Jump to content

What's the biggest reason for Blacks not advancing


Recommended Posts


 

 

 

 

 

..and prior protests have not been peaceful. The threat remains and exists because of this, even when a day goes by that a building isn't looted, burned down, etc...

 

The geared up riot police should show INCREDIBLE restraint when dealing with peaceful protesters. I'm sure they do - even when I see anecdotal evidence they are not.

 

The threat of violence still exists - even from peaceful protesters, as those who don't wish to remain peaceful will be mixed within them.

 

When it happens they decide to take action (police), the reports we receive are merely pinhole perspectives and we shouldn't assume to fully grasp what actually unfolded.

 

---

 

If you want to protest peacefully :

 

- you immediately leave the area and go home when the first act of violence is perpetrated by any other "protester". (not everyone does this)

- if you don't leave the area, you are risking being associated with the violence, even if you yourself were never violent.

- by continuing to protest - even peacefully - around the violent protests of others, you are supporting their efforts to commit crimes. (see definition of "accomplice")

 

I have no problem with 'peaceful' protesters getting gassed ALL DAY LONG, when the police attempts to disperse gatherings are thwarted by stubborn individuals who don't fully understand their part in the violence.

 

That especially includes reporters who know the risk of being near protests that can turn violent and are more interested in getting the "shot" than accurately reporting the situation and obeying the orders of police.

 

Which makes their actions towards reporters so unbelievable. IF their actions are all justified, then the reporters would help them tell that side of the story.

With their actions towards reporters, I have to believe their actions are not justified.

 

 

You are discounting the reporter's bias too much.

 

It's not in their best interest to collect "news" that shows the police in a favorable light.

 

They are doing a job. That job is to collect video and photos their editors/producers will want to publish because it's news that people want to consume.

 

A photo of a reporter running away from tear gas is "more valuable" as news than a balanced written account that lead up to the police using tear gas near the reporter.

 

---

 

I don't doubt that the police has taken unjustifiable actions against reporters. They also have a bias, as they view the reporters as the antithesis of what they are trying to accomplish.

 

The police's job right now is to prevent violence. You could argue the reporter's job right now is to incite more violence.

 

---

 

I'm glad there are reporters who are on the ground, putting themselves at risk to hold the police (and all parties) accountable for what they are doing, but it wasn't that long ago the reporters themselves weren't the news.

 

If a reporter had a brush up with a cop, that used to be dismissed as non-news...in favor of focusing the reporting efforts on the actual situation.

 

Today, however, there isn't that same desire to keep themselves out of the news (the reporters). They are too willing to report on their own experiences from their own perspectives now.

 

Kinda like those asshats who go stand on a beach while a hurricane approaches...when a static camera is safer and accomplishes the "news" reporting aspect of the devastation.

 

---

 

A quick example might be that one female reporter that was raped while trying to cover the Arab Spring protests. (in Egypt maybe?)

 

It wasn't news that night - in conjunction with the news on the protests - that the protesters had raped a reporter - although it could have been. Instead, It took some days or weeks for a "side" story to come out regarding her rape.

 

---

 

My point is, the reporters themselves are not supposed to be the story. When they start becoming the story the reporting becomes drastically skewed.

Link to comment

 

Yeah. That part I don't get. I guess I would need to hear what orders were given and why. Not saying it would justify anything but I would like to see the reasoning.

Given their reported behavior, if you're looking for reasoning behind the Ferguson PD actions you're thinking more than they are.

 

You caught me on a good day

Link to comment

To save space: lots and lots of links about racism. - Luke

 

I didn't click through all of them, but the ones I did read basically made a point that I haven't disputed: racial bias exists.

 

My response: and? That isn't something you can legislate out of existence.

 

 

 

Well, if nothing else, I can at least be glad that some of the liberals on this forum are finally (!) seeing the dangers of unchecked government power.

 

Because that's what liberals want.

 

 

Well, I believe this is pretty much the first time I've ever seen you advocate less government.

Link to comment

Congo...

 

I think you really are missing the point on this. Try putting down the left wing media conspiracy theory for a minute.

 

If a reporter is mistreated and the freedom of the press is threatened, THAT is a story in and of itself. Even clear back to the 1968 Democratic convention, media were ruffed up and that was a story.

Now, I have been very vocal on here about my distaste for the media. However, in the cases that have been shown here, I don't see how anyone can say the police are justified.

 

The police are in a position that THEY have to be the moral high ground. Simply arresting media people for sitting in a McDonalds is so far from that it's inconceivable that someone would defend it.

 

Again, the police need to be using the media and not abusing them. If you want media people to go against you....well.....they are writing the text book on that.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment

 

 

Well, if nothing else, I can at least be glad that some of the liberals on this forum are finally (!) seeing the dangers of unchecked government power.

Because that's what liberals want.

 

Well, I believe this is pretty much the first time I've ever seen you advocate less government.

 

 

If this weren't so obviously a straw man I'd ask for examples of accused "liberals" like me, carlfense, Junior, tschu, et al, advocating big government in this forum.

Link to comment

If this weren't so obviously a straw man I'd ask for examples of accused "liberals" like me, carlfense, Junior, tschu, et al, advocating big government in this forum.

Well, when you find yourself on the wrong side of the facts you can either admit error or try to change the subject. (Or I suppose you can leave the conversation . . . like the Global Warming Pause thread.)

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment

Congo...

 

I think you really are missing the point on this. Try putting down the left wing media conspiracy theory for a minute.

 

If a reporter is mistreated and the freedom of the press is threatened, THAT is a story in and of itself. Even clear back to the 1968 Democratic convention, media were ruffed up and that was a story.

Now, I have been very vocal on here about my distaste for the media. However, in the cases that have been shown here, I don't see how anyone can say the police are justified.

 

The police are in a position that THEY have to be the moral high ground. Simply arresting media people for sitting in a McDonalds is so far from that it's inconceivable that someone would defend it.

 

Again, the police need to be using the media and not abusing them. If you want media people to go against you....well.....they are writing the text book on that.

Bingo. I'd +1 this if I wasn't already done for the day.

Link to comment

If this weren't so obviously a straw man I'd ask for examples of accused "liberals" like me, carlfense, Junior, tschu, et al, advocating big government in this forum.

 

You....can't be serious.

 

The global warming thread is full of calls for government action to combat climate change.

The Obamacare thread....

The wealth inequality thread.

The Elizabeth Warren commandments for progressives thread.

 

Those are just the explicit examples from page one.

 

 

Well, when you find yourself on the wrong side of the facts you can either admit error or try to change the subject. (Or I suppose you can leave the conversation . . . like the Global Warming Pause thread.)

 

I must've missed something over the weekend. I had/have three basic beliefs about climate change: it's happening and humans are a factor, future consequences are uncertain, and if climate alarmists are right, we're all screwed because there's no way we're going to do what they want in the time frame that they want. Naturally, I'm branded a knuckledragger because I'm not a disciple of the Goracle, but that's not a point to pound into the ground.

Link to comment

Now, I am going to qualify my disgust with the article I posted.

 

I honestly can understand units like SWAT teams having these vehicles. I remember a day when I think a bank was robbed in Los Angles. The bank robbers were in armor and had M16s. A number of cops were killed because they weren't armed as heavily as the criminals. In an unbelievable moment, the family of the criminals in this case were upset when their "loved one" was shot and killed.

However, I don't see a reason why local police need grenade launchers.

 

I fully respect police and fully understand they have a tough job. The vast majority of officers on the streets today are doing a very good job. However, this mess in St. Louis is awful and handing people like that grenade launchers is so far out of reality in my book.

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...