Michael Brown shooting and civil unrest Goes Forth

[Lord Flashheart]

I guess he was just as wrong as those witnesses that said brown was on his knees with his hands raised, then shot in the back. Funny how personal agendas trump the truth

Careful, your bias is showing.

[theprincethatwasntpromised]

How the hell am I biased? I don't know what happened, just like you don't know what happened. I just think the rush to judgment from most of you guys is hilarious. It's either feigned outrage or most of you are unstable. The more time I spend here, the more I fear it's the latter

[theprincethatwasntpromised]

Criminy, but you're laying the irony on thick here, when you've been one one the main voices in this thread claiming as fact Wilson's side of the story. If you want to wait to withhold judgment until all the fact are known then by all means, do so. However, don't try and claim impartiality when you've been in here the entire time towing the line of the official police account.

I've merely been trying to balance all the racial accusations and police hate with logic. Sorry if that offends those of you that can't see both sides of the issue

[theprincethatwasntpromised]

By spouting verbatim Wilson's side of events? That's not "balance", that's just suckling at the authoritarian teat.

Like I said, sorry if that offends those of you that can't see both sides. You mean to tell me that from the first moment you heard about this story until now, you haven't thought about the multiple ways this could have went down?

I get it, the way the media initially reported this story, it was obvious this was excessive force. White cop brutality against an unarmed black teen. Then, more accurate reports come out, along with the racially divisive reports. The video showing the robbery, Wilson's swollen face, residue on browns thumb, the autopsy proving he wasn't shot in the back.

What's known about Wilson? Never had a complaint in like six years. Recent award recipient.

What's known about brown?

Willing to steal. Willing use violence. Use of drugs.

For some reason Wilson is the one who has his character attacked.

It's an assault on common sense. The small amount that exists around here.

[The Fallen]

Rohm,

If there was a decades or centuries old history of the police shooting white kids first and asking questions later you better believe that a movement would've sprung up from that and there would be outrage. That doesn't hapen now, well because the scenario you painted hardly, if ever, occurs. I think all these shootings should be protested.

tptwp,

So you're saying a kid who is nervous because, according to you, stole some blunts would decide to, not just attack a police officer, but try and kill him with his own gun? That's quite the escalation.

[aceluby]

tptwp,

So you're saying a kid who is nervous because, according to you, stole some blunts would decide to, not just attack a police officer, but try and kill him with his own gun? That's quite the escalation.

Not only that, but after being shot at multiple times, turn around and decide that the best course of action would be to charge the shooter.

Because when you use logic, this is obviously the most logical step. Cops shooting at me? CHARGE!!!!!

[Crazydog7]

What really makes me sick about this is the utter conviciton of some people that when "they" don't get the verdict "they" want "they" will riot. I think it would be great if the verdict was rendored and no riots actually happened of course it would never permiate the feelings of one group towards a particular "they"

I thought this was a South Carolina thing but I've heard similar opinions expressed in Maryland, Jersey, Virginia and Florida. And people say this shit right out in public they don't even bother to couch it in other terms anymore.

[Roose Seal]

What really makes me sick about this is the utter conviciton of some people that when "they" don't get the verdict "they" want "they" will riot. I think it would be great if the verdict was rendored and no riots actually happened of course it would never permiate the feelings of one group towards a particular "they"

I thought this was a South Carolina thing but I've heard similar opinions expressed in Maryland, Jersey, Virginia and Florida. And people say this shit right out in public they don't even bother to couch it in other terms anymore.

Protesting != rioting

[Wee baby Shamus]

More like "trashy right wing pseudo-journalist faked an X-ray that supposedly showed a fractured orbital socket on Wilson, and claim was debunked in hours."

So it's a right wing conspiracy. That is good to know.

Talk about biases showing Lord Flashheart.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

SYC,

There was an X-Ray of an orbital blow out in the original article along with the suggestion that is what the officer suffered in his encounter with Brown. Conspiracy? I wouldn't go that far, an effort to distort facts and change the narrative, absolutely.

ETA:

Here's a link to the original allegation that Wilson suffered an "orbital blowout":

http://www.donotlink.com/framed?523893

The allegations were crap and the X-ray in the article was not of Wilson. How is that not offering bullshit for public consumption?

[DanteGabriel]

So it's a right wing conspiracy. That is good to know.

Talk about biases showing Lord Flashheart.

I'd say when you continue to believe a bullshit story that was quickly debunked, months after that thorough debunking, it's quite an elegant statement about your own bias and inability to process facts that do not agree with the comforting reality you've constructed in your little Fox bubble.

[TerraPrime]

And rioting can be, sometimes, justified.

Before you argue, remember that the entire United States was founded in part on the tradition of the Boston Tea Party and the subsequenty rebellion against the British crown. Taking your grievance to the streets and employing violence in the face of immovable soial ill is the blood and bone of this country.

[Larry of the Lawn]

And rioting can be, sometimes, justified.

Before you argue, remember that the entire United States was founded in part on the tradition of the Boston Tea Party and the subsequenty rebellion against the British crown. Taking your grievance to the streets and employing violence in the face of immovable soial ill is the blood and bone of this country.

And let's not forget the Boston Massacre a few years earlier, when British soldiers shot unarmed colonists. We don't let that kind of violence on the part of the authorities go unanswered.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

And let's not forget the Boston Massacre a few years earlier, when British soldiers shot unarmed colonists. We don't let that kind of violence on the part of the authorities go unanswered.

The eight troops involved in the Boston Massacre were tried in the legal system. Six were acquitted. Two were convicted of manslaughter, for which they were branded on the hand. To suggest that the Boston Tea Party was a "response" to the Boston Massacre, which occurred three years earlier, is pretty specious at best.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

And rioting can be, sometimes, justified.

Before you argue, remember that the entire United States was founded in part on the tradition of the Boston Tea Party and the subsequenty rebellion against the British crown. Taking your grievance to the streets and employing violence in the face of immovable soial ill is the blood and bone of this country.

I'm not sure rioting in the general sense is every truly justifiable. It's also questionable whether the Boston Tea Party (i) constitutes rioting or (ii) is justifiable on its own terms. People would do well to avoid contested and inflammatory terms like "rioting" that tend to used less for what it denotes than what it connotes.

It's not okay to vandalize, loot or otherwise destroy the property of private citizens in Ferguson - period. There is no justification for it. People who engage in those actions are wrong for engaging in those actions. The potential existence of looting doesn't invalidate public protests against the police in Ferguson and that doesn't necessarily justify every means the police will use to "control" the protests.

[TerraPrime]

I'm not sure rioting in the general sense is every truly justifiable. It's also questionable whether the Boston Tea Party (i) constitutes rioting or (ii) is justifiable on its own terms. People would do well to avoid contested and inflammatory terms like "rioting" that tend to used less for what it denotes than what it connotes.

It's not okay to vandalize, loot or otherwise destroy the property of private citizens in Ferguson - period. There is no justification for it. People who engage in those actions are wrong for engaging in those actions. The potential existence of looting doesn't invalidate public protests against the police in Ferguson and that doesn't necessarily justify every means the police will use to "control" the protests.

No, I disagree. There are some cases, rare, but still, where I will find rioting, i.e., massive street protests accompanied by planned or incidental destruction of private properties, to be legitimate. Like, for instance, in the 60's where racial segregation was in effect such that the wealth of the town's white were more or less direct and unethical appropriation of the black residents' labor and contribution, then yes, a riot would be justified.

Looting, on the other hand, I don't find acceptable. Vandalizing and destruction are legitimate forms of expression under unusually intransigent situations, but not so looting, imo, because it crosses the line from expressing anger when other ways of expression has failed to enabling greed and avarice.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Don't foget that John Adams, the second president of the US, successfully defended the soldiers involved in the Boston Massacre.

TP,

Interesting. How far will you take that position? Should the rioters be insulated from civil liability for the property they damage in a "legitimate" riot? How is destroying someone's property different (aside from the obvious distinction) from stealing it? Stolen property can be returned. Destroyed property cannot.

[Lord Flashheart]

Talk about biases showing Lord Flashheart.

Instead of talking to me maybe address the point DG brought up about running with a story that was quickly proven false.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

No, I disagree. There are some cases, rare, but still, where I will find rioting, i.e., massive street protests accompanied by planned or incidental destruction of private properties, to be legitimate. Like, for instance, in the 60's where racial segregation was in effect such that the wealth of the town's white were more or less direct and unethical appropriation of the black residents' labor and contribution, then yes, a riot would be justified.

Looting, on the other hand, I don't find acceptable. Vandalizing and destruction are legitimate forms of expression under unusually intransigent situations, but not so looting, imo, because it crosses the line from expressing anger when other ways of expression has failed to enabling greed and avarice.

It sounds like you're suggesting that the character and qualities of the victim of rioting is actually an important factor. For example, you seem to suggest that the intentional destruction of private property is okay if the person that owns the property can be said to be a beneficiary of the "unethical appropriation" of the labor of blacks or other discriminated groups. So are you saying that only the intentional destruction of WHITE property is acceptable? Are you taking the position that it's only okay to destroy the property of white people in Ferguson? Do you think, under your reasoning, it would ever be okay to intentionally destroy the property of Hispanic property owners? Black property owners? Asian property owners?

[TerraPrime]

Re: Ser Scot

Interesting. How far will you take that position? Should the rioters be insulated from civil liability for the property they damage in a "legitimate" riot? How is destroying someone's property different (aside from the obvious distinction) from stealing it? Stolen property can be returned. Destroyed property cannot.

Yes, they should be held liable in some way, either individually or collectively. They may choose to further their civil disobedience by refusing to pay the penalty, and that's their right too if they use the refusal as an extension of protest against an injustice.

Civil disobedience has always been, imo, about accepting the consequences of breaking an unjust law to demonstrate against the injustice.

As for the difference between stealing and breaking, it is about a statement of principle. If someone loots, then the riot becomes morally indistinguishable from a mass robbery and loses the point of rioting, imo.

Re: Nestor

It sounds like you're suggesting that the character and qualities of the victim of rioting is actually an important factor. For example, you seem to suggest that the intentional destruction of private property is okay if the person that owns the property can be said to be a beneficiary of the "unethical appropriation" of the labor of blacks or other discriminated groups. So are you saying that only the intentional destruction of WHITE property is acceptable? Are you taking the position that it's only okay to destroy the property of white people in Ferguson? Do you think, under your reasoning, it would ever be okay to intentionally destroy the property of Hispanic property owners? Black property owners? Asian property owners?

I don't think Ferguson's case is severe enough to justify the riot, in my view. I am thinking more along the cases like the apartheid South Africa or the segregational states in the 60s.

But suppose that Ferguson does rise to the level of corruption warranting a riot, then in that case, it will be inevitable that properties of all sorts will be destroyed, even though the original justification is against institutionalized racism that seems recalcitrant to change via legal venues.

I will also add that it's not about white vs black specifically, but about privileged vs disempowered. So if Zimbabwe, for instance, enact a suite of social policies that subjugate white people in their country, then I'd support the white victims' right to riot, too.