NATION

PASSWORD

SWB: Shopping While Black

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Murkwood
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 7806
Founded: Apr 05, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Murkwood » Thu Sep 25, 2014 9:55 am

Mavorpen wrote:
Murkwood wrote:I'm not saying if Justice has been served or not. I'm just saying that neither you nor I can know.

And since you weren't on the jury you can't know whether I know.

It's seriously like you're intentionally missing my point.

That's impossible, as you commented on the case in this thread. If you were on the jury then you just broke the law, which I doubt you'd do. If you were on the jury and had proof of a miscarriage of Justice then I doubt your first reaction would be NSG.

Also, doesn't the acquittal have to be unanimous?
Last edited by Murkwood on Thu Sep 25, 2014 9:58 am, edited 1 time in total.
Degenerate Heart of HetRio wrote:Murkwood, I'm surprised you're not an anti-Semite and don't mind most LGBT rights because boy, aren't you a constellation of the worst opinions to have about everything? o_o

Benuty wrote:I suppose Ken Ham, and the league of Republican-Neocolonialist-Zionist Catholics will not be pleased.

Soldati senza confini wrote:Did I just try to rationalize Murkwood's logic? Please shoot me.

Catholicism has the fullness of the splendor of truth: The Bible and the Church Fathers agree!

User avatar
The Black Forrest
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 55636
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby The Black Forrest » Thu Sep 25, 2014 9:56 am

My iPhone is black; does that count?
*I am a master proofreader after I click Submit.
* There is actually a War on Christmas. But Christmas started it, with it's unparalleled aggression against the Thanksgiving Holiday, and now Christmas has seized much Lebensraum in November, and are pushing into October. The rest of us seek to repel these invaders, and push them back to the status quo ante bellum Black Friday border. -Trotskylvania
* Silence Is Golden But Duct Tape Is Silver.
* I felt like Ayn Rand cornered me at a party, and three minutes in I found my first objection to what she was saying, but she kept talking without interruption for ten more days. - Max Barry talking about Atlas Shrugged

User avatar
The Rich Port
Post Czar
 
Posts: 38094
Founded: Jul 29, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby The Rich Port » Thu Sep 25, 2014 9:58 am

The Black Forrest wrote:My iPhone is black; does that count?


HE HAS A BLACK MAN IN HIS POCKET. SHOOT HIM.

User avatar
Mavorpen
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 63266
Founded: Dec 20, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Mavorpen » Thu Sep 25, 2014 9:58 am

Murkwood wrote:
Mavorpen wrote:And since you weren't on the jury you can't know whether I know.

It's seriously like you're intentionally missing my point.

That's impossible, as you commented on the case in this thread. If you were on the jury then you just broke the law, which I doubt you'd do.

I never said I was on the jury. Yeah, really seems like you're trying to miss the point.
"The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."—former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman

User avatar
Murkwood
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 7806
Founded: Apr 05, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Murkwood » Thu Sep 25, 2014 10:00 am

Mavorpen wrote:
Murkwood wrote:That's impossible, as you commented on the case in this thread. If you were on the jury then you just broke the law, which I doubt you'd do.

I never said I was on the jury. Yeah, really seems like you're trying to miss the point.

You said I can't know if you weren't on the jury, which is the only way you could know if Justice had been served.

Mavorpen wrote:
Murkwood wrote:You aren't on the jury, so it's extremely unlikely for you to know if Justice has been served or not.

You aren't on the jury, so it's extremely unlikely for you to know if I know if justice has been served or not.
Degenerate Heart of HetRio wrote:Murkwood, I'm surprised you're not an anti-Semite and don't mind most LGBT rights because boy, aren't you a constellation of the worst opinions to have about everything? o_o

Benuty wrote:I suppose Ken Ham, and the league of Republican-Neocolonialist-Zionist Catholics will not be pleased.

Soldati senza confini wrote:Did I just try to rationalize Murkwood's logic? Please shoot me.

Catholicism has the fullness of the splendor of truth: The Bible and the Church Fathers agree!

User avatar
Mons Garle
Envoy
 
Posts: 221
Founded: Mar 15, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Mons Garle » Thu Sep 25, 2014 10:04 am

Condunum wrote:You'd think the title is a joke, but it's not.

22 year old John Crawford was shot and killed by police, in an Ohio Walmart store.
Video

His crime? Shopping for an air gun in the store. His sentence? Death by cop.

Basically, a racist fuckwit called the police because he saw a black man with the audacity to consider purchasing a wal-mart product. Is he certainly racist? No, maybe he's just really, really fucking stupid. Like, really stupid.

Thoughts, NSG? Should the dumbass who called the police face time for this?


Even if there wasn't a racial bias, there was no particular reason why this man should have been shot dead - so of course the policeman should be punished for it. From what I can see here he had absolutely no justification to shoot him. If it was racially motivated then that just adds to the seriousness of it all.

This "Shopping While Black" thing shocked me when I first heard of it in the UK - I saw an episode of the show What Would You Do, where this phenomenon was featured, I was stunned! And so were the Brits who walked out of the shop with the black lady!
Democratically Elected Delegate of the Social Liberal Union

User avatar
Ifreann
Post Overlord
 
Posts: 159114
Founded: Aug 07, 2005
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Ifreann » Thu Sep 25, 2014 10:06 am

Murkwood wrote:
Mavorpen wrote:And since you weren't on the jury you can't know whether I know.

It's seriously like you're intentionally missing my point.

That's impossible, as you commented on the case in this thread. If you were on the jury then you just broke the law, which I doubt you'd do. If you were on the jury and had proof of a miscarriage of Justice then I doubt your first reaction would be NSG.

Also, doesn't the acquittal have to be unanimous?

To be clear, there wasn't a trial. A grand jury issued no indictments. No one was acquitted of anything.

User avatar
Mavorpen
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 63266
Founded: Dec 20, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Mavorpen » Thu Sep 25, 2014 10:06 am

Murkwood wrote:
Mavorpen wrote:I never said I was on the jury. Yeah, really seems like you're trying to miss the point.

You said I can't know if you weren't on the jury, which is the only way you could know if Justice had been served.

Mavorpen wrote:You aren't on the jury, so it's extremely unlikely for you to know if I know if justice has been served or not.

No, I didn't. Read it again. I mean, ACTUALLY read it.
"The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."—former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman

User avatar
Yumyumsuppertime
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 28799
Founded: Jun 21, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Yumyumsuppertime » Thu Sep 25, 2014 12:03 pm

Murkwood wrote:
Yumyumsuppertime wrote:And, of course, the grand jury chose not to indict. This is a gross miscarriage of justice.

You don't have all the facts, so you can't know.


Holy shit.

The man was talking on the phone. The "gun" was pointed downwards, not pointed towards the police or anyone else. His finger was not on the trigger. He was facing AWAY from the officers, and in fact, was not facing any person or people. There was absolutely no threat whatsoever taking place.

Is there no straw that you will not grasp at, no depth that you will not sink to, in order to justify the utterly unjustifiable shooting of an innocent black man?

User avatar
Yumyumsuppertime
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 28799
Founded: Jun 21, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Yumyumsuppertime » Thu Sep 25, 2014 12:05 pm

Freiheit Reich wrote:
Other Thafoo wrote:what the fucking fuck marinated in fuck sauce this makes me so angry


watch the language, try to be more civil


Fuck that. You're not a moderator, and not either of Thafoo's parents.

User avatar
Pope Joan
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 19500
Founded: Mar 11, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Pope Joan » Thu Sep 25, 2014 12:26 pm

My supervisor, a full professor, came here from West Africa. He was unable to live near our headquarters, because whenever he went shopping security would tail him from the time he entered the store until he got in his car. This is supposedly a "classy" town.
"Life is difficult".

-M. Scott Peck

User avatar
Imperializt Russia
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 54847
Founded: Jun 03, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Imperializt Russia » Thu Sep 25, 2014 3:08 pm

Murkwood wrote:
Ifreann wrote:Why are you writing off the possibility of a miscarriage of justice?

I'm not writing that off. I'm doing the opposite. I'm saying that the jury acquitted him, so obviously they were convinced by something. Maybe that's right, maybe that not. We can't know either way.

"A miscarriage of justice primarily is the conviction and punishment of a person for a crime he or she did not commit. The term can also apply to errors in the other direction—"errors of impunity", and to civil cases."
Warning! This poster has:
PT puppet of the People's Republic of Samozaryadnyastan.

Lamadia wrote:dangerous socialist attitude
Also,
Imperializt Russia wrote:I'm English, you tit.

Previous

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Emotional Support Crocodile, Necroghastia, Tarsonis, Vassenor

Advertisement

Remove ads