Police shooting of unarmed teen leads to protests and Riot

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by nik-

the irony

You trying to get another thread locked due to your personal attacks?

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by Bagor

You're such a victim.

That was an observation.

Thanks for the bright addition to this thread.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

You trying to get another thread locked due to your personal attacks?

I don't know how you survive under the relentless abuses you face.

Thoughts and prayers.

So Nage, I just did a mass ignore. Greatest feature on this board. Give it a go.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by WhiteTiger

The perspective I look at it from is that how do you step it down? To step things down, both sides have to agree to step down.

So the government decides to take cops guns away and have them only have billy clubs and tasers. How long do you think they would last against folks with handguns and automatic rifles? Do you think that the criminals will say "Well, the cops don't have guns, guess we should give ours up to keep things fair."

I don't think anyone's seriously suggesting that you could take away the guns the US police has. Just a non-starter politically and culturally in the US, and unnecessary. And yes, the criminals are also killing police at a disturbingly high rate in the US, it's not just the other way around.

But, there are also a lot of police around the world who carry firearms without needing to use them much. (Again, Finnish police comes to mind.) Here's a couple of obvious changes that I think could be done in the US, and would help.


1) Police training up to international standards. Something like 18 months. This serves a double purpose. On one hand you can give the police better tools to solve crime (not just keep the peace) and teach them more about non-violent methods of dealing with people. On the other, it would also probably help weed out the least motivated and most problematic individuals.

2) End the War on Drugs. It's pretty hard to find an expert who doesn't agree that it's not working anyway. The US has been trying to lead by example here, and I think their crime rate shows how much of a failure it is. Just like alcohol prohibition in it's day, drug prohibition and the income it generates is what gives organized crime both the means and motivation to fight the police (and each other), even to the death.

Without the drug war, we'd have less dead cops. Which should mean less cops afraid of dying, which should make them less inclined to react aggressively, especially if combined with new training.

The whole war on drugs is also just generally extremely detrimental to doing actual police work, as it creates an enormous and mostly unnecessary mountain of work. It's also extremely frustrating for the police. (And frustrated and overworked people are prone to do stupid things.)


I think both of these things are doable and would help things enormously, especially if done simultaneously. (You can take some of the money saved from the war on drugs to fund the extra training.)

[Itse]

nm. Removed the parts which I think are unnecessarily controversial.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

So now it is not racism, it is 'veiled' racism? What did the guy say where he proposes something racist? It is very clear to me you do not know what racism is. If this guy (I really know nothing about him besides the video) claimed that black people cannot act reasonably or whatever because they are black, that is racism. If on the other hand he says this one person is too attached to the crime that he should probably get someone else to step in, that is different, and that is what I interpreted in the argument.

His points are not exactly new or horrible - would this have been the spectacle it has become if it was a black police officer who did the shooting and a black victim? Would Holder be on scene for that circumstance? The answer is yes by the way, according to the lady, who claimed his appearance is by request of the sheriff or something.

This guy may be loose with his choice of words, but to claim he judges black people differently based on this clip is really stretching.

He's saying he's too attached to the crime because he's black. Not because he's a man, not because he's an american and not because he's the attorney general, it's because he's black and has experienced racism himself.

Nage, racism is the belief that a person is superior or deficient based solely on their racial appearance, and the inherited qualities of that race.

The host believes the top prosecutor in the united states is unfit to oversee an investigation because of a supposed biased due to his blackness.

That he recognized existing racism and racial tension in the United States 5 years ago during his swearing in makes him, in the eyes of the host, unfit to judge others (in this scenario specifically, whites), supposedly because he will be unable to remain impartial, due to his blackness.

The host believes the Attorney General is inherently unable to apply justice evenly because of his race.

That.Is.Racist.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

You trying to get another thread locked due to your personal attacks?

Please stop making these sorts of threats when it is plainly evident that you are generally the most personally insulting and dismissive poster in these threads.

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

Thanks for the bright addition to this thread.

[Itse]

First of all, I'm not at all convinced that the white male reporter is necessarily a racist himself. He's a professional "news" entertainer performing to a target audience.

I also think it's splitting hairs to discuss whether or not that was racism, because it was so incredibly stupid and the logic, if followed, would lead to racism anyway, even if it is not racism in itself.

By the male reporters logic, only a person without any personal experience on racism would be suitable to handle a case with strong racial tensions.

Given the explosive situation in Ferguson, this is just laughably stupid.

It would also mean that only (very few, very privileged) white people could ever handle a racially charged case, which would obviously be racism.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

Thanks for the bright addition to this thread.

Been there done that. Tried having a "bright" conversation with you earlier where you 'chose' to ignore that there were other witness reports contrary to those that you were reading.

People disagree with each other all the time here and comment on observations about others behaviours within a thread. That does not necessarily constitute a personal attack.

[wittynickname]

Kind of funny how Wilson's "spotless" record includes being part of a police department that was so corrupt and so regularly used excessive force that the entire force had to be disbanded.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/08...ss-background/

And then he goes from that to Ferguson, where they don't keep record of citizen complaints.

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

He's saying he's too attached to the crime because he's black. Not because he's a man, not because he's an american and not because he's the attorney general, it's because he's black and has experienced racism himself.

You are correct, but he also stated would this whole issue be happening if the officer was also black? Not entirely a terrible thing to state. He sounded like anyone picking through people for jury selection, except this happens to be the Attorney General. The whole issue is obviously racially charged, this does not make him racist.

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Nage, racism is the belief that a person is superior or deficient based solely on their racial appearance, and the inherited qualities of that race.

Absolutely correct.

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

The host believes the top prosecutor in the united states is unfit to oversee an investigation because of a supposed biased due to his blackness.

Nope, the fact he is black and dealt with racism himself he thought was the reason he was heading towards this town, which was dealing with a very racially charged incident. He was corrected by his guest (who said the chief of police requested his presence). Again, the accusation was that this person was emotionally attached to the case and should that person not have stepped back and assigned someone else? I don't agree with the host by the way, especially since his presence was requested.

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

That he recognized existing racism and racial tension in the United States 5 years ago during his swearing in makes him, in the eyes of the host, unfit to judge others (in this scenario specifically, whites), supposedly because he will be unable to remain impartial, due to his blackness.

Again, this goes to partiality, an issue that is repeated in every court room in canada and the United States. Could Holder not do his job because he was black? Holder, who we know is black, is in charge of the entire justice system which is apparently also locking up many black people. The fact the host assumed Holder was only showing up because it was a racially charged issue was a mistake, I don't believe he thinks Holder cannot do the job because black people are not capable.

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

The host believes the Attorney General is inherently unable to apply justice evenly because of his race.

That.Is.Racist.

I disagree with your summary of the interview, but I am very clear with your point of view which I certainly do not think is outside the realm of possibility. I just don't think racism is that 'vague', but we are certainly splitting hairs. We are throwing lots of assumptions at this.

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Please stop making these sorts of threats when it is plainly evident that you are generally the most personally insulting and dismissive poster in these threads.

Oh really, more insults, again with no context or valid facts.

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by Bagor

Been there done that. Tried having a "bright" conversation with you earlier where you 'chose' to ignore that there were other witness reports contrary to those that you were reading.

People disagree with each other all the time here and comment on observations about others behaviours within a thread. That does not necessarily constitute a personal attack.

So...what are you trying to say? I chose to ignore witnesses? No, I did not ignore them, I simply put together what I thought made the most sense. And the most sense so far is to relax, wait for the facts to be put together. Wait for facts before such polarizing positions.

So tell me of the posts where I have claimed were personal attacks, did you see any evidence of me doing the attacking? Or have you seen a pattern of several posters jumping on posters that disagree with them? Have a close look at join dates, you may notice some of these guys have been bounced from this site multiple times.

Trust me, I love the discussion, not the attacks. They kind of ruin threads.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

So...what are you trying to say? I chose to ignore witnesses? No, I did not ignore them, I simply put together what I thought made the most sense. And the most sense so far is to relax, wait for the facts to be put together. Wait for facts before such polarizing positions.

How does it make the most sense that he attacked the officer?

Just explain why you put more weight on the witnesses that support that suggestion as opposed to those that don't.

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

So tell me of the posts where I have claimed were personal attacks, did you see any evidence of me doing the attacking?

Post #741 at the top of the page, and I never suggested you were attacking. Anyways the post I felt might be an attack but a long way from being personal (IMO). Hence my comment.

Anyways, what I am really interested in ... still, is why you put so much weight in one set of witnesses moreso than the others.

[Nage Waza]

Bagor, I don't put more weight in much of anything, except for the fact I doubt the sensationalized story will have much resemblance to the story that will be proven in court. I think the officer will do his best to detail why he used deadly force, and those details at this time are not known to us.
Anyone who claims to have seen anything will get good airtime, with minimal screening.
Plus I troll the James Randi thread like crazy, and those guys go through and debate facts like crazy. The forums on that site are very interesting and use the 'sceptics' framework on everything.

[combustiblefuel]

Update

Audio of the shooting has been released. 6 shots fired then a long pause then 4 more shots unleashed.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/26/us/mic...ing/index.html

[fatso]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

...
Plus I troll the James Randi thread like crazy, and those guys go through and debate facts like crazy. The forums on that site are very interesting and use the 'sceptics' framework on everything.

Good to know. Will check it out.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by combustiblefuel

Update

Audio of the shooting has been released. 6 shots fired then a long pause then 4 more shots unleashed.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/26/us/mic...ing/index.html

Long is not once mentioned in the article. Stop distorting facts, the media on both sides will do that for us.

But once again, more possible evidence that aligns with 0 of the witnesses or stories. If true, Brown was not shot once near the vehicle and then again later nor was he shot once in the back before turning around.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Long is not once mentioned in the article. Stop distorting facts, the media on both sides will do that for us.

But once again, more possible evidence that aligns with 0 of the witnesses or stories. If true, Brown was not shot once near the vehicle and then again later nor was he shot once in the back before turning around.

I don't know how you can come to that conclusion based on this audio recording.

It's entirely possible (note: I'm not saying conclusively that this is actually what happened) that the officer fired six shots at Brown's back (most of which missed), Brown turned around after taking a hit or two and was then shot four additional times while raising his hands above his head.