jump to last post 1-50 of 95 discussions (800 posts)

Are we witnessing "Racial Creep"?

  1. peoplepower73 profile image87
    peoplepower73posted 2 years ago

    I know this is going to be controversial, but I'm deeply concerned about racism in this country. There seems to be many more shootings of unarmed black men by white police in the last few months.  This latest shooting in Ferguson Missouri has me wondering,  are these pent-up tensions caused by whites who never bought into the Civil Rights Act?

    1. GA Anderson profile image87
      GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      A white policeman shot a black man... is this the only detail you need to pose such a question? Have you already concluded the policeman was wrong? No news stories I could find have anything more than conflicting witness accounts, so you have pondered this question just because the Policeman was white and the victim was black?

      You could be right. An investigation could find that the cop was a racist White Supremest that snatched at the opportunity to shoot a black man. Or you could be wrong and it was a terrible tragedy and the policeman had no malice or evil intentions.

      In trying to find data about unarmed police shooting victims I came across this from a blog focused on crime, criminal investigation, policing, law, writing, and forensic science.;

      " In 2011, according to data I collected, police officers in the United States shot 1,146  people, killing 607." source: http://jimfishertruecrime.blogspot.com/ … nnual.html

      I know it is just a "blog" - but the writer did substantiate his research data, and we don't need to be concerned with his accuracy in any case. The purpose was to present a reasonably acceptable estimate of national police-involved shootings.

      So, out of 1146 +/- police involved shootings in one year, how many do you think involved unarmed black men? I don't know either, so let us ask another question; How many police shootings of unarmed black men have you seen in the news since 2011? What ever number you come up with, compare it to four years times 1146 +/- (4584) - does your number appear to indicate a trend when compared to the total? I would suggest not.

      ps. Of course even one is too many. And regardless of the number, it is important to understand the events and people behind every case - but to jump from infrequent occurrences to trend might indicate that the image in the mirror could be a singular reflection and not a national one.

      So why have you jumped to the conclusion it is a racism question? Or a white resistance to accepting the Civil Rights laws?

      GA

      1. cjhunsinger profile image70
        cjhunsingerposted 2 years ago in reply to this
      2. 60
        retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

        God forbid there be a completed investigation before the race baiting starts. God forbid the President of the United States exercise a little patience and discretion regarding an on going case.

        It is disturbing and very sad that the routine murder of blacks by blacks in cities like Chicago and my own beloved home town, go unremarked by the President, despite the bodies piling up. He reserves his comment for violence that crosses racial lines. I wonder where the "racial creep" exists, could it be in the White House.

        1. GA Anderson profile image87
          GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Good points...  and since racism was the OP's original point... why doesn't Pres. Obama every speak to the white unarmed police shootings... hmm.. could it be because the president is black? Could it be because he feels more expected to interject himself because he is black?

          I will answer my own questions... Damn right it is because he is black! He is wrong! He is the president of all Americans - so why does he only speak to black tragedies? Because he is black!

          This race baiting stuff is really hurting us, our president should know better. And for all these folks that fall for the bait, you should look for a little perspective in your lives. There is injustice everywhere everyday, when you only find a voice if it is a perceived racial injustice then you are only perpetuating the problem - not voicing righteous indignation. Your attitudes are the fuel for the fires the race-baiters fan.

          For all the uproar over this tragic death, where is the uproar over other non-racially attributed deaths? Other responders to this thread have made this same point - why doesn't the OP address that perspective?

          The OP was a typical example of a media fed opinion - not one of valid fact based discussion, but one fed by media facts. Geesh...

          GA

          1. 60
            retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

            You are a smart man, why do you think Barack Obama was a community organizer? It wasn't community organizing a youth soccer league. It was community organizing for black outrage. This is who the man was before he ever held elective office. He is the controlled face of black rage. He is wrong because he is irrational.

            http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1 … 50188.html

    2. Credence2 profile image85
      Credence2posted 2 years ago in reply to this

      I am not much for sensationalism on these things. I have to gather more information. It is always bugs me that this kind of news always reach national levels when a white officer slays a black male. With all the police shooting have there not been circumstances where white men were shot in a similar situation by a white or black cop.  How many of these kinds of tragic shooting occur in any one year, is the race angle being exaggerated or focused on to stir up a pot? 

      Yes, let us investigate and bring the responsible party or parties to justice.

      1. GA Anderson profile image87
        GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Glad to see you pipe in on this. Especially with such a rational response. I was going to make the "unarmed white victims" point in my response to peoplepower73 but felt it might detract from my other points.

        Glad you noted it.

        GA

        1. peoplepower73 profile image87
          peoplepower73posted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Here are four cases in the last month.
          http://www.motherjones.com/politics/201 … ed-police. 

          I know you think four cases is not very much, but It's enough to ignite the emotions of the black people in those communities.  What I just witnessed on T.V. today was an overwhelming use of para military police force, using tear gas, flash grenades,and armed to the teeth, not only with military weapons, but military vehicles.  The President had to but a stop; to it.  Now the governor has swapped them out for highway patrol. 

          What is this all about? The chief of police has refused to release the name of the police officer who killed Michael Brown.  Shades of Little Rock AK in the 60's.  You call it sensationalism.  I call it racial tension.  The whites in that town are the minority and the blacks are a huge majority.  You don't think that creates racial tension with an all white police department? 

          Ask the dead people if it is sensationalism or not!

          1. GA Anderson profile image87
            GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Ok, so now you are going from trending racism to racial tension. And then including a link proclaiming 4 unarmed blacks killed by police...

            Were the police supposed to ask the Walmart guy, "Hey is that a real gun?" before they react? How much time do you think elapses between the time a gun is pointed at a policeman and the bullet impacts his chest? Is it enough time for him to look for a muzzle flash or listen for the sound of a BB gun? Then you have one guy that dies from being tazed - apparently the police were trying to use non-lethal force.

            Are you saying the militarization of police forces is due to racism - the point of your OP?

            Well damn, the chief won't release the name to a crowd in lynch-mob mode. And you question the wisdom of that decision?

            Damn right I call it sensationalism. And damn right I agree with you that the situation is practically exploding with racial tension - but that is not a trend to racism - that is anger.

            Maybe you really meant to present another view with your OP - that the police forces of our nation are trending to racist tendencies, because you have presented nothing to validate your original question.

            To be sure, I think each of those deaths is a tragedy. And I am not passing judgement in any of them, (except the BB gun Walmart guy), but your examples do not support your original point.

            GA

          2. Credence2 profile image85
            Credence2posted 2 years ago in reply to this

            This is akin, Peoplepower, to the Natalee Holloway syndrome. The press was all over the story of this young woman's disappearance back in 2005, play by play on the major networks nightly This was tragic, but what about the thousands of young women that went missing, kidnapped or worse, that did not make the news? This is a tragic matter for any one, so why Natalie Holloway? Why did the press focus on this one individual? Your points are valid, it is just that the media is appearing to goad and incite, steering public opinion in a way not justified by the facts.

            1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
              Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              …lets say some police officers in certain communities, (no matter what their genetic lines,) are profiling African Americans. 
              What is causing the police to profile the African Americans in their communities? Is it because so many African Americans have resorted to crime? Is it because they have flunked in the positivity department: in the I-am-free-and-I-can-make-it department, in the Lets-not-become-gang-members department? Instead, perhaps they have adopted the "There-is-no-way out-for-us-blacks" mentality, and the "Its us against THEM" mentality. If there is a problem in a particular African American community, there is a problem in that particular African American community.

              How can better race relations be established? Only by understanding that we are all made in the image of God. Under our skin we are the same color.

              We form our culture by our actions, habits and thoughts. Each person has the opportunity to change for the better.

              We all need to give others respect.

              When lawful rules / boundaries are broken, laws must be enforced.

              Police should not abuse their position… ever.

              "Glenn Reynolds, in Popular Mechanics, recognized the increasing militarization of the police five years ago. In 2009 he wrote:
              Soldiers and police are supposed to be different. … Police look inward. They’re supposed to protect their fellow citizens from criminals, and to maintain order with a minimum of force.
              It’s the difference between Audie Murphy and Andy Griffith. But nowadays, police are looking, and acting, more like soldiers than cops, with bad consequences. And those who suffer the consequences are usually innocent civilians."
              http://time.com/3111474/rand-paul-ferguson-police/

              1. Credence2 profile image85
                Credence2posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Of course I agree with much of what you have said and I am surprised to read so enlightened an article from Mr Paul, it was not  expected.

                Profiling is unacceptable, unprofessional and correlates with the idea that the constitution and bill of rights may be placed on the shelf to accommodate the caprice of a few and the abuse of the many.. While this case appears to have generated into a 'he said, she said' scenario, I am suspicious of the law enforcement community because of the sheer number of shots fired in this case.

                It is an old concept that in communities like Ferguson, the lack of representation by people of color in the police force does not help the people in the community avoid seeing themselves in an armed camp. There are subconscious animosities that are part of  race relations and of American life which could have been ameliorated with a little thoughtful preparation. 

                Profiling assumes that certain groups of people and their individual members are guilty until proven innocent that is not what America is supposed to be about.

              2. Cgenaea profile image60
                Cgenaeaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Blacks have always been disregarded in this country Kathryn. The builders of our union ensured that there would be perpetual class regulators and "crowd" control. Here, money is power. No money, no power.
                Herd "them" here, keep an eye on them... jobs over here, good education... here. Blacks (who don't even represent a quarter of the nation's population) are not any more prone to "crime" than any other... Crime comes in all colors. Strangely, more blacks are "caught and jailed" for their nickel/dime bag "crimes" than anyone. And traffic offenses...
                Serial killers get to keep killing for YEARS... Embezzling millions is also done for years... not to say that there are not many meth dealers in my hood, or my jails... many white people smoke/sell crack. But their corporate jobs sustain them, and cover them from the eyes of "justice".
                This response to, "why black people are so prone to crime, therefore well-deserving of their police harassment and murder?"
                Though the laws have changed, they still slant. They just changed the look of success. I mean, upped the bar considerably.
                The black people will recover. There is much innovation among the people. They are strong and intelligent. But the chips are currently stacked against them. They must have a minute to figure it out. They have proven it time and time again.

        2. Credence2 profile image85
          Credence2posted 2 years ago in reply to this

          GA, thanks, glad that you noted 'it'!

      2. 60
        retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

        At long last something on which we are in total agreement.

    3. 0
      SassySue1963posted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Why do you pull the race card so quickly? Do you know how many unarmed white men have been slain in the last month? the last year?

      Do you know how many police officers have been gunned down unexpectedly because the suspect appeared unarmed and then pulled a gun from jammed into his waist band in his back? Or from his pocket?

      No you don't. But you're a good little social minded liberal so it must be race!

      http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairp … uspect.php

      http://www.texasgopvote.com/issues/rest … ur-0057061
      (yes I get he alledgedly used a racial slur, but you didn't hear about this one on the news did you?)

      http://www.montgomerynews.com/articles/ … 858586.txt

      What do they all have in common? No one knows about them because the media didn't pick them up and no looting and rioting occurred. Oh and the President didn't think they were tragic.

      1. peoplepower73 profile image87
        peoplepower73posted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Sassy: Shootings happen in all kinds of combinations: black/black, white/white, black/white, and white/black. If you can for a moment, pretend you are a black man walking down the street, minding your own business, but you are wearing a hoody.  You are stereotyped and  fit a profile that is suspect by white police officers.  Your chances of getting stopped are much greater than if you were a white man, especially if something has gone down.

        In Los Angels a homeless elderly black woman was walking on the freeway and a CHP officer stopped her. There is video of the officer beating the crap out of this old lady.  Come to find out, she was mentally ill and walking to a place where she could sleep for the night. The only way to get there was to walk on the freeway.  See for yourself.

        http://www.bustle.com/articles/30499-ca … t-on-tape.

        You said: "What do they all have in common? No one knows about them because the media didn't pick them up and no looting and rioting occurred. Oh and the President didn't think they were tragic."

        You can't have it both ways. If no one knows about them, how is the President going to know? Did you hear the President say, I don't think this is tragic?  There you go again, telling us what you think people are thinking and saying, and  in this case it's the President.  Sassy, you are still up to your old tricks!

        1. 0
          SassySue1963posted 2 years ago in reply to this

          You do realize that footage was released today that the young man robbed a convenience store just before he was approached.

          Still think he was just "walking down the street minding his own business"? Still think there was no altercation? Still think that his friend's account is an accurate one?

          His family has even acknowledged that the footage does show their son robbing the store and shoving a clerk there who tried to stop him.

          You are up to your old tricks again. Ignoring the point, made several times by myself and others, that there are many unarmed white men shot as well. Which simply proves your entire premise false. How could then race be the issue?

          I see you still have not made any attempt to even research the number of white unarmed men who've been shot.

          The point is the President should not be instigating the situation. If he isn't aware that white unarmed men are also shot by the police, then he certainly shouldn't be President. He is the President of all Americans, not just black Americans.

          1. peoplepower73 profile image87
            peoplepower73posted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Sassy:  From New York Times 8/15/14


            "They were stopped not because the police were looking for a robbery suspect, Chief Jackson said Friday, but “because they were walking down the street blocking traffic.”

            Devin Stone, 28, a friend of Mr. Brown’s, was home in his apartment at the time, across the street from the place where the men were confronted by the police.

            Sitting outside his building, Mr. Stone said he was jolted by the sound of two gunshots, followed by several more in rapid succession. The second series of shots “sounded automatic,” he said. “They let it rip.”

            Mr. Stone ran outside and saw two police officers, both white men, standing near Mr. Brown, who was lying on his stomach, his arms at his sides, blood seeping from his head. Another neighbor, a woman who identified herself as a nurse, was begging the officers to let her perform CPR.

            They refused, Mr. Stone said, adding, “They didn’t even check to see if he was breathing.”

            Sassy, you have to stop making assumptions.  You would be great as a propagandist!

            1. 0
              SassySue1963posted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Why? Haven't you and everyone else made the "assumption" that only the friend's account is the accurate one? Haven't you decided that this officer was a racist? That he just took an opportunity to grab a free shot at a young black man? Certainly sounds like it to me.

              The other accounts state there was an altercation. The police Chief said they were stopped for blocking traffic and the officer saw the cigars on him. I'm in no way saying that had anything to do with them being stopped anyway. I'm saying - this is not some case of some innocent kid walking down the street.

              He had just committed a robbery - so the accounts that there was an altercation prior to the shots begins to have more merit behind it.

              As for those unarmed white men being shot - perhaps you can step down from your soapbox long enough to do some actual research. Then you'd discover that there were protests as well. So no, it isn't because white people don't care when white people get shot. That isn't why you don't know about them. You don't know about them because the left can't use them in their racial tension game.

              It was Southern Democrats who tried to filibuster the Civil Rights Act and more Republicans supported it so there certainly weren't those Southern Democrats running for the Republican party after its passage ike you lay claim in your other response. Do you even research anything or just make it up as you go along?

              "When the bill came before the full Senate for debate on March 30, 1964, the "Southern Bloc" of 18 southern Democratic Senators and one Republican Senator led by Richard Russell (D-GA) launched a filibuster to prevent its passage"

              Vote counts:

              The original House version:[20]

                  Democratic Party: 152–96   (61–39%)
                  Republican Party: 138–34   (80–20%)

              Cloture in the Senate:[21]

                  Democratic Party: 44–23   (66–34%)
                  Republican Party: 27–6   (82–18%)

              The Senate version:[20]

                  Democratic Party: 46–21   (69–31%)
                  Republican Party: 27–6   (82–18%)

              The Senate version, voted on by the House:[20]

                  Democratic Party: 153–91   (63–37%)
                  Republican Party: 136–35   (80–20%)

              As for Dixiecrats:

              It originated as a breakaway faction of the Democratic Party in 1948, determined to protect what they portrayed as the southern way of life beset by an oppressive federal government

              The party did not run local or state candidates, and after the 1948 election its leaders generally returned to the Democratic Party.

              1. peoplepower73 profile image87
                peoplepower73posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                My comments are in parens.

                Why? Haven't you and everyone else made the "assumption" that only the friend's account is the accurate one? Haven't you decided that this officer was a racist? That he just took an opportunity to grab a free shot at a young black man? Certainly sounds like it to me.

                The other accounts state there was an altercation. The police Chief said they were stopped for blocking traffic and the officer saw the cigars on him. I'm in no way saying that had anything to do with them being stopped anyway. I'm saying - this is not some case of some innocent kid walking down the street.

                He had just committed a robbery - so the accounts that there was an altercation prior to the shots begins to have more merit behind it.

                (This is still unfolding.  We shouldn’t even comment on it until the investigation is conclusive.  I cited in my introduction as an example…little did I knows it was going to unfold like this.)

                As for those unarmed white men being shot - perhaps you can step down from your soapbox long enough to do some actual research. Then you'd discover that there were protests as well. So no, it isn't because white people don't care when white people get shot. That isn't why you don't know about them. You don't know about them because the left can't use them in their racial tension game.

                (I’m sure the left hear about the shootings and say, Oh I don’t care about that because I can’t use it in our racial tension game.  No it’s because when a white person gets shot, if the community feels there was no inequality, then they do nothing about it.  If there are protests, there is a reason for them.  If they reach the national level, then sometimes it is necessary for the president to step in.)

                It was Southern Democrats who tried to filibuster the Civil Rights Act and more Republicans supported it so there certainly weren't those Southern Democrats running for the Republican party after its passage ike you lay claim in your other response. Do you even research anything or just make it up as you go along?

                "When the bill came before the full Senate for debate on March 30, 1964, the "Southern Bloc" of 18 southern Democratic Senators and one Republican Senator led by Richard Russell (D-GA) launched a filibuster to prevent its passage"

                (They didn’t run for the republican party, they switched party affiliations immediately.  You are probably too young, but I remember seeing it on the news.  You just said it, the southern democrats tried to block the passage.  Those for the most part are the ones who became republican.  This is from Wikipedia.)


                “The passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a significant event in converting the Deep South to the Republican Party; in that year most Senatorial Republicans supported the Act (most of the opposition came from Southern Democrats), but the Republican Party nominated for the Presidency Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater, who had opposed it. From the end of the Civil War to 1960 Democrats had solid control over the southern states in presidential elections, hence the term "Solid South" to describe the states' Democratic preference. After the passage of this Act, however, their willingness to support Republicans on a presidential level increased demonstrably. Goldwater won many of the "Solid South" states over Democratic candidate Lyndon Johnson, himself a Texan, and with many this Republican support continued and seeped down the ballot to congressional, state, and ultimately local levels. A further significant item of legislation was the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which targeted for preclearance by the U.S. Department of Justice any election-law change in areas where African-American voting participation was lower than the norm (most but not all of these areas were in the South); the effect of the Voting Rights Act on southern elections was profound, including the by-product that some White Southerners perceived it as meddling while Black voters universally appreciated it.”


                Vote counts:

                The original House version:[20]

                    Democratic Party: 152–96   (61–39%)
                    Republican Party: 138–34   (80–20%)

                Cloture in the Senate:[21]

                    Democratic Party: 44–23   (66–34%)
                    Republican Party: 27–6   (82–18%)

                The Senate version:[20]

                    Democratic Party: 46–21   (69–31%)
                    Republican Party: 27–6   (82–18%)

                The Senate version, voted on by the House:[20]

                    Democratic Party: 153–91   (63–37%)
                    Republican Party: 136–35   (80–20%)

                As for Dixiecrats:

                It originated as a breakaway faction of the Democratic Party in 1948, determined to protect what they portrayed as the southern way of life beset by an oppressive federal government

                (Give me a break “protect southern way of life beset by an oppressive federal government.” What the hell does that mean?)

                The party did not run local or state candidates, and after the 1948 election its leaders generally returned to the Democratic Party.

                The southern democratic party, which broke away after civil rights.

                1. Laura Knipp profile image60
                  Laura Knippposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  My word, you have been brainwashed Mr. Peoplepower. First off, every college and school in the US KNOW not to use Wikipedia as a source.  Wikipedia is not always right, it is written by many anonymous writers and viewers.  Just because it says one thing, never use it as a source.  It hardly is an encyclopedia of this era. 

                  Second off, you are way off base on the "republicans switched sides" crap.  The Republicans NEVER switched sides when it came to race.  Democrats just state that to make their side look more favorable.  The fact you saw it on the news, well, great. I saw on the news that there are riots in Ferguson because someone claimed this kid was shot in the back with his hands up. It was a couple of days later that this same guy's autopsy showed that all the shots came from the front--including the one that killed him. The news is not always right, in fact it is usually wrong on the onset.  It is guess work and mostly more guess than work. 

                  So here is a little insight to the Republicans and Democrats.  It does not make sense to believe that racist Democrats suddenly rushed into the Republican Party, especially after Republicans spent nearly 150 years fighting for black civil rights. In fact, the racist Democrats declared they would rather vote for a “yellow dog” than a Republican because the Republican Party was known as the party for blacks.
                  From the time of its inception in 1854 as the anti-slavery party, the Republican Party has always been the party of freedom and equality for blacks. In essence, the Republican Party is the party of the four F’s: faith, family, fairness and freedom.

                  As author Michael Scheuer wrote, the Democratic Party is the party of the four S’s: slavery, secession, segregation and now socialism. Democrats have been running black communities for the past 50+ years, and the socialist policies of the Democrats have turned those communities into economic and social wastelands.

                  Democrats first used brutality and discriminatory laws to stop blacks from voting for Republicans.
                  Democrats now use deception and government handouts to keep blacks from voting for Republicans.
                  In his book, “Dreams From My Father,” President Barack Obama described what he and other Democrats do to poor blacks as “plantation politics".

                  In the book "A Short History of Reconstruction", renowned historian, Dr. Eric Foner, revealed that
                  the Ku Klux Klan was founded in 1866 by Democrats as a Tennessee social club. The Ku Klux Klan became a military force serving the interests of the Democratic Party, the planter class, and all those who desired the restoration of white supremacy. The Klan spread in to other Southern states,  launching a ‘reign of terror‘ against Republican leaders, black and white.

                  The racist Democrats of the 1950’s and 1960’s that Republicans were fighting died Democrats.
                  One racist Democrat who survived until 2010 was US Senator Robert Byrd, a former recruiter for the Ku Klux Klan. Byrd became a prominent leader in the Democrat-controlled Congress where he was honored by his fellow Democrats as the “conscience of the Senate.”

                  Byrd was a fierce opponent of desegregating the military and complained in one letter: “I would rather die a thousand times and see old glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again than see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen of the wilds.”

                  Democrats denounced US Senator Trent Lott for his remarks about US Senator Strom Thurmond.
                  However, there was silence when Democrat US Senator Christopher Dodd praised Byrd as someone who would have been "a great senator for any moment.” Thurmond was never in the Ku Klux Klan and, after he became a Republican, Thurmond defended blacks against lynching and the iscriminatory poll taxes imposed on blacks by Democrats.

                  While turning a blind eye to how the Democratic Party embraced Byrd until his death, Democrats regularly lambaste the Republican Party about David Duke, a former Grand Ignored are the facts that the Republican Party never embraced Duke and when he ran for the Republican Party presidential nomination in 1992, Republican Party officials tried to block his participation. Hypocritical is the word for how Democrats also ignore Duke’s long participation in the Democratic Party with no efforts by Democrats to block him. Below is Duke’s political history in Louisiana, which has an open primary system. Duke ran for Louisiana State Senator as a Democrat in 1975. He ran again for the Louisiana State Senate in 1979 as a Democrat. In 1988, he made a bid for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination. Then, on election day in 1988, he had himself listed on the presidential ballot as an “Independent Populist.”Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan.

                  After his unbroken string of losses as a Democrat and an Independent Populist, Duke decided to describe himself as a Republican, then ran the following races where he lost every time: in 1989 he ran for Louisiana State Representative; in 1990, he ran for US Senator; in 1991 he ran for Governor of Louisiana; in 1992 he ran for president; in 1996 he ran for US Senator; and in 1999 he ran for US Representative.

                  Contrary to popular belief, President Lyndon Johnson did not predict a racist exodus to the Republican Party from the Democratic Party because of Johnson’s support of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Omitted from the Democrats’ rewritten history is what Johnson actually meant by his prediction. Johnson eared that the racist Democrats would again form a third party, such as the short-lived States Rights Democratic Party. In fact, Alabama’s Democrat Governor George C. Wallace in 1968 started the American Independent Party that attracted other racist candidates, including Democrat Governor Lester Maddox.

                  Behind closed doors, Johnson said: “These Negroes, they’re getting uppity these days. That’s a problem for us, since they got something now they never had before. The political pull to back up their upityness. Now, we’ve got to do something about this. We’ve got to give them a little something.
                  Just enough to quiet them down, but not enough to make a difference. If we don’t move at all, their allies will line up against us. And there’ll be no way to stop them. It’ll be Reconstruction all over again."

                  The above quote from President Lyndon Johnson was said to his closest friend, Richard B. Russell, and revealed on page 84 of the book “Whites, Blacks & Racist Democrats” by Rev. Wayne Perryman. Perryman sued the Democratic Party for that party’s 200-year history of racism. In that lawsuit, the Democrats admitted their racism, but refused to apologize because they know they can take the black vote for granted.

                  Little known by many today is the fact that it was Republican Senator Everett Dirksen from Illinois, not
                  Johnson, who pushed through the 1964 Civil Rights Act. In fact, Dirksen was instrumental to the
                  passage of civil rights legislation in 1957, 1960,1964, 1965 and 1968. Dirksen wrote the language
                  for the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Dirksen also crafted the language for the Civil Rights Act of 1968 which
                  prohibited discrimination in housing.

                  Democrats condemn Republican President Richard Nixon for his so-called “Southern Strategy.”
                  These same Democrats expressed no concern when the racially segregated South voted solidly for
                  Democrats for over 100 years, while deriding Republicans because of the thirty-year odyssey of
                  the South switching to the Republican Party. The "Southern Strategy” that began in the 1970’s was an effort by Nixon to get fair-minded people in the South to stop voting for Democrats who did not share their values and were discriminating against blacks.

                  Georgia did not switch until 2004, and Louisiana was controlled by Democrats until the election of
                  Republican Bobby Jindal, a person of color, as governor in 2007. As the co-architect of Nixon's "Southern Strategy", Pat Buchanan provided a first-hand account of the origin and intent of that strategy in a 2002 article posted on the Internet. Buchanan wrote that Nixon declared that
                  the Republican Party would be built on a foundation of states’ rights, human rights, small government and a strong national defense.  Nixon said he would leave it to the Democratic Party to squeeze the last ounce of political juice out of the rotting fruit of racial injustice.

                  The Claremont Institute published an eye-opening article by Gerard Alexander entitled “The Myth of the Racist Republicans”, an analysis of the decades-long shift of the South from the racist Democratic Party to the racially tolerant Republican Party.  That article can be found on the Internet. Another article on this subject by Mr. Alexander is “Conservatism does not equal racism. So why do many liberals assume it does?”, also posted on the Internet.

                  So Mr. PeoplePower, exactly when did the Republicans and Democrats switch sides? Looks to me that nothing has changed and it is you who is racist in this discussion.

                  1. cjhunsinger profile image70
                    cjhunsingerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Laura
                    An outstanding piece of work---thank you

                  2. cjhunsinger profile image70
                    cjhunsingerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Laura
                    An outstanding piece of work---thank you

              2. cjhunsinger profile image70
                cjhunsingerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Sassy

                Very well said and documented.

    4. cjhunsinger profile image70
      cjhunsingerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Your question is not controversial, it is without merit. It is bias and  accusatory without foundation or substance.
      It would seem, as information begins to leak out, not  confirmed, that the police officer involved was not Caucasian and that the man shot was being stopped for questioning concerning a robbery of a liquor store. It would also seem that this individual assaulted the police office and attempted to steal his gun. The witness, it would appear, is now being investigated, as an accomplice in that robbery'
      Under these circumstances the officer was totally justified in the shooting.
      That said, and that the name of this officer was released, even with death threats against him and his family, by the prompting of Barack Obama, should harm come to this officer or family; Obama should be held complicit in that crime.
      If I am wrong I will apologize and if I am right everyone who has race baited this situation should also apologize.

      1. peoplepower73 profile image87
        peoplepower73posted 2 years ago in reply to this

        My question is "Are we witnessing Racial Creep?"  It's pure and simple. And then I supported that question with this:

        "There seems to be many more shootings of unarmed black men by white police in the last few months".. (Prove that their is or isn't)

        I gave this as an example.  I could have given many more examples, but I didn't think it would be necessary, but if you want a list, here it is:

        Sean Bell, unarmed, hours away from becoming a husband when he was slaughtered by police in a 50-bullet fusillade in November 2006, in Queens, N.Y.

        Ariston Waiters, 19, of Union City, Ga.; unarmed, shot twice in the back and killed by a police officer in December 2011.

        Ramarley Graham, an unarmed Bronx teen chased into his grandmother’s home and killed by police in the bathroom in February 2012.

        Kendrec McDade, an unarmed, 19-year-old shot seven times and then handcuffed on the ground by Pasadena, Calif., police, the result of a fake 911 call in March 2012.

        Trayvon Martin, Renisha McBride, Johnathan Ferrell, Eric Garner…and now, Michael Brown.
        The list of names, faces, families in mourning grows longer, representing a persistent ill that has plagued the African-American community—death at the hands of police, security officers and vigilantes.

        Is that enough foundation and substance for you?

        The fact that you have taken a situation in Ferguson and made the alleged evidence sound conclusive and then trying to blame Obama for an eventuality that may not ever happen, is quite telling.

        1. 0
          SassySue1963posted 2 years ago in reply to this

          And you are still ignoring the cases of unarmed white men being shot - of which you can bet there are 5 for every 1 you hear about it because the media doesn't think that is newsworthy. They can't use it in their race baiting game you see.

          Don't you understand? They only report the shooting of unarmed black men - it is very important to keep that racial tension alive for the left - they thrive on it. It wins them elections you see. When is the last time you heard on CNN, MSNBC or the like about an unarmed white man being shot by police? Or dying in custody? I assure you, it happens just as frequently, though it takes some work and research since no major news source picks up those stories.

        2. GA Anderson profile image87
          GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          And you concluded your OP with this;
          "are these pent-up tensions caused by whites who never bought into the Civil Rights Act?"

          And you wonder why folks jumped on the topic, as if you were just pondering a thought. Without details, (other than the media's sensationalist speculation), you wondered if was "racial creep." What exactly is racial creep in your mind?

          Do you feel as upset when it is a non-black victim?

          Like the old adage says... "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing." (and if that is a paraphrase of the real saying - you get my point!)

          ps. are you really comfortable listing your examples - dating back to 2006, without also acknowledging the non-black deaths that fit the same police-related criteria? Do you really think black unarmed victims outnumber all unarmed victims in that time frame?

          GA

          1. peoplepower73 profile image87
            peoplepower73posted 2 years ago in reply to this

            The reason the unarmed white person getting shot does not make the news is because other white people in the community don't give a crap.  When an unarmed black person gets shot the whole black community  becomes angry. Anger is caused because of inequality.  They feel they are not being treated properly for the incident they were in and excessive force was probably used.

            Was it necessary for Trayvon Martin to be shot, because he was wearing a hoody?  Race riots where there is looting, is caused because the black people are getting even.  Is it justified? No.  But anger is human nature.  Was it necessary to bring out all the paramilitary weapons and equipment in Ferguson? No.  When anybody feels they are not being treated equally compared to others, it make them angry, including you. It's just a matter of degree.   Why I said it is  pent-up- racial tension is because some white police officers feel that blacks are a pain in the ass and in some cases a lower class of person. Now did I say all of them? No, but I'm being frank.

            It's a matter of optics, when you see riots and paramilitary troops, yes, it's going to make the news and the President may have to get involved. White people getting shot doesn't  have those kind of optics therefore, they don't reach the national level.  But you think because the President is black that he is more apt to interject himself with black incidents...boy talk about calling a spade a spade!

            There are white police officers especially in the south who have not bought into the Civil Right Act and it does make them angry against blacks.  Do you deny it? Maybe you should look for a little perspective in your life.  It's called empathy when you can put yourself in the place of another person and feel what they are feeling.

            1. 60
              retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

              No, he was shot because he was sitting on a smaller man's chest and beating him into unconsciousness with both fists.

            2. 60
              retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Yes, looters are thieves. Protecting the property and livelihood of others is the responsibility of the police. Looters should be shot, just as a burglar is shot. The opportunism of looters is not the same as anger about injustice. "Community" anger becomes an excuse to get a new TV.

              The racial bigotry of equating black anger to rioting is ridiculous. The whitest of all possible communities also have riots.

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saxuShVhzT8

              1. peoplepower73 profile image87
                peoplepower73posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Yes they had that riot because of anger. This is from Wikipedia:

                "The riots happened immediately after the conclusion of the Boston Bruins' win over the Vancouver Canucks in game seven of the Stanley Cup Finals, which won the Stanley Cup for Boston."

                The Canuck fans were pissed-off because Boston won.  There was an inequality there because Canuck fans thought they should have won.  It's no different with blacks.  They want equality.  The riots build on crowd mania.  It's a very primitive response, that helps protect the crowd, but anger is the spark that ignites it.  Thanks for proving my point.

            3. GA Anderson profile image87
              GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Ok, you can be Frank now, (Peoplepower73 was kind of a long name anyway), but your Frank responses are not addressing the original point of the thread any better than peoplepower73's did.

              Since your point of "racial creep" was so quickly abandoned and replaced with the undeniable truth of racial tension, maybe, (as already suggested), that was your original intention. Maybe your OP was just a "shoot from the hip" observation that would have benefited from a second look.

              It also appears, (at least to me), that Frank's responses are bit more telling - relative to perspective that is. (you did mention I needed a little perspective in my life didn't you?)

              For instance;

              You say there is no uproar if the victim is white because white communities just "don't give a crap."  Now who is it that could use a little empathy? Is it possible that they do "give a crap," but just aren't a smouldering pool of anger and racial tension that you imply a black community is? Your implication that a white death is not as much of a tragedy as a black death seems to say it isn't really empathy that forms your perspective.

              And then this...

              "...Why I said it is  pent-up- racial tension is because some white police officers feel that blacks are a pain in the ass and in some cases a lower class of person. Now did I say all of them? No, but I'm being frank."

              And there are some people that are this, and some people that are that, and some people that are the other, and.. Of course there are yahoos among us. In every aspect of our civilization's structure. Go ahead, be Frank, maybe he can explain why you feel finding the worst of something implies a description of all of that something. If one racist exist then we must all be harboring racism, right?

              When you say  "It's a matter of optics " are you saying what it looks like is more important than what it is? I am not weighing in on the police militarization aspect, but what would you think of the importance of optics if the police responded with just "beat cop" equipment and numbers, and the picture was of policemen on ambulance gurneys instead of SWAT trucks?

              Yes, optics are important, but to think they justify the President's interjection ignores the possibility that they might also be an important reason why he should not have intervened. Hmm... could that be a matter of that empathy thing again?

              "...But you think because the President is black that he is more apt to interject himself with black incidents...boy talk about calling a spade a spade!"

              Damn right I will call a spade a spade. This isn't the first bite of this particular apple for this president, and the first one turned out to be wormy, and I think he might find he has another mouthful of worm in this bite too.

              "There are white police officers especially in the south who have not bought into the Civil Right Act and it does make them angry against blacks.  Do you deny it? Maybe you should look for a little perspective in your life.  It's called empathy when you can put yourself in the place of another person and feel what they are feeling."

              Oh my, look at all those trigger words in just one sentence; "white police officers," "in the South," "Civil Rights Act," "angry against blacks," and then you want to ask if I can deny it. Hmm... are you really asking me to deny that there are idiots, bigots, racist, and hypocrites, and just plain bad people in the world? Or are you asking me to deny that the fact that those types of people do exist validates you point of "racial creep?" If it was the first question - of course I can't deny that, but if it was the second question, (can I be Frank for a minute?), of course I deny that.

              I think my perspective is just fine, and I think my empathy antennae work pretty well too. But right now it is my spidey sense that is warning me your closing remark was an instance of the pot calling the kettle black.

              GA

        3. Laura Knipp profile image60
          Laura Knippposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          You state Trayvon Martin, however a cop did not shoot him.  You claim many, but in fact you may or may not know if it is justified homicide or an accident, or any facts for that matter tell me that you simply are tossing verbal vomit back at us and hope we sympathize with your quest.  Things are not tried in the news paper, or on the news of any source. Police (or anyone for that matter) are given a chance to have their day in court.  So where is this  that you are using as your source. Yes, I am one that enjoys sources--as I simply do not trust the verbal vomit that is found these days in the news. 

          So how many people are killed by police each year? How many are black, how many white, how many Hispanic? How many are Asian? Do you have any idea? The "mainstream news" claims about 400. So where do they get that number? They make it up--it is in the news media Democratic Party playbook.  This number 400 has been quoted in the Washington Post, USA Today, and has been mentioned by many heavy hitters on the Democrat Party (Shelia Lee, Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton, and even Eric Holder).  But in fact, it is not even available on the FBI Statistics because it is not reported. There is no place to report if it was justified or not.  It is not reported if it is self defense or not.

          The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) program, which compiles the Supplementary Homicide Report(SHR), relies on voluntary involvement of state and local police agencies — a fact that may raise some questions about the integrity of the data. But many UCR numbers are considered fairly reliable, particularly fatal crimes like murder and manslaughter, according to Richard Rosenfeld,  a professor of criminology and criminal justice at the University of Missouri, who studies crime statistics.

          Basic UCR reports don’t include any information on victims or offenders. That data is provided to the FBI via a separate form, also called the Supplementary Homicide Report (SHR). The circumstances of each death are supposed to be recorded here, with classifications like “gangland killings” (code 46), “lovers triangles” (code 40), and “felon killed by police” (code 81). And killings in prisons and military establishments don't count on the list. 

          Therefore to claim that there are many police involved shootings where it is not the fault of the victim is sketchy at best. The only thing we can state is that it seems there are more since social media and camera phones are always around.  What you never heard about 10 years ago now is just a internet glance away. Facebook, Twitter, and other social media sites make it seem like there is more now than 20+ years ago, but that is hardly true.  Just more people being unemployed have a place to vent now than before. The only thing that has been proven here is the theory that 87.949% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

    5. cjhunsinger profile image70
      cjhunsingerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Perhaps, I missed it, but my first post does not seem to be posted anymore. In any case my position has not changed. That you would call your post,  "Racial Creep"  is quite telling in itself.  It would seem to indicate a mindset that has a predetermination, as to any situation between police and those of African descent, who just might be simple thugs wanting something for nothing. When you combine this with your statements that, "--whites who never bought into the Civil Rights Act", you and the racist exploiters, Sharpton and Jackson have a great deal in common.
      Some of the names you cited were not killed by officers, but that does not seem to matter to you. In the case of Trayvon Martin, which you cited, he was in the process of trying to kill a man, who killed him first, but that does not fit your mindset.
      What is creeping, slithering and stalking here is something much more sinister then your preoccupation with some sort of self-imposed guilt and misplaced self righteousness that you seem so compelled to impose on reasonable people.
      I am concerned however, with the militarization of police to a gestapo level of enforcement, but this has been building for quite some time. It is also disconcerting that armed security is in libraries, schools, hospitals is now common place. I am also concerned that Federal agencies, such as The Social Security Dept, EPA, FDA and others, now have armed agents  and some with automatic weapons are raiding homes.
      Nothing I said was telling, as I believe that there was no innuendo in my message.
      If the officer or his family who was involved in this Ferguson shooting are harmed by thugs due to Obama's pressure to release his name then, my all means, Obama should be held as complicit in that crime. Is this more telling?
      The world has been set on fire and Obama fans the flames by doing nothing, but takes the time to butt into a situation he has no business butting into. Obama seems quite proficient at fanning fires or starting them and the only thing he seems to fail at is honoring his oath of office.

      1. peoplepower73 profile image87
        peoplepower73posted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Translation: It drives you crazy there is a black president in office and a black family in the white house.  I know you want your country back and can't wait for him to get out of office.  You want him impeached.  But your people don't realize, they would get Joe Biden as President.  If Hillary gets elected next term, it will even make you crazier as the first Democrat women is in the White House.

        1. cjhunsinger profile image70
          cjhunsingerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          We do not have a black president in the White House, we have a President who does not seem to have any respect for the Constitution. We have a President who is a documented liar, one who is either criminally incompetent or is intent upon destroying what is left of the Constitution. And if it makes you feel any better, Bush was equally incompetent and corrupt.
          Your comments only speak to your lack of knowledge and your expert ability to hide behind what is not there.
          Exactly, what and who are my people, those who identify with the Constitution, those who have fought in combat under that flag that is being prostituted to promote a socialist agenda by this President and those who support him.
          You sir promote a bias and a bigotry that creeps and slithers under the guise of equality that further divides and separates this nation. I find your comments  racial insensitive and charged with the sole purpose of instigating something that is not there. This however, is the end result of your augment that has no merit and no foundation. As for a woman in the White House; I would gladly vote for and support one if she held true to the Constitution and the oath of office.  Hilary Clinton does not and that her only claim to credibility was the fact that she was the wife of Bill Clinton.
          That you would assert racism when there was no indication of that, serves to solidify your racist bigotry and obvious disdain for any criticism of this President.

          1. peoplepower73 profile image87
            peoplepower73posted 2 years ago in reply to this

            CJ Too bad you drank Fox New's cool aid. My replies are in parenthesis.

            We do not have a black president in the White House, we have a President who does not seem to have any respect for the Constitution. We have a President who is a documented liar, one who is either criminally incompetent or is intent upon destroying what is left of the Constitution. And if it makes you feel any better, Bush was equally incompetent and corrupt.

            (But we do have a black president, although only half black. He was a professor of constitutional law.  How is he a documented liar?  How is he destroying the constitution?  Last time I looked it was totally intact.  Does Bush being incompetent, make you feel better?)


            Your comments only speak to your lack of knowledge and your expert ability to hide behind what is not there.
            Exactly, what and who are my people, those who identify with the Constitution, those who have fought in combat under that flag that is being prostituted to promote a socialist agenda by this President and those who support him.
            (What do think his socialist agenda is?)

            You sir promote a bias and a bigotry that creeps and slithers under the guise of equality that further divides and separates this nation. I find your comments  racial insensitive and charged with the sole purpose of instigating something that is not there.

            (I'm being truthful.  Do you deny any racial tension in this country/)

            This however, is the end result of your augment that has no merit and no foundation. As for a woman in the White House; I would gladly vote for and support one if she held true to the Constitution and the oath of office.  Hilary Clinton does not and that her only claim to credibility was the fact that she was the wife of Bill Clinton.
            (That's your opinion as biased by Fox News.)

            That you would assert racism when there was no indication of that, serves to solidify your racist bigotry and obvious disdain for any criticism of this President.
            (How can I have racial bigotry and disdain for criticism of this president at the same time?)

            1. Credence2 profile image85
              Credence2posted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Shrouded bigotry and bias is the right wing mantra, that they conceal by pretending to make rational argument.

            2. cjhunsinger profile image70
              cjhunsingerposted 2 years ago in reply to this
        2. 60
          retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

          The charge of RACISM is the retreat of scoundrels. Everyone - EVERYONE - I know objects to Obama's policies, politics, conduct, attitudes, words and commitment to a diminished America, not his skin color. Skin color is important to lefties, as are genitals and where you like to put them, to a conservative none of these matter.

          1. Credence2 profile image85
            Credence2posted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Speak for yourself, the wretched right wing believes this, and if it were so universal how was Obama reelected?

            1. peoplepower73 profile image87
              peoplepower73posted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Credence2:  Finally a voice of reason. Your reply is so succinct.

              1. Credence2 profile image85
                Credence2posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Hi, People power, some the things that are being said by the other side, are beyond the pale and I could not sit still any longer!!

            2. 60
              retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

              His palace guards in the press did a fine job shielding him. His acolytes in the administrative state vigorously fought for him. The true believers still think his new emperor's raiments are lovely, though more Americans every day are learning he is naked. The GOP ran another plate of mashed potatoes. It is not good governance but subterfuge that have kept Obama in office.

              1. Credence2 profile image85
                Credence2posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                'It is not good governance but subterfuge that have kept Obama in office."

                Funny that is the same thought I had as to why Bush remained in office so long????

                1. 60
                  retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  A Press looking for every opportunity to attack versus one always on defense, regardless of how negligent Obama gets.

                  An administrative state in the hands of political enemies versus one filled to the brim with allies willing to abuse every minute in office to Obama's advantage.

                  Supporters dedicated to economic and political principles versus followers inured to all attacks on America's economy, political system, military, society, culture, etc....

                  Vacations and golf outings attacked as evasions of responsibility versus the same excused as relief from stress.

                  Invasions of privacy attacked as such versus an expansion and extension of those invasions ignored by venomous critics of the prior administration.


                  It is exactly the same, I never saw it before. No wonder you would say the same about the Bush administration. They were treated exactly the same as this one.

                2. GA Anderson profile image87
                  GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Funny that is the same thought I had as to why a lot of these yahoo politicians remain in office so long. smile

                  GA

                  1. 60
                    retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    There are mechanisms in place and faithful constituencies which insulate elected officials, of both parties and all levels of government, from significant opposition - at least until they succeed in making enough voters angry. The TEA party challenge is a direct consequence of incumbency taken for granted.

                  2. Credence2 profile image85
                    Credence2posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    I am laughing with you GA.

                    Following some of your posts, I will be the last to say that we do not have race related problems that continue to fester. There was a Star Trek episode original series "Day of the Dove" that so reminds me of the media's role in this matter. It  that came to mind and reminded me of all the goading and provocation by the press. If you have a minute check it out

    6. Don W profile image83
      Don Wposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      As much as people from certain quarters don't want to admit, it is a fact that the issue of race is one of the social problems facing the country. There is overt racism, institutionalised racism, and prejudice (literally pre-judgement) against minorities. There is also a growing inequality between economic classes of all races which is contributing to lack of social cohesion. Given all that, it would not be reasonable to view this incident in isolation of the broader social context in which it's happening. Not every instance of a black person shot by a white police officer is an example of racism/ police brutality, but it would be naive in the extreme to suggest that there is not a wider picture that needs to be looked at in addition to the specific incident in question.

      1. Credence2 profile image85
        Credence2posted 2 years ago in reply to this

        I liked this, Don, well said

        Not every instance of a black person shot by a white police officer is an example of racism/ police brutality, but it would be naive in the extreme to suggest that there is not a wider picture that needs to be looked at in addition to the specific incident in question.

      2. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
        Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        FOR INSTANCE?  Please enlighten those of us who are in our "certain quarters!"
        BTW What is YOUR proof of "social creep?" This question has yet to be answered in this forum. I say racism is not creeping but declining as we become more socially evolved… which we OBVIOUSLY ARE!

        1. Don W profile image83
          Don Wposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          As an aside, I can read your text fine in lowercase so NO NEED TO SHOUT.

          For overt racism, visit any white supremacist website. There are plenty. I won't link to or name any here, but if you can use Google then you can easily find instances of overt racism.

          An example of institutional racism is the fact that between December 2007 and September 2011, black males received 20% longer sentences than whites through the federal system for the same crimes.

          An example of prejudice would be the study that was conducted in which resumes were sent in response to help-wanted ads in Boston and Chicago newspapers. African-American-sounding and white-sounding names were both used, and the resumes were very similar in terms of education, knowledge, skills and experience. The callback rate for resumes with African-American-sounding names was 50% lower than the other resumes sent.

          Overt racism, institutional racism and prejudice against minorities exist, and represent a social problem for the country. This is further complicated by the fact that disparity between rich and poor (all races) is becoming greater, making upward social mobility harder. The result is less social cohesion, and more societal tension expressed through civil unrest. I predict more of the same, but not only related to race issues. The incidents described by the OP are a spark inside a powder keg. They are a catalyst. That is why I think it is naive to consider such incidents without reference to the wider context.

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
            Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            ...what is the wider context / what is its cause?

            1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
              Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Apparently this your wider context:
              Want ads, websites, universities, corporations and alleged 20% longer jail terms.
              ...oooh this tide should have any African American shaking in their boots. Cuz those who are not black are so evil.
              Obviously.

              PS I heard that Bill Cosby would not allow any whites on the set of The Cosby Show.

              ("The Cosby Show is an American television sitcom starring Bill Cosby, which aired for eight seasons on NBC from September 20, 1984 until April 30, 1992. The show focuses on the Huxtable family, an upper middle-class African-American family living in Brooklyn, New York.")

              He most likely had a very good reason for that.
              Right?

              1. Don W profile image83
                Don Wposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                That comment underscores the ignorance with which some people view race as a social issue. That ignorance results in people not accepting that racism is woven into the fabric of society (a legal system that is racially biased is an example of exactly that). And it's not "alleged" that black males get up to 20% longer sentences than whites for the same crime. They do. Sentencing data is freely available. And no it's not something that should be dismissed as you do. It's an absolute travesty. Same for the other instances cited.

                A defensive reaction where you accuse people of believing "those who are not black are . . . evil" just because they suggest racism is a significant social problem will not help. It is a significant social problem. Pretending it isn't won't change that. In will only make it worse. The more we fail to address these types of injustices, the more those affected will turn to less civil means to make themselves heard.

                Bill Cosby? You want to compare the impact of a racially biased Federal legal system, with the actions of comedian? Really? Why do you think Bill Cosby is relevant to this in any way?

                1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
                  Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Because his show had tremendous positive impact on the black community and the image of blacks in general. Because he saw fit to exclude whites to be successful... what ever it takes!  He had to work with whites of course, but on his terms…. what is wrong with that?  Blacks can take positive actions. They don't have to be in their own jails of negativity.
                  They have the keys to get out
                  within THEMSELVES.
                  please refer to
                  http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/123926

                  1. Don W profile image83
                    Don Wposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Black males are not in "their own jails of negativity". They are in real jails, for 20% longer than whites for the same crimes, because of institutional racism. You can point to as many Bill Cosby's as you want, but it doesn't change that. 

                    You are demonstrating the disconnect between what white people think about race and what black people think about it. A national Pew poll shows that 37% of white people believe the recent incident in Ferguson raises important race issues, compared to 80% of black people who do. Are those 80% of black people deluded? Are they somehow seeing things less clearly than the white people surveyed? Or is it more likely that the difference in perception is because there is a difference in experience for black and white people in society?

                    The fact that individuals who happen to be black have succeeded despite systemic racism, cannot be taken to illustrate that black people "have the keys to get out within themselves". We are talking about wholesale, state-sanctioned oppression of an entire group of people that started hundreds of years ago, and continues in different forms even now. Whether you are able to perceive that is irrelevant to the people who experience it daily. But if the majority refuse even to acknowledge the extent of injustices inflicted by them on the minority, then the frustration and tension of not being heard will inevitably lead to more civil unrest.

    7. Pragmatic Politic profile image80
      Pragmatic Politicposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      There is no evidence of that.

      These incidents seem to be heavily publicized when it's a black person that is shot.  How many of the incidents where police have been shot have you heard about this year? 

      27 officers have been shot and killed this year.  Another 7 have died by vehicular assault.  A total of 67 officers have die in the line of duty this year so far.  Other than the 2 officers ambushed in Vegas, how many of them have you even heard mention of?

      There are an average of 58,000 assaults on officers every year.

      San Jose caught my eye because they had a shooting during recent events.  Most people probably don't even know... it was a white woman that was shot.  The argument could be made that the public cares less about white women than they do about black men based on the level of interest and reaction of the public.  We know it's not true, we know looking at the full statistics wouldn't bear that presumption out.

      The problem is we don't look at these incidents objectively.  We don't wait for facts.  We make assumptions -- a white cop, a black man, the cop went overboard and murdered that poor innocent man.  In some instances that may be the case.  It may even be the case in this instance.  But rather than falling apart like rotten fruit and making unsubstantiated accusations towards either side why don't we wait and look at the facts of what happened.

      1. peoplepower73 profile image87
        peoplepower73posted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Let's just keep this simple.  When a white police officers shoots an unarmed black person, there is a possibility of racism as the issue.  When a white police officers shoots a white unarmed person, the chances of it being for racism are practically none.  So why do you people insists on showing some kind of false equivalence between the shooting of an unarmed black person and the shooting of unarmed white person by a white police officers.  I don't get the logic, because what you are saying is that police officers treat whites as badly as blacks.  Therefore, police officers are bad because they treat everybody the same. Are you subconsciously trying to defuse the issue by false equivalence?

        1. 0
          SassySue1963posted 2 years ago in reply to this

          So what about when a black officer shoots an unarmed white man? Are you saying there is no possibility of racism being involved?

          The point is that every time a white officer shoots an unarmed black man - that doesn't make it racism. That fact is supported by the fact that unarmed white men are shot as well.

          It doesn't mean racism is never involved, only that it isn't 100% racism like everyone treats it. Only that there is zero evidence of any racial creep when white people are getting shot too.

          Doesn't get any simpler than that.

          1. Cgenaea profile image60
            Cgenaeaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            The few instances of white people shot is far overshadowed. The few instances mentioned, actually have the victim in a frenzied or threatening state beforehand. There was even one instance of a young white man who reached instead of sprawled.
            In the latest case, there was no gun powder, no reach... distance and hands up.

            1. Pragmatic Politic profile image80
              Pragmatic Politicposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              "The few instances of white people shot is far overshadowed."

              I think you should review your statistics or at least provide your source so we can all know what page you're on. 

              "The few instances mentioned, actually have the victim in a frenzied or threatening state beforehand."

              And it has yet to be proven that this "victim" was not in a threatening state.  Christine Byers, the Crime reporter for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, is saying she has talked to dozens of people in Ferguson that are backing up the officers statement that he was charged by Brown.  Just because they haven't made their statements public for your approval doesn't mean they don't exist.  It's also starting to leak out that the officer may have had facial fractures from the assault at the vehicle that witnesses saw but the private autopsy the family had done indicated no insult, damage or bruising on Brown from.

              "In the latest case, there was no gun powder, no reach... distance and hands up"

              Distance?  Distance is estimate at 35 feet.  A person can cover 25 feet, give or take a foot, in 1 second.  We're looking at less than 2 seconds of separation between an officer and a man who possibly had just attacked him moments before in an attempt to take his gun.  Tell you what, let me put a knife in my hand, stand off at 35 feet and see if you consider me a threat.  Fake knife of course, but the point will be made.  People think 35 feet is a long way... go out in your backyard and set it up with a friend -- then come back and talk about "distance".

              Hands up?  Hands up can mean a lot of things.  A person rushing another will raise their hands too -- it helps a person gain momentum and they will reach upward and forward towards their target.  Again, not a lot of proof here. 

              Again, I will simply say WE DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED.  What are people like you going to do if conclusive evidence comes out that this was a justified shooting?  Change your story?  Slink away and ignore all the other issues that led to this because they're not "sexy" and "exciting" as a db? 

              People like you sicken me.  You're there like vultures over people's bodies, but real solutions, real problem solving, real introspection?  No one ever sees you around that table.

              and I hate to be crude, close up and gun powder don't justify a shooting.  A bad officer can make a bad decision as well as a good decision 2 inches away or 20 feet away.  Using that as stand alone evidence is ludicrous and ignorant.

              And let me be clear, I am not saying the above scenarios are facts.  I am not defending the actions of the cop nor attacking the actions of Brown.  I am simply pointing out there are currently a number of possible scenarios that vindicate the officer.  POSSIBLE. 

              You wouldn't want us to convict Mike Brown without evidence, that means you should not want us to convict this officer without evidence either.  Right now, there is not enough evidence to understand what happened.  Period.

              1. Cgenaea profile image60
                Cgenaeaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                People like you don't sicken me... guess it's just the way I was raised... wink
                Actually, I think it rather funny. To say that you don't defend or offend anyone (with the lack of decision you have concluded) is ludicrous to me...but I'm just genaea...
                The fact is that the dude was not armed andhad no bruises?????? But was able to bust the ccop's face?????? With NO defensive wounds........ think about that for a sec...

                1. Pragmatic Politic profile image80
                  Pragmatic Politicposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  "People like you don't sicken me... guess it's just the way I was raised... wink"

                  Really?  People like me?  What am I like?  An unwillingness to jump on someone's back and accuse them of heinous crimes... either one of these men... because we don't have all the facts?  I guess that just makes me a horrible and inhumane person.  How dare I breathe the air of those better than me and ready to judge.

                  "Actually, I think it rather funny. To say that you don't defend or offend anyone (with the lack of decision you have concluded) is ludicrous to me..."

                  Oh, I'll defend people, and I certainly have no problem if my opinion offends them.  They should get a thicker skin if demanding facts before judging people is ludicrous to them.  That's just a moronic reason to be offended.  I say I'm not making a judgment because the information to make one is not there.

                  The fact is that the dude was not armed andhad no bruises?????? But was able to bust the ccop's face?????? With NO defensive wounds........ think about that for a sec...

                  So, are you saying that the cop broke his own face?  He had no bruises on his neck, where his friend said he was grabbed by the cop and pulled.  Read all the words, not just the ones you want to here.  Interestingly enough, the family did not indicate if there was any bruising on Mike Brown's hands found during the autopsy.  That is a good point and a good question to ask.  Was there bruising on his hand to indicate he MAY have punched the cop?  WE DON'T KNOW... so quick, let's make a judgment in complete ignorance! 

                  *smh*  It's people like that, that want to convict someone in the court of public opinion without the facts, that continue to contribute to the problem rather than resolve it.

                  1. Cgenaea profile image60
                    Cgenaeaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    The fact is, someone is dead... it aint the dude who was beat up in his car...
                    It's the dude who was shot from a distance (NO gun powder) once in the TOP of his head... I do math fine...

                  2. GA Anderson profile image87
                    GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    What does "smh" mean?

                    GA

            2. 0
              SassySue1963posted 2 years ago in reply to this

              This just in:

              "Multiple witnesses in riot-torn Ferguson, Mo., said that the unarmed black teen killed by a white cop attacked the officer in his patrol car before the teen was shot, according to a new report.

              source:  http://nypost.com/2014/08/19/witnesses- … -shooting/

              So, since everyone just "assumed" that the friend's story was the true one - for the sake of argument for a moment - let's assume this is the correct version.

              You'll note that at one point both men attempted to go for the officer's gun in this version of events.

              You'll also note from the source, that this version has Brown and his friend attacking the officer more than once. "bum-rushing" him I think is the term used. Sounds like a "threatening and frenzied" state to me.

              If this is the true accounting - now we have a mob mentality saying we'll burn this city down if this cop isn't charged. Is that justice to you?

              1. Pragmatic Politic profile image80
                Pragmatic Politicposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                The crime reporter from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch started reporting this over 20 hours ago.  Apparently she doesn't have enough juice to get her peers to notice.

                1. 0
                  SassySue1963posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  No, you see, the truth in this story doesn't get MSNBC and CNN their ratings and doesn't create any racial divide for the left to build their election platform on. Must try to keep that under wraps!

                  1. Pragmatic Politic profile image80
                    Pragmatic Politicposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    CNN is actually finally attempting to be fair and cover facts and ask some hard questions now but hardly knocking out factual, hard-hitting coverage, sadly. MSNBC is completely ignoring there is another side of the story... much like Fox is ignoring the Brown side of the story. 

                    It's really no wonder, given the penchant of the media to pick and choose and tell the story they want that we're at  eachother's throats in this country.  Almost literally even, at this point.

                    There are very real problems to be resolved in Ferguson and communities like it across the country.  It's a pity that we'll focus on the gory moment and let them sink back into the morass when we get bored and move on.

              2. Cgenaea profile image60
                Cgenaeaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                If this is the true accounting...
                Let's look...
                6-7 days ago, no one could find these witnesses... BUT, now that they are found; the boys attacked the officer, and ran away??? With no retaliation marks... then, they are confronted again by the officer they attacked??? Well I don't know about you...but if I was bum-rushed...I'd wait for back-up...or get my.... Oh!!! Premeditated retaliation killing???

                1. 0
                  SassySue1963posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Are you even reading at this point or has the media turned your brain into mush? Nowhere does it say they ran away and then were confronted again.

                  It clearly states he saw them walking in the middle of the road, slowed down and yelled through his window for them to move to the sidewalk  then reversed his car because he saw them carrying the cigars that had been reported stolen in a strong-arm robbery.

                  Where is it that they "ran away and then were confronted again"?

                  It goes on to say they prevented him from exiting his vehicle, slammed him back into his vehicle, both reached for the gun at some point and it went off - then then moved away, then turned around - with Michael Brown then bum rushing him.

                  Where is it that they ran away?

                  They did have the witnesses earlier. It wasn't convenient for the media to give you that information, as you've already been told in another post.

                  As for defensive wounds - was the friend examined? No he was not.

                  So you think the officer just broke his own orbital bone I suppose. Just for appearances sake.

                  Face it - this is beginning to look like the friend making up a good story, the media jumping the gun and creating an explosive situation where one should not exist. IF this is backed up and turns out to be the correct story - the friend who made up the story should be charged with inciting to riot and have to pay restitution for all damages, including all charges for having the National Guard come in.

                  1. Cgenaea profile image60
                    Cgenaeaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    This is now bordering on the line of amusement and amazement. smile The fight is not with me... we must rationally weigh what we see. And your explanation...
                    They shoved him back into his car; broke his circling bones; and THEN the gun went off...in the car??? Where they were reaching for his gun??? Through th
                    Uh...then they backed up 36 feet so that he could exit the car... so they could REALLY get him???

              3. peoplepower73 profile image87
                peoplepower73posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Dead people don't talk!  So you'll never know Michael Brown's story or Trayvon Martin's story, or the kid with the knife killed just three miles from Ferguson.  Such a convenient truth, the Stand Your Ground Law makes.  Yes, I know it wasn't used in Missouri.  But's it's all part of the same game.  It's not good enough to just maim them.  They have to be killed dead, so they don't talk. What a sad state of affairs!

                1. 0
                  SassySue1963posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Interesting you mention the kid with the knife:

                  http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairp … uspect.php

                  That dead man can't talk either. Where is the outrage?

                  Here is an interesting article for you - so you can perhaps understand how the media is leading you around by the nose:

                  An excerpt:

                  "Four black teenagers lured a white, ten-year-old girl into an empty house. “There, they sodomized her, strangled her with a cable wire, and beat her to death with a board. In the past few weeks, the trials in the Tiffany Long case have received extensive coverage in the North Carolina press. But with two of the three defendants already sentenced to lifelong prison terms, and the third now standing trial, the national media have all but ignored the story. Only the Associated Press has reported on the trials, in a single, cursory piece. The AP, of course, failed to mention the race of the people involved — an oversight it seldom if ever committed in the case of Amadou Diallo.”

                  http://violenceagainstwhites.wordpress. … ear-about/

                  just to be clear - I'm talking about the outrage from you. Same situation as the kid with the knife killed in Missouri. Bet you didn't even know about the one in Texas did you?

                  1. Cgenaea profile image60
                    Cgenaeaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    If you ask me, rape has a different motivation. Probably NEVER racial. Cept in A Time to Kill... Carl Lee was on trial. Matt was marvelous!

        2. Pragmatic Politic profile image80
          Pragmatic Politicposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          "you people?"  Speaking of false equivalencies.

          Yes, there is a POSSIBILITY of racism.  I've yet to see anyone show this particular cop has shown significant racial behavior during his 6 years as an officer.  A lot of claims and accusations, but not much beyond that at this point.

          "An unarmed black person"  -- who at this point may or may not have been attempting to arm himself with the officers gun.  We don't know right now.  If what is coming out right now about the officer having an orbital floor fracture, someone hit him in the face pretty damned hard. IF true,  It sets a bit of a tone other than the "poor black unarmed kids just hanging out in the street."  Again, how many cops are shot by their own weapons... ?  Think it  never happens?  Think again.

          Why is it a false equivalency?  What if the officer that shot the white woman was of another race?  (He was).  You assumed that it was a white officer/white decedent.  Simply not the case.  Can we say it was racist now?  That was kind of my point, these kinds of assumptions are ignorant and dangerous and more often than not wrong.  Not always wrong, unfortunately, but more often than not.  We can twist these assumptions into all kinds of things to fit our world view and argument and we spend far to much time doing it rather than parsing out facts and making sure we get as much of the true story as possible.

          It's a pity you've fallen into the vortex and stopped thinking for yourself, spewing buzzwords, ignoring facts and pretending you actually have more of a clue about what actually happened on that street several days back than you really do.

        3. Pragmatic Politic profile image80
          Pragmatic Politicposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          And let me also say, you stated in your OP you knew this would be a controversial question.  If you can't respectfully handle differing opinions, don't ask the question.

    8. bBerean profile image60
      bBereanposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Racism is exhibited by all who assume race was even relevant when no facts are known to support jumping to that conclusion.  Look at all the drama and theatrics as agitators from out of the town in question storm stores to loot and exploit this as an opportunity to get away with being criminals, and the media fuel a frenzy by celebrating the bad behavior.

      Any racial history with the officer?  No.  Any proof of any comments indicating race was a factor?  No.  Wait for the facts to come out and the case to be tried, if you are fair minded at all.  Evidence is slowly coming to light that paints a very, very different picture than the one so many have imagined and decided is true.  Anything but what they want to believe will be met with their protests, anger, hatred and violence. 

      Those making the unfounded presumptions are indeed exhibiting racism, and the media should be ashamed of their role promoting it.

      1. cjhunsinger profile image70
        cjhunsingerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        ---Artfully spoken.

      2. cjhunsinger profile image70
        cjhunsingerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        ---Artfully spoken.

      3. Cgenaea profile image60
        Cgenaeaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Hi. smile
        Would you please provide a snippet of the current, new developments that paint a new picture??? What I have heard so far, gives me chills... warm me... I need it...please.

        1. bBerean profile image60
          bBereanposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Hello Cgenaea.  What I am saying is there is a lot of evidence still to come out.  We have heard wildly conflicting accounts, many of which fly in the face of evidence.  Obviously this needs to be sorted out, and progress is only hampered by the premature hype. 

          What is the source of your chills?  That you see this as a racial issue?  Why?  I ask in honesty as perhaps I have missed something.  I am late coming to this thread, so I responded to the OP, which I felt was baiting to imply racism in one direction when the only racism I have seen evidence of so far is in the other.  I have not read the nearly 400 posts.  Please provide the fact or facts that lead you to conclude race has anything to do with this case. 

          Unless all those prejudging this matter, (and that is what we are seeing), have evidence to clearly show racism was involved in this shooting, then they, by making unfounded allegations, are the racists.  Claiming the shooting was racially motivated without proof, is quintessential racism and prejudice against the officer involved, regardless of whether the shooting turns out to be justified or not.

          1. Cgenaea profile image60
            Cgenaeaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            We Americans love to make projections. It is the American way. We've built an entire financial system based upon projections. smile
            If you look, you will clearly see that I am not the only "racist" for many here believed outright, the claims about Michael. Plastered them up on the doorpost like bible scriptures during the plagues. smile
            My chills come from the fact that the black boy, who was allegedly blocking traffic after he had just robbed a store??? is dead after being confronted by a cop. First about traffic blocking??? Then about cigars. He and his friend beat up the cop, pushed him into his car, broke his face, and THEN tried to take his gun. But they are then confronted by the same officer again, now 30 or so feet away. The officer is armed but the boy jumps at him from that (so hard to believe) diatance and the cop was so scared that he got 6 shots off into the one boy with the last one still far enough away to pierce the top of his skull. Then no arrest of the friend who was supposedly in on attacking the cop; and luckily missed being shot even once. Two "attackers" one dead. The other free... to change his story...
            Sounds typical enough to ME...

            1. peoplepower73 profile image87
              peoplepower73posted 2 years ago in reply to this

              The funny thing is, I posted "How the grand jury is going to work in Michael Brown's case" without any "projections, racists implications, or any prejudice."  It is a straight copy of the article. The reason I did that is I just wanted to inform everyone as to how it is going to work.ii  It will be interesting to see how it unfolds. Some of you make it sound like I made up the secret part.  Nothing could be further from the truth. That's how Grand Juries roll.  It is interesting how some of you are so much in denial about racism that even when I post a totally un-biased article, you become defense and scream racism.

              1. 0
                SassySue1963posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Your post wasn't biased but the article certainly was from a biased perspective.

                1. That is how ALL Grand Juries roll. Not just in this case.
                2. The article stated the racial make-up including 9 white jurors - not so. It is 9 non-white jurors.
                3. Witnesses afraid to testify. In your opinion, given the feelings in the neighborhood, given death threats to the officer, given he has been moved to a secret location outside Ferguson "for his protection" which witnesses do you think are afraid to testify?
                4. Grand juries are set up only to see if an indictment is warranted. They are not trials. There are not objections to evidence. They are NOT in the defendant's favor.
                5. It is not an uncommon practice for incidents involving police to go to a Grand Jury. In fact, it is the case more often than not to in fact, insure objective findings. The article you post makes it seem this is some off the wall attempt to make it "secret". Not true.

                See how the media works there peoplepower? See how they take facts and twist them? It is why you should read more than one source for information.

                1. peoplepower73 profile image87
                  peoplepower73posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Sassy:  See how you twist the facts.  You are wrong about the makeup of the jurors.  See below.



                  HOME>U.S.
                  Questions, Answers About Missouri Grand Juries
                  Aug 22, 2014, 7:14 PM ET
                  By ED WHITE Associated Press
                  Associated Press
                  A grand jury is considering evidence to determine whether Officer Darren Wilson should be charged in the fatal shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, on Aug. 9.

                  St. Louis County prosecutor Bob McCulloch says it will be several weeks before a decision is made. Here is a look at how grand juries work in Missouri:

                  ———

                  Q: How many people are on the grand jury and how are they selected?

                  A: A grand jury is made up of 12 people who "shall be selected at random from a fair cross-section of the citizens" of St. Louis County, according to Missouri law. The grand jury in the Brown case is 75 percent white: six white men, three white women, two black women and one black man. The county overall is 70 percent white, but around two-thirds of Ferguson's residents are black.

                  Brown was black while the officer is white.

                  Unlike a trial, where lawyers can object to having certain people on a jury, there is no role for objections inside a grand jury, said Susan McGraugh, a professor at St. Louis University law school.

                  Q: What happens in a Missouri grand jury?

                  A: Prosecutors present evidence and summon witnesses to testify. A grand jury is a powerful tool for investigating crimes because witnesses must testify unless they invoke the 5th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which protects against self-incrimination.

                  The use of grand juries varies greatly by state; it's the only way to return an indictment in federal court.

                  Q: Who is inside the room?

                  A: The jury, a prosecutor and a witness. No one else is present unless a witness claims a constitutional right against testifying and needs a lawyer, McGraugh said.

                  "The proceeding is closed to everyone," she said.

                  Q: Do charges require a unanimous vote?

                  A: No. Consent from nine jurors is enough to file a charge in Missouri. The jury also could choose to file lesser charges or no charges. Prosecutors also can file charges on their own, without using a grand jury.

                  The jury is "not bound by the recommendation of the prosecuting attorney," McGraugh said.

                  The Brown family's attorney, Benjamin Crump, said the panel "works perfectly" as long as the prosecutor presents the necessary evidence and doesn't withhold any.

                  Q: Can jurors speak to the public?

                  A: No. Disclosing evidence, a name of a witness or an indictment can lead to a misdemeanor charge.

                  Q: Do jurors take an oath?

                  A: Yes. It's lengthy and very formal.

                  The oath, in part, says: "Do you solemnly swear you will diligently inquire and true presentment make, according to your charge, of all offenses against the laws of the state committed or triable in this county of which you have or can obtain legal evidence?

                  1. Cgenaea profile image60
                    Cgenaeaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    I must say, I noticed that first err/twist. I got stuck on 9 non-white jurors in YOUR post.
                    I do not wonder from whom bias comes.

              2. Cgenaea profile image60
                Cgenaeaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                But o truly feel that no one screaming racist, would like to be called out as such. But when you live after having been targeted by supposed people protectors, your view is skewed...or a bit clearer... we will just see what the judge says. Lol...

            2. bBerean profile image60
              bBereanposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              ...and still nothing indicating race had anything to do with any of it, regardless of how it played out, (which is yet to be determined).  You mention him being a "black boy".  No reason to believe that is relevant to what transpired.  Perhaps evidence will come forward indicating it was relevant, but prior to that it is prejudice to assume it mattered.  Do you agree, and if not, why not?

              1. Cgenaea profile image60
                Cgenaeaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Flesh looks to experience.

              2. Cgenaea profile image60
                Cgenaeaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Flesh looks to experience. It may not be a racist thing. But that is unlikely. The cop was just harassing them for being in the street with no knowledge of the theft. I think the micromanagement points to an, "I hate you, you get on my nerves" mentality, to me. But again, experience is a key element.

    9. cjhunsinger profile image70
      cjhunsingerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      The following is reposted from St. Ann MO and referencing the St. Ann PD.
      The arrest information can be checked out, as it is public information.

      “That so-called ‘unarmed teen’ has a rap sheet a mile long already. How about the true account as it appears on Facebook? Let’s take a look at that whole ‘innocent’ situation. The news media reported that an unarmed teen was shot 8 times and killed by a Ferguson Police Officer. Did you know that the unarmed teen was 6 foot 3 inches and 300 lbs., or that according to witnesses in the complex (not other police officers, WITNESSES IN THE COMPLEX), the unarmed teen along with another suspect blocked the officer’s vehicle from responding to a call by standing in front of it? After words were exchanged, the ‘innocent‘ teen rushed the officer tackling him back into the driver’s seat of the police car. As the unarmed teen was on top of the officer beating him to where his face has several contusions and his eye is still swelled shut this morning, the officer went for his gun and fired. I think we all agree that the officer should have let the unarmed teen beat him to death rather than fire the shot because he was an ‘unarmed teen‘ that was looking forward to going to college next week. After the round goes off, the unarmed teen backs out of the car and starts to walk away. The officer who was just severely assaulted by being punched in the head repeatedly, points his gun at the teen, tells him he’s under arrest. The unarmed teen turns and, according to witnesses, again the WITNESSES IN THE COMPLEX, the teen starts yelling at the officer daring him to shoot. He AGAIN rushes the officer at which point the officer, who was just beaten, fires at the unarmed innocent teen.”

      Below, the rap sheet they were referencing:

      Michael Brown’s rap sheet on CASENET
      Description: Burglary 1st Degree { Felony B RSMo: 569.160 }
      Date: 11/02/2013 Code: 1401000
      OCN: AJ006207 Arresting Agency: ST ANN PD

      Description: Armed Criminal Action { Felony Unclassified RSMo: 571.015 }
      Date: 11/02/2013 Code: 3101000
      OCN: AJ006207 Arresting Agency: ST ANN PD

      Description: Assault 1st Degree Serious Physical Injury { Felony A RSMo: 565.050 }
      Date: 11/02/2013 Code: 1301100
      OCN: AJ006207 Arresting Agency: ST ANN PD

      Description: Armed Criminal Action { Felony Unclassified RSMo: 571.015 }
      Date: 11/02/2013 Code: 3101000
      OCN: AJ006207 Arresting Agency: ST ANN PD

      This is why they were looting and burning down businesses?. And,the oversized 'teenager' was a gang-banger. Has been pictured doing the V-L sign ‘VL’ represents that he’s a member of the ‘Vice Lords’ tribe,  or gang. THIS is what the negroes are protesting, rioting, looting and burning over!  A cheap street tramp. A thug, a criminal, a 100% first class POS!"

      1. Cgenaea profile image60
        Cgenaeaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Sounds unbiased and gospelly enough to me!!!
        By the way, did the officer drive around with the rap sheet of this waste of space in his car, by any chance? Did he know the perp? With all that crime, he must've had a past run in or two with this big bad wolf???
        May we NOW give our opinion on whether or not we think race was an issue??? ...bustin at the seems. smile

        1. peoplepower73 profile image87
          peoplepower73posted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Here is another example of police brutality towards blacks.  I didn't even watch the video completely.  What I did see turned my stomach. I know most of you are going to say, this didn't happen yesterday.  It was only two incidents and things are much better now.

          I have a question for you.  Who watches the watchers?  Who watches corrupt police departments and city government?  The only time you know they have done something wrong, is when it becomes public!

          http://politicalblindspot.com/police-br … -on-video/

          1. Cgenaea profile image60
            Cgenaeaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            There is so much we can say. But why? smile
            Everyone should just walk around with their finger on record. A picture is worth a thousand words. And they say, EXPERIENCE is the best teacher.
            It's hard to teach white people about police brutality. But I sort of leaned in an ignorant position before my own experienceS.
            Have you ever been harassed by police?

    10. cjhunsinger profile image70
      cjhunsingerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Black cop shoots unarmed young white youth

      Ferguson-like attack in Utah escapes media notice; race bias seen

      Critics say there’s a reason for the discrepancy in media coverage: race. Mr. Brown was black and the officer who shot him was white. Mr. Taylor wasn’t black — he’s been described as white and Hispanic — and the officer who shot him Aug. 11 outside a 7-Eleven in South Salt Lake wasn’t white.

      Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 … z3BWxwQANG
      Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

      1. Don W profile image83
        Don Wposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Does the police officer belong to a social group that systematically (and legally) oppressed people belonging to the same race as the deceased for centuries, up until the 60s?

        Does the police officer belong to the majority social group in a society that enacts systemic racial bias against the minority group the deceased belonged to?

        Are 70 percent of the population in the area the same as the deceased, but 94% of the people who police that area the same as the police officer?

        Are there serving officers in the local police department of the same race as the police officer in question, who have expressed opinions about race that puts into question their ability to act objectively when dealing with certain people/ groups?

        Are other examples coming to light of police officers from the same department using excessive force, which suggest a culture within the department where such use of force is deemed acceptable? 

        The answers to these questions may shed some light as to why it is not considered an equivalent situation.

        1. cjhunsinger profile image70
          cjhunsingerposted 2 years ago in reply to this
          1. cjhunsinger profile image70
            cjhunsingerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            I thought that you may need more room to say nothing, which is why the dpuble entry.

            1. Don W profile image83
              Don Wposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Racism is not nothing.
              It's very much a thing unfortunately.

              It's a thing that causes black children to be excluded from school more often than white children for the same type of behaviour.

              It's a thing that causes black men to be given 20% longer prison sentences than white men for the same crimes.

              It's a thing that causes people who send CVs with African-American-sounding names to receive 50% less callbacks than people who send CVs with white-sounding names and have the same knowledge, skills and experience.

              It's a thing that causes 92% of searches and 80% of car stops in Ferguson to involve black Americans, even though 22% of black residents were found to be carrying contraband, compared to 34% of white residents.

              The fact you think all this is nothing, makes you part of the problem, not the solution.

              1. Don W profile image83
                Don Wposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                I thought you may need some more time to absorb some actual facts about racism, hence the double entry.

                1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
                  Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Do you have a clear problem / solution laid out for us?

                2. cjhunsinger profile image70
                  cjhunsingerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  You might try to be original and not plagiarizer by quips. That said, your words border on hysteria. You offer no foundation, no facts. It is as Chicken Little running wildly through the streets of the village screaming, 'The sky is falling! The sky is falling. The only racism I have seen on this thread, and the only racism evidenced in Ferguson is the racism of some people calling racism and accusing others. You sound like Sharpton and Jackson, money motivated race baiters and profiteers.
                  I never said the Ferguson shooting was nothing. Your ranting is nothing, offers nothing and results in nothing, but bias, hatred and division. If you have nothing of a factual nature to write about maybe you should not, as you only bring negatives to the conversation and there are to  many already.

                  1. Don W profile image83
                    Don Wposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Identifying and acknowledging a problem is a rational first step towards finding solutions. That's true with every type of problem. Racism is no exception. Covering your eyes and ears so you don't have to see or hear all the bad people talking about racism, is neither a rational response, nor a helpful one. Acknowledging and discussing the reality of racism does not foster bias, hatred and division. Ignoring the issue does. And if you think you are weary of hearing about the subject, imagine how weary black Americans must be having to live it.

                    Every example I mentioned is supported by existing data which is freely available. I'm not going to spoon feed you, the information is there. If you choose not to find it, that's your choice. No right minded person would want it to be true that a black person is automatically at a disadvantage compared to a white person, but suggesting that's the case is not an attack on white Americans. We have to get away from the idea that discussing a problem is all about blame. It isn't. It's about finding solutions.

                    Some people on this thread are talking about solutions. Talking about the problem is the only way to get to that point. The conversation is hard because the subject is personal for many. No one wants to feel like their experiences of racism are being dismissed. No one wants to feel they are being accused of racism, but talking and listening is the only way to get to the solutions.

                    You don't seem able (or willing) to listen to what black Americans (and academic institutions, and recorded data) are saying about racism. That's a shame, but fortunately there are others who are more solutions focused than you seem to be. You could be the same. To start, I suggest you try listening. I guarantee the quality of the things you say will improve dramatically as a result.

      2. peoplepower73 profile image87
        peoplepower73posted 2 years ago in reply to this

        You people who continue to compare white on black shootings to black on white shootings and then ask where is the media coverage, you just don't get it.  First it takes a community that is outraged to get the media in the first place.  The blacks communities that have this outrage come from a different culture then the white culture.  From the very beginning, black people didn't have a choice to be in this country.  They didn't come over on the Mayflower.  They came here on slave ships packed like sardines.  They didn't volunteer to be made slaves.  When they were freed, they were told all men are created equal, but they were not equal in many white men's eyes.  They had to go through the whole civil rights  movement and use non-violent sit-in, be turned back by fire hoses, be beaten, jailed, hung, bitten by dogs, and on and on.  It wasn't until after civil rights was passed that they begun to see some semblance of equality.

        The black culture is different than the white culture.  You can see it in the news clips. Although, they have been assimilated into the white culture for the most part  They talk different, dress different, have different values and beliefs.  Just look at Brown's funeral and you can see the difference.  That is not to say that any of it is bad.  It's just another culture.  But in terms of inequality, when there is a black person shot by a white person, there is a wellspring of centuries of inequality that spews forth from their DNA and it is in the form of revenge and  justice. This form of inequality and the need for justice has been passed down from generation to generation.

        That's why when a white person is shot by a black police officer, you do not see the outrage in the community, because the people in the white community do not have the same legacy as the black community and therefore it is not media worthy. Media is about money.  The longer they can get you to watch, the more commercials they can put in your face.

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
          Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          I thought they the (media) were encouraged to promote racism to divide the country and weaken a powerful nation of free people. We need to be on the same page. Lets get on it and off the stick and...

          "attention teachers and students…"

          1. gmwilliams profile image85
            gmwilliamsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            +1.000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000!

          2. peoplepower73 profile image87
            peoplepower73posted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Who in the media?  Rupert Murdoch owns Fox News and many other media channels including Clear Channel Communications, which has a monopoly on radio stations.

            1. Cgenaea profile image60
              Cgenaeaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              She got one hexapentotriahgliothousand for this one... maybe it is more understood if we read it backwards. I'll try first.

        2. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
          Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          "... I asked SassySue and Kathryn: ... 'Do you think all the black people *around the country* who say they experience racism are lying? Do you believe that the 80% of black people in Ferguson who think recent events raise important race issues are all deluded? And on what grounds do you feel it is acceptable for the majority (white people) to dismiss what a minority (black people) are saying about race issues in society?' "

            First of all, we are talking particulars. There has been a failure to integrate in Ferguson in particular. Why? This failure needs to be analyzed and understood.

          As, I keep saying, race relations where I live, IN PARTICULAR, have improved drastically. I live in a traditionally Caucasian town. People of African decent who are moving here can afford it. They are like any other person who lives here. So, I ask, apparently in great ignorance: WHAT IS THE PROBLEM?

          Better Question: How many other towns/cities are experiencing brotherly cooperation on a minute to minute, hour by hour, day to day basis while completely ignoring any issues regarding *origin of genetic line*…in today's world?

          1. 0
            SassySue1963posted 2 years ago in reply to this

            It isn't 80% of the black people in Ferguson. That figure comes from a poll of only 1000 people, half of them white. Skewed statistics to start.

            As for the country (again, remember it is a tiny fragment that is polled to begin with) is it racism or perceived racism? There are laws against real racism in employment, housing etc. Federal laws.

            ...or, is it a case of they felt someone looked at them funny in a certain neighborhood? Yes, could be racism, could be just the perception of racism.

            Let's just take yourself as an example. You had a bad experience with some racists cops - and anyone can tell from your comments, and you've admitted as much, that you've arrived at a preconceived conclusion about this particular police officer without any access to evidence or facts. Just what the media spews forth. That isn't real racism - that is perceived racism. Based on previous events within your own life that have skewed your perspective of other events.

            Everyone has things that skew their perspective. Which is why it is important to examine facts and refrain from jumping to conclusions when one doesn't have access to all the evidence. Which is why the media coverage merely creates the perception of racism, creates a divide, even if one didn't exist, widens any existing divide and fans the flames of violent reaction. They don't have all the facts either and yet, they jumped on board with both feet minutes (yes it was minutes) after the initial shooting shouting racism.

            PS. Sorry Kathryn - meant to reply to Cgenea.

            1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
              Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Brilliantly added onto my response. Thanks SassySue.
              LOL! I was honored.

            2. Cgenaea profile image60
              Cgenaeaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              You have formed your opinion.  It is plainly stated every other word...
              You hide behind the let's wait and see stuff, but you clearly know, who you are in favor of. Also, without ALL the facts.
              I don't bother you about that. I believe you think you look neutral because your favor is colored with a colorless shade. But that is not my fight...
              I have the facts I need. It is not as serious as we are making it.
              If Mr. Wilson is found guilty, I bet that one of is going to be disappointed... and it will not be me... 
              I'm going to be disappointed if he walks, (from the eentsey-weensey bit I have heard). And no matter WHO squawks about it, I have my own squawk. It squawks from the inside...lil louder.

              1. 0
                SassySue1963posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                I can't be disappointed. I have no idea what happened that night. Neither do you. You only have your opinion which you have convinced yourself is right and proper based on what exactly? The witnesses you choose to believe over the other witnesses who somehow (though you don't know any of them) are not credible in your eyes. (btw, they aren't all white either).

                You can't lay a claim to stand against injustice and then perpetrate it and practice it. I offered the other side of the story and defended it because peoplepower turned this thread into a lynch mob with nothing more than his own opinions and 60's flashbacks. In other words, practicing the very injustice he claims he's standing against.

                Peoplepower twists meanings and takes things out of context as a matter of practice in these forums. I've come across him before. He walks that D Party line like a champ and never deviates from it even if the proof is right before his eyes. He doesn't understand that he is every bit as bad as the radicals on the other side of the fence and is that which he proclaims to despise.

                You, on the other hand, seem like a pretty reasonable person. I'd say we can agree to disagree but I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just saying we don't know enough to make snap judgements from our keyboards.

                1. Cgenaea profile image60
                  Cgenaeaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Cool! wink
                  I have given my opinion and I have based it upon what I have heard thus far. I do not believe each story. To me, common sense screams loudest. Nothing they present will swing me. The day after Darren returns to work, I will still feel the same way I do.

                2. peoplepower73 profile image87
                  peoplepower73posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Sassy:  Thank you for judging me. I could say the same thing about you.  Let me try:

                  Sassy: twists meanings and takes things out of context as a matter of practice in these forums. I've come across her before. She walks that R Party line like a champ and never deviates from it even if the proof is right before her eyes. Se doesn't understand that she is every bit as bad as the radicals on the other side of the fence and is that which she proclaims to despise.

                  As far as DNA, goes. It's a metaphor for the soul.  I didn't think you would take it literally, but in your zeal to prove me wrong on any count, you did take it literally.

                  Here is my introduction to this forum:

                  "Are we witnessing racial creep?

                  I know this is going to be controversial, but I'm deeply concerned about racism in this country. There seems to be many more shootings of unarmed black men by white police in the last few months.  This latest shooting in Ferguson Missouri has me wondering,  are these pent-up tensions caused by whites who never bought into the Civil Rights Act?"

                  Stating there are just as many white people being shot does not answer the question of bad cops with pent-up feelings about black people.Civil rights is about civil rights. Stating that the media does not cover white shootings as well as it covers black shootings does not answer the question. Stating that black people have the same opportunities as white people does not answer the question. 

                  Have I proved that there are cops that have not bought into the civil rights act? No, not statistically...because it is insidious and operates behind the scenes. I have to say that I'm disappointed, that more black people didn't participate in this forum.  When people all start thinking alike and agreeing to everything, it can be very dangerous. It's called group think and it means no one is thinking out of the box.  It is what allowed us to invade Iraq, but that's another story.

                  I don't believe that being understanding and trying to see what the problem is part of the problem.  I believe that comparing the black culture to white culture and saying I did it on my own and so can you is part of the problem.

                  You may think I'm radical, but I'm just calling them as I see them! What is wrong about being deeply concerned about racism in this country?  Should we all look the other way and say this is not the 60's and it doesn't exist?  Just because there are no living slaves does not mean that feelings are not passed down from one generation to the next.  It's called talking to your children. When unarmed black boys are killed, the parents in the community have to tell their boys how to behave around white police officers, so they won't upset the man.

                  Telling people in poverty stricken areas, you have the same opportunity that I do is not going to cut it for most people, but education will. It's hard enough for people to find work today that don't live  in poverty stricken areas.  However with the proper education and skill sets there are jobs available. I believe,that's how you bring people out of poverty. Is there anything I can do about it personally?..no.  I'm just voicing my opinion.  That does not make me part of the problem.

                  1. 0
                    SassySue1963posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    "I believe that comparing the black culture to white culture and saying I did it on my own and so can you is part of the problem. "

                    So wait - are you saying that no black person ever did it on their own? Only white people can do that?

                    Let me ask you - what has throwing more and more money at the problem accomplished? Poverty levels are at an all time high. Do you not understand that at a certain level you have now traded dependency for being self-sufficient? Programs to train for jobs and placement programs after training. All for it. Programs for obtaining your GED, study help, babysitting help while at school or work. All for it.  Here's your check, see you next month. Firmly against.

          2. Don W profile image83
            Don Wposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Good question. Why, for example, in a town where 67% of the population are black, is the Police Department 94% white? Are black Americans applying but not making the grade? Or (more likely I suspect) are there simply no black Americans applying to be police officers in Ferguson? If not, why do we think that is the case, and what can be done about it?



            No problem in not knowing something, but when black Americans all over the country from all walks of life, and academic studies from various institutions, are all saying there is systemic racism in the country, as well as racial  inequality, it's just not very helpful for people to say "that's not my experience, so it can't be true".



            Even better question, in my opinion, is how many other towns/cities are experiencing similar issues that Ferguson is experiencing to a greater or lesser extent?

            1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
              Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Uh… we elected a dark faced President!  Fancy that! all the pale-faces voted for a dark-face!

              1. Don W profile image83
                Don Wposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                It's not about blame Kathryn. It can't be about that. It has to be about solutions. But to arrive at solutions, we have to acknowledge the problems, and the causes of the problems. That may mean having to digest some unpalatable truths, but that's a necessary step.

                An alcoholic cannot start recovery properly until he accepts he has a problem with alcohol, a drug addict cannot start recovery properly until she accepts she has a problem with drugs. A society in which racism still exists cannot start to recover properly until it accepts it has a problem with race. Playing the blame game doesn't help anyone, and neither does denial of the issue. We need to be straight with ourselves and each other. Not blaming each other, but finding solutions. Together.

                1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
                  Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  I presented my solution... what do you think of it?
                    I wrote: "The point I am making is that everything about a child gets established in the first six years. Everything becomes indelible because the psyche is actually developing during this very absorbent period. Once it is formed it is very hard to change it.

                  Thats why we must start in preschool.

                  Montessori methods (we might have to give them a new label) must be understood and implemented during the first six years. We must allow colleges to teach these methods and give teaching certificates / degrees so that Montessori ideology can be implemented in the public school system! And Preschool, under Obama, is going public. Perfect opportunity.

                  Pale-faces, dark-faces and all shades in between need the same things. Let's move forward and embrace what we are: Human beings and all 100% amazing.

                  Dr. Montessori wrote:
                  "Mothers, fathers, politicians: all must combine in their respect and help for this delicate work of formation, which the little child carries on...
                         in the depth of a profound psychological mystery,
                                         under the tutelage of an
                                                 inner guide.

                  This is the bright new hope for mankind.” (The Absorbent Mind, p. 15)'

                  1. Don W profile image83
                    Don Wposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    I didn't see it. I'll have a read . . .

                  2. Don W profile image83
                    Don Wposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    I think you and peoplepower are right, education does play a big role, and educators definitely need to be part of the national discussion. But there also needs to be a concerted effort to level the playing field in other areas, especially in relation to the legal system, jobs and finances etc as mentioned by others.

        3. 60
          retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

          No it takes polls predicting poor black voter turn out in a mid-term election that may cost the Democrats the Senate to get the attention of the Palace Guard Media.

          As for no choice to be here,

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Liberia

          many did not remain.

          It is very unlikely that anyone is left alive who was brought here by force and no one - shall I repeat - NO ONE is forced to remain.

          1. peoplepower73 profile image87
            peoplepower73posted 2 years ago in reply to this

            So by your logic, they should have all shipped out to Liberia?  Therefore, we wouldn't have any black racial problems. And we could all live happily ever after!

            Yes, no one is forcing them to remain, so they should all buy tickets out of the country...what planet should they move to?. I hope not the same planet you are living on? Because your planet is not dealing in reality.

            1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
              Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Why be like that?

              The point is, the past is the past. We all have pasts. The Irish, Italians, Polish, ETC. dealt with prejudice. I deal with prejudice… Prejudice is part of human nature. We all have to get over ourselves.

              1. peoplepower73 profile image87
                peoplepower73posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                So what you are saying is that all black people should take a pill that makes them forget their slavery roots and how their ancestors were treated by the white man for centuries and even today?  Much like the Jews should not have a holocaust museum and just get along with things because it shouldn't be part of their culture.

                I don't know about your ancestral background, but I'm first generation Italian and I don't want to forget the good and the bad of my lineage. I'm guessing you could get on ancestory.com and trace your roots to where ever you came from.  Blacks can only trace their roots to the first slaves, if even that far.

                1. 0
                  SassySue1963posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  All black people didn't have slavery roots and it is never about forgetting. It is about using the past as an excuse. If you continue to read, you'll see a nice explanation of how it wasn't just whites either.

                  "even today" Really? Seriously? Based on what exactly? What the media has put into your brain? Are there racists today? Sure. There always will be. Are they prevalent? No they are not. Does media coverage make it seem like they are the norm? Yes it does. Do people like you spread that false impression? Yes you do.

                  Once again, it isn't 1960.

                  1. peoplepower73 profile image87
                    peoplepower73posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    That's right all black people didn't have slavery roots.  A lot of the women were raped by their black masters and brought about the change.  They were called Mulattoes. But if their skin was black instead  of white, they were still treated differently.

            2. 0
              SassySue1963posted 2 years ago in reply to this

              *sigh* Really? That isn't what he said at all.

              There is absolutely no one left alive who was brought here by force. No one. He was speaking of the here and now, you know, the 21st century. Despite the fact that you seem to be having some sort of flashbacks and believe it is 1960. Just like your story about the LAPD. Your cousin would be around your own age - meaning, it was in the way back, not the now.

              Your premise that it is in theDNA is absurd. It isn't in anyone's DNA.

              As for what went on prior to the Civil Rights' Act - it doesn't apply really. Anyone living through that experience is not 18. Or 25. Or 30. They are much older and even by the resident's own words about Ferguson, specifically, older resident's do not feel targeted by the police at all.

              So, could it be that it isn't a racial issue at all? But some other issue altogether? Poverty, hopelessness, leading to anger and frustration? Criminal activity? I've seen other races facing such situations having the same issues. Hispanics, whites, blacks, it doesn't matter. Which then becomes a discussion of personal responsibility.

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
                Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                I concur.

              2. Cgenaea profile image60
                Cgenaeaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                You know, you're right. Black people whine too much about slavery. I've said it myself. Its a new day. We need a new philosophy. Black people can now apply, and be called. They may walk the streets, and not be "reprimanded." They may hold a drivers' license because the state has dropped all those ridiculous charges, and kept the ability to drive, open to all. Etc..

        4. Laura Knipp profile image60
          Laura Knippposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          peoplepower, you stated "From the very beginning, black people didn't have a choice to be in this country.  They didn't come over on the Mayflower.  They came here on slave ships packed like sardines.  They didn't volunteer to be made slaves.  When they were freed, they were told all men are created equal, but they were not equal in many white men's eyes. "  But let's really break this down a bit--as there is no one alive still that was subjected to slavery in the US.  First, do you know who brought the Africans to the US in the first place? It sure as hell was not Americans. It was the Dutch.  They brought them over in trade vessels.  And the US is not the only place they were traded. They also were traded in South America--but they did not fair as well. In the Amazon region, they were killed and eaten, because they were thought to be hairless monkeys. I am not kidding or trying to be racist here, it is true.  This is why there are very few Africans in the Amazon region.  Now who exactly sold the Africans to the Dutch?  If you guess any white guy, you would be mistaken.  Africans sold Africans as slaves.  And they were black Africans that owned black Africans as slaves.  In the US, there were Black Africans that owned black Africans as slaves.  Point is, that it is not entirely the fault of the white guy that they were slaves.  Along this logical plane, we then must conclude that some of the people that are claiming to be decedents of slaves, were in fact at least also descendents of slave owners.  And the Africans that did not become slaves, did not fair well in Africa either. 

          The past is the past.  America is a cultural mixing pot and many people that came here from some way or another had (and still may have) hardships.  And it is not anyone's fault that they are in the place that they are (as no one is actually alive from that time period to blame).  The only true blame we can do is to blame who they vote for in elections, as the last 50 years has done nothing to help them. In fact, it has only gotten worse for them.  And now with this illegal immigrant movement going, it will get a whole lot worse before it gets better.  We need to stop the blame game and start the acceptance of our neighbors--regardless of what color they are. 

          And people like you peoplepower, are not helping the situation, you are giving them excuses to not feeling they belong.   You are adding kindling next to a fire and hoping the fire will spread.  I seriously do not understand why people like you want to reignite the flames every chance they get.  If you are not part of the solution, then you are part of the problem.

          1. peoplepower73 profile image87
            peoplepower73posted 2 years ago in reply to this

            So what you are saying is they have no right to protest when they feel they have been wronged and I have no right to feel empathy for them because empathy aggravates the problem.  As far as I know there are only two black people who have participated in this forum.  I'm expressing my views from what I feel the black people are feeling based on my analysis.  Now how many black people am I going to affect be this forum?  This forum is all about us trying to convince each other of what is really happening...and so far we are not doing a very good job of it, except for the few black people who are participating, because there is no way we can walk in their shoes!

            As far as voting goes, it isn't going to solve anything. Our congress has been bought out by big money. There is no representation by the people, it is only by big moneyed interest and the people in Ferguson don't fit in that mold.

            1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
              Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Many don't take advantage of being in a free country. Whoever needs help, there are people and institutions to help.

              Why don't we keep focused on police practices in general in this forum, (while keeping in mind innocence until proven guilty.)

              Race is not the real issue
              at all.
              Obviously.

            2. 0
              SassySue1963posted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Not trying to convince anyone of anything other than to stop jumping to conclusions, which you did in your very first post, and trying to fan flames of what might not even be the case in this specific instance.

              You choose who to believe and who not to believe about an event you did not witness and have not spoken to any witnesses. Your view is based solely on what the media is feeding you.

              I choose not to let the media tell me what I should believe and be upset about and let the wheels of justice roll. Because I wasn't there. Because I don't have all the evidence. Because it is obvious there is conflicting information coming out. I don't know any of these people, I can't judge who is telling the truth and who isn't. But somehow you think you are qualified to do that far removed from the situation.

            3. Laura Knipp profile image60
              Laura Knippposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              They have as much right to protest as anyone, but protest and looting is two different things.  We ALL have issues, we ALL have problems. I am Native American, and as a Native American, we have huge problems of our own.  My people have been slaves, my people have been forced to speak a language that was not ours, my people have had alcohol and drug issues, my people have been forced to live our lives in ways that our forefathers never had to, my people know first hand what genocide was like.  But my people are adapting and overcoming many of these things. Granted, presently in the US my people represent a small percentage. We do not have the voices that the African-American have. But we are also a very proud people and we are surviving. 

              Empathy does not help if there is no solution in the end.  And without that solution, the issue will become cyclic. Rehashing the same series of events will not cure the problem.  Getting them out of poverty is a step in the right direction. Making them proud of their roots, making them acknowledge that they are a strong people, giving them a step up without causing them to become dependent long term is a solution. Make them feel they are a part of the whole as Americans can help.  But to further isolate them by coddling them and saying it is okay to have a temper tantrum is not helping anyone.  To give them more than their fair share is not helping them.  To reopen raw wounds helps no one.  Seriously, we need to come together as a whole and stop with the "they and us" scenarios.  As WE ALL are AMERICANS!

        5. Cgenaea profile image60
          Cgenaeaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Cultural influence is very important. We know how to effectively communicate with a person when we understand (and care at all to) their culture. There are many things that vary from one culture to another.
          Even currently, many black males have a really hard time with police. In just about every state (well except California, where they love their blacks and treat them special).

    11. cjhunsinger profile image70
      cjhunsingerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Copied from gotnews.com  Perhaps, the alleged innocence of Michael Brown is the new definition of innocence, thugery is not a bad thing.

      Lawsuit seeking release of Michael Brown's juvenile records claims slain teen was a murder suspect
      By RYAN GORMAN

      An explosive new lawsuit filed in St. Louis seeking the release of Michael Brown's juvenile criminal record alleges the slain teen was a gang member and faced a second degree murder charge.

      The citizen journalism website GotNews took St. Louis County authorities to court Wednesday to secure the release of the records because it believes they do not need to be kept private since he is no longer alive.

      The unarmed Brown was fatally shot earlier this month by white Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson. He has no criminal record as an adult, but only because he had recently turned 18, claims GotNews Editor-in-chief Charles Johnson.

      The citizen journo wrote in a Wednesday afternoon post to his site and on Twitter that he was told by law enforcement sources the black teen has a juvenile arrest record that is being kept private.

      1. Cgenaea profile image60
        Cgenaeaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Good idea! If he was a criminal real good; then the shooter did us a big ole favor!!! Why didn't I think of that??? NOT!!!
        Jail is for criminals. Not morgues. The law says some stuff about justified homicide.... and that aint it...

    12. 0
      SassySue1963posted 2 years ago in reply to this

      So I noticed no one had the hutzpah to come back here and state the truth that now comes out. I'll do it - not afraid.

      "Michael Brown, the 18-year-old black man whose fatal shooting by a white police officer in the St. Louis suburb of Ferguson in August touched off weeks of racially-charged rioting, had marijuana in his system, was initially shot at close range and does not appear to have been killed while running away, according to experts who reviewed the official autopsy and toxicology report."

      Two experts not involved in the initial investigation reviewed the autopsy findings. They are:

      St. Louis medical examiner Dr. Michael Graham and Dr. Judy Melinek, a forensic pathologist in San Francisco.

      Also, autopsy shows evidence that there was an altercation inside the car, supports the statement that Brown was reaching for the Officer's gun and that the Officer, as he stated, initially hit Brown in the hand with his first shot.

      source: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/10/22/of … picks=true

      Also of note:

      "President Obama consoled Brown's family in the immediate aftermath, and U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder went to Ferguson and announced a separate federal investigation"

      I wonder if our President and Attorney General will express their condolences & apologies to the Officer involved & his family. My guess is a resounding no.

      I wonder if all those who preemptively condemned this Officer will eat their crow. I'm guessing no. As evidenced by the fact that everyone was content to let this stand without coming around to the truth of the matter.

      I rarely visit here anymore & this thread is a prime example of why I stay away. Preconceived judgement without apology and none forthcoming in the wake of the truth either. And the race baiting media, no apologies there either. And the OP, playing the race card where one didn't exist.

      Peace. Hopefully some who were quick to jump to conclusions learned something.

      1. Laura Knipp profile image60
        Laura Knippposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Although I somewhat agree with you, as from the beginning I felt we needed the whole story and not jump to conclusions, at the moment there is one reason I have not stated anything yet. This reason is that the information was leaked and not the "official" statement.  Not sure why stuff was leaked in the first place, but unofficial documents--even leaked ones--are still leading to the jumping to conclusions that the first group of people have done and all of those in Ferguson in the riots and protests have been doing since the onset. So until it all unfolds officially, I shall just lurk on the sidelines.

      2. peoplepower73 profile image87
        peoplepower73posted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Yes Sassy:  Hopefully, you learned something.  Talk about jumping to conclusions.  This just in from Judy Melinek, one of the forensic experts who was quoted by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch on Tuesday about the Michael Brown autopsy report, is taking issue with how the newspaper portrayed her comments out of context. I think you and Fox News owe us and Obama an apology.

        http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/j … port-msnbc

        1. Cgenaea profile image60
          Cgenaeaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          smile
          No more "hutzpah" so it seems...

        2. 0
          SassySue1963posted 2 years ago in reply to this

          It only says that it doesn't "prove" he was reaching for the gun, it does prove close contact when the gun went off.

          That is the only mention of how her comments were misrepresented. Period. The only one. All the others stand and no one has disputed them.

          @Cgenaea
          I see. So three independent autopsy reports where findings are consistent with the officer's statement of events isn't enough for you - it's a conspiracy. Yes, completely logical. Especially when one of those three come from the federal level who couldn't wait to convict this officer. But let's just believe the one guy who has a history of lying to police. Yep. Logical. Please.

          Yep, still got my hutzpah intact there. I guess if you really read my comment you'd see that I'm rarely around here.

          1. peoplepower73 profile image87
            peoplepower73posted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Sassy:

            What is the source for your comments?

            1. 0
              SassySue1963posted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Which part? About what she is saying was misrepresented?

              Your link. She says :
              ""I'm not saying that Brown going for the gun is the only explanation. I'm saying the officer said he was going for the gun and the right thumb wound supports that," Melinek. "I have limited information. It could also be consistent with other scenarios. That's the important thing"

              Which is all I had said - that the findings are consistent with the officer's accounting of events. That the findings were consistent. What it does prove is that his hand was near the gun when it went off.

              1. peoplepower73 profile image87
                peoplepower73posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Sassy: It proves nothing.  She says and I quote "I have limited information.  It could also be consistent with other scenarios." And you said: :What it does prove is that his hand was near the gun when it went off."

                So from that you draw the conclusion that his hand was near the gun when it went off.  Why don't you wait for the grand jury verdict?

                What is the source of this part? "Especially when one of those three come from the federal level who couldn't wait to convict this officer. But let's just believe the one guy who has a history of lying to police. Yep. Logical. Please."

                1. 0
                  SassySue1963posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  "Justice Department investigators have all but concluded they do not have a strong enough case to bring civil rights charges against Darren Wilson, the white police officer who shot and killed an unarmed black teenager in Ferguson, Mo., law enforcement officials said."

                  “The autopsy report is devastating because it raises doubts about him standing still with his hands in the air in surrender,” said Klinger, who fatally shot a suspect in the line of duty when he was an officer. “If you have a halfway competent lawyer, the defense could raise reasonable doubt with this.”

                  source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/nat … story.html

                  "Forensic evidence shows Michael Brown’s blood on the gun, on the uniform and inside the car of Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson, law enforcement officials said, information they believe potentially corroborates the officer’s story that the unarmed 18-year-old tried to take his gun." Yep got his blood on the gun but was nowhere near the gun. Keep on telling yourself that fantasy.

                  source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ … story.html

                  NYTimes, Washington Post, Not exactly right wing news sources.

                  But I thought I'd share this as well. Laughable. Demands and planning for violent and lawbreaking "demonstrations" equal terrorism. Plain and simple.

                  http://media.wix.com/ugd/9c5255_9d55724 … ae82d4.pdf

                  The actual article: http://dailycaller.com/2014/11/07/fergu … wbreaking/

                  They ask for a 48 hours notice of the grand jury decision. Why? So they can bring in more people to disrupt Ferguson?

                  Say what you like, this is not about Michael Brown's life at this point, or the officer. This is about seeing an excuse to act like thugs and jumping on it.

                  Then there's this as well:

                  http://fox2now.com/2014/11/05/police-in … ns-family/

                  Speaking before the UN on peace. Ridiculous.

                  This is exactly the type of behavior that fuels racism and THAT makes me angry. I have no tolerance for it.

    13. maxoxam41 profile image79
      maxoxam41posted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Firstly, I was surprised to see that Fergusson was the only city where a hundred of FBI men were sent to and consequently was ravaged. I am wondering how many among the protesters were agents provocateurs? Because such behavior doesn't honor the victim's cause. It had to be a third force in presence.

      Secondly, could it be possible to advance an agenda, for instance, the reduction of our liberties by throwing fire in a tensed atmosphere, in clear, because of the violence in Fergusson, the police took the initiative to arrest protesters in Los Angeles because they were protesting? To protest is a RIGHT, whatever the result. They pertinently knew that by exonerating the cop from his responsibility it would create a sentiment of unfairness.

      Thirdly, what will an unfair decision lead to? Protest.

      What if the whole process was only a manipulation of the people to better infringe once again on our rights?

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
        Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        "They pertinently knew that by exonerating the cop from his responsibility it would create a sentiment of unfairness."

        We have to trust our justice system.   The officer was found not guilty.
        What is the protesting about?
        There is no reason to protest anyway.
        Save it for something real.

    14. 0
      Deborah Sextonposted 23 months ago in reply to this

      __________________
      I think threads like this are started to keep racism alive
      If you truly hate racism, instead of commenting about it, just treat everyone with respect

      1. ahorseback profile image50
        ahorsebackposted 23 months ago in reply to this

        +++++++++++++++++

  2. peoplepower73 profile image87
    peoplepower73posted 2 years ago

    I based my question on what I have been hearing and reading in the news for the last few years.  There seems to be more of these events taking place. I have watched several news casts where black parents have told their sons how to behave around white police officers, so as not to provoke them into any type of serious confrontation. White parents don't have to have this conversation.   It's also interesting to note that dead men don't talk. So we have to rely on witnesses accounts of what they observed.

    I live in the Los Angeles area and what I saw about how the whites and blacks behaved over that shooting in Ferguson reminds me of the Watts riots that we had in 1965.  That was a symptom of pent-up anger on both sides.  If you watch the news, the same thing is happening in many places in the country today.  So yes, I see it as a trend and that is why I asked the question.

    1. GA Anderson profile image87
      GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      That was a fair explanation of your motive for asking, but the point of my response, and as your reply testifies to, you are allowing your opinions and thoughts to be shaped by sensationalist, (and need to fill air time performances), media coverage and emotional nudging. Not facts, as they should be.

      I am not taking a stand either way yet - there isn't enough information, but the fact that you are even prompted to pose that question illustrates the power of loud voices and scare mongers.

      I agree there is pent-up anger in a lot of places, but I think the cause(s) of that anger are more situational than in-the-box generalities like racism.

      GA

  3. Cgenaea profile image60
    Cgenaeaposted 2 years ago

    Well, I do believe that the police are in a vunerable position. Many people hate them, and they are dropped into tense situations in the blink of an eye. Today, firearms are plentiful on the street; for this reason, there are many police officers who go into "me or them" mode, especially when there is confrontation and uncooperation on the part of the citizen.
    I feel that it happens to black kids 10 times before any other persuasion once. Is that racial tension? Of course.
    Many white people (especially in power positions) have NOT bought into the equality thing. When I compare slayings of whites to blacks, there is STILL a big difference. The cases where white people were slain by cops, there was a struggle; a chase; a call into the police; reaching once cops order them to the ground etc.  But with black people, there need be none of that. Simply walking down the street with a bag of Skittles does the trick.
    I, myself, have been targeted by police in foolishness. Maybe that slants me, but there must be SOME truth in many people saying the SAME THING... Race is an issue with many police officers. Not all, but many.

  4. peoplepower73 profile image87
    peoplepower73posted 2 years ago

    This is for GA Anderson.  It didn't end up in the right place in the thread. 

    Thank you for proving my point by denying what I asked.  As far as empathy goes, can your antennae put yourself in the place of black oppressed people and feel what they are feeling? It's a very simple question.  Don't ask are you asking A or B.  Just answer the question as it is asked.

    1. GA Anderson profile image87
      GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      You are welcome. (I hope you are referring to denying your contention of racial creep, because that is what I denied). But I am unsure of which point you think that denial proves.

      OK, I will try to answer your "simple" question.

      No, my "antennae" can not put me in a black person's shoes, and it would be presumptuous of me to think  I can see and feel things as they do. But yes, I do believe I can understand that the inequities they endure in life can breed an anger, (or angst for some), and a racial tension.

      I did not deny the existence of those truths.  I understand that they are real. I also understand that you think you can feel what they feel, which explains your ardent defense of your new points. But none of that validates your abandoned original point.

      So that is a GA Anderson answer. I hope it answered your question as simply as you asked me to.

      Speaking of A and B - your state A in your OP, and then speak to B in your defense of A. Is that because A can't be defended?

      ps. I hope I haven't misunderstood your point in this whole thread. I hope you weren't speaking of a "racial creep" in the black community. Your defensive rationalizations could be taken that way by a less generous reading of your comments.

      GA

      1. peoplepower73 profile image87
        peoplepower73posted 2 years ago in reply to this

        GA Anderson: A = I'm deeply concerned abut racism in this country.  B = Could it be caused because of people not buying into the Civil Rights Act?  It's very simple, just answer the question.  It could even be answered with a simple Yes or No.

        Why did I say Civil Rights Act?  Because when Johnson passed it, there were a lot of Southern Democrats (Dixiecrats) who jumped ship and became republicans. They never bought into the CRA and today, their generations still exists in politics and law enforcement.  Can I prove it statistically? no. It is not only in the south but throughout the whole country.  Is it getting worse? Yes. Is it creeping racism?  In my opinion based on my values and beliefs, yes.

        You try to equate it to unarmed whites getting shot, because you feel there is an inequality.  And there you have it.  You are angry because of inequality, just like anybody else who feels inequality including black oppressed people. Like I said before, it's just a matter of degree of anger.

        1. GA Anderson profile image87
          GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          I thought I did answer your "B" question - multiple times. No!

          I do not believe, first that there is creeping racism, so I also cannot believe it is because people are "not buying into" the CRA.

          As for your last paragraph, I only offered a counter example - I did not try to equate anything. I am not angry about anything in this discussion. My intention was to challenge your assertion of "racial creep." It appears to me that all of your defensive explanations pertain to the existence of racial tension in black communities - which I wholly agree with - so maybe my challenge was reasonable.

          It is not a matter of degrees, it is not a matter of semantics, and it is not racial creep. It is racial tension, and it is the off-spring of many causes. Not all of them the white man's fault.

          GA

  5. Credence2 profile image85
    Credence2posted 2 years ago

    Retief, I had to link with your last comment here.

    "Handlers is not my word. I do think there is significant manipulation by the media. There are also frightened and foolish Republicans intimidated by organizations like the NAACP and La Rasa. Opinion polls show that conservatives and most Black Americans share similar opinions on family, church, fire arms, welfare, education, marriage, etc.... There are complex reasons for Democrat support"

    In reply, there is significant manipulation by the media, this shooting case forced me to confront it front and center.
    We have a communication problem as perception often takes the place of reality. There are political differences between groups for any number of reasons, present or past .

    Oddly enough, black folks may be more socially conservative but liberal in an economic sense. The fact that you and I can find some common ground does give reason for us to believe that the misunderstandings could be brought to the light of day.

    Believe me problems between the races have multiple causes. I have written about some of these, trying to take an objective point of view.

    It is not that the Dems are so great, but that the GOP needs to check its image and platform and develop a platform that does not violate its principles by reaching out to address substantive problems unique to blacks or Hispanics, High unemployment for example.

    1. peoplepower73 profile image87
      peoplepower73posted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Sassy: I'm not going to defend myself against you telling me what I'm thinking. That is just too much BS  If i'm deeply concerned about racism in this country, how does that make me a racist?  You probably think I'm racist against white people.  When real racists like you are put on the spot about racism, your great mantra is you pulled the race card.  You wrap  your self in telling others that they are racist, as a defense mechanism.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
        Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Traditionally racism is defined as whites feeling/acting superior to blacks.

        Could it also be defined as blacks feeling inferior to whites for completely imaginary and utterly unjustified reasons?
        As in: They IMAGINE attitudes of superiority...
        on the part of the whites...
        when it is NOT even the case?
        What white has not experienced this?
        - why are blacks so suspicious of whites?
        - especially in this day and age?
        PS In California, we all get along pretty darn well.
        We adore, respect and admire our black comedians, movie stars, musicians, sports stars, news castors ETC !!!
        Why are we setting ourselves BACK???
        Racism has been on the decline for very good reasons.
        - what is different today?
        What would Hendrix say? Everyday I see people of all ages wearing his image and name on T shirts!
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7P0cJhQ1200
        ( He says in this interview that change can only take place when it happens within yourself.)

      2. 60
        retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Are you saying that Sassy is a Democrat politician? Is Sassy Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson? Is Sassy Eric Holder? Barack Obama? Is she the collective voice of MSNBC/NBC/CBS/ABC/THE NEWYORKTIMES?

        Gasp!! Is Sassy OJ Simpson?

        Is there a white person in America who holds a valid "race card?"

      3. cjhunsinger profile image70
        cjhunsingerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Your posts are amazing. You condemn others as racist, and accuse them of telling others what they are thinking. Your intellectual foundation here is to articulate and summarize your thoughts by using, the initials "BS."
        You have no argument sir, but you do have a faulty political agenda that cannot be defended, except by innuendo and crass insults. From what I have seen this is the  entire  philosophy of the democratic party, but not to  fret, as the republicans are not far behind. It is becoming obvious, and  mastered by Obama,  that when you want to do something, you must always accuse others of  doing it. And when you are caught, you simply blame someone else or you can say that you read in first in the newspapers.
        I think that you feel a little insecure in who you are and  if can  help you in any way, I would be  delighted to do so. If your concern about  racism is genuine, then if I were you, I  would stop being a racist and support the Bill of Rights. It is a wonderful  document. There is no racism in it and it promotes equality under the  law. That is what you want right? What more can a person ask then to be free to achieve on his own merit and by his own talents. Certainly you would not want someone to be able to take something by the threat of government, that he has not earned from  someone who has.
        Perhaps,  if you do not recognize the American Constitution, you can tell me what document you do recognize and how it would solve your perceived  or imaginary problems?

        1. peoplepower73 profile image87
          peoplepower73posted 2 years ago in reply to this

          cj: What makes you think I don't recognize the constitution and the bill of rights?  As far as Sassy goes.  in her first comment, she said, aren't you pulling the race card early.  If that isn't calling me a racist what is it?  You racists get all up in arms when anybody implies you are a racists. It's like a mirror that, you look into. You see your reflection and think it's someone else. You people are in denial. So all of these comments from people like you,  don't condemn me?  Thanks for all the accolades. I said B.S. because she didn't have a clue of what I was thinking.  This is what she said: "Of course you didn't know it would unfold like this - because you had already formed your opinion that it was racially motivated and that the friend's account was the accurate one."

          What I was referring to was the paramilitary presence that was not necessary. This is what you said:

          "That is what you want right? What more can a person ask then to be free to achieve on his own merit and by his own talents. Certainly you would not want someone to be able to take something by the threat of government, that he has not earned from  someone who has."

          And there you have it the threat of government.  It's all about tyranny and you think I'm insecure!  Your are right about the threat of government.  All you have to do is see the paramilitary in Ferguson. One, was it necessary to shoot that boy for blocking down the street or even stealing the cigars and two, was it necessary to bring in the paramilitary?  Dead men don't talk.  That's why he was shot many times, even with his arms in the air, the same thing with Trayvon Martin.  This epitomizes what I'm talking about and it has been done several times all over the country. So get off of your high horse and see it for what it is. Oh by the way, Fox news is ruining this country, just so people like you will vote for things that are not in your best interest, but they make you believe that it is, so they get the votes..  Tyranny my ass!..This is just my opinion, no facts to support anything, except the truth...and I want to thank all of you for condemning me.

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
            Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Then don't mention "racism" when the issue is the government's role in militarizing the police.
            But, thank you for clarifying the actual issue. Perhaps you have answered your own question:
            The answer is, No.

          2. cjhunsinger profile image70
            cjhunsingerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            You do not have to explain your words Mr peoples, they speak for themselves, And I would agree with you, when you refer so lovingly to your posterior.
            Sassy, oh that Sassy, accused you of nothing, but merely asked a question. I believe these are your words of endearment, "You racists get all up"
            Now, I think you may be at a loss here. Calm down and try to think this through, for example you stated that Trayvon martin was shot repeatedly, now you know that this is not true, but in your zealotry, you do have a tendency to, well, lets say, elaborate.
            Now for the other thug who strong arms a man one third his weight and old enough to be his grand father; you really don't know how many times he was shot, now do you? And, like the rest of us racists,  you do not know that the shooting was or was not justified, now  is that not right. So, it would seem that you, well,  we know  how to spell assume. I believe it deals with your love affair with your  posterior. Now, is this not better then using words that do not reflect so well on your  personality, as you are want to do?
            It would seem that you know more than I, with reference to what I think is best for me and I might add what that Sassy thinks is best for her"---so people like you will vote for things that are not in your best interest,---" I believe these are your words, once again. This mindset is called tyranny Mr. peoples.
            You also seem to have an obsession with FOX News, evidently a big fan. If I were you I would not watch it, unless you want to be entertained by talking heads, who really have little to say, oh, but they have some very attractive women, not much else though.
            And, yes, you have no fact to support anything, just your posterior, which you always bring up, butt it too, must be  wearing out. We, I, do not  condemn you Mr. peoples, it is just that you are so representative  of most everything that is bad in this country, eager to condemn and fault, looking for something that is not there, well, fluff and puff is a good description. It is much like the concept of socialism,  incompetent, corrupt, exploitative, accusatory and always somebody elses fault. Lets call it the Obama Syndrome.

            1. Credence2 profile image85
              Credence2posted 2 years ago in reply to this

              'Now for the other thug who strong arms a man one third his weight and old enough to be his grand father; you really don't know how many times he was shot, now do you?'

              There are plenty of rational people that don't buy into the rightwing theory of what happened during the Trayvon Martin shooting.

              "It is much like the concept of socialism,  incompetent, corrupt, exploitative, accusatory and always somebody elses fault. Lets call it the Obama Syndrome."

              We all know that rightwingers have a loathing for the President and I am certain that  all the reasons are  not substantive. Your objectivity may well be in question for the same reasons that you accuse Peoplepower. For many of us the traits you mentioned could easy be identified with GW Bush. There is no reason to believe that your perception is any more accurate than mine....

              1. cjhunsinger profile image70
                cjhunsingerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Credence

                I am not a Rightwinger. I am not even sure of what that means nor am I a conservative, as I really do not know what that means and anyway I am an Atheist, in terms of a philosophy and Conservatives don't like that. In terms of my political philosophy I, am first and last an American. Now what that means and this may come as a shock, but I believe in the United States Constitution,  therefore, one could say that I am a  Constitutionalist. I believe in Individaul Freedom and Free enterprise capitalism. These are the Founding Principles of this nation. I have a great disdain  for anyone who calls themselves an American and spouts some form of collectivistic socialism.
                George Bush became a Democrat in his second term and, in any case, I am not a republican, but rather an  Independent and my vote goes to that person who best represents the Constitution and the oath of office, How about you. You seem to, as Mr peopes, an absolute party man, without reference to any objective thought, qualifications or allegiance to the Constitution.
                As far as my perception of things being any better then yours.  yes it is.
                As far as the Travon Martin case, as you wish to believe a goat is a cow, you are free to do so, does not make it true however.
                What else would you like to discuss and please do not provide labels for me, just ask and I will tell you. You do know how to spell assume, right?

                1. Credence2 profile image85
                  Credence2posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Alright, CJ

                  I did not refer to you as a 'rightwinger' but there is definitely a 'rightwing' way of thinking.

                  I believe in the US Constitution as well and I am American but not a jingoist. The question, since this nation was founded is interpretation of the document, the Constitution, what is and what is not appropriate. So, I believe in individual freedom and free enterprise capitalism, so how do we differ?
                  So what is collective socialism, do we go back to FDR's New Deal, or perhaps, LBJ's Great Society programs? Do you consider medicare, Medicaid or Social Security collective socialism? Maybe we disagree on the extent and expression of the principles we agree upon? You say that may the best man win, but to flush you out, which candidate of any stripe do you prefer, is there a name that you can share? I can see where your affiliations lie, really. Since there is no perfect world,  rather than not participate in the election process, I select the person that best represents my way of seeing things. That is no different than anyone that casts a ballot.

                  There is a certain arrogance in your statement that your perception is closer to reality than mine, what do you have  to support that besides the fact that you merely say so? As I said before, the ability to understand and appreciate alternate points of view is important to discussion and debate. If you are so adamant about interpretation of the Martin affair, you ignore that there many of us that say otherwise. Your way of thinking is not foolproof and arrogance is the first sign that a person is in error and would not ever consider another point of view.

                  I would be happy to discuss and clarify anything with anyone having an open mind at the outset.....

                  1. cjhunsinger profile image70
                    cjhunsingerposted 2 years ago in reply to this
            2. peoplepower73 profile image87
              peoplepower73posted 2 years ago in reply to this

              You do not have to explain your words Mr peoples, they speak for themselves, And I would agree with you, when you refer so lovingly to your posterior.

              (It's my ass, are you afraid to say it, or are you too self-righteous. I take it we are mature adults.)

              Sassy, oh that Sassy, accused you of nothing, but merely asked a question. I believe these are your words of endearment, "You racists get all up"

              (Sassy said: "Did I pull the race card too early? I guess you don't see the word "race" in there because you are in denial.)

              Now, I think you may be at a loss here. Calm down and try to think this through, for example you stated that Trayvon martin was shot repeatedly, now you know that this is not true, but in your zealotry, you do have a tendency to, well, lets say, elaborate.

              ( I didn't say Trayvon was shot repeatedly.  I said dead men don't talk)  In your zeal you have taken what I said out of context.)

              Now for the other thug who strong arms a man one third his weight and old enough to be his grand father; you really don't know how many times he was shot, now do you? And, like the rest of us racists,  you do not know that the shooting was or was not justified, now  is that not right. So, it would seem that you, well,  we know  how to spell assume. I believe it deals with your love affair with your  posterior. Now, is this not better then using words that do not reflect so well on your  personality, as you are want to do?

              (Witness said they heard multiple guns shots.  I guess we will just wait for the DOJ autopsy report. If you are wrong, you owe me an apology, or maybe you won't believe the DOJ's report, God knows, we can't trust Obama's government for anything.)

              It would seem that you know more than I, with reference to what I think is best for me and I might add what that Sassy thinks is best for her"---so people like you will vote for things that are not in your best interest,---" I believe these are your words, once again. This mindset is called tyranny Mr. peoples.

              You also seem to have an obsession with FOX News, evidently a big fan. If I were you I would not watch it, unless you want to be entertained by talking heads, who really have little to say, oh, but they have some very attractive women, not much else though.
              And, yes, you have no fact to support anything, just your posterior, which you always bring up, butt it too, must be  wearing out. We, I, do not  condemn you Mr. peoples, it is just that you are so representative  of most everything that is bad in this country, eager to condemn and fault, looking for something that is not there, well, fluff and puff is a good description. It is much like the concept of socialism,  incompetent, corrupt, exploitative, accusatory and always somebody elses fault. Lets call it the Obama Syndrome.

              (I can't stand Fox news, but your comments have all the earmarks of an avid listener. if I'm wrong, I apologize, but you still have the self-righteous mind set of a ultra-conservative.  You probably think socialism has to do with communism.  That train left the station with the cold war.  I'm sure you don't realize that without social programs and capitalism, this country would not exists. But that's another story.   Funny I feel the same way about you, as far as what is wrong with this country...and here we go again, blame everything on Obama.  That is so easy to do and so full of B.S.  There I said it again.  You notice I take the time to reply to all of your B.S., unlike you, Sassy, and G.A.)

              1. cjhunsinger profile image70
                cjhunsingerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Mr. Peoples
                Again it is not necessary to explain your words> I am able to speak a couple of languages to include gutterspeak with a sixpack dialogue.
                What I am is an ultra-American. Assuming again?
                Enough. I can longer longer indulge your masochism. You are on your own. Good luck in that.

                1. peoplepower73 profile image87
                  peoplepower73posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  cj: Yes I read your profile, an Ultra-American, nothing superior there.  You speak two languages. And by your own definition, you are a Sapien, a reasoned, thinking person. Why didn't you use the phrase Homo Sapien. It means man or are you afraid of what the other meaning connotes for homo?

              2. GA Anderson profile image87
                GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                "You notice I take the time to reply to all of your B.S., unlike you, Sassy, and G.A."

                Did I miss replying to one of your responses to me? Or are you just lumping me in with any that disagree with you?

                Even though it appears we have reached a point where logic and reason have left the room - leaving only repetition as validation ... I will look back and reply to anything I missed from you.

                ps. I suppose it is a sort of compliment to be referenced in your conversations with others, but it sure sounded like a pout to me. (I am sure Sassy will speak for herself)

                pss. If you wouldn't mind helping me out, you could point me in the direction of your response(s) that I was too lazy to reply to.


                Thanks,


                [EDITED 5 MINUTES AFTER POSTING]
                Guess you will have to point me in the right direction after all. I put the topic in "threaded" mode - which links posts and responses - and I could not find any of your responses to me to which I did not reply.

                A quick scan of my replies also seems to agree that I attempted an answer to most of the pertinent points, (as in those related to your original "racial creep" topic), in your replies.

                GA

              3. 0
                SassySue1963posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                I've replied to every one of your replies - only one exception because you had posted twice so I did combine two of them. I did however, include the reference to the other post within my reply.

                ****NOTE: Referencing a different reply here******* As for telling you what you were thinking - no, you told us what you were thinking in your initial post. Citing how many unarmed black men where shot by police in the last month - etc etc etc. Then asking about racial creep. I mean, that is pretty straightforward to me that YOU decided all those shootings were racially motivated. Why else would you cite them and then talk about racial creep?

                If I'm not thinking along a certain line - I'm not going to start a thread about it.

                I'm most disturbed right now by your need to insult everyone who disagrees with your perspective and your unfailing opinion that they are somehow racists. Perhaps you should take a long hard look in the mirror at yourself and maybe not hold yourself and your opinion so much higher than everyone else.

                someday I am going to change my avatar to one that actually looks like me. There will then be many surprised people around here

          3. cjhunsinger profile image70
            cjhunsingerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            You might find this of interest---------http://www.ijreview.com/2014/08/168698-eyewitness-recalls-important-detail-background-video-mins-ferguson-shooting/

      4. 0
        SassySue1963posted 2 years ago in reply to this

        If you're going to reply to me - you could, you know, reply to me and not Credence. Perhaps that is why your posts are not getting replies by me.

        I didn't accuse you of anything - I asked if perhaps you pulled the race card too early. I'm not sure how pulling a race card makes you a racist anyway. It means taking a situation and deciding that race is the cause, even if there is no evidence to support that case, or if there is evidence that race wasn't a factor. Please elaborate how saying you pulled a race card is calling you a racist.

        Please tell me where you get off calling me a "real" racist? Is it because I didn't jump on the bandwagon? Because I dared to point out that unarmed white men are shot by police just as frequently? Or just because I disagree with you?

        Again, I haven't told anyone they are racist. Please elaborate and explain yourself.

        Maybe you could stick to actual facts instead of trying to derail the conversation into a name calling competition. However, I am used to the liberal left resorting to name calling when their facts are proven wrong.

  6. 0
    SassySue1963posted 2 years ago

    Of course you didn't know it would unfold like this - because you had already formed your opinion that it was racially motivated and that the friend's account was the accurate one. You had already, in your mind, demonized the police officer. Which is pretty apparent in your initial post.
    It isn't your fault really - the media has portrayed it that way from day one. Which is entirely my point - they take a story as this one and run away with it - many times in the wrong direction - and people take it as proven truth. They create racial tension with their need for sensationalism. Just like you did when you heard this story and decided to jump to a conclusion and post it here on the forums. Instead of waiting for facts.
    No, they hear a story about an unarmed white man (with or without protests - does it matter? There weren't protests when the mass media picked up this story) and know it will not cause a stir, so they ignore it. Filling the public with a perceived notion of rampant racism is big business for the media. Brings in great ratings.
    So shooting an unarmed white man means nothing to you. There is no injustice there right? Only if they're black. Good to know.

  7. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago

    http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/jimihend … slove.html
    I would say only a tiny minority holds onto any feelings or attitudes of racism. And we all know its true… no matter what.

  8. Cgenaea profile image60
    Cgenaeaposted 2 years ago

    As a black woman who lives on the south end of Chicago, I must say that racism in this country is ridiculously alive. I, myself, have been targeted by racists cops and GIVEN a misdemeanor case to contend with for several years when there was no crime on my part; yet the officers were, very much so, illegal.
    Police officers not only have danger to deal with on the regular, they have quotas too... it becomes a game of cat and mouse when the officer has not arrested enough citizens or written enough traffic tickets this quarter. The people become prey. The weak  calf is always the best target.q

    1. peoplepower73 profile image87
      peoplepower73posted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Cgenaea:  Thank you for your account.  The ultra-conservatives in this forum will probably ask you to prove your experience with a statistical analysis or they may say that white's are treated the same way, but no one hears about it.

      1. Cgenaea profile image60
        Cgenaeaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Yeah, it's sad. I think that certain people like to down the oppression/discrimination facts because they kinda dim the stereotype of the "lazy criminal-minded, unintelligent, and ultimately inferior" black man. Gotta "control their kind." Why dirty your hands fighting with them? Got ma pistol...
        I hate looting.  It is the rudimentary answer (pacifer) for people with no "other" controls though. Cannot change any laws... but I can make you sorry you effed with me... kind of.
        Plus, black poor people can ALWAYS use a new tv. Lol...
        The police have power to do, the backing of the dept, and not many "credible" witnesses against them. Lot of power. They become doers of their own laws. Black cops can be a lot worse. But I bet that they don't shoot to kill white citizens. We haven't seen THAT riot... I will look at the stats.

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
          Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          ...pinpoint negativity all you want, guys. It serves to help no one, but have it your way. I guess thats the kind of world you prefer. Gives you something to gripe about and blame others for.

          ...following the laws is the best answer.
          Who can argue that?

          1. Cgenaea profile image60
            Cgenaeaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Seems as if I feel some type of insensitivity to those much less fortunate from this post. But empathy is not necessary, I suppose. "Griping" and "complaining" are never my goals. Just stating facts as seen from my INSIDE perspective. It is hard to be anything but negative about perceived injustice in this country that my fathers helped to build, one bushel/bundle at a time.
            No special treatment. Same treatment. That's it...
            I was following the law when I was illegally stopped, searched, served, sentenced, and supervised.  No "positives" there... accept that it is now gone from my searchable record. But it will probably never be gone from my mind. I know what policemen are capable of... needs much attention.

            1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
              Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              ...what is proof of "racial creep?"

              1. Cgenaea profile image60
                Cgenaeaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Is that your response to my comment?

            2. 0
              SassySue1963posted 2 years ago in reply to this

              I was followed and then stopped by police when a teenager because I had a baby seat in the back (my car was in the shop, borrowed my older sister's car) and they'd decided I'd stolen it.

              I was followed and stopped by police because I guess I sat too long in front of my friend's house before she got out and went inside and it looked "suspicious". (their words).

              I was stopped by police on a little side road because I was driving slow. (was looking at house numbers to find the house I was going to. Had never been there before.)

              I was following the law all those times (there were some others as well) was there some ulterior motive of the police then in those stops?

              We have no idea what is going on at the time from the police perspective - perhaps there had been break-ins in the neighborhood that made them find my behavior suspicious - but we can certainly read into it anything we want. That doesn't mean what we perceive is the reason they stopped us - IS the reason they stopped us.

              1. Cgenaea profile image60
                Cgenaeaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                If you don't mind, are you black or white?  Around here, makes a bit of difference; one looks suspicious-er to them...
                Also, when the police stopped near your sitting car (not followed you around the block and stopped you for not stopping long enough at a stop sign-which NOBODY does in front of the police) did he ask questions? Did he ask for license/ insurance (then receive them in valid forms) Did he then choose to search your vehicle/pockets? Upon finding nothing, did he sent other cops to the alley to locate your accompaniment to the jail??? Then write up a long bogus report???
                Or did he ask, receive the answer, then go on about his police business elsewhere?

                1. 0
                  SassySue1963posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Which one?

                  The baby seat one he asked for license and such, which I gave, asked him why he stopped me, and he refused to answer the question. Several times I posed the question - he refused. Took my stuff back to his car (presumably to check it out). Came back after that - and still kept asking me questions - where did I live? (address was on my license) where was I going? where was I coming from? And still refused to tell me why he'd stopped me. After all of that - he then asked me about the baby seat in the back - which I told him was for my niece. Still looked at me crosseyed but sent me on my way and told me there had been some car break-ins and I was driving suspiciously. Seriously - "driving suspiciously". I don't know how you drive suspiciously in a neighborhood with a posted 25 mph.

                  So, now comes the ultimate question for you - why does my race matter in that scenario? Which is pretty much my point. I could lay claim to any sort of reason why he stopped me - after all, I was doing nothing wrong, driving in my own neighborhood at the posted speed, taking my friend home - so if I'm white then he was just doing his job but if I'm not - he was racially motivated? Perhaps he was just being a power high jerk.

                  1. Cgenaea profile image60
                    Cgenaeaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    My point is, around here, it does matter white or black. The two are often handled differently. You got to go on. No extra crap. There was suspicion in the air regarding the baby seat or something. Not random per se.
                    In my scenario, I had done nothing wrong, yet I was criminalized. The officer said some horrible stuff to me on the way too...
                    I'm willing to assume that if you were white, there probably wouldn't have been a stop, unless you actually did fit the description...

  9. Cgenaea profile image60
    Cgenaeaposted 2 years ago

    As well, I have had some decent experiences with police. But that one experience made me think twice about those with stories of corrupt cops pickn on and planting evidence for a select group.  To say that it happens as often to white people is really a strange idea to me. I mean, there are many more of them. Seems like it should happen more often to them, if we're speaking numbers...and fair/equal justice. Yes???

    1. 0
      SassySue1963posted 2 years ago in reply to this

      I know a few cops who are great people but in general, I don't hold a very high opinion of policemen.
      Most of the ones I've encountered are on a power trip and they don't treat anyone respectfully.

      The point is that, sadly, situations like this shooting take place all over the country all the time. Sometimes it is a black officer shooting an unarmed white person, sometimes it is a black officer shooting an unarmed black person, sometimes it is a white officer shooting an unarmed white person and sometimes it is a white officer shooting an unarmed black person. The last scenario is the only one that draws national attention. Unless you go and research local papers you don't even know about the other scenarios.

      It is the media creating a racial divide. I'm not saying there are not cops who are racist and use that as an excuse to harass others. I'm saying that the perception that it is a big pervasive problem throughout the country is media driven because they create it. In Ferguson itself, it could be pervasive. I don't live there, I can't say whether or not that is a fact.

      I also did not (intentionally) mention that in two of my three examples, the police officer was black. So if I'm white - do I get to claim racism?

      I felt wrongly harassed in every one of those examples just because I was not breaking any laws. One of them they made me get out of my car while they searched it. Even though I'd done nothing wrong, I felt ashamed. Kept looking and hoping no one I knew drove by. My perception that I was being singled out doesn't make it the reality though.

      1. Cgenaea profile image60
        Cgenaeaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        I understand. Your worldview is simply different from mine. Are you wrong for not feeling singled-out? No... Am I wrong for feeling singled-out???
        I was there. I know what they are capable of. That's all I'm saying. Police power trip. Police prejudge. Police discriminate. Police feel superior. Especially to "insignificants." They have determination to take to jail, as many as possible, even when they must make it so...

        1. 0
          SassySue1963posted 2 years ago in reply to this

          "Police power trip."

          Exactly!

          By making it strictly a racial issue, the media causes what I believe is the core problem to be ignored. Police need better training and more scrutiny overall. No matter their race, the tendency seems to be to use deadly force when unnecessary.

          There could be numerous reasons behind that trend, and certainly race could play a factor in some, but it is a problem that crosses any racial lines and needs to be addressed.

          1. Cgenaea profile image60
            Cgenaeaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Well, though black people make-up about 13% of the population, there is a huge tendency for having (mis) dealings with police officers, especially here, where I think blacks are like 17% or as high as 30% in some areas. We are not talking crossing racial lines, in all things, some "exceptions" apply. But as a whole, black people have MANY more legitimate complaints about police officers and their brutality/malice.
            In my instance, though I spoke well; presented each answer to each probing question with accuracy,  AND he knew he lied on me and planted evidence; they were really forceful when I squawked. And had the NERVE to talk sh@!!! smile
            It was twilight zoney. I COULD NOT BELIEVE MY EYES... THEN I had to call my daddy to pick me up from jail .............
            My lovely court appointed public defender said, "They will just say they saw you put it there, and who do you think the judge will believe? Just take the little six mo supervision (plead GUILTY) and it wont hurt you as long as you stay out of trouble." Wtf... was my helpless thought. I had always done that!!! That sh...followed me for YEARS!!!
            Edit... to be clear, I don't feel bitter. I feel aware.

  10. Cgenaea profile image60
    Cgenaeaposted 2 years ago

    Black officers are the same. IF you are white, yes, you may borrow my race card... smile lots of blacks hate white people. An opportunity to give them hell, is probably dreamy for them. However, they KNOW where the line is... they know where they----- ass better stop...

    1. peoplepower73 profile image87
      peoplepower73posted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Here is the preliminary private autopsy report.  The release of the DOJ report and the local police report are still pending.

      http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/18/us/mi … .html?_r=0

      Maybe I should have been more explicit in my terminology of Racial Creep.  The reason I used that phrase is because of what is going on in Iraq right now with ISIS trying to take over the country.  Obama said no boots on the ground. We are just sending a small group of advisors.  Now we have people on Mt Sinjar calling in airstrikes on ISIS and more troops are scheduled to go.  People call this "mission creep." The same thing happened in Vietnam and Korea.

      I used that phrase, because that is the way I see racial tension in this country. While blacks are more accepted by white people, there are still pockets of where whites have not accepted blacks and civil rights.. There was a time when a black person kissing a white person was taboo, Today it's no big deal. Interracial marriages are widely accepted.  But I have seen politicians who still use the word negra.  I even saw a white congressman spit on a black congressman during the Bush administration.  There is a racial undercurrent in this country that rears it's ugly head every so often and Ferguson is just a microcosm of what could ignite a nation, if not handled properly. This is what I call racial tension and racial creep.

      1. peoplepower73 profile image87
        peoplepower73posted 2 years ago in reply to this

        After I hope you have read the NY Times article, I have some questions for all of you who don't believe there is racial tension.and these are not rhetorical.

        1.  If Brown was stopped for J walking and blocking traffic, why didn't Wilson arrest him?
        2.  Was it necessary to shoot him six time as he was already facing Wilson with his hands up?
        3.  If somebody was shot in the police car, wouldn't there be powder burns as evidence?
        4.  Why did they leave Brown for five hours in the middle of the street? ( Ironically that blocked the   street more than Brown did.)
        4.  How would you feel if your child was shot the way Brown was and left in the street for five hours?
        5.  How do you think the community of Ferguson feels right now about their white police officers?

        1. Cgenaea profile image60
          Cgenaeaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          The autopsy report is very telling (for those of us who did not know already). All frontal shots; none up close; two HEAD shots (at the end) execution style.
          Pissing cops off is VERY dangerous.  They get mentality exams at the outset of hire. Not crazy...just convinced of their position, as well as the position of others.
          Thanks! I needed that.

          1. peoplepower73 profile image87
            peoplepower73posted 2 years ago in reply to this

            You are welcome.  I needed it as well.

            1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
              Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              It is not evidence of creeping/increasing racism. It is evidence of one messed up cop and perhaps even a messed up police force in one particular town in the nation. That is not "racial creep."
              The answer to the OP's question is still, No.
              TWISI

              1. peoplepower73 profile image87
                peoplepower73posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Let me explain creeping to you.  Here is an analogy.  The tide ebbs and flows. Each time it cycles, the water reaches a little higher onto the beach.  That's what I see is happening with racism in this country.  It has been ebbing for many years, but recently, the tide starting creeping in.  This will continue until something catastrophic happens to stop it and then it will ebb again.  Will the cycle be repeated? I don't know.  I do know this.  The Governor is bringing in the National Guard.  To my recollection, the last time this happened was in Little Rock Arkansas in the 50's. It was about segregating black students from white schools.  The Guard was supposed to keep the blacks out.  Eisenhower federalized them and they were tasked with doing just the opposite.  They were told to protect the black kids so they could attend school.

          2. GA Anderson profile image87
            GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            "... none up close; two HEAD shots (at the end) execution style. .."

            Well, that certainly does not  sound like a credible statement. Perhaps your enthusiasm for the topic is more telling than your real life examples.


            Geesh...

            GA

            1. Cgenaea profile image60
              Cgenaeaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              "... none up close; two HEAD shots (at the end) execution style. .." 

              Please, if you will, add some credit to my statement. I wanna be MORE telling than my real life examples. wink

              1. peoplepower73 profile image87
                peoplepower73posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                What does it take to make it credible for you.  One head shot was at the top of his head. How can the shot be at the top of his head, if he was standing?  Because the shot at the top of his head took place as he was falling forward.  Like I said in one of my comments, dead men don't talk.

                1. GA Anderson profile image87
                  GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  It looks like you missed my point. My contention was with the "two shots to the head, execution style"

                  Painting the picture that the officer walked up and put the final two shots in just to make sure. (his other 4 or 5 shots that scattered all over the place don't portray a marksman that could do the two head shots from a distance on purpose - as in "execution-style." That was my "credibility" point.

                  You could be right - the last shot, (or two), could have happened while he was falling forward. Or they could have happened as he put his head down and charged.

                  I will repeat - I am not proclaiming either scenario the correct one. I am not painting either party as guilty. I just do not know from the facts available at this point.

                  If the acknowledged forensic expert could not say for sure - how can you be so certain?

                  Obviously you feel the explanations and conclusions drawn from contested versions of the circumstances are enough to form a confident conclusion. I do not.

                  GA

                  1. peoplepower73 profile image87
                    peoplepower73posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    What makes you think I have formed a confident conclusion?  I said the fed's and local autopsies are still pending.  I understand this is an unfolding story with a lot of conflicting so called facts.  For me, the jury is still out. But make no mistake, bringing in the national guard does not a pretty picture make.  This is not media hype as you and others have said.

                    1. GA Anderson profile image87
                      GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                      Well, I am glad to hear you have not already decided, even though your posts seem to say otherwise. I guess I just misunderstood.

                      You are right about the National Guard part, but my "media-hype" references were not tied to just this instance, but to all instances where they take 10 minutes worth of air-time facts and fill it with 23 hrs. 50 minutes of speculation and sensationalism to fill their 24 hr. news channel.

                      GA

          3. Credence2 profile image85
            Credence2posted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Well, Peoplepower, great revelation "the you know what hit the fan". I said that I was willing to be patient until the facts are sorted out. I am not one to question the journalism professionals of the New York Times, not exactly a rag. Now the question is, when will Wilson be placed under arrest and charged with the murder of this young man? Then there is the bigger picture of law enforcement in Ferguson and what lessons are learned and action taken to avoid a repeat of this tragedy. I do not know if I am prepared to wait until 'hell freezes over" for justice to be dispensed. But,  I expect it to be dispensed and quickly. Now that the facts are known and verified, it behooves authorities to take action quickly to respond to what appears to be the correct assessment of this case by the community.

            1. GA Anderson profile image87
              GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Did we read the same article? We already knew multiple shots were fired. It was already generally accepted that by most accounts he was facing the officer. The coroner stated that he could not tell if the head wounds were because he was falling or charging.

              What facts changed your opinion so quickly?

              GA

              1. Credence2 profile image85
                Credence2posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                This does not look good GA, what happened to the initial claim by Wilson that he was assaulted in his car? The evidence is pointing to an unjustified shooting. But, I will turn back on this quickly if evidence is presented to the contrary. Most of us remember Dr, Baden and his work and it is beyond dispute. How the hell after this shooting was this body left in the street for hours, why did not Wilson and the proper authorities at least remove the body or seek medical attention for the young man? This stinks to high heaven.

                1. GA Anderson profile image87
                  GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  I don't want to appear to be saying the officer was justified - because I just don't know. My only point was that as I watched the coroner's report press conference, (and I did read the linked article), I did not hear any revelations that cleared up anything.

                  You are right, it does not look justified. But I will still wait for facts instead of speculation and probably biased statements from both sides.

                  As for your question about the time in the street... I don't know the answer, but I will repeat what I think is a reasonable possible explanation;

                  1) The authorities knew this was a big deal and did not want to possibly contaminate or corrupt the scene. Sort of like when highways get closed for hours to investigate fatal car crashes.

                  2) Or, the authorities knew it was an explosive situation and kept pushing the decision of what to do higher up the chain of command.

                  3) Or, they were racist pigs that wanted to leave their trophy in the street for all to see.

                  Or, or, or... see what I mean. Nobody knows yet. It could be reason 1 or 2, or something similarly reasonable. But I bet someone will weigh in with a "Damn right! It's number 3!

                  GA

                  1. Credence2 profile image85
                    Credence2posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    I would not want to select curtain no.3. But the way this all happened shows serious problems in protocol as to how law enforcement is to behave after someone is shot by officers. Although the autopsy shows that the young man was probably fatally injured at the outset and was beyond medical help, did Wilson know that it was not possible to render medical attention once the man was down? The bureaucratic bumble explanation is tragic as it denies humanity to that one victim, and point to larger problems. You know, even if the Officer is exonerated as a result of the shooting, the police force in Ferguson role as a  guilty party  is established at this point. That is most tragic.

          4. GA Anderson profile image87
            GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this
          5. peoplepower73 profile image87
            peoplepower73posted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Sometimes I do and say things that I don't really understand until a few days later.  Call it intuition if you will.  It came to me as to why I posted this forum and why I used the wording that I did.  I have been watching a series on CNN called the Sixties, produced by Tom Hanks  It's all about the good things and bad things that happened in the sixties. The last episode I watched was about Civil Rights. I could relate to many of the scenes that I was watching because I was in the Air Force in the deep south during that period.  I was in Biloxi Mississippi for 14 months and Valdosta Georgia for a year.

            I saw how blacks were treated as sub-humans: own bathrooms, drinking fountains, places to eat, back of the bus, school segregation to just name a few. I was there when a 14 year old black boy, Emmit Till from Chicago was visiting his cousins in Mississippi and whistled at a white girl.  He was beaten, eyes gouged out and then shot.  The local joke was what is the fastest thing in town? Emmit Till riding a bicycle!

            I remember the Freedom Rider's bus being burned with the people still in it; how Medgar Evers, was shot and killed as a civil rights activist on the University of Mississippi Campus; two governors calling out the National Guard for school segregation; Rosa Parks for refusing to sit in the back of the bus;

            The episode showed Johnson signing the Civil Rights Act and how the southern democrats jumped ship and became republicans.  There were also many interviews by people who were civil rights activist and today are seeing racism starting up again as a result of many people still not buying into the Civil Rights act.  One of those people was congressman John Lewis who in the sixties was one of the leading civil rights activists.

            What I'm seeing unfolding in Ferguson, reminds me of what I saw and lived through in the Watts riots in Los Angeles.  It started over police discrimination against blacks and resulted in looting and burning buildings. The governor had to call out the national guard.  You can call this what you want, but I call it pent-up anger on both sides.  I believe that is what is happening in Ferguson.  Although, there is no way, I could have known it was reach this level.  Call it intuition if you will.

            So that's why I posted this forum using the wording that I did.  Those scenes that I saw on that episode and what I experienced living in the deep south and the Los Angeles area have been burned into my memory. Damn, I could write a hub about this. Oh by the way, no one has answered my questions above.

            1. PrettyPanther profile image86
              PrettyPantherposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Peoplepower, I have been following this thread but not commenting.  The usual suspects here on this forum seem to have an emotional need to deny the pervasive existence of racism.  This will not change.  Even my elderly father, who grew up in rural Arkansas and still absentmindedly uses the n-word, is appalled at what is happening in Ferguson.  Some people are unable to face reality because it would make them uncomfortable.  Acknowledging problems means one must take action or possibly feel guilty for not doing so.  Some would rather ignore or deny than acknowledge a problem exists.  It makes their life easier.

              1. GA Anderson profile image87
                GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Hello PrettyPanther,

                Suspecting I might be one of your "usual suspects," and speaking only for myself...

                I never denied racism still exists. I believe there are some folks who are extreme in their racist views, and I believe there are many more who still feel nagging racist residuals that they suppress because they know it isn't right - but those residuals are still there. At least that is my perspective. But the key points were "some," and "suppress because it isn't right."

                And I do acknowledge there there are still racial barriers - no matter how hard we strive to reach "enlightenment."

                But... and the current Ferguson riots make this a hard point to make - I think we have made a lot of progress from the times and conditions Peoplepower73 relates.  The recollections he said formed the basis for his thought that we are witnessing "racial creep" - meaning it is getting worse, not better. That is the point I challenged.

                Relative to the Ferguson crisis - even  acknowledging your points, I don't think they are any justification for the violent rioting. 

                GA

            2. GA Anderson profile image87
              GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Yes, those questions were answered - look on page 6 of this thread.

              GA

              1. peoplepower73 profile image87
                peoplepower73posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Sorry, I always view comments in threaded view.  I will have to start viewing them in chronological as well.

            3. Cgenaea profile image60
              Cgenaeaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Analysis... wink
              People don't realize it, but when the majority population feels like they are losing...all hell breaks loose on a major level... burning kids in a bus?!?!?!!!! People swinging from trees?!?!?!?!!! A few little girls blown-up in a church?!?!?!??!!!!! An ENTIRE army!?!?!?!!!!!
              Black people don't have those resources. They act a "small-scale" fool.
              But I bet you will not find white people swinging from trees.....

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
                Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                You keep referring to bygone eras! WHY?

                1. Cgenaea profile image60
                  Cgenaeaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  I was speaking of the last time white people felt like they were losing their freedoms. We don't get much of that today. Sorry to be bringing up "old" stuff. Just doesn't happen to them that often.

                  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Let us recover... offer ways to help us help. People are people and all people must be treated with respect and acceptance. we must not be blind to the human SPIRIT ever.  what I mean to say is… the majority of people are good insightful people. and this outlook is actually increasing not decreasing.

                    after all, what is more fun? love or hate?

                    1. Cgenaea profile image60
                      Cgenaeaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                      Guess it depends on who you ask.

            4. Laura Knipp profile image60
              Laura Knippposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              News just in, A local Saint Louis radio station (100.7 The Viper) is reporting that Dorian Johnson has recanted his prior media espousals and now asserts that he and Mike Brown did indeed engage in a physical confrontation with Officer Darren Wilson and tried to take his gun.  As a consequence the same Radio Station is asserting the local prosecutor essentially advises it’s doubtful charges would be filed.

              Here is to posting assumptions and adding racial fuel to the fire. As I stated before, the news that jump first and try the cases in the public eye rarely are correct in their assumptions. Perhaps we all can learn a valuable lesson here.

          6. Cgenaea profile image60
            Cgenaeaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Sounds good smile but they've been "creeping" a long time. Lol...
            Seems the Reagan admin was very instrumental in starting it up again at the Federal level. War on Poverty... I mean blacks. And the War on Drugs... I mean blacks. "If we build them... (jails); they will come (negras). wink

            1. GA Anderson profile image87
              GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              "War on Poverty... I mean blacks..." There aren't any poor white people? What about all the rebuttals pointing out the high percentage of whites receiving welfare whenever a claim of black welfare queens is brought up?

              And the War on Drugs... I mean blacks"  No white drug users? Ever see any news or documentary videos of drug stings? Granted I may have only seen a few, and of course they could be the exception rather than the rule... but in most cases shown - the users were white and the dealers were black. So who is the focus of the War on Drugs - users or dealers?

              "If we build them... (jails); they will come (negras)." Really?

              GA

              1. Cgenaea profile image60
                Cgenaeaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                There are poor whites, and yes, they rack up the government cash and food dollars too. But...who is most affected by any change? Many more of white populations have resources and opportunity to resources via the job market (which tends to be racially biased).
                The war on drugs targets black dealers (who may compete in THAT job market freely); not white users. White users tend to be bait. (If you tell us where you got this...we'll let you go...freely) see???
                Jails are overflowing with BLACK drug dealers; not white users. Yes...really...

          7. GA Anderson profile image87
            GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            That certainly is a more understandable explanation of your "racial creep" thoughts. I still adamantly disagree. If anything I would be inclined to view it as receding instead of creeping. I think many of your points above agree with that too.

            Look at what you  mentioned as once taboo - that are now generally accepted by most people. Then look at the points you made to support your "creep" theory; "a white congressman,"  "still pockets of where whites have not accepted blacks and civil rights"

            Of course there are those examples, and there always will be.  But look at the bigger picture... look at our nation's population as a whole. Look at  the once strongly taboo that is now generally not just accepted, but seen as no big deal,  a non-issue..

            I don't think a nation with increasing racism would/could elect a black president, or be so generally forceful in its condemnation of folks that display overt racism, or dozen's of other positive examples of our progress.

            I accept and agree with your contention that there are still "pockets," groups and individuals that fit your criteria, but applied  to our population at-large I think it is the opposite of "creep."

            Couldn't it even be possible that the attention and condemnation of this particular incident - if it is as being portrayed,  is an example our our nation's progress rather than back-sliding?

            And if it does turn-out that the officer did nothing wrong - could that put the idea of "racial creep" on the other side of the coin?

            GA

      2. Credence2 profile image85
        Credence2posted 2 years ago

        A little off topic. After following some of the posts I have to wonder why conservatives always say that the Democratic party were the "racists" in Congress during the middle 20th century and earlier? I know that, but who is carrying the banner of diversity and progressivism today? They assume that the rest of us do not read history? When you study history you know that the national party was changing its stripes as early as 1932 but that in the local and state arena the party, particularely in the South,  did not change until after the late 1960's. So what was the explanation for the massive defection of formally Southern Democrats to the GOP at that time?

      3. peoplepower73 profile image87
        peoplepower73posted 2 years ago

        The fact that he had more wounds than bullet holes tells me that he was shot by military rounds.  They are hollow point and designed to do maximum damage to the individual and the tissue and organs. They literally bounce around in the target.

        1. GA Anderson profile image87
          GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Geez Peoplepower73, I don't want to seem to be picking on you. I really don't. I think we are having a contentious discussion - but I am not picking just to pick.

          But... you could not be more wrong about the Hollow-points part.

          Hollow points are designed to inflict the most damage - because they flatten and possible shatter on impact. Thus more destruction to internal organs, including the ones hit by the fragments and not the original point of entry. You are right "they bounce around in the target"

          Hollow-point bullets are not designed to retain their shape and velocity force to zing around and make multiple entrance and exit wounds. That would take solid, or "full metal jacket" bullets. Which could be a military round.

          In looking around for that answer, here is what a couple law enforcement officers posted on the Smith & Wesson Forum;

          "Once upon a time Federal Nyclads, which still are great rounds. Now days, it's Federal HST's or Winchester Ranger depending on the gun/caliber. "

          "LA County Sheriff's and LAPD both use 147gr 9mm. I know LASD uses the Winchester Ranger-T in both 9mm and .45 (230gr) and while last I heard"

          " LAPD was using Federal HST 230gr .45, they were still using Winchester Ranger-T 147gr 9mm. I wouldn't be surprised if they are using HST now for the 9mm but I don't know."

          "LASD also issues Speer Gold Dot 55gr .223 and approves Speer Gold Dot 135gr +P for .38 backups/off-duty."

          "My agency used the 180 gr. Winchester Ranger. The other local agency used 180 gr. Federal HST."


          I don't think any of the rounds mentioned are military rounds.

          GA

          1. peoplepower73 profile image87
            peoplepower73posted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Geez GA, you assume that I don't do my research.  Before I even posted about the military rounds, I looked it up on wikipedia.  I have a relative who was in Nam and he told me all about hollow points.  I just wanted to make sure.  So every statement that I make now, I'm going to have to cite the source?

            How do you account for more wounds to the body, than bullet holes?

            Hollow-point bullet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
            en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollow-point_bullet
            Wikipedia
            The United States military claims they use hollow-point bullets in some sniper ... result in wounds significantly different from full metal jacket ammunition in practice.
            You visited this page on 8/18/14.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollow-point_bullet


            I don't think you are picking on me. Tonight, there was already a shooting of unarmed black man by police officers in Los Angeles.  He was just having a fight with his wife. As these situations unfold, they will speak for themselves about what I originally posted.

            1. 0
              SassySue1963posted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Well you will have to cite a source for that "tonight police shot an unarmed black man in LA" because I can't find anything of the kind.

              Only this from 5 days ago:

              "There are conflicting accounts of what took place the night of Aug. 11. According to an LAPD statement, two veteran gang officers got out of their car on West 65th Street to talk to Ford, who was unarmed. The 25-year-old continued walking and “made suspicious movements” before tackling one officer and reaching for his gun . Both officers fired their weapons. Ford died later at a hospital"

              Again - conflicting reports because of course, the man's cousin says he was "just walking down the street minding his own business".

              You'll note the bolded part.

              The only thing I found from today was how the military equipment assigned to police saved lives in a shootout in LA.

            2. 60
              retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Bullets do strange things.

              http://www.gunnuts.net/2014/01/03/lets- … ge-things/

              A bullet can fragment after hitting bone and exit the body while still leaving fragments behind.

              A bullet can strike a bone, remain intact, slide along the bone and exit the body at an improbable angle.

              A bullet can strike, punch straight through and leave a bloody wound tract, having never struck anything vital and transfer little energy.

              Hollow point bullets are intended to expand and transfer as much energy to the target as possible. A frangible bullet is intended to break apart, leave fragments in the body without over penetration.

              The police use rounds that are presumed to be the most effective at stopping the targets actions. This is the reason why so many police agencies have switched from 9mm to 40 caliber or 45 caliber rounds. It is not about killing it is about stopping. The origin of the .45 caliber ACP round is in the Moro Rebellion in the Phillipines. The .38 caliber pistols used by the Army in 1900 was ineffective against warriors using drugs to prepare them for combat.

              The North Hollywood shoot out encouraged police agencies to switch to higher caliber pistols and make AR15s in .223 caliber and .556 NATO available as a means of combating any future devastating attacks on the public.

            3. GA Anderson profile image87
              GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Ok, maybe I misunderstood your "wounds" reference. If so then I was wrong.

              I may have made one of those fatal assumption errors, but... following from your linked article which had the coroner saying;
              "Dr. Baden provided a diagram of the entry wounds, and noted that the six shots produced numerous wounds. Some of the bullets entered and exited several times, including one that left at least five different wounds."

              A hollow point will not, (I don't think), enter and exit a body multiple times. Those extra entry and exit wounds were on my mind when thinking of your hollow point conjecture.

              I also found conflicting information about the military's use of hollow-points. It is against the Geneva Convention, and I found some statements that the military does not use hollow-points... But then I saw plenty of references to that notorious HomeLand Security ammo purchase that was said to be hollow-point ammo.

              All-in-all, Even if it was hollow-point, it is almost certainly not military ammo. As you pointed out in your Wiki reference, it is only  used by the military for specific purposes, (snipers?), and as I pointed out - it is outlawed for general military use by the Geneva and Nato - so it probably wasn't military.

              Hmm... has this boiled down to a semantics issue?

              GA

      4. Cgenaea profile image60
        Cgenaeaposted 2 years ago

        Next, tanks on the streets; curfew for grown-ups; house sweeps; non-compliant prisoners of war; gas chamber for the "rowdy"...

        1. 0
          SassySue1963posted 2 years ago in reply to this

          It is disturbing - but what created that move? Rioting and looting. Peaceful protests, candlelight vigils, memorials - all that would have been handled and no National Guard, no curfews, no rest of it.

          You can't take to the streets looting and rioting and not expect those counter moves to happen. And you can't threaten it will only get worse if you don't do what we want - and not expect that to happen. (which has been said repeatedly).

          1. Cgenaea profile image60
            Cgenaeaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            You are neglecting to remember the "one" person who is NOT looting. He doesn't deserve the military probes and unrest. He may be affected by military tanks on his front yard...

            1. 0
              SassySue1963posted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Absolutely agreed but he also doesn't deserve to live in fear while others are looting and rioting.

              1. Cgenaea profile image60
                Cgenaeaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                I think that he is very likely safe at home with the riots and looters. But SWAT teams make a bit more noise.
                I cannot say that the rioters should not be calmed, but there is much more to consider when "boots" land in black neighborhoods.

                1. GA Anderson profile image87
                  GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  "... when "boots" land in black neighborhoods..."

                  You are exactly right. And I agree.

                  But...

                  Is it too un-PC for me to wonder why this is a frequent occurrence? Is it because all black neighborhoods are powder kegs waiting for a spark? Is it because any/all black congregations/groups are waiting for just one more instance of the white man trodding(sp?) on them? 

                  I asked those questions seriously, even if perhaps naively. I am not in your place, so I cannot feel the pent-up anger at being treated as many blacks are - still. But... A lot of instances of the eruption of black anger seem to be instances of opportunity, not always justified by incidence,

                  So, if the anger is there, waiting for an igniter(sp?), does that always mean the reaction is justified?

                  Or could it be that there are instigators of your own color that say the hell with you too, I want what I can get? They have another agenda? Do you really think the looters represent the black community? Is the yahoo trotting out of as looted store with a flat screen TV really what you want the world to see as your representative - because life has not been fair to you?

                  Do you really think that looting helps the cause of the advancement of black people? Do you really think your life's lot justifies such a portrayal?

                  GA

                  1. Cgenaea profile image60
                    Cgenaeaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    During a time when white people felt like they were losing their "freedoms" there was a full out war... Yankees vs Confederates.
                    Black people don't have cannons and reinforced armies. They have bats and big fists. They do what they can... and a new tv never hurt a one of em...
                    They cannot go to the governor to have so-and-so arrested immediately for a severe injustice...
                    Innocent until proven guilty... least amount of force... a jury, a trial. For everyone. Not just trigger-happy cops.

                    1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
                      Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                      "and a new tv never hurt a one of em…"
                      ... do you understand that stealing is stealing?
                      It is never
                                 in ANY situation
                                                      justified.
                      Now if the shop owner said, " Here, go ahead and help yourselves to a tv or two," then all would be fine.
                      But, the shop owner cannot afford to do so. He has mortgage, rent, insurances, regulations, and fees, ETC. to deal with. How is it fair to the shop owner?

                      Justice consists of paying a man what is owed.
                      Q. Does the shop owner deserve injustice for injustices he had nothing to do with?
                      A. No, obviously.

                      1. Cgenaea profile image60
                        Cgenaeaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                        Tv... life on the street spilt... a theft is a theft. I do not mean to sound as if I am justifying their behavior. But I think I understand fully, what is occurring at this point. It is not about stealing, those who are prone are prone in any situation. We gon turn this mutha... is the point. I haven't a thieving bone in my body. I've gone without a tv set for up to a year. smile couldn't pay me to steal one. But I'm a different animal. I FIRMLY believe that the Lord fights for me. No vengeance needed. But not everyone is so PC wink
                        Let's talk next time a black cop shoots 6 times, an unarmed white businessman who reaches for his wallet instead of sprawling on the pavement.

                      2. Cgenaea profile image60
                        Cgenaeaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                        People in this country are not concerned with what you can afford. ? They get what they want.
                        No! The shop owner is not responsible. He is an innocent bystander. No need to ruin his livelihood. I hate his misfortune.
                        A better scenario would be to be quiet and let the justice system take care of their own. But they just feel like nothing that looks like justice will take place (again). Just letting off steam with the ONLY weapons they have.

                2. 0
                  SassySue1963posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  "safe at home" like the petrified parent who has moved all his kids to an inside room and moved mattresses to the floor fearing wayward bullets? Doesn't sound like he feels too "safe" to me and this was before any "boots on the ground" when it was just the rioters.

                  1. Cgenaea profile image60
                    Cgenaeaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Yeah...maybe the SWAT teams won't be doing any shooting.

      5. Cgenaea profile image60
        Cgenaeaposted 2 years ago

        4. They just didn't give a darn. (Everyone else gets a chalk outline or something) Piece o meat in the street. Cuz they're investigating.
        Need to take all year for trajectory tests. Possible "good" reason for shooting, test. Scrambling around for a witness with some sense (police tints on their glasses)... Aw damn...! A hit in the top of the head... kinda kills it for self-defense/running away. Charging at a man with a gun from a distance with your head down is laughable.

      6. Cole L profile image78
        Cole Lposted 2 years ago

        In any type of give and take relationship, be it personal or professional, people want to feel respected and not overlooked. Not to compare this tragedy to anything other  than what it is, we often see this type of resentment come to a boil in the workplace, schools and unfortunately in military (Nidal) and police situations.

        Each of these situations, someone felt disrespected, misunderstood and picked on. This is a much bigger discussion.

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
          Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          I agree… the human condition in general. Not racism in particular. If it is a problem in some areas there are legal ways to address the situation. Perhaps we need to be more conscious of how we can be more helpful to the down trodden. How? would you say?

      7. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
        Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago

        Slavery never should have been instituted anywhere ever.
        We are still recovering from a great evil. LET US RECOVER! Help us recover.
        I had nothing to do with slavery… I am not racist.
        Let me repeat that:
        I am not racist.
        No, I do not know anyone who is. In fact my white brother in law married a black woman. He became step father to her three boys (by her first husband who she had divorced) and had they two more. He has made many movies in Kenya, Africa about traditions there and has made it his life's mission to portray the beauty of Africa through film. His wife and he met at UCLA. She is a writer. They both received their Master's degrees.

        1. Cgenaea profile image60
          Cgenaeaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Now THAT "stern" letter should be addressed to the Ferguson PD. wink

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
            Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            WE HAVE LAWS based on JUSTICE.   
            Save the Constitution! Revere the Bill of Rights!
            There is hope as long as America is the Land of the Free...
            and there is love in our hearts.

      8. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
        Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago

        Repeating: "... my white brother in law married a black woman. He became step father to her three boys (by her first husband who she had divorced) and had they two more children. He has made many movies in Kenya, Africa about traditions there and has made it his life's mission to portray the beauty of Africa through film. His wife and he met at UCLA. She is a writer. They both received their Master's degrees."
        ...sorry to mess up YER day, as well.

        1. Cgenaea profile image60
          Cgenaeaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Actually, your lovely brother brightens my day a bit, Miss Kathryn... let me know how it goes in Ferguson. smile

      9. Cole L profile image78
        Cole Lposted 2 years ago

        For all the conversations happening in social media, it seems that no-one is really talking! Is it just me...?

        People Cyber Bully, post awful comments and appear to be afraid to speak up and take a position. When I was a child my parents would make me "think" about what I did wrong. If I was in fact wrong, I apologize when it was necessary, otherwise we discussed it.

        Nobody talks anymore. We hide behind #hashtags and cryptic comments.

        Racism, fat shaming, disrespect, gay-bashing, middle east conflicts.

        Conversation starter: "You say you don't like me? Do you even know me? "

        Ferguson, (MO) is a microcosm of "Do You Even Know Me?" - apparently no one is interested in humanity on a deeper level any more.

        We are simply broken down into the sum of our parts:
        Black or White, Israeli or Palestinian, Jock or Nerd, Popular or Unpopular, Fat or Skinny, Republican or Democrat.

        When really, we're all just ... People.... we need to talk it out. We may never resolve anything substantial but, we can at the very least try to look past what we see and stop judging books by their covers.

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
          Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          No, it is not just you.
          Yes, to what you have said.

      10. Cgenaea profile image60
        Cgenaeaposted 2 years ago

        Uh-oh... NOW some heads will roll!!!
        Or maybe just a few eyeballs. Lol...

      11. Cgenaea profile image60
        Cgenaeaposted 2 years ago

        If they are whipping his ass, and grabbing at his gun, how did they ever get 30 something feet away? And how does he not have bruises?  The friend has not been examined???? And he attacked a cop???

        1. Pragmatic Politic profile image80
          Pragmatic Politicposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          "If they are whipping his ass, and grabbing at his gun, how did they ever get 30 something feet away? And how does he not have bruises?  The friend has not been examined???? And he attacked a cop???"

          Have you listened to any of the accounts?  Every last one of them is clear that Johnson and Brown ran when the gun went off in the vehicle.  They're saying that the officer grabbed Brown by the neck and started the physical altercation, the officer is saying they shoved him back into the car, punched him and tried to take his gun.  They're saying that the officer had his gun drawn when he grabbed Brown, the officer is saying it was still in his holster when they attacked him.  Which is why it's a good reason to wait to find out what the trajectory on that particular bullet was and if there are any fingerprints or DNA of either Johnson or Brown in the car or on the officers gun, holster or other areas of clothing that may indicate they reached for the gun.

          How does who not have bruises?  I haven't seen confirmation, but it's my understanding the officer has a broken orbital bone in his face, possibly from being punched.  That may pan out to not be true, but if it is, the officer certainly didn't do it to himself.  If it's not true, we're back to square one, knowing virtually nothing about what happened in that car?

          The friend hasn't been examined?  What do you mean by "examined" exactly?  If you mean interviewed or physically examined, they may simply be waiting for evidence collection before they bring him in to find out what he says.  But from what I understand, he has talked to police to some extent at this point.

          I'm really getting the feeling you know actually very little about what is and is not being said by either side in this. That you've struck out to make a judgment based on a whim, which is blatantly unfair to everyone involved..  That makes you nothing more than an Internet troll and a waste of conversation.

          Wow.

          1. Cgenaea profile image60
            Cgenaeaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            I'm listening. You also said that they pushed him back in his car THEN tried to take his gun??? Sounds super silly to me... Sue said nobody ran, you say somebody ran... uh... who aint hip??? I hear fine... getting conflicting stories...
            But you have really surprised me here. With your inability to weigh the current news, youssure are keen on how you feel about me... "a sickening waste"???... telling... smile
            It's not personal...

            1. Pragmatic Politic profile image80
              Pragmatic Politicposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Don't really care if it "sounds super silly" to you.  Honestly, after this conversation, I don't think you have enough information to determine much of anything about the incident.  So why are you here, other than to be a troll?

              1. Cgenaea profile image60
                Cgenaeaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                You have a lovely way with degrading words. However, it is quite unfathomable that my opinion is any more off-kilter than yours. How large of yourSELF to insinuate that you know more than I... but, I'm JUST genaea. I can handle back burner. wink

        2. 0
          SassySue1963posted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Read the source. It was why it was provided. It answers your question.

          Since you can't be bothered I've concluded you are not interested in truth or justice. Just trollin' around the forums for a bit.

          1. Cgenaea profile image60
            Cgenaeaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Seems like both of you are claiming to have read the source. But... apples and oranges.

      12. Cgenaea profile image60
        Cgenaeaposted 2 years ago

        Witnesses corroborate the officer's account. No elaboration. Then two of the officer's friends gave his account, and THAT'S the biblical form of the story??? Oh! Ok... all this for nothing. wink
        Um... now that I've read my scriptures, may I PLEASE be involved in the conversation as a real person who just does not agree with the masses all the time?

        1. Pragmatic Politic profile image80
          Pragmatic Politicposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Not sure who this is directed at, but no, that's been my point... there is no "biblical" version of the story, we're still waiting for evidence.  At least thinking people are.  Fools like you are flopping around, whining and screaming injustice when you haven't a clue about anything.

          Have fun with that.

          1. Sed-me profile image83
            Sed-meposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            She's a nice lady, and not even slightly a fool. I think calling someone a fool is a comment that could get you banned. You should apologize imo. She doesn't deserve that kind of treatment for simply believing differently than you do.

          2. Cgenaea profile image60
            Cgenaeaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Cute colors! wink

        2. 0
          SassySue1963posted 2 years ago in reply to this

          I never said anything was the biblical account of the story - you did. It is not different than Michael Brown & his friend rob a store and then have an encounter with police. The friend says "we were just walking down the street minding our own business." No collaboration.. but you act like that is the biblical account of the story. Oh okay.

          Let's recap for a moment though: Two witnesses at the outset - the friend who says they were just innocently walking down the street - and a lady on the street who verifies the police officer's account with the altercation in the squad car and a shot, with then the two men moving away from the car.

          Reports say there are over a dozen witnesses who verify the officer's account. I guess they are all liars now? Just because ONE person says otherwise?

          I am not making claim to anyone's account being the one and only  - that would be you. I merely proposed a hypothetical IF the officer's account turned out to be the accurate one.

          Btw you ARE following the masses. The media decided the story before any facts were out and reported it as the shooting of an innocent boy walking down the street. They are the ones telling the masses what happened - and you are buying in. So no - you aren't standing against the masses. You've joined the mob mentality.

      13. Cgenaea profile image60
        Cgenaeaposted 2 years ago

        sed ♡

      14. Laura Knipp profile image60
        Laura Knippposted 2 years ago

        People want to think so, most of them are on the fringe.  There are plenty of conspiracy theories out there, and race baiters certainly are not helping. But this I do know, there are good and bad people of every race, religion, creed, and standing in the US and abroad.  To site this one incident as something that should be lumped into the whole without hearing BOTH sides of the story is not helping anything.  The toxicology reports have not been released on either side.  The medical reports of the young adult does not disprove the cop's version of events.  The medical reports of the cop are consistent with the beating he supposedly received. Medications and illicit drugs certainly can play a part in this--as some drugs like the ADD and anti-depressants can make someone irrational.  So let's get all the facts before we scream racism.

        As for "more unarmed black men by white police in the last few months" comment, I am unsure if you live in the same US than I.  I have heard very few.  However, with the current White House administration causing racial uproar and trying to divide our country in every way possible, I guess anything is possible.  If you look at the stats, black employment is down and young people employment is down even farther.  So before anyone claims that the President is making a positive difference in the African-American lives, think again.

        Like I said, there are good and bad people everywhere. Some cops may feel above the law, but there are just as many fine upstanding police out there as well.  Respect goes a long way, perhaps we are not racially motivated as you think. Perhaps it is a lack of respect issue that we have lost our way on.    The US is a melting pot and all need to learn to get along.  And many people just need to learn to adapt.  As for the "whites that never bought into the Civil Rights Act", well that is purely bull.  Only mainstream media, politicians, and some Democratic nut jobs called the KKK believe that. All others are dead or senile. 

        I have lived in the South for most of my adult life.  And I have lived in some of the "meanest" places.  And I have never had any issue with anyone of any race, religion, sexual preference, or nationality in my life. Perhaps I realize that respect is a two way street.

      15. Cgenaea profile image60
        Cgenaeaposted 2 years ago

        I will give someone else a chance to say it... I hope they say it soon.

      16. Cgenaea profile image60
        Cgenaeaposted 2 years ago

        Alls I know is...the democrats have seemingly opened a few doors for economic enhancements of the black race from about mid 70's. Giving one a dollar to control one, is better than no dollar with the same control intact.
        During my lifetime, it has been the Republican that slammed every door shut to create a steady pool of untouchable resources to be available for his wars and secret missions, and stocks and stuff.

        1. 60
          retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Seems to me the greatest change in black unemployment came with the election of Ronald Reagan.

          http://www.epi.org/publication/african- … mployment/

          Evidence has been mounting for a very long time that the welfare state has destroyed the black family. To whom does the welfare state belong but Democrats. Has there been anything since slavery to do more harm to black Americans than the welfare state?

          http://www.urbancure.org/mbarticle.asp? … k-families

          1. rhamson profile image76
            rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Oh yes, yes it has to be the welfare keeping these people from getting a job. Let us get a black person on Fox Snooze (brain disengaged and dreaming) to give the issue some concrete evidence.

            I have worked for a few companies that would not hire black people at face value. The company cared less who got welfare and who did not.

            Another bunch of ridiculous righty propaganda. But if it helps you keep more of your money it must be good. Never mind finding out a solution right?

            1. 60
              retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Enjoy the ignorance in which you wallow. Urban public schools, the welfare state, the minimum wage and abortion have all devastated the black family. The family is the essential institution of society and when it is gone entrenched poverty, crime  and hardship follow. The evidence of your eyes should have been sufficient, but apparently you are intentionally blind to the suffering of your black brothers and sisters.

              1. rhamson profile image76
                rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                .........Okay?........ But I would have expected a response to the racial connotations where blacks have a hard time finding a job. Your personal feelings seem to override your ability to stay on topic and be relevant. It exposes you very much when you get into one of these tantrums.

                But responding to your rant and insults, do you have a solution to the problem other than just stopping welfare?

          2. Cgenaea profile image60
            Cgenaeaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Well-fare has saved many down-trodden lives.
            Clinton was the President to whom you refer. Reagan was... well let's just leave it there...
            Adjustments and red tape and new regulatory practices and cutbacks and inflation has hurt the black family. Not well-fare; the one "help" they received after spit and nooses.

        2. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
          Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Damn republicans trying to save the country and the world…well, the non- greedy,  non-power hungry ones… are there any left?

      17. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
        Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago

        I wish I had a magic wand to make all people understand:

                                      You are free.
             You are beyond distinctions of class, of color, of race.
                                    You have power 
                                      You have love
                                        Use it wisely
                      And try to avoid pissing each other off.

        1. Cgenaea profile image60
          Cgenaeaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          I wisj your magic wand contained also, a potion to make everyone understand...
          We are free!!! We are beyond distinctions of class; of color; of race.
          We have power.
          We have love.
          We use it as we are able (as everyone else).
          And they should try to avoid pissing others off.

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
            Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            oh, the THEY word… why do you use it?

            1. Cgenaea profile image60
              Cgenaeaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              I like pronouns. wink

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
                Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Don't trivialize it. It is the CRUX of the problem.

          2. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
            Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            oh, the THEY word… why do you use it? I did already address it to all of US!

      18. Cgenaea profile image60
        Cgenaeaposted 2 years ago

        Guilty men walk free ALL THE TIME. While innocent men rot... I know.

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
          Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          And you yourself have a halo?
            No one is infallible unless anchored in the divine. Justice depends on just men and women. The more there are the better.

          1. Cgenaea profile image60
            Cgenaeaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            No halo.
            We need more just men.

            1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
              Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              and women.

      19. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
        Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago

        So who is THEY and what do THEY represent?
        I say hello and you say goodbye.

        1. Cgenaea profile image60
          Cgenaeaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Did you not read my words? I want EVERYONE to understand.

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
            Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            You said: "And *they* should try to avoid pissing others off."

            1. Cgenaea profile image60
              Cgenaeaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Stay with me; we were STILL speaking with EVERYONE.

      20. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
        Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago

        Perhaps by legislating morality back in the 60's we created an Us vs. Them class.
        ...horrible isn't it?

        1. Cgenaea profile image60
          Cgenaeaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          It was the secret legislation that did it...

      21. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
        Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago

        I said, "Perhaps by legislating morality back in the 60's we created an *Us* vs. *Them* class."
        A class which identified with being weaker than THEM. A class which identified itself with helplessness compared to THEM.
        I know I am getting myself into SCALDING hot water now...

        1. Cgenaea profile image60
          Cgenaeaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          The legislation served to free the black man from humiliation and degradation on a Federal level, as in, no more nooses and stuff. Yay!!! smile
          It did not create a climate for togetherness.
          Yeah, you spoke us vs them. Don't worry, I blanketed it for you.

      22. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
        Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago

        To Whom It May Concern:
        I said, "Perhaps by legislating morality back in the 60's we created an *Us* vs. *Them* class."
        A class which identified with being weaker than THEM. A class which identified itself with helplessness compared to THEM.
        I know I am getting myself into SCALDING hot water now…
        Signing Off Ever So Rapidly.
        SOESR

      23. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
        Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago

        To Who It May Concern:
        (Especially Those in Self-imposed or Actual Jails:)

        Not everybody is racist. Those with morals are not.
        The majority has morals.
        It is no longer a black and white issue... no matter how much anyone wants to cling to out-dated archaic illusions.
        My advice?
        Stop buying into these illusions and playing that game. And you know its a game… a bad one.
        In fact, an evil one.
        Got Morals?
        Yet?

        1. Cgenaea profile image60
          Cgenaeaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Did you read the UNarchaic and UNout-dated charts posted by peoplepower73 not that long ago??? Or did you "file" them???

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
            Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            … based on archaic principles of outdated mores of ancient times…

              folks are just not with the program yet.

            How silly.

            …Actually, how unCool:

            " uncool: adjective
            1 square, unhip, boring, unfashionable, unstylish, untrendy, behind the times; conformist, straitlaced, goody-goody.
            2 lame, unpleasant, unfair, unimpressive; sucky, crappy."

            ...and unHip:

            "hip: adjective
            1 fashionable, stylish, popular, all the rage, in fashion, in vogue, up-to-the-minute; trendy, cool, styling/stylin', with it, in, hot, big, happening, now, groovy, funky, sharp, the in thing, phat, kicky, tony, fly." Thesaurus.

            1. Cgenaea profile image60
              Cgenaeaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Just so we are clear, what is it that you think is "trendy" now???
              I say, Racial Creep... (not you wink )

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
                Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Having a racist attitude is not cool or hip. We have known that since the 60's.

                1. Cgenaea profile image60
                  Cgenaeaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  You and your well-trained children??? Please have each of them tell two friends so we can get the word out.
                  Thanks in advance. smile

                  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Honestly, I have worked in many public schools. I have worked with all races. I have never seen racist attitudes in any of the schools I worked at... ever. Some were elementary school aged American kids with African descent who were bused in from LA. We promoted their specialness and uniqueness on a school wide level by way of teacher training, assemblies, boundaries, kindness, positivity.
                     
                    I did not 'train" my kids.  My kids actually just learned by example and awareness programs in school. The schools in my area are very proactive.

                    PS Racism is not natural. It is learned.

                    1. Cgenaea profile image60
                      Cgenaeaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                      Is it learned in schools, where they "treat them special"... instead of the special treatment that EVERYONE gets...???
                      "Some were elementary school aged American kids with African descent who were bused in from LA. We promoted their specialness and uniqueness on a school wide level by way of teacher training, assemblies, boundaries, kindness, positivity. 
                      You say things like, "We love our African Americans here." Do you not think that to be  a "special" phrase??? The "special" treatment aint so "special."

                      1. 0
                        SassySue1963posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                        Perhaps it is just me, and Ms. Hill seems like a good person but there is just something in there that made my skin crawl. Maybe it is the term "special" like they use for kids with learning disabilities or physical disabilities.
                        It could be "promoting their uniqueness and specialness". We're all special and unique so what were they promoting? Their blackness?

                        I also could be just misunderstanding the post as well I suppose.

                        I wanted to respond to something in your response Cgenaea but the quote is now gone and not showing in the page for me to see.

                        Someday I will figure out all this newfangled tech smile

                  2. 0
                    SassySue1963posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    "You and your well-trained children??? Please have each of them tell two friends so we can get the word out."

                    I guess I shouldn't have chuckled at that but it was a pretty good quip.

                    I don't like double standards. I don't care who is practicing them.

                    On the release of the robbery video: "they are just trying to make my son the villain here. It is character assassination before any evidence is heard."

                    Yet - what are they doing to this policeman? The exact same thing.

                    "Cuz we aint seen no military nothin... is it because no tvs are stolen from real American citizens in the process???"

                    No it's because there isn't a mob shooting off guns in the streets, setting fires and destroying property. Chicago has a crime problem. A few posts back you were complaining about boots on the ground because of the rioting and looting - now you think there should be martial law in Chicago because of crime?

                    There is so much information floating about from the media, it is difficult to distinguish what is truth and what is speculation. There was an article yesterday that the people of Ferguson claim it is a youth thing and not just about race. That there is a power trip by police. Their words. That they also claim most of the unrest is due to the media and outside agitators. True or false? I don't know.

                    Let's be clear though - unless the officer said "oh two black guys walking down the street, maybe I'll kill one of them tonight" it isn't murder. Involuntary manslaughter, voluntary manslaughter, or justifiable homicide.

                    As for the paid vacay, that is procedure in most shootings until an investigation is concluded. No matter the race of the officer.

                    sidenote: Why when I'm in Chronological mode for the forum thread are the posts not showing up in order? Makes it difficult to respond.

                    1. Cgenaea profile image60
                      Cgenaeaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                      "True or false? I don't know."
                      False. The media did not do any shooting that i know of (we'll wait to see what the evidence says) they reported what happened. "Black man down, police did it."

                      As for the paid vacay, that is procedure in most shootings until an investigation is concluded. No matter the race of the officer.

                      Yeah, but kill a dog (much faster and fiercer) yo ass is grass!!!

                      "No it's because there isn't a mob shooting off guns in the streets, setting fires and destroying property. Chicago has a crime problem. A few posts back you were complaining about boots on the ground because of the rioting and looting - now you think there should be martial law in Chicago because of crime?"
                      Hell no! What stance are you perceiving my responses from? No boots; they simply do not know how to act. But nobody thought to send them. But we would need the whole National guard, plus two ministers. Chicago is big, there is unrest all over. But here, the police amp it, not the media...

                      I guess I shouldn't have chuckled at that but it was a pretty good quip.

                      I like your sense of humor. wink

                      1. 60
                        retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                        Chicago has a political party problem, when was the last Republican mayor or Republican majority in the Chicago City Council. Chicago has the same problem Detroit and Gary,Indiana - an unshakable commitment to the Democrat Party.

      24. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
        Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago

        "Would 've saved the military cost. And bloodshed."
        HUH?

      25. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
        Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago

        "bells and whistles; alarms and sirens"
        HUH?

      26. Cgenaea profile image60
        Cgenaeaposted 2 years ago

        Segregation is probably not a horrible idea. However, when Joey nem get a new football field; Ray-ray nem gets one too. And when Josh and nem get a new shipment of the best learning materials...guess what...
        Separate but equal.  If that's the way it's got to be.
        But with our numbers, how the hell will we stand when the war over the prosperity of da culurds outweighs the prosperity of the whites? Cuz you KNOW they comin'... wink

      27. bBerean profile image60
        bBereanposted 2 years ago

        Regarding the secrecy, without it jurors will likely be influenced by the threat of violence and not free to make honest and sincere judgments based solely on the evidence.  If you want fair, you would understand the need for secrecy in situations like this, when so many have made clear violence may result if a conclusion they don't like is reached.

        1. Cgenaea profile image60
          Cgenaeaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Fair. That is all that anyone wants. I'm sure, having Michael back, would be much better, but that's not going to happen.
          The people deserve the opportunity to walk through the evidence of the dearly departed's possible murder case. But we don't wanna scare the grand dragon...I mean jurors. Lol...

          1. bBerean profile image60
            bBereanposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Can you see the extreme bias in your statements throughout this thread?  I have no doubt you come by it honestly, but you can't use it to judge a situation.  Use it to inspire caution, not draw conclusions. 

            Do you genuinely believe the police would not confront anyone walking in the street instead of the sidewalk?  I would hope they would.  Do you not believe that and the behavior on the robbery video betray a belligerent, aggressive frame of mind?  A person walking in the street is in effect daring cars to mess with them.  If they feel rules don't apply to them and a car can't harm them, I suppose standing up to an officer would not be a stretch.  All the more so if the officer, like the clerk in the video, were much, much smaller than them.  None of that has anything to do with black.  Anyone exhibiting those behaviors would qualify for that assessment. 

            We need information about the altercation, and how an officer ended up with a broken eye socket.  It is too early to know for sure, so nobody on either side should be protesting and demanding an outcome without knowing what happened.  Doing so undermines if not eliminates a protesters credibility, leaving observers to conclude fairness and truth have nothing to do with their agenda.  This damages race relations making it a self fulfilling prophecy.  What very likely was an incident without race as a factor can be brewed into a major race issue by race baiters who build careers on sowing hate and discontent. 

            Here is my issue with all of it, and I can use you and I as a perfect example.  I feel we are a brother and sister in Christ, and have become friends on the forums.  We disagree on this issue, but you would have no valid claim to say my disagreement is racist.  Nor would you be able to produce anything to support a claim of racism against me, elsewhere.  It would be easier to say nothing and not risk that friendship, but what I am seeing is wrong so not speaking up damages the relationship from my perspective, as well. 

            Unfounded and/or premature claims of racism cause a wedge.  Who wants to divide us?  Satan will use any tool he can, and the more emotionally charged, the better success he has.  "Ethnos shall rise against ethnos."  We know race is a major means Satan uses to cause chaos in the end times.  While genuine issues need to be addressed, and should not be ignored, neither should we fall for those instigating disharmony and creating racial issues where they don't genuinely exist.  Maybe this will turn out to be race related, but right now the only way race plays into it for sure is in how it is being exploited to cause hate and division. 

            Because I do value our friendship I will walk away from this.  I have expressed my concerns, and thank you for listening.

            1. Cgenaea profile image60
              Cgenaeaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Hey! wink you are my brother in Christ and I love you. Damage to friendship should not be an issue here. We are discussing a very important issue that we just happen to disagree on. No reason that God is not still head of both of our lives (which means that we can do this unshaken). ♡
              I have experience with  "turn of the nose" from cops. In each situation, I was innocent.  Though I was guilty when a cop pulled up beside me to yell over his intercom system, "Get out of the street!" I felt that his tone with me was rather condescending. And he spoke to me like I was a little kid. And I'm sure that I was the elder of the two of us. His was the only car on the road at the time. And I was fuming over some crazy crap that I am sure he witnessed without one word. See, in the same street just minutes prior, I had been wrestling with a guy who had stolen one of my cards and would not give it back. But he (the cop) said NOTHING.  yet yelled to me to get out of the empty residential street. @#@**!!!
              Quite a few more of those under my own belt. And my record is spot---less. And I got education, though I'm sure I hide THAT well.
              smile
              Them emmer-effers have munked up a many of peaceful picnics, driving trips, store excursions, and casual strolls. I am not evergoing to deny that.
              I know, that everyone wants to be all PC justbbefore they bury Michael. But white police officers don't give a darn about black people and they may have secret orders...
              I, nor any of my friends and family may boast of more than one good experience with them... and we've "encountered" them a lot. Sorry, but I did admit to bias. Flesh goes by experience. Not possibilities that what you've always known... will change.

              1. Laura Knipp profile image60
                Laura Knippposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Where you see racial things about police and paint them all with the same stroke of a brush, many see different.  Yes, I am not African-American, so maybe it is different for you than it is for me. But there are not many of my kind out there either, as I am Native American.  So I do have a minority point of view.  And from this point of view, this is what I see.

                There are good and bad people out in this world. And not all cops are bad.  There are just as many bad black cops as there are bad white cops. And there are just as many bad people from all other jobs as there are good people from other jobs.  Each and everyone should be given a fair chance to prove their worth in society.  If they individually have shown they are bad, then I see no reason to support them in their decisions to be bad.  But if they show they are good, then I shall not spit on them and show them any resentment.  Everyone, regardless of race should be treated fairly. 

                Okay, I see that you had a bad time with one white cop.  But I know a dozen white cops that would give you their shirt on their backs for you if you needed it.  I know a dozen black cops that would do the same. 

                Until we find out all the story on this case, we cannot fairly judge what happened.  I seriously doubt that the cop had this "kid's" rap sheet on him, as the arrest record was from St. Ann, MO and not Ferguson, MO.

                1. Cgenaea profile image60
                  Cgenaeaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Mr. Brown did not get his day in court.
                  The officer took that from him. The other boy who attacked is walking around and changing his story...
                  I know lots of nice white people and I know a lot of nice black people. I know nice black people who have been harassed by bad white cops and I know nice people who have been harassed by black cops. But I don't know any white people who have been harassed by any cop. I heard one iffy story here, but the normal order of things is black people are cop targeted. Even my own really wonderful mother has had recent issues of police harassment.
                  To me, it takes a certain type of mentality to want to become an officer of the law. Slight narcissism may be a culprit; as well as power thirst. When you add those qualities to a badge, you get messy situations. In nice neighborhoods, there is the bored cop JUST WAITING for some action. In not so nice neighborhoods, over-worked cops with a prejudged idea of how to handle the "trouble-makers."

                  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    what's so iffy about MY story? Your comment was that it only happened once. I have been stopped by many a grumpy, power trippy cop since. Women cops are meaner than men. From my first experience, I learned not to become self righteous, or indignant. (and I almost lost it once when I was ordered out of my car by a female cop and told to sit down on the sidewalk, just for driving my Volkswagon bug home from the house where my friend had been working on it, at two in the morning…)

                    I learned you have to stay humble. The slightest disgruntled look or comment could bring it on. Not fair not nice.. what can we do?

                    Also, I heard from the son of a cop that Caucasian cops are harder on Caucasians than they are on African Americans. The same is true of African American Cops. They are harder on African Americans than Caucasians. They expect more of their own race... at this time in spiritual evolution. Well, according to a guy I was talking to here in LA


                    PMC

                    1. Cgenaea profile image60
                      Cgenaeaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                      I just cannot say that your story was that of police harassment. Cops love the steamy window knock. smile

                      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
                        Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                        Oh sure, down play them calling me every name in the book in the sheriffs car, and then pushing me down to a sitting position, stomping on my back and pulling my head back by grabbing my hair, once we got into the station. I was put into a holding tank for five hours for no reason except that they didn't like my attitude. (I had screamed when they started frisking me. I had said Shut Up when they asked me if I had enough.)

                  2. 60
                    retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Brown waived that right when he attacked and continued to attack a police officer. If he had merely stepped out of the street as he was told or asked - neither matters - he would have had his day in court for the strong arm robbery her had committed earlier. We are not guaranteed a day in court for violent lawlessness in the face of an armed officer of the law.

                    1. Cgenaea profile image60
                      Cgenaeaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                      Yeah, I guess you are right. He waived his rights. Although I did hear that he was trying to wave his hands in the air. Did you look at the precise placement of those bullet holes?

                      1. 60
                        retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                        Yes, they suggest a well trained shooter and a man trying to rush, ground and grapple. 35 feet is a tiny distance to a running man. 35 ft is less than 3 car lengths, less than 13 paces, less than 12 yards. An Olympic athlete can cover 12 yards in less than a second.

                        I am a middle aged fat man and I can cover 35 feet in less than 10 seconds. I can tell you why he was shot 6 times.