What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Looting in Missouri after cops shoot 18 year old (5 Viewers)

I was really pissed off at the looters last night (still am) and used words like scum and animals to describe them. What really bothered me was not just the fact that they were ruining things for the vast majority of peaceful protestors, but that this was not spontaneous: these ####ers knew what was going to happen and were eager to take advantage of it. That's why so many wore masks.

But some of the rhetoric here is way over the top. We need to keep a little perspective. It would be more accurate to say that the looters were normal people who chose to act like thugs, scum, animals, etc. If caught they should be prosecuted for their crimes. But they don't deserve to die.
Sorry tim, you are correct but you forfeited the right to chastise folks on over the top rhetoric last night.
Maybe. I still don't see why it's wrong to label looters as animals and scum.
As a prosecutor I am not allowed to compare the actions of defendants to that of an animal, more less to call them one directly. Doing so would be cause for a mistrial and potentially for censuring by the State Supreme Court. Not that rules of comportment in our courts are necessarily analogous to how we behave elsewhere, or why. I just thought it worth posting.
i think that rule is proper. But this is a message board, so I have the freedom to write what I think without that kind of necessary restriction.
I am not advocating proscribing yours, or anybody else's, free expression. You raised the issue of why it might be bad and I thought the fact that the Courts find the behavior prejudicial to the truth seeking process might have some relevance, though admittedly not much. It was a starting point in addressing the question you raised, nothing more.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Why is the black community rallying their cause around a thug? There are so many racial injustices in this country. Pick a better one to to rally around. Don't pick the guy who robs a store, assaults the store owner, punches a cop in the cop car, then bull rushes a cop. Then to go riot and burn innocent people's busineses. Makes you wonder.
Yeah if Mike Brown were off doing something constructive (like mowing grass or washing the family car) instead of committing strong arm robbery none of this would have happened.
If these liars would have told the truth about the confrontation, none of this would have happened at this level. The media and those losers are the cause of all this.

 
Look, the peaceful protestors don't believe Michael Brown was a thug. At worst they think he was a dumb unarmed black teenager who didn't deserve to die. And honestly I'm still not sure this isn't correct. The prosecutor was pretty compelling last night but who knows what happened?
Who does or does not 'deserve to die'? How do you decide that? I would say that Brown's actions are congruent with that of any bat - #### crazy person who risks his life doing something really stupid. If you attack a cop and have your hand on his gun, I would say that is grounds for being shot and if you are getting shot there is a pretty good chance you will be dead.
The point is that the protestors aren't convinced it went down like that. More importantly, Brown wasn't killed when he was struggling for a gun. He wasn't shot dead at close quarters.
Did you look at any of the evidence that was released? He was shot when he started to double back at the cop after the struggle. That is plenty good cause to put him down. It happens all the time with cops.
i haven't looked at the evidence. I plan on it. So far though as a general rule, liberals tend to believe the evidence points toward Brown being wrongfully killed, and conservatives believe it was justified .
 
Look, the peaceful protestors don't believe Michael Brown was a thug. At worst they think he was a dumb unarmed black teenager who didn't deserve to die. And honestly I'm still not sure this isn't correct. The prosecutor was pretty compelling last night but who knows what happened?
Of course they don't see him as a thug. He is exactly like them. He is a normal kid in black America today. You put 100 different black kids in that exact scenario and I feel pretty confident saying at least 75% of them would have reacted the same way.
you think 75% of black kids who get stopped by a white cop would get into a punching match?
I think they would resist the commands. How they physically react may be different, but there is an inherent disrespect for white authority, so I don't think how he acted would not be that uncommon. Maybe 75% is too high, but I think the number would be a lot higher than most people would expect.
You know, some cops are black.
No ####?
No ####.

 
What good did the looting do? That is what I am having a hard time understanding. I get the anger. Just don't understand the leap from being extremely angry to burning buildings, robbing businesses, etc. Did those business owners contribute to the perceived miscarriage of justice? So if Michael Brown really was an innocent victim of police brutality, the solution is to burn down the neighborhood of the very people who are oppressed? Insane.
I think the general issue here is the breakdown of the social contract. The reason we don't steal from people, or destroy other people's things is that we are in a social contract with them - we all live together and create a society. In the view of much of the low-income and/or African American community, the social contract is meaningless when the establishment (in many cases, if not most, the "white establishment") can gun down members of their community and face no repercussions.

As a result, if the social contract has broken down to the point where their lives are not protected or valued, they have no issue with breaching their part of the social contract by stealing, destroying, etc.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Only through maybe 12 witness accounts so far, but I'm struggling to see why this didn't end in indictment for trial aside from the state not wanting it to. There's a couple accounts corroborating Wilson's version of events but have aspects to them that could cause reasonable doubt, and there's a bunch of people confirming the basic events of an "altercation at the car", shots at the car, Brown fleeing, turning back, moving in some manner toward Wilson (some call it a stumble, others a walk) and either had his arms at his side or raised, but not above his shoulders. There could certainly be more in this thousands of pages that might make it more clear cut, but this evidence only raises more questions for me so far. But those questions are probably unanswerable without video.
These lying idiots did such a poor job of lying at their grand jury testimony, how the hell do you think they would fare with a defense attorney destroying them at a trial? I bet there was so much eye rolling at the grand jury hearings that they had to pass out Tylenol for headaches.
Seriously? Of course, IF THIS HAD GONE TO TRIAL (that's what everyone's angry about, dummies) the prosecutor wouldn't put the people that contradicted themselves (two out of over 60 witnesses, by my count so far, there's probably one or two more I'd guess) on the stand as credible witnesses. So far, I've read more accounts that DON'T contradict themselves stating Brown didn't run at the officer when Wilson gunned him down.

The only ones I've seen corroborating that claim are a) incredibly racist to the point that you'd be an idiot to put that person on the stand (and they never interviewed Witness 40 in front of the grand jury or with law enforcement, as far as the released docs show - the claim exists only as a journal entry) and b) viewing the incident from several blocks away and without an unobstructed view of Brown.

This should have gone to trial, the only reason it didn't was because a cop did the shooting (if this was Zimmerman, we wouldn't be having this discussion) and the prosecutor is in bed with Law Enforcement (hardly a surprise given a prosecutor's usual role).

 
What good did the looting do? That is what I am having a hard time understanding. I get the anger. Just don't understand the leap from being extremely angry to burning buildings, robbing businesses, etc. Did those business owners contribute to the perceived miscarriage of justice? So if Michael Brown really was an innocent victim of police brutality, the solution is to burn down the neighborhood of the very people who are oppressed? Insane.
I think the general issue here is the breakdown of the social contract. The reason we don't steal from people, or destroy other people's things is that we are in a social contract with them - we all live together and create a society. In the view of much of the low-income and/or African American community is that the social contract is meaningless when the establishment (in many cases, if not most, the "white establishment") can gun down members of their community and face no repercussions.

As a result, if the social contract has broken down to the point where their lives are not protected or valued, they have no issue with breaching their part of the social contract by stealing, destroying, etc.
I'm a little skeptical that the looters/rioters were thinking about Lockean political philosophy last night.

 
The Brown family were lost in all that bull#### last night..They are the ones who lost the most, and they asked for peace in their sons name, and the community couldn't even give them that respect. Pieces of ##### neighbors.

 
Look, the peaceful protestors don't believe Michael Brown was a thug. At worst they think he was a dumb unarmed black teenager who didn't deserve to die. And honestly I'm still not sure this isn't correct. The prosecutor was pretty compelling last night but who knows what happened?
Who does or does not 'deserve to die'? How do you decide that? I would say that Brown's actions are congruent with that of any bat - #### crazy person who risks his life doing something really stupid. If you attack a cop and have your hand on his gun, I would say that is grounds for being shot and if you are getting shot there is a pretty good chance you will be dead.
The point is that the protestors aren't convinced it went down like that. More importantly, Brown wasn't killed when he was struggling for a gun. He wasn't shot dead at close quarters.
Did you look at any of the evidence that was released? He was shot when he started to double back at the cop after the struggle. That is plenty good cause to put him down. It happens all the time with cops.
i haven't looked at the evidence. I plan on it. So far though as a general rule, liberals tend to believe the evidence points toward Brown being wrongfully killed, and conservatives believe it was justified .
It shouldnt matter one way or the other. Its a matter between the police department and his family. The situation shouldnt give carte blanche to #######s raping and pillaging the community.

 
Look, the peaceful protestors don't believe Michael Brown was a thug. At worst they think he was a dumb unarmed black teenager who didn't deserve to die. And honestly I'm still not sure this isn't correct. The prosecutor was pretty compelling last night but who knows what happened?
Of course they don't see him as a thug. He is exactly like them. He is a normal kid in black America today. You put 100 different black kids in that exact scenario and I feel pretty confident saying at least 75% of them would have reacted the same way.
you think 75% of black kids who get stopped by a white cop would get into a punching match?
I think they would resist the commands. How they physically react may be different, but there is an inherent disrespect for white authority, so I don't think how he acted would not be that uncommon. Maybe 75% is too high, but I think the number would be a lot higher than most people would expect.
I think the number is about 74% too high.

Out of curiosity, what is the basis for your conclusion? Do you interact with a lot of young black people in your work or your community?
You don't believe that there is a common lack of respect for white authority in black youths?
I think there's a lack of trust of law enforcement, regardless of color. I don't think it would manifest itself in the way you think, though. I think that the vast majority of black teenagers would respond to a cop's request that they move out of the middle of the street and walk on the sidewalk by moving out of the middle of the street and walking on the sidewalk.

You didn't answer my questions, though. What is the basis for your conclusion? Do you interact with a lot of young black people in yo9ur work or your community?

 
Look, the peaceful protestors don't believe Michael Brown was a thug. At worst they think he was a dumb unarmed black teenager who didn't deserve to die. And honestly I'm still not sure this isn't correct. The prosecutor was pretty compelling last night but who knows what happened?
Of course they don't see him as a thug. He is exactly like them. He is a normal kid in black America today. You put 100 different black kids in that exact scenario and I feel pretty confident saying at least 75% of them would have reacted the same way.
you think 75% of black kids who get stopped by a white cop would get into a punching match?
I think they would resist the commands. How they physically react may be different, but there is an inherent disrespect for white authority, so I don't think how he acted would not be that uncommon. Maybe 75% is too high, but I think the number would be a lot higher than most people would expect.
You know, some cops are black.
No ####?
No ####.
Well, then let's run this down a little bit. Do you think that Brown would have acted the way he did if the cop had been black?

 
What good did the looting do? That is what I am having a hard time understanding. I get the anger. Just don't understand the leap from being extremely angry to burning buildings, robbing businesses, etc. Did those business owners contribute to the perceived miscarriage of justice? So if Michael Brown really was an innocent victim of police brutality, the solution is to burn down the neighborhood of the very people who are oppressed? Insane.
I think the general issue here is the breakdown of the social contract. The reason we don't steal from people, or destroy other people's things is that we are in a social contract with them - we all live together and create a society. In the view of much of the low-income and/or African American community is that the social contract is meaningless when the establishment (in many cases, if not most, the "white establishment") can gun down members of their community and face no repercussions.

As a result, if the social contract has broken down to the point where their lives are not protected or valued, they have no issue with breaching their part of the social contract by stealing, destroying, etc.
I'm a little skeptical that the looters/rioters were thinking about Lockean political philosophy last night.
Not in those terms, and probably not articulated in that way, but I think at least some of them were.

 
What good did the looting do? That is what I am having a hard time understanding. I get the anger. Just don't understand the leap from being extremely angry to burning buildings, robbing businesses, etc. Did those business owners contribute to the perceived miscarriage of justice? So if Michael Brown really was an innocent victim of police brutality, the solution is to burn down the neighborhood of the very people who are oppressed? Insane.
Think of the looters and protesters as being there for different reasons.

In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if some of the looters were secretly hoping for a non indictment to add fuel to their fire.

 
What good did the looting do? That is what I am having a hard time understanding. I get the anger. Just don't understand the leap from being extremely angry to burning buildings, robbing businesses, etc. Did those business owners contribute to the perceived miscarriage of justice? So if Michael Brown really was an innocent victim of police brutality, the solution is to burn down the neighborhood of the very people who are oppressed? Insane.
I think the general issue here is the breakdown of the social contract. The reason we don't steal from people, or destroy other people's things is that we are in a social contract with them - we all live together and create a society. In the view of much of the low-income and/or African American community is that the social contract is meaningless when the establishment (in many cases, if not most, the "white establishment") can gun down members of their community and face no repercussions.

As a result, if the social contract has broken down to the point where their lives are not protected or valued, they have no issue with breaching their part of the social contract by stealing, destroying, etc.
Simple solution for the black community if they distrust white police officers....Get the right education and become police officers.

 
Sharpton headed into Ferguson again today.
Wow, he sees money to be made in this? I tell ya, I'm just not seeing it. But then he's the one with decades of experience cashing in on the misery of others.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well, this thread was a great way to out all the closet racists on the board.
lol...did you happen to look in the mirror this morning? I am pretty sure you have been painting all blacks with the same brush as if they are a hive protecting their queen. If that is not the purest form of racism, I don't know what is.

 
What good did the looting do? That is what I am having a hard time understanding. I get the anger. Just don't understand the leap from being extremely angry to burning buildings, robbing businesses, etc. Did those business owners contribute to the perceived miscarriage of justice? So if Michael Brown really was an innocent victim of police brutality, the solution is to burn down the neighborhood of the very people who are oppressed? Insane.
I think the general issue here is the breakdown of the social contract. The reason we don't steal from people, or destroy other people's things is that we are in a social contract with them - we all live together and create a society. In the view of much of the low-income and/or African American community is that the social contract is meaningless when the establishment (in many cases, if not most, the "white establishment") can gun down members of their community and face no repercussions.

As a result, if the social contract has broken down to the point where their lives are not protected or valued, they have no issue with breaching their part of the social contract by stealing, destroying, etc.
I understand that - but it just seems so non-constructive to real change. Then again real change is probably a utopian thought in a society that thrives on division.

 
Look, the peaceful protestors don't believe Michael Brown was a thug. At worst they think he was a dumb unarmed black teenager who didn't deserve to die. And honestly I'm still not sure this isn't correct. The prosecutor was pretty compelling last night but who knows what happened?
Of course they don't see him as a thug. He is exactly like them. He is a normal kid in black America today. You put 100 different black kids in that exact scenario and I feel pretty confident saying at least 75% of them would have reacted the same way.
you think 75% of black kids who get stopped by a white cop would get into a punching match?
I think they would resist the commands. How they physically react may be different, but there is an inherent disrespect for white authority, so I don't think how he acted would not be that uncommon. Maybe 75% is too high, but I think the number would be a lot higher than most people would expect.
I think the number is about 74% too high.

Out of curiosity, what is the basis for your conclusion? Do you interact with a lot of young black people in your work or your community?
You don't believe that there is a common lack of respect for white authority in black youths?
I think there's a lack of trust of law enforcement, regardless of color. I don't think it would manifest itself in the way you think, though. I think that the vast majority of black teenagers would respond to a cop's request that they move out of the middle of the street and walk on the sidewalk by moving out of the middle of the street and walking on the sidewalk.

You didn't answer my questions, though. What is the basis for your conclusion? Do you interact with a lot of young black people in yo9ur work or your community?
I do. I work for the water department, so I interact with literally every part of the financial and social spectrum.

 
What good did the looting do? That is what I am having a hard time understanding. I get the anger. Just don't understand the leap from being extremely angry to burning buildings, robbing businesses, etc. Did those business owners contribute to the perceived miscarriage of justice? So if Michael Brown really was an innocent victim of police brutality, the solution is to burn down the neighborhood of the very people who are oppressed? Insane.
I think the general issue here is the breakdown of the social contract. The reason we don't steal from people, or destroy other people's things is that we are in a social contract with them - we all live together and create a society. In the view of much of the low-income and/or African American community is that the social contract is meaningless when the establishment (in many cases, if not most, the "white establishment") can gun down members of their community and face no repercussions.

As a result, if the social contract has broken down to the point where their lives are not protected or valued, they have no issue with breaching their part of the social contract by stealing, destroying, etc.
I'm a little skeptical that the looters/rioters were thinking about Lockean political philosophy last night.
Not in those terms, and probably not articulated in that way, but I think at least some of them were.
Maybe. All jokes aside, I get what you're saying. But there's an alternative hypothesis here, namely that most rioters are simply Bad People who seize upon events like this as an opportunity to act out.

Those two hypotheses aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. Some people could be motivated by higher-level reasoning while others are just antisocial in general. But I do feel really confident that my explanation applies to a much higher proportion of rioters than yours. Obviously this is just speculation since I don't have much experience interacting with looters.

 
What good did the looting do? That is what I am having a hard time understanding. I get the anger. Just don't understand the leap from being extremely angry to burning buildings, robbing businesses, etc. Did those business owners contribute to the perceived miscarriage of justice? So if Michael Brown really was an innocent victim of police brutality, the solution is to burn down the neighborhood of the very people who are oppressed? Insane.
I think the general issue here is the breakdown of the social contract. The reason we don't steal from people, or destroy other people's things is that we are in a social contract with them - we all live together and create a society. In the view of much of the low-income and/or African American community is that the social contract is meaningless when the establishment (in many cases, if not most, the "white establishment") can gun down members of their community and face no repercussions.

As a result, if the social contract has broken down to the point where their lives are not protected or valued, they have no issue with breaching their part of the social contract by stealing, destroying, etc.
Simple solution for the black community if they distrust white police officers....Get the right education and become police officers.
What education would that be?

And there's another serious issue related to our rates of prosecution and incarceration of minorities in this country. Minorities are disproportionately prosecuted with felony charges and drug charges when compared to similarly situated whites. As a result, they are disqualified from being police officers. It doesn't help.

 
Some speculation from politicos this morning that these events will help shape the Republican Presidential race that starts next year. At least one or more of the candidates will campaign primarily on law and order, ala Nixon in 1968.

 
What good did the looting do? That is what I am having a hard time understanding. I get the anger. Just don't understand the leap from being extremely angry to burning buildings, robbing businesses, etc. Did those business owners contribute to the perceived miscarriage of justice? So if Michael Brown really was an innocent victim of police brutality, the solution is to burn down the neighborhood of the very people who are oppressed? Insane.
I think the general issue here is the breakdown of the social contract. The reason we don't steal from people, or destroy other people's things is that we are in a social contract with them - we all live together and create a society. In the view of much of the low-income and/or African American community is that the social contract is meaningless when the establishment (in many cases, if not most, the "white establishment") can gun down members of their community and face no repercussions.

As a result, if the social contract has broken down to the point where their lives are not protected or valued, they have no issue with breaching their part of the social contract by stealing, destroying, etc.
Simple solution for the black community if they distrust white police officers....Get the right education and become police officers.
So now we put the burden on the ones discriminated against to stop the discrimination? Interesting.

 
What good did the looting do? That is what I am having a hard time understanding. I get the anger. Just don't understand the leap from being extremely angry to burning buildings, robbing businesses, etc. Did those business owners contribute to the perceived miscarriage of justice? So if Michael Brown really was an innocent victim of police brutality, the solution is to burn down the neighborhood of the very people who are oppressed? Insane.
I think the general issue here is the breakdown of the social contract. The reason we don't steal from people, or destroy other people's things is that we are in a social contract with them - we all live together and create a society. In the view of much of the low-income and/or African American community is that the social contract is meaningless when the establishment (in many cases, if not most, the "white establishment") can gun down members of their community and face no repercussions.

As a result, if the social contract has broken down to the point where their lives are not protected or valued, they have no issue with breaching their part of the social contract by stealing, destroying, etc.
I'm a little skeptical that the looters/rioters were thinking about Lockean political philosophy last night.
Not in those terms, and probably not articulated in that way, but I think at least some of them were.
Maybe. All jokes aside, I get what you're saying. But there's an alternative hypothesis here, namely that most rioters are simply Bad People who seize upon events like this as an opportunity to act out.

Those two hypotheses aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. Some people could be motivated by higher-level reasoning while others are just antisocial in general. But I do feel really confident that my explanation applies to a much higher proportion of rioters than yours. Obviously this is just speculation since I don't have much experience interacting with looters.
I don't feel that "#### this society, it doesn't work for us!" is particularly high-level reasoning.

 
Look, the peaceful protestors don't believe Michael Brown was a thug. At worst they think he was a dumb unarmed black teenager who didn't deserve to die. And honestly I'm still not sure this isn't correct. The prosecutor was pretty compelling last night but who knows what happened?
Of course they don't see him as a thug. He is exactly like them. He is a normal kid in black America today. You put 100 different black kids in that exact scenario and I feel pretty confident saying at least 75% of them would have reacted the same way.
you think 75% of black kids who get stopped by a white cop would get into a punching match?
I think they would resist the commands. How they physically react may be different, but there is an inherent disrespect for white authority, so I don't think how he acted would not be that uncommon. Maybe 75% is too high, but I think the number would be a lot higher than most people would expect.
I think the number is about 74% too high.

Out of curiosity, what is the basis for your conclusion? Do you interact with a lot of young black people in your work or your community?
You don't believe that there is a common lack of respect for white authority in black youths?
I think there's a lack of trust of law enforcement, regardless of color. I don't think it would manifest itself in the way you think, though. I think that the vast majority of black teenagers would respond to a cop's request that they move out of the middle of the street and walk on the sidewalk by moving out of the middle of the street and walking on the sidewalk.

You didn't answer my questions, though. What is the basis for your conclusion? Do you interact with a lot of young black people in yo9ur work or your community?
I do. I work for the water department, so I interact with literally every part of the financial and social spectrum.
So in your many interactions with young black people as an employee of the water department, what sorts of things did you see that led you to conclude that 75% of them would disobey a police officer's request that they move out of the middle of the street and walk on the sidewalk?

 
What good did the looting do? That is what I am having a hard time understanding. I get the anger. Just don't understand the leap from being extremely angry to burning buildings, robbing businesses, etc. Did those business owners contribute to the perceived miscarriage of justice? So if Michael Brown really was an innocent victim of police brutality, the solution is to burn down the neighborhood of the very people who are oppressed? Insane.
I think the general issue here is the breakdown of the social contract. The reason we don't steal from people, or destroy other people's things is that we are in a social contract with them - we all live together and create a society. In the view of much of the low-income and/or African American community is that the social contract is meaningless when the establishment (in many cases, if not most, the "white establishment") can gun down members of their community and face no repercussions.

As a result, if the social contract has broken down to the point where their lives are not protected or valued, they have no issue with breaching their part of the social contract by stealing, destroying, etc.
I'm a little skeptical that the looters/rioters were thinking about Lockean political philosophy last night.
Not in those terms, and probably not articulated in that way, but I think at least some of them were.
Maybe. All jokes aside, I get what you're saying. But there's an alternative hypothesis here, namely that most rioters are simply Bad People who seize upon events like this as an opportunity to act out.

Those two hypotheses aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. Some people could be motivated by higher-level reasoning while others are just antisocial in general. But I do feel really confident that my explanation applies to a much higher proportion of rioters than yours. Obviously this is just speculation since I don't have much experience interacting with looters.
Haven't you heard...On these boards the majority think that all people are good deep down and we just have to find a way to reach them.

 
What good did the looting do? That is what I am having a hard time understanding. I get the anger. Just don't understand the leap from being extremely angry to burning buildings, robbing businesses, etc. Did those business owners contribute to the perceived miscarriage of justice? So if Michael Brown really was an innocent victim of police brutality, the solution is to burn down the neighborhood of the very people who are oppressed? Insane.
The looting and vandalizing does nothing. Those idiots view this as a license to be animals. Even Michael Browns Cousin said on FOX, that these animals are opportunists, not what the family is looking for or condoning.

Bunch of effin animals, then they wonder why no one takes them

seriously

 
why do people get SO mad at looting? I guess its the visual.

Some people see some Captain Morgan and a George Foreman grill walk out the door and spiral into deep rage.

Who cares?
Would you feel the same way if you owned one of the businesses?
but.... i don't....

I am an American, and I'm much closer to rage in terms of the relationship with banking and government in this country, or other corporations and tax breaks they receive in this country.... This is institutionalized, systemic, authorized looting of your and my tax dollars. But the visual isn't there.

I feel quite badly for the independent businesses. Don't even know what to tell them. But there are bigger fish to fry if people have this much rage in them

 
Look, the peaceful protestors don't believe Michael Brown was a thug. At worst they think he was a dumb unarmed black teenager who didn't deserve to die. And honestly I'm still not sure this isn't correct. The prosecutor was pretty compelling last night but who knows what happened?
Of course they don't see him as a thug. He is exactly like them. He is a normal kid in black America today. You put 100 different black kids in that exact scenario and I feel pretty confident saying at least 75% of them would have reacted the same way.
you think 75% of black kids who get stopped by a white cop would get into a punching match?
I think they would resist the commands. How they physically react may be different, but there is an inherent disrespect for white authority, so I don't think how he acted would not be that uncommon. Maybe 75% is too high, but I think the number would be a lot higher than most people would expect.
You know, some cops are black.
No ####?
No ####.
Well, then let's run this down a little bit. Do you think that Brown would have acted the way he did if the cop had been black?
Or do you think the cop would have reacted the way he did had he been assaulted by a big white guy?

 
Haven't you heard...On these boards the majority think that all people are good deep down and we just have to find a way to reach them.
I understand this is a fundamental difference in how people view other people, and as tongue-in-cheek as you're being here - I agree that the vast majority of people are good deep down. Barring some massive anti-social personality disorder or similar issue.

 
Loved this tweet: "Hey Obama, if violence doesn't work why are we bombing so many people?"

Another one: "I was expecting a miscarriage of justice but even I underestimated the sheer malice & knife-twisting that would accompany it." (lotta that in here)

 
Some speculation from politicos this morning that these events will help shape the Republican Presidential race that starts next year. At least one or more of the candidates will campaign primarily on law and order, ala Nixon in 1968.
This will just be a blip on the radar by then. Hell, by next week things should be over.

 
Having a discussion last night, if they had decided to indict would there still have been unrest last night? I said yes. There was a small contingent of people who were going to riot no matter what decision was reached. It is kind of like that movie the Purge. You'll have some people that will not waste the opportunity of a lawless night. For those people the decision to indict or not indict didn't matter. Mostly young people with no future prospects.

 
Some speculation from politicos this morning that these events will help shape the Republican Presidential race that starts next year. At least one or more of the candidates will campaign primarily on law and order, ala Nixon in 1968.
Last night was one step closer to President Walker.

 
What good did the looting do? That is what I am having a hard time understanding. I get the anger. Just don't understand the leap from being extremely angry to burning buildings, robbing businesses, etc. Did those business owners contribute to the perceived miscarriage of justice? So if Michael Brown really was an innocent victim of police brutality, the solution is to burn down the neighborhood of the very people who are oppressed? Insane.
I think the general issue here is the breakdown of the social contract. The reason we don't steal from people, or destroy other people's things is that we are in a social contract with them - we all live together and create a society. In the view of much of the low-income and/or African American community is that the social contract is meaningless when the establishment (in many cases, if not most, the "white establishment") can gun down members of their community and face no repercussions.

As a result, if the social contract has broken down to the point where their lives are not protected or valued, they have no issue with breaching their part of the social contract by stealing, destroying, etc.
Simple solution for the black community if they distrust white police officers....Get the right education and become police officers.
What education would that be?

And there's another serious issue related to our rates of prosecution and incarceration of minorities in this country. Minorities are disproportionately prosecuted with felony charges and drug charges when compared to similarly situated whites. As a result, they are disqualified from being police officers. It doesn't help.
Whatever education is required by the applicable police departments.

 
This will go far to improve race relations in America, will undoubtedly reinforce stereotypes and make sure that racial profiling stays strong and long.

Unfortunately ALL of the above was made more understandable with the events of last night.

 
I think Henry Ford is right as a general rule, but Ivan is right in this instance. To paraphrase the Passover Seder, why is this riot different from all other riots? The answer is the lack of spontaneity. These looters, many if whom brought masks, knew what was going to happen.

 
What good did the looting do? That is what I am having a hard time understanding. I get the anger. Just don't understand the leap from being extremely angry to burning buildings, robbing businesses, etc. Did those business owners contribute to the perceived miscarriage of justice? So if Michael Brown really was an innocent victim of police brutality, the solution is to burn down the neighborhood of the very people who are oppressed? Insane.
I think the general issue here is the breakdown of the social contract. The reason we don't steal from people, or destroy other people's things is that we are in a social contract with them - we all live together and create a society. In the view of much of the low-income and/or African American community is that the social contract is meaningless when the establishment (in many cases, if not most, the "white establishment") can gun down members of their community and face no repercussions.

As a result, if the social contract has broken down to the point where their lives are not protected or valued, they have no issue with breaching their part of the social contract by stealing, destroying, etc.
Simple solution for the black community if they distrust white police officers....Get the right education and become police officers.
Yep.

And/or put themselves in fewer situations where they might encounter cops.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top