The verdict and reaction to the verdict within Ferguson Mo, is a textbook case of the democratic playbook based on feminism/liberalism. As an analogy, say a wife asks her husband if she looked fat in her new dress? She does not what a logical analysis or even the truth, if it does not make her feel good. What she wants is a reaction that makes her feel good, even if her husband has to lie. This husband and wife template is the basis for liberalism and is the dynamics working in Ferguson. The protestors already had the answer they wanted in hear, with a logical analysis of the hard data not welcome, unless it led to them getting what they wanted to hear. In this Grand Jury Case, the Jury did not cave in to the anticipated emotional blackmail, lying to appease feelings. So many bad liberal policies have successfully used this template. The post Grand Jury decision temper tantrum, in Ferguson, led by democratic party liberal groups, was set up months in advance, to apply leverage, since not appeasing could start a trend in terms of logical truth winning over appeasement. This trend could reverse many irrational social policies that have been accepted based on appeasement. If look at the riot reaction within Ferguson, that goes beyond the basic emotional manipulation of whether I look fat in my dress. The violence and looting reaction shows another aspect of liberalism, connected to the democratic party playbook. That playbook chapter polarizes culture into black and white, male and female, rich and poor, haves and have nots, etc. If you notice, the polarization connected to black and white, sort of spilled over and merged into rich (business) and poor, justifying the looting temper tantrum. I think the businesses involved should sue the democratic party for programming their base to react blindly to merged stereo types. Nothing may happen in such a suit, but it will put a spot light on preventable violence fanned by Democratic party text book manipulation.
Wellwisher, the real problem with the grand jury in this case is that the prosecutor decided to use it as a trial rather than as a grand jury. Grand jury's are supposed to just decide if there is enough evidence to warrant a trial, not decide guilt or innocence. The prosecutor abused the system by essentially presenting the grand jury with a trial... If this whole thing had been streamlined and conducted in a manner consistent with a typical grand jury case, it would probably have gone to court... Just that much may have softened the public outcry, in the short run, though the end result may not have been much different. Law enforcement should be held to a higher standard than any joe on the street, when it comes to the use of lethal force. Instead they are allowed far greater latitude. A badge should not be a licence to kill.
It's typical Republican ignorance to think the violence after the verdict is the problem. It is not. It is a symptom of the problem. While I think that Wellwisher happens to be correct that the protestors would only have accepted one verdict, only their predetermined version of the truth, their anger is perfectly justified. Injustice is the norm in their communities. Police think they are justified in violent action because these communities are violent, and that may also be true, but we as a society must ask why such a disasterous situation is allowed to continue in the first place. The root cause of the riots is basic economic injustice, which is a necessary aspect of the capitalist system. Republicans are far less willing to change the system. When the government is unwilling to address the basic problems of the people, stress builds up and when enough is enough, there will be some trigger, and society will burn. Fuck Michael Brown, his life was doomed as soon as he reached for a cop's gun. But there are fewer tasks we face more important than ensuring future Michael Browns are living too prosperous a life to think about committing crime and violence... And that our communities are too thriving to justify a militarized police.
No prosecutor worth his salt would have taken this case to court, because the evidence isn't sufficient. Prosecutors are bound legally and morally to NOT bring charges against people they believe to be innocent. Law enforcement should be held to a high standard. But they should be required to be stupid either nor should people be allowed to abuse and assault them without retribution. The grand jury is suppose to determine if there is probable cause...period. And this grand jury found there wasn't probable cause for ANY criminal charge. That is what this grand jury did. It did its job...nothing more, nothing less.
Delusion as usual I see, do you have any proof Democrats did or inspired what happened in Ferguson? No you don't, you are just doing your Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin et al. impressions and your political machinations yet again. But there is a kernel of truth in your post. There was only one decision which would have been acceptable to the lynch mobs in streets of Ferguson. The lynch mobs in the streets of Ferguson only wanted blood and would only be satisfied with blood regardless of the truth. They didn't care about the truth. It didn't bother them that the physical facts of the case didn't support what some "witnesses" said. It didn't bother them that some of those same "witnesses" contradicted themselves and thus were not credible. At some point, facts have to matter. And those facts support the officer in this case and not the young man who was killed. It's a tragic situation, and its pretty obvious the Ferguson Police Department should have had a better profile with the community it serves. But that isn't justification for a lynch mob or for riots. News reports have it that a good number of those being arrested are not residents of the community and coming from distant states. It seems to me, that if you have time to riot and protest in the streets you should have enough time to vote. If your interests are not being served by local officials, vote them out. That is why we have elections.
I would say that the problem isn't liberalism, but not enough liberalism, except that most liberals only want to put a patchwork fix on a system that is flawed at a fundamental level. To use an idiotic analogy, it's not that we have to tell our wife she's fat, we have to wonder why she so insecure with herself.
Usually in any bad situation like this there are always going to be a few instigators that stoke the fires of discontent. Perhaps even the media is a part of the conspiracy to make a bigger problem then what it may already be. There are people who await something like this to happen in order to burn, loot and destroy things to show their"anger" towards the police but the really don't need to at that time and should wait for the full report before doing anything. But alas that always doesn't happen because a few thugs want to do what they can to get people outraged before the facts are all in. It is ashame that those few thugs that start to incite a riot never ever get caught and put into jail but only the protestors that are there for the sake of showing their concern are arrested.
I reject the premise we're a Capitalistic society. Our fiat currency is issued based on debt, not capital. We don't have free-markets, we use hyper-regulated markets. So, the problem is something other than free-market capitalism, because that doesn't exist in Ferguson. Not to mention, Japan, Germany, Switzerland, etc... all use the same so-called capitalistic markets and they are no where near as violent as inner city black communities. I also do not agree with your use of the word 'injustice'. If you have evidence of wrong doing - bring to the attention of the courts. If not, then you are using this word in a meaningless manner which makes it even more difficult to determine what the 'real' underlying problem are. The real problems are a lack of sound money, lack of freedom, too much regulation, too much 'social' services and parents who do not raise their children to think logically and peacefully but instead hit them - teaching them this useful rule: Bigger more powerful People Hit Little weaker innocent People. The solution is more freedom. Not less. More. Less violence. Not more. Less. Everyone knew this was going to happen - and it did. But, because the State was given the power of violence to enforce 'minimum' wage it allowed poor White labors to externalize their violence to the State. Over time the Black community, which (like the modern Chinese) worked cheaper and harder AND had a lower divorce rate and strong family values - were sidelined, shoveled into PUBLIC Ghettos and left to rot. IF the State has remained LIMITED, this would more than likely, never had some to pass. More than likely, much like the Chinese, African Americans would be much wealthier and inline with the mainstream society. Again, this was PREDICTED to happen BEFORE it happened. They KNEW what the outcome of minimum age would be. And it happened. I'd say that is some good evidence of where the 'real' social injustice arises from: The State. Which is why it was purposefully limited.
Joe, I don't disagree with the above. The point I was trying to make has a couple of facets. First a grand jury decision does not invoke double jeopardy. Another prosecutor or new grand jury could still decide the case should go to trial. This was not the same as a trial deciding guilt or innocence. Second the prosecutor here said that he would release all of the evidence after the grand jury returned their decission. That would pollute any jury pool had they come back with an indictment and complicates resolution... It might even affect possible federal and civil cases. I did say in my earlier post I did not think this would have changed much in the long term. Handling it as any other grand jury case, might have allowed some time to soften the public outrage. The grand jury decision certainly wouldn't have the same impact that a trial might on either possible federal or civil cases. I lived through the riots here in California and it seemed obvious to me that the way this was being handled was leading exactly to where it has. Those in charge should be thinking, not manipulating, which whether the prosecutor was manipulating the grand jury or not, that is how it seems to look.
I think the real issue here is the system and not the facts in this particular case. You can't charge a cop that many times without ending up dead. The Kajieme Powell case is more disturbing to me. That's the one with the cell phone video that happened nearby Ferguson a few days after the Brown shooting. The cops involved probably won't go to court either just because of the way the rules are written in cops favor but that system should be changed. This is the case where a mentally ill man was shot 12 times within 15 seconds of the police responding. He was shot twice more as he lay (probably dead) on the ground and was then handcuffed. He had a kitchen knife and said just shoot me. There were others standing around near him who apparently didn't feel their lives were in danger and the cops did nothing but say "drop the knife" and then fired 12 shots. This has nothing to do with liberal vs conservative as one poster said. Bringing liberalism into this is just as disingenuous as the points the poster was trying to make.
Here is a link to the documents used in the grand jury. http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...on-docs-how-the-grand-jury-reached-a-decision
I'm not versed in the case you described. But I agree, there certainly have been cases of questionable cop killings. A relatively recent FBI shooting comes to mind and this issue isn't limited to one race .
Michael, All capital is debt. All markets are regulated, regulation establishes markets, that's how they work. And the US is still relatively lightly regulated compared to the rest of the world. When I talk about injustice and wrongdoing, some crime is too big to even be recognized by society; we tolerate theft and corruption on a scale so massive that it's legal. In Europe and other countries there is a greater attempt to mitigate the disaster of capitalism with socialist patches, but riots do happen there too. I don't know what the solution is exactly, certainly not traditional communism. Maybe we have to let it all collapse so something new can emerge.
There were riots back in the days of laissez faire too, along with rampant pollution, frequent bank runs, severe recessions, depressions, hyperinflation, 7 day 12 hours plus work days and hired thugs beat and killed workers and their families...the period in history Michael idolized.
Large or small, there's ALWAYS a group of people present that's JUST waiting for a excuse - like a riot - to "smash-and-grab." The location OR what's behind the riot doesn't matter at all.
The democratic party was the party of slavery and then segregation and then the KKK. The Republican party, since before Lincoln, was the party of justice, underground railroad and equal rights for blacks. The republicans started the NAACP. If you look at the modern data, the highest crime, violence and poverty rates occur within democratic controlled states and cities. The blacks that have the best opportunities, as a group, are republican. It has always been this way since Lincoln. This is not the emotional appeal for a lie, but cold hard facts that say you look fat headed in that democratic dress. The slavery and segregation goals of the democrats has not changed, just the law have changed so they had to change with the times. Liberalism has figured out that lying to appease emotions (you look good in welfare poverty) is more convincing than the cold hard facts and truth, once people feminized. The Republicans are then blamed, for all the woes of the blacks, yet black republicans, have far more opportunities in terms of standard of living and education. It makes no sense beyond preferring the lie to feel good. Democrats sales pitch themselves as being the source of help; welfare, yet the blacks who follow that course have the worse statistics in all the American Dream categories. We need to put aside those emotional scam angles, that use hopeful lies for justification, and look at the hard data, objectively, as scientists. The liberal scam of diversity was quite smart, if their goal was legal segregation. This irrational vision persuaded minorities to segregate themselves from the mainstream and retain their third world cultures apart from the melting pot. This is a path leading to fewer opportunities and higher maintenance costs since many end up isolated within second and third world cultural pockets; blacks. The democrats then blame the republicans for not supporting the welfare needed to maintain the segregation pockets. They also blame the republicans for not accommodating those don't wish to be part of the main stream. The Republicans prefer they be part of the melting pot by learning common language and first world culture for better opportunities in commerce and education. This path of common sense is distorted with a lie and a bribe to help maintain segregation. When professor Gruber said Americans were dumb, he was referring to liberals and feminists who blindly accepts lies, if the lie is what they want to hear; rhetoric instead of analysis. They will not analyze the data to make sure these good feelings is not due to a verbal drug. The discussion needs to be why are the democratic party controlled cities and states far worse in terms of violence, debt, racial profiling, and lack of opportunity for blacks. Why don't black leave the democratic plantation? Is it because they are scam into believing the evil republican will exploit them? Black leaders, are also part of the scam, since they benefit by black poverty and enslavement. It was blacks who rounded up fellow blacks to be sold as slaves. The were paid well by the white slave traders who then sold these slaves to democrat plantation owners.
Except very little of that is true or factual and the small speckled of fact in your post are grossly misrepresented and all of that has been repeatedly explained to you by numerous people.
Indeed. He's gleeful that the word Democrat was associated with segregation even though that has nothing to do with modern Democrats. Minorities tend to side with liberals because they represent their interests. Republicans have nothing to offer except some empty rhetoric about fixing your own problems. You don't become Republican and then all of a sudden you are prosperous, you become prosperous and then you become concerned with keeping all the money for yourself. The Republican party is pretty much the party of rich whites, they would have been the segregationists of the past. They still don't want minorities to vote.
I think that is an over generalization of Republicans. Your generalization is certainly true of the Republicans who largely fund, lead and control the Republican Party. However, the vast majority of Republicans are poor or middle class Americans who are largely ignorant and victims of rampant deception from the Republican entertainment industry...the Fox News, Limbaughs', the Hannitys', the Levins', et al. of the world. The vast majority of Republicans are the small business owners, the tradesmen, the blue collar workers, et. al. They like Wellwisher wouldn't know what to think if Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin or Fox News didn't tell them what to think. Their ignorance and biases make them easy marks for those who lead the Republican Party, the Kochs the Murdochs, the Adelsons, of the world.
