Riots in Missouri - Part 3

[Tempest]

I have watched a lot of these videos, and a pattern emerges.

There is no denying that police in America have a problem using excessive and disproportionate force and the system that is supposed to stop that from happening is clearly broken. There is also no arguing that there isn't a serious race issue at play.

Ironically, I am unsure if that's the case here. I.e. the Michael Brown case. Michael Brown was by all accounts a violent criminal in the making, and Wilson's response may have been justifiable.

But that doesn't change the issue that there are some serious problems, and the violent (and nonviolent) protests in Missouri aren't the result of one isolated incident.

What pattern emerges? You weren't really specific. Just that you feel that there is excessive force. And what do you deem excessive?

I won't argue that there isn't a race issue. I'm also not going to pretend that minority communities really need to take some ownership here themselves, and work harder with law enforcement officials to reduce crime. The police aren't the only ones who have to change, and I really feel that this is a part of the conversation that is getting lost.

 

[Ilikecomics123]

Does no one care about all the business owners who lost their businesses and livelihood due to "misdirected but justified" anger?

I do. I feel more bad for them than any of the other players in these cases.... they're true victims. They did nothing to deserve having their businesses and dreams destroyed by angry rioters.

 

[The Question]

What pattern emerges? You weren't really specific. Just that you feel that there is excessive force. And what do you deem excessive?

I won't argue that there isn't a race issue. I'm also not going to pretend that minority communities really need to take some ownership here themselves, and work harder with law enforcement officials to reduce crime. The police aren't the only ones who have to change, and I really feel that this is a part of the conversation that is getting lost.

1: Poor communities of color don't have high crime rates because they're not trying hard enough. They have high crime rates because poverty and racism crate a system where crime becomes inevitable. A lot of these communities are doing as much as they can.

2: The things that these communities can do to reduce crime has nothing to do with police. Crime, ultimately, is the result of social factors like poverty and an unstable social infrastructure. Law enforcement can only do so much to reduce crime, and working with police can only get you so far (especially when racism in law enforcement is a very real and common thing which makes non-white communities understandably wary of working with the police). Building infrastructure and creating life saving social programs and economic opportunities does a lot more to combat crime in the long run than throwing more police at the problem.

 

[The Question]

Does no one care about all the business owners who lost their businesses and livelihood due to "misdirected but justified" anger?

I do. I feel more bad for them than any of the other players in these cases.... they're true victims. They did nothing to deserve having their businesses and dreams destroyed by angry rioters.

I still feel more bad for the people who died and the families who lost loved ones.

Also, wasn't most of the looting directed at huge national retailers like Target and Walmart? Because I doubt that their businesses and dreams were destroyed.

 

[Schlosser85]

There is no justification for looting and burning the businesses of innocent people who had nothing to do with what you're angry about.

The store owner who first got robbed by Michael Brown, then looted and vandalized by his fan club, is far more of a victim than Michael Brown.

When your idea of "protesting" is to set people's businesses on fire, or break into their store and steal some TVs, that is the point where I call utter BS on you giving a **** about Michael Brown or the entire social issue at hand. The people doing such things are not expressing misguided anger. They're opportunists jumping on an excuse.

 

[Schlosser85]

I still feel more bad for the people who died and the families who lost loved ones.

Also, wasn't most of the looting directed at huge national retailers like Target and Walmart? Because I doubt that their businesses and dreams were destroyed.

What about the store owner who first got robbed by poor sweet Michael Brown, then looted by his fans?

 

[Ilikecomics123]

I still feel more bad for the people who died and the families who lost loved ones.

Also, wasn't most of the looting directed at huge national retailers like Target and Walmart? Because I doubt that their businesses and dreams were destroyed.

Sean Hanity had an hour long special that had like 6 or 7 Ferguson shop owners that had their businesses destroyed or severely damaged....

 

[The Question]

What about the store owner who first got robbed by poor sweet Michael Brown, then looted by his fans?

What about him? I mean, yeah, it sucks for the guy, but his business and dreams weren't destroyed. What's your point, exactly?

 

[Tempest]

1: If anyone is less inclined to sympathize and listen to people who are protesting racism within the criminal justice system that leads to people of color being murdered because of those things, then I doubt that they would sympathize with the protestors regardless, because they clearly don't care very much about the problem to begin with.

2: The point isn't to gain sympathy. The movement has about as much sympathy as it is likely ever to get. The point is to prove that protestors can and will shut down business as usual is these problems are not addressed.

3: "Burning and looting like animals?" Really? For starters, "burning and looting" makes up such a small percentage of the protests that the focus on it is rather bizarre, and calling people "animals" for acting out against an oppressive system that has murdered their friends and neighbors is kind of messed up. Maybe they are misdirecting their anger, but the anger is completely justified.

No, see, it's the deafness of the people who are protesting, including you, that make me mad.

I want to make sure things get better for people, but I won't lie, manipulate the truth, or ignore reality in order to achieve that goal.

That's where this whole thing has ticked me off.

Everyone was spouting the 'truth' of the Michael Brown shooting until suddenly the evidence and eyewitness testimony didn't actually make Brown out to be a poor guy who was just shot for no reason. Now the truth doesn't actually matter. It just matters that he was black and shot by police.

And you should know better than to defend someone who would spout threats against someone. After all your complaints in the GamerGate thread, you need to draw a line: Either threats are ok, or they are not.

You can't pick and choose who gets to be allowed make threats and behave badly based on whether you like the movement or not. You either tolerate threats or you don't.

 

[Schlosser85]

If you don't want to be stereotyped as criminals and lowlifes, then don't act like it all over the evening news, rampaging around, stealing TVs, breaking store windows, setting **** on fire.

Obviously not all black people and not everyone in Ferguson was behaving that way. In fact, a group of young black protesters were very admirably standing guard outside some businesses to protect them from some of their "fellow protesters" using it as an excuse to loot and pillage.

 

[The Question]

Sean Hanity had an hour long special that had like 6 or 7 Ferguson shop owners that had their businesses destroyed or severely damaged....

Okay. Well, that's a damn shame. It sucks that their lives were made more difficult by this whole situation.

But I still don't think that it makes the protests illegitimate or that the people who got killed and the families who lost their loved ones are not the true victims in all of this. It seems to me like an unfortunate consequence of the protests getting out of hand in some places that is also being used as a distraction from the real problem.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

But glorifying a hoodlum, and rioting and burning and looting like animals, makes people less inclined to sympathize with or listen to you.

1) It's not about glorifying a thug. It's about defending the rights of the lowest among us ensuring the rights of everyone else.

2) I don't think it's fair to group the peaceful protestors with the idiotic looters and rioters. Many of the peaceful protestors are educated and employed people who have never committed a crime. Then you have life-long criminals and teenage hoodlums with no political foresight casing places to loot and places to burn down.

There are thousands of people peacefully protesting in dozens of cities across the nation yet this thread is still named after riots that happened in a single city almost a month ago.

So why are we still talking about rioters and looting?

 

[The Question]

No, see, it's the deafness of the people who are protesting, including you, that make me mad.

I want to make sure things get better for people, but I won't lie, manipulate the truth, or ignore reality in order to achieve that goal.

That's where this whole thing has ticked me off.

Everyone was spouting the 'truth' of the Michael Brown shooting until suddenly the evidence and eyewitness testimony didn't actually make Brown out to be a poor guy who was just shot for no reason. Now the truth doesn't actually matter. It just matters that he was black and shot by police.

And you should know better than to defend someone who would spout threats against someone. After all your complaints in the GamerGate thread, you need to draw a line: Either threats are ok, or they are not.

You can't pick and choose who gets to be allowed make threats and behave badly based on whether you like the movement or not. You either tolerate threats or you don't.

1: I honestly don't think it matters. The truth you are talking about is ephemeral. It has nothing to do with the practical reality at hand. I'm honestly not sure I agree that Wilson truly was justified in shooting Brown, but even if he was, or even if we agree that we don't know for certain, I really do not see why it matters at this point. Wether or not people are misrepresenting the truth has nothing to do with the actual situation and the problems that people are currently facing. It would make no practical difference if they are or if they aren't or if they stopped, and focusing on that as if it is somehow more important seems incredibly misguided to me.

2: I also just disagree that people are misrepresenting the truth. No one denies that Brown committed the convenience store robbery, and I honestly don't think that it's very clear cut that Brown poses a legitimate threat to Wilson. But regardless, the real big problem that everyone on the side of the protestors agree upon is that the way the police and the DA handled the situation reveals and enormous bias, and this is a huge problem.

3: Threats aren't okay. The people who have made threats against Wilson and his family are horribly misguided.

But I don't think a chant in a march constitutes a threat. I don't think it's a proclamation of an intent to commit and act of violence, and it certainly isn't directed at anyone in particular. I think it is dumb people blowing off steam in a very PR unfriendly way.

4: There's a power balance issue here. Civilians making general statements about hating cops or wanting to see dead cops doesn't carry the same weight as a semi-organized group of hackers threatening to expose people's personal information, because the former does not have the power to carry out such talk in the same way that the later does. There is a huge power imbalance between the populace and the police.

 

[Tempest]

Okay. Well, that's a damn shame. It sucks that their lives were made more difficult by this whole situation.

But I still don't think that it makes the protests illegitimate or that the people who got killed and the families who lost their loved ones are not the true victims in all of this. It seems to me like an unfortunate consequence of the protests getting out of hand in some places that is also being used as a distraction from the real problem.

One of the most recent deaths should be charged with a crime. One of the cases should have been charged with a crime.

The other cases, sad as they are, are not murders.

We have nuances in the criminal justice system on deaths, to offer the best of both worlds to victims, but also to the defendants. Understanding that not all homicides are murders is extremely important.

These police shootings or deaths are not all murders. Most of them barely reach the level of manslaughter. And as sad as these deaths are, it cannot be denied or ignored that at least in the cases of Garner and Brown, they were not behaving well, and that their own actions led to their deaths. I know that's harsh, and it's not what people want to hear, but it has to be said.

 

[The Question]

One of the most recent deaths should be charged with a crime. One of the cases should have been charged with a crime.

The other cases, sad as they are, are not murders.

We have nuances in the criminal justice system on deaths, to offer the best of both worlds to victims, but also to the defendants. Understanding that not all homicides are murders is extremely important.

These police shootings or deaths are not all murders. Most of them barely reach the level of manslaughter. And as sad as these deaths are, it cannot be denied or ignored that at least in the cases of Garner and Brown, they were not behaving well, and that their own actions led to their deaths. I know that's harsh, and it's not what people want to hear, but it has to be said.

I'm sorry, but that's ********. Brown, maybe that can be argued. But Garner's actions did not lead to his death. That is as clear as day. His death is entirely the fault of the officer who kept him in a chokehold that is against NYPD policy long after Garner had been subdued and long after Garner had told him that he couldn't breath and thus strangled him to death. Saying that Garner was somehow responsible for that is complete ********.

 

[Breogan]

It's pretty clear that the violence that did occur ..... was the result of the police escalating the situation and was thoroughly one sided.

The looting and burning came before the police escalation. http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2014/08/10/looters-hit-ferguson-in-wake-of-police-shooting/

I don't think it's a proclamation of an intent to commit and act of violence, and it certainly isn't directed at anyone in particular.

[YT]FwJrG2AMghw[/YT]

"You keep using those words. I do not think they mean what you think they mean."

 

[The Question]

[YT]FwJrG2AMghw[/YT]

We were talking about a specific chant in a specific march, not chants in protests in general.

The folks in the above video are making a very poor decision, and I hope no one is encouraged by this to actually hurt someone.

 

[Thundercrack85]

What pattern emerges? You weren't really specific. Just that you feel that there is excessive force. And what do you deem excessive?

I won't argue that there isn't a race issue. I'm also not going to pretend that minority communities really need to take some ownership here themselves, and work harder with law enforcement officials to reduce crime. The police aren't the only ones who have to change, and I really feel that this is a part of the conversation that is getting lost.

Well, choking an unarmed overweight man to death would be a good example.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

What pattern emerges? You weren't really specific. Just that you feel that there is excessive force. And what do you deem excessive?

I won't argue that there isn't a race issue. I'm also not going to pretend that minority communities really need to take some ownership here themselves, and work harder with law enforcement officials to reduce crime. The police aren't the only ones who have to change, and I really feel that this is a part of the conversation that is getting lost.

If police really wanted to lower crime in black communities they would petition to end the War on Drugs. Incarceration rates skyrocketed once the War on Drugs began.

When you shift the focus from criminal penalties to rehabilitation it has been shown to lower drug use far better than any anti-drug law.

Outside of that, blacks have been trying to improve their communities for decades. But turning ghettos into upscale neighborhoods is not something that can be achieved with part-time community activism.

You need major city planners and industrialist not mentor and church groups.

You don't expect redneck trailer parks to magically become upscale suddenly with a few ambitious hillbillies, do you?

Well all the ambitious and educated blacks move out of the ghetto the first chance they get. Those left behind are trapped in a cycle that is hard to escape let alone eradicate.

 

[Thundercrack85]

I don't believe that the vast majority of people in power give two ****s about black communities, and I would be amazed if anyone in the police cares. Honestly, I would be astounded if anyone in Missouri lost sleep over any of this. Wilson even said he didn't (well not literally). They want to keep the black communities under control. Arguably they have done so. But it has resulted in an occupier mentality for the police, which isn't helped by the military surplus.

It's really not that different from Jim Crow back in the day. In some ways it's kind of worse.

 

[The Question]

I don't believe that the vast majority of people in power give two ****s about black communities, and I would be amazed if anyone in the police cares. They want to keep the black communities under control. Arguably they have done so. But it has resulted in an occupier mentality for the police, which isn't helped by the military surplus.

It's really not that different from Jim Crow back in the day. In some ways it's kind of worse.

At least in the Jim Crow era, police didn't have tanks.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

One of the most recent deaths should be charged with a crime. One of the cases should have been charged with a crime.

The other cases, sad as they are, are not murders.

We have nuances in the criminal justice system on deaths, to offer the best of both worlds to victims, but also to the defendants. Understanding that not all homicides are murders is extremely important.

These police shootings or deaths are not all murders. Most of them barely reach the level of manslaughter. And as sad as these deaths are, it cannot be denied or ignored that at least in the cases of Garner and Brown, they were not behaving well, and that their own actions led to their deaths. I know that's harsh, and it's not what people want to hear, but it has to be said.

So now telling a cop not to touch you warrants capital punishment via strangulation?

I guess establishing that police have a dangerous job is a slippery slope. Now a guy who doesn't agree with an arrest for selling cigarettes deserves to be choked to death.

This is why these protest are important.

 

[Thundercrack85]

At least in the Jim Crow era, police didn't have tanks.

Also didn't have a gun that could fire a dozen bullets without reloading. Not to say you can't be shot by a cop with a six shot revolver, but if they had officer Wilson's aim, you might have made it out alive.

 

[The Question]

So now telling a cop not to touch you warrants capital punishment via strangulation?

I guess establishing that police have a dangerous job is a slippery slope. Now a guy who doesn't agree with an arrest for selling cigarettes deserves to be choked to death.

This is why these protest are important.

I think we could probably find dozens of examples of people resisting arrest much more aggressively than Garner did and not getting strangled to death as a result.

 

[Thundercrack85]

I wouldn't even use the word aggressive.