Ferguson

emmaaa · November 2014

Maggie0829 said:

kat1114 said:

Yes, the protests were in response to the verdict, just as many of the protests were that happened across the country last night. But if you think that these protest are ONLY about the verdict, then you don't understand what is happening in our country. People are fed up with police abuse and our judicial system. The verdict certainly ignited the protests last night, but no, that is not the only thing protesters are angry about. Why is that so difficult to understand?

I don't think it is so clear that Michael Brown was assaulting the officer. There is a lot of conflicting testimony. I'm trying to reserve judgment until I can read through some of the testimony myself.

This is why I fully support individual cameras on every police officer on the street. Video evidence of every arrest or conflict will help clear muddy waters of he said she said.

QFT

This is a necessity.

kat1114 · November 2014

emmaaa said:

Maggie0829 said:

kat1114 said:

Yes, the protests were in response to the verdict, just as many of the protests were that happened across the country last night. But if you think that these protest are ONLY about the verdict, then you don't understand what is happening in our country. People are fed up with police abuse and our judicial system. The verdict certainly ignited the protests last night, but no, that is not the only thing protesters are angry about. Why is that so difficult to understand?

I don't think it is so clear that Michael Brown was assaulting the officer. There is a lot of conflicting testimony. I'm trying to reserve judgment until I can read through some of the testimony myself.

This is why I fully support individual cameras on every police officer on the street. Video evidence of every arrest or conflict will help clear muddy waters of he said she said.

QFT

This is a necessity.

I agree. I know there have been many officers/departments who don't support on-officer cameras, but the departments who employ the cameras have seen drastic reductions in litigation, excessive force complaints, etc.

sarahufl · November 2014

emmaaa said:

Maggie0829 said:

kat1114 said:

Yes, the protests were in response to the verdict, just as many of the protests were that happened across the country last night. But if you think that these protest are ONLY about the verdict, then you don't understand what is happening in our country. People are fed up with police abuse and our judicial system. The verdict certainly ignited the protests last night, but no, that is not the only thing protesters are angry about. Why is that so difficult to understand?

I don't think it is so clear that Michael Brown was assaulting the officer. There is a lot of conflicting testimony. I'm trying to reserve judgment until I can read through some of the testimony myself.

This is why I fully support individual cameras on every police officer on the street. Video evidence of every arrest or conflict will help clear muddy waters of he said she said.

QFT

This is a necessity.

My understanding of the evidence is that there is clear forensic evidence to indicate that he was shot at close range, in the hand, inside the officer's car. And that the officer exhibited bruising to support this.

Again, I wasn't there- but I feel like I have read a lot about it and that is what I take away from what is published.

kat1114 · November 2014

abbyj700 said:

sarahufl said:

kat1114 said:

sarahufl said:

wow, that blew up while I was at lunch. FTR, it was me who brought up Bill Bratton being assaulted and the NYPD's (non)involvement in this case.

And I will stand by it- Bill Bratton had nothing to do with the grand jury verdict. Sure, the NYPD has its faults, I don't deny that. But law enforcement also has a terribly difficult job that I would venture to guess most of us on this board don't have any understanding of. Like I said, I am white and fortunate. So I don't face this daily, a fact I am incredibly grateful for.

But I do live in a city of 8 million people and pay tax dollars to the people who take care of me and ensure my safety. They do a job that I do not want to do myself because, frankly, it terrifies me. I am able to comfortably walk home at night because I trust in the NYPD.

The point here is that assaulting the head of the NYPD because you are pissed off about a jury verdict in another state is completely misdirected. Getting mad about something and taking it out on someone else isn't the answer. I know the NYPD has been accused of police brutality- trust me, it is hard to get away from here. But there are 34,000 uniformed officers in this city. THIRTY FOUR THOUSAND. Saying that "they" do things is absurd.

A lot of these incidences, Michael Brown included, start because the person in question is BREAKING THE LAW. While I agree that sometimes, excessive force is used, why do so many people ignore what started it in the first place?

Again, these protests are not all about Michael Brown but police brutality in general. The throwing of the paint wasn't about the verdict. It's about Bratton directing his 34,000 officers to engage in tactics that people aren't supportive of.

The law being broken doesn't make using excessive force okay. Officers are held to a higher standard because they are in positions of authority.

Why is this so difficult to understand?! These protests were in direct response to the grand jury verdict. They happen all the time in NYC after other police incidents. Trust me.

And I never said excessive force is ok, just that it is used. Michael Brown was assaulting a police officer. Excessive force is rarely used when the perp isn't doing something they shouldn't be doing.

And the grand jury verdict is simply a symptom of the bigger, real problem. Why is that so difficult to understand?

I do understand that line of thinking, but I don't necessairly agree with it. Which I am entitled to.

Here is the thing- the grand jury had a task. The task they were presented with was to determine if there was sufficient evidence that the officer in question intentionally committed a crime. That he killed Michael Brown with intent. They felt that evidence was lacking.

They performed the task that was given to them. Nobody is disputing that he killed Michael Brown, and nobody is disputing that the event was tragic. What they are saying is that, given the TONS of evidence they had, there wasn't sufficient evidence to prove intent. That, because he assaulted a police officer, the police officer reacted with force that, unfortunately, didn't end well.

Being on a jury is hard. Trust me, I have done it. But ultimately, you are working with facts and evidence that is made available.

That's the issue- the grand jury standard isn't beyond a reasonable doubt- it's probable cause, which is a much lesser threshold to meet. There didn't have to be sufficient evidence to prove intent- just enough to make it possible that some crime was committed. The jury didn't even have to indict a crime with intent as an element. They also considered charges such as involuntary manslaughter.

ETF excessive quote boxes

Maggie0829 · November 2014

sarahufl said:

emmaaa said:

Maggie0829 said:

kat1114 said:

Yes, the protests were in response to the verdict, just as many of the protests were that happened across the country last night. But if you think that these protest are ONLY about the verdict, then you don't understand what is happening in our country. People are fed up with police abuse and our judicial system. The verdict certainly ignited the protests last night, but no, that is not the only thing protesters are angry about. Why is that so difficult to understand?

I don't think it is so clear that Michael Brown was assaulting the officer. There is a lot of conflicting testimony. I'm trying to reserve judgment until I can read through some of the testimony myself.

This is why I fully support individual cameras on every police officer on the street. Video evidence of every arrest or conflict will help clear muddy waters of he said she said.

QFT

This is a necessity.

My understanding of the evidence is that there is clear forensic evidence to indicate that he was shot at close range, in the hand, inside the officer's car. And that the officer exhibited bruising to support this.

Again, I wasn't there- but I feel like I have read a lot about it and that is what I take away from what is published.

I have read that too. I just think that if this confrontation was caught on camera and the public could see it in black and white then there would be a lot less screams of injustice (unless of course what is caught on camera is then not treated justly).

ETA: And if what was caught on camera was the police officer not following protocol and using excessive force when unnecessary then there would be a bigger push by a larger portion of the population for change. And with something in picture it is not so easily pushed under the rug.

emmaaa · November 2014

abbyj700 said:

SBmini said:

kat1114 said:

Can't speak to where QueerFemme is getting her definitions, but I posted this a few pages back and found it helpful regrading the definitions: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/07/15/884649/-Why-there-s-no-such-thing-as-Reverse-Racism#

An opinion piece by a liberal blog is hardly definitive proof of the theory that you cannot have reverse racism. Racism is simply the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races. I believe as a society we throw around the word racism a lot when what we mean is discrimination or prejudice.

None of us know what is in the hearts and minds of those involved her. Was Wilson being racist? Was he being prejudice? Or was he simply looking for a suspect and Brown fit the description? Was Brown being racist when he assaulted Wilson? Was he being prejudice? Was he angry at continuing to be stopped... or was he angry because he didn't want to be caught. What about the rioters? I don't know, you don't know. Only they know what their intentions are. Frankly- I think most of them are just opportunists taking advantage of a volatile situation to cause mayhem.

Upon reading some of the evidence presented, I do believe that there was reasonable doubt that Wilson's motives were racially charged- or even inappropriate use of force. I, nor has anyone else in this thread, read the thousand pages of evidence that was released with the verdict, however. So none of us know as much as the grand jury knows and none of us, jury included, knows what was going on inside the minds of Wilson or Brown. So forgive me, but I feel it's a little arrogant for anyone to think they know more than the jury did, or that they would have come to a different conclusion after being given all the information.

And that would be great if this were about one kid, one police officer, your decisions and one case. But it's not. It's about a social unjustice that haunts millions of black Americans. It costs some people their lives, or the lives of their family. It's about an epidemic amongst the police force and minorities. Millions of Americans - both black and white are standing up against this and saying enough is enough. It's not just about reading CNN about the Michael Brown case and deciding your the authority. You think these millions of Americans who are standing in anger against this decision are just all completely uninformed? Or do you think racsim is alive and well in this nation - and our police force struggles with it just like any other profession - except their job allows their issues to end up deadly?

I get what you're saying, that the protests and riot are about social injustice against black people as a whole and only about the Michael Brown verdict. But my question is this: would people have been happy or even having this conversation about racism and social inequality is they would have decided to indict him? If so, what kind of message would that send?

And I was just thinking about a part of this conversation earlier and many PPs have stated that peaceful protests didn't work and that's why they are rioting. But again to my previous question: what if they had decided to indict? And for the record, the grand jury makes decisions on evidence, not protests, petitions, or riots. I know everyone is saying that the riots and protests are not because of the verdict but I don't think they would have happened if the jury would've decided to indict the officer.

abbyj700 · November 2014

sarahufl said:

emmaaa said:

Maggie0829 said:

kat1114 said:

Yes, the protests were in response to the verdict, just as many of the protests were that happened across the country last night. But if you think that these protest are ONLY about the verdict, then you don't understand what is happening in our country. People are fed up with police abuse and our judicial system. The verdict certainly ignited the protests last night, but no, that is not the only thing protesters are angry about. Why is that so difficult to understand?

I don't think it is so clear that Michael Brown was assaulting the officer. There is a lot of conflicting testimony. I'm trying to reserve judgment until I can read through some of the testimony myself.

This is why I fully support individual cameras on every police officer on the street. Video evidence of every arrest or conflict will help clear muddy waters of he said she said.

QFT

This is a necessity.

My understanding of the evidence is that there is clear forensic evidence to indicate that he was shot at close range, in the hand, inside the officer's car. And that the officer exhibited bruising to support this.

Again, I wasn't there- but I feel like I have read a lot about it and that is what I take away from what is published.

All evidence and reports came from Ferguson PD. This is a police force that was completely removed from their duties at one point after the shooting as the state didn't believe they were handling things correctly. This is who we are trusting to give an impartial report on whether one of their own did something wrong. Does anyone else see anything wrong with that?

kat1114 · November 2014

emmaaa said:
I get what you're saying, that the protests and riot are about social injustice against black people as a whole and only about the Michael Brown verdict. But my question is this: would people have been happy or even having this conversation about racism and social inequality is they would have decided to indict him? If so, what kind of message would that send?

And I was just thinking about a part of this conversation earlier and many PPs have stated that peaceful protests didn't work and that's why they are rioting. But again to my previous question: what if they had decided to indict? And for the record, the grand jury makes decisions on evidence, not protests, petitions, or riots. I know everyone is saying that the riots and protests are not because of the verdict but I don't think they would have happened if the jury would've decided to indict the officer.

But if they indicted him, I think to a lot of people that would have signaled "hey, our justice system works for everyone." I'm not saying with 100% certainty the jury got it wrong because I don't know all the facts/evidence they saw. I'm just stating how it would have been perceived had the indictment came down. I think this conversation about race still happens if the indictment happened, but sadly, I don't think it would be such a loud prevalent conversation.

People are rioting because they are fed up with the system as a whole. If the officer was indicted, it would have maybe been a signal that things are moving a different direction and cut down on some of the frustration people are currently rioting about. I guess I'm just not really sure what you're getting at.

I'm not really sure what you mean by the bolded.

emmaaa · November 2014

kat1114 said:

emmaaa said:
I get what you're saying, that the protests and riot are about social injustice against black people as a whole and only about the Michael Brown verdict. But my question is this: would people have been happy or even having this conversation about racism and social inequality is they would have decided to indict him? If so, what kind of message would that send?

And I was just thinking about a part of this conversation earlier and many PPs have stated that peaceful protests didn't work and that's why they are rioting. But again to my previous question: what if they had decided to indict? And for the record, the grand jury makes decisions on evidence, not protests, petitions, or riots. I know everyone is saying that the riots and protests are not because of the verdict but I don't think they would have happened if the jury would've decided to indict the officer.

But if they indicted him, I think to a lot of people that would have signaled "hey, our justice system works for everyone." I'm not saying with 100% certainty the jury got it wrong because I don't know all the facts/evidence they saw. I'm just stating how it would have been perceived had the indictment came down. I think this conversation about race still happens if the indictment happened, but sadly, I don't think it would be such a loud prevalent conversation.

People are rioting because they are fed up with the system as a whole. If the officer was indicted, it would have maybe been a signal that things are moving a different direction and cut down on some of the frustration people are currently rioting about. I guess I'm just not really sure what you're getting at.

I'm not really sure what you mean by the bolded.

Basically that just because people were protesting peacefully and had signed petitions, many expected the jury to take that into account. I worded it poorly and also i do not mean that anyone on here specifically said that, people on my FB feed.

sarawifenow · November 2014

kat1114 said:

emmaaa said:
I get what you're saying, that the protests and riot are about social injustice against black people as a whole and only about the Michael Brown verdict. But my question is this: would people have been happy or even having this conversation about racism and social inequality is they would have decided to indict him? If so, what kind of message would that send?

And I was just thinking about a part of this conversation earlier and many PPs have stated that peaceful protests didn't work and that's why they are rioting. But again to my previous question: what if they had decided to indict? And for the record, the grand jury makes decisions on evidence, not protests, petitions, or riots. I know everyone is saying that the riots and protests are not because of the verdict but I don't think they would have happened if the jury would've decided to indict the officer.

But if they indicted him, I think to a lot of people that would have signaled "hey, our justice system works for everyone." I'm not saying with 100% certainty the jury got it wrong because I don't know all the facts/evidence they saw. I'm just stating how it would have been perceived had the indictment came down. I think this conversation about race still happens if the indictment happened, but sadly, I don't think it would be such a loud prevalent conversation.

People are rioting because they are fed up with the system as a whole. If the officer was indicted, it would have maybe been a signal that things are moving a different direction and cut down on some of the frustration people are currently rioting about. I guess I'm just not really sure what you're getting at.

I'm not really sure what you mean by the bolded.

I still think there would be riots and looting happening if they indicted him. People are really worked up right now.

I'm not trying to speak for Emma, (and @emmaaa, please correct me if I'm wrong) but I think she may have been trying to say that the jury would not have been swayed by all the people that are rioting and screaming injustice.

ETA: I see that Emma responded as I was typing this. Neverming my thinking.

Sugargirl1019 · November 2014

I realized the discussion tottaalllyyy changed but bear with me for this random throwback off topic piece.

"Noone is being targeted because of how they grew up. I grew up in a mostly white town. But I take the time to read and talk to people and understand that other people don't grow up with the same benefits I did. I am not saying I am perfect or have totalll (an ave tquesion how we grew up and how it effects our world mador shooting and killing a white teenager who was armed with a screwdriver and threatening to kill his mom in a hostage situation. No two crimes are directly comparable but we have to at least start asking questions- why the two different outcomes? What does it mean for our society?

Privilege is a great thing to have. Serious, not sarcastic. But its like being born rich. You need to recognize you are rich. It doesn't mean you have to give away all your money, it means you have to be able to look around you and realize "hey, I realize other people weren't born rich. I got a headstart on a lot of things." And then when you see tangible ways you can help, you do that.“

----------------------

So, I discovered some missed posts a ways back and wanted to thank southernbelle, QueerFemme, and a few others for addressing how white privilege can, or really, cannot be corrected. This has made me realize why some of you are being rude about me showing "white privilege". If I understand correctly, I have been giving off the impression that I don't know that I am better off than others and that I do not see any trouble with the black citizens of Ferguson "bettering their life". I am sorry to have made you guys think that is what I think.

I am also sorry for being so,.. Argumentative about my idea. I was made to feel that you guys were saying it is impossible for the blacks to want to do anything like that, or it is impossible for them to better their lives. I was angry wondering why you were putting down a whole race and giving up on them and not hoping that there would be a way to change things for them! I kept thinking, it's not impossible for them! There is always hope! Because i thunk thus way, there is hope for them! I will try to help! If that thought is what makes you angry and disgusted at me, then I will say I will never change that.

I do know that I am privileged. I have been pondering since last night what it could take to help blacks overcome the racism and also how to help them better their community (like applying to the police force at some point). I understand that as of right now, that appears to be impossible due to perception from both races. And a lot of you think that is a useless, pointless thing to happen because you don't think it could happen or change things. I am always hoping and thinking of ways people, if not me, could help provide and make transitions in society easier. I wish i could personally go there and talk to people and discover more things. When my patients remark about the news that those citizens blah blah something negative, I remind them that it is such a sad situation that these people feel so oppressed that the only thing they can think of now is rioting to draw attention to the inequality, and that we must not judge them for their actions. I have never agreed with the negative remarks made from my patients.

So, I hope I can change your opinion of me because I'm just always hoping, always thinking of ways to better the situation without accepting what has happened. I am totally the embodiment of white privilege in a privileged bubble, but I hope I'm acting in a positive way with white privilege and not just completely ignoring what I have and others so severely lack. I do not believe in the word impossible. Change is always on my mind.

SBmini · November 2014

abbyj700 said:

SBmini said:

kat1114 said:

Can't speak to where QueerFemme is getting her definitions, but I posted this a few pages back and found it helpful regrading the definitions: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/07/15/884649/-Why-there-s-no-such-thing-as-Reverse-Racism#

An opinion piece by a liberal blog is hardly definitive proof of the theory that you cannot have reverse racism. Racism is simply the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races. I believe as a society we throw around the word racism a lot when what we mean is discrimination or prejudice.

None of us know what is in the hearts and minds of those involved her. Was Wilson being racist? Was he being prejudice? Or was he simply looking for a suspect and Brown fit the description? Was Brown being racist when he assaulted Wilson? Was he being prejudice? Was he angry at continuing to be stopped... or was he angry because he didn't want to be caught. What about the rioters? I don't know, you don't know. Only they know what their intentions are. Frankly- I think most of them are just opportunists taking advantage of a volatile situation to cause mayhem.

Upon reading some of the evidence presented, I do believe that there was reasonable doubt that Wilson's motives were racially charged- or even inappropriate use of force. I, nor has anyone else in this thread, read the thousand pages of evidence that was released with the verdict, however. So none of us know as much as the grand jury knows and none of us, jury included, knows what was going on inside the minds of Wilson or Brown. So forgive me, but I feel it's a little arrogant for anyone to think they know more than the jury did, or that they would have come to a different conclusion after being given all the information.

And that would be great if this were about one kid, one police officer, your decisions and one case. But it's not. It's about a social unjustice that haunts millions of black Americans. It costs some people their lives, or the lives of their family. It's about an epidemic amongst the police force and minorities. Millions of Americans - both black and white are standing up against this and saying enough is enough. It's not just about reading CNN about the Michael Brown case and deciding your the authority. You think these millions of Americans who are standing in anger against this decision are just all completely uninformed? Or do you think racsim is alive and well in this nation - and our police force struggles with it just like any other profession - except their job allows their issues to end up deadly?

Let me clarify something for you here: the grand jury was only deciding one case, between one teen and one police officer. It was not the grand jury's job to rule on race relations as a whole or police actions as a whole. That is a debate far outside of their scope and it something that we as a nation will unfortunately struggle with for many years to come.

There are a vast array of social, economic and physiological factors that created the situation in Ferguson. It is not a simply problem with a simple solution. Having police carry cameras will not solve it (although I think it is a great idea). And convicting one police officer in one shooting will not solve it. We need to do WAY more. We need to help more people get out of poverty and break the revolving door of incarceration. We need to give people better opportunities through improved education and support. We need to rewrite the current narrative so when a police officer stops to question a young man- it is so obvious that he is doing so because he has a question, not because of the young man's race. And the young man is happy to cooperate because he hasn't faced discrimination and stereotyping by the police and others all his life to lead to anger and mistrust.

No indictment would even come close to solving those injustices. It has helped to continue a conversation, but again- this problem goes way beyond simply perceived/real racism by police officers.Even if we fix that portion of it- there will be a lot more work left to do.

abbyj700 · November 2014

SBmini said:

abbyj700 said:

SBmini said:

kat1114 said:

Can't speak to where QueerFemme is getting her definitions, but I posted this a few pages back and found it helpful regrading the definitions: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/07/15/884649/-Why-there-s-no-such-thing-as-Reverse-Racism#

An opinion piece by a liberal blog is hardly definitive proof of the theory that you cannot have reverse racism. Racism is simply the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races. I believe as a society we throw around the word racism a lot when what we mean is discrimination or prejudice.

None of us know what is in the hearts and minds of those involved her. Was Wilson being racist? Was he being prejudice? Or was he simply looking for a suspect and Brown fit the description? Was Brown being racist when he assaulted Wilson? Was he being prejudice? Was he angry at continuing to be stopped... or was he angry because he didn't want to be caught. What about the rioters? I don't know, you don't know. Only they know what their intentions are. Frankly- I think most of them are just opportunists taking advantage of a volatile situation to cause mayhem.

Upon reading some of the evidence presented, I do believe that there was reasonable doubt that Wilson's motives were racially charged- or even inappropriate use of force. I, nor has anyone else in this thread, read the thousand pages of evidence that was released with the verdict, however. So none of us know as much as the grand jury knows and none of us, jury included, knows what was going on inside the minds of Wilson or Brown. So forgive me, but I feel it's a little arrogant for anyone to think they know more than the jury did, or that they would have come to a different conclusion after being given all the information.

And that would be great if this were about one kid, one police officer, your decisions and one case. But it's not. It's about a social unjustice that haunts millions of black Americans. It costs some people their lives, or the lives of their family. It's about an epidemic amongst the police force and minorities. Millions of Americans - both black and white are standing up against this and saying enough is enough. It's not just about reading CNN about the Michael Brown case and deciding your the authority. You think these millions of Americans who are standing in anger against this decision are just all completely uninformed? Or do you think racsim is alive and well in this nation - and our police force struggles with it just like any other profession - except their job allows their issues to end up deadly?

Let me clarify something for you here: the grand jury was only deciding one case, between one teen and one police officer. It was not the grand jury's job to rule on race relations as a whole or police actions as a whole. That is a debate far outside of their scope and it something that we as a nation will unfortunately struggle with for many years to come.

There are a vast array of social, economic and physiological factors that created the situation in Ferguson. It is not a simply problem with a simple solution. Having police carry cameras will not solve it (although I think it is a great idea). And convicting one police officer in one shooting will not solve it. We need to do WAY more. We need to help more people get out of poverty and break the revolving door of incarceration. We need to give people better opportunities through improved education and support. We need to rewrite the current narrative so when a police officer stops to question a young man- it is so obvious that he is doing so because he has a question, not because of the young man's race. And the young man is happy to cooperate because he hasn't faced discrimination and stereotyping by the police and others all his life to lead to anger and mistrust.

No indictment would even come close to solving those injustices. It has helped to continue a conversation, but again- this problem goes way beyond simply perceived/real racism by police officers.Even if we fix that portion of it- there will be a lot more work left to do.

Yes. And the people aren't just mad about that one case. It may have been the straw that broke the camels back - but it isn't just this case that people are upset about. It isn't just this family that we mourn and fight for. It's all the families, all the cases, all the missed opportunities to change the conversation, to update laws, to save us from these social injustices.

And you're right - one indictment wouldn't have fixed it all. But one indictment would help the conversation. One indictment could have caused a change in laws. Perhaps the shooting of the man in NYC will help to fix the huge issues in the NYPD? One can only hope. It's sad to me that oppression continues and justice can't be served.

Maggie0829 · November 2014

abbyj700 said:

SBmini said:

abbyj700 said:

SBmini said:

kat1114 said:

Can't speak to where QueerFemme is getting her definitions, but I posted this a few pages back and found it helpful regrading the definitions: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/07/15/884649/-Why-there-s-no-such-thing-as-Reverse-Racism#

An opinion piece by a liberal blog is hardly definitive proof of the theory that you cannot have reverse racism. Racism is simply the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races. I believe as a society we throw around the word racism a lot when what we mean is discrimination or prejudice.

None of us know what is in the hearts and minds of those involved her. Was Wilson being racist? Was he being prejudice? Or was he simply looking for a suspect and Brown fit the description? Was Brown being racist when he assaulted Wilson? Was he being prejudice? Was he angry at continuing to be stopped... or was he angry because he didn't want to be caught. What about the rioters? I don't know, you don't know. Only they know what their intentions are. Frankly- I think most of them are just opportunists taking advantage of a volatile situation to cause mayhem.

Upon reading some of the evidence presented, I do believe that there was reasonable doubt that Wilson's motives were racially charged- or even inappropriate use of force. I, nor has anyone else in this thread, read the thousand pages of evidence that was released with the verdict, however. So none of us know as much as the grand jury knows and none of us, jury included, knows what was going on inside the minds of Wilson or Brown. So forgive me, but I feel it's a little arrogant for anyone to think they know more than the jury did, or that they would have come to a different conclusion after being given all the information.

And that would be great if this were about one kid, one police officer, your decisions and one case. But it's not. It's about a social unjustice that haunts millions of black Americans. It costs some people their lives, or the lives of their family. It's about an epidemic amongst the police force and minorities. Millions of Americans - both black and white are standing up against this and saying enough is enough. It's not just about reading CNN about the Michael Brown case and deciding your the authority. You think these millions of Americans who are standing in anger against this decision are just all completely uninformed? Or do you think racsim is alive and well in this nation - and our police force struggles with it just like any other profession - except their job allows their issues to end up deadly?

Let me clarify something for you here: the grand jury was only deciding one case, between one teen and one police officer. It was not the grand jury's job to rule on race relations as a whole or police actions as a whole. That is a debate far outside of their scope and it something that we as a nation will unfortunately struggle with for many years to come.

There are a vast array of social, economic and physiological factors that created the situation in Ferguson. It is not a simply problem with a simple solution. Having police carry cameras will not solve it (although I think it is a great idea). And convicting one police officer in one shooting will not solve it. We need to do WAY more. We need to help more people get out of poverty and break the revolving door of incarceration. We need to give people better opportunities through improved education and support. We need to rewrite the current narrative so when a police officer stops to question a young man- it is so obvious that he is doing so because he has a question, not because of the young man's race. And the young man is happy to cooperate because he hasn't faced discrimination and stereotyping by the police and others all his life to lead to anger and mistrust.

No indictment would even come close to solving those injustices. It has helped to continue a conversation, but again- this problem goes way beyond simply perceived/real racism by police officers.Even if we fix that portion of it- there will be a lot more work left to do.

Yes. And the people aren't just mad about that one case. It may have been the straw that broke the camels back - but it isn't just this case that people are upset about. It isn't just this family that we mourn and fight for. It's all the families, all the cases, all the missed opportunities to change the conversation, to update laws, to save us from these social injustices.

And you're right - one indictment wouldn't have fixed it all. But one indictment would help the conversation. One indictment could have caused a change in laws. Perhaps the shooting of the man in NYC will help to fix the huge issues in the NYPD? One can only hope. It's sad to me that oppression continues and justice can't be served.

So should the grand jury have indicted the officer just so that it would help things to change, even if the evidence presented pointed to him not being indicted?

I understand that things need to change, but someone should not be indicted on charges just to help elicit those changes.

sarahufl · November 2014

Maggie0829 said:

abbyj700 said:

SBmini said:

abbyj700 said:

SBmini said:

kat1114 said:

Can't speak to where QueerFemme is getting her definitions, but I posted this a few pages back and found it helpful regrading the definitions: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/07/15/884649/-Why-there-s-no-such-thing-as-Reverse-Racism#

An opinion piece by a liberal blog is hardly definitive proof of the theory that you cannot have reverse racism. Racism is simply the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races. I believe as a society we throw around the word racism a lot when what we mean is discrimination or prejudice.

None of us know what is in the hearts and minds of those involved her. Was Wilson being racist? Was he being prejudice? Or was he simply looking for a suspect and Brown fit the description? Was Brown being racist when he assaulted Wilson? Was he being prejudice? Was he angry at continuing to be stopped... or was he angry because he didn't want to be caught. What about the rioters? I don't know, you don't know. Only they know what their intentions are. Frankly- I think most of them are just opportunists taking advantage of a volatile situation to cause mayhem.

Upon reading some of the evidence presented, I do believe that there was reasonable doubt that Wilson's motives were racially charged- or even inappropriate use of force. I, nor has anyone else in this thread, read the thousand pages of evidence that was released with the verdict, however. So none of us know as much as the grand jury knows and none of us, jury included, knows what was going on inside the minds of Wilson or Brown. So forgive me, but I feel it's a little arrogant for anyone to think they know more than the jury did, or that they would have come to a different conclusion after being given all the information.

And that would be great if this were about one kid, one police officer, your decisions and one case. But it's not. It's about a social unjustice that haunts millions of black Americans. It costs some people their lives, or the lives of their family. It's about an epidemic amongst the police force and minorities. Millions of Americans - both black and white are standing up against this and saying enough is enough. It's not just about reading CNN about the Michael Brown case and deciding your the authority. You think these millions of Americans who are standing in anger against this decision are just all completely uninformed? Or do you think racsim is alive and well in this nation - and our police force struggles with it just like any other profession - except their job allows their issues to end up deadly?

Let me clarify something for you here: the grand jury was only deciding one case, between one teen and one police officer. It was not the grand jury's job to rule on race relations as a whole or police actions as a whole. That is a debate far outside of their scope and it something that we as a nation will unfortunately struggle with for many years to come.

There are a vast array of social, economic and physiological factors that created the situation in Ferguson. It is not a simply problem with a simple solution. Having police carry cameras will not solve it (although I think it is a great idea). And convicting one police officer in one shooting will not solve it. We need to do WAY more. We need to help more people get out of poverty and break the revolving door of incarceration. We need to give people better opportunities through improved education and support. We need to rewrite the current narrative so when a police officer stops to question a young man- it is so obvious that he is doing so because he has a question, not because of the young man's race. And the young man is happy to cooperate because he hasn't faced discrimination and stereotyping by the police and others all his life to lead to anger and mistrust.

No indictment would even come close to solving those injustices. It has helped to continue a conversation, but again- this problem goes way beyond simply perceived/real racism by police officers.Even if we fix that portion of it- there will be a lot more work left to do.

Yes. And the people aren't just mad about that one case. It may have been the straw that broke the camels back - but it isn't just this case that people are upset about. It isn't just this family that we mourn and fight for. It's all the families, all the cases, all the missed opportunities to change the conversation, to update laws, to save us from these social injustices.

And you're right - one indictment wouldn't have fixed it all. But one indictment would help the conversation. One indictment could have caused a change in laws. Perhaps the shooting of the man in NYC will help to fix the huge issues in the NYPD? One can only hope. It's sad to me that oppression continues and justice can't be served.

So should the grand jury have indicted the officer just so that it would help things to change, even if the evidence presented pointed to him not being indicted?

I understand that things need to change, but someone should not be indicted on charges just to help elicit those changes.

QFT.

[Deleted User] · November 2014

Maggie0829 · November 2014

pinkrevenge said:

I literally have to go cry.

Overly dramatic much?

SBmini · November 2014

abbyj700 said:

Yes. And the people aren't just mad about that one case. It may have been the straw that broke the camels back - but it isn't just this case that people are upset about. It isn't just this family that we mourn and fight for. It's all the families, all the cases, all the missed opportunities to change the conversation, to update laws, to save us from these social injustices.

And you're right - one indictment wouldn't have fixed it all. But one indictment would help the conversation. One indictment could have caused a change in laws. Perhaps the shooting of the man in NYC will help to fix the huge issues in the NYPD? One can only hope. It's sad to me that oppression continues and justice can't be served.

So we should try an innocent man just because it will potentially help fix larger issues? Forgive me, but this mindset is part of the problem. This mindset that this is a black and white (pardon the pun) issue where someone was evil and needs to pay. The mindset that even if he was acting in self defense he should still be tried out of principal. Frankly, I feel that if you believe this, you are acting with the same type of closed minded arrogance you are claiming to fight. Based on the evidence, the grand jury decided the officer was justified in his actions. How I see it, this should help make people feel better. Perhaps the incident wasn't racially driven but instead was driven by fear of one's safety and appropriate use of force based on the law. Isn't that a better outcome here than a racist altercation that ended in a biased killing. Wilson's exoneration does help move us forward in this debate because it potentially elevates the incident above the debate to a place where an officer stops an individual not based on his race, but for completely acceptable reasons.

kat1114 · November 2014

SBmini said:

abbyj700 said:

Yes. And the people aren't just mad about that one case. It may have been the straw that broke the camels back - but it isn't just this case that people are upset about. It isn't just this family that we mourn and fight for. It's all the families, all the cases, all the missed opportunities to change the conversation, to update laws, to save us from these social injustices.

And you're right - one indictment wouldn't have fixed it all. But one indictment would help the conversation. One indictment could have caused a change in laws. Perhaps the shooting of the man in NYC will help to fix the huge issues in the NYPD? One can only hope. It's sad to me that oppression continues and justice can't be served.

So we should try an innocent man just because it will potentially help fix larger issues? Forgive me, but this mindset is part of the problem. This mindset that this is a black and white (pardon the pun) issue where someone was evil and needs to pay. The mindset that even if he was acting in self defense he should still be tried out of principal. Frankly, I feel that if you believe this, you are acting with the same type of closed minded arrogance you are claiming to fight. Based on the evidence, the grand jury decided the officer was justified in his actions. How I see it, this should help make people feel better. Perhaps the incident wasn't racially driven but instead was driven by fear of one's safety and appropriate use of force based on the law. Isn't that a better outcome here than a racist altercation that ended in a biased killing. Wilson's exoneration does help move us forward in this debate because it potentially elevates the incident above the debate to a place where an officer stops an individual not based on his race, but for completely acceptable reasons.

I'm sorry, I missed the part where anyone said he should have been indicted if he acted lawfully. I think peolpe are just saying the indictment may have changed the situation. I don't think anyone realistically supports indicting an innocent person just to make people feel better.

I don't see how the failure to indict helps us move forward in this debate, other than to say more people are talking about the issue than would have had he been indicted. I really don't understand how the failure to indict raises the debate to a place where race isn't an issue when a cop stops someone.

Maggie0829 · November 2014

kat1114 said:

SBmini said:

abbyj700 said:

Yes. And the people aren't just mad about that one case. It may have been the straw that broke the camels back - but it isn't just this case that people are upset about. It isn't just this family that we mourn and fight for. It's all the families, all the cases, all the missed opportunities to change the conversation, to update laws, to save us from these social injustices.

And you're right - one indictment wouldn't have fixed it all. But one indictment would help the conversation. One indictment could have caused a change in laws. Perhaps the shooting of the man in NYC will help to fix the huge issues in the NYPD? One can only hope. It's sad to me that oppression continues and justice can't be served.

So we should try an innocent man just because it will potentially help fix larger issues? Forgive me, but this mindset is part of the problem. This mindset that this is a black and white (pardon the pun) issue where someone was evil and needs to pay. The mindset that even if he was acting in self defense he should still be tried out of principal. Frankly, I feel that if you believe this, you are acting with the same type of closed minded arrogance you are claiming to fight. Based on the evidence, the grand jury decided the officer was justified in his actions. How I see it, this should help make people feel better. Perhaps the incident wasn't racially driven but instead was driven by fear of one's safety and appropriate use of force based on the law. Isn't that a better outcome here than a racist altercation that ended in a biased killing. Wilson's exoneration does help move us forward in this debate because it potentially elevates the incident above the debate to a place where an officer stops an individual not based on his race, but for completely acceptable reasons.

I'm sorry, I missed the part where anyone said he should have been indicted if he acted lawfully. I think peolpe are just saying the indictment may have changed the situation. I don't think anyone realistically supports indicting an innocent person just to make people feel better.

I don't see how the failure to indict helps us move forward in this debate, other than to say more people are talking about the issue than would have had he been indicted. I really don't understand how the failure to indict raises the debate to a place where race isn't an issue when a cop stops someone.

I think it was because the poster said that an indictment would help elicit change. Yes, I am sure it would, but an indictment shouldn't just occur because it will help, but rather because the person involves deserves the charges based on his/her actions. (I bolded the portion I am talking about)

Now if that is not what the poster meant then okay, but that is how I took it which is why I asked the question I did a few posts up.

manillabar · November 2014

sarahufl said:

Maggie0829 said:

abbyj700 said:

SBmini said:

abbyj700 said:

SBmini said:

kat1114 said:

Can't speak to where QueerFemme is getting her definitions, but I posted this a few pages back and found it helpful regrading the definitions: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/07/15/884649/-Why-there-s-no-such-thing-as-Reverse-Racism#

An opinion piece by a liberal blog is hardly definitive proof of the theory that you cannot have reverse racism. Racism is simply the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races. I believe as a society we throw around the word racism a lot when what we mean is discrimination or prejudice.

None of us know what is in the hearts and minds of those involved her. Was Wilson being racist? Was he being prejudice? Or was he simply looking for a suspect and Brown fit the description? Was Brown being racist when he assaulted Wilson? Was he being prejudice? Was he angry at continuing to be stopped... or was he angry because he didn't want to be caught. What about the rioters? I don't know, you don't know. Only they know what their intentions are. Frankly- I think most of them are just opportunists taking advantage of a volatile situation to cause mayhem.

Upon reading some of the evidence presented, I do believe that there was reasonable doubt that Wilson's motives were racially charged- or even inappropriate use of force. I, nor has anyone else in this thread, read the thousand pages of evidence that was released with the verdict, however. So none of us know as much as the grand jury knows and none of us, jury included, knows what was going on inside the minds of Wilson or Brown. So forgive me, but I feel it's a little arrogant for anyone to think they know more than the jury did, or that they would have come to a different conclusion after being given all the information.

And that would be great if this were about one kid, one police officer, your decisions and one case. But it's not. It's about a social unjustice that haunts millions of black Americans. It costs some people their lives, or the lives of their family. It's about an epidemic amongst the police force and minorities. Millions of Americans - both black and white are standing up against this and saying enough is enough. It's not just about reading CNN about the Michael Brown case and deciding your the authority. You think these millions of Americans who are standing in anger against this decision are just all completely uninformed? Or do you think racsim is alive and well in this nation - and our police force struggles with it just like any other profession - except their job allows their issues to end up deadly?

Let me clarify something for you here: the grand jury was only deciding one case, between one teen and one police officer. It was not the grand jury's job to rule on race relations as a whole or police actions as a whole. That is a debate far outside of their scope and it something that we as a nation will unfortunately struggle with for many years to come.

There are a vast array of social, economic and physiological factors that created the situation in Ferguson. It is not a simply problem with a simple solution. Having police carry cameras will not solve it (although I think it is a great idea). And convicting one police officer in one shooting will not solve it. We need to do WAY more. We need to help more people get out of poverty and break the revolving door of incarceration. We need to give people better opportunities through improved education and support. We need to rewrite the current narrative so when a police officer stops to question a young man- it is so obvious that he is doing so because he has a question, not because of the young man's race. And the young man is happy to cooperate because he hasn't faced discrimination and stereotyping by the police and others all his life to lead to anger and mistrust.

No indictment would even come close to solving those injustices. It has helped to continue a conversation, but again- this problem goes way beyond simply perceived/real racism by police officers.Even if we fix that portion of it- there will be a lot more work left to do.

Yes. And the people aren't just mad about that one case. It may have been the straw that broke the camels back - but it isn't just this case that people are upset about. It isn't just this family that we mourn and fight for. It's all the families, all the cases, all the missed opportunities to change the conversation, to update laws, to save us from these social injustices.

And you're right - one indictment wouldn't have fixed it all. But one indictment would help the conversation. One indictment could have caused a change in laws. Perhaps the shooting of the man in NYC will help to fix the huge issues in the NYPD? One can only hope. It's sad to me that oppression continues and justice can't be served.

So should the grand jury have indicted the officer just so that it would help things to change, even if the evidence presented pointed to him not being indicted?

I understand that things need to change, but someone should not be indicted on charges just to help elicit those changes.

QFT.

So correct me if I'm wrong but I kind of feel like throughout this thread there has been a lot of confusing of people's arguments which i think is half the problem. For instance, in reference to the above, I don't think anyone was saying someone should be indicted wrongly just to make change, but that IF there were an indictment it could have led to change. and that IF there were an indictment it could have been a sign of a changing racial/political climate. And if thats not what was being said, then at least it's what I'm saying. Also, I just want to add that I know that a lot of people mentioned "cop hate" and I know it was addressed before but I have no cop hate. I don't think all cops are bad. I dont even think most cops are bad. But I also know for a fact that police brutality is a real thing. Thankfully you may not know someone who would intentionally hurt others for no reason but there are those who would and we can't pretend those dont exist because they do exist and they are hurting people. I think that this case has brought to light major issues that have to be addressed. And now is the time to work on them, no matter the outcome of this particular case. I don't think we need to wait for a "better" example of institutionalized racism and/or police brutality before we start making changes.

PrettyGirlLost · November 2014

Maggie0829 said:

pinkrevenge said:

I literally have to go cry.

Overly dramatic much?

People can't even post about Christmas songs they like without it devolving into an argument about the analysis of the freaking lyrics and outrage, and everyone being offended. . . . who the fuck thought this post was going to be a good idea and who the fuck thought participating in this thread was an equally good idea?

Nopenopenopenopenope.

Maggie0829 · November 2014

PrettyGirlLost said:

Maggie0829 said:

pinkrevenge said:

I literally have to go cry.

Overly dramatic much?

People can't even post about Christmas songs they like without it devolving into an argument about the analysis of the freaking lyrics and outrage, and everyone being offended. . . . who the fuck thought this post was going to be a good idea and who the fuck thought participating in this thread was an equally good idea?

Nopenopenopenopenope.

I actually learned a lot from many posters and I am happy about that. There were a few, however, that, well...you know.

QueerFemme · November 2014

I don't have time to read through all of the comments... since I got to work... but, yeah.. this.

jdluvr06 · November 2014

PrettyGirlLost said:

Maggie0829 said:

pinkrevenge said:

I literally have to go cry.

Overly dramatic much?

People can't even post about Christmas songs they like without it devolving into an argument about the analysis of the freaking lyrics and outrage, and everyone being offended. . . . who the fuck thought this post was going to be a good idea and who the fuck thought participating in this thread was an equally good idea?

Nopenopenopenopenope.

We do tend to argue a lot here. lol

manillabar · November 2014

Also, I'm not saying that this is the case here, but a lack of indictment doesn't mean that the case wasn't "thrown" (for lack of a better term). Again, I'm not saying that's necessarily what happened here, and i would certainly hope that it wasn't, but not every court proceeding (generally speaking) is without foul play, as much as we would hope otherwise. The only reason I say this is because I think it's ok for us to question what was said, what evidence was presented, and why things were said and presented in the way that it was. And I also wish I was a speed reader because holy cow that transcript is thousands of pages long! ETA I totally had paragraphs in both my posts, sorry guys!!!!

beachyone15 · November 2014

PrettyGirlLost said:

Maggie0829 said:

pinkrevenge said:

I literally have to go cry.

Overly dramatic much?

People can't even post about Christmas songs they like without it devolving into an argument about the analysis of the freaking lyrics and outrage, and everyone being offended. . . . who the fuck thought this post was going to be a good idea and who the fuck thought participating in this thread was an equally good idea?

Nopenopenopenopenope.

Exactly the reason why I lurk 90% of the time and post only 10%.

chibiyui · November 2014

jdluvr06 said:

PrettyGirlLost said:

Maggie0829 said:

pinkrevenge said:

I literally have to go cry.

Overly dramatic much?

People can't even post about Christmas songs they like without it devolving into an argument about the analysis of the freaking lyrics and outrage, and everyone being offended. . . . who the fuck thought this post was going to be a good idea and who the fuck thought participating in this thread was an equally good idea?

Nopenopenopenopenope.

We do tend to argue a lot here. lol

It's not arguing. It's a "loving disagreement" with a dash of Willy Wonka "oh really" and that gif with the bird who picks up a knife and the text says "what did you say, I'll cut you Motherfucker"

PrettyGirlLost · November 2014

chibiyui said:

PrettyGirlLost said:

Maggie0829 said:

pinkrevenge said:

I literally have to go cry.

Overly dramatic much?

People can't even post about Christmas songs they like without it devolving into an argument about the analysis of the freaking lyrics and outrage, and everyone being offended. . . . who the fuck thought this post was going to be a good idea and who the fuck thought participating in this thread was an equally good idea?

Nopenopenopenopenope.

We do tend to argue a lot here. lol
It's not arguing. It's a "loving disagreement" with a dash of Willy Wonka "oh really" and that gif with the bird who picks up a knife and the text says "what did you say, I'll cut you Motherfucker"

Hahaha!

abbyj700 · November 2014

jdluvr06 said:

PrettyGirlLost said:

Maggie0829 said:

pinkrevenge said:

I literally have to go cry.

Overly dramatic much?

People can't even post about Christmas songs they like without it devolving into an argument about the analysis of the freaking lyrics and outrage, and everyone being offended. . . . who the fuck thought this post was going to be a good idea and who the fuck thought participating in this thread was an equally good idea?

Nopenopenopenopenope.

We do tend to argue a lot here. lol

In my family we call them discussions. :-)

Ferguson

Re: Ferguson

Choose Another Board

Search Boards