Jump to content

When will the media learn?


Recommended Posts

 

IMO, this is the core of the problem:

it's because ... cops decided to treat peaceful protesters like they were military insurgents.

And IMO, the Brown case is primarily this and very closely secondary is racial tension. Probably some classic class struggle, too. It's a multi-layered, big ball of wibbly wobbly, racey, macey...stuff.I heard some stats on local radio today about how many people were interviewed and such, by the Grand Jury. I need to verify that before I go on, but it was an impressive-sounding amount of investigation.But no doubt in my mind that the militarization of local police forces isn't making anything better.

I disagree. I think having a strong police presence was appropriate given the likelihood of riots.

 

Strong police presence AFTER the shooting isn't what I'm referring to. Also, strong police presence is VERY different than the militarization of a local force. VERY.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 257
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I can't speak for Copper. What I think Carrie is getting at here, correct me if I'm wrong, can be summed up as follows: It isn't necessarily bad to be an "ally" or stand in "solidarity" with this oppr

RM is a hypocrite and should rightfully be pointed out as so, but your argument is equally disingenuous and full of unsubstantiated hyperbole. What does it exactly mean that the "rule of law has no re

Thanks (I guess?)   I'm severe because I feel strongly about this. I think the biggest problem, and challenge, facing modern leftism is its tendency towards vicarious victimhood. I think this subjuca

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

National Bar Association

November 24, 2014

communications@nationalbar.org

View In Browser

THE NATIONAL BAR ASSOCIATION RESPONDS TO THE GRAND JURY’S DECISION NOT TO INDICT POLICE OFFICER DARREN WILSON IN THE SHOOTING DEATH OF MICHAEL BROWN

WASHINGTON, DC – The National Bar Association is questioning how the Grand Jury, considering the evidence before them, could reach the conclusion that Darren Wilson should not be indicted and tried for the shooting death of Michael Brown. National Bar Association President Pamela J. Meanes expresses her sincere disappointment with the outcome of the Grand Jury’s decision but has made it abundantly clear that the National Bar Association stands firm and will be calling on the U.S. Department of Justice to pursue federal charges against officer Darren Wilson. “We will not rest until Michael Brown and his family has justice” states Pamela Meanes, President of the National Bar Association.

President Meanes is requesting that the citizens of Ferguson, Missouri not allow this decision to cause an unnecessary uproar in the community that could lead to arrests, injuries or even deaths of innocent people. “I am asking for everyone to remain as calm as possible and to join in solidarity as we continue to support the family of Michael Brown and put our legal plan into full effect” says President Meanes “I feel the magnitude of the grand jury’s ruling as Ferguson, Missouri is only minutes from where I reside”, adds President Meanes.

Over the last couple of months, the National Bar Association has hosted Town Hall meetings informing attendees of their Fourth Amendment (Search & Seizure) constitutional rights, whether it is legal to record police activity, and how citizens should behave/respond if and when they interface with police officers. “The death of Michael Brown was the last straw and the catalyst for addressing issues of inequality and racial bias in policing, the justice system, and violence against members of minority communities,” states Pamela Meanes.

The family of Michael Brown requested that District Attorney McCullough step aside and allow a special prosecutor be assigned to the investigation to give the community confidence that the grand jury would conduct a complete and thorough investigation into the tragic shooting death of 18 year old Michael Brown. The grand jury’s decision confirms the fear that many expressed months ago — that a fair and impartial investigation would not happen.

“The National Bar Association is adamant about our desire for transformative justice. While we are disappointed with the grand jury’s ruling, we are promoting peace on every street corner around the world. The only way to foster systemic change is to organize, educate, and mobilize. We are imploring everyone to fight against the injustice in Ferguson, Missouri and throughout the United States by banding together and working within the confines of the law,” states President Meanes.

 

For complaints related to Ferguson, please contact the FBI 24 Hour Hotline at 314-589-2500.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

RM, you keep saying that you wish people would just respect the law. I get that. It's kinda easy for you to say that too, after all, you respect the law. So it can't be that hard, right? But how do you respect a rule of law that has absolutely no respect for you? How can you respect that, when you live in a place that treats you as if you are lesser? Every day. Riots are bad; they're bad because they are distracting us from coming up with real solutions to real problems.

 

The whole thing just makes me sad.

RM is a hypocrite and should rightfully be pointed out as so, but your argument is equally disingenuous and full of unsubstantiated hyperbole. What does it exactly mean that the "rule of law has no respect for you?" This sounds awfully like a talking point you just pulled off of Twitter somewhere. Are you seriously suggesting that there's two set of laws applied in MO? Like a set of black statutes, and white statutes? Because I just hopped onto Lexis and there's, in fact, only one set of laws in MO. Also who exactly made you the authority on the black experience in Ferguson? I mean, correct me if I'm wrong and you're a black person in Ferguson. But outside of that, since when do you feel you can appropriately comment on what it feels like to "live in a place that treats you as if you are lesser?" It sounds an awful lot to me like you merely want to use this situation to make a political point from an air of self-righteousness, something that is, quite honestly, despicable to me.

 

It is not self righteous to listen to the things that people in a community are saying and feel empathy for their experiences. One does not have to experience something themselves to understand that is wrong.

I was going to reply more to this but I started getting angry, and I decided that I wasn't going to take the bait. RC did it funnier than I would, anyways.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Copper, I'm not saying that you cannot feel empathy. However, what you are doing goes quite a bit beyond that. It would be one thing if you simply came into this thread and said you identify with how some blacks feel in Ferguson. But what you did is something altogether. First, you speculated on how blacks must feel towards a very specific idea (i.e. the rule of law), and also made a claim on a specific feeling that a black person must have living in Ferguson (i.e. lesser). Second, you then used those two feelings (whether they are actually shared by Ferguson blacks or not), to make a judgment about RM, to say that not only was his argument invalid, but you said it in a very judgmental tone, as if you are allowed to speak on this manner and he is not (i.e. when you say, "it's kinda easy for you say that too...")

 

In other words, you are doing the whole hands-on-the-hips, face filled with judgment, "YOU DON'T KNOW HOW IT FEELS!!" routine. Well, I'm sorry to have to point this out, but quite frankly, you don't know how it feels either. Now, let's be clear here (if it wasn't from my multiple posts to RM), I'm obviously not "on his side" in this matter. But while I think he is either a hypocrite (or, in light of RC's point, just a dimwit), at the end of the day, he's relatively harmless. You, on the other hand, are engaging in something that I think is quite harmful. At the very least it's an ostentatious display of speaking for others (google the essay by Linda Alcoff), which on one hand, is belittling (i.e. suggesting such groups cannot speak for themselves), or on the other, just outright presumptive (i.e. suggesting that such groups ever desired your perspective or your advocacy).

 

And at the very most though, it's even worse, it's essentially you using (yes, using) the experiences of the black community of Ferguson (or rather, what you presume them to be) as this sort of foil for assuaging your feelings of guilt, typical of white liberals, as well as meeting your desires to feel this faux solidarity with an oppressed people, something that probably takes root in your own feelings of inferiority. But it goes beyond that- because you then take those "experiences" that you have concocted for yourself, and then use them to cast judgment on other people, suggesting that you have reached some point of enlightenment which uniquely allows you to have an opinion on this, but perhaps not others... i.e. when you suggest that RM most be operating from some level of comfort ("it's easy for you to say"), which I guess by implication, suggests that you must think it hard for you to say. After all- you have shammed your own sense of self-enlightenment on this, and that just had to have been really draining, right?

 

And that, to be honest, is really the height of not only self-righteousness, but also incredible arrogance, not to mention, somewhat dehumanizing since actual people's lives become a mere token of yours to make a point and feel better about yourself. I may be judgmental at times, sure, but it's always based in someone's own logical inconsistencies, or their inability to present evidence, and so on. I have certainly never presumed that someone is unable to speak on a topic because they lack some type of personal perspective congruous with a fictitious experience that I have no unique knowledge of, all pawned off by me to make a political point and to cure my own insecurities. Or to put it in another, more blunt way, what pray tell, makes you think you have any freaking idea what it's like to be a black person in Ferguson, and what makes you think you can use that experience as an argument? You are a goddamn white girl from the suburbs. Posting an article from Mother Jones does not make you one with the black experience. You say the whole thing "makes you sad." I call bullsh-t. You haven't shed one tear over this, and nor would I expect you to, so stop being such a phony.

 

If you cannot understand why this behavior of yours could be perceived by someone as troubling, if not offensive, then I really have nothing more to say to you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How does looting and being confrontational help get your point across about being oppressed? I was listening to NPR yesterday and they asked a Ferguson protester this question and she skirted right around it. I find this kind of interesting. Gas masks and blocking roads and people going "Where is the National Guard I was promised?" I know they've had meetings in Ferguson about race relations but is it all talk?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think people that loot are trying to get a point across-I think they just feel constantly oppressed and this is what they do to vent. I'm not saying it's right or productive-hell, I'm just speculating. Looting for injustice makes as much sense to me as whitey's version; tipping flaming vehicles after their team's win of a championship.

 

it's essentially you using (yes, using) the experiences of the black community of Ferguson (or rather, what you presume them to be) as this sort of foil for assuaging your feelings of guilt, typical of white liberals, as well as meeting your desires to feel this faux solidarity with an oppressed people, something that probably takes root in your own feelings of inferiority.

I can't speak for April, but when I feel this way, it's usually because of someone I consider bigoted being a judgmental ass about the whole thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest El Chalupacabra

How does looting and being confrontational help get your point across about being oppressed? I was listening to NPR yesterday and they asked a Ferguson protester this question and she skirted right around it. I find this kind of interesting. Gas masks and blocking roads and people going "Where is the National Guard I was promised?" I know they've had meetings in Ferguson about race relations but is it all talk?

Because there IS no excuse or justification for looting or destroying someone else's property, that's why. This is basically the LA Riots Ver. 2.0.

 

Sure, there are some activists out there who are trying to effect real change, because they really do perceive that police action is applied unequally to people of color. Perhaps it is. There absolutely are racist cops who abuse their power out there (but I think the vast majority of cops aren't that way). So these activists are trying to bring awareness to that. However, there are also those who are using this as an opportunity for anarchy. Some are just ignorant, angry people who don't realize this is hurting their cause, but I personally think the majority of the looters and vandals could care less about Michael Brown, just like the LA Rioters could care less about Rodney King. All they see is the cops not able to handle the situation because they are outnumbered, so it's an opportunity to get some free sh*t and break stuff to stick it to the man. That is as deep as it gets.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Looters are opportunists. They either don't give a rip about the issue, or they use it to justify their own greed. In other words, I behave only as long as I think I'll get in trouble for not behaving. It's like toddler behavior.

 

Michael Brown's stepfather is angry and wants someone to pay, because he thinks no one did pay for his stepson's death. Somewhat understandable, but not admirable. It's unfortunate that he channeled those feelings to incite a riot instead of creating change.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Copper...If you cannot understand why this behavior of yours could be perceived by someone as troubling, if not offensive, then I really have nothing more to say to you.

I realized this isn't addressed to me, but DAYOHM, girl!

 

I have to admit I admire your prowess with the language; it's what affords me the opportunity to ankle-wade in your vitriol, but THIS? This is your most focused and severe work to date. BRAVA for the skill. But too much supposition, conjecture and snobbery, even for me. Just sayin.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest El Chalupacabra

Looters are opportunists. They either don't give a rip about the issue, or they use it to justify their own greed. In other words, I behave only as long as I think I'll get in trouble for not behaving. It's like toddler behavior.

 

Michael Brown's stepfather is angry and wants someone to pay, because he thinks no one did pay for his stepson's death. Somewhat understandable, but not admirable. It's unfortunate that he channeled those feelings to incite a riot instead of creating change.

I totally understand where the parents were coming from. Was Michael Brown a bad kid? I think it likely. But to his parents, he was just a kid who made some mistakes and are angry. They made angry statements, and are entitled to do that. Pinning the riots on Michael Brown's parents is not a fair thing to do.

 

However, when you have a president that comments on the case before it is resolved, hell, even better, sends envoys to Michael Brown's funeral giving the appearance the White House is coming down on the side against the cop, I think that is where you can pin some responsibility for rioters and looters feeling justified, and even legitimized. The president had no business commenting on this case, because he wasn't there when the shooting happened, and the investigation and grand jury wasn't even completed, before he started speaking out about it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

shorter version of what Carrie's saying : it is speculative, arrogant, judgmental, harmful, ostentatious, presumptive, self-righteous, dehumanizing, troubling, offensive, disingenuous, hyperbolic, and quite honestly despicable to even try for a moment to think about why people who do things might be right. Thinking the people who do those things are wrong, though, that's somehow a-okay and is not none of those dozen or so adjectives.

 

You haven't shed one tear over this, and nor would I expect you to, so stop being such a phony.

Fifth time!

Link to post
Share on other sites

RC, serious Q- why do you always feel the need to white knight in threads where I am active? Is it a desire to be the yin to my yang? Do you just feel the opposite view will not be presented?

 

Regardless, your point is a bit of a strawman, no? I'm not using all those terms towards one person and for the same reasons. I understand there's a point to be made about my rhetorical flourish, but surely you're smart enough to understand the point I'm making towards Copper. If you disagree, that's fine, but without further elaboration as to why you do, I would find you equally reprehensible for the same reasons I listed before (if not more so, since you're presenting the point in a flippant manner).

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Copper...If you cannot understand why this behavior of yours could be perceived by someone as troubling, if not offensive, then I really have nothing more to say to you.

I realized this isn't addressed to me, but DAYOHM, girl!

 

I have to admit I admire your prowess with the language; it's what affords me the opportunity to ankle-wade in your vitriol, but THIS? This is your most focused and severe work to date. BRAVA for the skill. But too much supposition, conjecture and snobbery, even for me. Just sayin.

 

Thanks (I guess?)

 

I'm severe because I feel strongly about this. I think the biggest problem, and challenge, facing modern leftism is its tendency towards vicarious victimhood. I think this subjucates actual victims to a much greater degree than overt discrimination and has a strong role in establishing societal hierarchy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Looters are opportunists. They either don't give a rip about the issue, or they use it to justify their own greed. In other words, I behave only as long as I think I'll get in trouble for not behaving. It's like toddler behavior.

 

Michael Brown's stepfather is angry and wants someone to pay, because he thinks no one did pay for his stepson's death. Somewhat understandable, but not admirable. It's unfortunate that he channeled those feelings to incite a riot instead of creating change.

I totally understand where the parents were coming from. Was Michael Brown a bad kid? I think it likely. But to his parents, he was just a kid who made some mistakes and are angry. They made angry statements, and are entitled to do that. Pinning the riots on Michael Brown's parents is not a fair thing to do.

 

We all knew a riot was going to happen. But to go to the rally and tell people to burn it all down is like throwing gasoline on the burn pile. The family unfortunately lost some of my sympathy with that move. I can understand mourning your child and even excusing your child's flaws. His mother talked about wanting to create change. Unfortunately, I think her husband threw a lot of that out the window.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You weren't active in this thread when I posted. I've twice tried to engage the original poster of the thread but he doesn't seem to want to talk about what I said (which is fine, he doesn't have to, but just in case he maybe wanted to I brought it up again). You replied to my post - and not in a way that I or really anyone else here would categorize as "nice". And now I'm replying to your posts. I really don't think this is me doing any of the things you say I'm doing but, whatever, sure talk to me about why I am writing the things I am writing.

 

All of your thoughts are directed at the way people react to the way people react to the way people react to the original incident. Everyone else (not just here) is upset at the rioters, or the way the media is covering the victim, or at Twitter and Facebook. I would be too (I used to feel this way about lots of things, that law and order was the way to go no matter what) but after giving it two minutes thought as to what I might do if the cops shot my unarmed neighbor, left his body in the street for hours, ran over my makeshift memorial with a car and allowed a dog to piss there, swanned around in G.I. Joe gear night after night, and then there wasn't even going to be a trial I feel that somewhere in there I might find it within myself to maybe do a lot of things I wouldn't normally do.

 

I'm sorry for not posting my usual shtick (and that's not because you don't say something ridiculous about every two sentences, you do, and usually I would comment on each and every one of those ridiculousnesses) whenever I reply to you. It is okay with me if you find me reprehensible. I will always be interested in what you have to say.

 

clarification : the above is all aimed at Carrie

Edited by R.CAllen
Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...