[Pete Svarrior]

Yes, you keep trying to abstract away from the specific case. That's exactly the problem.

[Densoro]

I assume by 'specific case,' you mean Mike Brown. If so, then I have to point out the contradiction inherent to saying 'One case isn't enough to determine whether the entire institution is racist. Give me facts and figures,' and then calling it 'abstraction' when the opponent brings the discussion outside of Mike Brown's individual case. Do you want to go larger-scale or don't you?

[Pete Svarrior]

I want to go Ferguson-scale, for the time being.

EDIT: Also, I disagree that the Wilson/Brown case bears any signs of racism at all, so the "one case isn't enough" debate never comes into the picture.

[Densoro]

See, there we go. That was a lot more helpful than just repeating "I'm talking about institutionalized racism' as though I wasn't already aware of that. Now that you've shared your actual train of thought, I don't have to try and psychoanalyze you over the internet or try to provide a swarm of evidence to get at the numerous possible refutations I'm attempting to anticipate.

[Pete Svarrior]

Now that you've shared your actual train of thought, I don't have to try and psychoanalyze you over the internet or try to provide a swarm of evidence to get at the numerous possible refutations I'm attempting to anticipate.

I think the problem is that you entered the discussion after I had already explained my train of thought, and perhaps didn't pay as much attention as you should have to the thread before hopping in.

[Densoro]

I'll grant that I didn't read further than the post I jumped in on, but I was talking to Supes on Skype and she said Tau didn't bring up the points I did so I figured that justified making them, myself. Just for good measure.

The other problem is that you continuously assumed I wasn't thinking about how my points related to institutionalized racism when I made them, so rather than asking for clarification, you repeated yourself in a vague, unhelpful way -- again, as thought you thought I was too stupid to understand it the first time. So then I went off explaining how they were related and you essentially went tl;dr.

[Pete Svarrior]

The other problem is that you continuously assumed I wasn't thinking about how my points related to institutionalized racism when I made them, so rather than asking for clarification, you repeated yourself in a vague, unhelpful way -- again, as thought you thought I was too stupid to understand it the first time.

Well, yes, if you join a thread where certain subjects have been thoroughly discussed and act as if they weren't at all, then I must assume that you were either too lazy to read them the first time (in which case you deserve no courtesy from me), or that for some reason you didn't understand it the first time.

So then I went off explaining how they were related and you essentially went tl;dr.

I don't think you're in the right position to tell others they went tl;dr when you skipped the first 5 pages of a thread.

[Densoro]

5 pages > a few paragraphs and I was getting tired of all the ass-slapping =P

[Pete Svarrior]

5 pages > a few paragraphs and I was getting tired of all the ass-slapping =P

I read every word in this thread, including the ones you wrote. I ignored parts of your posts because I was getting tired of the irrelevant stuff.

For example, I didn't respond to any of the plentiful examples from outside of Ferguson because we were talking about Ferguson and Ferguson specifically.

[Densoro]

Well now that I know why you're calling it irrelevant and it doesn't seem arbitrary and leave me trying to hokey-pokey around your irrelevant-beam, I know what to focus on. Attorney Lisa Bloom gave a play-by-play critique of all the standard procedures ignored in prosecuting Darren Wilson. We could believe that Bob McCulloch (president of the company that raised funds for Darren Wilson) was simply an incompetent, lazy prosecutor if not for his aforementioned railroading of Dawon Gore. He didn't ask questions of Darren Wilson that are standard practice in these kinds of trials, nobody questioned his conflict of interest with regard to the case, but as much as he went out of his way not to incriminate Wilson, he didn't extend the same courtesies to Gore.

McCulloch is not the beginning and the end of racially-biased law in Ferguson, but he seems to be a major player.

[Pete Svarrior]

I agree that McCulloch potentially should have recused himself due to conflict of interest. However, the forensic evidence was collected independently of McCulloch and speaks volumes about what actually happened. The pro-Brown stories simply do not fit the data, and virtually all "eye witnesses" who previously defended Brown have retracted or changed their statements when testifying to the grand jury.

That said, there is an independent FBI investigation going on, and since there's no such thing as double jeopardy for grand juries, we may yet see Wilson taken to court. I doubt we will - I firmly believe in the forensic evidence and the testimonies already given - but if the original investigation fucked things up, these errors will be corrected. Importantly, there is also a second FBI investigation looking at Ferguson at large.

[Densoro]

I'm curious what evidence you've seen that has you so convinced. I haven't seen anything that compellingly defends him.

[Saddam Hussein]

there is an independent FBI investigation going on, and since there's no such thing as double jeopardy for grand juries, we may yet see Wilson taken to court

It wouldn't be double jeopardy even if it had gone to trial.  Dual sovereignty.  That's how they convicted two of the cops that beat Rodney King after the L.A. riots. /nitpick

[Pete Svarrior]

It wouldn't be double jeopardy even if it had gone to trial.  Dual sovereignty.  That's how they convicted two of the cops that beat Rodney King after the L.A. riots. /nitpick

ok Saddam.

I'm curious what evidence you've seen that has you so convinced. I haven't seen anything that compellingly defends him.

All of the evidence used by the grand jury can be accessed here: http://apps.stlpublicradio.org/ferguson-project/evidence.html

My personal favourites are the autopsy report and the witness interviews. I'd recommend reading the autopsy report verbatim, the witness testimony is covered well by this article: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/078c82ad45ff4ec6aa1c7744dfa7df14/grand-jury-documents-rife-inconsistencies

[spoon]

Today in the lounge of my dorm hall I overheard a conversation about the court decision. Everybody was in agreement that the jury decided incorrectly.

The things they were saying were infuriating. They all went on and on about how Mike Brown was running away when he was shot. About how he was absolutely no threat to the officer. The official court transcripts (provided by Junker) show that all bullets entered from the front. Other evidence shows Brown did attack the officer.

I don't mind people having an opinion. What I do mind is a loud, uninformed opinion.

[Pete Svarrior]

The official court transcripts (provided by Junker) show that all bullets entered from the front.

Not just the front. One of the bullets hit the very top of his scalp.

[spoon]

The official court transcripts (provided by Junker) show that all bullets entered from the front.

Not just the front. One of the bullets hit the very top of his scalp.

Correct, my bad. If I recall correctly, forensics said that supported the officer's testimony as well.

[Ghost of V]

Why don't you just call them out if it bothers you so much?

[spoon]

Why don't you just call them out if it bothers you so much?

It's not worth it. I can argue on a forum full of naysayers, because I only have to read one post at a time and I can take my time in responding. However, in a room full of people who disagree with you, it's tough to get a word in edgewise without being interrupted. I prefer one on one discussions in matters like this.

[Ghost of V]

Why don't you just call them out if it bothers you so much?

It's not worth it. I can argue on a forum full of naysayers, because I only have to read one post at a time and I can take my time in responding. However, in a room full of people who disagree with you, it's tough to get a word in edgewise without being interrupted. I prefer one on one discussions in matters like this.

That's when you start bustin' knee caps.