|
Post by Peace Sign on Aug 10, 2015 18:05:57 GMT
No, that's actually not true. It was a widely publicized party. Just because it was widely publicized didn't mean it was within the parameters of the community bylaws. Social media postings don't constitute legitimacy. When asked to leave, they had an obligation to leave. Ha ha! Someone should embroider that on a pillow. Who are you to say what is or isn't legitimate? To a teen? Its why the teens were there. When asked to leave, the teens were treated like dirt beneath the shoes of that asshat officer. When to them, they had a right.
|
|
Just T
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,812
Jun 26, 2014 1:20:09 GMT
|
Post by Just T on Aug 10, 2015 18:06:24 GMT
Peace Sign, I thought she was referring to this:
I did a double take on that myself when I read it, but then I realized what you meant. Or at least what I thought you meant.
|
|
|
Post by Peace Sign on Aug 10, 2015 18:10:49 GMT
Peace Sign, I thought she was referring to this:
I did a double take on that myself when I read it, but then I realized what you meant. Or at least what I thought you meant. Thanks. I don't see it. Like I was meaning officers shot first?? Seriously asking, thank you.
|
|
AnotherPea
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,969
Jan 4, 2015 1:47:52 GMT
|
Post by AnotherPea on Aug 10, 2015 18:13:32 GMT
Just because it was widely publicized didn't mean it was within the parameters of the community bylaws. Social media postings don't constitute legitimacy. When asked to leave, they had an obligation to leave. Ha ha! Someone should embroider that on a pillow. Who are you to say what is or isn't legitimate? To a teen? Its why the teens were there. When asked to leave, the teens were treated like dirt beneath the shoes of that asshat officer. When to them, they had a right. teens aren't stupid. They may be self-centered and full of themselves sometimes, but they aren't stupid. They're smart enough to know that if someone at the party tells them they don't belong and THEN cops come along and say the same thing, then they don't belong. They're smart enough to know that crap gets put on Facebook that isn't true. They know that when something seems too good to be true, it probably is. They know they don't have a RIGHT to be at a pool party. That instead they need an invitation and that mass invitations probably aren't legit.
What they want is what they want. They want to go to a pool party so they're going to go. They also want to be right all.the.time. So they will gladly jump onto a cause and be victims if it will suit them. All about the drama.
Those teens chose to stay when they were told they weren't welcome. They chose to get mouthy and disrespectful and for the most part, the cops just took their crap. Some kids were awesome (as most teens are) and some kids were hellions.
But none of them had a RIGHT to be at a pool. I don't teach Civics, but I'm pretty sure there isn't any mention of community pool parties in our Constitution.
|
|
|
Post by katieanna on Aug 10, 2015 19:02:45 GMT
While I can honestly say that I don't agree with most of what Peace Sign has posted here, I am going to stick up for her on this one. I think (correct me if I'm wrong, Peace Sign!) that she was referring to the fact that most of the violent protestors and rioters aren't from Ferguson. The man who was shot by police last night (who shot at them first, by the way!) is from a city about 2 hours away from here. Last summer, I remember hearing something about a group of violent protestors who were arrested who had come here from California.
Again, the way the media portrays things influences what people think. I really think that the people of Ferguson are not the ones who are destroying their city.
I remember having heard that last year...most of the damage in the city had been caused by out-of-towners.
|
|
|
Post by jonda1974 on Aug 10, 2015 19:35:33 GMT
Just because it was widely publicized didn't mean it was within the parameters of the community bylaws. Social media postings don't constitute legitimacy. When asked to leave, they had an obligation to leave. Ha ha! Someone should embroider that on a pillow. Who are you to say what is or isn't legitimate? To a teen? Its why the teens were there. When asked to leave, the teens were treated like dirt beneath the shoes of that asshat officer. When to them, they had a right. I'm not the one that said what was legitimate, the community bylaws did. The teens were not supposed to be there, some refused to leave when asked and some became disruptive. They should have left, they should have been raised to know that if you are asked to leave private property, you leave. The officer was an asshat to them, but that does not legitimize their right to be there, and being asked to leave had nothing to do with race.
|
|
|
Post by RiverIsis on Aug 10, 2015 19:52:18 GMT
'Hands up, don't shoot' was built on a lie The late evening of Aug. 9, 2014, I couldn’t sleep. I was due to substitute-anchor MSNBC’s “UP with Steve Kornacki” and should have been asleep. But after looking at my Twitter feed and reading the rage under #Ferguson, I felt compelled to type a reaction to the killing of Michael Brown by police officer Darren Wilson. Tying the shooting to the inane whine of certain politicians about a “war on whites,” I decried the next morning the death of yet another unarmed black man at the hands of a white police officer. In those early hours and early days, there was more unknown than known. But this month, the Justice Department released two must-read investigations connected to the killing of Brown that filled in blanks, corrected the record and brought sunlight to dark places by revealing ugly practices that institutionalized racism and hardship. They have also forced me to deal with two uncomfortable truths: Brown never surrendered with his hands up, and Wilson was justified in shooting Brown. Link to full Washington Post article by Jonathon CapehartThanks for the article. Honestly I missed it. I still would prefer a society that would taze a man over shooting him in this circumstance.
|
|
back to *pea*ality
Pearl Clutcher
Not my circus, not my monkeys ~refugee pea #59
Posts: 3,149
Jun 25, 2014 19:51:11 GMT
|
Post by back to *pea*ality on Aug 12, 2015 11:03:07 GMT
'Hands up, don't shoot' was built on a lie The late evening of Aug. 9, 2014, I couldn’t sleep. I was due to substitute-anchor MSNBC’s “UP with Steve Kornacki” and should have been asleep. But after looking at my Twitter feed and reading the rage under #Ferguson, I felt compelled to type a reaction to the killing of Michael Brown by police officer Darren Wilson. Tying the shooting to the inane whine of certain politicians about a “war on whites,” I decried the next morning the death of yet another unarmed black man at the hands of a white police officer. In those early hours and early days, there was more unknown than known. But this month, the Justice Department released two must-read investigations connected to the killing of Brown that filled in blanks, corrected the record and brought sunlight to dark places by revealing ugly practices that institutionalized racism and hardship. They have also forced me to deal with two uncomfortable truths: Brown never surrendered with his hands up, and Wilson was justified in shooting Brown. Link to full Washington Post article by Jonathon CapehartThanks for the article. Honestly I missed it. I still would prefer a society that would taze a man over shooting him in this circumstance. I've taken firearms training taught by law enforcement officers. I've read comments about tasers and why not shoot him in the leg, etc. - if an officer is alone without backup and uses a taser and it misses the intended target and the other person draws a gun or knife he/she is dead. When someone is shot it isn't like the movies where the force of the bullet propels them back - that is the movies not physics. If you shoot someone in a non lethal place they keep coming until they are hit in a lethal area (brain or heart). In the case of Michael Brown he kept coming at Officer Wilson after being hit several times. As was reported by some witnesses he was rushing the officer, head down and that was likely the lethal wound in the top of the head. He was not shot in the back as reported and hands up, don't shoot was a lie. That being said, there are multiple cases of unjustified lethal force being used by law enforcement but the Michael Brown death was not one of them.
|
|
|
Post by RiverIsis on Aug 12, 2015 13:50:49 GMT
Thanks for the article. Honestly I missed it. I still would prefer a society that would taze a man over shooting him in this circumstance. I've taken firearms training taught by law enforcement officers. I've read comments about tasers and why not shoot him in the leg, etc. - if an officer is alone without backup and uses a taser and it misses the intended target and the other person draws a gun or knife he/she is dead. When someone is shot it isn't like the movies where the force of the bullet propels them back - that is the movies not physics. If you shoot someone in a non lethal place they keep coming until they are hit in a lethal area (brain or heart). In the case of Michael Brown he kept coming at Officer Wilson after being hit several times. As was reported by some witnesses he was rushing the officer, head down and that was likely the lethal wound in the top of the head. He was not shot in the back as reported and hands up, don't shoot was a lie. That being said, there are multiple cases of unjustified lethal force being used by law enforcement but the Michael Brown death was not one of them. First of all we seem to be dismissing that DOJ 102 page report that Ferguson PD was a hot mess. When communities are policed by departments overstepping their duties they know it and it becomes a seething cauldron of mistrust for the entire community rather than building a respectful community. Let's be honest, it's time to take eyewitness testimony with a healthy dose of salt (forget the pinch) - there have been thousands convicted on eyewitness testimony that were later found innocent. It is something that with our scientific advances should only pad out what is confirmed by forensics and scene investigation. I completely agree. Here's the deal. Once Brown stepped away from the first incident with the firearm discharging in the SUV, the LEO has choices. This LEO chose to pursue without backup. Michael Brown's description and area were known. Wilson left his SUV (a barrier and 1000+lb weapon). Wilson had choices. If he was concerned about Brown being armed, he had the choice to pursue at a distance and wait for backup. He had choices. I've never contended Brown was a saint, but neither were Wilson and Ferguson PD and that is very much more part of the problem and outrage. We have too many foxes in charge of the hen house.
|
|
|
Post by flanz on Aug 12, 2015 14:36:05 GMT
Disruption is one tactic. The audience, democratic mostly of course, did and does support the cause. Mostly. And they want Bernie sanders to understand that if he is a nominee or possibly president, he needs to learn and support the cause. You know why they haven't disrupted Hilary's campaign? Because she is already working for blacks. That last sentance is.... Hillary works for Hillary. Anything else is just smoke and mirrors. As far as the protest in the OP goes, everyone involved missed an opportunity. Sadly. It's to me we deal with, converse about, change, racism in this country. But this didn't move anyone's cause in any direction. Once they had his attention they should have had, even if it just a start, a conversation. Silence, deadlock, doesn't get you anywhere, refusing to talk about doesn't get you anywhere. Refusing to LISTEN doesn't get you anywhere. Once they interrupted him, Bernie Sanders should have, could have began a conversation. Trust me, you do not need a microphone to have a conversation. A great opportunity was created by 2 people and all involved let it pass without grabbing it, without talking. Let it go with out accomplishing a damn thing. So it was a sadly missed opportunity by all. Since it was a missed opportunity it just becomes awkward fodder for the press and doesn't move anyone's agenda forward. Sigh Lastly I'll post this link. Perhaps it can open minds, perhaps not but it sure was an interesting read goodmenproject.com/featured-content/white-fragility-why-its-so-hard-to-talk-to-white-people-about-racism-twlm/I agree and wish the disruption had led to a meaningful on the spot conversation. And I really appreciate the link you shared. Excellent read. I do think Bernie and team got the message loud and clear, and I think those two brave women achieved major results based on what Bernie's campaign has done since Saturday!
|
|