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?
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
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.
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
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
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.
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
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!
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
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.
…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/
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.
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.
At long last something on which we are in total agreement.
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.
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!
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
Laura
An outstanding piece of work---thank you
Laura
An outstanding piece of work---thank you
Laura Knapp: I didn't say the democrats and republicans switched sides. I said when the civil rights act was passed, most of the southern democrats jumped ship and became republicans. I said I saw it on the news. Let me clarify that. I'm 75 years old. In 1964, I actually witnessed the news of the southern democrats jumping ship, They were listed by name over a series of days. I wish I could find the names of them.
I can use the same logic as you, just because you say Wikipedia is a bad source, does not make it so. Just because you quote from books, does not make it fact. You state the democrats were against the blacks. Did you ever stop to think that you are really talking about the southern democrats? Just because you say all this happy talk about republicans, does not make it fact. I'm telling you what I saw live on television in 1964. You may call me delusional and you may call it media hype, but television in 1964 wasn't on a 24 hour news cycle and the news was presented by Walter Cronkite and Huntley Brinkley. They weren't that sophisticated, it was just raw unadulterated news.
Actually you said "(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. " Therefore, you did say they switched sides. And again, unless you name names, you cannot prove your point.
And what I am asking is what Democrats (list names since you are so grand on it) switched sides and became Republicans? Democrats will be Democrats. Leopards do not change their spots. The thought that the parties switched sides is redundant bull crap. Books I quoted are Barack Obama, Dr. Eric Foner ( a Libertarian), Rev. Wayne Perryman (an African-American Republican), and Gerard Alexander (an African-American Libertarian),. And all but Obama are historians. So sorry for not taking your word and Wikipedia as gospel and thinking a well versed selection of reading is incorrect in the actual documented history of Democrats.
The only time that the parties actually split as you say, is in 1860's when the Civil War broke out. This is when the Northern Democrats split into two groups--the War Democrats that supported the Civil War and the Peace Democrats that were against the Civil War. The War Democrats and the Republicans formed a Unionist Party in Ohio.
The Republican Party before that was an infant. It started in 1854 after the Whig Party pretty much dissolved. That party split into the Republican base and the others left politics altogether. But after the Civil War, the Republicans became Republicans again. And the Democrats were Democrats. And the ideals of socialism and control is what they are all about.
As for the bit about the news back then, yes, I understand what it was like back then. Granted, I am not as old as you, but I have spent time in the 60's. And for a fact, I am not a Republican or a Democrat. I am a Libertarian. In addition, I am of mixed race--over half of which is Native American. I do not think Barack Obama is the worst US President (although I do think he is in the top 5), I think Andrew Jackson was. And for the record more, my last name is Knipp and not Knapp.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
No, he was shot because he was sitting on a smaller man's chest and beating him into unconsciousness with both fists.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?)
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.
Speak for yourself, the wretched right wing believes this, and if it were so universal how was Obama reelected?
Credence2: Finally a voice of reason. Your reply is so succinct.
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.
'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????
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.
Funny that is the same thought I had as to why a lot of these yahoo politicians remain in office so long.
GA
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.
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
WOW! Kudos! Yet another post I can fully endorse.
Now stop it. You may not like the direction you are going.
I agree with you to point out as an African American male, I resent being used as political pawn in an attempt to divert my attention from the real issues that are more substantive.
Your self awareness is refreshing. Sadly pandering based on race or ethnic origin or religion is rife in politics. The role played by Blacks in politics has reduced their effectiveness as voters. 90+% support for Democrat candidates every election cycle leads to being taken for granted.
But, I wouldn't go so far to say what you did. I and many like me vote Democratic and there are substantive reasons for it. The reasons blacks support Dems are substantive rather than based on smoke and mirrors by 'handlers'. But no one likes to be manipulated regardless of the ideological direction it is coming from.
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.
I found that episode. Yes -It was a good analogy to the press', (and other entities), role in shaping attitudes and information.
GA
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.
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.
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!
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.
...what is the wider context / what is its cause?
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?
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?
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
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.
So beautifully stated.
The unrest is not because of imagination.
And the boot-strap trick only works for those with boots.
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
Examples?
Examples of what? State sanctioned racism? Read a history book. Institutionalised racism and overt racism? Ditto, plus see previous comments about the legal system etc. Examples are not hard to find.
The fact that you need me to give you examples is indicative of the lack of awareness around the issue. That lack of awareness along with a failure to even acknowledge the continued impact of racism on groups of people, is part of the problem. The majority is simply not hearing the minority.
Present the truth. Provide the concrete examples as they manifest in society as far as you know and have witnessed. We are listening.
Already have. If you refuse to listen, that's on you, and therein lies the problem. Black people are saying they are being discriminated against by legal institutions, by prospective employers, by the police etc. and the most you can do is effectively say "oh it's not that bad". It is that bad, and people on this very forum are telling you it's that bad.
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? Seriously, I'd like to know on what grounds you feel it is acceptable for the majority (white people) to dismiss what a minority (black people) are saying about race?
You mean they aren't hearing that the oh-so-innocent-gentle-giant-strong-arm-robber nearly beat the police officer unconscious prior to being shot? Is that the racism of which you speak? Or is it the subtle racism of lying about the horrendous impact of the welfare state on the black family?
If there is institutional racism, it is the institutions of welfare state and abortion that are most racist. They have stripped fathers from families and slaughtered a generation of black babies. The Klan couldn't have cooked up a more effective way of keeping blacks locked out of the success other minorities enjoy. After all, someone Asian is obviously Asian, yet Asians are denied access to high education set asides because they are not black. How about actual Africans? They have been much more successful than their long separated cousins. How about Indians, many of whom have dark skin and the added characteristic that separates them from the majority white population, unusual accents. Yet Indians have been very successful in America?
Why, is it racism or is it the consequence of permitting black lives to be ruined by liberal actions. Blacks, whites, Hispanics, Asians, Africans, Indians all attend taxpayer funded public schools but why are blacks not as successful. You can say racism, but what is the difference between a black American and the child of a Nigerian immigrant? It isn't "race" it is the culture and family into which that child is born.
The Nigerian immigrant isn't given an excuse not to succeed. Liberals beat the drum of white racism so often and so loudly that the faith in a brighter future is beaten out of young black people.
If there is institutional racism, look to your liberal institutions, sir, not mine.
As a Catholic, I know that the institutions to which I look are about burnishing the glory of a God given life, not its destruction. As a conservative, I know that the institutions to which I look are about the glory of an individual's life and the wonders anyone can accomplish with hard work, faith and dedication.
For my examples I look to my Nigerian brothers and sisters and their wonderful children. I look to great American men like Thomas Sowell, Walter E. Williams, Shelby Steele, Dr, Benjamin Carson, Justice Clarence Thomas.
If America is so racist, how the hell did Barack Hussein Obama get elected, here is a hint, it took lots of white voters and lots of institutional money. I may think that he is a terrible President. I may not have voted for him and tried to convince others not to vote for him. I never - never ever- refused to vote for anyone because of his (or her) skin color. Hell, I once voted for Jesse in a primary because I couldn't stand any of the candidates of either party and wanted my vote to still count for something.(that was in the days when Jesse was calling abortion a black holocaust)
Aren't immigrants given grant monies to assist them in their American dream?
The Africans that I have met are sent here by well-to-do families. And they missed all the degrading boat rides. They got to stay with their loving families cushioning every blow. Africans are very family oriented. They have great values and little to no American molestation... go figure...
You have effectively just said that black Americans are inferior to other groups, and cited the welfare state as the reason for that inferiority. The fact you seem unaware of the inherent racism in that position is an example of the problem.
And pointing out that you once (as a last resort) voted for a black man(!) is probably not the best way to demonstrate a lack of racism. Just saying. It also does not demonstrate that racism in America has ended, and neither does having a black President. Aside from the fact that Wall St. can buy a President of whatever color or ideology it chooses, the fact is that 114 million people didn't vote in the 2008 election, which means altogether 174 million people (the majority of the population) did not vote for a black President. How does that demonstrate society is not racist?
Who said racism is what keeps black Americans economically poor? That's another misunderstanding of the issue. It's the cycle of poverty that keeps black Americans poor. Racism is one of the things that perpetuate that cycle, and it hits black Americans disproportionately harder than other minorities. To understand why, look to your history books. I can tell you it isn't because black Americans are inferior, or deficient in some way compared to whites and other minority groups.
Your monomania demonstrates the sole currency of your argument. The charge of racism is the resort of scoundrels. Argue with someone else from here on, I have no truck with bigots and scoundrels who see and hear racism from anyone who doesn't agree with them.
You want metrics?
http://billmoyers.com/2014/05/22/these- … n-america/
The moment you call me a racist our conversation will also end.
Thank you. The numbers are not news to most blacks nor whites who are paying attention. Many people will argue that these numbers are the fault of the black man himself. But I know better than that.
Trying to insulate yourself from a discussion about race because you find it uncomfortable, or insulting is not helpful. Discussions about racism are uncomfortable because the nature of the subject is so personal. And with our view of history, the idea of being racist or having racist views is so abhorrent to most people, it is deeply uncomfortable when our own views are challenged as being racist. But that is not something we should shy away from.
If there is anything you take away from this exchange, I hope it's that we can hold racist views without realising it. It doesn't necessarily make us bad people, and it doesn't mean we hate the race in question. We have to move away from the idea that racism is purely a conscious belief that is deliberately acted upon. It can be, but in modern society it often isn't. But we also need to get away from the idea that because someone doesn't have overtly racist thoughts or behaviours, that their view or behaviour is not racist. The views and behaviour of even the most moderate person can be underpinned by racist assumptions.
We need to critically examine our underlying assumptions. To do that effectively we have to educate ourselves (and each other) by learning and talking about racism; Not get defensive when our views are challenged or described as racist; and most importantly listen to people for whom racism is not just a discussion, but a part of their real life experience.
I can tell you categorically that there is nothing about the inherent character of black Americans that makes them have less of a desire to succeed, and more of a desire to accept welfare. I will not shy away from pointing out the racist assumptions of that view. But you need to know that is a criticism of your argument, not your character. I don't know you well enough to make a value judgement about your character. Racism manifests itself either overtly or as an ingrained set of assumptions. As such I have no doubt that in my life I have held views, or made remarks that are underpinned by racist assumptions. I freely admit that because I think examining ourselves critically is essential for us to grow and become better people.
Where was that ever said. it is the white liberal elitist social engineering that is racist and insists that poor whites and blacks must be kept as one would keep a child. Your own thoughts were injected because you have permitted them to be colored by the ridiculous idea that the welfare state has helped when the opposite is the case.
Economic incentives trump all kinds of behaviors. The concentration of blacks in urban areas where destructive behavior becomes normative results in significant destruction. White poverty is more decentralized and diverse resulting in less severe changes in accepted behaviors. That is why the impact of the twisted economic incentives of the welfare state have a disproportionate impact on the multiple generations of black, urban welfare recipients.
more black children grow up in fatherless households
more black births are out of wedlock
black literacy rates are lower
black incarceration rates are higher
black graduation rates are lower
more black teenagers are unemployed
than ANY other racial group, why?
The simplistic, over used and therefore most dangerous answer is positing the existence of an insurmountable obstacle, the almighty white power trip, white privilege, white racism, etc....
The answer is hardly that simple. There are things keeping blacks from success that have nothing to do with skin color and everything to do with protecting the dedication of a politically powerful voting bloc. Much like keeping people over 65 in a continual state of terror over Medicare and Social Security.There are powerful forces keeping blacks, the poor,women and seniors from confidence in their own ability to prosper and succeed - it is called the Democrat Party.
I am confident that from what I have seen thus far, that peoplepower will have an EXCELLENT response... cuz I don't... There are too many things to correct. My heart is too close to the fire. My mouth is closing. For now...
Edit: oops, Don W.
Just because a view is not explicitly racist, doesn't mean it is not racist. Expressions of racism have become more implicit (suggested but not stated directly) because explicit racism has become politically and socially unacceptable. Your view is underpinned by both ignorance and racist assumptions, and this is why:
To understand the concentration of black Americans in urban areas you should read up on "white flight" (the process by which white Americans migrated away from racially mixed urban centres to racially homogenous suburbs) and what precipitated it. Spoiler: it's about shifting economies, historical policies, social attitudes. It would also help if you read up on the practices of redlining, mortgage discrimination, and racially restrictive covenants, all of which contributed to the concentration of black Americans in urban areas, and exclusion from other areas. Your ignorance of these social, economic and historical factors seem to be coloring your perspective.
Historical, economic, and sociological inaccuracies aside, the main problem with your view is the implicit racism, even with your conspiracy theory about Democrats (really?!) In suggesting that the Democratic party are successfully using Welfare to keep black Americans in poverty, you are effectively saying: to rid the majority of black Americans of any trace of ambition or thought of social mobility, and keep them in a cycle of poverty, all you have to do is offer a Welfare check. You then reinforce this by suggesting it does not work with other racial groups like Asians, or African immigrants. So why do you think this only works on black Americans? Do you believe black Americans are so lazy that all you have to do to oppress them is give them some food stamps? Is that what you are suggesting? If it is, can you see how that might appear to be just a bit racist?
I'll also ask you the same questions I asked SassySue and Kathryn, but so far have gotten no response to: 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?
I don't want history, I want 21st century. You are talking about today - I want examples of state sponsored racism in the here and now. I don't want to hear about the then and gone.
If it is so very obvious you shouldn't have any problem should you? Without resorting to prior 21st century.
This morning, I was listening to a Chicago radio station. The report was:
This week, a movie producer (white lady) was in Ferguson. She stated to the movie's director, John Singleton (if I'm not mistaken) that one of the "boots" told her that being a white woman, she better get out of town before nightfall because she can never be sure what these niggers are gonna do next........
Also, another black man, 2 since Brown, was shot dead for "erratic behavior"
I wonder how telling (to you) this information is of the mindsets of these white officers sent to protect THE STORES from the riot n*ggas.
Prejudice??? Or nah...
Sassy: I guess you don't understand the meaning of the word creeping. It means trend. You cannot establish a trend without going into the past. Trends are not established in the here and now. If you go into the future, it's called a projection. Maybe I should have used the word trend in my question, but I thought people, including you would understand that.
You don't want to hear about the "then and gone"? Well hard cheese. It's not possible to understand the roots of the problem without the historical context. Yours and others' desire not to think about the roots of the problem, is part of the problem, and one of the reasons an intelligent discussion about race in the 21st century cannot be had.
The effects of state sponsored racism did not disappear at the stroke of midnight, 1999 when the 20th century ended. Those effects still contribute to a culture that sees many black Americans caught in a cycle of poverty. That cycle is perpetuated by a number of things, one of them being the effects of institutional racism and other forms of racism. If you want examples of such racism, you need look no further than the legal system, disparities between school disciplinary policies etc. These issues all contribute to keeping black people within that cycle of poverty. But I'm not going to spoon feed you. The information is out there.
I will ask you the same question I asked Kathryn. Black people are saying they are being discriminated against by legal institutions, by prospective employers, by the police etc. On what grounds do you feel it is acceptable for the majority (white people) to dismiss what a minority (black people) are saying about injustices inflicted on them due to their race?
Sassy: You wanted here and now?
This just in from the U.N. Rights Chief
Missouri racial violence recalls apartheid, UN rights chief says
By Stephanie Nebehay
Reuters
GENEVA Tue Aug 19, 2014 7:21pm BST
(Reuters) - Clashes between police and protesters in the U.S. town of Ferguson are reminiscent of the racial violence spawned by apartheid in her native South Africa, the top U.N. human rights official said on Tuesday.
Navi Pillay, who is due to step down at the end of the month after six years in the U.N. hotseat, urged U.S. authorities to investigate allegations of brutality and examine the "root causes" of racial discrimination in America.
U.S. lawmakers on Tuesday called for calm and a change in police tactics in Ferguson, Missouri, which has been rocked by racially charged clashes and riots after a white officer killed an unarmed black teenager 10 days ago.
"I condemn the excessive use of force by the police and call for the right of protest to be respected. The United States is a freedom-loving country and one thing they should cherish is people's right to protest," Pillay said in a wide-ranging interview in her office along Lake Geneva.
"Apart from that, let me say that coming from apartheid South Africa I have long experience of how racism and racial discrimination breeds conflict and violence," she said.
"These scenes are familiar to me and privately I was thinking that there are many parts of the United States where apartheid is flourishing."
Noting that African-Americans are often among the poorest and most vulnerable U.S. citizens, and accounted for many of the inmates in the country's teeming prisons, she added: "Apartheid is also where law turns a blind eye to racism."…
As you’ll note in the timeline, immediately below, our community’s Managing Editor of Black Kos, the exceptionally incisive and prescient Kossack dopper0189, beat the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights to the a-word, at least an hour or two earlier on Tuesday…
Black Kos, Tuesday’s Chile
dopper0189
Managing Editor, Black Kos
Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 01:00 PM PDT
…When the black community in a city like Ferguson loses faith in its police force, and the police respond by crushing the community's civil and constitutional rights, it isn't a stretch to say that the white ruling class has created de facto apartheid. Probably temporarily, perhaps without segregationist intent. But functionally, that's what it is. They've also denied the people they serve the services to which they're entitled. Ferguson's police department commands a third of the city's budget and they are using those resources to provide aggressive disservice to the people who finance that budget
Ferguson presents an unusually extreme and condensed example of this sort of racial-civic polarization. But you can find expressions of the same basic dynamic of white public officials using their power to socially weaken black constituents all across the country…
This just in:
Republicans find it 'disgusting' that blacks could vote
bykosFollow
Diarist librarisingnsf covered this yesterday:
In an interview with Breitbart News, Missouri RNC executive director Matt Wills expressed outrage about the reports of voter registration booths popping up in Ferguson, Breitbart reports.
“If that’s not fanning the political flames, I don’t know what is,” Wills said, “I think it’s not only disgusting but completely inappropriate.”
Wills explained that the shooting death of Michael Brown was a tragedy for everyone.
“This is not just a tragedy for the African American community this is a tragedy for the Missouri community as well as the community of what we call America,” he said. “Injecting race into this conversation and into this tragedy, not only is not helpful, but it doesn’t help a continued conversation of justice and peace.”
I've been giving this some serious thought, because it's so much crazy, packed into so little space.
“If that’s not fanning the political flames, I don’t know what is,” Wills said, “I think it’s not only disgusting but completely inappropriate.”
The Missouri GOP thinks registering to vote is "disgusting" and "completely inappropriate." Why? Because it's Democrats doing it? Not really. It's non-profits. So there's no partisan element. And there's nothing stopping the RNC or Freedomworks from setting up their own voter registration booth.
But no, the fact that black people are registering to vote is "disgusting" and "completely inappropriate." Because, you know, participating in the political process "fans the political flames." So weird.
More below the fold.
“This is not just a tragedy for the African American community this is a tragedy for the Missouri community as well as the community of what we call America,” he said.
If it's such a tragedy, then why is it a problem that people are responding democratically, by registering to vote? How else to respond to tragedy? By ceding governance to an unrepresentative and unresponsive minority?
And if it's such a tragedy for them, too, why are conservatives spending so much time defending rampant violations of Constitutional and civil rights? The tragedy for them is that this is shining a light on their abuses. Remember, Ferguson has a Republican mayor.
“Injecting race into this conversation and into this tragedy, not only is not helpful, but it doesn’t help a continued conversation of justice and peace.”
You know what doesn't help peace and justice? The Ferguson police whitewash. Where is the incident report from the Michael Brown shooting? These are the same people who violated the law in order to ensure that Ferguson African-American students didn't end up attending white suburban schools. They didn't want black children in their lily white schools.
But it's not them injecting race into the matter, huh? It's not the same crowd screaming about the illegitimacy of the Mississippi Republican primary—because black people voted—now screaming about how disgusting it is that Ferguson African-American residents are registering to vote.
But they have reason to scream. There's no reason that Ferguson should have a white Republican mayor. And before long, they won't.
Certainly the situation recalls such times but let's be real here. No rioting and looting - no National Guard. It is really that simple. Peaceful protests - no National Guard.
The UN means nothing. You know it and I know it. It isn't apartheid - wow what a stretch. No one is being denied their rights to a peaceful protest - they are being denied the right to destroy property and steal.
However, that was not the point attempting to be made. He was referring to state sponsored racism. This is a specific response to specific actions.
I am still waiting for any example of state sponsored racism in the 21st century.
As for the voting thing - get a grip. My how you love to stretch the truth and read into things what isn't there at all.
He isn't talking about black people in Ferguson being able to vote. He is talking about what I told you about in my very first post in this thread. The Democrats using this situation as a political ploy. This response by the liberal left pretty much proves my point. Racial unrest is the backbone of the Democratic platform. Create it - and they will come. And in case they don't -let's make it real easy and put up voting booths or registration areas. Get it now?
Chris Rock, one of my favorite artists, said it like this: "I hate n*ggas!" I laughed, because I know what he meant (him being a black man/myself being a black woman). Some people really can rub you the wrong way. Fighting, cussn, drinking, stealing... but I understand the black man. I know his issue. Do you? (I know the answer from the way you speak, as well as your anonymous racial status) Were you from the "uppity" bunch too?
We've addressed what you think you know. Perception is not truth. It is perception. We had that discussion earlier.
Just like I stated that I perceived that in Ferguson itself there seems to be a racial divide, based on the racial make-up of the population versus the police force. I don't know that however, it is still only my perception based solely on that one piece of information alone.
But, you just go on along believing that what you perceive is always fact. That just isn't the case.
Your so-called reply isn't actually a response to anything. You didn't address anything mentioned at all.
Guess you just really wanted to get that favorite quote of yours into the thread somehow.
I think you have mistaken me for another. I don't remember us discussing what I think I know, nor your ideas of perception. And i have a really good memory.
I know that to fire the last of six shots into the top of someone's head, takes time, and planning...
Racial divide, yes. Racial motivation, possibly.
The man... white, black, brown, Puerto Rican, or Hatian, was unjustly slain. Even if he was wrong; even if he stole; even if he pummeled; even if he ran; even if he charged...
However, you didn't really respond either...
Please tell me what you think you know of my favorite anything...
It is morally wrong for anyone at anytime to focus on the color of a man's skin or genetic heritage when we are all God's children.
A thousand times, yes!!!
Cops need to know... thanks for telling them. Though i dont think "moral" is their thing.
Moral is everyone's thing. Laws are based on it.
To truly isolate the difficulty one must consider what contributed to the current class discrimination / prejudice. The class some find themselves in was originally based on racially oriented injustice. I believe It has morphed into class discrimination.
Q. What has contributed to the formation of this class?
The answer to this question will free us. Then, perhaps we can DISMANTLE whatever it is contributing to its (this artificially created class) existence.
?
Well as we've recently seen, not everyone follows the law. Therefore...
Morals differ from family to family; state to state. Maybe, in some families, the murder of "others" is morally sound. Ask Hitler.
Atheists and theists alike agree on what constitutes morals. Hitler had become blind to morality… as were those who followed him.
What do you think LAW is based on? The judicial system is an intricate part of our democratic republic and contributes to its very existence.
And why did we fight against Hitler? Cuz we accepted his form of "Morality"? No because we rejected his total disregard and lack of morality.
The cop is this case probably over reacted based on what I know about cops. But cops are in very precarious positions. They must protect themselves to be able to save others / do their jobs. When you have a gun and you are trained to use it… When you are young and you have been dealing with a lot of shits… I mean this guy he shot should not have been shot… but one should not mess with a man with a gun.
But in all reality, It is possible that Justice will prevail and the cop will be found guilty or not
based on the evidence.
Right?
Well, during Hitler's reign, no one could convince him that killing Jews was wrong. It was his moral obligation, he thought. Maybe others get as blind...
He was blinded by blind ambition and extreme idealism. He was a nut. Morality was NOT in the picture at all.
In this country our laws are based on MORALITY! Only the truth will tell us what will be in this case.
ONLY THE TRUTH.
It seems you have no faith in our system of justice.
The system has been set in place by the love of justice. Heaven help us when mankind stops loving justice.
When it gets down to it... it seems you have no faith in fellow man.
We were made in the image of God. God and his goodness is in every one of us. In some, less than others.
Maybe you should become a lawyer.
At least, start reading law books. You'll be surprised.
I meant in a GOOD way! Good grief. You are really impossible!
You are reminding me of John Holden.
Nevermind, John, I mean Cgenaea.
Just never mind.
I will remember this conversation.
Good night.
Sweet dreams.
Where ya been??? Cop a squat... I've got some STUFF to tell you!
Where I'm from... they don't.
Do Californians jump at policemen who hold a gun Iin their hands...from TEN feet???
The whole story has yet to be revealed. Why do you hand out snippets of the whole picture?
To what end, Cgenaea?
How much more information do we need? How long must i wait to say what it looks like to me? Because, all I have heard from the shooter's friends and the "12 or so witnesses", the cop was petrified 35 feet away from his attacker and started shooting because... he HAD to. Or something like that.
Please let me know when we have heard enough. I am dying to give my "well-informed" opinion.
Really? I know it is your favorite quote because that is what you said.
I find it interesting that earlier you discounted the shootings of unarmed white men because they were acting erratic and in a frenzied state yet NOW you say it doesn't matter if Michael Brown was acting the same way. Interesting to say the least.
You are going in circles, round and round. Trying to justify looting and rioting when there is zero justification for it. You began by saying that - then made a turn and are now trying to justify it.
You say you've "made up your mind. It doesn't matter what the judge says". Also interesting. Were you there? No. But forget justice, let me wallow around in my perception of injustice anyway. Got it.
Exactly my point. Media creates perception of injustice. Investigation goes forward, IF (still an "if") they find the officer innocent- those like you will just continue to wallow in their perceived notion of injustice anyway. Because the media told you to.
edit: On the perception discussion, it is possible it was with peoplepower.
You are not reading my comments. You seem to have some sort of bias, as well...
However, I'm gonna need to see that quote of what you "perceived" that I said was my favorite. That may show you directly how the bias sticks out. Plainly...
If it doesn't, please realize that you are the circly one. You do not know my conversation, because you make it up as you go.
I also stated plainly, that there was no "justified" reason for the stealing and shooting.
Michael Brown was frenzied from a distance. If that be the case (did you hear me say "if"???) Bias #2.
He was not attempting to abduct anyone either. He was PROBABLY about to attack a trained officer of the LAW, from. A. Distance
I'm not going looking through the entire thread. Paraphrased a bit but your words:
"the examples of unarmed white men being shot they are all in a frenzied state to begin with". Nothing about distance or anything else. Distance doesn't really matter if someone is rushing towards you anyway.
I did read your comment. I did misread the part about Chris Rock. You said he was one of your favorite artists, not that it was one of your favorite quotes. My mistake, sorry about that. It doesn't show any "bias" though. Only that I read it too fast.
What am I saying you said that you didn't say?
I haven't changed my stand at all, no circling here. Name one circle.
I've used the "if" word numerous times. No bias.
You still haven't addressed how you've "already decided. the judge's decision doesn't matter." Talk about bias.
I'm not going to go search out and cut and paste what you said. (maybe later on I will, but right now don't have time.)You know you said it. The others reading the thread know you said it. You can deny it all you want. It is in the thread. I already said you did say that the rioting and looting were not justified. Later on though - you then tried to justify it. I admit you didn't go as far as "its an understandable response" like the other poster but you still tried to explain it away and turn in that direction.
You wanted examples of police officers not buying into the civil rights act. Here are two. You may say that two bad apples do not make the barrel bad. However perception is everything. It is what motivates us emotionally.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/22/us/missou … suspended/
Do you know what the word "justify" means in this context??? The word justify means exactly what you ADMITTED I did NOT say.
Explaining the REASON for behavior is not, at all (in itself) what we call justification. I know WHY this is happnin, be it right or wrong...
Distance matters in the law. There should be risk of death to the officer or other citizens before he fires his weapon at an UNarmed citizen. If I am swatting at you from 35 feet away, are you afraid for your life??? If I am running toward you and you KNOW that all I have is a big fist; are you afraid for your life? Now, are you a TRAINED officer of the LAW???
You've misread so many of my words because you have a preconceived idea of what I will say, anyway. Is it because I'm black; and you agree with one of my favorite artists???
Are you disagreeing with your opponent here because he/she may be Caucasian? Does identifying as black provide you with a defense or does it justify an unwarranted aggression? I am a former police officer and have found myself in similar situations, fortunately I did not have to shoot. However, if my eye socket had just been busted and this guy had tried to get my gun and he turned and started coming at me again; I would shoot in a New York minute. Wearing that badge does not designate one a martyr, a victim or a scapegoat for thuggery. To label this officer, as anything other than a police officer, especially racist, is not only ignorant of the information, bias and one longing to be a member of a lynch mob.
She aint Caucasian, in my opinion, so no.
That officer sure shot GOOD with a "busted eye" don't you think???
Wearing the badge is a sign that you plan to uphold the LAW and follow your TRAINING in the matters. Not "flinch" because you got beat-up; and pursued your attackers without back-up.
Were there any other officers around at this point??? I mean there WAS a call about a strong armed cigarillo thief (not FIRE armed...lol). Did any other officer show up while the murderer was murdering???
--It took him six shots to get it right--not good shooting. It sounds as if he was hurt pretty bad. But in the end he got it right and probably saved his own life. Providing, of course, what we are now hearing is true. Strong arm robbery is a felony, regardless of what was taken. Just because it was a strong armed robbery, does not mean the thug was not armed.
Now if the officer was driving down the street, saw these two guys and said to himself. I am going to let this very big guy bust my eye socket and let him try to still my gun and then when he runs away, I am going to shoot him. Well, in that case you are right and it would be murder. You really should try to understand the difference between murder, manslaughter and justifiable homicide, but I do not think that you will make that effort.
I really don't think he flinched, even with only one operating eye.
In what I have read of your rants, there is only blood in your eyes and your reasoning seems to be skewed to a very racist bent. You need to work on that. I see you did not identify as black, that is a good start. I would much rather deal with reasoning beings, so I thank you for that. Do have a good day.
By the way, another child was shot in Chicago and many more wounded last night. If you are really concerned about black children and men being shot, I would suggest you march in Chicago.
"--It took him six shots to get it right--not good shooting."
And by "right" you mean that fatal final shot STILL far away eenough to pierce the top of his skull??? Uh... is this being recorded...?
I think the racist bent is in the no blood in the eyes rule of, "just another thug off the streets" mentality. And I think you need to work on that... hey looka there...! I'VE got an opinion too!!! now who's carries more weight??? I think I know what you think...
Opinions are good, but they should always have a foundation of fact. A police office does not shoot to warn or to wound, he shoots to kill. At least that was my training, which is why an officer does not pull his gun unless he intends to use it.
I have no problem with thugs being taken of the street and I am sure that you don't either.
I would think that my opinion has more weight and I would doubt very seriously that you have any idea of what I think, and I have no interest in exploring that path.
When will you be going to Chicago? It would seem that they have some problems.
Opinions are good, but they should always have a foundation of fact. A police office does not shoot to warn or to wound, he shoots to kill. At least that was my training,
Is THAT what they're teaching you guys, and why most of the cops around here (IN Chicago ) always approach my brothers and son with guns drawn??? Luckily a few officers forgot their training...just don't know WHAT I would do...
My opinion weighs more to me... oops, there I go again thinking... forgive me please. I know I'm black... I'm working on that... LOL...
We are all brothers and half are sisters and we all came out of Africa. Why are so so intent, so focused in your hate. Racism is not a good thing. Please do what you can to change that, if not for me for yourself and the other brothers and sisters.
Actually, here, more than half are sisters. See...something keeps happening to all the "brothas"...
Racism is not what I utilize. I was raised by strong, god-fearing, no man-fearing, intellectual adults. They saw fit to keep me clueless about the race thing.
However, being of sound mind, today, at 4:32p, I know what I see..... no wool this side of Earth, can blind me...
I have hate for no one...they taught me that too. ♡
So can a middle aged Indiana white man say,"I love my black sisters and brothers," and actually mean it in his heart? Because there are some in this forum who would deny that is possible?
I guess I'm middle-aged, lessen I live to 120. and racism was not SO bad when I was a kid (I knew a lovely white family, in fact!!! some of my best friends were white
)
However, I heard that the clan started in Indiana. So the love for blacks MAY be a stretch, but I'm willing to risk it being at least one loving middle-aged white man.
The Klan was started by Nathan Bedford Forrest and he was not from Indiana. It was also started nearly 150 years ago, in Tennessee. In fact, Forrest, a General in the Army of the Confederacy fought against troops from Indiana during the Civil War.
"By the way, another child was shot in Chicago and many more wounded last night. If you are really concerned about black children and men being shot, I would suggest you march in Chicago."
I aint marching nowhere. The thing is...we get that sh*t everyday. Chicago can be a crazy place, as beautiful as she is...
But with only black people as casualties (by the hands of cops, as well as eachother) it isn't much of a national news story.
Cuz we aint seen no military nothin... is it because no tvs are stolen from real American citizens in the process???
Did you hear about the officer who was fired for shooting and killing a dog? While yo boy takes a paid vacay???
--It took him six shots to get it right--not good shooting. It sounds as if he was hurt pretty bad. But in the end he got it right and probably saved his own life. Providing, of course, what we are now hearing is true. Strong arm robbery is a felony, regardless of what was taken. Just because it was a strong armed robbery, does not mean the thug was not armed.
Now if the officer was driving down the street, saw these two guys and said to himself. I am going to let this very big guy bust my eye socket and let him try to still my gun and then when he runs away, I am going to shoot him. Well, in that case you are right and it would be murder. You really should try to understand the difference between murder, manslaughter and justifiable homicide, but I do not think that you will make that effort.
I really don't think he flinched, even with only one operating eye.
In what I have read of your rants, there is only blood in your eyes and your reasoning seems to be skewed to a very racist bent. You need to work on that. I see you did not identify as black, that is a good start. I would much rather deal with reasoning beings, so I thank you for that. Do have a good day.
Being slightly interrupted i forgot to address: "I'm not going to go search out and cut and paste what you said. (maybe later on I will, but right now don't have time.)You know you said it. The others reading the thread know you said it. You can deny it all you want. It is in the thread."
Seems you were speaking on my supposed denial of the FACT that I SAID, I have made up my mind already... that's true. I haven't back-pedaled at all on it. And I won't. I believe the shooter's witnesses that you kindly quoted to shed some light on the situation.
Thanks.
This just in:
Democrats think this officer should be railroaded and indicted so there is no more rioting and looting in Ferguson. Justice be hanged!
"A Missouri Democratic lawmaker predicted Friday that if prosecutors don’t win a conviction against the police officer who shot 18-year-old Michael Brown, it could trigger a new wave of unrest in Ferguson.
“There’s several people out there including the protesters that I’ve been with this morning who seem to feel as though there won’t be a conviction,” she said. “If that happens, we’re going to have exactly what you saw two weeks ago, with a lot of tear gas going all over the place.”
You see how that little twisting of what is said works? Just like you did?
Where are you getting these biblical quotes? Aint no democratic representative gon openly say to NOBODY, "We should just plant some evidence and convict him quick, lessen there's a gonna be a riiiut aggin!!!"
Who's twisting? The repoter you believe, or the other?
It was to peoplepower.
I am aware the person quoted was stating their opinion on what would happen. I am aware they are not stating the guy should be railroaded etc. I was making a point about twisting the words of people like he had just done about saying Republicans think it's disgusting that black people in Ferguson vote. That wasn't what was said.
It was an example of how any words can be twisted (and are) in a situation.
However, you seem to indicate you think the person didn't say they expected rioting and looting if there was no conviction. They actually DID say that. In an interview. Live and on video.
I think I get it. You twisted words to show peoplepower73 that it is a bad thing? Like you haphazardly twisted my words concerning my favorite. And put it in my mouth somehow???
Here's an idea...when you twist words, make them believable. That way, it appears that you have done some research; with your glasses ON.
Actually I didn't twist the words. The quotes are accurate. I twisted their meaning. Which is what peoplepower did.
I didn't put any words into your mouth. If you're talking about the favorite quote thing - I said I misread that part. You said Chris Rock was one of your favorite artists - I read it as the quote was one of your favorite quotes.
You can be deliberately argumentative and infer dishonesty all you like. Doesn't make it the truth. If you took the time to actually do a little research yourself - you'd see the circles you've been spinning.
"Seems you were speaking on my supposed denial of the FACT that I SAID, I have made up my mind already... that's true."
Nope. Read it again. I was speaking on how you differentiate between an unarmed white man being shot and then change it up when it is an unarmed black man being shot. As for already making up your mind, sounds pretty biased to me. I haven't made up my mind about it at all. Just exploring what ALL the witnesses are saying - not cherry picking the accounts.
"Distance matters in the law." But only if the person is black? Because in the accounts of unarmed white men I provided, it didn't seem to matter to you. Only that they were already acting erratic and in a frenzied state.
"There should be risk of death to the officer or other citizens before he fires his weapon at an UNarmed citizen. If I am swatting at you from 35 feet away, are you afraid for your life??? If I am running toward you and you KNOW that all I have is a big fist; are you afraid for your life? Now, are you a TRAINED officer of the LAW???"
Let's see, I have a gun that if you overpower me now you are no longer unarmed. Yes, I would fear for my life in that scenario. Wouldn't you? IF (since you keep missing the "ifs" I include, thought I'd better draw attention to it) there was already an altercation, there is all the more reason to think I'd fear for my life in that scenario.
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.
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?
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.
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.
"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.
People like you don't sicken me... guess it's just the way I was raised...
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...
"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.
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...
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?
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.
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!
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.
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???
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.
This is now bordering on the line of amusement and amazement. 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???
They backed up from the car when the gun went off.
The officer then exited the car, yelled "freeze" at which point they turned around - does not say if a shot is fired at this point - then the officer was bum rushed.
Perhaps you should actually read the entire account before you comment on it.
There is zero evidence and one witness who claims hands in the air and retreating. Yet - you seem to have no problem taking that for gospel. But don't even read the entire account by the officer and what is reported to be over a dozen other witnesses - and make an attempt to discount it.
Interesting indeed. But certainly not amusing.
They backed up from the car when the gun went off. The officer then exited the car, yelled "freeze" at which point they turned around - does not say if a shot is fired at this point - then the officer was bum rushed. Perhaps you should actually read the entire account before you comment on it.
I could stop there, but I KNOW you didn't catch it.
Now you just said he was bum-rushed OUTSIDE the car... am I dreaming???
A dozen or so witnesses coming forth after the riot... ok... if this is true. Why'd they wait til after the riot started??? Nevermind
He bum-rushed an armed man from a 35ft leap... was he on a long-jump scholarship to college? Enrolling in Superman school??? High on ecstasy???
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!
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?
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!
You are sidetracking - the rape isn't the point (and not the only story, try reading the source provided) it is the media's portrayal of violent crime depending upon the race of the victim and the suspect.
Neither you nor I have any idea what happened in Ferguson. Neither does the media - but they have no issue portraying a certain scenario and creating racial tension.
No news story can create what has already been created already... since the beginning of America.
The news story reported what happens many times over in this country. Black man down...
Sorry it is so unsettling for so many that this travesty has been reported this time. But it is time that we stop pushing it under-rug and make it stop.
The people here are racists. They feel superior to even you... you seem to feel superior to some...
I can imagine til the cows come home about this crowd, but it doesn't matter what i think about anyone here. The cop in Ferguson was "DEAD" wrong. I know from the teensy-weensy bit I have heard...
No case cited will change it or make it "bleed into the ground"...
You mad because they're mad??? Ok...
"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.
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.
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.
Hi.
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.
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.
We Americans love to make projections. It is the American way. We've built an entire financial system based upon projections.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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?
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...
...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?
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.
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!"
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.
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/
There is so much we can say. But why?
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?
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
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.
I thought that you may need more room to say nothing, which is why the dpuble entry.
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.
I thought you may need some more time to absorb some actual facts about racism, hence the double entry.
Do you have a clear problem / solution laid out for us?
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.
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.
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.
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…"
+1.000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000!
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.
"... 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?
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.
Brilliantly added onto my response. Thanks SassySue.
LOL! I was honored.
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.
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.
Cool!
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.
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.
"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.
Nobody is throwing more and more money at the problem. They are taking more and more away. I am sure that you get what you pay for. Illinois sure believes it...
Money would probably help, it rules the world. You need money to do everything. And I do not know if anyone notices, but much of our "$" is now on computer screens. Little bright puffs of air. Dollars are not circulated because many are hoarding and stowing away... I have a picture in my mind of billions stacked away in rock caves; however many billions underground. The "dollar" seems to be slowly disappearing. But that's another conversation altogether.
I just think that we do not solve the problem by issuing a check and saying "whew! you'll eat today so I can sleep tonight". At some point, the difficult conversations need to take place (among those in elected office) and monies need spent on programs that actually help long term, rather than a short term fix.
It's a good idea. But you may train yourself til you choo-choo but if, when you are done training for Mgmt.; all open Mgmt positions require experience you do not have...? You get that experience, but how? You need experience to get experience?
then someone needs to be hiring. And taking "your kind"
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?
Uh… we elected a dark faced President! Fancy that! all the pale-faces voted for a dark-face!
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.
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)'
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Wow you seriously are caught in a time warp aren't you?
Let me repeat - all black people in this country did not have slavery roots. Your example btw, just for the record, would still be a slavery root. You understand that right?
"One of the most vexing questions in African-American history is whether free African Americans themselves owned slaves. The short answer to this question, as you might suspect, is yes, of course; some free black people in this country bought and sold other black people, and did so at least since 1654, continuing to do so right through the Civil War. For me, the really fascinating questions about black slave-owning are how many black “masters” were involved, how many slaves did they own and why did they own slaves?"
You'll note the words "free" black people.
"And for a time, free black people could even “own” the services of white indentured servants in Virginia as well. Free blacks owned slaves in Boston by 1724 and in Connecticut by 1783; by 1790, 48 black people in Maryland owned 143 slaves. One particularly notorious black Maryland farmer named Nat Butler “regularly purchased and sold Negroes for the Southern trade,” Halliburton wrote."
Guess all those white people should revolt at how they were treated by free black people.
source: http://www.amren.com/news/2013/03/did-b … wn-slaves/
Was it a majority? Nowhere near. It was a very small percentage. But, I guess if you want to blame slavery roots we'd better do our ancestry homework first. Figure out if it was white or black people that owned our great great great great grandfathers.
edit: I forgot too. That was back then. In the now, there are many black people that came here from Africa, or their parents came here from Africa, or their grandparents.
*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.
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..
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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).
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Sassy:
What is the source for your comments?
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.
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."
"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.
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?
"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.
__________________
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.)
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?"
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?
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.
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.
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.
'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....
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?
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.....
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.)
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.
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?
"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
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
You might find this of interest---------http://www.ijreview.com/2014/08/168698-eyewitness-recalls-important-detail-background-video-mins-ferguson-shooting/
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
...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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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...
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???
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.
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...
"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.
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@!!!
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.
Black officers are the same. IF you are white, yes, you may borrow my race card... 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...
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
"... 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
"... 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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
Yes, those questions were answered - look on page 6 of this thread.
GA
Sorry, I always view comments in threaded view. I will have to start viewing them in chronological as well.
Analysis...
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.....
You keep referring to bygone eras! WHY?
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.
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?
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.
Sounds good 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).
"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
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...
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
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
Next, tanks on the streets; curfew for grown-ups; house sweeps; non-compliant prisoners of war; gas chamber for the "rowdy"...
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).
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...
Absolutely agreed but he also doesn't deserve to live in fear while others are looting and rioting.
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.
"... 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
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.
"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.
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. 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
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.
"We gon turn this mutha…" Anger. Feelings of vengeance
...so unleashed emotions are completely justified?
Why?
Please stay with me, Miss Kathryn. I stated, long ago, that there is no justification in my discussion. Analysis...
For every action, there is...
For Ferguson, every 27th action... probably.
Police brutality is rampant; it needs to stop; the favor goes to a consistent wrong direction.
I cannot say, "Power to the people!" because I do not agree with theft and vandalism on ANY level...
Analysis.
I gave an example of that to peoplepower earlier. Black cop, shot unarmed white dude sitting in his car, who was reaching for his ID and vehicle information. It actually mirrors the current situation in a lot of ways. As with this case, there was conflicting witness testimony. Cop got off and is currently trying to get his job back (he even had a history of anger issues). Guess what? No TVs were harmed in the entire process - though there were protests. Peaceful ones. Just no race baiting media or Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton to fire everyone up.
You do understand that people own those stores they are destroying correct? Most of them small businesses. Neighborhood businesses. Sorry, thieves are thieves. That isn't about injustice - that is about taking advantage of a tragedy and lawlessness.
Are you reading my comments? The looting is a horrible injustice. We are clear.
Shooting the boy/man/beast/life squandering cigar-stealing jay-walker...was injustice. To walk away... no name, no face, no jail, no consequence??? Infuriating to some. Some people have an eye for an eye mentality.
The story you mentioned is intriguing. Could you tell me how to find the story??? I've searched, a long time, to find such a phenomenon. Funny, yes??? I can find whitecops sshooting unarmed black people ALL THE TIME
Of course you can find such stories. The media thrives on them. For the other stories - you have to do extensive research into local papers and news stories. You'll not find the likes of CNN or MSNBC giving them any coverage.
The link is in this thread. While it takes some filtering and looking - google has even more links.
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.
Well, to let off steam will only serve to bring them more trouble. It would be wise to get the assistance of honorable lawyers.
Yeah!!! You should write them a STERN letter. And put a few dollars in there.
...lawyers could take on the case without money up front. Pro Bono
"Pro bono publico (English: for the public good; usually shortened to pro bono) is a Latin phrase for professional work undertaken voluntarily and without payment or at a reduced fee as a public service. It is common in the legal profession and is increasingly seen in architecture, marketing, medicine, technology, and strategy consulting firms. Pro bono service, unlike traditional volunteerism, uses the specific skills of professionals to provide services to those who are unable to afford them." W
The US Constitution and the Bill of Rights gives every United States citizen power.
Power to the people?
Stay Out of Jail.
Stay away from any illegal activity or anyone who engages in illegal activities.
Is that so hard?
Really?
and while I'm at it,
step away from the eggs
or the testosterone! (before you are ready)
and one more thing:
Stand Up!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVkGS5m … 5mDlEU#t=9
Too bad that what you are saying is untrue for some. If it were accurate, I never would have been stopped, searched, and given a "present" to take to jail. Simply following the law and staying out of trouble is not enough, Miss Kathryn.
What is your "for instance?"
I will not let you wallow in negativity.
and attempt to spread it around.
The blacks help each other and they do. Many lawyers will work for free for the experience or for causes they believe in.
In fact, You can help others. Do You?
Most of the good things in life are free.
Not all good things in life cost money.
What can you offer for free?
a shoulder to cry on
a listening ear
physical helping/assistance.
encouragement
instead, here, you offer negativity and an attitude of hopelessness.
Thanks for nothing.
Thanks, but none is more familiar with pro bono than ones who NEED those services. One must find a pro bono attorney with the right skill and purpose. Who can afford to work for free.
We can look at positivity or negativity.
The solution is to see the positivity that others have accomplished. The solution is to charge through the negativity. The solution is to look to the human spirit to make things better.
The solution is to apply the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
The blacks need to uplift each other and they do. We know we should not be racists. Those who persist in this type of archaic thinking should be ashamed of themselves.
The majority IS enlightened.
Racial creep: No. I do not buy it.
I state it here to show we do not have to brainwashed by the media and others' interpretations of occurrences in life.
Whether you buy it or not, it is fully stocked on the shelves for your perusal. take a look... aisle "N"...
"N" for Negativity? And you can also check out the "P" for Positivity aisle. Try it, you'll like it.
Can't get to aisle P ma'am...cops blocking the entrance from both sides. still I rise...
They are imaginary cops, Miss C. vanish them, okay?
In fact, I send lawyers to blast them away! Do you see them coming with their huge volumes of law books? and above them are spirit guides with justice for all.
I could understand if slavery was still going on here… in fact there are other types of awful things going on… men and women do horrible things, but let the majority of America's people be on the same page.. with hope for the future and faith in the laws of the land to triumph in every circumstance.
...and the determination to make sure they do.
Oh!!! You are not listening. I thought SOMETHING was wrong...
See... in Ferguson a few days ago, a REAL cop shot a surrendering black boy a lot of times. He died... there's a riot because of it. I thought you knew...
NO, a police officer shot a man who was attacking him. There was no surrender and he wasn't a boy. The first story is typically distorted, often intentionally, by those who want to sharpen racial tensions. That is why we were all treated to the innocent picture of little, skinny 12 year old Trayvon Martin the honor student and the white man who hunted him down and murdered him. When the truth emerged it was very different. Trayvon was not a skinny little 12 year old and he was beating an Hispanic man with both his fists while sitting on his chest when the armed man defended himself.
The LIE was etched into reality by a lying media and lying politicians and the automatic assumption that when ever a black man is shot by anyone who isn't black it must be racism. Why is black on black crime so much more acceptable? In the week since Brown was shot there have been dozens of shootings in Chicago, why is this one so important? Brown was a criminal attacking a police officer and he was shot. It is always sad when someone squanders his own life in crime and violence, but he is to blame for the squandering.
You read the reports??? Dude was shot from a distance. Once atop the head... that does not an attack make...execution fits better... Trayvon was minding his Skittly business when some Hispanic man jumped from nowhere demanding answers to questions that were NOT his business. Black grown-up men don't like to be questioned by anyone. Had the man went about his business AS HE WAS TOLD BY DISPATCH... Trayvon could've lived to enjoy his candy.
Tell the story how ever will make you feel better. Fiction is always better then fact, I suppose.
Your glasses are tinted by your assumed "squandering" of life on the part of the murder victims. Though life-squandering is not a crime worthy of death... it's a RIGHT and NO ONE ELSE'S BUSINESS.
If cop Trayvon had shot life squandering G. Zimmerman; cop Trayvon would be serving his jail sentence; not dead.
I spoke facts. One of those kids was minding his own business. And one of those kids were not... you paint it however you want.
What do you call an 18 year old person, a teenager? Why do you speak like an authority when there hasn't been anything conclusive released other than a preliminary autopsy report?
I call an 18 year old an adult. If you can vote and swear an oath then you are not a boy. Don't wait passively to be spoon fed, you might find out more about the latest from the Ferguson shooting.
Nothing conclusive, then why the assumption that the poor innocent gentle giant was gunned down by a race hating out of control cop. Instead of the, sadly, more likely - strong arm robber shot by police officer defending himself from an attack.
When a man throws the glory of his life away on violence and crime, it is always sad.
Hey! Go easy on that cop! He was just doing. His. Job... Violence and crime seem to be a huge part of it...
I do not care if the huge ogre jumped on top of his head. Tje law has deemed what should take place. Somebody's spose to yell for back up or grab the pepper spay. Or use his police training in hand-to-hand combat... not shoot to kill...
Police shoot to stop, if that requires an entire magazine, then it requires an entire magazine. There are eye witnesses now emerging who say that Brown was charging at the police officer. A large man is difficult to stop. A large man using any kind of drug, alcohol included, is even more difficult to stop.
Yep... you said it. The rule is...if a man jay walks/steals some cigars, and tries to run (or attack an armed police officer with his head down) shoot that so-and-so...
Probably wouldn't work in white neighborhoods though.
Apparently white people have no monopoly on bigotry.
http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairp … uspect.php
Did you read this report before you linked it?The officer was black? The crazy man (attempting to abduct some people) was white???
Kathryn Hill: I appreciate all your positive thoughts. In theory they are great, but in reality they just don't work. Think of it this way. If you were to take your positive talk to two enemy's in a war zone, they would not even listen to you. Ferguson right now is almost like a war zone.
What is sorely needed not only in Ferguson, but in other oppressed black communities is education, not only for the citizens, but also for the police. Who is watching the watchers? The police need to be better educated in how to deal with volatile situations and black people need the opportunity to be educated so they can better themselves.
You say we all have equal opportunity to make ourselves better. But it depends on where you start to have that opportunity. it's like looking into a well where some people have a ladder and can get out of the well where others are stuck down at the bottom and there is no ladder. If this country doesn't reach out and start educating both the police and the community, these situations will occur many times over.
We need to get good lawyers on board. I think that is a pretty good solution. Can you make sure that happens?
You could actually.
We could demand justice. How?
Positivity works.
negativity does absolutely nothing.
common sense and love works better than education.
I can't do it. How would you go about doing it?
Okay I will. Thank you.
I will start with prayers.
I ask that all who read these posts join me in praying for justice and
enlightenment for all the the people involved in the shooting. And that the truth behind the motives of the police will be made known. And that the plight of blacks, wherever injustice is being inflicted, is rectified.
Thank you, Dear God.
Missouri doesn't have 100% free public education?
a war zone: where positivity is the only thing carrying soldiers on day after grueling horrendous day. It is the nature of war that the two sides do not listen to each other.
Here IN America we have NO WAR!
(and the Constitution and the Bill of Rights have made the ladders available for all who wish to grab hold of the rungs.)
"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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Now THAT "stern" letter should be addressed to the Ferguson PD.
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.
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.
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.
No, it is not just you.
Yes, to what you have said.
Uh-oh... NOW some heads will roll!!!
Or maybe just a few eyeballs. Lol...
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???
"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.
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...
It's not personal...
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
I will give someone else a chance to say it... I hope they say it soon.
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.
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
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?
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.
.........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?
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.
Damn republicans trying to save the country and the world…well, the non- greedy, non-power hungry ones… are there any left?
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.
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.
oh, the THEY word… why do you use it? I did already address it to all of US!
Guilty men walk free ALL THE TIME. While innocent men rot... I know.
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.
So who is THEY and what do THEY represent?
I say hello and you say goodbye.
Did you not read my words? I want EVERYONE to understand.
Perhaps by legislating morality back in the 60's we created an Us vs. Them class.
...horrible isn't it?
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...
The legislation served to free the black man from humiliation and degradation on a Federal level, as in, no more nooses and stuff. Yay!!!
It did not create a climate for togetherness.
Yeah, you spoke us vs them. Don't worry, I blanketed it for you.
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
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?
Did you read the UNarchaic and UNout-dated charts posted by peoplepower73 not that long ago??? Or did you "file" them???
… 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.
Just so we are clear, what is it that you think is "trendy" now???
I say, Racial Creep... (not you )
Having a racist attitude is not cool or hip. We have known that since the 60's.
You and your well-trained children??? Please have each of them tell two friends so we can get the word out.
Thanks in advance.
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.
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."
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
Deleted
No one commented because the link is broken. If it is what I think it is from the part of the description that shows - be careful of headlines. He made no racial comments in his speech, though he did speak against homosexuality.
It's very interesting. I was able to see it. Now it has been taken down. Here is the one hour video of his rant. Also there is an article about Dan Page. Sassy you don't have a clue. In the video, he goes to Kenya to show where our "undocumented president" was born. He made many more racial comments about all kinds of people. If you don't want to watch the video, just read the article.
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crim … 9fdc2.html
I watched the video. Earlier before you had posted that link. He made the reference to Obama's birthplace, that is not a racist comment, that is one where he doesn't believe he was born here. Show me a racist comment - there isn't one. Given that the President's own Grandmother referred to his birthplace as Kenya, the First Lady talked about Kenya being his "homeland" - believing the President wasn't born in Hawaii isn't a racist comment. If falls more in line among a conspiracy theory.
You just went to you link now? Because it took me to a page not available.
Sassy: I'm sorry. Did you read the same article I posted? You can't make this stuff up. Here is what they said, followed by the actual article.
"Glendale officer Matthew Pappert was also suspended after posting on social media that he thought the Ferguson protesters should be "put down like rabid dogs."
"But it was Page’s comments in the video describing himself, in Belmar's words, as "an indiscriminate killer, that it didn’t matter what your race or background was” that most concerned the police chief.
"Muslims are passive until they gain parity with you or they exceed you in numbers and they will kill you."
"Roy Blunt and Claire McCaskill won't even talk to me. They say 'You're an extremist.' I say amen. OK. And I'm real good with a rifle. My best shot is at 1,875 meters. I got me a gold star on that one. That's a fact. You run from me you will die tired. I'm dead serious, folks."
"I personally believe in Jesus Christ as my lord savior, but I'm also a killer. I’ve killed a lot. And if I need to, I'll kill a whole bunch more. If you don't want to get killed, don't show up in front of me, it's that simple. I have no problem with it. God did not raise me to be a coward," he said before warning the audience that he believes the government will put kids in indoctrination camps."
"I'm into diversity. I kill everybody, I don't care."
My comments: All of this inclusiveness about killing anybody, no matter what race, is a very clever way of saying, if you happen to be a race, I don't like, I'm going to kill your ass!. I'll bet his mommy is right proud of her 35 year old little boy...and so is his Lord Savior, Jesus Christ.
Here is the actual article:
Two St. Louis-area police officers have been suspended by their departments, as the unrest in Ferguson keeps intense scrutiny on the personal conduct of law enforcement officials.
A St. Louis County officer who had been assigned to the streets of Ferguson has been suspended after a Youtube video of him making incendiary comments surfaced.
A Glendale officer was also suspended Friday after comments he posted to Facebook.
St. Louis County Police Chief Jon Belmar said officer Dan Page, a 35-year veteran of the department, has been suspended pending a review by the internal affairs unit. The video was brought to Belmar’s attention by CNN reporter Don Lemon, who had previously brought Page to the department’s attention after complaining Page shoved him.
The video of Page was apparently made in 2012 before a group called the Oath Keepers of St. Louis and St. Charles. It is unclear where it was shot. Glendale officer Matthew Pappert was also suspended after posting on social media that he thought the Ferguson protesters should be "put down like rabid dogs."
In the wake of the shooting death of an unarmed black teenager by a white police officer and weeks of ensuing protests, the two incidents illustrate the glare that the international news story has cast on local police. While he would have reacted to the video the same way absent the Ferguson protests, even Belmar admitted that he wouldn't have faced the same pressure to maintain the county police force's image.
Belmar told the Post-Dispatch that Page's comments defaming President Barack Obama, the U.S. Supreme Court, Muslims and various sexual orientations would likely have triggered disciplinary review for being “beyond the scope of acceptable police conduct.”
But it was Page’s comments in the video describing himself, in Belmar's words, as "an indiscriminate killer, that it didn’t matter what your race or background was” that most concerned the police chief.
“With the comments on killing, that was obviously something that deeply disturbed me immediately,” Belmar said.
An internal review will start Monday, and Page will not be doing any police work until internal affairs makes an official decision on whether the officer should be suspended, Belmar said.
“Had he been a probationary officer doing the same thing, I would have fired him two hours ago,” Belmar said.
Among Page's rambling comments in the hour-long video:
• "Muslims are passive until they gain parity with you or they exceed you in numbers and they will kill you."
• "Roy Blunt and Claire McCaskill won't even talk to me. They say 'You're an extremist.' I say amen. OK. And I'm real good with a rifle. My best shot is at 1,875 meters. I got me a gold star on that one. That's a fact. You run from me you will die tired. I'm dead serious, folks."
• "I personally believe in Jesus Christ as my lord savior, but I'm also a killer. I’ve killed a lot. And if I need to, I'll kill a whole bunch more. If you don't want to get killed, don't show up in front of me, it's that simple. I have no problem with it. God did not raise me to be a coward," he said before warning the audience that he believes the government will put kids in indoctrination camps.
• "I'm into diversity. I kill everybody, I don't care."
Page says on the video that he is a former Green Beret who did nine combat tours and took early retirement from the military because he refuses to take orders from "an undocumented president."
“It’s very concerning to the NAACP that an officer like that is on the ground. And who knows what he’s already done on the ground already?” John Gaskin, a St. Louis County and national NAACP board member, told CNN Friday afternoon.
Belmar confirmed that Page had been assigned to day patrols in Ferguson during the unrest over the last two weeks. Belmar said Lemon, the CNN anchor who first reported on the Page video, complained days ago that the officer had pushed him while he was reporting in Ferguson. Other than that, “we’ve not gotten any complaints,” Belmar said.
The chief said that he reviewed footage of Page in the incident Lemon complained about. “I didn’t think it amounted to any sort of assault,” Belmar said.
The chief is not aware of any other blemishes on Page’s record, but he said he has not had an opportunity to review Page's file.
“That was kind of the only time his name has been recognized up here,” he said of the Lemon incident. “But again, this video is disturbing.”
Belmar added: “No one believes he was ever involved in a shooting or a fatal shooting.”
Page has been deployed with the U.S. Army several times during his police career, according to Belmar. He was most recently deployed from 2008 to 2011, and again in the early 2000s. It wasn’t immediately clear where Page had been deployed.
Pappert was suspended after posting on Facebook that the Ferguson protesters were "a burden on society and a blight on the community," according to posts preserved by news and opinion website "The Daily Caller." Another post that appears to come from Pappert says the "protestors should have been put down like rabid dogs the first night."
Jeffrey Beaton, chief of police in the small St. Louis County suburb of roughly 6,000 people, said the comments of Pappert were brought to his attention at roughly 10:40 a.m. Friday morning and "an internal investigation was immediately initiated." Pappert was immediately suspended until the investigation is complete, Beaton said, which shouldn't take longer than "a couple weeks."
The investigation will look for any other conduct "that's relevant or similar," Beaton said.
"These type of allegations could result in disciplinary action up to and including termination,” he said.
Glendale canceled a local ice cream social and Arbor Day celebration scheduled for Friday evening on North Sappington Road after the Facebook comments came to light.
On Wednesday, a St. Ann police lieutenant was suspended after pointing a semi-automatic assault rifle at a protester in Ferguson the night before, police said. Lt. Ray Albers pointed the gun at a peaceful protester after a "verbal exchange." A county sergeant witnessed the incident, forced the officer to lower his gun and escorted him away.
With the traffic being heavy, at times the system takes longer, or someone else is responding same time.
Chronological works best for me. It all comes up eventually.
It was 1979. The phrase was "I am beautiful." The assembly had kids getting up and chanting this with dance routines and singing. It was very cute… But, I am with you... it seemed a bit much. Nevertheless, it was the philosophy at the time and the kids didn't seem to mind. But, isn't it like saying "I love you…too much "What? There is a possibility you don't?"
Do you think they should have been bussed out of their own area?
I don't.
I got all kinds of bells and whistles; alarms and sirens from this one, Miss Kathryn.
First, PLEASE explain to me why the school board thought it necessary for these special little children, to chant the phrase, "I am beautiful."
The kids didn't mind at all. (We people love assembling and chants and stuff).
Bussed out of their who, what??? L. O. L...
No, no one there loved them too much.
The schools were forced to integrate because there was a huge deficit in the quality of learning for them in their own neighborhoods. Remember???
Maybe the super-dee-dooper schools should have just been built within their "own" area equipped with a full and competent staff to serve "them" as well. Would 've saved the military cost. And bloodshed.
They should have just focused on the schools where they lived. In fact, the problem in Ferguson is one of unsuccessful integration. How about opening that can of worms?
( A WSJ article discussed integration vs. segregation today.)
The article declared that segregation actually works better as far as peace and harmony for all concerned. What about that idea, Cgenea??
You have finally managed to drop my jaws. I cannot decipher if you know how you soundor not.
Schools in black "areas" were subpar. Old rundown buildings with plumbing issues. Broken, outdated this or that. Subpar curriculum. Subpar instruction. Subpar materials, no swimming pool...
And...rebuilding them to an equal standard would have taken a large amount of time, and cost the government a small fortune, not worth their dime... or something like that.
This is a can of worms which I have very little understanding of. It seems the issue is one of desegregation efforts… has nothing what so ever to do with quality of schools.
What is the desegregation issue based on? History?
Help I am lost.
"At high noon, Nashville time, on Monday, May 17, 1954, all nine justices of the United States Supreme Court in Washington joined in a declaration that legally-sanctioned racial segregation in the public schools is a violation of the US Constitution's promise of equal protection of the laws. The unanimous decision, covering five consolidated cases known collectively as Brown v. Board of Education (for plaintiff Oliver Brown and his daughter Linda of Topeka, Kansas), was to have enormous consequences in eleven southern states, where compulsory separation of the races carried the dual sanctions of law and social custom, as well as in ten other "border" states and the District of Columbia, where an inconsistent mish-mash of segregation laws remained in place. Eventually, public education systems throughout the country would be affected by the historic ruling. - See more at: http://www.southernspaces.org/2009/walk … lYkmZ.dpuf
" In August 1963, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), acting on behalf of Crawford and a group of other minority students, brought a class action suit against the Los Angeles City Board of Education seeking to desegregate the two high schools. After five years of unsuccessful negotiations, the ACLU, with the NAACP, expanded their goals for desegregation to include all schools within LAUSD. In 1970, Judge Alfred Gitelson ruled that the Los Angeles City Board of Education and LAUSD had engaged in de jure segregation in violation of the state and federal Constitutions, and ordered the board to prepare a desegregation plan for the district." At high noon, Nashville time, on Monday, May 17, 1954, all nine justices of the United States Supreme Court in Washington joined in a declaration that legally-sanctioned racial segregation in the public schools is a violation of the US Constitution's promise of equal protection of the laws. The unanimous decision, covering five consolidated cases known collectively as Brown v. Board of Education (for plaintiff Oliver Brown and his daughter Linda of Topeka, Kansas), was to have enormous consequences in eleven southern states, where compulsory separation of the races carried the dual sanctions of law and social custom, as well as in ten other "border" states and the District of Columbia, where an inconsistent mish-mash of segregation laws remained in place. Eventually, public education systems throughout the country would be affected by the historic ruling. - See more at: http://www.southernspaces.org/2009/walk … lYkmZ.dpuf
It has always been my idea that desegregation was about creating an equal opportunity for the black children. This other idea, if I understand you correctly, is new to me. "We wanna bring our raggedy school into your distrct."? Maybe.
Maybe the school was not so raggedy and they didn't want to be disregarded, such as, "All white schools north south east and west are in the district, how can we not be?" Sounds reasonable to me.
Hint: Fourteenth Amendment.
But, one thing for sure, we have a problem. Way bigger than I knew. And there may be no Huge Grand Fix as I was idealistically hoping.
Just little by little spiritual evolving of individuals. Little by little.
What prevents this little by little progress, I wonder?
My guess: Hatred.
update:
"1991
In Oklahoma City Public Schools v. Dowell, the Supreme Court rules that public schools may remain racially segregated as a matter of practice in cases where desegregation orders have proven ineffective. The ruling essentially ends federal efforts to integrate the public school system."
http://civilliberty.about.com/od/raceeq … meline.htm
I just cannot believe that the black was so eager to rub elbows with the white children that they fought tooth and nail. I think it was more like, "Share the good stuff." "Quit fn telling us what we can't do, and where we can't go, and with whom we cannot sit." Or something like that...
"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.
"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.
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.
So maybe there is considerably less support from our Republican Illinois government??? Possibly. Good thought. I think the state runs the police and the jails... hmmm... let me think on this. I think I just had an epiphany.
Chicago's police department is not run by the state of Illinois. I suspect the "epiphany" is more likely a bias self confirmation.
I would never suggest that city cops are run by the state, however, the state is the blanket operating body. When city cops arrest, the STATE tries the case.
Support from the state...
Here is how the Grand Jury is going to work in Michael Brown's case:
.(CNN) -- The fate of Darren Wilson -- the Ferguson, Missouri, police officer who killed Michael Brown -- is heading to a jury.
But it may not be what you think.
For the first time Wednesday -- after 11 days of often emotional, sometimes violent protests demanding "justice" in the form of formal charges against Wilson -- his case could move to court.
Yet, in stark contrast to the media frenzy on the streets of Ferguson in the aftermath of Brown's death, cameras won't be allowed into the courtroom. As activists stress the need for transparency, these proceedings will be secret.
Ferguson eyewitnesses 'scared to speak' Witness accounts hold conflicting details Many call for prosecutor to step aside Spike Lee: There's a war on black males
Here are a few things to know about how the grand jury system should work as it pertains to this case and others in Missouri.
Is the grand jury the only way that a person can be charged with a crime?
No. In fact, it's not the way most people are charged with crimes. It's used by prosecutors only in a small percentage of cases.
Authorities can file a criminal complaint, which could then lead to a probable cause hearing in court. Such a proceeding is open to the public and media.
That's not the case with a grand jury proceeding.
So it's closed to the public?
Yes.
And that doesn't sit well with Brown's family.
"It's about transparency," family lawyer Benjamin Crump told CNN. "This community has a distrust for the local enforcement officials. So if you have a secret grand jury proceeding, where nobody knows what the prosecutor presents ... and the grand jury comes back and says we find this (shooting) justified, I think that's going to be very problematic for this community to accept."
Still, while they might not like it, the Brown camp's opposition to the secretive grand jury process won't open it up.
This may be convenient for St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney Robert McCulloch given the intense public pressure on the case, said veteran criminal defense lawyer Mark Geragos.
"He's already, I think, kind of punted this over to the grand jury," said Geragos, a CNN legal analyst. "So that (if) they don't bring an indictment, he can say 'well, it's out of my hands.' The members of the community said that there is no crime here."
Truth hard to find in Ferguson Ferguson police tactics under scrutiny Attorney General heads to Ferguson
How is a grand jury picked?
Just like any other jury. Citizens get a summons in the mail telling them to come to court. If they make the cut, they are on a grand jury.
In this case, the jurors will come from St. Louis County, Missouri.
How many people are on a grand jury?
In Missouri, it's 12 people. (The number might be different in other cases.)
Does their decision have to be unanimous for a charge to be filed?
No. It's true that, in a criminal trial, all jurors must agree to convict someone on a given charge. But in Missouri only nine jurors -- or three-fourths of the grand jury -- have to agree.
So what are the grand jurors deciding?
According to the Missouri state attorney general's office, a grand jury is looking at two things. One, was a crime committed? Two, is there probable cause that the accused -- in this case Officer Darren Wilson -- committed the crime.
It is very significant that this is a lower standard than for a criminal trial. In that case, jurors must decide if someone is guilty of a crime "beyond a reasonable doubt." "Probable cause" isn't as stringent.
Is the process overseen by a judge?
No. As Neil Bruntrager, a criminal defense lawyer and general counsel for the St. Louis Police Officer Association explains, it's just the grand jurors, the prosecutors and the witnesses. That means no judge or defense lawyers.
"The prosecutor simply presents the information that they have," Bruntrager explains.
Does that mean the accused can't present a defense?
Yes and no.
First off, unlike during a regular trial, defense lawyers can't rebut the prosecution or cross-examine a witness. It's the prosecutors who present their case, without interruption.
That doesn't mean that the voice of the accused isn't heard. As the attorney general notes, "defendants do not attend unless they are testifying as witnesses." Since Darren Wilson witnessed what happened on August 9 as much, if not better, than anyone else alive, he might be invited to testify in court.
"Usually an accused will not be invited to testify," Bruntrager told CNN. "But I would expect, in a case like this, that an invitation would be extended to him."
What will the prosecution present to the grand jury?
In a word, everything.
Just take McCulloch's word for it, according to the Wall Street Journal: "Absolutely everything will be presented to the grand jury. Every scrap of paper that we have. Every photograph that was taken."
Will McCulloch himself present the case?
Ed Magee, a spokesman for the prosecutor's office, told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch that the prosecution will be "handled by the attorney regularly assigned to the grand jury. It will not be by Mr. McCulloch."
So how long will this process take?
A grand jury could indict some one as early as tomorrow. But that doesn't mean it's going to happen that fast. In fact, it could be weeks or months.
After all, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has said the Justice Department -- conducting a parallel federal civil rights investigation into this case -- has interviewed hundreds of potential witnesses. There's no reason to believe local authorities haven't similarly conducted lots of interviews and collected various pieces of evidence to sort through and present to the grand jury.
Secret proceedings? No judge? Only 9 out of 12 must agree? Jury of your peers???
Welcome Home, Mr. Wilson!!!
Job well done... See you at work on (any given) Monday!!!
It is REALLY hard to see that this will go any other way...
Is this another case of an already made-up mind, or would some actual Grand Jury proceedings details be worth the effort?
The Saint Louis Dispatch Grand Jury explanation, (it is worth the read), did a nice write-up explaining the process. It definitely is not structured to the advantage of a defendant:
ps. Keep in mind the purpose of the use of a grand jury is primarily to get an indictment, and secondly to avoid political fallout for an unpopular decision to pursue a prosecution .
pss. St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney Robert McCulloch has already pledged to release to the public; "every scrape of paper and every piece of evidence presented" if the grand jury decides not to return an indictment.
1) No judge to rule on "technicalities" to keep the jury from seeing any evidence - the jury gets it all from raw hearsay to technical forensics.
2) The defendant may be invited to testify, but unless they have critical "witness testimony" to offer they usually are not. Officer Wilson, because he certainly does have "witness testimony" that could be important, probably will be invited to testify.
*As an aside, the Grand Jury process is so heavily favors the prosecutor, (not the defendant), that A New York judge, Solomon Wachtler, famously said, "... a prosecutor could get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich."
3) A judge does pick the grand Jury pool and does try to balance members’ gender, race and geography. (I will save you the look-up: 3 blacks, 9 non-whites (it does not say 9 white jurors))
4) The article references, James Cohen, an associate professor at Fordham University School of Law in New York, in its explanations, and he made this point relative to MCollach's promise to release everything;
"Cohen said such a promise may have a chilling effect on witnesses he fears would be “less likely” to testify if they think the information would ultimately go public."
Now which witnesses might be chilled, fearing community retribution - white defenders of Wilson, or Wilson condemners?
All in all, it sounds like a Grand Jury is a tool to get Wilson indicted, (if there is even the slightest possibility a crime was committed - not proven one was) - not vindicate him.
Yet with all this - it sure sounds like your mind is already made up. For you facts and details don't matter and a process favored to get indictments can't possibly work in this case - *because it is a secret process
Will you still hold that opinion if there is no indictment and the Ferguson community, (and the world), get to see all the evidence presented? Or will you still feel something is crooked because normal folks ain't ever going to give a black man justice? And anyway, you "seen it" with your own eyes on the news, you already know he is guilty. Right?
More about the "secret" part.
Do you also think the secret Grand jury that indicted Texas Governor Perry, or the one that indicted Las Cruces Police Department detective Michael Garcia, or Former 198th District Judge Emil Karl Prohl, or Former 198th District Attorney Ron Sutton, or any of the other hundreds of political, law enforcement, and "controversial" cases - were all corrupt because they were held in secret?
Just sayin'
GA
Wow! What a process! But secret is, however, still a problem for me. I am sorry that I (alone) appear biased.
But, when we found out "from the exploitive and riot-inciting media", that Michael had stolen cigars with his strong arm; I heard NO ONE say, "Well, let's see what the evidence/judge will say." When we found out that Michael probably busted face and then tried to rush the armed cop from approx. 35ft away....no one yelled, "Let's just see what comes out." Seems to me, we all got a DOG in this fight... My dog is tired and tattered; he's seen this fight before... many times.
GA's response to this is spot on. There may have been a grand jury to determine if an indictment was the warranted regardless, but in response to the threats of violence and all the prejudice being exhibited on the streets regarding the case, they were left no other option, (if fairness and justice are truly the goal).
If the truth that is revealed by the process opposes the mob, those who served honestly to uncover it may be in danger simply for doing what is right. Sad, but true. Many of those who secretly are becoming aware the truth may not turn out to be what they seem to be hoping for, will preemptively attack that possible outcome as unjust, so they can say, "the system is so unfair and stacked against us, I knew this would happen".