Ferguson Megathread

[Yumyumsuppertime]

So now you're claiming that you weren't trying to insinuate that at least half were unemployed? Blatant intellectual dishonesty.

No, I am just insinuating that not all protestors are blacks, nor that I see the protestors of " poor blacks against the establishment". No wonder that you are progressive as usually such people never went to college.

Oh, for god's sake, you do not want to bring academic credentials into this. it's petty, it's meaningless, and it's the worst sort of online unzipping to compare sizes.

You're insinuating all of the above, you made a weak joke based upon stereotypes, and now you're backpedaling. That's it. Either admit it or move on and stop embarrassing yourself.

[Buse]

Oh, for god's sake, you do not want to bring academic credentials into this. it's petty, it's meaningless, and it's the worst sort of online unzipping to compare sizes.

You're insinuating all of the above, you made a weak joke based upon stereotypes, and now you're backpedaling. That's it. Either admit it or move on and stop embarrassing yourself.

I made a joke about all protestors regardless of race, religuon and so on. You are the who are not inteligent enough to realise that assumong I was stereotyping blacks.

What to think about people who cannot read properly?
They obviously were to stupid to even finish school. Than they are usually using progressive opinionto cover up their stupidity.

[West Aurelia]

California police chief joins anti-police violence protests.

RICHMOND, Calif. - A Northern California police chief noted for his community policing efforts raised a few eyebrows when he joined a peaceful protest Tuesday, holding a sign with the popular Twitter hashtag of #blacklivesmatter.

The Contra Costa Times reported Richmond Police Chief Chris Magnus was part of a group of about demonstrators who lined a busy street, holding signing and listening to recordings of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s speeches.

"I spoke with my command staff, and we agreed it would be nice to convey our commitment to peaceful protest and that black and brown lives do matter," Magnus told the newspaper after the protest. "And to help bridge the gap that we understand sometimes exists between police and community around certain issues."

"We get the conversation about use of force, we get it," Deputy Chief Allwyn Brown added. "This is an opportunity for all police departments, including ours, to look inward and examine our approaches and get better."

The afternoon protest, one of many in the San Francisco Bay Area this week, was organized by a Richmond youth center. Richmond's mayor and several city council members also took part in the demonstration.

Not sure if this is in relation to Michael Brown or Eric Garner, but it's a good way for the police to bridge gaps in the community.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Oh, for god's sake, you do not want to bring academic credentials into this. it's petty, it's meaningless, and it's the worst sort of online unzipping to compare sizes.

You're insinuating all of the above, you made a weak joke based upon stereotypes, and now you're backpedaling. That's it. Either admit it or move on and stop embarrassing yourself.

I made a joke about all protestors regardless of race, religuon and so on. You are the who are not inteligent enough to realise that assumong I was stereotyping blacks.

What to think about people who cannot read properly?
They obviously were to stupid to even finish school. Than they are usually using progressive opinionto cover up their stupidity.

Fine. You're reduced to juvenile pseudo-intellectual dick-waving and pretentious insults, and I have no interest in either. We're done here.

[Herskerstad]

I do think that the sealed court documents, or the wast majority of them given this case with the normal amount of censoring, will be released given time as this pressure is not going away anytime soon.

The DOJ is currently doing all they can do, which is a continuation of the investigation. Now, a grand jury allows no double jeopardy so he is not going to face trial for this at least from what I understand, even if witness perjury was involved. However, if the DOJ would find some other dirt on him or some plans to cause a citizen harm, then they could get him for that, but to the people who think that the DOJ's investigation will likely force some kind of action, I would not get my hopes up. What they can do is extremely limited and short of finding something new which is extremely unlikely, such as the policeman premeditating a murder, he'll not face trial on anything related to this.

As far as the documents on the case in New York goes. I very, very much expect it to be going thoroughly through what constitutes criminally negligent manslaughter, and a breach of protocol. The moment he held around his head is what caused the city to remove his badge and gun, but on the balance going between breach of protocol and the various degrees of excessive force has to have been reviewed by the jury. In absence of definitive malice and the weight of the office probably made the jury rule not to pursue. As far as I understand that's final, and the DOJ cannot force a trial on the subject now.

I wanted a trial for this, I was surprised, though not as much as some that it did not go that far because I've seen similar situations done by bouncers. Putting people in life-threatening danger by doing similar take-downs and putting similar amounts of pressure on people who'd clearly been long-term under the effect of drugs, threatening their respiratory system. It is an illegal move to do unless one is in dire trouble against a resisting individual. Was there resistance? Yes. Was it dire? No. Did it merit a trial? I think so, but the decision is likely not going to be taken on that as much as direct regulation, which any competent defense would have forced. Add in union rep's and I can see even a non-sympathetic jury ruling not to push to trial given the situation. It is an awful, gut-wrenching clip to watch, but as the situation itself shows, there are a lot of factors to it and I do think protocol ruled the grand jury, not desire. I personally do see this as worthwhile to face trial, but had it gone to trial, I very much doubt there would have been any sentence that would make him see the inside of a jail. Most likely just an ugly court case where the defense will rely on protocol and the weight of the institution, and the prosecution on emotions and the recklessness.

Either way, the one thing that's be very unlikely to enter into the court had it gone to trial is claims of racism. Unless the prosecution wants to rule the institution to be racist and go for grand conspiracy which would likely alienate and affect many of the people they'd look for as far as testimony goes, or in other words, commit judicial suicide.

For me at least, it's not just about the fact that these two cops won't be standing trial. Sometimes people do shitty things and don't get sent to prison for a variety of reasons. We had a young woman here on NS who got raped and the case never went to trial. Stuff like that happens.

The bigger issue is to address any systemic problems so that the justice system works better in the future. If a witness committed perjury, even if that wasn't grounds to redo the grand jury, I'd still want the witness prosecuted for the perjury. If prosecutors don't do their job properly because of cronyism, corruption, or conflicts of interest, then the prosecutor needs to be held accountable for that.

Oh don't get me wrong, if a witness committed perjury during this grand jury, that witness would be prosecuted for perjury and probably get it on first degree as well. It is just that the grand jury in regards to the police officer could not be redone even in regards to the revelation of such as far as I understand it. I would want a grand jury to be re-doable on a federal level if the DOJ itself got involved, but the problem is that doing so will assign legal value to politically heated situations, something the judicial courts try desperately to avoid. So it would have to be a limited review at the most, but I do think the DOJ should be able to intervene in them by weight of testimony if justified.

I do agree to a degree that police should not have to face trials given bad situations that constitute a breach in police procedure. That the badge itself grants some level of leeway in stressed situations that would not be mirrored in civilian circumstances. HOWEVER, I do think there should be police cameras at this point not merely on the cars, but on the uniforms, but after that the civil trust in the police needs to be thoroughly reformed. There have even been Bosnian individuals threatened with death due to their skin color because of this situation and the anti-authority sentiment does breed needless violence as does revangcism on those that think they are being oppressed by the system. In short, I dislike the downplay of the riots. They should be condemned in the media, public and communities at a very, very strong way and I am not feeling that from any of said mediums. Protestors who continue to protest after the first fire is visible should disperse and there have been some good examples of attempts at peaceful protests, but also some bad ones such a one gigantic retard line blocking the entire highway traffic which prevents anything from working people, to law enforcement and ambulances to get to their intended destinations. Protests which disrupts the infrastructure or screens damaging riots should be cracked down on, while civil disobedience which say, parks in front of the town hall should be seen as tolerable for an extended time.

Ugh, these situations just bring out the worst in society.

[Flabadabamarijuana]

The grand jury has not even come back yet isn't a little early to be blaming this on the cop.

Not for the race hustlers.

pmsl is this an argument nation states is at risk that it is going to close down I know the owners

[Big Jim P]

So now you're claiming that you weren't trying to insinuate that at least half were unemployed? Blatant intellectual dishonesty.

No, I am just insinuating that not all protestors are blacks, nor that I see the protestors of " poor blacks against the establishment". No wonder that you are progressive as usually such people never went to college.

Exactly what does going to college have to do with this?

[Yumyumsuppertime]

No, I am just insinuating that not all protestors are blacks, nor that I see the protestors of " poor blacks against the establishment". No wonder that you are progressive as usually such people never went to college.

Exactly what does going to college have to do with this?

Somehow college campuses, despite being hotbeds of radical politics, fail to turn out progressives...or something like that.

[Big Jim P]

Exactly what does going to college have to do with this?

Somehow college campuses, despite being hotbeds of radical politics, fail to turn out progressives...or something like that.

I must have misread it then. I thought he was saying that people who don't go to college are likely to be criminal rioters.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Somehow college campuses, despite being hotbeds of radical politics, fail to turn out progressives...or something like that.

I must have misread it then. I thought he was saying that people who don't go to college are likely to be criminal rioters.

That was also being said. It essentially translated to "Progressives are uneducated", which can easily mean both at the same time.

[Big Jim P]

I must have misread it then. I thought he was saying that people who don't go to college are likely to be criminal rioters.

That was also being said. It essentially translated to "Progressives are uneducated", which can easily mean both at the same time.

I thought the popular mantra was the conservatives were uneducated.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

That was also being said. It essentially translated to "Progressives are uneducated", which can easily mean both at the same time.

I thought the popular mantra was the conservatives were uneducated.

And liberals are ivory tower elitists. I think we're through the looking glass.

[Big Jim P]

I thought the popular mantra was the conservatives were uneducated.

And liberals are ivory tower elitists. I think we're through the looking glass.

Whatever it takes to disparage the other side.

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

Troll has been removed - please carry on without further reference to it, thanks!

[The Cobalt Sky]

You got called that by all the protesters? Also, do you have a source to that actually being their agenda? I'm skeptical.

You want evidence of a personal experience? I mean I wasn't recording or anything.

Your personal experience is that they're all racists, then? That they all think that white people are evil?

[Big Jim P]

You want evidence of a personal experience? I mean I wasn't recording or anything.

Your personal experience is that they're all racists, then? That they all think that white people are evil?

A sufficient number of black racist do think that, and they are no better than the klan.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Your personal experience is that they're all racists, then? That they all think that white people are evil?

A sufficient number of black racist do think that, and they are no better than the klan.

What is a sufficient number?

[Big Jim P]

A sufficient number of black racist do think that, and they are no better than the klan.

What is a sufficient number?

Hard to say as anything more than 0 racists is too damn many.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

What is a sufficient number?

Hard to say as anything more than 0 racists is too damn many.

Well, yes, that's true, but why are they the focus, and not the grievances being aired by the non-racist protesters? Is the number so great that they distract from the message? And if so, does the support of a cause by unlikable people actually mean that the cause itself is worthless, or do they simply provide a convenient distraction from having to discuss some uncomfortable issues regarding shades of gray?

[Big Jim P]

Hard to say as anything more than 0 racists is too damn many.

Well, yes, that's true, but why are they the focus, and not the grievances being aired by the non-racist protesters? Is the number so great that they distract from the message? And if so, does the support of a cause by unlikable people actually mean that the cause itself is worthless, or do they simply provide a convenient distraction from having to discuss some uncomfortable issues regarding shades of gray?

The criminals are the ones getting all the press, and unfortunately that is all to common. The peaceful protesters are not being heard over the noise created by the assholes.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Well, yes, that's true, but why are they the focus, and not the grievances being aired by the non-racist protesters? Is the number so great that they distract from the message? And if so, does the support of a cause by unlikable people actually mean that the cause itself is worthless, or do they simply provide a convenient distraction from having to discuss some uncomfortable issues regarding shades of gray?

The criminals are the ones getting all the press, and unfortunately that is all to common. The peaceful protesters are not being heard over the noise created by the assholes.

Is that because the noisier ones deserve the attention despite being fewer in number, or because it's easier to focus on all of the reasons to not have a difficult discussion than to face the need to have it?

[Anglo-California]

Yet.

Yes, you're hoping they rape or assassinate someone to feed your sense of superiority. We get it.

Your conclusions are flawed, but cute.

[Anglo-California]

I really wish white privilege was real. It would be so cool to tap into an invisible force that gives me an advantage over everybody. And how awesome would it be to have an invisible knapsack that I can use to get harsher punishments when I break the law and less disciplinary action in school?

Alas, it doesn't exist, and I must trudge along like everyone else and build my own success. But damn, it'd be pretty sweet if it was handed to me.

White privilege doesn't mean that things are handed to you. It means that specific obstacles aren't placed in your way to the same degree that they are for those who aren't white. Of course, this has been explained to you numerous times, which means that you're either incapable of basic reading comprehension, or, as I suspect, simply willfully ignoring this in order to irrationally justify your deep-seated neuroses regarding race.

Yes, that is exactly what I said white privilege was. You haven't disproven anything. All you've done is repeated what I said, with the point I'm making via satire going right over your head, and then you start spouting how you've proved something, but you haven't.

I don't recall you ever doing anything outside of just saying, "Nuh uh, you're wrong! Are you ignorant or something?"

And why would I want to respond to that?^

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

Yes, that is exactly what I said white privilege was. You haven't disproven anything. All you've done is repeated what I said, with the point I'm making via satire going right over your head, and then you start spouting how you've proved something, but you haven't.

I don't recall you ever doing anything outside of just saying, "Nuh uh, you're wrong! Are you ignorant or something?"

And why would I want to respond to that?^

LC, it's obvious that Yummy Super would not expect you making arguments for the validity of the concept of white privilege, isn't it? I mean, it is quite shocking you do to me.

[Anglo-California]

Or... he's just trolling.

Perhaps, but accusing him of such would be wrong.

>disagreement/delusions that you've actually proven anything
>therefore I'm trolling

Wat