What made you roll your eyes today thread?

[Drtooth]

Those weren't protesters. Those were opportunists blending in with the actual protesters, looking for an excuse to trash things. They didn't care about Michael Brown, or anyone but themselves.

My thoughts exactly. And yet the cops seem more eager to stop the actual protesters than the looters that are taking advantage of the chaos. Just sayin'.

Can't wait to see the fall out from the guy who was choked to death without even lifting a hand and we actually have evidence of it this time. Seriously. Every day we're inching closer to a Judge Dredd/ RoboCop style dystopia. We're living the Wall*E prequel people.

 

[CensoredAlso]

I'm sure the vast majority of police are good at their jobs. They do decent things for the public every day. It's just that those types of stories don't make it to the news.

If it bleeds, it leads!

 

[Drtooth]

There are. But that doesn't excuse the fact that, even if there was benefit of the doubt in most cases, there wasn't here. There's clearly racism and corruption in these districts and something needs to be done. It makes all police officers look bad, and if good cops want the world to know that they can trust them, they need to speak out against these districts.

On that note, I'm also sick of hearing "how come no one's talking about black on black crime?" They are... trust me. There's a very violent town ravaged by gang violence near Boston. Shootings are uncomfortably common in that area, and community leaders and citizens kept speaking out against it, and did everything in their power to try and stop it to no avail. It just doesn't make national news, like you said. That said, those are gang members, and not trusted members of the government.

Which brings me to the final eye roll. Anyone else think it's strange that the big, paranoid anti-government movement that could totally use this as proof of their agenda are pretty much siding with the white police officers? Heh. Guess anti-government only matters when it's a big industry.

 

[charlietheowl]

I try to stay out of political discussions because I don't have the constitution for it, but these two recent non-indictments make it clear that cops can kill people and not have to face any consequences. I don't see any other way to read the rulings. The New York case had everything on camera and still no charges, things couldn't have been any more clear for the grand jury.

 

[CensoredAlso]

I try to stay out of political discussions because I don't have the constitution for it, but these two recent non-indictments make it clear that cops can kill people and not have to face any consequences. I don't see any other way to read the rulings. The New York case had everything on camera and still no charges, things couldn't have been any more clear for the grand jury.

Well from what I understand, non-indictments are pretty unusual. Usually it's the old "you can indict a ham sandwich!" In the case of Ferguson, the witness testimonies just ended up unreliable, and that was really all they had.

I'm going to be honest, that footage of Brown grabbing and pushing down the store owner is pretty disturbing. This story just represents to me stupid young men (of any race) wanting to be tough guys. This is a very old West Side Story. If you live to fight, you will very likely die fighting. You can't always guarantee that a confrontation with the police will go your way. It's not fair, but it is a reality. And grown ups face it. Protect yourself by making smart choices in life. If only for the sake of your parents.

As to whether the non-indictments are because they're cops (certainly possible), you'd have to do some research as to how these things turn out on average. Two isolated cases aren't enough to go by.

 

[charlietheowl]

I suppose my thoughts on the Ferguson case would be that since there was so much uncertainty throughout the witness testimony, that it would need a criminal trial to sort itself out. But I guess the grand jury didn't feel this way. Hopefully the officer in Cleveland who shot the 12-year-old will get brought up on some kind of charges.

 

[CensoredAlso]

I suppose my thoughts on the Ferguson case would be that since there was so much uncertainty throughout the witness testimony, that it would need a criminal trial to sort itself out.

It's hard to say. I mean, if you were accused of something, and the witness testimony against you wasn't consistent, you would hope the jury would notice this and not put you trial.

 

[D'Snowth]

Well, here's a little reversal for you guys.

You heard of the Christian-Newsom murders? Happened here in my town, it's in the news constantly: a white high school couple raped and murdered by a black gang; each one of the gangbangers went on trial, and each were sentenced to prison sentences.

However, the judge in the trials was recently ousted for being a drug addict and a sex maniac, so now that we have a new judge, the murderers are getting new trials, and possibly, the ringleader (whose currently getting a retrial) will now be found not guilty and will be released from prison... the victims' parents and family are not happy.

 

[Slackbot]

I manage the Fraggle Rock DeviantArt group. Recently a user has started posting pictures of an unsuitable nature. Eye-bleach pictures. At first it was just to his on gallery, so, fine, whatever, no business of mine. But then he started submitting his...images...to several Muppet & Henson groups I am an admin on as well as the Fraggle Rock group. And when I tell him that this ain't the place for it, he seems hurt and surprised and claims that the pics are "artistic nudes" and not vulgar.

If you're morbidly curious, you can search DA for the obvious keywords. I do not recommend it. Seriously, *retch*.

 

[D'Snowth]

That's the thing now: people doing borderline-to-full-on Rule34-esque pics, and then insisting that they're "artistic." Then again, the whole, "Nudity is art," mentality is really on the rise now.