Michael Brown verdict discussion policy - take II

by Simon 95 Replies latest forum announcements

  • redvip2000
    redvip2000

    So, I've decided the new rule will be: Whatever the courts have decided.

    • If the justice system decides someone is innocent then you cannot come on here and claim that they are guilty.
    • If the justice system decides someone is guilty then you cannot come on here and claim that they are innocent.

    To be fair, that doesn't seem all democratic. It just so happen that i agree with the courts in this case, but denying the ability to disagree with the court, doesn't see all that great. Perhaps simply making sure people aren't offensive would be a better alternative.

  • Simon
    Simon

    To be fair, that doesn't seem all democratic. It just so happen that i agree with the courts in this case, but denying the ability to disagree with the court, doesn't see all that great. Perhaps simply making sure people aren't offensive would be a better alternative.

    Democratic implies everyone get's a vote, not an endless turn at the microphone. We can do that if you want and I'll announce the winner :)

    The main point is not to stamp out discussion, it's to put a stop to the endless promotion of what has been disproven or debunked or arguing over something different to the facts of the case and people taking offence when I attempt to put a stop to it. Blame them.

    I would love open an honest discussion but you can't have a sensible debate on certain topics because the normal 'rules' of discussion seem to go out the window when race is involved.

    "Zimmerman killed Trayvon because he was black"

    "I haven't seen any evidence that he did - let's give him a fair trial"

    "There was a police recording, it proves it was because he was black"

    "that was doctored to make it sound like he said something he didn't"

    "it proves it was because he was black"

    "no, there's proof it was changed - it was shown at the trial"

    "because he was black"

    "there was a trial and lots of evidence that showed otherwise"

    "because he was black"

    "it was found to be self defense by the jury"

    "because he was black"

    "there was a DOJ / FBI civil rights investigation that found no evidence of racial motivation whatsoever"

    "because he was black"

    "ok, we're stopping this discussion, all you ever say is ..."

    "OMG, YOU ARE SO RACIST! YOU DON'T WANT TO ALLOW ME TO HAVE MY SAY!!"

  • sammielee24
    sammielee24
    LAW OF THE LAND

    FERGUSON: AN ORGY OF ANARCHY

    Thomas Sowell cites long-term consequences of failing to respect stubborn facts

    Published: 17 hours ago

    author-imageTHOMAS SOWELL

    Everyone seems to have an opinion about the tragic events in Ferguson, Missouri. But, as Daniel Patrick Moynihan used to say, “You’re entitled to your own opinion, but you’re not entitled to your own facts.”

    Soon after the shooting death of Michael Brown, this 285-pound young man was depicted as a “gentle giant.” But, after a video was leaked showing him bullying the owner of a store from which he had stolen some merchandise, Attorney General Eric Holder expressed displeasure that the video was leaked. In other words, to Holder the truth was offensive, but the lie it exposed was not.

    Many people who claimed to have been eyewitnesses to the fatal shooting gave opposite accounts of what happened. Some even gave accounts that contradicted what they themselves had said earlier.

    Fortunately, the grand jury did not have to rely on such statements, though some in the media seemed to. What the grand jury had, that the rest of us did not have until the grand jury’s decision was announced, was a set of physical facts that told a story that was independent of what anybody said.

    Three different medical forensic experts – one representing Michael Brown’s parents – examined the physical facts. These facts included the autopsy results, Michael Brown’s DNA on the door of the police car and on the policeman’s gun, photographs of the bruised and swollen face of policeman Darren Wilson and the pattern of blood stains on the street where Brown was shot.

    This physical evidence was hard to square with the loudly proclaimed assertions that Brown was shot in the back, or was shot with his hands up, while trying to surrender. But it was consistent with the policeman’s testimony.

    Moreover, the physical facts were consistent with what a number of black witnesses said under oath, despite expressing fears for their own safety for contradicting what those in the rampaging mobs were saying.

    The riots, looting and setting things on fire that some in the media are treating as reactions to the grand jury’s decision not to indict the policeman actually began long before the grand jury had begun its investigation, much less announced any decision.

    Why some people insist on believing whatever they want to believe is a question that is hard to answer. But a more important question is: What are the consequences to be expected from an orgy of anarchy that started in Ferguson, Missouri, and has spread around the country?

    The first victims of the mob rampages in Ferguson have been people who had nothing to do with Michael Brown or the police. These include people – many of them black or members of other minorities – who have seen the businesses they worked to build destroyed, perhaps never to be revived.

    But these are only the first victims. If the history of other communities ravaged by riots in years past is any indication, there are blacks yet unborn who will be paying the price of these riots for years to come.

    Sometimes it is a particular neighborhood that never recovers, and sometimes it is a whole city. Detroit is a classic example. It had the worst riot of the 1960s, with 43 deaths – 33 of them black people. Businesses left Detroit, taking with them jobs and taxes that were very much needed to keep the city viable. Middle-class people – both black and white – also fled.

    Harlem was one of many ghettos across the country that have still not recovered from the riots of the 1960s. In later years, a niece of mine, who had grown up in the same Harlem tenement where I grew up years earlier, bitterly complained about how few stores and other businesses there were in the neighborhood.

    There were plenty of stores in that same neighborhood when I was growing up, as well as a dentist, a pharmacist and an optician, all less than a block away. But that was before the neighborhood was swept by riots.

    Who benefits from the Ferguson riots? The biggest beneficiaries are politicians and racial demagogues. In Detroit, Mayor Coleman Young was one of many political demagogues who were able to ensure their own re-election, using rhetoric and policies that drove away people who provided jobs and taxes, but who were likely to vote against him if they stayed. Such demagogues thrived as Detroit became a wasteland.

  • lisaBObeesa
    lisaBObeesa

    A simple test is whether, if the races of the actors involved were reversed, would opinion of guilt or innocence be reversed too? If you suddenly think the opposite result would be correct then guess what - you're a racist! It doesn't matter whether you are black or white.

    the problem is you don't KNOW how anyone, other than yourself, would respond if a participant on this board is a racist based on this test

    You can only give yourself the test.

    Just because someone does not agree with a verdict or because they see evidence of racial bias does not make someone a racist.

  • Simon
    Simon

    the problem is you don't KNOW how anyone, other than yourself, would respond if a participant on this board is a racist based on this test

    You can only give yourself the test.

    That's why I framed it as a self-test. We can make our own mind up how we imagine other people's opinion would change based on things they say and how they act (would many protesters be out protesting in the street? I seriously doubt many).

    It is intended to be something to ask yourself and honestly answer ... or not.

    Just because someone does not agree with a verdict or because they see evidence of racial bias does not make someone a racist.

    I think it does when they have already decided the result they want based on race and are deparately picking on trivialities to try and justify their choice.

    I think there are many people who cannot honestly say that with the same evidence, but the roles reversed, that they would have the exact same opinion of the outcome.

    This is not about whether black people have had or continue to have a raw deal in any way, whether they are profiled or a million other things. It is about whether the officer was or wasn't attacked and whether he had the right to defend himself. If it was a black cop and a white thug then it would be the correct result but would be have streets of protesters about it?

    I understand this is a difficult thing for some to be honest about both publicly and internally.

    And yes, I think I pass this test because I would not care if the cop or MB were black, white, mexican or anything else because it simply isn't relevant to the judgement of the case. Only the facts matter. A big man stupidly attacked a cop. The cop defended himself. The man died. *why* he chose to do it is a different issue entirely vs whether he did it and whether the cop was justified in defending himself. Many can't separate the race from the reason for his action and the subsequent crime.

    The reality is of course that any other combination wouldn't have likely made the news and wouldn't have generated the protests and following that it did.

  • LoveUniHateExams
    LoveUniHateExams

    Michael Brown verdict discussion policy - take II - is that take two or take eleven, Simon?

  • Simon
    Simon

    Yeah, should be 2, feels like 11. LOL

  • lisaBObeesa
    lisaBObeesa

    "Just because someone does not agree with a verdict or because they see evidence of racial bias does not make someone a racist."

    I think it does when they have already decided the result they want based on race and are deparately picking on trivialities to try and justify their choice.

    How can you know they have already decided the result they want based on race?

    You can't know this. You DON'T know this.

    Heck, with me for example, you could not even know the result I want in this case, let alone why I want it. because I never, ever, even once said the result I want.

    ETA: I will drop this now.

  • designs
    designs

    Sowell's a smart guy but maybe a course lesson in: Why People Riot, its complexities, is in order.

    www.psychologytoday.com/blog/hidden-motives/201108/understanding-why-people-riot

  • designs
    designs

    The Lord Of The Flies v The Coral Island

    Dystopian v Utopian

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit