What the fuck Ferguson?

[KeepTalking]

You are incorrect, sir.

At the time of the Michael Brown shooting, the mayor, the police chief, the city manager, 5 out of 6 city council members, and 50 out of 53 police officers of the town of Ferguson were white. Even now, only the police chief and two of the city council seats have flipped to black representation, and the majority of the police department is still white.

So, where the hell did you come up with this information that "a majority of the leaders of Ferguson are black"?

I don't recall what it was then. Looking now I find 3 black, 3 white and one that's probably Hispanic. Whites are the minority.

First, Hispanic != black.

Second, there are only 6 city council members in Ferguson, so how do you get 3 black, 3 white, and one (probably) Hispanic? I guess you are lumping in the mayor, but James Knowles III is not Hispanic, neither are any of the 3 white council members: Linda Lipka, Heather Robinett, and Keith Kallstrom. The leadership of Ferguson is not majority black by any objective standard. Seriously, where do you come up with this shit?

 

[laughing dog]

Question LP:

Do you believe it is the job of a police officer to de-escalate a situation whenever and wherever possible in order to avoid unnecessary violence? Because this is the standard in other countries.

The problem is that you have to balance deescalation with doing the job. Focus too much on deescalation and you get ineffective cops that can't arrest the bad guys. The European attitude leads to things like the Srebrenica massacre.

Please carefully construct the logic that connects de-escalating a situation between the police and a civil with a massacre conducted during an ethnic-cleansing civil war.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The problem is that you have to balance deescalation with doing the job. Focus too much on deescalation and you get ineffective cops that can't arrest the bad guys. The European attitude leads to things like the Srebrenica massacre.

I don't get it. A cops job is to keep the peace, protect and serve and enforce the law. How is needlessly escalating a situation until it ends in bloodshed conducive to that job?

Unless you have the guy surrounded deescalate lets the guy get away.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't recall what it was then. Looking now I find 3 black, 3 white and one that's probably Hispanic. Whites are the minority.

First, Hispanic != black.

Second, there are only 6 city council members in Ferguson, so how do you get 3 black, 3 white, and one (probably) Hispanic? I guess you are lumping in the mayor, but James Knowles III is not Hispanic, neither are any of the 3 white council members: Linda Lipka, Heather Robinett, and Keith Kallstrom. The leadership of Ferguson is not majority black by any objective standard. Seriously, where do you come up with this shit?

Yeah, I was counting the mayor because he's one of the ones that votes. And his photo on their website sure looks hispanic to me.

- - - Updated - - -

The problem is that you have to balance deescalation with doing the job. Focus too much on deescalation and you get ineffective cops that can't arrest the bad guys. The European attitude leads to things like the Srebrenica massacre.

Please carefully construct the logic that connects de-escalating a situation between the police and a civil with a massacre conducted during an ethnic-cleansing civil war.

It's the same problem--an emphasis on not using force. In Srebrenica it lead to handing over thousands to be murdered.

 

[laughing dog]

It's the same problem--an emphasis on not using force. In Srebrenica it lead to handing over thousands to be murdered.

I see, there is no logic to connect de-escalating a situation between the police and a a civil with an massacre conducted during an ethnic cleansing civil war.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Unless you have the guy surrounded deescalate lets the guy get away.

Heaven forbid a police officer should de-escalate a situation involving a person guilty of a brake light being out!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's the same problem--an emphasis on not using force. In Srebrenica it lead to handing over thousands to be murdered.

I see, there is no logic to connect de-escalating a situation between the police and a a civil with an massacre conducted during an ethnic cleansing civil war.

Your willful myopia doesn't change the situation.

 

[laughing dog]

I see, there is no logic to connect de-escalating a situation between the police and a a civil with an massacre conducted during an ethnic cleansing civil war.

Your willful myopia doesn't change the situation.

De-escalation is not a refusal to use force - it is a policy to try to avoid using force where possible. Your connection of de-escalation to the Srbenica massacre is based on a straw man characterization of the policy or attempts to de-escalate a situation.

 

[ZiprHead]

Question LP:

Do you believe it is the job of a police officer to de-escalate a situation whenever and wherever possible in order to avoid unnecessary violence? Because this is the standard in other countries.

The problem is that you have to balance deescalation with doing the job. Focus too much on deescalation and you get ineffective cops that can't arrest the bad guys. The European attitude leads to things like the Srebrenica massacre.

 

[KeepTalking]

I don't recall what it was then. Looking now I find 3 black, 3 white and one that's probably Hispanic. Whites are the minority.

First, Hispanic != black.

Second, there are only 6 city council members in Ferguson, so how do you get 3 black, 3 white, and one (probably) Hispanic? I guess you are lumping in the mayor, but James Knowles III is not Hispanic, neither are any of the 3 white council members: Linda Lipka, Heather Robinett, and Keith Kallstrom. The leadership of Ferguson is not majority black by any objective standard. Seriously, where do you come up with this shit?

Yeah, I was counting the mayor because he's one of the ones that votes. And his photo on their website sure looks hispanic to me.

All you had to do was read his name to realize he is not Hispanic, but this disregards the fact that Hispanic != black. I remind you that your initial response in this sub-thread was the following:

You realize a majority of the leaders of Ferguson are black?

Hispanic != black.

Also, your post was in response to the following:

Yes, Ferguson was, in effect, a white supremacist group.

Note the term "was" being used. At the time of the Michael Brown shooting, 5 of the 6 Ferguson City Council members were white, and they had the same white mayor, James Knowles III.

Just fucking stop making shit up, and admit you were wrong already.

 

[RavenSky]

Yeah, I was counting the mayor because he's one of the ones that votes. And his photo on their website sure looks hispanic to me.

 

[Derec]

Yes, Ferguson was, in effect, a white supremacist group.

Note the term "was" being used. At the time of the Michael Brown shooting, 5 of the 6 Ferguson City Council members were white, and they had the same white mayor, James Knowles III.

Just fucking stop making shit up, and admit you were wrong already.

[emphasis added]

So you and Don2 equate being white with being "white supremacist"?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

What? The link doesn't point to me actually writing that. If I DID write such thing, it must have been in some context. Either as a retort or describing the govt of Ferguson, i.e, Ferguson. The govt of Ferguson doing all the things they did as pointed out by the DOJ was sort-of de facto supremacy of white people. So, second, you're misinterpreting what I wrote (if I even wrote it), probably deliberately.

ETA: I looked in the thread further and see it was actually Mumbles who wrote this, not me, and further if you follow Mumbles posts, he was talking abut the government of Ferguson. So, you're misrepresenting what he wrote.

 

[laughing dog]

J
So you and Don2 equate being white with being "white supremacist"?

The "in effect" means "same as" not "was". So, the statement "Yes, Ferguson was, in effect, a white supremacist group" should be read that the policies of the government of Ferguson had the same effect as those of a white supremacist group.

Your question is a perfect unwitting example of an alt-right SJW snowflake response.

 

[whichphilosophy]

J
So you and Don2 equate being white with being "white supremacist"?

The "in effect" means "same as" not "was". So, the statement "Yes, Ferguson was, in effect, a white supremacist group" should be read that the policies of the government of Ferguson had the same effect as those of a white supremacist group.

Your question is a perfect unwitting example of an alt-right SJW snowflake response.

If in effect is used it means
virtually
essentially,in essence
basically
in force (different meaning not applicable here

if someone was in effect racist or was racist that's pretty much the same, but in using in effect you would give reasons where by because........... he was in effect.......

 

[laughing dog]

The "in effect" means "same as" not "was". So, the statement "Yes, Ferguson was, in effect, a white supremacist group" should be read that the policies of the government of Ferguson had the same effect as those of a white supremacist group.

Your question is a perfect unwitting example of an alt-right SJW snowflake response.

If in effect is used it means
virtually
essentially,in essence
basically
in force (different meaning not applicable here

if someone was in effect racist or was racist that's pretty much the same, but in using in effect you would give reasons where by because........... he was in effect.......

No, it is not. In this case, while it means the outcomes are essentially the same, but that does not mean the causes/reasons are the same.

 

[whichphilosophy]

If in effect is used it means
virtually
essentially,in essence
basically
in force (different meaning not applicable here

if someone was in effect racist or was racist that's pretty much the same, but in using in effect you would give reasons where by because........... he was in effect.......

No, it is not. In this case, while it means the outcomes are essentially the same, but that does not mean the causes/reasons are the same.

The definition implies outcome, result etc. In two different situations the cause may not always be the same and would need to be stated.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

No, it is not. In this case, while it means the outcomes are essentially the same, but that does not mean the causes/reasons are the same.

The definition implies outcome, result etc. In two different situations the cause may not always be the same and would need to be stated.

Here's an example for you...

When Mumbles wrote what he did, he was not "equating being white with being 'white supremacist'" like Derec tried to claim.

Therefore, Derec's post was in effect, stupid.

 

[laughing dog]

No, it is not. In this case, while it means the outcomes are essentially the same, but that does not mean the causes/reasons are the same.

The definition implies outcome, result etc.

No, it does not.

In two different situations the cause may not always be the same and would need to be stated.

No, it does not.

Using your reasoning, the phrase "in essence" is pointless, since it adds nothing to the content.

 

[Mumbles]

What? The link doesn't point to me actually writing that. If I DID write such thing, it must have been in some context. Either as a retort or describing the govt of Ferguson, i.e, Ferguson. The govt of Ferguson doing all the things they did as pointed out by the DOJ was sort-of de facto supremacy of white people. So, second, you're misinterpreting what I wrote (if I even wrote it), probably deliberately.

ETA: I looked in the thread further and see it was actually Mumbles who wrote this, not me, and further if you follow Mumbles posts, he was talking abut the government of Ferguson. So, you're misrepresenting what he wrote.

You know that black dude they accused of being a pedophile because he was resting in his car for a minute? Dude lost his job, *and* his clearance?

Using fines to finance small towns is generally poor policy, but going it to black residents to avoid raising taxes for white citizens is plainly white supremacist. *and* it also makes people hate their government with a passion - including the police who found no aid from anyone after Brown was shot.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Using fines to finance small towns is generally poor policy, but going it to black residents to avoid raising taxes for white citizens is plainly white supremacist. *and* it also makes people hate their government with a passion - including the police who found no aid from anyone after Brown was shot.

And we have some proof that they were being racially selective?