# Ferguson Riots - Opportunistic or genuine?



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2014/11/25/22093926.html

As expected, Ferguson is going nuts again now that the officer involved will not be indicted.

Is this just people using this as an excuse for criminal behaviour or is this a genuine and legitimate protest against a racist power?

Although I think there's still a lot of racism (in both directions) burning cars and smashing windows is criminal. I think these guys are showing their true colors (and no, that is not intended as a pun).


----------



## Hamstrung (Sep 21, 2007)

Milkman said:


> Is this just people using this as an excuse for criminal behaviour or is this a genuine and legitimate protest against a racist power?


The answer is yes.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

Probably both. The vandals and worse take advantage of protests like this.


----------



## NGroeneveld (Jan 23, 2011)

To answer your question, I think almost any kind of peaceful protest would be legitimate and genuine as it is clear that there is racial inequality in Ferguson. However, this particular incident is very troubling to me. I don't know why any person should be able to walk into a convenience store, rob the owner, walk down the middle of the street, assault a police officer and get a free pass. That's the basics of the situation when all the racial context is removed.


----------



## ronmac (Sep 22, 2006)

It is a troubling situation. The Grand Jury must have been convinced there was no wrong doing to come down the way they did, especially considering the high visibility and consequences.

I don't understand what motivates hatred and the folks that take advantage of "opportunities" to bolster their point of view through incidents like this. I am just as concerned about how the riots and looting will motivate the police to arm and behave in a heavy fashion.

It's an endless feedback loop. Could someone lower the volume, please?


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

It is a good lesson on not getting involved with protests like this. Many innocent persons in recent years have got caught up in protests turned violent and ended up getting killed, injured and/or arrested.


----------



## Jim DaddyO (Mar 20, 2009)

I believe the majority were there for the purpose of peaceful assembly and protest, which is perfectly legal. It is too bad that small groups of "goons" also show up in order to create disruption and chaos. Knowing they will show up, or having to be prepared for them to show up, is where the tension starts. Too many people on both sides that are too tense. You don't need a degree in crowd dynamics to know it does not take much of an act to get everyone frothing at the mouth (on either side), and the situation to get out of hand. Don't poke the bear!

I think the cop cars on the side of the road were bait for vandals.

Also, the Geneva Convention does not allow for the use of tear gas or chemical weapons usage, so why is it OK to use it on your own people? That is something I really can't wrap my head around.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

The Auditor General, Michael Ferguson, tabled a report today in Parliament. So I found it kind of amusing to see this headline on the CTV news site: "Ferguson awakens to widespread destruction after night of protests ".

As for Missouri, at least they are angry about a kid being killed, and longstanding grievances about the local police force, not about the Canucks losing the Cup.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

mhammer said:


> The Auditor General, Michael Ferguson, tabled a report today in Parliament. So I found it kind of amusing to see this headline on the CTV news site: "Ferguson awakens to widespread destruction after night of protests ".
> 
> As for Missouri, at least they are angry about a kid being killed, and longstanding grievances about the local police force, not about the Canucks losing the Cup.


True enough. We're not without our pack mentality incidents up here.

For me it's pretty simple. If you burn down a business or destroy a car, you're a criminal. Hiding among people who have legitimate complaints doesn't excuse this.

I'd say to some extent, similar behaviour happens in war. People use war as an excuse for rape, torture, and all kinds of inexcusable behaviour.


----------



## smorgdonkey (Jun 23, 2008)

Milkman said:


> True enough. We're not without our pack mentality incidents up here.
> 
> For me it's pretty simple. If you burn down a business or destroy a car, you're a criminal. Hiding among people who have legitimate complaints doesn't excuse this.
> 
> I'd say to some extent, similar behaviour happens in war. People use war as an excuse for rape, torture, and all kinds of inexcusable behaviour.



I agree with all of that.

I have to step out of the boundaries of political correctness though to comment on this case. I can't say that I know 100% of the details but the media calling this guy "an unarmed teen" paints a very different picture to me than the evidence that has arisen during the days after this shooting was reported. 

First, the headlines of 'unarmed black teen shot by police as he was surrendering' and the media repeating the claim that he was a 'gentle giant' and that he was 'going to go to college' had me outraged 







but then, video of him robbing the store threw the 'gentle giant' out the window and reports that he was a gang member & so on. Check these photos out:








but the one that really got me was this one which was quickly removed from his Facebook page after the shooting:








and the info leaking out of the autopsy and such just tells me the 'surrender story' is BS.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...cle_e98a4ce0-c284-57c9-9882-3fb7df75fef6.html 

Also, there have been reports that 'the kid' had juvenile arrest record involving second degree murder.

So, this is the point in which *I leap over the politically correct 'line'* and say that, to me, it's looking like he got what he deserved. I wish more 'cases' were handled in this way and even less politically correct: nice shooting officer.

I am just fed up with the criminals having all of the rights.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

1) Do not mistake the posing of a teenager with their actual behaviour. Facebook is replete with kids of all races and sexes pretending to be something they're not.

2) If the kid was thrown on the ground, booked, and came away with bruises, a night in jail, and a rap sheet, that's one thing. For me, the question is whether lethal force is justified against someone who themselves is_ not _applying potentially lethal force. And as much as this tragic altercation may well have warranted a serious physical response from the officer, I think residents are not at all off the mark to wonder "How come it's always black kids that end up being chalk outlines on the sidewalk?".

As I've done here several times before, I direct people to the research that followed in the wake of the tragic shooting of Amadou Diallo in New York ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amadou_Diallo_shooting ).

A number of studies came out that examined what researchers have come to call "automatic stereotype activation". Research participants were presented with photos of people in situations, and asked to make speeded judgments of whether the individuals in the photo were holding a threatening object, like a knife or gun. When I say speeded judgments, I mean pressing a button to indicate "danger" within 7/10 of a second or so. What researchers have found is that participants were not only quicker to identify physical threat when the individual in the photo was African-American, but also more likely to indicate threat, and make mistakes in doing so. Moreover, if the picture was of a Caucasian person, but was preceded by the quick presentation of a head-and-shoulders photo of a person of colour, the same pattern was observed. All of this is independent of their feelings or beliefs about persons of other races, when they have time to reflect and comment.

The problem is that the unconscious association between black youths and "crime" or "threat" is so engrained/strong, that when officers, or others, have to make split-second judgments/evaluations, such associations take over. And, in the heat of the moment, threat is perceived where there is none, but responded to as if it were there. And another kid ends up a chalk outline on the sidewalk...as we saw with the 12 year-old that was killed the other day in Cleveland, while reaching for a fake pistol.

And of course, that's part of the difficulty with gun culture, and contemporary sidearms. If we were still using muskets, everything would take so long that such split-second stereotype-influenced judgments of threat would pose little problem, and well-meaning cops could show their best side all the time. But when you know others might be packing heat, and that the difference between being alive or dead is less than a second, AND your brain is stuffed with images of kids like that responding violently, you err on the side of self-preservation....tragically.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Again, the question of whether the cop was justified or not is not what I'm concerned about.

That's very important, but does not excuse the criminal behaviour we're watching.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

I'm with you on that. People will often use "political motives" as a justification for criminal behaviour. At the same time, as much as some causes demand a show of public solidarity, "solidarity" can quickly morph into mob behaviour.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Mob behaviour indeed, and I for one have always found human behaviour becomes worse the more of us there are in one place.

Maybe it's just my personal neurosis, but I hate big crowds of people and avoid spending time in large cities.


----------



## Scotty (Jan 30, 2013)

What a mess. I'm glad we don't have the same racial tension and culture that they have down there. Hearing the news, I immediately sided with the masses, that the officer should have been charged, but now, I think he may have had ground to open fire, on both occasions. 

According to all I've read, the officer's life was in danger, weapon or not. 

Lets look at what we know;

The officer was attacked through his cruiser window (punched twice and battled over retaining his sidearm - shots were fired in the cruiser)
During the ensuing chase, the attacker turned and came at the officer full bore
According to the drawing in this article, http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2014/08/us/ferguson-brown-timeline/ the officer's first rounds hit Brown in non-lethal locations, then assuming as he bore down closer, the officer finished it

We have to assume that in the heat of the struggle for the weapon, the officer had to have known that it was a struggle for his survival. The only reason Brown would have gone for it was to use it himself, not to run off with it as a prize. One would have to assume that a full bore charge from Brown meant another imminent attack. At 6'4" and almost 300 pounds, I can't blame him from opening fire, though I do think it was beyond reasonable force. But until we are in this type of conflict, in the short seconds it took to transpire, we cannot really know. 

This is not at all like the situation like the recent TTC shooting where the 18 year old kid was shot and killed without just cause. I don't see this as being murder. Perhaps manslaughter or some sort of negligence, but there was in my mind, clear danger present


----------



## NGroeneveld (Jan 23, 2011)

mhammer said:


> 1) Do not mistake the posing of a teenager with their actual behaviour. Facebook is replete with kids of all races and sexes pretending to be something they're not.
> 
> 2) If the kid was thrown on the ground, booked, and came away with bruises, a night in jail, and a rap sheet, that's one thing. For me, the question is whether lethal force is justified against someone who themselves is_ not _applying potentially lethal force. And as much as this tragic altercation may well have warranted a serious physical response from the officer, I think residents are not at all off the mark to wonder "How come it's always black kids that end up being chalk outlines on the sidewalk?".
> 
> ...


I wouldn't doubt any of that research, however, the thing that bothers me in this case is that much of the the racial connotations influencing opinions and judgements just should not be applied. It is just not relevant here. The simple facts are that Michael Brown was an menacing, aggressive, 6 foot 4, huge person who not only assaulted a police officer in his vehicle, he actually tried to get the officers weapon! Now white or black, this behaviour is going to influence every action that follows. What officer is going to get out his taser or mace after this has gone down. Watching the news last night I was struck by how many times Brown was referred to as 'just a teenager' 'a kid', one commentator even called him 'this child'. We are shown pictures of Brown in his high school cap and gown, while the video of Brown robbing a store and assaulting the owner has pretty much disappeared. It's pretty clear in that video of the size and demeanour of the person who attacked the police officer. Brown apparently weighed close to 300 pounds, and in the video, he displays some very nasty behaviour. But no, the whole thing has devolved to a black boy/white cop scenario where the facts are ignored.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

But don't you think we need to ask "Why was there even a weapon involved to struggle over?". The officer felt threatened, sure, but why was his weapon out in the first place, such that the perceived threat was of the assailant turning the weapon against him?

It starts to share a number of features with the Trayvon Martin case, where George Zimmerman perceived threat and had a weapon drawn, which was then struggled over. Why was there a weapon out? Would there have been a firearm out if the victim had not been someone of colour? That the person firing the weapon was "acting in good faith", rather than malice, is separate from whether that "good faith" was underscored by lousy social schemas and approaches to law enforcement and weapons access.


----------



## NGroeneveld (Jan 23, 2011)

mhammer said:


> But don't you think we need to ask "Why was there even a weapon involved to struggle over?". The officer felt threatened, sure, but why was his weapon out in the first place, such that the perceived threat was of the assailant turning the weapon against him?
> 
> It starts to share a number of features with the Trayvon Martin case, where George Zimmerman perceived threat and had a weapon drawn, which was then struggled over. Why was there a weapon out? Would there have been a firearm out if the victim had not been someone of colour? That the person firing the weapon was "acting in good faith", rather than malice, is separate from whether that "good faith" was underscored by lousy social schemas and approaches to law enforcement and weapons access.


That is a good question that I have been thinking about and I think it comes down to the physical space inside of a police vehicle, as well as Brown's size, demeanour, and threatening actions. If someone starts punching through the open window, its very difficult to get away due to the equipment inside the vehicle, as well as the equipment being carried by the officer on his waist belt. But I'll come back to the video of the robbery again and say, anyone confronted by a person like Brown would want to have a weapon. Heres a link to the video.



http://fox2now.com/2014/08/15/raw-v...show-michael-brown-robbing-convenience-store/


----------



## Hamstrung (Sep 21, 2007)

I think this encapsulates one of the overall problems neatly. Clearly race relations and a major incident like a riot aren't a priority when DWTS is on! Sigh...

http://www.inquisitr.com/1635194/ferguson-riots-dancing-with-stars/


----------



## ThatGingerMojo (Jul 30, 2014)

Makes me glad I did not get selected for that jury. What a charge that must have been.


----------



## Scotty (Jan 30, 2013)

mhammer said:


> But don't you think we need to ask "Why was there even a weapon involved to struggle over?". The officer felt threatened, sure, but why was his weapon out in the first place, such that the perceived threat was of the assailant turning the weapon against him?


A 300 pound guy punching you in the face twice through a car window is enough reason in my mind to draw your weapon as the neck thing could have been a knife in his neck. However, you make a good point. It would have made more sense for the officer to drive off to a safe distance, where he could then get out and deploy other tactics to arrest him, call for back-up etc.


----------



## NGroeneveld (Jan 23, 2011)

mhammer said:


> But don't you think we need to ask "Why was there even a weapon involved to struggle over?". The officer felt threatened, sure, but why was his weapon out in the first place, such that the perceived threat was of the assailant turning the weapon against him?
> 
> It starts to share a number of features with the Trayvon Martin case, where George Zimmerman perceived threat and had a weapon drawn, which was then struggled over. Why was there a weapon out? Would there have been a firearm out if the victim had not been someone of colour? That the person firing the weapon was "acting in good faith", rather than malice, is separate from whether that "good faith" was underscored by lousy social schemas and approaches to law enforcement and weapons access.


I do not find it similar to the Martin/Zimmerman case in the regard that Zimmerman was two-bit vigilante with a racial chip on his shoulder when he profiled Trayvon Martin and wrongly went after him. Zimmerman carried a gun because he was an egotistical bigot. Wilson carries a gun because he is a cop.

- - - Updated - - -



Scotty said:


> A 300 pound guy punching you in the face twice through a car window is enough reason in my mind to draw your weapon as the neck thing could have been a knife in his neck. However, you make a good point. It would have made more sense for the officer to drive off to a safe distance, where he could then get out and deploy other tactics to arrest him, call for back-up etc.


I have thought of that as well. Wilson had angled his car across the road to block off Brown, and was hemmed in by oncoming traffic from both directions. Why not just put it in drive and take off? Answer - he couldn't.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

I think this has very little to do with the initial incident. There are obviously old and festering problems fueling this, but at the end of the day, those rioting are criminal, and are using this as an excuse for being complete assholes.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

NGroeneveld said:


> I do not find it similar to the Martin/Zimmerman case in the regard that Zimmerman was two-bit vigilante with a racial chip on his shoulder when he profiled Trayvon Martin and wrongly went after him. Zimmerman carried a gun because he was an egotistical bigot. Wilson carries a gun because he is a cop.


I'm certainly not equating the officer with George Zimmerman. My point is that a situation not requiring deadly force escalated, and a weapon became involved in split-second actions. Whatever Michael Brown did to provoke the deadly force was not a planned action. I'm just wondering how the hell it gets to a level where a kid who swipes a few dollars worth of merchandise ends up in a fatal shooting instead of in jail and catching grief from his parents. There is something sorely lacking in police training, police-community relations, and police protocol.


----------



## Scotty (Jan 30, 2013)

Milkman said:


> I think this has very little to do with the initial incident. There are obviously old and festering problems fueling this, but at the end of the day, those rioting are criminal, and are using this as an excuse for being complete assholes.


Not to mention ruining their own city and screwing over many innocent people whose livelihood depended on those businesses. Talk about mob stupidity or foolish justification for looting for personal gain.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

Interesting perspective here:

http://www.westernjournalism.com/black-american-vital-message-race-rioters/


----------



## doriangrey (Mar 29, 2011)

Steadfastly said:


> Probably both. The vandals and worse take advantage of protests like this.





NGroeneveld said:


> To answer your question, I think almost any kind of peaceful protest would be legitimate and genuine as it is clear that there is racial inequality in Ferguson. However, this particular incident is very troubling to me. I don't know why any person should be able to walk into a convenience store, rob the owner, walk down the middle of the street, assault a police officer and get a free pass. That's the basics of the situation when all the racial context is removed.





Milkman said:


> I think this has very little to do with the initial incident. There are obviously old and festering problems fueling this, but at the end of the day, those rioting are criminal, and are using this as an excuse for being complete assholes.





Scotty said:


> Not to mention ruining their own city and screwing over many innocent people whose livelihood depended on those businesses. Talk about mob stupidity or foolish justification for looting for personal gain.


I agree with all of these points. And based on my knowledge of the facts, the jury made the right call.


----------



## davetcan (Feb 27, 2006)

What I do know is that if a known gang member that big was running at me, and I knew it was a threat, I'd shoot him in a heartbeat if I had a gun. I wouldn't have to think about it because I wouldn't have time. I might lose some sleep over it later but I'd rather live with that than die or get beaten to a pulp. The cop could maybe have just let him run off but that's not his job, he's supposed to arrest him.



Scotty said:


> We have to assume that in the heat of the struggle for the weapon, the officer had to have known that it was a struggle for his survival. The only reason Brown would have gone for it was to use it himself, not to run off with it as a prize. One would have to assume that a full bore charge from Brown meant another imminent attack. At 6'4" and almost 300 pounds, I can't blame him from opening fire, though I do think it was beyond reasonable force. But until we are in this type of conflict, in the short seconds it took to transpire, we cannot really know.


----------



## davetcan (Feb 27, 2006)

mhammer said:


> But don't you think we need to ask "Why was there even a weapon involved to struggle over?". The officer felt threatened, sure, but why was his weapon out in the first place, such that the perceived threat was of the assailant turning the weapon against him?


No!

He was assaulting a police officer. If this was just two kids involved, both with guns we wouldn't be hearing about this at all now. I'm only shocked the "child" wasn't already carrying his own gun.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

davetcan said:


> The cop could maybe have just let him run off but that's not his job, he's supposed to arrest him.


I gaurantee there's been times when a cop has decided to retreat rather than face a deadly situation when the officer knows that with a little patience the situation can be dealt with without deadly force.
Its a tough call to second guess an officer in the field. But my gut feeling tells me that deadly force is becoming used much more recklessly than it needs to be. Its easy for us law abiding citizens that would never put our selves in a situation like this, to say. Its easy for us to say that those who go out seeking trouble deserve everything they get. But if we simply allow our law enforcement to be the hit squad to rid us of all those trouble making undesirables then I guess we're no better.


----------



## davetcan (Feb 27, 2006)

.................



guitarman2 said:


> I gaurantee there's been times when a cop has decided to retreat rather than face a deadly situation when the officer knows that with a little patience the situation can be dealt with without deadly force.
> 
> *Agreed, and that is likely what I would have done in that situation, but the beauty of being an armchair quarterback is that you're never actually in the situation.*
> 
> ...


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

davetcan said:


> .................



The problem with the attitude "You don't know what its like until you've walked in their shoes", is that it perpetuates the idea that they're above criticism. No one can criticise them unless they've been there. Those who judge these police shootings is the very law enforcement them selves. Is it any wonder they're is almost never and indictment. 
It will be interesting to see how the trial of Officer Forcillo turns out. Based on what we know its hard to imagine anything other than a conviction. But then we've been told that we don't know all the facts.


----------



## davetcan (Feb 27, 2006)

Well no one should be above the law, and I too struggle with the fact the police judge themselves, but unless the politicians come up with a better system it's what we have right now. When I first heard about this incident I was as outraged as most but the facts that have been presented have changed my opinion. I still don't like the fact that the victim was shot but I can't fault the officer from what I've seen and read. The rioters are using this as an excuse, no more, no less. Had the protests remained peaceful they'd have been much more successful imho.

btw, I don't have an attitude, I have an opinion 



guitarman2 said:


> The problem with the attitude "You don't know what its like until you've walked in their shoes", is that it perpetuates the idea that they're above criticism. No one can criticise them unless they've been there. Those who judge these police shootings is the very law enforcement them selves. Is it any wonder they're is almost never and indictment.
> It will be interesting to see how the trial of Officer Forcillo turns out. Based on what we know its hard to imagine anything other than a conviction. But then we've been told that we don't know all the facts.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

I'm all for lawful protests.
im even ok with inquiries and investigations.

what gets me is when communities rally around to support sketchy individuals , in morally and legally ambiguous situations, who've done NOTHING for their communities other than act selfishly and irresponsibly and perpetuate the stereotypes they supposedly want to move away from, with nothing but the race card to play.
cmon ppl, pick your battles more intelligently.

white or black, if you resist arrest and fight with a cop on duty, you're putting your own life in danger. The only rational course of action is to comply, and either sue or go public later, if wrongly arrested. I hope everyone knows that. You don't get to fight the cop off, and then put the burden of your safety on the cop, to let you run away.
its a shame this kid was stupid and thought he was a badass (doesn't matter if he really was or wasn't), maybe watched too many movies, because it cost him his life. But that's on him,


----------



## NGroeneveld (Jan 23, 2011)

Diablo said:


> what gets me is when communities rally around to support sketchy individuals , in morally and legally ambiguous situations, who've done NOTHING for their communities other than act selfishly and irresponsibly and perpetuate the stereotypes they supposedly want to move away from, with nothing but the race card to play.


Plus one on that.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Good points. Yes, these riots are doing nothing to help the cause against racism. In fact, I suspect it will have quite the opposite effect.

Racists all over the USA are likely saying "look at the way those people act".

Sadly people are showing their real character.


----------



## davetcan (Feb 27, 2006)

Extremely well thought out and written imho. he lost me a bit with his last point but then I'm not a believer. I believe the solution lies in the sentiment but not neccessarily in a supreme being.

http://www.sbnation.com/lookit/2014/11/26/7296779/benjamin-watson-saints-ferguson-facebook


----------



## smorgdonkey (Jun 23, 2008)

There are plenty of thing that can be examined regarding this incident. Most important for me is that, in my opinion, the world is a better place without this 'young gentle giant' in it.

There are some videos available of cops killing people with no confrontation. One, in particular, is a homeless guy who goes from being questioned to harassed to being killed. *There was no protest for him.*


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

The rightious indignation of someone yelling RACISM, while he throws a garbage can through the plate glass window of a local business is completely meaningless to me.


I see no connection.


----------



## davetcan (Feb 27, 2006)

Just provides more ammunition for the bigots amongst us. A Martin Luther King only comes around once in a lifetime apparently.



Milkman said:


> The rightious indignation of someone yelling RACISM, while he throws a garbage can through the plate glass window of a local business is completely meaningless to me.
> 
> 
> I see no connection.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

smorgdonkey said:


> There are plenty of thing that can be examined regarding this incident. Most important for me is that, in my opinion, the world is a better place without this 'young gentle giant' in it.
> 
> There are some videos available of cops killing people with no confrontation. One, in particular, is a homeless guy who goes from being questioned to harassed to being killed. *There was no protest for him.*


That's because often these controversies are driven by families transferring onto others their subconscious guilt for having never taught their kid the life lessons he would have needed to not get into these situations. I call it "easy road parenting"...let the kid do whatever he wants, turn a blind eye to behaviours that might show hes going down the wrong path and blame everyone else if something goes wrong.
I remember very clearly being told as a teenager by my dad that you never run from cops or fight them. It was one of only a half dozen or so rules I had, but they were unbreakable, inexcusable and non-negotiable. I also didn't menacingly play with handguns on facebook, and I cant tell you the kind of punishment I would have gotten from my father if there was ever a video of me roughing up a storekeeper while committing petty theft of something no one really needs (cigars).


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

davetcan said:


> Just provides more ammunition for the bigots amongst us. A Martin Luther King only comes around once in a lifetime apparently.


Absolutely correct. Anyone who truly wants to see racism diminish should be very unhappy with those doing all the damage.


----------



## smorgdonkey (Jun 23, 2008)

davetcan said:


> Just provides more ammunition for the bigots amongst us. A Martin Luther King only comes around once in a lifetime apparently.


Yeah, I think that anyone yelling RACISM while throwing a garbage can through plate glass window is a bigot. 

That kid did not get shot because he was black and these people will never consider that.


----------



## davetcan (Feb 27, 2006)

No, they're just assholes and criminals. They "might" be bigots, I don't know. All I was trying to say is that the very worst thing they could do is exactly what they are doing. They are empowering the true bigots in the US and elsewhere by proving their point for them. 

The kid might not have been shot because he was black, I can't read the police officers mind, but the odds are extremely good he'd still be alive today had he not robbed that store and assaulted the officer. Those last two actions should take the race card right out of the equation, but it gets pulled every time, regardless of the facts it seems.



smorgdonkey said:


> Yeah, I think that anyone yelling RACISM while throwing a garbage can through plate glass window is a bigot.
> 
> That kid did not get shot because he was black and these people will never consider that.


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

..........


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

davetcan said:


> No, they're just assholes and criminals. They "might" be bigots, I don't know. All I was trying to say is that the very worst thing they could do is exactly what they are doing. They are empowering the true bigots in the US and elsewhere by proving their point for them.
> 
> The kid might not have been shot because he was black, I can't read the police officers mind, but the odds are extremely good he'd still be alive today had he not robbed that store and assaulted the officer. Those last two actions should take the race card right out of the equation, but it gets pulled every time, regardless of the facts it seems.


Cheech and Chong used to have a routine, pertaining to the unlikelihood of weed ever being legalized, where they noted that often the people who act as representatives/spokespersons for a cause are the very LAST ones you want representing that cause. Tommy Chong would then do a PSA ad for dope in which he noted "A lot of people say that weed wrecks your....................................................................................memory, man. Well all I gotta say is THOSE PEOPLE ARE F***ED, man!"

Yeah, helpful, really helpful.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

sulphur said:


> View attachment 11140
> ..........


Shouldn't we be outraged at both?


----------



## davetcan (Feb 27, 2006)

I remember it well ;-)



mhammer said:


> Cheech and Chong used to have a routine, pertaining to the unlikelihood of weed ever being legalized, where they noted that often the people who act as representatives/spokespersons for a cause are the very LAST ones you want representing that cause. Tommy Chong would then do a PSA ad for dope in which he noted "A lot of people say that weed wrecks your....................................................................................memory, man. Well all I gotta say is THOSE PEOPLE ARE F***ED, man!"
> 
> Yeah, helpful, really helpful.


----------



## Markus 1 (Feb 1, 2019)

Personal take...
People are opportunistic. Good intent with the protests. Valid reasons.
Good intent with peacekeeping. Valid reasons

Now add political opportunism and just basic criminality both ways and you have a civil war

Markus


----------



## Wardo (Feb 5, 2010)

Looting is now regarded as “reparations” and violence has been re-defined as peaceful protest. So it’s all good.


----------



## colchar (May 22, 2010)

Markus 1 said:


> Personal take...
> People are opportunistic. Good intent with the protests. Valid reasons.
> Good intent with peacekeeping. Valid reasons
> 
> ...



The last post in this thread before yours was made six years ago. The conversation had died................


----------



## Markus 1 (Feb 1, 2019)

Omg
Well. The principles remain the same I believe

Didn't watch the dates. And not sure how this popped up into my feed


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

People do stupid shit when they're in groups, especially guys. A portion of what takes place on this site all too often illustrates that principle.


----------



## Wardo (Feb 5, 2010)

mhammer said:


> People do stupid shit when they're in groups, especially guys.


I've been present at a few brawls where women were encouraging the winner to keep kicking someone in the head after he was already unconscious on the ground. You need to get out more and experience the finer things in life ... lol


----------



## Wardo (Feb 5, 2010)

Markus 1 said:


> Didn't watch the dates. And not sure how this popped up into my feed


Initially I thought it was about the recent festivities too but it's still relevant as it's same shit different day.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Wardo said:


> I've been present at a few brawls where women were encouraging the winner to keep kicking someone in the head after he was already unconscious on the ground. You need to get out more and experience the finer things in life ... lol


You'll note I said *especially*, and not *only*.


----------



## jb welder (Sep 14, 2010)

Markus 1 said:


> Didn't watch the dates. And not sure how this popped up into my feed


Probably the idiotic 'recommended reading' algorithm. 
@GCAdmin1 can something be done about this, or are we going to be seeing a lot of very old threads being resurrected (unwittingly) for no good reason at all.


----------



## Wardo (Feb 5, 2010)

More threads popping up equals more advertising which is kinda what it’s all about.


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

mhammer said:


> People do stupid shit when they're in groups, especially guys. A portion of what takes place on this site all too often illustrates that principle.


Have you been mixed up with a group of women, especially when there's drugs or booze involved. A lot of times they are worse than guys and a lot of times they are why guys do stupid shit. On the mild side ask any male stripper about that. 


Wardo said:


> Initially I thought it was about the recent festivities too but it's still relevant as it's same shit different day.


True that..


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

Wardo said:


> More threads popping up equals more advertising which is kinda what it’s all about.


And then someone posts on the thread and there you are....or actually here you are.


----------



## Wardo (Feb 5, 2010)

Electraglide said:


> A lot of times they are worse than guys and a lot of times they are why guys do stupid shit.


Saw this 25 year olds mother at a party encouraging him to kick the shit out of some old guy who was drunk and hadn’t started anything. Young guy knocks the old guy down and as he was trying to get up junior puts a solid boot to the side of the head while mom looks on approvingly. Old dude dropped and didn’t move. I decided to get out of there to avoid being a witness. But I’m sure you’ve seen stuff like that along the way.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

I remember the tragic murder of Victoria high school student Reena Virk. Women have their own ways of being aggressive and anti-social that occasionally overlap with men, but "roving gangs of women" is not the sort of thing you tend to hear much of.


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

mhammer said:


> I remember the tragic murder of Victoria high school student Reena Virk. Women have their own ways of being aggressive and anti-social that occasionally overlap with men, but "roving gangs of women" is not the sort of thing you tend to hear much of.


I guess maybe we just are in different communities then 'cause they are out there. You name a gang and there's a female counterpart that's just as bad if not worse. The Bloodettes come to mind and so does the Indian Posse Girls. I remember Reena Virk too....I have friends who live in that area. Seems this is becoming more common place too. 




And because weapons are readily available women are using them too. 


Wardo said:


> Saw this 25 year olds mother at a party encouraging him to kick the shit out of some old guy who was drunk and hadn’t started anything. Young guy knocks the old guy down and as he was trying to get up junior puts a solid boot to the side of the head while mom looks on approvingly. Old dude dropped and didn’t move. I decided to get out of there to avoid being a witness. But I’m sure you’ve seen stuff like that along the way.


And then some. Was at a bar in New West one night when a 'lady' got upset with the guy she was drinking with and opened his arm with a beer bottle. When one of his friends came to break it up about 12 of her friends jumped in and beat the crap out of him. There were probably 10 or more 'ladies' egging them on. They didn't stop until a dog was brought in. If it had been two guys at the start they would have probably got in each other's faces for a bit before anything happened.


----------



## laristotle (Aug 29, 2019)




----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

laristotle said:


>











The ultimate Cougars.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

mhammer said:


> I remember the tragic murder of Victoria high school student Reena Virk. Women have their own ways of being aggressive and anti-social that occasionally overlap with men, but "roving gangs of women" is not the sort of thing you tend to hear much of.


japan, korea, and china also have some pretty violent girl gangs.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

Wardo said:


> Saw this 25 year olds mother at a party encouraging him to kick the shit out of *some old guy who was drunk and hadn’t started anything. Young guy knocks the old guy down and as he was trying to get up junior puts a solid boot to the side of the head while mom looks on approvingly. Old dude dropped and didn’t move. I decided to get out of there to avoid being a witness*. But I’m sure you’ve seen stuff like that along the way.


----------

