Ferguson: Police Officer Kills 18yo Michael Brown; Protests/Riots Continue

Status
Not open for further replies.
Chie Satonaka said:
You have to understand, DreamDrop.

There's always a chance that it isn't actually racism.

Always.
Click to expand...

The existence of a prevailing trend alone, even a malicious and ignorant one, is not proof of its occurrence in every instance simply because you wish it so. I didn't deny the circumstances are suspicious, but the facts, i.e. limited to only the info stated in State Senator Chappelle's tweet, is insufficient for a conclusion, unless you're content to reach that conclusion upon any suggestion at all. The tweet said "the majority" of those arrested on Sunday were white. That means some, maybe even nearly half, were black. If the institutionalized racism was as overtly intended and organized as she's trying to suggest, only the white people would've gotten released w/o bail that night and the blacks would've gotten the same $1000 bail as those arrested on Monday. There are other reasonable explanations ... if she had ruled them out before jumping on the internet with speculations, then I'd have agreed without hesitation. I'm not convinced of anything at this point, since I'm well aware of how this could've happened without there being any malice or prejudice intended against those who got different treatment on Monday.
 
DreamDrop said:
Yes, occam lost his damn razor.
Click to expand...

Occam's Razor is a principle that requires accepting an assumption as the tentative truth, in lieu of a proven conclusion. If that's good enough for you (and it clearly is), that's your business. I might apply Occam's Razor too, if there was more information. The mere fact that one group of people got a different bond set on one night as on another isn't enough to prove anything, It is merely circumstantial, meaning it bears further investigation before accusations fly.
 
Bodacious said:
The existence of a prevailing trend alone, even a malicious and ignorant one, is not proof of its occurrence in every instance simply because you wish it so. I didn't deny the circumstances are suspicious, but the facts, i.e. limited to only the info stated in State Senator Chappelle's tweet, is insufficient for a conclusion, unless you're content to reach that conclusion upon any suggestion at all. The tweet said "the majority" of those arrested on Sunday were white. That means some, maybe even nearly half, were black. If the institutionalized racism was as overtly intended and organized as she's trying to suggest, only the white people would've gotten released w/o bail that night and the blacks would've gotten the same $1000 bail as those arrested on Monday. There are other reasonable explanations ... if she had ruled them out before jumping on the internet with speculations, then I'd have agreed without hesitation. I'm not convinced of anything at this point, since I'm well aware of how this could've happened without there being any malice or prejudice intended against those who got different treatment on Monday.
Click to expand...

Heh.

Nah, I don't wish this were the case at all. In fact, I wish everybody had the ability to give people the benefit of the doubt until all the facts (or at least enough where we can make a reasonable conclusion) can be made. Unfortunately, as has been proven by this thread, Mike Brown's death, and Ferguson in general, that's not living in reality. Of course, what your post has highlighted here is that there are two different Americas for citizens of this country.

I bet the people of Ferguson wish they could be given the benefit of the doubt sometimes too, but I'm sure you're not nearly as concerned with them as you are about ideas about me, right?
 
Bodacious said:
The existence of a prevailing trend alone, even a malicious and ignorant one, is not proof of its occurrence in every instance simply because you wish it so. I didn't deny the circumstances are suspicious, but the facts, i.e. limited to only the info stated in State Senator Chappelle's tweet, is insufficient for a conclusion, unless you're content to reach that conclusion upon any suggestion at all. The tweet said "the majority" of those arrested on Sunday were white. That means some, maybe even nearly half, were black. If the institutionalized racism was as overtly intended and organized as she's trying to suggest, only the white people would've gotten released w/o bail that night and the blacks would've gotten the same $1000 bail as those arrested on Monday. There are other reasonable explanations ... if she had ruled them out before jumping on the internet with speculations, then I'd have agreed without hesitation. I'm not convinced of anything at this point, since I'm well aware of how this could've happened without there being any malice or prejudice intended against those who got different treatment on Monday.
Click to expand...

What exactly is acknowledging that there *could* be another explanation adding to the discussion other than devils advocating?

There *could* be a million different explanations. Okay, got it. But it's pretty unreasonable to pretend that this is some isolated incident in a vacuum, given the corruption, outright lies, use of force against protesters, and overall racism on display in Ferguson over the past two months.

Anyone closely following this should understand by now that the leadership in Ferguson is close knit, bigoted, and that they tend to do everything to protect their own.Ferguson has now become symbolic with America's racial problems for a reason. They aren't getting the benefit of the doubt because they haven't earned it.
 
Chie Satonaka said:
Heh.

Nah, I don't wish this were the case at all. In fact, I wish everybody had the ability to give people the benefit of the doubt until all the facts (or at least enough where we can make a reasonable conclusion) can be made. Unfortunately, as has been proven by this thread, Mike Brown's death, and Ferguson in general, that's not living in reality. Of course, what your post has highlighted here is that there are two different Americas for citizens of this country.

I bet the people of Ferguson wish they could be given the benefit of the doubt sometimes too, but I'm sure you're not nearly as concerned with them as you are about ideas about me, right?
Click to expand...

I don't have any ideas about you at all. I only commented that State Senator Chappelle's tweet does not provide sufficient information to reach the conclusion she's clearly implying, unless you're simply predisposed to believe it as she is. Doesn't mean she's wrong ... but she could be wrong.


Kitschkraft said:
What exactly is acknowledging that there *could* be another explanation adding to the discussion other than devils advocating?
.
Click to expand...

You don't see me 'devil's advocating' about the pictures of kids in orange jumpsuits for a noise ordinance violation do you? That's some obvious bullshit and abuse of power. You can find info about it in this article. No denying it. If you think my point in posting that above was to deny corruption and a culture of racial bias in the police agencies and local government there, you're wrong. It's just that sometimes, it's better to make sure before you just assume you've seen another example. Especially if you're a public figure who's accountable for their statements. I read about the bail being different for two different groups of protesters on two different nights, and the first thing I thought was "probably different judges." Because I've seen that kind of disproportionate treatment happen myself. Doesn't mean I'm correct about that, but I never said I was, either.
 
Bodacious said:
The existence of a prevailing trend alone, even a malicious and ignorant one, is not proof of its occurrence in every instance simply because you wish it so. I didn't deny the circumstances are suspicious, but the facts, i.e. limited to only the info stated in State Senator Chappelle's tweet, is insufficient for a conclusion, unless you're content to reach that conclusion upon any suggestion at all. The tweet said "the majority" of those arrested on Sunday were white. That means some, maybe even nearly half, were black. If the institutionalized racism was as overtly intended and organized as she's trying to suggest, only the white people would've gotten released w/o bail that night and the blacks would've gotten the same $1000 bail as those arrested on Monday. There are other reasonable explanations ... if she had ruled them out before jumping on the internet with speculations, then I'd have agreed without hesitation. I'm not convinced of anything at this point, since I'm well aware of how this could've happened without there being any malice or prejudice intended against those who got different treatment on Monday.
Click to expand...

Were the people on the two different days charged with try different crimes? My understanding of the facts is that they were all charged with the same crime. If they were all charged with the same crime for the same events - I would have a hard time understanding how one would arrive at two different BAIL AMOUNTS. This isn't a sentencing for the crime or anything else, this is just whether or not the accused should have to post bond before going to court at a later date. How could two sets of people who have committed the same crime around the same set of circumstances not be assigned the same bail?
 
Phoenix said:
Were the people on the two different days charged with try different crimes? My understanding of the facts is that they were all charged with the same crime. If they were all charged with the same crime for the same events - I would have a hard time understanding how one would arrive at two different BAIL AMOUNTS. This isn't a sentencing for the crime or anything else, this is just whether or not the accused should have to post bond before going to court at a later date. How could two sets of people who have committed the same crime around the same set of circumstances not be assigned the same bail?
Click to expand...

Where are you getting your facts? If there's more info, pass it on. State Senator Chappelle provided no supporting explanation, just the insinuation.

As for the second question I bolded, I answered it above ... different judges. But that's just an educated guess. Bail is discretionary. One judge doesn't have to follow another's example. And without the info, there's no telling whether the $1000 bond was for cash only, or cash or surety, or for personal recognizance (called a P/R bond). A P/R bond is very common for minor offenses, and it means you get released without paying any bail, but if you don't come back on your court date, you be fined for whatever amount the bail was set at when they catch up with you.
 
Kitschkraft said:
What exactly is acknowledging that there *could* be another explanation adding to the discussion other than devils advocating?

There *could* be a million different explanations. Okay, got it. But it's pretty unreasonable to pretend that this is some isolated incident in a vacuum, given the corruption, outright lies, use of force against protesters, and overall racism on display in Ferguson over the past two months.

Anyone closely following this should understand by now that the leadership in Ferguson is close knit, bigoted, and that they tend to do everything to protect their own.Ferguson has now become symbolic with America's racial problems for a reason. They aren't getting the benefit of the doubt because they haven't earned it.
Click to expand...
Having seen the difference in predisposition of judges myself I don't think he was just pulling some random off the wall excuse out of his ass to explain away racism. It's a legitimate reason other than clear racism.
 
Bodacious said:
The existence of a prevailing trend alone, even a malicious and ignorant one, is not proof of its occurrence in every instance simply because you wish it so. I didn't deny the circumstances are suspicious, but the facts, i.e. limited to only the info stated in State Senator Chappelle's tweet, is insufficient for a conclusion, unless you're content to reach that conclusion upon any suggestion at all. The tweet said "the majority" of those arrested on Sunday were white. That means some, maybe even nearly half, were black. If the institutionalized racism was as overtly intended and organized as she's trying to suggest, only the white people would've gotten released w/o bail that night and the blacks would've gotten the same $1000 bail as those arrested on Monday. There are other reasonable explanations ... if she had ruled them out before jumping on the internet with speculations, then I'd have agreed without hesitation. I'm not convinced of anything at this point, since I'm well aware of how this could've happened without there being any malice or prejudice intended against those who got different treatment on Monday.
Click to expand...

I didn't realize we have a Supreme Court Justice in this thread.
 
From twitter:

BzCqpn_CMAAx7Bh.jpg
BzCqrC5CMAA6nQK.jpg
Click to expand...

Revolution abroad, tragedy at home.
 
Bodacious said:
The existence of a prevailing trend alone, even a malicious and ignorant one, is not proof of its occurrence in every instance simply because you wish it so. I didn't deny the circumstances are suspicious, but the facts, i.e. limited to only the info stated in State Senator Chappelle's tweet, is insufficient for a conclusion, unless you're content to reach that conclusion upon any suggestion at all. The tweet said "the majority" of those arrested on Sunday were white. That means some, maybe even nearly half, were black. If the institutionalized racism was as overtly intended and organized as she's trying to suggest, only the white people would've gotten released w/o bail that night and the blacks would've gotten the same $1000 bail as those arrested on Monday. There are other reasonable explanations ... if she had ruled them out before jumping on the internet with speculations, then I'd have agreed without hesitation. I'm not convinced of anything at this point, since I'm well aware of how this could've happened without there being any malice or prejudice intended against those who got different treatment on Monday.
Click to expand...

Don't bother. We know you are a filthy apologist, a devils advocate. Don't try to hide it. Don't bother with your analysis and information, you are as bad as the cops.

lednerg said:
They're in orange because of a noise violation? Fucking hell. What about the cops blasting an LRAD all night long?
Click to expand...

Resisting arrest is the most useful charge cops can ever apply. Everything counts, and it is a serious charge. Fuckers over use it all the time to get a result they couldn't get from the original situation.
 
Dead Man said:
Don't bother. We know you are a filthy apologist, a devils advocate. Don't try to hide it. Don't bother with your analysis and information, you are as bad as the cops.
Click to expand...

Seriously? I'm not saying that this isn't possibly racism or (given the history of this town) LIKELY racism, but different judges having vastly different opinions or approaches or beliefs is a known and much-observed aspect of our judicial system.

Calling him an apologist or a prejudiced bigot for pointing that out as a possible alternative (when responding to "TELL ME WHAT THIS IS") is ridiculous. The reactions that he's getting for a pretty reasonable comment (in which he didn't deny race may have played a part) makes it harder to bring people to your cause. I understand the sensitivity. I understand why tensions are high. I just think It's not time to push people away unless they are clearly just trying to weasel out of any claims of racism. That will only make the situation worse, and there's a big difference between the comment he made and the shit some of the other people have been spouting in these threads (unless he has a history of this kind of placating).

Hell, even calling it 1-to-1 racism is more of a stretch because it's two different judges. Our judicial system is definitely racist, but it's not like the same judge gave out these two different sets of responses. And that's all the dude was saying. There are racial implications, but the fact that it's two different judges makes it less of a correlation. Maybe one judge is lenient and the other is an asshole. Maybe the first judge wasn't racist but the second one was, etc.

Either way, the results are completely fucked and embarrassing for our nation.
 
Punchy4486 said:
Seriously? I'm not saying that this isn't possibly racism or (given the history of this town) LIKELY racism, but different judges having vastly different opinions or approaches or beliefs is a known and much-observed aspect of our judicial system.

Calling him an apologist or a prejudiced bigot for pointing that out as a possible alternative (when responding to "TELL ME WHAT THIS IS") is ridiculous. The reactions that he's getting for a pretty reasonable comment (in which he didn't deny race may have played a part) makes it harder to bring people to your cause. I understand the sensitivity. I understand why tensions are high. I just think It's not time to push people away unless they are clearly just trying to weasel out of any claims of racism. That will only make the situation worse, and there's a big difference between the comment he made and the shit some of the other people have been spouting in these threads (unless he has a history of this kind of placating).

Hell, even calling it 1-to-1 racism is more of a stretch because it's two different judges. Our judicial system is definitely racist, but it's not like the same judge gave out these two different sets of responses. And that's all the dude was saying. There are racial implications, but the fact that it's two different judges makes it less of a correlation. Maybe one judge is lenient and the other is an asshole. Maybe the first judge wasn't racist but the second one was, etc.

Either way, the results are completely fucked and embarrassing for our nation.
Click to expand...

This isn't his first time to the dance. There's a reason he's getting the reaction he's getting.
 
Punchy4486 said:
...

Hell, even calling it 1-to-1 racism is more of a stretch because it's two different judges. Our judicial system is definitely racist, but it's not like the same judge gave out these two different sets of responses. And that's all the dude was saying. There are racial implications, but the fact that it's two different judges makes it less of a correlation. Maybe one judge is lenient and the other is an asshole. Maybe the first judge wasn't racist but the second one was, etc.

Either way, the results are completely fucked and embarrassing for our nation.
Click to expand...

First, thanks for the comment. But just to keep things straight, it's not a fact that two different judges handled the arraignments on those two different nights. It's just a scenario I suggested that isn't unlikely (at all), and which might also explain the disparate treatment. It also doesn't preclude racism as the impetus, since both (hypothetical) judges could be bigots and you still get the same result. I just thought the implication wasn't sufficiently supported on the scant facts provided. But the reality may still be exactly as she alleges. Given the totality of circumstances in Ferguson, it certainly bears investigation. I never said otherwise.

Chie Satonaka said:
This isn't his first time to the dance. There's a reason he's getting the reaction he's getting.
Click to expand...

It's true. I actually discuss things.
 
Mike Brown flash mob at St Louis Symphony [YouTube]

http://www.stlamerican.com/news/local_news/article_d3d4e0b0-4c48-11e4-bc55-275aa0a96f33.html

Just after intermission, about 50 people interrupted the St. Louis Symphony’s performance of Brahms Requiem on Saturday night, singing “Justice for Mike Brown.”

As symphony conductor Markus Stenz raised his baton to begin the second act of German Requiem, one middle-aged African-American man stood up in the middle of the theater and sang, “What side are you on friend, what side are you on?”

In an operatic voice, another woman located a few rows away stood up and joined him singing, “Justice for Mike Brown is justice for us all.” Several more audience members sprinkled throughout the theater and in the balcony rose up and joined in the singing.

Those in the balcony lowered white banners about 15 feet long with black spray-painted letters that said, “ Requiem for Mike Brown 1996-2014” and “Racism lives here,” with an arrow pointed to a picture of the St. Louis Arch. Another banner said, “Rise up and join the movement.”

Stenz stood stoically and listened to the demonstrators’ performance. Some onlookers were outraged and start spewing expletives. Others stood up and started clapping. Most seemed stunned and simply watched.

The singing only went on for two minutes before the demonstrators started chanting, “Black lives matter.” Then they all marched out together and left the theater. While they marched out, they received a round of applause from almost all of the audience members – as well as the musicians on stage.
[...]
Click to expand...

The article goes on to talk about a far less welcome response they got at a Cardinals game (not singing, just holding a sign).

Interesting times we live in.
 
CountBlackule said:
https://twitter.com/HeckPhilly/status/518783961926234112
https://twitter.com/HeckPhilly/status/518785481711292417

oof
Click to expand...

The face of racism. That was awesome lol. What a piece of shit.

Rembrandt said:
that was beautiful.



lmao, idk if it was a look of disgust or just straight up shock.
Click to expand...

Well assuming that was her husband who said "he was just a thug" off camera, I'm pretty sure she's disgusted. The look on her face looks like she wants to vomit.
 
Eh, I was told thug means anything from cop, sports fan, even a leprechaun, but never a black person. So that smirking white guy is probably not racist, unlike the people doing that flashmob.
 
Police Violated Constitutional Rights Of Ferguson Protesters, Federal Judge Rules

WASHINGTON -- Police overseeing security at protests in Ferguson, Missouri, in August violated the constitutional rights of demonstrators and journalists by forcing them to stay in constant motion and not stop walking, a federal judge ruled on Monday.

Chief U.S. District Judge Catherine D. Perry held that the "practice of requiring peaceful demonstrators and others to walk, rather than stand still, violates the Constitution." She issued a preliminary injunction banning St. Louis County Police and Missouri State Highway Patrol officers from using the tactic.

"The evidence from plaintiff’s witnesses shows that the police, including those from St. Louis County, told many people who were either peacefully assembling or simply standing on their own that they would be arrested if they did not keep moving," wrote Perry, who sits on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.
[...]

The "keep walking" or "five-second" rule was implemented in Ferguson on Aug. 18. Police officers would not allow anyone to congregate, even on public sidewalks, even in broad daylight.
[...]
Click to expand...

Good stuff. Hopefully this will be one in a series of victories against such flagrantly unconstitutional police tactics.
 
This is the guy doing the public records investigation on Ferguson that I've been posting about:

PINAC Crew Member Charlie Grapski Hospitalized Against Will on False Accusations he Made Threats on Twitter
Less than 24 hours before he was scheduled to fly out of Florida to Ferguson to continue his public records investigation into the Michael Brown shooting death, PINAC crew member Charlie Grapski was hospitalized against his will after being accused of making violent threats on Twitter.

Grapski, who is on probation after he was arrested and almost killed for exposing corruption in Alachua County, was asked to come back into the probation office today after he had already been granted permission on Monday to leave the state.
Click to expand...
 
I'm seeing reports on Twitter of another teenager being shot and killed by the police in Ferguson.

Live stream of the scene is going on at argusnewsnow. Scene is getting pretty heated
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Don't Run from the police
2
74
640
Mexen replied
Dragon Ball will continue for decades, says producer
News  2
76
4K
NahaNago replied
I’ve been binging Police Body Cam Footage on YouTube.
2
83
1K
Little Mac replied
  • Locked
Bishop stabbed during a church sermon in Sydney, riots developing between community & police
44
3K
IDKFA replied
2025 Super Bow Commercials Thread | The Return of Michael Bay
2
59
3K
ManaByte replied
Top Bottom