No. I’m just fascinated how some folks want to change the rules when things don’t go their way.Now you are just being a drama queen.
No. I’m just fascinated how some folks want to change the rules when things don’t go their way.Now you are just being a drama queen.
At some point good people have to actually step up and stop letting bad people dominate the landscape.
Now you are just being a drama queen.
No it's up to the lawyers on each side to pick which of your peers would be favorable to their side.
Who said that the jury had to be all cops? I said it would have been a fairer jury if it had a couple of cops on it. I DON’T think it would have been a fairer jury if it had all cops.Dog I gotta disagree with reservation; I've only been reading the thread in bits and pieces but several people in the "jury of your peers" portion of the discussion have stated that to be a true peer review it should have been 12 cops. Kut's example of 12 muslims letting off a muslim is the same thing with a differing demographic in place.
If you've (not you specifically, collectively) have ever had the honor of serving jury duty then you're well aware of the jury stacking that goes on all the time. I've been released because of a college education, because I was aware of people illegally using drugs, for having friends that were cops etc. Hell, I've even been released for where I worked. I've also remained seated in spite of having a college education, being aware of people illegally using drugs or having friends that were cops.
Do I believe it was an impartial jury? I have a hard time with it. Is it because of the demographics? Hell no! I truly don't believe that there was any way in hell that Chauvin was going to get a fair trial any where in the state much less right there in the same town. Honestly at this point I'm not sure he'll get one anywhere anymore.
The media, our "representatives", activists and many others have made this such an us or them issue that people are afraid to even consider the other side anymore lest they be seen as weak.
Ok I'll turn this back over to the pros!
Okay.Did you not see the quote marks around “peers”? I don’t see that we said anything different.
Why would it be fairer?Who said that the jury had to be all cops? I said it would have been a fairer jury if it had a couple of cops on it. I DON’T think it would have been a fairer jury if it had all cops.
Actually the title is poorly written. Nothing in the article draws parallels. The events are contrasted; with the only similarity drawn being that they called it a "lynching."For ****s sake. The Floyd family compares George Floyd to Emmett Till. First of all the killing of Emmett Till was undeniably motivated by race. No question about it. Also justice was never brought about in Till's case. There was no such proof that supported racism in Floyd's case. It was never even alleged during the trial that the incident was motivated by race.
George Floyd and Emmett Till families see parallels in loss
A Black Chicago teen’s lynching in 1955 galvanized the civil rights movement. A Black Minneapolis man’s killing by police last year propelled a worldwide call for racial justice and ending police brutality. The murders of Emmett Till and George Floyd were separated by more than six decades...currently.att.yahoo.com
A member stated that white genocide is around the corner. Kut is responding to that post. How is trying to make it about the idea becoming mainstream not shifting the conversation to a different subject.You seem to be approaching this like a person who's looking to win an argument on the internet. You'll choose what you think are catchy quips to avoid having to deal with the actual subject. The problem isn't that white genocide is around the corner. It's that a growing number of people are beginning to mainstream the idea. That means it's getting to be okay to say it, where it was once (rightly) socially unacceptable. Just a few years ago that kind of talk would have resulted in social censure. But it appears to be acceptable to people on the left that other people on the left say it with impunity. That's a problem. If I'm to take you seriously, and not just some guy trying to score points on the internet, I'd like to see you acknowledge that.
Still waiting for an answer....what group do I apply collective guilt to and any evidence to support that claim....It just always seems that you are championing nuance and individuality where one side of the argument is concerned while apportioning collective guilt to the other
Sophist, heal thyself
In regards to the social media angle.Stupid people have always said stupid things and in a properly functioning society they get rebuffed for it. When people say bat **** crazy things and they're cheered on by segments of society, that leads to escalating acceptance.
There was a time and region that it was socially acceptable to talk about killing Blacks. It was not a properly functioning society then. But that kind of talk, and the actions which came after, became more fringe over the last several decades because it became socially unacceptable to say such things, and of course doing such things. Again, I'm not worried about being genocided. I'm worried the nation is ripping apart as the bat **** crazy talk moves into mainstream. A sitting US congress woman threatened violence if she didn't get the verdict she wanted. That's ****ing crazy.
And all you want to do is blow it off like it's not happening.
In what way was Emmitt Till the first George Floyd?Actually the title is poorly written. Nothing in the article draws parallels. The events are contrasted; with the only similarity drawn being that they called it a "lynching."
“People forgot about him,” Philonise Floyd said of Till, who was 14 when he was killed. “But he was the first George Floyd.”
Fascinated, indeed. Must be why you voted for court-packing, filibuster-ending, new-state-adding democrats.No. I’m just fascinated how some folks want to change the rules when things don’t go their way.
Well, being like Big Red didn't suit me.Fascinated, indeed. Must be why you voted for court-packing, filibuster-ending, new-state-adding democrats.
I suspect that they could maybe be drawing a comparison on the grounds that they both sparked a movement. I would agree that there was defintely cause for doing so based on the racial component in Till's case.I didn't say they were accurate in respect to calling both these lynchings
Til sparked a movement in Chicago. In Mississippi, people knew better.I suspect that they could maybe be drawing a comparison on the grounds that they both sparked a movement. I would agree that there was defintely cause for doing so based on the racial component in Till's case.
Not so much in Floyd's. That's my point.
The point is that any movement on behalf of Emmitt Till based on systemic racism at the time was most certainly justifiable.Til sparked a movement in Chicago. In Mississippi, people knew better.