Flash Flash Revolution

Flash Flash Revolution (http://www.flashflashrevolution.com/vbz/index.php)
-   Chit Chat (http://www.flashflashrevolution.com/vbz/forumdisplay.php?f=17)
-   -   Riots in Ferguson, Missouri (http://www.flashflashrevolution.com/vbz/showthread.php?t=139855)

Deadlyx39 11-25-2014 06:18 PM

Re: Riots in Ferguson, Missouri
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by MrPopadopalis25 (Post 4238511)
Racially-motivated crimes committed by law enforcement are more widespread, more institutionally accepted, and thus more important to address in terms of white on black than black on white.



Here, for example:



They looked like they were looking for trouble and thus killing them is justified?

The point of me saying that it's justified is my reasoning for why there hasn't been a trial for the Dillon Taylor case, and their won't be one for the Michael Brown case. While we won't know what happened, both officers had reason to believe that their lives were in danger and that it had justifiable reasoning. Not that it was MY opinion on it, but that their actions were justified. The only part of my statement that was my opinion was that the media is giving us bullshit.

dAnceguy117 11-25-2014 06:22 PM

Re: Riots in Ferguson, Missouri
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Deadlyx39 (Post 4238514)
While we won't know what happened, both officers had reason to believe that their lives were in danger and that it had justifiable reasoning. Not that it was MY opinion on it, but that their actions were justified.

No, stating that the officers' actions were justified in those cases is your opinion. Your opinion can align with a decision reached by a grand jury, but your opinion does not become fact; it's an opinion.

Deadlyx39 11-25-2014 06:26 PM

Re: Riots in Ferguson, Missouri
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by dAnceguy117 (Post 4238519)
No, stating that the officers' actions were justified in those cases is your opinion. Your opinion can align with a decision reached by a grand jury, but your opinion does not become fact; it's an opinion.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/58...-gill.html.csp
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/25/us...rand-jury.html

I was just restating that it was justified.

Deadlyx39 11-25-2014 06:30 PM

Re: Riots in Ferguson, Missouri
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by MrPopadopalis25 (Post 4238520)
We won't know what happened? Doesn't that sound like a perfect reason for the case to go to trial then, so we can know what happened?



You keep saying that their actions were justified. Their actions were killing Michael Brown. Therefore you agree with them that killing Michael Brown was justified. Therefore you agree with them that Michael Brown deserved to die, or am I wrong? What is the difference between justified and deserved to you?

Plus justified means that there was reason for them to believe that their lives were in danger. Not that Michael and Dillon deserved to die

dAnceguy117 11-25-2014 06:34 PM

Re: Riots in Ferguson, Missouri
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Deadlyx39 (Post 4238521)

Those are links to articles about the decisions reached by the grand juries in those two cases. Your opinion aligns with those decisions, but your opinion is not a fact.

Deadlyx39 11-25-2014 06:37 PM

Re: Riots in Ferguson, Missouri
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by dAnceguy117 (Post 4238524)
Those are links to articles about the decisions reached by the grand juries in those two cases.

That was the point.

dAnceguy117 11-25-2014 06:39 PM

Re: Riots in Ferguson, Missouri
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Deadlyx39 (Post 4238526)
That was the point.

My point is that a statement like "the officers' actions were justified" is not a fact, no matter what decision was reached by a grand jury.

Deadlyx39 11-25-2014 06:45 PM

Re: Riots in Ferguson, Missouri
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by dAnceguy117 (Post 4238528)
My point is that a statement like "the officers' actions were justified" is not a fact, no matter what decision was reached by a grand jury.

The whole point of me saying that was to reiterate that they had reason to believe that their lives were in danger. Not as if it was a fact, but that it was used to help my argument on the media, and how in both situations they are experiencing the same thing (the officers had reason to believe they were in danger), yet they have vastly different coverage.

Vares 11-25-2014 09:32 PM

Re: Riots in Ferguson, Missouri
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by TheSaxRunner05 (Post 4238148)
The Grand Jury reviewed all the evidence, including all eyewitness testimony and the phsyical evidence. The physical evidence contradicted most eyewitness testimony. The Grand Jury went through pretty much all the steps of a trial. The entire process took about three months. There was plenty of opportunity to weigh evidence, and their decision reflected the evidence at hand.

It's a shame that eyewitness testimony isn't as reliable as we'd like it to be. Most basic Psychology classes will teach us that every time we recall a memory, it's slightly less accurate. According to NPR, even Wilson's memory of the confrontation seems more exaggerated in terms of intensity compared to the physical evidence of his condition afterwards, that being a bruise on his face.

RB_Spirit 11-25-2014 09:52 PM

Re: Riots in Ferguson, Missouri
 
Sips tea

Dynam0 11-25-2014 10:02 PM

Re: Riots in Ferguson, Missouri
 
There's some pretty stupid shit being said in here and it's all rife with personal bias.

When you detach yourself from whatever upbringing you've had and look at it fact-for-fact, a dumbass kid who was high robbed a store (error in judgement) and then a dumbass cop handled the situation poorly and ended up killing the dude (error in judgement). Is it wrong that there was no trial? Imo it's 100% wrong.

I can understand how some would say that racism is the underlying issue in this situation but it's so much more than that. Police are given an immense amount of power and responsibility and when they fuck up, lives can be lost. In some ways you can compare this profession to surgeons making a mistake and the patient dying on them. At the end of the day, you have an officer who made an error in judgement and just like the doctor being sued for malpractice, is facing a trial. It's a reasonable situation that begs a thorough investigation, hence why I feel a trial would have been beneficial.

TheSaxRunner05 11-25-2014 10:14 PM

Re: Riots in Ferguson, Missouri
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Dynam0 (Post 4238571)
There's some pretty stupid shit being said in here and it's all rife with personal bias.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrPopadopalis25 (Post 4238511)
They looked like they were looking for trouble and thus killing them is justified?

No, but if you assalt an officer and try to take his gun, you can expect to be shot, well within the officer's rights. That was a very bad decision on Michael Brown's part. Seriously, if the officer was the aggressor, why would the physical evidence show a struggle within the police vehicle? Please, look at the physical evidence.

My Conjecture: Michael Brown was flooded with adrenaline from his recent hold up of the conveinence store, and went off on officer Wilson out of panic

Red Blaster 11-25-2014 10:52 PM

Re: Riots in Ferguson, Missouri
 
Guys, guys..you're all forgetting the most important fact of all:

s1rnight 11-25-2014 11:05 PM

Re: Riots in Ferguson, Missouri
 
lol police shot an unarmed 12 year old black boy for carrying a bb gun in a park as this news was even happening

black men are already disproportionately targets of police violence and are killed despite being innocent and police routinely get away with it. sketchy evidence like this being enough for a police officer to get away w/ taking someone's life is precisely why people are angry

adlp 11-25-2014 11:15 PM

Re: Riots in Ferguson, Missouri
 
@dynam0 the cop did everything by the book. no ordinary cop is ordered to shoot to kill. they are authorized to use deadly force and shoot to stop. and according to the evidence, that's exactly what he did.

the big issue is people and the media are inclined to focus on an individual's action when the real criticism should be aimed at the department that trained the officer to react the way that he did in this scenario. that's how changes are made in policing.

DotKritic 11-25-2014 11:22 PM

Re: Riots in Ferguson, Missouri
 
Would the timing of the announcement on whether to indict Darren Wilson have mattered? Or course not. There was going to be a riot regardless.

Even though they waited until all the schools and businesses closed, they gave the protesters all the time in the world to assemble and prepare.

adlp 11-25-2014 11:27 PM

Re: Riots in Ferguson, Missouri
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by s1rnight (Post 4238642)
lol police shot an unarmed 12 year old black boy for carrying a bb gun in a park as this news was even happening

if the officer was able to tell that it was a BB gun in the first place, this wouldnt have happened. instead it looks like the officer was legitimately afraid for his life then he just did what he was trained to do. was deadly force necessary against this 12 year old? hell no. but confrontation with law enforcement becomes an arms race that the cops are required to win. with this kid brandishing a "gun" at a cop, it instantly escalated the situation to a lethal level if the cop really believed he was in danger while in the line of duty.

don't like that? take it up with their police department

Garquillex 11-25-2014 11:31 PM

Re: Riots in Ferguson, Missouri
 
I think the shooting was probably justified once it got to that point, but the entire situation may have evolved towards violence because of prejudice. Although if there was prejudice, I don't think this was a goal and there is some doubt to messing with such a large person.

prejudice is boring as hell to me tho


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:56 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright FlashFlashRevolution