Interesting points. My advice would be to arrest the police officer who shot the guy six times including in the top of the head and give him a trial to determine if he's guilty or not. There is obviously a question of whether he did something wrong, so charge him and bring it to trial.
I concur. If Mr. Wilson were a suspect in a crime this would happen fairly quickly--arrested, booked into jail, arraigned, assigned bail, then get bailed out and report to the bond office until the trial. The fact that he is a police officer should not alter this process, the extra layer of internal investigation notwithstanding. The very fact that he gets arrested and charged, even if he is eventually found not guilty of any wrongdoing, would do a lot to diffuse the situation.
The media is successfully spinning this so that it's become primarily a racial issue. The real danger here is police brutality, the militarization of their force, and the fascist undertones of their activities.
It's both though, not one or the other. It's police brutality, police racism, general racism, militarization of the police, and even a bit of the war on terror and drugs, which facilitated the militarization of the police.
Pff...militarization of the police. What a load of bullocks.
Folks, if the police don't have grenade launchers, APC's, and tanks, how are they expected to stop the terrorists? Next people will be opposing them acquiring retiring aircraft carriers, retired predator drones, nuclear submarines, and surplus cruise missiles
But in all seriousness you have to really ask yourself why on Earth Doraville (the place with a tank mentioned by John Oliver in the video I posted) even has a swat team to begin with. Its a city of 8,800 with an 18 member swat team. To me that is insane.
Toronto (a city of 2.7 million people) by comparison has an Emergency Task Force (its comparable to swat)...which has a total of 82 members.
They also apparently have a total of 72 employees in the Doraville police (which could include administrators and other staff I'm not sure), compared to about 7200 employees in the Toronto Police (many of whom won't be officers). Proportionally this is still very out of wack.
But even if you look at cities of a comparable size to 8,800 in Ontario, which is made easier thanks to this chart
One city in California implemented the policy requiring officers to where cameras, and complaints filed against police officers went down 88%
This doesn't seem like much to ask.
Nobody really knows what happened in Ferguson. The recording of the kid robbing a convenience store about 15 minutes before might certainly show him to be a troubled person, but tells us nothing about what happened before he was killed. A recording of the *actual shooting* would have, and I'm sure cops who are well behaved would welcome the chance to clear their name with video evidence. This would have prevented a huge tragedy in Ferguson, and would make citizens feel a lot safer.
It is cheap and not a lot to ask for, really. I believe that cops should be reasonably armed (handguns only, except for SWAT teams and emergencies) and I do think that it is foolish to judge their actions as quickly as many do, but too many unarmed citizens have been killed to not see this as a serious problem.
@booinyoureyes beat me to it. The city in question is Rialto, CA. I see no reason this shouldn't be implemented everywhere. It would protect both citizens AND officers.
Sorry for a sudden intervention (I'm up to read 360 comments in the thread) but I've just come back to Russia after a holiday and found out about the economical sanctions by Putin. WHAT IS THAT? I just can't find enoungh words to describe how I'm sad. I'm furious. It's unthinkable.
After these sanctions came to effect, prices in our shops went up nearly 50% in some cases. Not only this. Now our government is thinking about further sanctions and restrictions. I don't want to live here. Enough of this. While I was on a holiday I strongly decided to move to another country, and MAKE it quick. I don't want to live in the USSR.
This sanctions, here, in Russia, among ordinary people, feel like they are not against USA or EU, they are against our country in fact. I understand our economy will fly to the deepest hole now.
@bengoshi Would be a good idea! It's calmed down for a minute but I fear it may be an illusion. Putin wants power and territory and he seems determined to get it. By whatever means necessary. Might be a good idea to get out while you can. Leaving at the moment shouldn't be to hard but if it sinks into Cold War Mk. 2, or worse, it could be a lot more difficult!
And you know what? Now (from August) it's a crime in our country not to tell the authorities that you have a second citizenship and/or that you have a right to stay permanently in another country. WHAT? A crime? Did they even know what a crime is? How can it be a reason for a criminal liability?
I don't even know what another law will be about? A restriction to laugh? A restriction to any goods from USA and EU: electronics, automobiles...
What the hell?! MY LINGERIE IS ILLEGAL THERE?! :O Well. . . that rules Russia out of my list of places to ever set foot in. :P
This is going to a new level of extremes. . . He seems to hope the Russian domestic production will pick up the slack. But from what I hear it isn't up to it. . .
Far from it. Our own cars are far from being safe. They are crap. And what bugges me more is that they want to prohibit only those foreign cars that you can buy cheaper than 800 000 USD. So that the authorities themselves and all our so called oligarchs can continue buying their Ferraris and Maybachs.
Also, what's @JessicaKrystal 's view on the lingerie ban I wonder
The Kremlin has always been very active in running it's populations lives. Far more so then in many other countries. If they tried this sort of thing here there would be mass riots in the street by outraged Australian men and women in minutes. It would be even worse if they tried to touch the Australians beer. . .
I've heard a lot about Russian cars being dangerous, unreliable, to small, unstable and an innumerable amount of other hellish problems. There is no way I'm trusting my families safety to a car that could catch fire, break up, break down or roll over in a gentle breeze. . . I'd rather push her in the pram again.
My question was not directed to what you perceive or what you would think; more about "if the guy was white, what happened would have such coverage in the media? "
Well it kinda happened in Toronto with a kid named Sammy Yatim. http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/sammyyatim.html He was Arabic but it does go to show you most cases of excessive force, regardless of skin colour, does get accounted for in the media. It is what happens AFTER the story or the event that keeps the story alive.
The media is no longer covering the shooting and death of Michael Brown. They are covering the protests that have happened since and the police response to them.
If everyone just shrugged their shoulders when they heard about him being killed, the story and the death of Michael would of been buried in a couple of months, only to resurface once the police officer involved was either charged or cleared of the murder. They didn't so the media keeps it focus.
This type of incident can and probably happens more often than people think regardless of skin color. I would even go so far as to say if the person was white, the collective population would of just shrugged and moved on such as in this case that happened here: http://www.ottawasun.com/2013/06/04/man-shot-in-ottawas-east-end-sources
My advice would be for the Ferguson PD and the Missouri National Guard to stand down and let the citizens vent their frustration. Sure, there are going to be few who take it too far and riot or loot a store or two but if they don't let the vast majority of them calmly walk the streets with their hands in the air then this present problem will get buried and fester until, like a volcano, it explodes again. The next explosion, though, will be worse. Much worse.
Even though the police have botched this from the beginning, I completely disagree with this statement. Why should the police allow the destruction of private property just because they had made mistakes in the recent past. Are the police serving the owners of the shops that are being vandalized by allowing a crowd to get out of control and increase the likelihood of it escalating further.
They need to be able to separate the lawful protesters from bad to maintain the peace. This unfortunately wasn't done and I sure hope the police chief resigns because of this incident.
edit: recent past from recent future. don't know how I can know the recent future; not that psychic
And you know what? Now (from August) it's a crime in our country not to tell the authorities that you have a second citizenship and/or that you have a right to stay permanently in another country. WHAT? A crime? Did they even know what a crime is? How can it be a reason for a criminal liability?
That is one of the most disturbing laws I have seen in quite some time and I live in the land of the Patriot Act and the NDAA.
On the other hand, at least you *can* have dual citizenship even if you have to tell the authorities. As a citizen of the United States I *cannot* have dual citizenship somewhere else except under certain conditions (I marry someone who is a foreign national, I immigrate and become a naturalized citizen here, etc.).
"Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001."
Does EVERYTHING have to be an acronym?!
Is it just me that suspects you won't be able to leave if you have dual citizenship? Because it's probable you won't be coming back? That might be why they want to know. Not to mention keeping track of all the foreigners in the country. . . it does feel a little. . . familiar doesn't it?
Americans have an almost obsessive fetish with a acronyms. For example, the Navy and Air Force has a pod fitted to aircraft for night flying called a LANTIRN. . . which stands for Low Altitude Navigation and Targeting Infrared for Night. . . because we need an massive name we can turn into a smaller name that we can write in ALL CAPITALS. . . Besides, it looks AMAZING on the budget!!
On a side note, have you guys seen the ISIS terrorist recruitment videos? They are appealing to the younger generation by making them look like CoD cut scenes. . . Which is going to fuel the crusade against video games, all video games including ours.
It also illustrates the power of a car bomb for those who have never seen one. Explosions have an effect beyond just fire and shrapnel, the blast wave can damage or destroy buildings as well as cause injury or death. It's very hard to explain how it feels, like being thumped in the chest all over simultaneously.
So, what do we do? I do feel Islamic countries are taking an active hand in fighting terrorism, but no news or papers bother to report it. The racism and hatred that is springing up around the western world is a result of lack of understanding about Islam and sometimes shoddy journalism. The majority of Muslims are definitely not in support of suicide bombings and Jihads.
"A common complaint among non-Muslims is that Muslim religious authorities do not condemn terrorist attacks. The complaints often surface in letters to the editors of newspapers, on phone-in radio shows, in Internet mailing lists, forums, etc. A leader of an evangelical Christian para-church group, broadcasting over Sirius Family Net radio, stated that he had done a thorough search on the Internet for a Muslim statement condemning terrorism, without finding a single item. Actually, there are lots of fatwas and other statements issued which condemn attacks on innocent civilians. Unfortunately, they are largely ignored by newspapers, television news, radio news and other media outlets."
Why? Is good News and ratings truly worth fueling the fires? This dodgy one sided reporting only makes the problem much much worse. The religious issue is also really not helping.
Thoughts, ideas, discussion.
Opening the religious can, I think religion is doing a lot more damage and harm then good at the moment.
( I have more, but there are so many thoughts rolling around my unbelievably tired head at the moment that it will have to wait! I might clean this mess up a little later to! Some edits perhaps!
So, what do we do? I do feel Islamic countries are taking an active hand in fighting terrorism, but no news or papers bother to report it.
If they are indeed not reported, then what makes you "feel" that way? I think your talking more from sentiment than by fact.
The truth is many states in the Middle East do actively encourage terrorism. The states that don't are the secular ones (Turkey, Lebanon, Bangladesh, Egypt before the Arab Spring and Pakistan... at times) or more modern nations like Jordan, Kuwait and the UAE.
This certainly does not mean "screw all Muslims, lets kill them" but if we want to solve a problem it is good to use facts and not sentiment. We can't just say one side is a bunch of victims, and the other is an evil empire.
Opening the religious can, I think religion is doing a lot more damage and harm then good at the moment.
If the media is responsible for any skewing of public opinion, then I think this commonly held notion is the biggest crime. Even as a pure agnostic I can see this. People tend to look at sensationalist stories about wars and age-old conflicts that involve religious differences and say "oh, look at all the bad it does".
Yet when humanitarian crises strike, church groups collectively give more time and money to help victims than some entire states. When you think of the great humanitarians of the past century, they are almost ALL religious figures of some sort. Who did more for African healthcare and education than Dr. Albert Schweitzer? Who did more to establish effective and lasting charitable organizations than Mother Theresa? Civil rights movements have also been led, almost exclusively really, by religious leaders. Gandhi in India. Dr. Martin Luther King, a pastor in the USA.
Religious organizations regularly do more than pretty much every other group in actually devoting time to making the world a better place (ie feeding the hungry, protecting the victims of violence and caring or the sick, not saving some bullshit animal in Madagascar from extinction by going on tours of Hollywood). Even secular groups, like the Red Cross (number one GREATEST and most humanitarian mission in all of history in my opinion) was founded by devout Calvinists.
But of course you never hear about any of these because they happen literally every day. The amount of wonderful shit that goes down in this world is so often overlooked, because we have grown accustomed to it and simply expect it to happen.
Case in point: the recent ebola outbreak. A doctor goes to Africa on a *Christian mission* to help ebola patients with his own time, using his education that he paid for and risking his own life.
Does this make the news? This guy is a F*&(ing hero yet nobody gives a damn.
Then he contracts the disease himself.... and its all over CNN
Just think about it for one second. A Christian relief group goes to Africa to help people, risking their own lives. Nobody cares. They get sick and come back home... everyone goes crazy!
Something absolutely heroic happens that involves religion, and you only hear about it becasue it resulted in a very rare disaster. Now imagine how many nice things are done in the name of religion that you have never even heard about and then tell me that religion does more harm than good
In 100 years, my country, indeed the world, will be quite different. I dare say oil will be rather scarce, to the point where it is no longer a reliable fuel source. Either humanity will have moved on from it, or we'll all be killing each other over it. Either way, I shall be quite dead.
Comments
In the meantime, why aren't there any news helicopters hovering over Ferguson and giving us top-down scenes of what is happening?
Folks, if the police don't have grenade launchers, APC's, and tanks, how are they expected to stop the terrorists? Next people will be opposing them acquiring retiring aircraft carriers, retired predator drones, nuclear submarines, and surplus cruise missiles
Toronto (a city of 2.7 million people) by comparison has an Emergency Task Force (its comparable to swat)...which has a total of 82 members.
They also apparently have a total of 72 employees in the Doraville police (which could include administrators and other staff I'm not sure), compared to about 7200 employees in the Toronto Police (many of whom won't be officers). Proportionally this is still very out of wack.
But even if you look at cities of a comparable size to 8,800 in Ontario, which is made easier thanks to this chart
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-225-x/2012000/t015-eng.htm
you'll see that a place like Dryden (population 8,400) has 21 police officers and smith falls (9,600 people) has 25.
From the looks of things Ferguson is a lot more reasonable from a per capita officer standpoint.
Even tiny cameras that can be installed in badges these days are really cheap.
Here is an article I read about this almost a year ago http://reason.com/archives/2013/08/30/watched-cops-are-polite-cops
One city in California implemented the policy requiring officers to where cameras, and complaints filed against police officers went down 88%
This doesn't seem like much to ask.
Nobody really knows what happened in Ferguson. The recording of the kid robbing a convenience store about 15 minutes before might certainly show him to be a troubled person, but tells us nothing about what happened before he was killed. A recording of the *actual shooting* would have, and I'm sure cops who are well behaved would welcome the chance to clear their name with video evidence. This would have prevented a huge tragedy in Ferguson, and would make citizens feel a lot safer.
It is cheap and not a lot to ask for, really. I believe that cops should be reasonably armed (handguns only, except for SWAT teams and emergencies) and I do think that it is foolish to judge their actions as quickly as many do, but too many unarmed citizens have been killed to not see this as a serious problem.
After these sanctions came to effect, prices in our shops went up nearly 50% in some cases. Not only this. Now our government is thinking about further sanctions and restrictions. I don't want to live here. Enough of this. While I was on a holiday I strongly decided to move to another country, and MAKE it quick. I don't want to live in the USSR.
This sanctions, here, in Russia, among ordinary people, feel like they are not against USA or EU, they are against our country in fact. I understand our economy will fly to the deepest hole now.
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/putins-sanctions-russia
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2014/08/15/commentary/the-bill-for-putins-policy-will-be-high/#.U_ROY8V_uCQ
I don't even know what another law will be about? A restriction to laugh? A restriction to any goods from USA and EU: electronics, automobiles...
http://pravo.ru/news/view/105888/ (translate it with the appropriate program)
Another rediculous laws:
http://www.pri.org/stories/2014-07-29/russian-government-has-banned-lingerie-your-health
http://www.automotiveit.com/newspaper-russia-mulls-car-import-restrictions/news/id-009499
This is going to a new level of extremes. . . He seems to hope the Russian domestic production will pick up the slack. But from what I hear it isn't up to it. . .
Also, what's @JessicaKrystal 's view on the lingerie ban I wonder
Insanity.
You're blowing bubbles Putin.
The Kremlin has always been very active in running it's populations lives. Far more so then in many other countries. If they tried this sort of thing here there would be mass riots in the street by outraged Australian men and women in minutes. It would be even worse if they tried to touch the Australians beer. . .
I've heard a lot about Russian cars being dangerous, unreliable, to small, unstable and an innumerable amount of other hellish problems. There is no way I'm trusting my families safety to a car that could catch fire, break up, break down or roll over in a gentle breeze. . . I'd rather push her in the pram again.
He was Arabic but it does go to show you most cases of excessive force, regardless of skin colour, does get accounted for in the media. It is what happens AFTER the story or the event that keeps the story alive.
The media is no longer covering the shooting and death of Michael Brown. They are covering the protests that have happened since and the police response to them.
If everyone just shrugged their shoulders when they heard about him being killed, the story and the death of Michael would of been buried in a couple of months, only to resurface once the police officer involved was either charged or cleared of the murder. They didn't so the media keeps it focus.
This type of incident can and probably happens more often than people think regardless of skin color. I would even go so far as to say if the person was white, the collective population would of just shrugged and moved on such as in this case that happened here:
http://www.ottawasun.com/2013/06/04/man-shot-in-ottawas-east-end-sources Even though the police have botched this from the beginning, I completely disagree with this statement. Why should the police allow the destruction of private property just because they had made mistakes in the recent past. Are the police serving the owners of the shops that are being vandalized by allowing a crowd to get out of control and increase the likelihood of it escalating further.
They need to be able to separate the lawful protesters from bad to maintain the peace. This unfortunately wasn't done and I sure hope the police chief resigns because of this incident.
edit: recent past from recent future. don't know how I can know the recent future; not that psychic
On the other hand, at least you *can* have dual citizenship even if you have to tell the authorities. As a citizen of the United States I *cannot* have dual citizenship somewhere else except under certain conditions (I marry someone who is a foreign national, I immigrate and become a naturalized citizen here, etc.).
"Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001."
Does EVERYTHING have to be an acronym?!
Is it just me that suspects you won't be able to leave if you have dual citizenship? Because it's probable you won't be coming back? That might be why they want to know. Not to mention keeping track of all the foreigners in the country. . . it does feel a little. . . familiar doesn't it?
On a side note, have you guys seen the ISIS terrorist recruitment videos? They are appealing to the younger generation by making them look like CoD cut scenes. . . Which is going to fuel the crusade against video games, all video games including ours.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=5c0_1407189785
It also illustrates the power of a car bomb for those who have never seen one. Explosions have an effect beyond just fire and shrapnel, the blast wave can damage or destroy buildings as well as cause injury or death. It's very hard to explain how it feels, like being thumped in the chest all over simultaneously.
It's very clearly illustrated here.
So, what do we do? I do feel Islamic countries are taking an active hand in fighting terrorism, but no news or papers bother to report it. The racism and hatred that is springing up around the western world is a result of lack of understanding about Islam and sometimes shoddy journalism. The majority of Muslims are definitely not in support of suicide bombings and Jihads.
Quoting from ( http://www.religioustolerance.org/islfatwa.htm )
"A common complaint among non-Muslims is that Muslim religious authorities do not condemn terrorist attacks. The complaints often surface in letters to the editors of newspapers, on phone-in radio shows, in Internet mailing lists, forums, etc. A leader of an evangelical Christian para-church group, broadcasting over Sirius Family Net radio, stated that he had done a thorough search on the Internet for a Muslim statement condemning terrorism, without finding a single item.
Actually, there are lots of fatwas and other statements issued which condemn attacks on innocent civilians. Unfortunately, they are largely ignored by newspapers, television news, radio news and other media outlets."
Why? Is good News and ratings truly worth fueling the fires? This dodgy one sided reporting only makes the problem much much worse. The religious issue is also really not helping.
Thoughts, ideas, discussion.
Opening the religious can, I think religion is doing a lot more damage and harm then good at the moment.
( I have more, but there are so many thoughts rolling around my unbelievably tired head at the moment that it will have to wait! I might clean this mess up a little later to! Some edits perhaps!
The truth is many states in the Middle East do actively encourage terrorism. The states that don't are the secular ones (Turkey, Lebanon, Bangladesh, Egypt before the Arab Spring and Pakistan... at times) or more modern nations like Jordan, Kuwait and the UAE. While this is certainly true about American Muslims and Muslims in most Western Nations and some of the more moderate nations I mentioned before, unfortunately this is absolutely NOT the case in a very big part of the Middle East
http://www.pewglobal.org/2006/05/23/where-terrorism-finds-support-in-the-muslim-world/
This certainly does not mean "screw all Muslims, lets kill them" but if we want to solve a problem it is good to use facts and not sentiment. We can't just say one side is a bunch of victims, and the other is an evil empire. If the media is responsible for any skewing of public opinion, then I think this commonly held notion is the biggest crime. Even as a pure agnostic I can see this. People tend to look at sensationalist stories about wars and age-old conflicts that involve religious differences and say "oh, look at all the bad it does".
Yet when humanitarian crises strike, church groups collectively give more time and money to help victims than some entire states. When you think of the great humanitarians of the past century, they are almost ALL religious figures of some sort.
Who did more for African healthcare and education than Dr. Albert Schweitzer?
Who did more to establish effective and lasting charitable organizations than Mother Theresa?
Civil rights movements have also been led, almost exclusively really, by religious leaders.
Gandhi in India. Dr. Martin Luther King, a pastor in the USA.
Religious organizations regularly do more than pretty much every other group in actually devoting time to making the world a better place (ie feeding the hungry, protecting the victims of violence and caring or the sick, not saving some bullshit animal in Madagascar from extinction by going on tours of Hollywood). Even secular groups, like the Red Cross (number one GREATEST and most humanitarian mission in all of history in my opinion) was founded by devout Calvinists.
But of course you never hear about any of these because they happen literally every day. The amount of wonderful shit that goes down in this world is so often overlooked, because we have grown accustomed to it and simply expect it to happen.
Case in point: the recent ebola outbreak. A doctor goes to Africa on a *Christian mission* to help ebola patients with his own time, using his education that he paid for and risking his own life.
Does this make the news? This guy is a F*&(ing hero yet nobody gives a damn.
Then he contracts the disease himself.... and its all over CNN
Just think about it for one second. A Christian relief group goes to Africa to help people, risking their own lives. Nobody cares. They get sick and come back home... everyone goes crazy!
Something absolutely heroic happens that involves religion, and you only hear about it becasue it resulted in a very rare disaster. Now imagine how many nice things are done in the name of religion that you have never even heard about and then tell me that religion does more harm than good