Ferguson Shooting (Is my thinking on this all wrong.......)

by out4good3 229 Replies latest social current

  • DesirousOfChange
    DesirousOfChange

    As someone who lives 6 miles from the Ferguson protests I would just like to say how offensive and short-sighted this is. Burning down Ferguson will not change the facts. What it will do is destroy the community that those doing the burning are claiming to stand up for. Already the QT that was burned to the ground has said it will not rebuild. And why would another business come in to replace it? Less business in the area means less tax revenue for the area, fewer jobs in the area which means longer commutes to jobs creating more commuting costs for the community and less time spent with family. Property values have also dropped which means these families now have less equity in their homes. It is speculated that insurance rates will be increasing for the area so not only are their homes worth less but they will cost more to insure along with any other items of value they own.

    Do you think the disadvantaged and abused "victims" of the system like those in Ferguson give a shit about your tax base or insurance rates. Not a bit more than you give a shit about the fact that they are being abused by the system and yet you are OK to allowing the system to continue in a status quo because YOU have not personally been affected.

    Doc

  • DesirousOfChange
    DesirousOfChange

    Non violent protest accomplished everything ... laws were changed, rights were earned ... and then it was all thrown away.

    I call bullshit on that concept, Simon.

    Non-violent protesting got the CREDIT for what came about by the threat of violent (or even actual violent) protesting because it is politically incorrect to give the credit to the illegal acts. Civil Rights of the 1960s came about as the result of extreme violence in the US. I lived through it. I saw the major shopping district where my mother regularly shopped burned down and closed. It has never recovered, but the Civil Rights Act was signed into law.

    Doc

  • DesirousOfChange
    DesirousOfChange

    "non violent protesting has never accomplished a damn thing" - Ever hear of Ghandi?

    Ever hear of the Boston Tea Party?

    Doc

  • designs
    designs

    DOC- I lived through those times as well. Do you think it was those protesters that committed violence against buildings that brought about the Civil Rights Act signing by LBJ or the escalating violence against Civili Rights marchers and everyday persons of color by police departments and individuals that moved LBJ to make the CRA Law.

  • Simon
    Simon

    Do you think the disadvantaged and abused "victims" of the system like those in Ferguson give a shit about your tax base or insurance rates.'

    Maybe if they did then they'd improve their lot in life and stop being victims?

    Non-violent protesting got the CREDIT for what came about by the threat of violent (or even actual violent) protesting because it is politically incorrect to give the credit to the illegal acts. Civil Rights of the 1960s came about as the result of extreme violence in the US.

    There was extreme violence but it was largely one-sided and eventually the laws were changed because of public pressure (and also it was the last cause by JFK, continued after his death). You are trying to re-write history to suit your view.

    Ever hear of the Boston Tea Party?

    Yes, do you know the reality of it or what you were indoctrinated with in school?

    Instigated by the rich landowners who objected to taxes being REMOVED by the british, not added. They didn't like the competition.

  • DesirousOfChange
    DesirousOfChange

    Yes, do you know the reality of it [Boston Tea Party] or what you were indoctrinated with in school?

    It was a long time ago that I was in school, but what I recall is that it was NOT non-violent, and in the end, it was the catalyst that accomplished quite a lot.

    Doc

  • designs
    designs

    AM- a statement he still has not addressed.

    Here is a primer on human aggression http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/the-causes-of-violence/blog-263921/

  • Simon
    Simon

    You are dramatically moving the goalposts from:

    "non violent protesting has never accomplished a damn thing"

    to:

    "violent protesting has sometimes accomplished somethings"

    They are very different! You have failed to prove that "non violent protesting has never accomplished anything". O f course violence has an affect and accomplishes things - ISIS is 'accomplishing' it's goal of terrorising people right now. But in a domestic civil rights setting though the violence is less effective.

    Really, you think riots and looting would be good for ferguson? You think increased racial tension would be help the situation? You think people would invest more or less in black communities?

  • DesirousOfChange
    DesirousOfChange

    Do you think it was those protesters that committed violence against buildings that brought about the Civil Rights Act signing by LBJ or the escalating violence against Civili Rights marchers and everyday persons of color by police departments and individuals that moved LBJ to make the CRA Law.

    I think that there would have never been [real] change if there had never been the uprising of the public. There would have just been talk, talk, and more talk.

    So it is today. Politicans talk, promise, propose, consult, posture, but never any real change. Until the Rich & Powerful find themselves threatened, there will never be any significant change.

    Law Enforcement has no accountability (except to itself). My barber is under more State regulation that my local, county, or state law enforcement officer. My kids' school bus driver is under phenomenally more regulation than a cop. (And there should be such regulation to protect kids from a potential predator.) The system of "checks & balances" in law enforcement is conducted by law enforcement itself. Internal Affairs. You have a complaint about Ferguson Police Department you file a complaint with (GUESS WHO?) -- Ferguson Police Department. Just like doctors, cops will not "rat out" another cop. (As a result the medical community suffers from exhorbitant malpractice insurance rates and seeks to have govenment impose limits on their liability.) If you don't like the determination that the Ferguson Police Department makes about your complaint against it, you're f&&ked. You have NOWHERE to turn.

    At the very worst, a "bad cop" is allowed to resign and move on to another jurisdiction. This is NOT the exception. It is the typical response to a bad cop situation that cannot be covered over or overlooked. Some departments have installed dash cameras which often "fail" when there is a case of abuse. The cameras always are working when the Police Dept needs evidence for the drunken driver, but they always fail when they are subpoenaed against the officer. Cop wins again for "lack of evidence" against him.

    There needs to be some kind of ACCOUNTABILITY.

    The Michael Brown incident is an extreme case. Similar abuse happens in 100s of munincipalities in every state across the US on a regular basis. It's only the exteme case, like Michael Brown, that generates enough media attention to be a potential for creating meaningful change. Yet, you can see that no one is really suggesting any meaning ful change in policy. Politicians are posturing (at best). Most politicans are keep clear of it as they do not want to take a stand that can be politicized as being "against" law enforcement. Cops have a huge Political Action Committee. They can win/lose elections. Cops do NOT want change. They do not want to be scrutinized. They do NOT want to be held accountable. Sadly, they will probably get their status quo to continue.

    BTW -- ALPHA MAN: Forensic evidence and eye witnesses back up the officer.

    I don't think you've got the whole story. I think you're buying one set of "facts".

    Doc

  • TheSilence
    TheSilence

    Do you think the disadvantaged and abused "victims" of the system like those in Ferguson give a shit about your tax base or insurance rates. Not a bit more than you give a shit about the fact that they are being abused by the system and yet you are OK to allowing the system to continue in a status quo because YOU have not personally been affected.

    I think you are missing the point that the tax base and insurance rates hurt the abused victims of the system that these acts are claiming to support rather than help them. And you have completely mischarcterised me to assume that I am okay allowing the system to continue in a status quo just because I do not think burning Ferguson to the ground is a helpful act or one that should be supported in any way. Nor am I aware of any personal knowledge you might have of me to be able to claim with any level of certainty that I have not personally been affected. You are making a lot of assumptions about me based on the fact that I find a statement that Ferguson should be burned to the ground offensive and counter-productive.

    Best,

    Jackie

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit