Like I said, the details are sketchy, because, obviously, the cop had a different story than the three eyewitnesses. A lot of the people watching this story from a distance were thrilled when the police released video showing somebody who looked kind of like Michael Brown stealing a box of cheap cigars (Swisher Sweets, if you're curious), because, obviously, Brown was a "thug," and the cop was a hero.
(That's something else: why is it that black teens are now "thugs," if they might be linked to any type of crime, even a misdemeanor? I don't see that word applied to a lot of white kids. Is this like people calling Obama "arrogant" for doing his job as president? Since they aren't saying "uppity," that makes it OK, right?)
There's just one problem with that narrative: the cop in question, Darren Wilson, didn't know that Brown was allegedly involved with any crime other than jaywalking. The police chief has admitted it.
So, the question remains: is it OK for the police to shoot unarmed teens, as long as they can tie them to a crime later?
I can't see any way that might be abused.
This gives the crowd the OK to set afire a gas station (most gas stations have thousands of gallons of gasoline on hand) and loot stores? And just last night the crowd set afire a liquor store and looted more stores. This is not a peaceful protest, but a dangerous, violent attack on a town. Two wrongs don't make a right and the protesters have lost their righteous indignation.
ReplyDeleteNameless, I left a comment over at your blog.
ReplyDeleteAnon, it's never okay to riot and destroy property. But that's not what this is about. That is a symptom of a problem not the cause. Facts show that young black men are stopped and harassed by police far more routinely and more often than young white men.
Derek Clifton explains:
"Rather than tackle a thorny issue with tact and honesty, however, privilege also allows people to ignore the conversation, mock it or walk away from it altogether. But it doesn't have to be that way. Americans don't have to let this type of ignorance stop us from examining the many subtle, insidious attitudes and beliefs that help perpetuate racism through microaggressions — a term coined by African-American psychologist Chester Pierce and further developed by Derald Wing Sue and researchers at Columbia University to explain smaller instances of systemic, cumulative racial indignities.
Here are a few problematic examples that can be used to help elevate a much-needed dialogue as the images streaming out of Ferguson, Mo., bring us face to face with America's legacy of institutional intolerance."
"smaller instances of systemic, cumulative racial indignities."
Deleteand the perpetrators thereof thrive on many of the things we hand them to use. But I think we can do a lot more by concentrating on a murder than by talking about microaggressions. Maybe I'm old fashioned but we have a court system and in Missouri, they have an electric chair. . .
Here is another account: Protesters Guard Stores from Looters. Upon which of these accounts do you prefer to focus your attention? The one that justifies your viewpoint? Or the same issue within a larger context:
ReplyDeletePolice taser 8-year old child
Swat team enters wrong house and kills family dog
Police kill mentally ill teen
Events in Ferguson MO afford us an opportunity to explore the larger issues of excessive and “highly militarized” law enforcement practices.
Recently, one high profile libertarian politician penned this op-ed piece (source):
"When you couple this militarization of law enforcement with an erosion of civil liberties and due process that allows the police to become judge and jury … we begin to have a very serious problem on our hands" [Rand Paul].
When liberals and libertarians rally behind the same issue, you know we "have a very serious problem on our hands," and I see no profit in cherry picking facts, in willful tone deafness to other accounts, and provocative and polarizing innuendo whose purpose is to stop important and meaningful conversation.
The above comment is in response to Anonymouse.
DeleteMLK had it right. PEACEFUL protest, that would earn the backing of Americans. I won't support, or defend any group, or movement that burns and loots stores. If I'm a mouse for that, so be it. What are you if you support such violence because you agree the cops are corrupt?
DeleteI fear I will regret getting into this because experience shows "winning" isn't possible even if one essentially agrees, but still, I have to agree that it's very easy to overdo and overjustify these "symptomatic" actions and the traditional "he started it" doesn't play well on the playground or in the violent streets. It's not about, in my opinion, any history other than that which affects human nature, it's about bad cops and corruption. It's about justifying violence by anger and I don't want any part of it.
DeleteI think it's more important that some cop freaked out and shot someone than that America has a long and slowly fading history of racism. It's not about hate, it's about pulling a trigger. It's about putting one's fears and one's anger ahead of one's head and it's wrong no matter who does it.
I still don't understand why violence is justified and don't agree that retribution is justice and yes, yes, yes, I know justice is illusive and has been hard for minorities to obtain, but I remember all the riots of the 60's and the police atrocities and public atrocities and I really don't give s damn how angry people are -- burning down your town -- or anyone's town is not justice or the road to it. It's just "all white people are this" and "all black people are that" and acting like animals.
And this is in replay to Anonymous too
DeleteShaw, I'm aware of the problems. Again, two wrongs don't make a right and if the protesters want sympathy and support they have to stop destroying property. Your comment seems to suggest it's OK to overlook that destruction. I don't agree.
ReplyDeleteAnon.. you should also be aware that the ones who are setting the fires and doing the looting you are speaking of are NOT from Ferguson, but from outside the area and coming in to take advantage of the situation. This has been reported numerous times. Still doesn't excuse it, but don't paint all with the same brush please.
ReplyDeleteThere are several wrongs here, from the shooting, which started this, to the response of the police to the people asking questions peacefully, to the media and some local politicians being detained for no reason other than being in the wrong place, (some in a McDonald's) at the wrong time. Several have even been sitting in their cars and not part of any crowd in any way, yet were arrested and detained, yet later no charges have been filed.
So, yes, there are some bad apples who are making things look bad, but until you look at the entire story instead of focusing on just one thing you see as wrong, you will never see the problem.
Much of the violence in the South during the 60's was blamed on "outside agitators" as though only locals should have a say in such things. I don't think it matters except that it just makes the mob bigger.
DeleteI don't think there's just one problem however. Whether or not police brutality and police cover ups and corruption are on the increase, we are a violent society and despite the attempt to recruit the word "thug" into what passes for conversation I have so very often heard ex-cons and members of what I have to call the habitual offender class calling themselves thugs with pride.
Unless we're talking for justice for all and for marginalized people of all flavors we are not talking about justice, but about retribution. Retribution perpetuates conflict, justice solves problems.
I said there were several problems, not once did I blame it on just one group or individual. Yes, it has been reported that the looters and ones starting the fires are from outside Ferguson, mostly I am seeing that from reports from Capt. Johnson of the Mo. Highway Patrol, who is in charge and lives in Ferguson, and from Antonio French, who also happens to live there and is an elected official from the are. He is a councilman for the area.
DeleteHe is posting and tweeting things live as we speak and the pictures have shown how peaceful the protestors are even right now. He went home at 1:30AM Saturday morning and things were fine, then got a call that things were out of hand, so back he went. The citizens of Ferguson were guarding or trying to guard the stores and businesses from the looters, yet the people from outside were pushing them aside and throwing bricks, molotov cocktails and such and got things going. It finally got settled down again around 5 or so this morning.
So, yes it was outsiders who did this. Sorry Capt. Fogg, I never heard it was outsiders who did the violence in the south in the 60's, it was the residents of Mississippi, Alabama and Georgia who did the violence against the blacks. (George Wallace ring a bell, along with Bull Connor, and several others.) They were residents of the areas they were trying to keep the blacks out of the schools, businesses and homes, and keep them from being considered equal, which is what is happening now, not "outside agitators" who perpetuated the violence.
Most of the peaceful protestors in Ferguson are mixed, whites, blacks, and all other races coming together to join in protesting the unfair and unlawful killing of an unarmed black man. Child, really, who at the time he was killed had done nothing wrong but walk down the street and did not respond as was thought proper by the cop who shot him in the back 2 times and in the front an additional 5 or 6 times, as has been reported by the eyewitness who was standing with him and walking down the street with him. That was after the police officer tried to choke him and shot him the first time while he was still in the car. Mike Brown's hands never entered the police car.. I live here in Missouri and I see this all the time. It happens. More than people want to admit.
Here is one link to a vine that shows the residents protecting a store.. this was posted by Ryan Reilly, one of the members of the press who was detained while videoing the officers in McDonald's the other night. https://vine.co/v/M3avqjH5XVW
DeleteHere is another local explaining why he is protecting the store. https://vine.co/v/M3aJDOgX7xg
Also if you are on Twitter you can follow Antonio French.. he is there almost all the time and live tweets what he is seeing, both good and bad. https://twitter.com/AntonioFrench
" it was the residents of Mississippi, Alabama and Georgia who did the violence against the blacks "
DeleteYes and the whites who went there to help and every day we heard from them that it was "outside agitators". It doesn't matter whether it is or isn't locals looting and burning. I'm just suggesting that mobs in the street degenerate into violence because I've seen it happen for 70 years now. There are always enough people looking for group revenge or just to get a new TV to turn any peaceful protest into mayhem and to make a legitimate cause into something that serves repression.
Perhaps a police department needs to be purged and a murder put in jail. Let's make the system work before we burn the place down. I'm just sick of the hate and violence and the people who promote it and pretend it's justice.
Oh, and speaking of that police department, they have a long history of mistreating the blacks in the community. Funny how things boil over, isn't it?
ReplyDeletePolice have a history of discrimination going back 100's of years. Again, MLK and his non violent approach had it right. You all seem to excuse the violence because the police are corrupt. That is proven wrong strategy and attitude. Again, I am aware of the problems, so please don't infer that I am not. I'm not going to excuse the violence because the police are corrupt. Please cite the reports that all the violence is cased by outsiders. No doubt some is, but all, I don't swallow that.
ReplyDeleteHumans have a history of discrimination. It's part of the way we think -- or rather how we make decisions without thinking. Everything about our connected culture seems set up to provoke, excite, inflame and outrage while some people feed on our misery like vampires -- and i'm not just talking about the media. I'm quite sure the real racists are celebrating this matter, arguing that "these people" can only be controlled with force.
ReplyDeleteToo many people are grinding axes for there to be a real conversation and that makes for too many sparks. To me it's about how we replace what we have with well trained, disciplined, police, and honest, open and competent police departments that don't feel like outposts in enemy territory. Perhaps if we did we wouldn't have as many citizens who feel like aliens in their own country. You can't make everyone good, but you can have consequences for the ungood that tend to keep them in line.
Anonymous to me, Shaw: "Your comment seems to suggest it's OK to overlook that destruction. I don't agree."
ReplyDeleteHere's my comment:
"Anon, it's never okay to riot and destroy property."
How did you get the idea that I think it's okay to destroy property from that very clear statement?
It appears you have come here with a closed mind, expecting everyone to excuse the rioters. I clearly do not, but you insist I do.
There is a long, long ugly history of racism in this country. We shouldn't be surprised when people react in inappropriate ways to that racism. It's not right and violence undermines what people are protesting, but that is the way people all over this globe react to injustice.
If you are, perhaps, a Christian, then may I remind you of how Jesus Christ reacted to the money changers in the temple -- with violence and anger. And he was supposedly the Prince of Peace.
Dr. Martin Luther King's words "Letter from a Birmingham Jail":
ReplyDelete"You deplore the demonstrations taking place in Birmingham. But your statement, I am sorry to say, fails to express a similar concern for the conditions that brought about the demonstrations. I am sure that none of you would want to rest content with the superficial kind of social analysis that deals merely with effects and does not grapple with underlying causes. It is unfortunate that demonstrations are taking place in Birmingham, but it is even more unfortunate that the city's white power structure left the Negro community with no alternative."
It's too easy to confuse a lack of concern with reluctance to support mobs in the street and it's a bit premature to talk of a "white power structure" leaving no alternative. We seem to have some bad cops and a department that supports them and I don't think that argues for or justifies the massive stereotyping here. Maybe it isn't just the generals fighting the last war and maybe we can give Missouri a chance to file charges before we convene the lynch mob? Reacting with mob violence is as much of a national institution as racism and I'm sick of it and I'm just as sick of hearing there is no alternative than to loot and pillage.
ReplyDeleteWe all know this is going to start another rush to the gun shops, another push by the NRA. More hate and mistrust and more business for the race-baiters on both sides. I'm sorry, but there damned well is an alternative. This is not Birmingham and it's not 1963. It's about a bad cop, a bad small town police department and a murder and if we understand the pent up rage we don't have to condone or support or glorify or excuse riots, witch hunts or lynch mobs.
Shaw,
ReplyDelete"But that's not what this is about."
This is your line that suggest the violence from the crowd could be excused, by making another issue the priority and not examining why the police were getting aggressive.
"but you insist I do."
I said nothing of the kind. I did point out more than once that two wrongs don't make a right
As a non believer, it's an insult that you use Bible stories to justify the violence of the crowd. And along with other comments infer that I don't know the facts. Maybe one of the problems here is when someone speaks against violence (as I have) they are ridiculed, which shows a political slant instead of simply, yes, the crowd got out of hand with their violence and was wrong. If a crowd in Boston fire bombed two stores and looted many stores, would you have the police join in a chorus of "we shall overcome" instead of doing their job and protecting the property of the community? You must be a leftover from the 1960's who thought it was fine to protest the government by bombing ROTC offices, killing and injuring people, then wonder why the police used their clubs (and worse) on kids. If you want a peaceful society, then you must condemn violence even if it comes from a group you support because you think they have been discriminated against. Or maybe you agreed with Malcolm X, or the Black Panthers instead of MLK. They too decided violence was the only way to make change.
Was you there Charlie? Any violence by a handful of people is so insignificant as to make anything further you say embarrassing to you. I damn well was there and with people whose names you know and the massive, lethal and unprovoked acts have no justification even in small part not matter how much it's been propagandized and twisted and redacted and added to -- just like the Bible. But again, I've seen totally non-violent people, not even doing much in the way of protest attacked. I was there when Dick Gregory got arrested simply for walking in the direction of the Democratic convention in '68. I barely escaped. I know a photographer thrown to the ground and her camera smashed simply for being at the convention. I saw cops shooting at parked cars with nobody in them, rushing into buses and beating up people with long hair. There was no provocation.
DeleteI'm not condoning violence, I'm asking that we stop feeding the outrage and stop listening to the outrage mongers and give Missouri and the Federal government time to make some investigations and arrests and to accept that all we have are voices in the streets. But I don't see anyone here condoning violence either by the police or the public. It does seem common that we make a point of telling everyone how much we hate racism and how bad it's been for all these years as though to establish our Liberal credentials, and I confess it annoys me, but it's just words and neither of us has to listen, do we?
If nothing is done, perhaps there will be time enough to protest, but it's Sunday evening for god's sake. We can wait for the courthouse to open on Monday.
I am not condoning any rioting, my point is, the people of Ferguson are NOT rioting, they were peacefully protesting what they see as an unjust killing. We as a people in the United States are allowed to do that. It is one of the freedoms guaranteed us in our Constitution. They were asking for answers to questions that needed to be answered, the police, took it to riot level and it got completely out of hand. Just like last night, after my Governor instituted the curfew, with the cooperation of the local people and all the politicians from the area and the State Highway Patrol, it was people from outside, one who said he was from Chicago, one who is a Rapper, who don't live in Ferguson who were stating they were going to defy the Governor and the police. Even so, only 7 were arrested. That's not much for a riot, now is it? Not like the days of the 60's, 70's and 80's when there were hundreds arrested for rioting in the streets over civil rights, Rodney King, the Viet Nam war and other things. That is my point.
ReplyDeleteAll these people were peaceful and asking for answers, which was within their right to do. Why was this young man gunned down in the street, left to lay there for 4 hours, no aid given to him, the officer not named until days later, and even then, no investigation was being done. That's what the people of Ferguson wanted to know. That's what they were asking. It was not a riot, it was questions that were not being answered. Once they started getting some answers, things started to calm down, until the Chief of Police did a character hit job on Mike Brown, over the objection of the DOJ, the State Police and the Governor's office. This chief is a loose cannon and then went on Hannity's show to spread more hate about the situation.
Sure, the NRA is going to use this, they use everything. What else is new?
I was part of that 60's unrest and what happened in front of my eyes in Chicago and what we all saw at Kent State does not compare, it's true, but then the protests were over a war that killed over 50,000 Americans and at least 2 million Vietnamese who were in fact fighting for their freedom. We had a government that despite three quarters of the country opposing it, continued and continued while the John Waynes and his ilk called us cowards and American haters. No, this doesn't compare.
DeleteI don't dispute the idea that professional agitators showed up. They always do, some of them looking to re-live the glory days of the Civil Rights struggle that most were too young for. But all I'm saying is just that -- they should have known. We deserve answers and we will get them. Justice takes time and it will happen in the courts, not in the streets.
Years after some kids were shot, some in the back and from a hundred yards away, that it was all about "armed hippies attacking the national guard" Of course it wasn't and of course Fox will try to rewrite the truth, but I think once again that no one gets convinced by riots or by demonstrations held before facts are determined. We have "witnesses" but we have no way of knowing what happened or who to believe. Let's not take anyone's word just yet. All I'm arguing for is forbearance and for giving the courts a chance to work. This may well go to the federal courts as well.
Yes, we have a court system and that's where it should be taken care of; not in the streets causing property damage and injuries. The outrage is all about the police, fine, get them in court and send them to jail. That's our system, not public lynchings, or destruction. Why did they choose private property to destroy? Why didn't they fire bomb the police station if that's where their anger was at.
DeleteJohn Wayne and his ilk? It was Democrats that started and ramped up that war. Johnson's lie was no better than Bush's lie. History shows that Nixon's increased bombing did bring concessions at the peace table.
The police had been dealing for years with fire bombings and more, just what did you expect their response to be? Their job is to protect life and property, both of which had been violated. It's not their job to take political sides on any issue.
So The police riots in chicago were a response to fire bombings? What an idiot. I'm not talking about the fucking war and history shows nothing of the sort. You make it sound like we won. We didn't and for someone who pretends not to like violence you seem to discount the death of millions if it suits you.
DeleteYou weren't there and you don't know shit so shut up and get out of here.
Of course I was talking about MO, you know the point of the post. You won't post any more of my comments but allow your buddies to post about me, what a coward. No wonder your your buddy is an antisemite, you love haters.
DeleteActually there's a built in delay for anonymous posts. Now here you go, you can stop hyperventilating.
DeleteWhy are you so impatient that you begin to riot before your blather gets posted? So here it is - posted and all in good time, but you'll have to accept that I have other things to do than wait for you to post. Oh yes, sure, all my buddies are anti-Semitic. I went to Yechiva with Joseph Goebbels you know. We Jews like it that way and why would you think I'm a coward if this is not to be taken as a threat? Oh please, oh please I do so like empty threats from Nancy boys like you. Please sir can I have some more. . ?
You're demonstrably delusional unless of course you don't believe what you say and you just spew out words like a tweaker, but really, who gives a shit? and that you do pretty much substantiates my diagnosis. And so you miserable milquetoast, I think I'll change the settings to send anonymous drivel like yours to the bit bucket automatically where no one ever sees it.
You're done.
"This is your line that suggest the violence from the crowd could be excused..." That "suggestion" is in your mind only. You are determined to see me as someone who condones violence, when I've stated that it is wrong. I'm not interested in continuing to argue with someone who deliberately misreads what other people write just for the sake of argument.
ReplyDeleteTo the other commenters here:
It is interesting to remember that the Bostonians who dressed as Native Americans and destroyed other people's property during the dumping of tea in Boston's harbor as a protest of what they believed was an injustice, those people are seen as patriots today and justified in what they did. It is also interesting to remember the violence the patriots in the colonies resorted to in order to rid themselves of the oppressor.
The violence that erupted in Ferguson did not occur in a vacuum and was not precipitated just by Michael Brown's death. There's a troubling history on racial issues in Ferguson, Missouri:
The Washington Post dove deep into the Ferguson, Missouri, police department's record on racial matters and the results are not pretty. As the Post notes, "the department's problems stretch back years [before the Michael Brown shooting] and include questions about its officers' training and racial sensitivity." For example, "the office of Missouri's attorney general concluded in an annual report last year that Ferguson police were twice as likely to arrest African Americans during traffic stops as they were whites."
Not surprisingly, that sort of policing has infuriated black residents. As one man told the Post, "If you can find a single person in this community who trusts the police, that is like finding a four-leafed clover."
Here's a portion of that state report which shows the racial disparities in terms of both vehicle stops and arrests.
Shaw. the only place I would disagree is denying any connection between rioting in the streets and the Tea Party. Those guys didn't break Paul Revere's shop windows or set fire to Boston and what they were protesting was British refusal to honor British law which required that Massachusetts have a seat in the house of commons if they were to have taxes levied. One could see it as British citizens demanding their constitutional rights and not as an act of rebellion. But maybe I'm wrong.
DeleteWhat gets my goat was what seemed like some ritual re-enactment -- of trying to put new art in old frames and even if there's no truth or significance to that, demanding instant justice, instant answers and looking for all the world like they wanted the cop dragged out into the street and lynched is counterproductive, massively polarizing and pointless. All I'm asking is to give the courts a chance and as this includes civil rights violations, the Feds may get into it. There's no reason to assume it will all blow over.
I'm trying to recall some instance of our government giving in to public protests and I can't think of one. Of course King George simply got out the troops and attacked what he saw as a mob. The riots in Chicago and Watts and all those places don't seem to have done much and our advances in civil rights and justice seem more likely to occur in the courts and in congress as much as we like to elevate martyrs.
Actually, Captain, the colonial patriots WERE violent and did destroy property. The reason I know this is because I live in the neighborhood where Governor Thomas Hutchinson's (Massachustts governor from 1758 to 1774) house stood and was ransacked and partially destroyed by the Boston patriots:
DeleteOn 13 August 1765, mobs descended on Oliver's home and office, ransacking both. The next night Hutchinson's Boston mansion was surrounded, and the crowd demanded that he formally deny arguing in favour of the Stamp Act in his correspondence with London. He refused, and only the intervention of a moderate leader prevented any action that night.
Twelve days later, on the evening of 26 August, a mob again formed outside of his mansion, and this time they would not be denied. Described by one architectural historian as "the first developed example of provincial Palladianism in New England," the house was broken into (Hutchinson and his family narrowly escaping), and systematically ransacked. The house finishings (wainscoting and other decorative woodwork) were effectively destroyed, and even the building's cupola was taken down in violence that lasted the entire night. The family silver, furniture, and other items were stolen or destroyed (although some items were eventually returned), and Hutchinson's collection of historically important manuscripts was scattered. Hutchinson's detailed inventory (reprinted by biographer James Kendall Hosmer) valued the damage done at more than £2,200, and he eventually received over £3,100 from the province for his troubles. Hutchinson and his family temporarily took refuge at Castle William, and thereafter took up primary residence at Hutchinson's estate in Milton.
Didn't the our government just recently give in to the Clive Bundy stand-off? Didn't the federal officers walk away from the protests in the interests of keeping the public peace?
Anyway, I see your point, and agree.
NOTE: The information on the attack on Governor Hutchinson's home and property should have been in quotes. I copied it from Wikipedia. Sorry.
DeleteProvincial palladianism? Oh no - not that! Anyway I didn't know of anything beyond the actual tea thingy, but I do believe England was in violation of their own constitution. I hadn't really thought of the bundy bullshit as a public protest but in general I have seen the government stonewall the vast majority of citizens and use the protests as a basis for justifying increased repression. I can't tell you how many people I knew were thrown in jail for being little more than spectators.
DeleteI'm not sure about Palladianism ( I thought it was about architecture) but I do know about Palinism and Captain Asshat here seems to have borrowed her "paling around with terrorists" line which I think may constitute his exit visa. Dick Daley blamed his police riot on student protesters and then made up a story about a plot to kill him, but anyone who was there - and that includes Walter Cronkite - will tell you otherwise.
I recall saying to a reporter at the Chicago 7 trial, which was held a block away from my office at the time that we shouldn't feel we were accomplishing anything because the next two generations at least would be propagandized so heavily that we would be seen as the villains and I think I was right.
But no, to people like John Wayne and the anonymous assholes shouting "get a job" as I stood there in a goddamn Brooks Brothers suit and wingtip shoes I wasn't a "real american" for not supporting a war for war's sake and for opposing tyranny. It's too easy for me not to believe in making noise in the street. Sorry for being such a cynic, but I'm convinced this country has no future and is intent on self-destruction while drowing in self-delusion.
You are the one who brought the Bible into this to try and prove some righteous justification for violence. Your God of the Bible is nothing but violent and proves that violence is justified against violence. A police State killed the first born of the Jews, and God killed the first born of the Egyptians. Revelations says the second coming of Christ will start a thousand years of war and death. God flooded the world to kill off all but Noah, and on, and on, and on. So tell us again how bad the police were so you can support the protesters who fire bombed and looted. Show us your post decrying the combat vehicles and SWAT team tactics of your town after the Marathon bombings. If you really meant what you said, why are you going out of your way (and using the Bible) to explain why the protesters violence was an understandable response?
ReplyDeleteAnon: “I won't support, or defend any group, or movement that burns and loots stores” (3:48 PM, August 16, 2014).
DeletePerhaps not, but your punctuation needs improvement, and your comment smacks of a subjectivist reasoning fallacy.
Not all demonstrators are looters. You fail to distinguish good apples from bad apples. In your subjectivist viewpoint, any bad apple discredits ALL apples. This form of fallacious reasoning is called an “unrepresentative sample error.” I consider it to be a form of intellectual dishonesty.
Anon: “Two wrongs don't make a right and the protesters have lost their righteous indignation.”
Your fixation on “Two wrongs don't make a right has the ring of broken records and the clang of cliché. More to the point, you are “denying the antecedent.” In this instance, you absolutely, persistently, steadfastly, unwaveringly, and willfully refuse to acknowledge the sequence of events that triggered outrage in the Ferguson community, such as:
Harassment of black teens in their own neighborhoods;
The City of Ferguson turned into a speed trap zone whereby citizens are ticketed - “predated” - by an overzealous police force;
A population demographic that is 62% Black-American bullied by a police force that is 96% White;
Black teens shot and killed for shoplifting while White teens get off with less than a slap on the wrist;
The “militarization” of law enforcement.
Now don’t play dumb. My comment of 3:40 PM, August 16, 2014 (above) contains 5 links. Did you bother reading any of them? No, you ignored my comment but continued your pandering:
Anon: “What are you if you support such violence because you agree the cops are corrupt?” (3:48 PM, August 16, 2014)
Anon: “You all seem to excuse the violence because …” (4:35 PM, August 16, 2014).
And who the hell are you – attributing false motives to every comment that you chose to misread or take out of context? Did you read any comment here that specifically approves of street violence? Only a pompous and judgmental jackass such as you can miss the moral undertones of this story!
Where the hell were you during the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising? Would “two wrongs don’t make a right” have prevented the genocide? Born 60 years too late, of course, it’s your own damn fault!
"a subjectivist reasoning fallacy." Holy shit, that's even worse than provincial Palladianism. I don't think violence is the right course of action in this case however but I don't need help in understanding public frustration with a Democracy that is as dysfunctional as ours is. I don't need reminding that some of the nicest people are miserable, small-minded, fearful and angry douche bags under the right circumstances. There's no law against being an asshole after all and all the law can do is to keep an asshole from shitting on people. I have some confidence that some justice will occur here but not by this afternoon.
DeleteDeciding just when violence is justified is difficult and the decision for it is so often seen as misguided in retrospect or perhaps is always seen so when history is so easily re-written by the wrong side, but as a certified geriatric, my prejudice is to speak softly and hire a lot of lawyers.
A crude, offensive, and juvenile little palmetto troll. Crunch!
DeleteCaptain,
I don't think the stink bug will be bothering us anymore.
Roger that. Henceforth consider his ass deleted and with prejudice.
DeleteFor as it saith in the wholy scriptures:
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet,
consectetur adipisicing elit,
sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt
ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.
Or as Little Caesar said: de assholibus non disputandem est. Pizza Pizza
"This is your line that suggest the violence from the crowd could be excused..." That "suggestion" is in your mind only. You are determined to see me as someone who condones violence, when I've stated that it is wrong. I'm not interested in continuing to argue with someone who deliberately misreads what other people write just for the sake of argument.
ReplyDeleteYou mean like inferring I don't know the facts, yet, keep linking.
If you are going to insult people, don't expect them to see your point of view.
Now back to your Bible quotes.
JOB 16:3
ReplyDeleteYour buddy looters and fire bombers are still at it. That will solve everything.
ReplyDeleteWow, you really are delusional. I'm sorry to make a bigger ass of you but I don't know any looters or fire bombers and I never have. Sorry again, old crank, but I was beginning to suspect it was you, the same deranged blowhard who likes to accuse Jews of being anti-Semitic and pacifists of being arsonists. No, you won't be bothering us any more and I hereby release you on your own recognizance so that you can solve the worlds problems by sharing your wisdom with others -- but not here. You're done.
DeleteThank you Capt., the place smells much better now.
DeleteI kind of miss being called a Jew-hater, but this creep has been hanging around for a long time and I'm fed up. He has a thing for RN and it's spilling over here.
DeleteCaptain: “He has a thing for RN and it's spilling over here.”
DeleteA simple explanation why this “thing” is here: I visit RN’s weblog from time to time and leave comments. That is why this “thing” follows me back here.
With respect to allegations of anti-Semitism leveled by this “thing” against RN, I recall defending RN against this charge some years ago.
I had a similar experience two decades ago with my own dearly departed mother - an ardent Zionist - who asked my opinion of the Palestinian Uprising (the “Infitada”).
My answer: “If random chance were reversed, and I found myself born not of Jewish parents but of Palestinian parents (and realized that my stateless children had no future), I might be inclined to throw rocks too.”
My mother’s response: “Son, I always knew you were a closet anti-Semite.”
In Jewish families, the charge of anti-Semitism is often used to censor honest answers to loaded questions. I reminded my mother that even in Israel there is a peace movement (and that I considered her attack on my opinion as abusive).
The troll who assails RN is more than abusive. This “thing” is fixated and obsessive – and seriously disturbed.
Trolls who defame people, while hiding behind anonymous monikers, are the most gutless cowards of all.
I haven't had any insight or wisdom to add to this discussion. But last night I did listen to a twenty minute recording of protesters fleeing tear gas, lying flat on the ground to avoid the gaze of the tear gas wielding armored cars, administering first aid, including milk, putting on gas masks, etc. They said that one neighborhood was completely blanketed with tear gas. Also, a nearby church they called simply Saint Mark's was serving as a place of refuge, medical attention and sanctuary. Presumably this recording is two nights ago.
ReplyDeleteMy friend, Che Pasa, has been posting on the events of this week. This is the post I was talking about.