The Ferguson thread

[bwframe]

The news people were reporting earlier today that rumors were out suggesting that further Ferguson terrorist activity will return over the weekend. Anyone heard further details on this?

Supposed ISIS call outs to assist and infiltrate the local terrorists?

 

[Yup!]

 

[printcraft]

Where is that from?

 

[Yup!]

Where is that from?

my brother is a cop in Maine.

 

[Trigger Time]

Thanks, Kut. You said this much better than I did. The main point as I see it is to address actions, not the people performing/committing them, which is a point Cathy made, too. As a cop, you don't care if the rapist is Black, White, Asian, or Martian, male, female, teen, or senior. If you catch them, you're busting them. If they resist, they're probably going to have a really bad day. I didn't say it well, but I think as long as we focus on what's being done, the fact that the perpetrators (or "alleged perpetrators", until they're convicted (which may be never)) are one or another color is immaterial. Dehumanizing people to make them easier to deal with, as you described, is IMHO, immoral.

Rep inbound.

Blessings,
Bill

That "issue" was immaterial from the beginning of the ferguson shooting. Just a cop doing his job for all the right reasons and being forces to shoot an attacker for just that reason alone. The non issue became an issue when the baiters in Tre community and the media and politicians made it the issue it wasn't. So the good guys did nothing wrong and this can't be flipped on them. But as always now it's being widely reported that we have a huge issue in this country still when I believe it's a non issue as do many others and are tired of being baited and accused. Most good tax paying Americans just want to be left alone. Don't wanna be provoked or damned. Don't wanna talk about non issues. All of this poking the bear is gonna get an end result that the pokers don't like. I'll bet money. All of this social tollerance is gonna end because people are gonna get tired of being stabbed in the back and having the hand bitten by the dog (just an illustration. I'm not calling anyone a dog).

 

[Trigger Time]

The news people were reporting earlier today that rumors were out suggesting that further Ferguson terrorist activity will return over the weekend. Anyone heard further details on this?

Supposed ISIS call outs to assist and infiltrate the local terrorists?

I wouldn't be surprised. Certain political entities have a vested interested in keeping this thing going. Also the news media.
i think the governor of that state should face criminal charges

 

[printcraft]

my brother is a cop in Maine.

Stupidity knows no bounds.

That bastion of turmoil and injustice that is Maine

 

[printcraft]

I wouldn't be surprised. Certain political entities have a vested interested in keeping this thing going. Also the news media.
i think the governor of that state should face criminal charges

He should. He threw Wilson under the bus. Also Dorian Johnson should face charges for lying to the media from the start and getting all this going.

 

[rhino]

Thanks, Kut. You said this much better than I did. The main point as I see it is to address actions, not the people performing/committing them, which is a point Cathy made, too. As a cop, you don't care if the rapist is Black, White, Asian, or Martian, male, female, teen, or senior. If you catch them, you're busting them. If they resist, they're probably going to have a really bad day. I didn't say it well, but I think as long as we focus on what's being done, the fact that the perpetrators (or "alleged perpetrators", until they're convicted (which may be never)) are one or another color is immaterial. Dehumanizing people to make them easier to deal with, as you described, is IMHO, immoral.

Rep inbound.

Blessings,
Bill

I'm disagree completely, and I'm actually surprised by your position on this. Using the word "animal" (or other, take your pick) is not dehumanizing anyone, nor is it attempt to do so in the usage I've seen here. The actions of the people who are committing the crimes is what is dehumanizing them. It's their choices and their behaviors that do it and they hold the responsibility for the results of their actions.

With respect to the actual words used, if "animal" is unacceptable at this point, how long before the currently acceptable words are no longer? At some point the list of unacceptable words will dwarf the words that don't cause anyone discomfort. I submit that there is no substantive difference in the words chosen, and I for one prefer to communicate as effectively as possible. I can't control if someone chooses to project their own agenda on very clear, simple speech.

As an aside, it seems that at least some are looking for racism where it doesn't necessarily exist or at least is immaterial to the issue at hand. The guy with the bullet in his head or the person burned to death in the arson don't really care about the demographics or contrived motives involved with who did it to them.

 

[cobber]

He should. He threw Wilson under the bus. Also Dorian Johnson should face charges for lying to the media from the start and getting all this going.

The real question is why anyone believed Johnson to begin with. Except the rabble-rousing media, of course.

 

[Kutnupe14]

It shouldn't matter whether the marauding animal, human or non-human, knows "better" or knows that what it's doing is morally wrong". If an animal has been trained not to attack people and has simply chosen to act contrary to its training, or the animal has been trained to deliberately attack people, is a question that is neither here nor there in the moment of dealing with the marauding behavior.

I give you four scenarioes. You tell me in which one the answer to the question, "Is he aware that what he is doing is wrong." matters one whit.

1) A well socialized and treated pitbull is running pell mell, growling and \snarling, down the street after a child that's running away in terror.
2) A pitbul that has been trained to fight and has been tortured is running pell mell, growing and snarling, down the street after a child that's running away in terror.
3) A man that's well dressed and groomed is running pell mell, wielding a knife in the downward slashing manner, down the street after a child that's running away in terror.
4) A man that's dressed slovenly and shouting hateful and threatening epithets \is running pell mell, wielding a knife in the downward slashing manner, down the street after a child that's running away in terror.

Please answer 1, 2, 3, or 4, as to which one would not warrant the use of lethal force once it became apparent that the animal, human or non-human, was imminently going to close with the child, and then explain your reasoning forwhy lethal force would not be warranted and how the answer to the question,"Is he aware that what he is doing is wrong?" affects that calculus.

First, I'd like point out that if your examples are to be thought of as applying in a similar fashion to the actions of the looters/arsonists, in Ferguson, then you have illustrated an appeal to emotion fallacy. In all four examples lethal force is clearly warranted. In cases where life and limb are at risk, due to the actions of another, there should be no prohibition against using lethal force, but property crimes are a completely different thing. Lethal force and property crimes do not often reconcile.

Now, you attempted to illustrate a kinship between the actions of person and animal, when a person’s life was potentially at risk, and the response was the same in each instance. Let’s see how far that rabbit hole goes in a differing situation.

1. Late one night you hear a bang in your back yard. You grab your gun, and head outside. When you get outside, you find a coyote chasing your chickens. Response?

2. Late one night you hear a bang in your back yard. You grab your gun, and head outside. When you get outside, you find a hungry person chasing your chickens. Response?

I dare say, my example involving property, is much more relevant to this Ferguson fiasco, than a knife wielding psycho/wayward dog chasing a terrified child. So, would you handle these situations in the exactly same way? And if not, why?

I’ll further state, that “being aware” of wrongdoing, isn’tthe only litmus test for separating humans from animals. Consideration of theconsequences also matters.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I'm disagree completely, and I'm actually surprised by your position on this. Using the word "animal" (or other, take your pick) is not dehumanizing anyone, nor is it attempt to do so in the usage I've seen here. The actions of the people who are committing the crimes is what is dehumanizing them. It's their choices and their behaviors that do it and they hold the responsibility for the results of their actions.

With respect to the actual words used, if "animal" is unacceptable at this point, how long before the currently acceptable words are no longer? At some point the list of unacceptable words will dwarf the words that don't cause anyone discomfort. I submit that there is no substantive difference in the words chosen, and I for one prefer to communicate as effectively as possible. I can't control if someone chooses to project their own agenda on very clear, simple speech.

As an aside, it seems that at least some are looking for racism where it doesn't necessarily exist or at least is immaterial to the issue at hand. The guy with the bullet in his head or the person burned to death in the arson don't really care about the demographics or contrived motives involved with who did it to them.

Huh? And the following sentence... is it your opinion that anyone that commits a crime is an "animal," or that they dehumanize themselves in some way, by committing a criminal offense? And when have animals ever been held accountable for actions they didn't understand?

 

[Bill of Rights]

I'm disagree completely, and I'm actually surprised by your position on this. Using the word "animal" (or other, take your pick) is not dehumanizing anyone, nor is it attempt to do so in the usage I've seen here. The actions of the people who are committing the crimes is what is dehumanizing them. It's their choices and their behaviors that do it and they hold the responsibility for the results of their actions.

With respect to the actual words used, if "animal" is unacceptable at this point, how long before the currently acceptable words are no longer? At some point the list of unacceptable words will dwarf the words that don't cause anyone discomfort. I submit that there is no substantive difference in the words chosen, and I for one prefer to communicate as effectively as possible. I can't control if someone chooses to project their own agenda on very clear, simple speech.

As an aside, it seems that at least some are looking for racism where it doesn't necessarily exist or at least is immaterial to the issue at hand. The guy with the bullet in his head or the person burned to death in the arson don't really care about the demographics or contrived motives involved with who did it to them.

Thanks for your reply and the thoughts behind and within it, Joey.

I don't dispute that the rioters and looters are dehumanizing themselves by their behavior. They still remain human, though, morally and in the eyes of the law. (Someone could not, for example, set up a rifle on a rooftop and start picking guys off who are walking down the street, even en masse, so long as that's all they were doing. Were we speaking of, say, a pack of wolves (literally, as in Canis lupis) that restriction would not be considered, and someone shooting them might face charges for discharging a firearm in city limits, or maybe hunting out of season, but not for homicide.) That's not the problem. The problem is when people start deciding someone else is less than human and therefore, their rights don't matter as much. "Well, they're nothin' more than animals" or "Pff. They're just mopes." and in fairness and full disclosure, I've used that latter term, but while I may identify some people by that term, it does not ever change the care that I provide them if they end up on my ambulance cot or, when I worked there, my ED bed, any more than it changes my care if I know the person in that position is wealthy, influential, or powerful. This isn't about medical care, of course, but that's my example.

What it comes down to is that however they act is beyond my control. How *I* act is the only thing I can control, and if I stop respecting people's humanity, it's a failure on my part. You're spot on, as usual, that the dead person is just as dead no matter how they ended up that way, and no matter who performed/committed the act that killed them. My position is that what they did is far more important and far more addressable, than who (as in what race, socioeconomic group, gender, etc.) they are. If we're looking for terms to use for them, I made several suggestions upthread. All of them referenced the criminal activity, and all of them would be equally applicable to anyone who did those things. I suppose that "animal" vaguely matches that definition, but it's a hell of a stretch for it to do so. As my original tongue-in-cheek post indicated, animals, at least the ones I referenced (with the unspoken meaning of 4 legs, fur, and tails) don't go around destroying others' property with malice or revenge, certainly not when the property doesn't belong to whoever they would be said to be avenging. (My dog won't get mad at printcraft and come tear up your yard as a result, in other words.)

Does that make more sense?

Blessings,
Bill

 

[churchmouse]

Thanks for your reply and the thoughts behind and within it, Joey.

I don't dispute that the rioters and looters are dehumanizing themselves by their behavior. They still remain human, though, morally and in the eyes of the law. (Someone could not, for example, set up a rifle on a rooftop and start picking guys off who are walking down the street, even en masse, so long as that's all they were doing. Were we speaking of, say, a pack of wolves (literally, as in Canis lupis) that restriction would not be considered, and someone shooting them might face charges for discharging a firearm in city limits, or maybe hunting out of season, but not for homicide.) That's not the problem. The problem is when people start deciding someone else is less than human and therefore, their rights don't matter as much. "Well, they're nothin' more than animals" or "Pff. They're just mopes." and in fairness and full disclosure, I've used that latter term, but while I may identify some people by that term, it does not ever change the care that I provide them if they end up on my ambulance cot or, when I worked there, my ED bed, any more than it changes my care if I know the person in that position is wealthy, influential, or powerful. This isn't about medical care, of course, but that's my example.

What it comes down to is that however they act is beyond my control. How *I* act is the only thing I can control, and if I stop respecting people's humanity, it's a failure on my part. You're spot on, as usual, that the dead person is just as dead no matter how they ended up that way, and no matter who performed/committed the act that killed them. My position is that what they did is far more important and far more addressable, than who (as in what race, socioeconomic group, gender, etc.) they are. If we're looking for terms to use for them, I made several suggestions upthread. All of them referenced the criminal activity, and all of them would be equally applicable to anyone who did those things. I suppose that "animal" vaguely matches that definition, but it's a hell of a stretch for it to do so. As my original tongue-in-cheek post indicated, animals, at least the ones I referenced (with the unspoken meaning of 4 legs, fur, and tails) don't go around destroying others' property with malice or revenge, certainly not when the property doesn't belong to whoever they would be said to be avenging. (My dog won't get mad at printcraft and come tear up your yard as a result, in other words.)

Does that make more sense?

Blessings,
Bill

I now understand where you are coming from.
In these days of PC and in regards too the tighter forum rules the term animal was as close as I could come to how I see them behaving. Pack animals. Hyena's running to a kill. Ripping and tearing at the very flesh of their own community. Base instinctual behavior. There is not much that can be recognized as human in any of this. Yes, they are at least physically human but they are certainly acting in pack animal fashion.
I have "Always" called roving bands of thugs (any color/race etc) wolf packs because that is what they are. They pray on the weak. They view them as prey. Have you actually watched video of how this all takes place. It is eerily similar to how pack animals operate.
I mean no disrespect to the family dog but this is much more dangerous.

 

[churchmouse]

Well, if that is your belief, they you would be justified in calling them animals. I will say that I believe that your opinion is in the minority.

And in this you sir, are wrong.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Thanks for your reply and the thoughts behind and within it, Joey.

I don't dispute that the rioters and looters are dehumanizing themselves by their behavior. They still remain human, though, morally and in the eyes of the law. (Someone could not, for example, set up a rifle on a rooftop and start picking guys off who are walking down the street, even en masse, so long as that's all they were doing. Were we speaking of, say, a pack of wolves (literally, as in Canis lupis) that restriction would not be considered, and someone shooting them might face charges for discharging a firearm in city limits, or maybe hunting out of season, but not for homicide.) That's not the problem. The problem is when people start deciding someone else is less than human and therefore, their rights don't matter as much. "Well, they're nothin' more than animals" or "Pff. They're just mopes." and in fairness and full disclosure, I've used that latter term, but while I may identify some people by that term, it does not ever change the care that I provide them if they end up on my ambulance cot or, when I worked there, my ED bed, any more than it changes my care if I know the person in that position is wealthy, influential, or powerful. This isn't about medical care, of course, but that's my example.

What it comes down to is that however they act is beyond my control. How *I* act is the only thing I can control, and if I stop respecting people's humanity, it's a failure on my part. You're spot on, as usual, that the dead person is just as dead no matter how they ended up that way, and no matter who performed/committed the act that killed them. My position is that what they did is far more important and far more addressable, than who (as in what race, socioeconomic group, gender, etc.) they are. If we're looking for terms to use for them, I made several suggestions upthread. All of them referenced the criminal activity, and all of them would be equally applicable to anyone who did those things. I suppose that "animal" vaguely matches that definition, but it's a hell of a stretch for it to do so. As my original tongue-in-cheek post indicated, animals, at least the ones I referenced (with the unspoken meaning of 4 legs, fur, and tails) don't go around destroying others' property with malice or revenge, certainly not when the property doesn't belong to whoever they would be said to be avenging. (My dog won't get mad at printcraft and come tear up your yard as a result, in other words.)

Does that make more sense?

Blessings,
Bill

This is a good analogy of what has been going on in Ferguson (and now around the country). There are TWO and only two people that were involved in the original incident, and those two are Brown and Wilson. Burning down shops, overturning cars, looting, etc., have NOTHING to do with either Wilson or Brown, no matter how the actors try to insist that they do. "We want JUSTICE for Mike Brown, or we will 'burn this ************ down'" makes no sense to me or any rational being. Even if their grievance is with the "system" and how they perceive the way it worked, the people whose property is being destroyed and whose lives have been threatened have nothing to do with it. These are not the actions of rational human beings. They have allowed themselves (through the "protection" of mob mentality) to devolve into something less than sane. And yes, I would group sports fans that destroy their towns when their team wins (or loses) in the same category.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

I keep seeing people holding up signs at these protests saying, "Black Lives Matter". Well, yes they do, and they should. However, why do they only seem to matter when we have something like this happen - a white cop killing a black person? Is the loss of a black person's life any less important if it is taken by another black person? This happens far and away more often than the other, yet there is no outrage. It seems to be looked as as just the "cost of doing business" (ie the "business" of living life). I think that's the real shame and is the real issue that needs to be addressed. I know that given the things that have been coming to light about Bill Cosby may make him a bad example to bring up, but he has voiced his view on this issue often, and very eloquently. The folks like Sharpton and Jackson would be better served if they did the same, IMHO.

 

[churchmouse]

I keep seeing people holding up signs at these protests saying, "Black Lives Matter". Well, yes they do, and they should. However, why do they only seem to matter when we have something like this happen - a white cop killing a black person? Is the loss of a black person's life any less important if it is taken by another black person? This happens far and away more often than the other, yet there is no outrage. It seems to be looked as as just the "cost of doing business" (ie the "business" of living life). I think that's the real shame and is the real issue that needs to be addressed. I know that given the things that have been coming to light about Bill Cosby may make him a bad example to bring up, but he has voiced his view on this issue often, and very eloquently. The folks like Sharpton and Jackson would be better served if they did the same, IMHO.

In this we are seen as the enemy. We (Society) with our social structure and laws are the enemy. Simple as that. If they (protesters/rioters/looters) can not act as they please we are the reason.

 

[KittySlayer]

I keep seeing people holding up signs at these protests saying, "Black Lives Matter". Well, yes they do, and they should.

How about Make Your Black Life Matter.

Get an education. Contribute to your community. Follow the law. Learn some morals. Respect other people. Develop a work ethic.....

 

[DoggyDaddy]

How about Make Your Black Life Matter.

Get an education. Contribute to your community. Follow the law. Learn some morals. Respect other people. Develop a work ethic.....

In other words do what successful, happy people do. I won't use such a broad brush about morals, because most certainly a lack of morals isn't unique to the black community. However, the immoral behavior has been allowed to gain a foothold to such an extent that we have what we have today. What's that saying? The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing? That seems to be what has happened and continues to happen. Not just in the black community, but in society in general.