Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Baffler]

They lack a real leader. There's no MLK or Ghandi to coordinate them with the sheer horse of their personality. There probably won't be any great speeches or figures, all that they have is anger and frustration, so that's all we see.

[freeformschooler]

They lack a real leader. There's no MLK or Ghandi to coordinate them with the sheer force of their personality. There probably won't be any great speeches or decisions, all that they have is anger and frustration, so that's all we see.

To me that's hard to believe... there are so many unhappy people in big cities like Ferguson. Not one has leaderly courage and and the desire to organize people against abuse?

[BurnedToast]

People who don't enjoy the benefits of the social contract have no obligation to abide by it.

People who don't abide by the social contract don't deserve the benefits of it. It works both ways.

Michael brown was a thief - that's not in dispute. He also attacked a police officer with no provocation (unless you think a police officer questioning you about a crime you committed is provocation), that is also not in dispute (as far as I know).

None of this would have happened if he had not robbed the convenience store. None of this would have happened if he had not attacked the police. None of this would have happened if he had just gotten down instead of charging the officer.

Where's the condemnation of him? Oh, right, he does not have to abide the social contract because historically blacks have been treated poorly 

[TamerVirus]

I wonder how severe night 2 in Ferguson will be

FIVE NIGHTS AT FERGUSON

[DJ]

The police are far from a reliable source. What did and didn't happen should've been determined in a court where all the witnesses would have a chance to testify.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

Michael brown was a thief - that's not in dispute.

Well, you know, except the owner of the store the police say he robbed.

KANZLER: "Whatever the police are looking for on the surveillance tape, has nothing to do with what went on in the street."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/08/18/1322560/-Ferguson-Store-Owner-Says-NO-ONE-From-His-Store-Called-Cops-To-Report-Cigar-Theft

http://www.ksdk.com/story/news/local/2014/08/15/lawyer-store-didnt-call-cops-on-ferguson-teen-michael-brown/14138121/

[freeformschooler]

The police are far from a reliable source. What did and didn't happen should've been determined in a court where all the witnesses would have a chance to testify.

There were seventy minutes of testimony from sixty witnesses, including of course the non-police ones. How is that not giving witnesses a chance to testify?

[Bauglir]

People who don't enjoy the benefits of the social contract have no obligation to abide by it.

This is kind of a fundamental point. Riots aren't just acts of random destruction for the hell of it. They're a direct (and, collectively speaking, rational) response to events. They're an active rejection of the expectations of a society that has refused to produce the fairness and justice that's expected of it. Unfortunately, "society" is a pretty vague abstraction, so when people attack it there's a lot of collateral damage. That's one of the consequences of collective reciprocity, but unlike the people on the ground who're being robbed by rioters or beaten by police or insulted by armchair critics, the police and government have accepted responsibility for managing that relationship.

That's why I'm a lot angrier at the people in power here. Yeah, maybe almost all of you are in an unfair position. Nobody gives a shit - that's what you signed up for when you ran for office or joined the police force or whatever. That's why we're supposed to trust you with authority. That's why you have to take the steps, however unfair they might be to you, to make things right.

NINJAS: Actually I'm pretty sure whether he attacked an officer is in dispute, and that the robbery is confirmed to have been irrelevant to why he was questioned by the officer in the first place. Everything I saw in the past few weeks described the recording from the convenience store as a red herring thrown in to paint the black guy as a criminal who deserved to get shot - and even from people who thought he did, there was no attempt to actually connect that particular crime to the shooting.

Moreover, keep in mind that this was an indictment hearing, not a trial - "reasonable doubt" wasn't the standard. They were supposed to be deciding if the evidence even merited a trial in the first place, and even what's available to the public suggests that the answer is "hell the fuck yes", even if the public also certainly doesn't have adequate evidence for a conviction. The only snag in getting the trial going should have been finding a neutral jury, honestly.

[BurnedToast]

Actually, most witnesses have claimed that he never did get into a scuffle and was actually surrendering. There was prior racial tensions, but in this case it seems likely that he was pretty much shot for robbery.

In the jury's opinion, the most credible witnesses suggested that michael brown charged the officer. The witnesses who suggested he was surrendering were found less credible, due to changing testimonies or testimonies inconsistent with the evidence (for example one witness who said brown was shot in the back, when none of the bullets hit him in the back)

And furthermore, even if he was surrendering and the cop shot him in a moment of adrenaline fueled confusion (not something I, or the jury believes), let's not forget the only reason the situation existed was because he robbed a store, attacked an officer, then tried to flee.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

the only reason the situation existed was because he robbed a store

Repeat after me: saying a lie over and over does not make it true. This is a factual statement you can repeat again and again, I will have no issue with that. But stop saying this specific lie. The owner of the store disputes the police and other's [sarcasm]guilty verdict[/sarcasm] because he got paid by MB. Even says it was a person alone who robbed the store. So, find a different angle.

http://aattp.org/ferguson-cops-busted-new-video-seems-to-show-brown-paying-for-cigarillos-video/

http://www.ksdk.com/story/news/local/2014/08/15/lawyer-store-didnt-call-cops-on-ferguson-teen-michael-brown/14138121/

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/08/18/1322560/-Ferguson-Store-Owner-Says-NO-ONE-From-His-Store-Called-Cops-To-Report-Cigar-Theft

[DJ]

So now you need to have guaranteed conviction to get indictment? How about we apply that to all trials, then, rather than just those of police officers?

[Baffler]

I suspect that our jurors simply decided whether or not he was guilty, based on the unusual heaps of evidence they were given, and the these dudes i know they could and did summon unlike any other grand jury, and the autopsy they asked for, and all of the other information they were given. The prosecutor tried to paint it as being upfront with them, but it reeks of a secret trial to me.

[scrdest]

They lack a real leader. There's no MLK or Ghandi to coordinate them with the sheer horse of their personality. There probably won't be any great speeches or figures, all that they have is anger and frustration, so that's all we see.

How come nobody pointed that out yet?

[DJ]

So what was the settlement here?

[BurnedToast]

the only reason the situation existed was because he robbed a store

Repeat after me: saying a lie over and over does not make it true. This is a factual statement you can repeat again and again, I will have no issue with that. But stop saying this specific lie. The owner of the store disputes the police and other's [sarcasm]guilty verdict[/sarcasm] because he got paid by MB. Even says it was a person alone who robbed the store. So, find a different angle.

http://aattp.org/ferguson-cops-busted-new-video-seems-to-show-brown-paying-for-cigarillos-video/

http://www.ksdk.com/story/news/local/2014/08/15/lawyer-store-didnt-call-cops-on-ferguson-teen-michael-brown/14138121/

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/08/18/1322560/-Ferguson-Store-Owner-Says-NO-ONE-From-His-Store-Called-Cops-To-Report-Cigar-Theft

Gosh, it's almost like there's rioters going around burning down the city so that anyone involved would want to distance themselves as much as possible from the whole situation so they don't get their store burned down.

Watch here (relevent part starts about 50 seconds in). If you believe he payed for them, how do you explain the shopkeeper trying to stop him, and him obviously pushing him away and threatening him as he walked out?

Edit: in addition to the friend who was with him who admitted that they stole them.