Michael Brown Shooting and Aftermath

[laughing dog]

"If there were black and brown people in this country who showed up in the streets open carrying assault rifles in paramilitary garb would they still be received the same way?" Bynes asked. "It seems to be that especially when it comes to the Second Amendment there seems to be a different way that it is enforced."

You mean like these?

Certainly you are not receiving them in the same way.

 

[Derec]

So by all means, please post this picture and those like it everywhere you can think of. Let this image burn itself into middle America's consciousness.

The nation will get gun control laws and Bynes prediction of a different reception will be realized as true.

It won't work. The Left will embrace the 2nd amendment as to not appear "racist". #bowdownbernie and so on.

- - - Updated - - -

Certainly you are not receiving them in the same way.

Have I said anything positive about the Oathkeepers?
It is quite telling that the Left thinks a separatist, racist, "black power" armed group that wants to police black neighborhoods instead of the real police is viewed positively by many on the left.

 

[Derec]

Yes, I think she's referring to groups like this one, and I think her suspicions are justified.

Why do you think they are justified? Also, groups are these are worse than groups like Oathkeepers, as black power groups are overtly racist and separatist.

The Ferguson police went military in response to the original, unarmed street protesters.

You mean the protesters that torched a QT in the very first night?

They have shown more restraint in their response to the Oath Keepers. Would they show similar restraint if the Huey P Newton Gun Club showed up in full regalia?

They were able to march in Dallas quite freely.

 

[Derec]

https://about.me/hpngc
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/metr...ub-leads-open-carry-rally-in-south-dallas.ece
Sweet!

What's sweet about a separatist, racist group named after a murderer?
Also they want to police black neighborhoods instead of the real police:

“We think that all black people have the right to self-defense and self-determination,” said Huey Freeman, a march organizer. “We believe that we can police ourselves and bring security to our own communities.”

This one seems to be a thread of deadly force against police:

“We need to arm ourselves, not to attack anybody, but in self-defense,” said Darrin X, a representative of the New Black Panther Party. “We can’t let people just come into our community, whether they are law enforcement or not, and just gun our people down and there is no accountability.”

So if a Michael Brown clone gets himself shot by police in Dallas are they going to engage in shootouts with the police?

 

[Derec]

My comment was only to address the fact that someone can be both against stealing and supportive of protestors.

Then we agree. My point was that him being pro-protester would make him less likely to lie about being robbed by them. I.e. he was very likely really robbed.

 

[Arctish]

It won't work. The Left will embrace the 2nd amendment as to not appear "racist". #bowdownbernie and so on.

Nah, the Left will insist on treating whites with assault weapons the same as blacks with assault weapons, which will cause the whites to scream and cry about being persecuted because they're being treated no better than *ahem* persons of color.

 

[Derec]

The day you catch me defending the murder of a police officer -- or any crime whatsoever committed by a "thug" -- this accusation will BEGIN to be potentially valid.

You routinely downplay the criminal behavior and history of people shot by police.

Which is the Justice Department essentially cross-examining its own witnesses and then discrediting them based on said cross-examination. "This witness said he saw his hands up but didn't accurately report the number of shots fired, so how can we believe his testimony?" That is a defense tactic, not an investigative one.

Are you saying investigators should blindly believe everything somebody tells them without scrutinizing it?

Out of curiosity, is this the same report that was prepared for the Grand Jury prior to the (failed) indictment?

This was a federal report, so no.

Yes, it's very clear he conducted the grand jury process with the intention of NOT returning an indictment.
You think that's a GOOD thing?

Yes, I do not think somebody who is likely innocent should be subjected to a trial. Likewise I do not think the state should waste money prosecuting somebody who is likely innocent.

As did the story of what happened to Michael Brown: a police car pulled up to him in close proximity, a struggle ensued, Michael Ran from the cop and turned around, at which point he was shot and killed.

Wrong. The initial story omitted the robbery, denied that MB attacked the officer and went for his gun, claimed that he was shot from behind and denied that MB was advancing at DW after he turned around.

The controversial details are not in dispute:
1) He was unarmed when he was killed

That doesn't make him not a thread. The fact that he already went for the officer's gun once definitely makes him a threat.

2) He was physically separated from Wilson by a significant distance when he was killed

The distance was 25' which can be covered in less than seconds.

3) The physical confrontation had ended before the shooting took place.

Not clear given that MB was advancing on DW again.

I know their companies have been sued a half dozen times because the coal barges they keep leaving in the Chicago river have an alarming tendency to burst into flames. Beyond that, not much.

I find that hard to believe.

- - - Updated - - -

Nah, the Left will insist on treating whites with assault weapons the same as blacks with assault weapons, which will cause the whites to scream and cry about being persecuted because they're being treated no better than *ahem* persons of color.

The left is really not interested in "equal treatment". Just look at affirmative action.

 

[Arctish]

Why do you think they are justified?

Unequal treatment of blacks and whites by the Ferguson Police Department is well documented.

Also, groups are these are worse than groups like Oathkeepers, as black power groups are overtly racist and separatist.

I'm not so sure that's true. Groups like the Oath Keepers have very close ties to the most racist elements of the Tea Party, so-called Libertarians who are nothing but authoritarian neo-cons in disguise, and hard-core Christian conservatives. The reported actions of individual members suggest strongly held racist views as well. If it turns out that the Oath Keepers are there to defend the right of the black citizens of Ferguson to go about armed and resist being disarmed by the police, then I will believe they are not just another band of white vigilantes showing up at a conflict to keep blacks in their place.

The Ferguson police went military in response to the original, unarmed street protesters.

You mean the protesters that torched a QT in the very first night?

That happened on the second night. The first night a cop let his dog urinate on a memorial at the site of the shooting, and another cop ran over it with his car. That just made a bad situation worse, so that by the second night people were even angrier.

I was never able to find out exactly when some of the protesters turned to looting and arson, or even if the looters and arsonists were part of the protest march. From what I can tell, most of the protesters were there to have a peaceful march and express their views, a few people were there to promote anarchy, and cops outfitted to invade Tora Bora were there to take the streets of Ferguson by force, whether or not the use of force was necessary or justified.

They have shown more restraint in their response to the Oath Keepers. Would they show similar restraint if the Huey P Newton Gun Club showed up in full regalia?

They were able to march in Dallas quite freely.

So? That says nothing about what would happen if a few dozen heavily armed, camo clad black activists showed up on the streets of Ferguson, declaring their intention to protect the citizenry from the cops and to disobey any orders they didn't like.

 

[Arctish]

Nah, the Left will insist on treating whites with assault weapons the same as blacks with assault weapons, which will cause the whites to scream and cry about being persecuted because they're being treated no better than *ahem* persons of color.

The left is really not interested in "equal treatment". Just look at affirmative action.

I have looked at affirmative action. I've also looked at people I know personally who refuse to allow blacks to work in their departments, even though the blacks are more qualified and have better references than some of the white guys they hire, and despite the job being in a public facility, not a private one. Affirmative Action was the equal and opposite reaction to blatant anti-black, anti-woman, anti-native American, anti-minority discrimination in hiring. There's at least one facility a few miles down the road from me that could use a good strong dose of it right now.

Affirmative Action has it's flaws, the biggest one being that two wrongs don't make a right, so an utterly simplistic tit-for-tat gets us nowhere, but it was better than allowing egregious bigotry and arrant nonsense to continue to undermine our economy and our society.

Anyway, I think you underestimate the Left's appetite for Just Desserts with Gander Sauce. If the Right wants to pitch their tents on top of Mount Second Amendment, the Left will be happy to send their envoys, the HPNGC, to join them there, openly carrying, with ammo and armor for all.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

It won't work. The Left will embrace the 2nd amendment as to not appear "racist". #bowdownbernie and so on.

History proves you wrong.

The nation’s white political elite feared that violence was too prevalent and there were too many people—especially urban Black nationalists—with access to guns. In May 1967, two dozen Black Panther Party members walked into the California Statehouse carrying rifles to protest a gun-control bill, prompting then-Gov. Ronald Reagan to comment, “There’s no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons.”

The Gun Control Act of 1968 reauthorized and deepened the FDR-era gun control laws. It added a minimum age for gun buyers, required guns have serial numbers and expanded people barred from owning guns from felons to include the mentally ill and drug addicts. Only federally licensed dealers and collectors could ship guns over state lines. People buying certain kinds of bullets had to show I.D.

http://www.salon.com/2013/01/14/the_nra_once_supported_gun_control/

 

[laughing dog]

Have I said anything positive about the Oathkeepers?

Well, you didn't have one of the patented "soiling my underies" posts nor did you say anything negative. Really, you are not fooling anyone.

It is quite telling that the Left thinks a separatist, racist, "black power" armed group that wants to police black neighborhoods instead of the real police is viewed positively by many on the left.

I am pretty sure you have no clue what "the Left" thinks. Again, you are not fooling anyone.

 

[Derec]

Yeah, those horrible, racist Oathkeepers...

People forget that there are many black owned businesses who got damaged/destroyed during the Ferguson riots.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

And some people get bent out of shape over a photo like this:

 

[Derec]

And some people get bent out of shape over a photo like this:

Well, it's certainly more accurate than the photos media was releasing initially.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

And some people get bent out of shape over a photo like this:

Well, it's certainly more accurate than the photos media was releasing initially.

Which underscores my point. Thank you.

 

[repoman]

Seems to me that aggressive policing of blacks along with taunting them to react or resist and making up gun losing crimes has led to less of a pool of potential black oathkeepers. Not to mention how the chief was buddy buddy with white oath keeper.

This can be added to the real crimes committed by dysfunctional blacks who have forfieted gun rights because of it.

I have also heard that in many cities that were developing to be heavily black they become gun control cities. This led to high murder rates since law abiding people would be afraid of jail time after legitimately defending themselves. Bit thevreal reason was racism becuase whites didn't want blacks to have guns.

 

[Derec]

Which underscores my point. Thank you.

And what point would that be?

 

[Derec]

History proves you wrong.

No it doesn't. They quote Ronald Reagan as being in favor of the bill but do not quote anybody from the Left.

In any case, Panthers quickly graduated from armed marching to armed robbery and murder.

 

[Derec]

Unequal treatment of blacks and whites by the Ferguson Police Department is well documented.

Is it?

I'm not so sure that's true. Groups like the Oath Keepers have very close ties to the most racist elements of the Tea Party,

Citation needed.

so-called Libertarians who are nothing but authoritarian neo-cons in disguise, and hard-core Christian conservatives.

Wait you think libertarians are "most racist"?

The reported actions of individual members suggest strongly held racist views as well.

Like what?

That happened on the second night. The first night a cop let his dog urinate on a memorial at the site of the shooting, and another cop ran over it with his car. That just made a bad situation worse, so that by the second night people were even angrier.

I thought it happened on the first night of the protests. As far as the "memorial", the idiots who put it up put it in the middle of the street instead of on the sidewalk.

I was never able to find out exactly when some of the protesters turned to looting and arson, or even if the looters and arsonists were part of the protest march. From what I can tell, most of the protesters were there to have a peaceful march and express their views, a few people were there to promote anarchy, and cops outfitted to invade Tora Bora were there to take the streets of Ferguson by force, whether or not the use of force was necessary or justified.

Since they faced widespread looting and arson I would say it was necessary and justified.

So? That says nothing about what would happen if a few dozen heavily armed, camo clad black activists showed up on the streets of Ferguson, declaring their intention to protect the citizenry from the cops and to disobey any orders they didn't like.

If they declared an intention to fight with the police I would say they would not be welcome, but then again, what do you expect? By the way, here is some more armed Black Panthers, this time protesting the Sandra Bland suicide.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The left is really not interested in "equal treatment". Just look at affirmative action.

I have looked at affirmative action. I've also looked at people I know personally who refuse to allow blacks to work in their departments, even though the blacks are more qualified and have better references than some of the white guys they hire, and despite the job being in a public facility, not a private one. Affirmative Action was the equal and opposite reaction to blatant anti-black, anti-woman, anti-native American, anti-minority discrimination in hiring. There's at least one facility a few miles down the road from me that could use a good strong dose of it right now.

Affirmative Action has it's flaws, the biggest one being that two wrongs don't make a right, so an utterly simplistic tit-for-tat gets us nowhere, but it was better than allowing egregious bigotry and arrant nonsense to continue to undermine our economy and our society.

Anyway, I think you underestimate the Left's appetite for Just Desserts with Gander Sauce. If the Right wants to pitch their tents on top of Mount Second Amendment, the Left will be happy to send their envoys, the HPNGC, to join them there, openly carrying, with ammo and armor for all.

Your assessment of Affirmative Actions is correct but note that your assessment uses the word "was"--which is very relevant. At the time it was implemented it was ugly but probably the best answer available. Things have changed, though--while there are individual discriminators around it's not pervasive like it was when they used the heavy hammer of Affirmative Action. Just because it was the least bad answer back then doesn't mean it is still the least bad answer.