Michael Brown verdict discussion policy - take II

by Simon 95 Replies latest forum announcements

• 

  TheSilence

  I am so tired of the "shoplifting shouldn't end in death" argument.

  When my niece was 17 and I had her and the other kids at an amusement park I let her go off on her own and she was caught shoplifting. My niece is hi-racial, self identifies as black, and is considered black by others on sight. Here's what didn't happen:

  She didn't strong arm the store clerk when confronted.

  she he didn't walk down the middle of the road afterwards drawing attention to herself.

  When end the authorities approached her she did not argue or physically assault them, she did as she was told.

  She did not attempt to take anyone's gun.

  She did not run away.

  She he did not charge the authorities.

  She did not die.

  See ee how that works?

  here's what else didn't happen:

  when end they came to get me I didn't defend or make excuses for her actions.

  I didn't tell her she was caught because of racial profiling.

  I didn't try to make it about anything other than what it was: her commuting a crime, getting caught, and having to face consequences.

  Heres what hat did happen:

  I told her how disappointed I was.

  When she cried and said how stupid she was I wouldn't even let her have that excuse. I told her it would be easier to accept if she was really stupid but that I knew just how smart she was and how low she had dropped her standards and personal morals to do what she had done.

  I made her call her parents herself and tell them what she had done.

  This year, her first year of college, in the aftermath of all this she called me to thank me for not letting her fall back on excuses, for holding her accountable for her own actions. Those are her words, not mine. She attributes being where she is after that incident to being made aware that she has personal responsibility for the path in her life. I could not be more proud of the path she has chosen.

  So, please, do not trot out the "shoplifting should not lead to death" argument. Michael had choices. He chose his own path.
• 

  TheSilence

  My apologies for typos. I hate typing on my phone.
• 

  designs

  Please aim for the top of my head, thank you in advance.....
• 

  sammielee24

  Shoplifting shouldn't end in death.

  --------

  And there we have it again. And that's why things will never changed. We know this is about the Ferguson case and it infers that Brown was killed because he stole something. We all know that statement is not true.
• 

  minimus

  The Silence, a superb post!
• 

  designs

  'the lesson of Wilson is that he isn't unique' 'his fear is common' the forces that drove the Wilson-Brown confrontation will be repeated again and again in towns and cities across the USA.

  Interesting sermon by a white pastor in Kansas City Missouri to his predominately white congregation, Country Club Congregational Church.

  The Country Club District still has Racial Restriction Laws on the City books about land and housing ownership, it is deemed 'to expensive' to rewrite the paragraphs.

  revpeep.blogspot.co.uk
• 

  new hope and happiness

  A few years ago in my home town, a boy of 10 walks to school, he was stabbed to death. A lady went to help the boy she was killed.

  The killer was never found.

  The boy was muslim, the lady christian.

  The reason for the killings?

  A.The muslim boy of 10 was targeted. ( speculation)

  B. The christian lady went to help.( fact)

  In linköping we never saw that as a race killing. But what is more people from every point of view accepted it was a tragity.

  What has this got to do with a policeman shooting a person?

  Every week, every day we have killings, and T.V can elevate ONE killing and, create debate on ONE killing/ shooting....and people thousands of miles away become involved.

  My personal opinion is when " T.V" gets involved it's " entertainment" and the media is delighted to create debate. So the " race" card becomes a story, as do most crimes that are committed by " beautiful" " rich" or " powerful people"

  So we can poss questions and debate this story, because it functions in the world of " media ratings" that created the story.

  Most guilty/ innocent stories of people with less " media" exposure we ignore.( Black or white)
• 

  Pacopoolio

  The grand jury is more "is there the chance of a case". Idnictment means "you get to face a court". For them to say "no" is more substantial than a regular court jury although in this case I think the line was blurred more because the regular process was disrupted because of the need for transparency.

  Grand juries are typically a mix of "does the prosecutor want to take it to court" mixed with "is there enough evidence to conduct a proper case?"
  
  People are misinterpreting the ruling as if the jurors believed the officer or witness 10's testimony OVER other testimony combined with the evidence, and thus taking a mix of those two testimonies as fact, which is not known. There's a wide range of reasons why they could have felt it was not fitting for court. If I were on the jury, I would have it not go to court because every single claim had serious problems with it, when combined with the evidence, and with all of the conflicts, it would be obviously impossible to prove a definitive narrative in court.
  
  Also, Simon if you look at multiple posts above who are actually posting their interpretation of events as conclusive- that's why people kept posting the actual facts we know about the case, and why I attempted to post the exact known narrative so it could be referenced.

  People are again, posting one-sided testimony as if it's proven fact, which it's not. When we are correcting them, we're not saying, "Michael Brown didn't reach for the gun," for instance. We aren't even saying we disagree with that intepretation by default, ourselves. We're saying, "the evidence strictly states that Brown's hand was near the gun when the first shots were fired, which backs up multiple testimonies brought up with multiple different interpretations of events, some making his gun reach in defense, others in offense." "Don't retell certain testimonies as proven fact, as that's not what the grand jury ruling shows or means, and it muddies the water of any discussion by shifting the narrative to favor a "side."" This is specifically not saying the case or ruling is wrong, it's telling people to get their facts right before they post about the event. The people breaking the "rules" in those instances, are not the ones correcting them, but those misunderstanding how the case works. The grand jury does not say the officer's testimony is the true interpretation of events, or even that it's more plausable than others. It's simply saying that the evidence against him as presented is not damining enough to make a proper case. Any statement beyond that is assumption.
  
  I don't see why those corrections would escalate as a default, as they are simple quote/counter/evidence of counter posts that aren't arguing the validity of the case, but showing why you don't make personal interpretations and assumptions beyond what is known evidence. Outside, of course, of reading responses wrongly because of assumed motive, as mentioned earlier.
• 

  Simon

  Shoplifting shouldn't end in death

  An inciteful statement and typical of the crap that ruins the discussion.

  This is veiled racism, pure and simple. The implication is always "... really because he was black" and you paint rediculous straw man claims to try and push opinion in that direction as the only choice. There is no evidence whatsoever that ther was any racial motivation in this killing - it was caused by criminality and stupidity of the assailant who thankfully was the one killed.

  Pocopoolio: you seem to want to believe that all testimony is equal when it clearly isn't. Much of it in this case was invented, some we know weren't even the eyewitnesses that they claim or can be shown to be lying based on the forensic evidence of what happened or the fact that they changed their stories to keep pace with news reports as those changed.

  This testimony has to be discounted and ignored. You can't keep bringing it up as proof of anything other than some people's racist bias and eagerness to convict / indict purely because of race. The testimony that didn't contradict the other non-witness evidence was far less confusing and supported the officer and corresponded with the forensic evidence.

  That is why the jury made the decision they did - no injustice, no "hands up don't shoot" ... al invention by racists and we don't want that shit here.

  Now, you chose to ignore my requests yet again, I have posted a counter to negate your claims. I am not giving you any more chances. If you want to post on this site you follow the rules like everyone else does.
• 

  designs

  I did not bring it in as an 'always' example as I showed simple proof of Giuliani's arrest being the better way to deal with shoplifters.