[BREAKING] Its happening. Grand jury has made a decision about Ferguson.
2,211 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Snowmew;46577736]I think you're the blind one. Let's go through this step by step here:
Cop: stopped Brown on rightful suspicion of a crime. This is justifiable.
Car: decided to push through the crowd instead of go around it. This is [b]not[/b] justifiable.
Cop: Brown turned and ran at the cop with his hand in his pants. This is [b]not[/b] justifiable.
Car: before he caused any serious injuries, protesters decided to attack his car instead of doing what most crowds would do and run away. This is [b]not[/b] justifiable.
Cop: shot Brown. This is (somewhat questionably) justifiable use of force in self defense.
Car: accelerated blindly twice, causing serious injuries. This is not truly justifiable, but it is [b]understandable[/b] and arguably [b]unavoidable[/b].
See any differences here?[/QUOTE]
I have legitimate anxiety issues that I cope with very well nowadays, but if I were to be trapped in a car and people started to surround me yelling and pounding on my car, I would flip out, especially since things can turn deadly real quick and I wouldn't think that anyone's coming to my rescue.
[QUOTE=Snowmew;46577721]It's funny how when I'm about to leave, you fall back on the same old tired argument that he could have gone around, conveniently sidestepping and oversimplifying this whole dilemma while thinking that I won't have the motivation to prove you wrong for the third (fourth?) time.
Well, you were right on that front, at least.[/QUOTE]
Ah the good ol *good night post* with one eye shut and one eye on the forums but I have been using this argument the entire time, it was a simple situation that the driver could of avoided just like everyone else did without running into problems (which you seem to forget) it became complex when the driver decided he wouldn't dare move around for some pesky bodies. If the cars who drove before him couldn't cause issues then he wasn't forced into the situation btw.
[QUOTE=wauterboi;46577724]The problem has nothing to do with the fact that people are getting zingers, but the fact that you have no concept of how to argue correctly (specifically respectfully, or intellectually). If you were able to calm down and stop acting so high and mighty, I'd have no problem engaging with you, but I'm almost certain that you have to be trolling or absolutely insane.
With someone who is as concerned with the real world and popular opinion, I have to question why you would be so concerned with engaging with us "children" and speaking painfully loudly through literary schizophrenia. You specifically stated there was no point in trying to convince anyone in here of anything, so why bother? And if the zingers don't bother you, then why talk about it?
This is exactly why you are so easy to poke fun at: you are a collective of zealous beliefs, bad writing, and contradictions.[/QUOTE]
???? you are taking this forum discussion way too seriously relax, if you are legit getting a rise out of me calling people sheltered and poking fun at a guy whos only replying in zingers and my care free writing then take a break man. Like there is no point responding to you if your going to be taking this really personally, relax.
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Threadshitting" - Craptasket))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=wauterboi;46577750]I have legitimate anxiety issues that I cope with very well nowadays, but if I were to be trapped in a car and people started to surround me yelling and pounding on my car, I would flip out, especially since things can turn deadly real quick and I wouldn't think that anyone's coming to my rescue.[/QUOTE]
I'm trying to think of what the driver could have done at that point. He had to move the car, but was boxed in front and back, which is probably why he paused. I guess he reasoned that he had to move no matter what.
An aside, but I still can't tell whether he could see the women before she went under, anyone have a clue?
[QUOTE=Lachz0r;46577709]i like how when someone runs over some of these protestors it's fair enough because of fear & emotional strain, someone rushing a cop who shot them? criminal thug animal. people protesting over decades of discrimination? idiotic morons destroying their own town. emotional reactions to traumatic situations are only alright when they aren't done by black people, ok![/QUOTE]
I think you're either projecting some of your own bias or clearly misinterpreting what the vast majority of people in this thread understand and believe. There is no issue with people exorcising their free and lawful right to protest the court decision, the issue comes when people use the peaceful protest as an excuse to start robbing stores and destroying buildings even though the family of the victim expressly stated that they didn't want people to and IT DOESN'T HELP ANYONE.
[QUOTE=Code3Response;46577518]I'd like to step away from whatever argument is going on and shine a light on something.
You want to riot? Go ahead. Is it racially motivated? Sure. You disagree with the jury's decision? Understandable. Peaceful Protests? Its your right. Burn the town to the ground? Unacceptable.
MLK Jr famously wrote in his Letter from the Birmingham Jail "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere". The peaceful protesters across the nation are calling this an injustice of the system. They are exercising their rights as they should. Those bad apples that come with and want violence are the problem. The burning, smashing, and looting of businesses accomplishes what? Thats not solving the racial disparity or institutionalized racism that exists in this nation. Thats setting us back further rather than progressing us forward.
[t]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B3WfRbeCEAAPWwt.jpg[/t][t]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B3WfSgsCYAAieNA.png[/t]
[t]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B3WfRkxCcAABAKy.jpg[/t]
Look at these three local business owners in Ferguson. These are the real victims of the riots.
Where's their justice?
Their business; their income; their life; their american dream. Gone.[/QUOTE]
Also for the cop thing, I don't understand where you're getting that from because police are taught to shoot to kill, it doesn't matter what you do after you are shot by police because the intention is that after they have already pulled out their gun and shot at you that they are going to be killed. At first glance this may seem to be a overly violent stance towards dealing with criminals, but it is taught in order to ensure that police officers do not use their guns unless they honestly and genuinely believe their lives are in danger.
The people in this thread are not racist and many of the people protesting peacefully on the streets of Fergusson, New York, Washington and many other cities around America over the trial are white and other ethnicities. We all want to create a better future in which people do not have to suffer, but vapid attempts at blame-shifting towards a large and amorphous group of innocent people does nothing but aggravate an already stressful situation.
[QUOTE]Institutionalized rage does not recognize rules, borders or customs. Anger that you impart to your child or kin or loved ones by degree and by day on day does not need justification or a rational exegesis, no declared thesis.
Rodney King got his ass beat institutionally, and institutionalized rage followed after. Anger that passes generations and becomes background noise that colors everything you do and see and teach to others doesn't need logic or "a good reason", and eventually something gives.
What follows after isn't ordered or rational or neat or going to fit in a tidy forensic psychological profile. [/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=bobsynergy;46577756]Ah the good ol *good night post* with one eye shut and one eye on the forums but I have been using this argument the entire time, it was a simple situation that the driver could of avoided just like everyone else did without running into problems (which you seem to forget) it became complex when the driver decided he wouldn't dare move around for some pesky bodies. If the cars who drove before him couldn't cause issues then he wasn't forced into the situation btw.[/QUOTE]
And if your parents hadn't made a dumb decision oh so many years ago, you wouldn't be around to ignore everything I say.
[i](note: this is what I am talking about when I talk about oversimplification through the proximate cause fallacy. but you'll reply once more to me completely ignoring that, won't you?)[/i]
And yes, I confess, it was too tempting to watch you blindly charge forward while everyone else was banging on your windows and telling you that you're wrong.
Maybe the guy in the car wanted to make a right turn? I have zero sympathy for anyone injured by that guys car. They could have easily allowed for him to pass through. Some of them chose to dogpile in front of his car when he started trying to pass through. He panicked.
[QUOTE=Snowmew;46577776]And if your parents hadn't made a dumb decision oh so many years ago, you wouldn't be around to ignore everything I say.
[i](note: this is what I am talking about when I talk about oversimplification through the proximate cause fallacy. but you'll reply once more to me completely ignoring that, won't you?)[/i]
And yes, I confess, it was too tempting to watch you blindly charge forward while everyone else was banging on your windows and telling you that you're wrong.[/QUOTE]
dont rly see how this is supposed to help him as an example since very few ppl have resorted to personal insults in this thread but ok!
[QUOTE=bobsynergy;46577756]care free writing then take a break man. Like there is no point responding to you if your going to be taking this really personally, relax.[/QUOTE]
You mean your unreadable writing and stressful strive to be right? You can't really turn the tables around and say I care too much when you're the one that's been sweating all over thread with your blind loyalty to your own ideals.
[QUOTE=Immortal gravy;46577768]I'm trying to think of what the driver could have done at that point. He had to move the car, but was boxed in front and back, which is probably why he paused. I guess he reasoned that he had to move no matter what.
An aside, but I still can't tell whether he could see the women before she went under, anyone have a clue?[/QUOTE]
I honestly would have just held my hand on the horn and gradually accelerated. If you can't make a proper judgement from the me laying my hand on the horn and slowly moving towards you I can't say I didn't try to warn you.
[editline]26th November 2014[/editline]
Also, I have a weird mentality towards morality where there isn't a right and a wrong, but a lot of blurry grey area, so in this situation I don't really see what he did as right but not as wrong either.
[QUOTE=Ownederd;46577780]dont rly see how this is supposed to help him as an example since very few ppl have resorted to personal insults in this thread but ok![/QUOTE]
The point is that you need to maintain an empirical stance when it comes to the evaluation of cause and effect, you can find anyone guilty of anything if you go back far enough so you can put the blame on anybody. That's why in a legal system you only have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a person is directly responsible for committing a crime, no one is wholly responsible for any event that takes place.
In this case it can be considered to be both the fault of the crowd and the driver of the vehicle that the woman was run over. The driver (potentially) overreacted but the crowd was beating on their windows and obscuring their vision so they panicked and couldn't see the woman in front of them. We need more evidence (such as witness accounts, which would be plentiful here) in order to come to a conclusion on which side is more responsible.
It's impossible to go any further than that without going on fanciful leaps of logic about the mental condition of the protesters, the drivers, etc, which is irrelevant without the empirical evidence to back it up. If someone runs in front of speeding car and gets run over, their mental state at the time does not invalidate the fact that they ran in front of the car and got ran over.
I wouldn't want to take witness accounts from that crowd, though.
[QUOTE=wauterboi;46577810]I wouldn't want to take witness accounts from that crowd, though.[/QUOTE]
Basically what you'd do is interview them all individually (preferably as soon as possible so there's less time to make stuff up) and look for inconsistencies as well as ask questions in order to gauge their individual mood and reliability. Then interview the driver and correlate the two versions of the story.
If the crowd was all like:
"He was trying to run her over, you saw it you tell me, why aren't you arresting him already!!?"
And the driver was like:
"I didn't see anyone, oh shit oh shit oh shit, they were blocking my vision, I panicked, they were beating on my windows I thought they were going to kill me, I heard a crunching sound and drove as fast as I could because I thought they were going to kill me."
Then I would be a bit suspicious of the crowd, chances are though you could probably find some more level headed people near the back of the crowd who weren't engaging and would provide more unbiased views.
Eye witnesses are not necessarily reliable as primary sources of information, people see what they want to see. They are more useful for backing up other pieces of evidence like video recordings, skid marks and broken windows.
This thread is a utter trainwreck
[QUOTE=Riutet;46577265]How about, instead of saying that the person driving should have done this or that, you blame the people who were blocking the road and jumping on his car.
1: None of this would have happened if they weren't in the road.
2: The driver wouldn't have surged forward quickly if a bunch of people didn't jump on his car.
3: The woman who got downed wouldn't have sustained anywhere near as much injury if the driver could both see in front of him and was able to calmly back away from the woman rather than worry about the people trying to smash into his car.[/QUOTE]
are you fucking mental
[editline]26th November 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Snowmew;46577511]You're not getting it. There is a [b]very clear distinction[/b] to be made here that you're completely ignoring just so you can be a condescending shitlord.
There is a concept of causality in the legal world. It states that if A does something that would have otherwise not affected B, that something is what caused B's damages, and A is responsible.
However, there are some important distinctions here. A proximate cause is something which could have had another outcome, had it not been for an intervening cause. Take, for example, this situation. The proximate cause was the driver trying to slowly get through the crowd. The intervening cause was the crowd attacking the driver. The result was that the driver was forced to accelerate, causing the serious injury. [b]However[/b], had the protestors not started to climb on the car and instead just got out of the way [i](as crowds typically do when someone is trying to drive through them)[/i], the driver's flight response would not be kicked in, and they would not have needed to accelerate.
In such a case, there are two concurrent actual causes, and both parties are liable. [b]However[/b], courts have ruled that causation is restricted by foreseeability - if a consequence was not forseen, the actor may not be liable. Again, we parallel this to this case - the driver did not forsee having to accelerate, so they are not directly responsible.
Again, let me make this point absolutely, 100% crystal clear - [b]nobody is seriously saying the driver was right in driving through the crowd[/b], and [b]nobody is saying the driver was right in accelerating[/b].
We are saying that the driver [b]is[/b] responsible for any damages caused by slowly driving into the crowd, but because he was [b]forced[/b] to reflexively accelerate in the situation, it is impossible to argue that at that specific point in time, he had any other logical choice than to cause major injuries.[/QUOTE]
its hard to argue causation when you are guilty of recklessness
Hey guys, let's go run over some pedestrians, it'll be TOTALLY RADICAL!!
We'll ask Cubeman to join, he's got experience you know.
Epic zinger dude, I love raking in ratings and missing the point entirely all at the same time!
ABC News had interviewed Darren Wilson and they're putting it up online soon.
[QUOTE=Gamerman12;46577329]protests really shouldn't be disrupting things, and should generally be out of the way and not affecting people who are not involved in the problem. the only thing they should be disrupting is what they're against, and i don't think daily commuters are the enemy here.[/QUOTE]
yeh when people protest they should do it really far out of the way. out of the limelight. maybe in a field a few hundred miles out of the city. but they should make sure they get a permit to use that field and make sure they're not obstructing anything. actually it's preferable in general that they can't be heard or seen at all so maybe if they could put a big sound-proof tent up around the protest area that'd also be great
thanks for protesting properly under the Gamerman12 proper protest guidelines
[QUOTE=Code3Response;46577518]I'd like to step away from whatever argument is going on and shine a light on something.
You want to riot? Go ahead. Is it racially motivated? Sure. You disagree with the jury's decision? Understandable. Peaceful Protests? Its your right. Burn the town to the ground? Unacceptable.
MLK Jr famously wrote in his Letter from the Birmingham Jail "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere". The peaceful protesters across the nation are calling this an injustice of the system. They are exercising their rights as they should. Those bad apples that come with and want violence are the problem. The burning, smashing, and looting of businesses accomplishes what? Thats not solving the racial disparity or institutionalized racism that exists in this nation. Thats setting us back further rather than progressing us forward.
[t]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B3WfRbeCEAAPWwt.jpg[/t][t]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B3WfSgsCYAAieNA.png[/t]
[t]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B3WfRkxCcAABAKy.jpg[/t]
Look at these three local business owners in Ferguson. These are the real victims of the riots.
Where's their justice?
Their business; their income; their life; their american dream. Gone.[/QUOTE]
Idk you are right that destroying Ferguson's local stores will do absolutely nothing for the people there and nothing for a push towards justice and that is exactly why I think it is not protesters doing it? Why would protesters fighting for equality and justice destroy their own stores? Houses? Churches? Why would people campaigning for justice inspired by the Mike Brown case [URL="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2849736/Church-attended-Michael-Brown-s-family-destroyed-Monday-night-s-protests.html"]burn down the Brown family's church[/URL] (which is supposedly three whole miles away from the protests)? Sorry for the Daily Mail source but it seems pretty on point here, I would agree with the pastor in that it's likely white supremacists. Likely to attempt to stop the protests, attack the pastor, or to make Ferguson citizens look bad (like "thugs", "animals with no control"), or just generally make life for black people harder than it already is by destroying their community from the inside.
Destroying black property is classic KKK. The Klan are known for burning black churches and schools, and of course we all know they burnt black houses down ([URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izy6BiCV3Nw"]Eg Malcolm X's childhood house[/URL][URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izy6BiCV3Nw"]. Twice.[/URL]). That is a historically infamous action the KKK did. It may not have been the actual KKK, but I do think there are attacks against Ferguson and not protesters "losing control" or whatever... And we know the KKK are involved in Ferguson (threatening to go against the protesters and use lethal force if the Klan deem it necessary) and like... [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MP8Of6gbZaM#t=290"]Their leader admitted to talking to officers off the record[/URL]. They're with the police. The police are with them. Maybe not all, but some. That's worrying and disturbing. I don't think Ferguson citizens burned down their own town.
[QUOTE=mikeyt493;46579084]Idk you are right that destroying Ferguson's local stores will do absolutely nothing for the people there and nothing for a push towards justice and that is exactly why I think it is not protesters doing it? Why would protesters fighting for equality and justice destroy their own stores? Houses? Churches? Why would people campaigning for justice inspired by the Mike Brown case [URL="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2849736/Church-attended-Michael-Brown-s-family-destroyed-Monday-night-s-protests.html"]burn down the Brown family's church[/URL] (which is supposedly three whole miles away from the protests)? Sorry for the Daily Mail source but it seems pretty on point here, I would agree with the pastor in that it's likely white supremacists. Likely to attempt to stop the protests, attack the pastor, or to make Ferguson citizens look bad (like "thugs", "animals with no control"), or just generally make life for black people harder than it already is by destroying their community from the inside.
Destroying black property is classic KKK. The Klan are known for burning black churches and schools, and of course we all know they burnt black houses down ([URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izy6BiCV3Nw"]Eg Malcolm X's childhood house[/URL][URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izy6BiCV3Nw"]. Twice.[/URL]). That is a historically infamous action the KKK did. It may not have been the actual KKK, but I do think there are attacks against Ferguson and not protesters "losing control" or whatever... And we know the KKK are involved in Ferguson (threatening to go against the protesters and use lethal force if the Klan deem it necessary) and like... [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MP8Of6gbZaM#t=290"]Their leader admitted to talking to officers off the record[/URL]. They're with the police. The police are with them. Maybe not all, but some. That's worrying and disturbing. I don't think Ferguson citizens burned down their own town.[/QUOTE]
yes the KKK did it, when there's fucking videos of black protesters smashing and grabbing alcohol from the guy in the bottom, and the protesters originally burned down the wrong gas station for revenge.
Everything is a false flag attack from the police and KKK i mean it guys :tinfoil:.
[QUOTE=codemaster85;46579286]yes the KKK did it, when there's fucking videos of black protesters smashing and grabbing alcohol from the guy in the top left, and the protesters originally burned down the wrong gas station for revenge.
Everything is a false flag attack from the police and KKK i mean it guys :tinfoil:.[/QUOTE]
They hired hundreds of black actors to stage the attacks, don't be so gullible
[QUOTE=Matthew0505;46579094]At least it makes the closet racists cocky enough to get themselves banned.
[editline]27th November 2014[/editline]
If they can afford the gazillions to maintain MRAPs they can afford some shitty cameras[/QUOTE]
you are aware the costs of body cameras doesn't come from the camera but the amount of actual disk space needed to hold the evidence. They have to hold onto that video pretty much indefinitely because it can be used in court at any time whether it be weeks from the event or years. That starts to build up fast and you need a massive system to store it all.
[QUOTE=codemaster85;46579286]yes the KKK did it, when there's fucking videos of black protesters smashing and grabbing alcohol from the guy in the bottom, and the protesters originally burned down the wrong gas station for revenge.
Everything is a false flag attack from the police and KKK i mean it guys :tinfoil:.[/QUOTE]
I don't know about those pictures specifically. If you or anyone can provide info on them I'm open to see it. What was the gas station/what revenge? Links? I'm not pretending all the protesters are perfect or anything, obviously people involved are different and will react differently. But I don't think you should rule out hate crime given that this is very race driven and volatile and there are lots of people spouting racism over social media and at the protesters. Racists will react violently too. I leaned pretty heavy on the KKK thing in that post, too much so looking at it (altho i didn't say it was definitely the KKK, just that their involvement in Ferguson exists and their involvement in violence is thus possible), but I do think at least the church burning is a racist attack and so far no one has received blame for it. We'll wait and see I guess but idk.
[QUOTE=Matthew0505;46579491][url]http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/09/12/police-body-cameras/15522059/[/url]
Which is about $700 per camera per year, compared to the lower-end police salary of $26k per year, that's hardly crippling.[/QUOTE]
People arguing against body cameras really don't understand that it wouldn't be that difficult to implement. We already have dash-cams. They record in shitty 360p audio and video, but it works. We don't need 1080p live streams, we just need [I]any[/I] evidence. Storage sizes are always going to increase in size and decrease in cost over time, so arguments against recording 360p video and audio are baseless. Yes, it's an expense, but when you have police forces with APCs and armories filled with weaponry and SWAT gear that they use maybe once or twice a year, body cams are chump change.
[QUOTE=codemaster85;46579308]you are aware the costs of body cameras doesn't come from the camera but the amount of actual disk space needed to hold the evidence. They have to hold onto that video pretty much indefinitely because it can be used in court at any time whether it be weeks from the event or years. That starts to build up fast and you need a massive system to store it all.[/QUOTE]
Yesterday you could turn on literally any news channel and immediately see what the cost of [i]not[/i] having body cameras is.
[QUOTE=Matthew0505;46579491][url]http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/09/12/police-body-cameras/15522059/[/url]
Which is about $700 per camera per year, compared to the lower-end police salary of $26k per year, that's hardly crippling.[/QUOTE]
And then fast forward 5 more years and the cost will double. the cost will keep piling on the longer its implemented, the only reason dash cams don't use as much is because the film is barely any evidence unless you pull someone over. These cameras will eat up a shitton more since it will be at every single indecent. there's a reason why most security footage only stays for a month unless its permanently saved.
[QUOTE=codemaster85;46579601]And then fast forward 5 more years and the cost will double. the cost will keep piling on the longer its implemented, the only reason dash cams don't use as much is because the film is barely any evidence unless you pull someone over. These cameras will eat up a shitton more since it will be at every single indecent. there's a reason why most security footage only stays for a month unless its permanently saved.[/QUOTE]
How much, exactly, would you say is the dollar value of a human life ended by police brutality? Because once we get that number set down we can whip out the ol calculator and determine whether or not its worth it to buy a bunch of hard drives.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;46579531]Yesterday you could turn on literally any news channel and immediately see what the cost of [i]not[/i] having body cameras is.[/QUOTE]
and where exactly would ferguson get the 1.2 million for body cams? cop budgets are already strained as is, and before you make a snappy comment "well they have mraps and gear" when both of those are still hilariously cheaper to maintain and get than a huge virtual storage area and a person to maintain it.
[QUOTE=codemaster85;46579601]And then fast forward 5 more years and the cost will double. the cost will keep piling on the longer its implemented, the only reason dash cams don't use as much is because the film is barely any evidence unless you pull someone over. These cameras will eat up a shitton more since it will be at every single indecent. there's a reason why most security footage only stays for a month unless its permanently saved.[/QUOTE]
You know that they're not going to keep every last second of recorded footage? That's not how anyone wants this to work. Cops don't save 100% of dash cam recordings. Hell, for highway cops and patrol cops, you'd only need to have the camera activate once they leave the vehicle.
What would happen is that the useless recording of cops just walking around would quickly be deleted. Any altercations would be flagged and kept for a certain period of time - if the altercation was settled or never went to trial, it would be deleted.
Think about how modern red-light cameras work. They record 24/7. They routinely delete all that footage unless somebody runs a red light. Nobody's saying we need to keep every last second of cops walking around town - we just need to be able to have a couple days' worth of buffer and to flag altercations and moments where the footage is needed for trial. If they delete it or don't flag it they could be charged with destruction of evidence. It's not really that complicated - we've had a similar system on dashcams and traffic light cams for years.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;46579639]How much, exactly, would you say is the dollar value of a human life ended by police brutality? Because once we get that number set down we can whip out the ol calculator and determine whether or not its worth it to buy a bunch of hard drives.[/QUOTE]
I think it's just that paying for such a massive system of hardware and developing the software would be a massively expensive and completely unfeasible way of solving this problem. Using emotional arguments about the value of human life won't work here because this is a policy that would have to be carried out in, you know, the real world.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.