Looting and Rioting in St. Louis (Merged)

Killer Wench · 20-08-2014 11:29PM

EyeSight wrote: »

From a quick google:
Affirmative action or positive discrimination (known as employment equity in Canada, reservation in India, and positive action in the UK) is the policy of providing special opportunities for, and favoring members of, one group over another, when those being favored are perceived as a disadvantaged group who suffer from discrimination within a culture.

What's your point? Your quick google doesn't explain it.

Bipolar Joe · 20-08-2014 11:39PM

Killer Wench wrote: »

What's your point? Your quick google doesn't explain it.

Doesn't explain what? You said it's not about race or gender, when it is. What else needs to be explained?

EyeSight · 21-08-2014 12:15AM

Killer Wench wrote: »

What's your point? Your quick google doesn't explain it.

you said it was incorrect to say affirmative action is to benefit certain races or gender. The definition i provided counters that claim completely

Killer Wench · 21-08-2014 12:43AM

EyeSight wrote: »

you said it was incorrect to say affirmative action is to benefit certain races or gender. The definition i provided counters that claim completely

First, your definition doesn't specify race and gender like you do. The largest group to currently benefit from Affirmative Action are military veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars. This is a status, not a race. Affirmative Action also covers individuals with disabilities, the LGBTQ community, people from rural areas of America, people who are first generation Americans, and people of religious backgrounds. It is erroneous to equate Affirmative Action with race and gender when it is about equalizing underrepresented groups.

Second, if we were to look across racial and gender groups, the largest group to benefit from Affirmative Action programs have been white women. Then Asians and then Black women. Black men have benefited the least from Affirmative Action. Therefore, even with AA programs, it is not guaranteed that being a member of a specific gender or race will allow you to succeed. Being an ethnic minority or a female does not automatically mean that you will benefit within this system.

Third, in spite of Affirmative Action, women still make 77 cents for every dollar a man makes. Black women still make 69 cents for every dollar Black men make. Affirmative Action has not addressed the systematic sexism within the American corporate world nor has it eliminated the structural racism within American society.

EyeSight · 21-08-2014 02:40AM

Killer Wench wrote: »

First, your definition doesn't specify race and gender like you do. The largest group to currently benefit from Affirmative Action are military veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars. This is a status, not a race. Affirmative Action also covers individuals with disabilities, the LGBTQ community, people from rural areas of America, people who are first generation Americans, and people of religious backgrounds. It is erroneous to equate Affirmative Action with race and gender when it is about equalizing underrepresented groups.

Second, if we were to look across racial and gender groups, the largest group to benefit from Affirmative Action programs have been white women. Then Asians and then Black women. Black men have benefited the least from Affirmative Action. Therefore, even with AA programs, it is not guaranteed that being a member of a specific gender or race will allow you to succeed. Being an ethnic minority or a female does not automatically mean that you will benefit within this system.

Third, in spite of Affirmative Action, women still make 77 cents for every dollar a man makes. Black women still make 69 cents for every dollar Black men make. Affirmative Action has not addressed the systematic sexism within the American corporate world nor has it eliminated the structural racism within American society.

So you now admit it still benefits races and women?
I never said it was perfect, but it does benefit society and those who in the past would have been ignored?
My original statement on this was that there are initiatives and actions which try to break the racial divides in America. I never said it was working 100%. Without affirmative action, things would be a lot worse

Egginacup · 21-08-2014 06:25AM

EyeSight wrote: »

So you now admit it still benefits races and women?
I never said it was perfect, but it does benefit society and those who in the past would have been ignored?
My original statement on this was that there are initiatives and actions which try to break the racial divides in America. I never said it was working 100%. Without affirmative action, things would be a lot worse

FFS, a free milk program in schools "benefits" women.

EyeSight · 21-08-2014 06:46AM

Egginacup wrote: »

FFS, a free milk program in schools "benefits" women.

seriously are you just trolling? I don't know whether to laugh or cry at your posts :pac:
You should be walking around grafton street shouting about who really killed JFK

comongethappy · 21-08-2014 07:30AM

EyeSight wrote: »

seriously are you just trolling?

Eggy?

Never!

rockonollie · 22-08-2014 02:06AM

Hmmm.... so apparently the man hired by the family to do their autopsy isn't even qualified as a forensic medical examiner.

Manic Moran · 22-08-2014 02:33AM

rockonollie wrote: »

Hmmm.... so apparently the man hired by the family to do their autopsy isn't even qualified as a forensic medical examiner.

I could have sworn I read he was one of 400 qualified in his position and specialty.

WilyCoyote · 22-08-2014 02:36AM

rockonollie wrote: »

Hmmm.... so apparently the man hired by the family to do their autopsy isn't even qualified as a forensic medical examiner.

How come this has just been paraded now?

Killer Wench · 22-08-2014 04:24AM

rockonollie wrote: »

Hmmm.... so apparently the man hired by the family to do their autopsy isn't even qualified as a forensic medical examiner.

You mean this guy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Baden

Oh, okay.

porsche959 · 22-08-2014 04:38AM

Killer Wench wrote: »

You mean this guy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Baden

Oh, okay.

Funny thing is, although the link does testify to his medical credentials, it also 'indicts' him as a media savvy type that seems to quite like the spotlight of high profile cases.

suicide_circus · 22-08-2014 05:34AM

Never heard of a family choosing their own celebrity pathologist before but maybe that's the norm in missouri.

wicklowstevo · 22-08-2014 11:20AM

he seems to be a bit of a media whore , but then again this whole thing is a storm created by the media long before all the actual facts of the incident are known .

good old media distract distract distract and screw the facts all because folks are dumb enough to buy into it

rockonollie · 22-08-2014 11:20AM

Not Baden, parcels

http://news.yahoo.com/st-louis-medical-examiner-slams-brown-family-hire-172036981.html

The media in the US seem to be accepting that the story is falling apart, more and more stories are being released supporting the though of it being a legal shooting.

jank · 22-08-2014 05:25PM

I must say I agree a lot with this, the whole thing has been blown out of proportion and with **** all else on the news it being August well the whole thing turns into a frenzy. There is not right to riot.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/08/21/oreilly_on_charlatan_sharpton_insulting_cops_my_god_why_is_that_acceptable.html

Sand · 22-08-2014 07:39PM

That link indicates that Wilson has a "orbital blow out fracture" of his eye socket which sounds very painful. It also implies there *was* some sort of struggle between Wilson and Brown at the car prior to the shooting.

What I cant figure out is what was going through Browns thinking that he first ran from Wilson and then turned around and seems to have run back towards him. Browns actions that day seem to be consistently aggressive (the physical intimidation of the store owner, blocking traffic by walking down the road) but charging an armed police officer is particularly stupid. Did run away, then turn to charge Wilson? Or did he suddenly decide to surrender and surprise Wilson by turning back? Or was he clipped in the arm by the first shot and spun about? Very little of the events or the actions of those involved makes sense based on what we currently know. A dashcam could have helped, but as was highlighted by the videos of a shooting from two different dashcams, it could actually mislead as well.

It seems clear that the original story of a peaceable black teenager being targeted and shot in the back by a white racist cop has collapsed. But it has also demonstrated that there shouldn't be a rush to judge what has happened until all evidence is weighed. It is still very possible that Wilson was attacked, lost his composure, and made bad decisions.

One way or the other it is very likely Wilson's career as a police officer in that town is finished. I cant see how it will be possible for him to continue even if he is entirely exonerated.

wicklowstevo · 22-08-2014 07:55PM

if any one has questions to answer about their behavior its the media and the baying moronic hoards who screamed for heads and sprouted the f the pigs and racist murdering police trash regardless of their ignorance of the facts .

then again stupidity in this sort of case seems to be human nature which is depressing really

bnt · 22-08-2014 08:46PM

I'm surprised we haven't yet seen this thing used against the protestors:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzG4oEutPbA

whatstherush · 22-08-2014 09:08PM

Sand wrote: »

That link indicates that Wilson has a "orbital blow out fracture" of his eye socket which sounds very painful. It also implies there *was* some sort of struggle between Wilson and Brown at the car prior to the shooting.

What I cant figure out is what was going through Browns thinking that he first ran from Wilson and then turned around and seems to have run back towards him. Browns actions that day seem to be consistently aggressive (the physical intimidation of the store owner, blocking traffic by walking down the road) but charging an armed police officer is particularly stupid. Did run away, then turn to charge Wilson? Or did he suddenly decide to surrender and surprise Wilson by turning back? Or was he clipped in the arm by the first shot and spun about? Very little of the events or the actions of those involved makes sense based on what we currently know. A dashcam could have helped, but as was highlighted by the videos of a shooting from two different dashcams, it could actually mislead as well.

It seems clear that the original story of a peaceable black teenager being targeted and shot in the back by a white racist cop has collapsed. But it has also demonstrated that there shouldn't be a rush to judge what has happened until all evidence is weighed. It is still very possible that Wilson was attacked, lost his composure, and made bad decisions.

One way or the other it is very likely Wilson's career as a police officer in that town is finished. I cant see how it will be possible for him to continue even if he is entirely exonerated.

The eye socket claim should definitely be taken with a pinch of salt http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/43759_Exposing_Gateway_Pundits_Dishonesty-_He_Altered_a_CT_Scan_Image_to_Trick_His_Readers

Same with the "dozen" witnesses that said he rushed back to the cop http://www.thepeoplesview.net/main/2014/8/19/christine-byers-tweeted-what-how-authorities-use-the-press-to-disseminate-their-narrative#.U_dcRAklDUA.twitter

This guy is a great liar if he did rush him http://m.youtube.com/watch?t=7m10s&v=3CXFhgdcCy0&feature=youtu.be

Sand · 22-08-2014 09:23PM

whatstherush wrote: »

The eye socket claim should definitely be taken with a pinch of salt http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/43759_Exposing_Gateway_Pundits_Dishonesty-_He_Altered_a_CT_Scan_Image_to_Trick_His_Readers

Same with the "dozen" witnesses that said he rushed back to the cop http://www.thepeoplesview.net/main/2014/8/19/christine-byers-tweeted-what-how-authorities-use-the-press-to-disseminate-their-narrative#.U_dcRAklDUA.twitter

This guy is a great liar if he did rush him http://m.youtube.com/watch?t=7m10s&v=3CXFhgdcCy0&feature=youtu.be

I cant speak to the eye socket claim. Initial reports were that Wilson had a facial injury and that his face was swollen so the fracture is detail, its not new.

The "dozen" witnesses thing is new - the evidence for Brown rushing Wilson is that all wounds were received to his front, not to his back. And that the wounds (mostly to Browns arm) indicate panic...not a cold blooded execution. Initial eyewitness claims were that Brown was shot in the back running away. I guess those "eyewitness" accounts were either lies or ....wildly inaccurate.

As for the last guy - I refer to the above - there is so many contradicting accounts of the shooting by "eyewitnesses" that someone is lying. Another video was posted recently by one of the neighbours *immediately* reacting to the shooting, and the (overheard) account was that Brown had run away, then turned back...and that Wilson had fired so many shots, so rapidly that the man speaking thought he must have been missing.

The guy in your link seems to indicate Wilson stopped firing...then deliberately recommenced firing to finish off Brown.

So...take your pick. Someone is lying.

porsche959 · 09-10-2014 06:55AM

Uh oh.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025641231

suicide_circus · 09-10-2014 07:26AM

Damn crackers at it again!

suicide_circus · 09-10-2014 07:34AM

"...Officer approached the man and a struggle ensued.

During the struggle, police say, the man pulled a weapon on the officer and started firing.

The officer, fearing for his safety, returned fire, fatally wounding the man. A gun was recovered from the scene."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/10/08/police-officer-shoots-kills-suspect-in-south-st-louis/16952203/

jank · 09-10-2014 07:55AM

Appears the police were correct in this instance.

Egginacup · 09-10-2014 11:44AM

jank wrote: »

Appears the police were correct in this instance.

The police are rarely correct in any instance of shooting civilians. First off, why is a cop working for a private security firm? Don't they pay cops enough that they only need the one job...i.e. cop?

And why is a private security guard getting out of a car to confront anyone? He has no powers whatsoever. Sounds a lot like this cop thinks he's a cop 24/7 and can fcuk with whoever he wants, whenever he wants. Wonder if he takes his gun with him on vacation and fcuks with people outside Disneyland.

Sounds very vague that as well..... the victim produced "a weapon". You don't need to shoot someone dead if they pull a knife or a knuckleduster.

And a gun was "recovered" from the scene. I'll await the full facts and I'll also await a news story where a cop actually does his job properly rather than abusing, intimidating or killing someone when it could have been avoided......that would be a rarity.

And of course, no charges brought against the cops who threw a stun grenade into a baby's crib while the kid was in it:

https://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform-free-speech/how-many-people-must-be-maimed-or-killed-we-end-militarization

wicklowstevo · 09-10-2014 05:03PM

Egginacup wrote: »

The police are rarely correct in any instance of shooting civilians. First off, why is a cop working for a private security firm? Don't they pay cops enough that they only need the one job...i.e. cop?

And why is a private security guard getting out of a car to confront anyone? He has no powers whatsoever. Sounds a lot like this cop thinks he's a cop 24/7 and can fcuk with whoever he wants, whenever he wants. Wonder if he takes his gun with him on vacation and fcuks with people outside Disneyland.

Sounds very vague that as well..... the victim produced "a weapon". You don't need to shoot someone dead if they pull a knife or a knuckleduster.

And a gun was "recovered" from the scene. I'll await the full facts and I'll also await a news story where a cop actually does his job properly rather than abusing, intimidating or killing someone when it could have been avoided......that would be a rarity.

And of course, no charges brought against the cops who threw a stun grenade into a baby's crib while the kid was in it:

https://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform-free-speech/how-many-people-must-be-maimed-or-killed-we-end-militarization

so ....... you just don't like cops then ? and regardlless of what the cop did or did not do in you tiny little mind he/she is a facist bully pig who should just shut up and accept your abuse and disdain with a servile smile and a "yes sir , thank you sir for paying my wages sir, your so handsome and strong sir and you smell so nice sir "

i bet your just a lovely person .:rolleyes:

jank · 10-10-2014 12:06AM

Egginacup wrote: »

The police are rarely correct in any instance of shooting civilians.

Actually the opposite is true. Most police shootings when investigate are deemed OK and by the book. If you attack a police officer in the US with a weapon like a knife or a gun lethal action will follow.

Manic Moran · 10-10-2014 05:16AM

Egginacup wrote: »

The police are rarely correct in any instance of shooting civilians. First off, why is a cop working for a private security firm? Don't they pay cops enough that they only need the one job...i.e. cop?

Why shouldn't a cop have a second job? As long as it's vetted through the department, like any other good American, he can have an income commensurate to his willingness to work.

And why is a private security guard getting out of a car to confront anyone? He has no powers whatsoever. Sounds a lot like this cop thinks he's a cop 24/7 and can fcuk with whoever he wants, whenever he wants. Wonder if he takes his gun with him on vacation and fcuks with people outside Disneyland.

Erm. Most law enforcement officers are cops 24/7. They may or may not be on their duty shift, but they are still sworn officers and always retain their law enforcement authority as recognised by the State. They may, however, lose various protections of sovereign immunity if working outside of their LEO duties or if they do not identify themselves as LEOs before using their authorities. Many agencies have additional qualifiers.

Sounds very vague that as well..... the victim produced "a weapon". You don't need to shoot someone dead if they pull a knife or a knuckleduster.

If the knife or knuckleduster in question isn't being used to threaten the cop, talk to me again.

And of course, no charges brought against the cops who threw a stun grenade into a baby's crib while the kid was in it:

https://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform-free-speech/how-many-people-must-be-maimed-or-killed-we-end-militarization

In fairness, you have to note that that was the decision of the Grand Jury of citizens, not the prosecutor deciding not to move forward.

Looting and Rioting in St. Louis (Merged)

Comments