When I hear a civil libertarian saying stuff like this, I listen.
If what this guy is saying is true it certainly makes the media coverage of this case very interesting indeed.
Will be very interesting to see how this all unfolds.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDuRB2Z89-s
Breaking News:
The Grand Jury agreed. No indictment of officer Wilson.
Is that the god, guns and gold guy?
I thought Robert McCulloch's summary of the procedure and findings was excellent. I think they did everything humanly possible to uncover the truth of the situation.
Obama to make a statement on the verdict shortly.
Browns parents will keep pushing for police to have to wear body cams.
Media: "someone riot pleeeeeeeease"
Listening to the police scanner. In the past 5 minutes:
<div style="margin:0px;"> <div style="margin:0px;"> <p>Journalist hit in head with brick. Dumpster on fire. Two buildings on fire. Shots fired in front of fire department. Officer down. A command post is not reporting in it seems. A jewelry store looted. Tear gas used. One person shot, condition unknown. Protestors marching on police.</p> <p>That's all just Ferguson in the past 5 minutes. I may have missed something because it's going fast and my connection isn't but that's the major stuff I heard. Just to give you an idea what's on.</p> <div> </div> </div> </div>
http://www.ustream.tv/channel/st-louis-county-police-scanner
So the media, and Obama have said that this reaction is "understandable". When did society start thinking that violent reaction is "understanable"? Yes, being angry is understandable, being frustrated is understanding, being disapppointed is understandable, being hurt is understandable however being violent should never be understandable.
So the media, and Obama have said that this reaction is "understandable". When did society start thinking that violent reaction is "understanable"? Yes, being angry is understandable, being frustrated is understanding, being disapppointed is understandable, being hurt is understandable however being violent should never be understandable.
Having what looks like an army (but is surprisingly "only" the local police) there feels almost antagonistic. A very clear message that the lawmakers and enforcers don't trust the public. Serves to heighten the "us vs them" mentality.
So the media, and Obama have said that this reaction is "understandable". When did society start thinking that violent reaction is "understanable"? Yes, being angry is understandable, being frustrated is understanding, being disapppointed is understandable, being hurt is understandable however being violent should never be understandable.
Having what looks like an army (but is surprisingly "only" the local police) there feels almost antagonistic. A very clear message that the lawmakers and enforcers don't trust the public. Serves to heighten the "us vs them" mentality.
Yeah it does but the whole thing has been badly handled, from Obama, to the police, the judicial system, the people on the streets and escpecially to the media. It doesn't help when Obama basically links the situation to the old black rights movement, whether it is true or not, it does not help in the least and only inflames the racial divide and extends it across the nation.
So the media, and Obama have said that this reaction is "understandable". When did society start thinking that violent reaction is "understanable"? Yes, being angry is understandable, being frustrated is understanding, being disapppointed is understandable, being hurt is understandable however being violent should never be understandable.
Having what looks like an army (but is surprisingly "only" the local police) there feels almost antagonistic. A very clear message that the lawmakers and enforcers don't trust the public. Serves to heighten the "us vs them" mentality.
Yeah it does but the whole thing has been badly handled, from Obama, to the police, the judicial system, the people on the streets and escpecially to the media. It doesn't help when Obama basically links the situation to the old black rights movement, whether it is true or not, it does not help in the least and only inflames the racial divide and extends it across the nation.
I'm not sure what Obama has said on this one way or the other, but if I was a black person in the USA, then I strongly suspect I'd have very little buy-in to a society whose enforcers of law and order seem to kill people like me, with complete impunity, with numbing frequency. I've got no idea whether the particular shooting involved here was legit or not, but the sheer frequency of unarmed black guys getting shot dead by police would poison all my faith in the state, in society, in justice, whatever.
In short, I probably WOULD find the reaction understandable. I'm sure there are a whole bunch of opportunists, thieves, habitual rioters (the USA equivalent of the Black Bloc people we get trying to take over every anti-corporate or anti-govt demonstration here) and other lowlifes juts joining in on the fun, but I reckon what we're seeing is a country in which a sizable minority believes it isn't getting a fair go from the law, and which believes it's in danger from those who should protect it. In short, people feel like they're being kept outside the protection that society promises its citizens, so are wondering why the hell should they respect that society's rules?
This is what he said:
"We are a nation built on the rule of law, and so we need to accept that this decision was the grand jury's to make," Obama said late Monday night. "There are Americans who agree with it and there are Americans who are deeply disappointed, even angry. It's an understandable reaction. But I join Michael's parents in asking anyone who protests this decision to do so peacefully."
The President said the inflamed tensions over the case, both in Ferguson and elsewhere, are in part a result of decades-old strains in race relations.
"There is inevitably going to be some negative reaction, and it'll make for good TV," Obama said.
"But what we want to do is to make sure that we're also focusing on those who can offer the kind of real progress that we know is possible -- that the vast majority of people Ferguson, the St. Louis region, in Missouri and around the country are looking for," he said. "I want to be partners with those folks and we need to lift up the kind of constructive dialogue that is taking place."
I have no problem with him being supportive and incouraging but I am not sure linking black rights with this, as the President, is currently a helpful offering. It would have been better to wait until things settled before delving into that side of the issue and using it then to create a better dialogue.
Also why wait until the end of your time (two terms) as a black president to deal with this? Why wait UNTIL this situation to confront the race issue, why not deal with it earlier?
Sounds to me like Obama is calling it as he sees it.
Obama leaving the race thing out of his Ferguson statement would have been a massive cop-out, and would have been utterly useless. Everyone sees it as a race thing already, he's not saying anything new.
I think it's easy to overestimate how much power Obama has over this though, to be honest. Law enforcement is a very local thing in the USA - lots of police chiefs, sherriffs etc are even still directly elected. And he's already said all this stuff before about the Trayvon Martin killing. The issue is cultural, and will only be addressed, much less solved, over generational timescales. There's not much one guy, even at the top of the tree, can do about that.
So the media, and Obama have said that this reaction is "understandable". When did society start thinking that violent reaction is "understanable"? Yes, being angry is understandable, being frustrated is understanding, being disapppointed is understandable, being hurt is understandable however being violent should never be understandable.
If you can consider the phenomenon of violent conflict in human history, not to mention pre-history, how can you not see it as understandable? Not necessarily appropriate, but if you fail to understand the innate capacity for violence (expressed or not) in humans then you have a narrow and blinkered view. To understand is not to condone, as you seem to be suggesting.
If Obama tried to do anything on race without a catalyst he'd be howled down even more.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPbdWuBHIEw
So the media, and Obama have said that this reaction is "understandable". When did society start thinking that violent reaction is "understanable"? Yes, being angry is understandable, being frustrated is understanding, being disapppointed is understandable, being hurt is understandable however being violent should never be understandable.
If you can consider the phenomenon of violent conflict in human history, not to mention pre-history, how can you not see it as understandable? Not necessarily appropriate, but if you fail to understand the innate capacity for violence (expressed or not) in humans then you have a narrow and blinkered view. To understand is not to condone, as you seem to be suggesting.
I understand the capacity for violence & I believe the police do as well which is why we have this situation where police take swift violent action & sometimes that action is well beyond what the situation requires. Is it possible some police are what you'd call "trigger happy" - absolutely its possible with the thousands of cops. I think its also very possible that most cops live in fear & constant danger in a country where 2 cops a week are killed doing their job.