joke compared to the treatment of black riots)

 

 

Suddenly language is important. Hah. 

[Willy Wonka 4]

Suddenly language is important. Hah.

The article was about the exact words he was using to describe the riots in Ferguson. It was a direct response.

But truthfully, if you'd ever like to get past the word choice issue, I feel like we could have a great discussion. You're usually above this and a bit more mature. I'm so sorry for failing you by using the word "kid" and for inferring an absolute outcome instead of a probable outcome. If you'd like to create a thread to debate the politics and connotations of vocabulary and grammar, I implore you to do so. But please, try and focus on the issue at hand in this thread. I hope we can move past this. Forgive me, for I have wronged you.

[Batwings 12,957]

Wow, 89K already! 

 

Now up to $179k! 

[Gov Hooka 8,008]

Now up to $179k! 

20+ other businesses need help too though. Red's Barbecue has chosen to permanently close :( and was one of the best restaurants in the Ferguson area. :(

[Batwings 12,957]

20+ other businesses need help too though. Red's Barbecue has chosen to permanently close :( and was one of the best restaurants in the Ferguson area. :(

 

That's terrible. This whole situation is just so sad. :(

[uo111 5,282]

1. No. If he had the option to carry a taser that day (and any other day) and passed on it, that's on him. The law should absolutely be changed so that it's mandatory, but he exercised his free will and limited his options, thus forcing him to use a gun in response to Michael Brown. Wilson has free will and exercised it. I hold him just as much at fault for not carrying a taser as I do the law.

 

2. This is a whole other issue in and of itself. When will we stop implying that the only lives worth anything are those who are innocent and untouched by crime? He could be a serial murderer and he still has rights. Besides that, the fact is he committed petty theft and allegedly had a verbal and physical altercation with a police officer (something that many witnesses have disputed). Okay? So? It's okay to shoot him then? It's just that he died? What a bull**** kind of sentiment. Have we really come to a point in America where you can expect to get shot and killed if you punch a police officer? How funny that this kind of physical altercation happens in other countries and the police don't pull a gun out and shoot the civilian. Gun violence is so normalized in America that pulling a gun out is seen as a rational and defensible reaction to a punch. A punch. Whether or not Michael Brown was guilty or not, an injustice was done. 

 

The implication that "if you've ever done anything bad, your death is justified" is just disgusting.

 

3. Still relevant about the global perspective on this issue, but whatever.

 

4.

Now unarmed is a manipulative word? Michael Brown did not have a weapon on him. That's literally the definition of unarmed.

 

Anyone can kill anyone at any time with their bare hands. I can. That doesn't mean that I'm a life-threatening presence at all times and it's justified if you shoot me. Michael Brown didn't have as significant of a size advantage as most people try to portray (and certainly not as large as what Officer Wilson has tried to imply). Other than size, Officer Wilson had literally every other advantage going into this. He had a vehicle, a gun, mace and a baton, in addition to the ability to call for backup. Michael Brown had his hands. Guess what? Officer Wilson has hands too. And this isn't even touching on the actual laughable "injuries" that Officer Wilson sustained.

 

And seriously? "He made no inclination he didn't want to." This is a new low. Officer Wilson also made no "inclination" (pretty sure you're not using this word right) that he didn't just want to kill a black kid. So he should be charged with a hate crime then, yes? You can make any allegation you want using this logic. This kind of baseless, weak hypothetical speculation has no place in an attempt to justify a shooting. 

 

5. Once again, Michael Brown was unarmed. You can try to claim that that's manipulative wording as many times as you want, but that doesn't change that it's a fact. It's no more manipulative to refer to Michael Brown as unarmed as it is to refer to Wilson as an officer. The title "officer" holds a certain level of legitimacy and trustworthiness. It absolutely manipulates the perception of him, because it's automatically assumed that he upholds the law and is a force of justice. But it's a fact, so he's called Officer Wilson. Michael Brown was unarmed. It's a fact. Get over it.

 

We don't know if Michael Brown ever even touched the gun as Officer Wilson claims. Why? No one ever even checked the gun for fingerprints. This shoddy ass investigation is so full of errors, it's embarrassing.

 

And still, your biased, manipulative language is unceasing.

My language isn't manipulative just because it's reasonable and disagrees with the conclusion that the officer should be jailed for following the current law.

 

1. That's fine. But he didn't break the law.

 

2. When did I imply that? I implied that someone has the right to self defense from their aggressors. The fact that Brown had shown previous aggression the very same day is just supporting evidence that he was aggressive. Not a justification for his death.

 

You said other people don't view him as a violent criminal, I merely commented that actually they do. Assault warrants self defense and shooting is the only reasonable self defense that Wilson had at his disposal in the situation. Fist fighting him (while trying to keep him from getting the gun), with a baton or otherwise is not a reasonable self defense and mace wouldn't have stopped him, contrary to popular belief. I think you are overestimating how often police officers are punched in other countries, unless you have some statistics about that?

 

The thing is, simply pulling the gun should've been self defense enough. And if Brown actually just stood there with his hands up, then Wilson committed murder when he shot him, but I don't believe that. The charging is the only thing that makes the shooting justified. Nothing else, please don't imply that I think it was justified for any other reason.

 

4-5.

Careful when you bring out definitions.

 

weap·on

ˈwepən/

noun

noun: weapon; plural noun: weapons

    a thing designed or used for inflicting bodily harm or physical damage.

    "nuclear weapons"

        a means of gaining an advantage or defending oneself in a conflict or contest.

        "resignation threats had long been a weapon in his armory"

 

Your assertion that anyone could kill anyone with their fist is blatantly wrong. Maybe if you d--gged them I guess? Otherwise, you or I would pose no serious threat to Wilson and his shooting us would be unwarranted. But anyone who is as large as Brown can use their body as a weapon against Wilson. I wouldn't go so far as to say he was armed because that's misleading and honestly just dumb, but he was certainly dangerous. No one would assume he was armed if you didn't say he was armed, so why not just say Wilson killed an 18 year old? Because everyone would assume he wasn't dangerous if you said he was unarmed. And people aren't stupid, they will read about it, find out he was over 6 ft and 200 pounds, and it's going to put them off. That's all I was saying, I don't think that's unreasonable to say nor does warrant attacks on me.

 

You have to show that you mean no harm after you have already done harm. Charging the person you have assaulted does not indicate that you come in peace. I figured that was clear when I said "He made no inclination that he didn't want to. He had already assaulted him." I'll make it more clear next time.

[Morphine Prince 109,656]

20+ other businesses need help too though. Red's Barbecue has chosen to permanently close :( and was one of the best restaurants in the Ferguson area. :(

If all the businesses leave town and never come back and the town's economy is ruined maybe the idiotic rioters will stop destroying their own town :roll:

I feel bad for the peaceful protesters.

[Woolfsmck 2,763]

If all the businesses leave town and never come back and the town's economy is ruined maybe the idiotic rioters will stop destroying their own town :roll:

I feel bad for the peaceful protesters.

i remember the Rodney king riots in LA ... A lot of black people in Compton tied to stop the looting and property destruction, as well as volunteered time and money to clean up the damage .... The media showed very little about this side of the community .... A lot of the problem with misconceptions about the problem stem from what the various news agencies show and report ... Imo

[Navy 495]

Mess @ people rioting all over the country. Instead of destroying your town and rioting get a damn job, do something productive. they're probably all lazy pieces of **** living on the government.

[SKANK 14,288]

The article was about the exact words he was using to describe the riots in Ferguson. It was a direct response.

But truthfully, if you'd ever like to get past the word choice issue, I feel like we could have a great discussion. You're usually above this and a bit more mature. I'm so sorry for failing you by using the word "kid" and for inferring an absolute outcome instead of a probable outcome. If you'd like to create a thread to debate the politics and connotations of vocabulary and grammar, I implore you to do so. But please, try and focus on the issue at hand in this thread. I hope we can move past this. Forgive me, for I have wronged you.

 

 

 

One second you think I'm approaching this conversation to maturely for a message board, the next second I'm not being mature enough. Ugh. What's a girl to do?

 

 

Tonight the liberal news channel MSNBC designated an entire segment of their programing to Officer Wilson's use of the word "hulk" in his testimoney. They were discussing the racist undertones to the word "hulk." They claimed that by using the word "hulk" Officer Wilson was promoting the idea that all black men are "monsters." Obviously this is absurd. This "hulk" conversation happened the day after an MSNBC contributor decided that using the word "charging" to describe the way in which Michael Brown approached Officer Wilson was "racist."  

 

When I corrected both of your false statements, I was not nit-picking syntax or grammar. I was trying to get at  the larger issue of people using language to manipulate the situation in Ferguson to suit their agendas. You were doing it, the user you quoted and rightly scolded was doing it, cable news is doing it, and a million people on social media are doing it. And I just wish it would stop. 

 

Without a doubt, there are bigger conversations to be had about Ferguson, but I don't see how we can have them if we don't first stop costuming our words. That was my only point. And that is all I have to say on the matter.

[Miker 5,683]

Often when you have rioting you also get those that just like to create havoc. This is so wrong regardless of whatever the cause is.

[craig 680]

I heard that anarchists from Berkeley were involved in Oakland last night. Privileged white leftest radicals creating trouble.

[craig 680]

Tonight the liberal news channel MSNBC designated an entire segment of their programing to Officer Wilson's use of the word "hulk" in his testimoney. They were discussing the racist undertones to the word "hulk." They claimed that by using the word "hulk" Officer Wilson was promoting the idea that all black men are "monsters." Obviously this is absurd. This "hulk" conversation happened the day after an MSNBC contributor decided that using the word "charging" to describe the way in which Michael Brown approached Officer Wilson was "racist."  

 

 

So if a female was attacked a a 300 pound white man and she described him as a Hulk and charging towards her, that would prove she is s-xist and misandrist. Dehumanizing a male as a "monster."

 

LOL, No! The left is completely hypocritically about how it treats "black violence" vs "male violence" and how it stokes women's fear of violent men but tries to shame white people for their fear.