Total Posts:102|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Ferguson

donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2014 1:12:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
To keep track of the Ferguson Riots, use this Facebook Page:
https://www.facebook.com...

The rioters have set black relations back nearly a century. Martin Luther's legacy of peace will mean nothing after this.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
Ragnar
Posts: 1,658
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2014 1:40:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I like this statement from the family of the deceased: "While we understand that many others share our pain, we ask that you channel your frustration in ways that will make a positive change. We need to work together to fix the system that allowed this to happen."
Unofficial DDO Guide: http://goo.gl...
(It's probably the best help resource here, other than talking to people...)

Voting Standards: https://goo.gl...

And please disable Smart-Quotes: https://goo.gl...
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2014 1:43:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/25/2014 1:40:15 AM, Ragnar wrote:
I like this statement from the family of the deceased: "While we understand that many others share our pain, we ask that you channel your frustration in ways that will make a positive change. We need to work together to fix the system that allowed this to happen."

That's the thing... The rioters aren't hurting. It was never about the shooting. It was never about change.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2014 1:45:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/25/2014 1:12:25 AM, donald.keller wrote:
To keep track of the Ferguson Riots, use this Facebook Page:
https://www.facebook.com...

The rioters have set black relations back nearly a century. Martin Luther's legacy of peace will mean nothing after this.

Na...I'd say about 20 years at most.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2014 1:47:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/25/2014 1:12:25 AM, donald.keller wrote:
To keep track of the Ferguson Riots, use this Facebook Page:
https://www.facebook.com...

The rioters have set black relations back nearly a century. Martin Luther's legacy of peace will mean nothing after this.

Also, I'd add that the main problem as identified by many politicians (including GOP members in Southern states) is that the justice system is unjust. The rioters are only half of the problem.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2014 1:50:01 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/25/2014 1:47:44 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 11/25/2014 1:12:25 AM, donald.keller wrote:
To keep track of the Ferguson Riots, use this Facebook Page:
https://www.facebook.com...

The rioters have set black relations back nearly a century. Martin Luther's legacy of peace will mean nothing after this.

Also, I'd add that the main problem as identified by many politicians (including GOP members in Southern states) is that the justice system is unjust. The rioters are only half of the problem.

Seeing the issue as a number of pieces, yes... But seeing it in percentages, the rioters have done more harm than all the justice system injustice in St. Louis history.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2014 1:53:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/25/2014 1:50:01 AM, donald.keller wrote:
At 11/25/2014 1:47:44 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 11/25/2014 1:12:25 AM, donald.keller wrote:
To keep track of the Ferguson Riots, use this Facebook Page:
https://www.facebook.com...

The rioters have set black relations back nearly a century. Martin Luther's legacy of peace will mean nothing after this.

Also, I'd add that the main problem as identified by many politicians (including GOP members in Southern states) is that the justice system is unjust. The rioters are only half of the problem.

Seeing the issue as a number of pieces, yes... But seeing it in percentages, the rioters have done more harm than all the justice system injustice in St. Louis history.

All I'll say is that I was living in the LA region during the LA riots, and given how the Rodney King case went, I found it hard to blame anyone for taking to the streets, violently even. That video was an affront to any concept of civil justice.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2014 1:54:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
To my knowledge the LA riots were orders of magnitude worse than what's going on in Ferguson. Sometimes things are just that fvcked up.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2014 1:57:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/25/2014 1:53:38 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 11/25/2014 1:50:01 AM, donald.keller wrote:
At 11/25/2014 1:47:44 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 11/25/2014 1:12:25 AM, donald.keller wrote:
To keep track of the Ferguson Riots, use this Facebook Page:
https://www.facebook.com...

The rioters have set black relations back nearly a century. Martin Luther's legacy of peace will mean nothing after this.

Also, I'd add that the main problem as identified by many politicians (including GOP members in Southern states) is that the justice system is unjust. The rioters are only half of the problem.

Seeing the issue as a number of pieces, yes... But seeing it in percentages, the rioters have done more harm than all the justice system injustice in St. Louis history.

All I'll say is that I was living in the LA region during the LA riots, and given how the Rodney King case went, I found it hard to blame anyone for taking to the streets, violently even. That video was an affront to any concept of civil justice.

http://twitchy.com...

Like I said to Ragnar... It's not about the system's injustice. It's about getting free stuff, using a man's death as an excuse.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2014 1:59:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/25/2014 1:57:09 AM, donald.keller wrote:
At 11/25/2014 1:53:38 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 11/25/2014 1:50:01 AM, donald.keller wrote:
At 11/25/2014 1:47:44 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 11/25/2014 1:12:25 AM, donald.keller wrote:
To keep track of the Ferguson Riots, use this Facebook Page:
https://www.facebook.com...

The rioters have set black relations back nearly a century. Martin Luther's legacy of peace will mean nothing after this.

Also, I'd add that the main problem as identified by many politicians (including GOP members in Southern states) is that the justice system is unjust. The rioters are only half of the problem.

Seeing the issue as a number of pieces, yes... But seeing it in percentages, the rioters have done more harm than all the justice system injustice in St. Louis history.

All I'll say is that I was living in the LA region during the LA riots, and given how the Rodney King case went, I found it hard to blame anyone for taking to the streets, violently even. That video was an affront to any concept of civil justice.

http://twitchy.com...

Like I said to Ragnar... It's not about the system's injustice. It's about getting free stuff, using a man's death as an excuse.

Yeah, I know, that happened in LA and in New Orleans too after Katrina. What you're pointing out is not exactly a racial issue though, that's a socioeconomic issue separate from race.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2014 2:00:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I mean, in the LA riots, a lot of Latinos looted too. What does that have to do with Rodney King? Absolutely nothing.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2014 2:02:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/25/2014 1:59:05 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 11/25/2014 1:57:09 AM, donald.keller wrote:
At 11/25/2014 1:53:38 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 11/25/2014 1:50:01 AM, donald.keller wrote:
At 11/25/2014 1:47:44 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 11/25/2014 1:12:25 AM, donald.keller wrote:
To keep track of the Ferguson Riots, use this Facebook Page:
https://www.facebook.com...

The rioters have set black relations back nearly a century. Martin Luther's legacy of peace will mean nothing after this.

Also, I'd add that the main problem as identified by many politicians (including GOP members in Southern states) is that the justice system is unjust. The rioters are only half of the problem.

Seeing the issue as a number of pieces, yes... But seeing it in percentages, the rioters have done more harm than all the justice system injustice in St. Louis history.

All I'll say is that I was living in the LA region during the LA riots, and given how the Rodney King case went, I found it hard to blame anyone for taking to the streets, violently even. That video was an affront to any concept of civil justice.

http://twitchy.com...

Like I said to Ragnar... It's not about the system's injustice. It's about getting free stuff, using a man's death as an excuse.

Yeah, I know, that happened in LA and in New Orleans too after Katrina. What you're pointing out is not exactly a racial issue though, that's a socioeconomic issue separate from race.

That's why I'm talking about rioters, not black people. However, I say black relations because that's what they've hurt most. Anytime there is an excuse to riot, there will e rioters to take advantage.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2014 2:03:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/25/2014 2:02:00 AM, donald.keller wrote:
At 11/25/2014 1:59:05 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 11/25/2014 1:57:09 AM, donald.keller wrote:
At 11/25/2014 1:53:38 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 11/25/2014 1:50:01 AM, donald.keller wrote:
At 11/25/2014 1:47:44 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 11/25/2014 1:12:25 AM, donald.keller wrote:
To keep track of the Ferguson Riots, use this Facebook Page:
https://www.facebook.com...

The rioters have set black relations back nearly a century. Martin Luther's legacy of peace will mean nothing after this.

Also, I'd add that the main problem as identified by many politicians (including GOP members in Southern states) is that the justice system is unjust. The rioters are only half of the problem.

Seeing the issue as a number of pieces, yes... But seeing it in percentages, the rioters have done more harm than all the justice system injustice in St. Louis history.

All I'll say is that I was living in the LA region during the LA riots, and given how the Rodney King case went, I found it hard to blame anyone for taking to the streets, violently even. That video was an affront to any concept of civil justice.

http://twitchy.com...

Like I said to Ragnar... It's not about the system's injustice. It's about getting free stuff, using a man's death as an excuse.

Yeah, I know, that happened in LA and in New Orleans too after Katrina. What you're pointing out is not exactly a racial issue though, that's a socioeconomic issue separate from race.

That's why I'm talking about rioters, not black people. However, I say black relations because that's what they've hurt most. Anytime there is an excuse to riot, there will e rioters to take advantage.

Fair enough, that's a good point.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
YaHey
Posts: 43
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2014 2:32:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/25/2014 1:12:25 AM, donald.keller wrote:
To keep track of the Ferguson Riots, use this Facebook Page:
https://www.facebook.com...

The rioters have set black relations back nearly a century. Martin Luther's legacy of peace will mean nothing after this.

Hmm... I'd love to reach MLK Jr for comment, but sh*t. They killed him too!
numberwang
Posts: 1,917
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2014 2:40:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Forget all the riots and race relations, is anyone else disgusted this didn't even go to trial for manslaughter in any degree? Cops can't just kill people, even by wilson's own account brown was 10 feet away when he was shot in the head. At that point, there was no reason for wilson to kill him, if he had killed him when they were fighting for the gun in his squad car that would be a different story. The fact that the prosecutor would protect the cop like that when he killed a teenager sickens me, I would be much happier with him going to trial and getting off than not even being indicted. We need some sort of criminal justice and law enforcement reform. Put cameras on the lot of them.
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2014 2:48:20 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/25/2014 2:40:33 AM, numberwang wrote:
Forget all the riots and race relations, is anyone else disgusted this didn't even go to trial for manslaughter in any degree? Cops can't just kill people, even by wilson's own account brown was 10 feet away when he was shot in the head. At that point, there was no reason for wilson to kill him, if he had killed him when they were fighting for the gun in his squad car that would be a different story. The fact that the prosecutor would protect the cop like that when he killed a teenager sickens me, I would be much happier with him going to trial and getting off than not even being indicted. We need some sort of criminal justice and law enforcement reform. Put cameras on the lot of them.

Likely because they couldn't find anything good enough to charge him on. Despite how your conformed news feed may have you thinking, there is hardly half enough evidence to convict him. It's innocent until proven guilty, not vice versa.

Meanwhile, in your narrow-sided pov, you miss that one cop killing a man is fractions as bad as the riots are. And you want us to forget the riots, and head back to something that is mere cartoon humor in comparison? The death of that boy isn't the tragedy... The reaction is. More harm, physically and symbolically, has been committed per minute than from what Wilson did.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
numberwang
Posts: 1,917
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2014 3:19:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/25/2014 2:48:20 AM, donald.keller wrote:
At 11/25/2014 2:40:33 AM, numberwang wrote:
Forget all the riots and race relations, is anyone else disgusted this didn't even go to trial for manslaughter in any degree? Cops can't just kill people, even by wilson's own account brown was 10 feet away when he was shot in the head. At that point, there was no reason for wilson to kill him, if he had killed him when they were fighting for the gun in his squad car that would be a different story. The fact that the prosecutor would protect the cop like that when he killed a teenager sickens me, I would be much happier with him going to trial and getting off than not even being indicted. We need some sort of criminal justice and law enforcement reform. Put cameras on the lot of them.

Likely because they couldn't find anything good enough to charge him on. Despite how your conformed news feed may have you thinking, there is hardly half enough evidence to convict him. It's innocent until proven guilty, not vice versa.

Meanwhile, in your narrow-sided pov, you miss that one cop killing a man is fractions as bad as the riots are. And you want us to forget the riots, and head back to something that is mere cartoon humor in comparison? The death of that boy isn't the tragedy... The reaction is. More harm, physically and symbolically, has been committed per minute than from what Wilson did.

Nothing to charge him on? Why did wilson have to shoot him in the head? Why not in the leg? Why shoot him at all? Why not taze him, mace him, or club him? By his own admission wilson shot brown from a distance of roughly 10 feet, why was it necessary to use lethal force when he knew wilson was unarmed at that point? A grand jury only needs reasonable doubt to indite, and there is a very strong argument that he killed wilson and he was motivated to kill wilson from an adequate cause but it was not premeditated, which is the missouri definition of manslaughter.

And I agree there is hardly enough evidence to convict him of first degree murder, but grand juries aren't making that decision to begin with. There was probably enough evidence to try him on second degree murder (but he would be innocent) and there certainly is enough evidence to try him on manslaughter.

When I said forgot about the riots I didn't mean they didn't matter, and I wasn't endorsing or justifying them, I just wanted to see what anyone else thought about the prosecutor's lack of attempt to even take it to trail. Why shouldn't something which caused so much controversy at least go to trail so the public can see the process? That would definitely have gone a long way prevent or significantly reduce riots. I don't think the vandalism and looting is at all justified and its obviously tragic, but a kid getting shot is tragic too. What about what I said was narrow minded? I just asked a question.
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2014 4:39:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/25/2014 1:12:25 AM, donald.keller wrote:
To keep track of the Ferguson Riots, use this Facebook Page:
https://www.facebook.com...

The rioters have set black relations back nearly a century. Martin Luther's legacy of peace will mean nothing after this.

You're implying that society will somehow condemn all black people for the actions of the rioters. It's not like every black person in the city is out there destroying Walgreen's stores.

During Martin Luther King's time, there were also black advocacy groups that engaged in violence, such as the Black Panthers. Malcolm X was a famous advocate of violence to achieve his ends. The fact that Dr. King is still hailed for his efforts in achieving change through non-violent protest, despite the fact that violent groups of black people co-existed with his movement, proves that society is not so stupid to lump all black people together as incapable of peaceful action merely because *some* black people engaged in violent struggle.

Also, no offense, but Ferguson kind of deserves it. They could have reacted by shaking up the police department. Wisconsin's police chief fired an officer merely for defending himself against a mentally ill person (and shooting him to death) because the officer did not follow protocol when approaching the mentally ill person in a park, leading to the individual stealing the officer's baton and beating him with it. While this might seem like self-defense, officers are supposed to approach mentally ill people more cautiously. Wisconsin PD made clear that it would not tolerate the shooting of unarmed civilians and that it took protocol seriously. Ferguson -- in contrast -- has shown that it doesn't care about following protocol, even if that leads to the deaths of unarmed black people. The shooting in the Ferguson case may have even been self-defense, but the officer certainly didn't follow protocol by being violent with Michael Brown, which seems to have precipitated all of the events that led to the shooting. The officer in question pulled Michael Brown through the window of the cruiser and did not issue a stand down order when Brown appeared to be rushing him. Police departments ought to strictly enforce a policy of first, keeping officers from needing to use lethal force, and second, using it only when it's strictly necessary and the officer's lives are actually in danger. Self-defense against an unarmed person will rarely rise to that level. While it sucks to be a cop in some respects, you're imbued with the power of the sovereign. If you wrongfully kill someone, sovereign immunity protects you from lawsuits. The fact that the blue uniform imbues you with special power means you're held to a higher standard. In contrast, Ferguson's attitude has been: deal with it. It was self-defense; we shoot who we want in self-defense. Black people are scary; we'll kill them if we have to.

That said, I don't think the store owners who are having their property destroyed should be held responsible for the failures of the Ferguson PD and the prosecutor (who followed non-standard protocol and let the officer essentially put on a "defense" in the grand jury proceeding, which *never* happens; the prosecutor usually only presents his side of the story). The Ferguson government clearly did not want the grand jury to return an indictment.

Honestly, the violence should make you think twice. The rioters are not people who are inherently evil. They're people like you and me. The fact that they are resorting to violence should show you how bad they think conditions in Ferguson are. The LA riots had a similar character. You can't seriously claim that the LAPD at the time of the Rodney King beating did not have *serious* problems. There was rampant use of excessive force and racism within the department. They've cleaned things up a bit, and part of that was due to the reactions of the local community to the police activity.

The sad truth is that violence makes news, peaceful meetings don't. Violence is listened to because it's scary; citizen voices are not. Martin Luther King -- in fact -- did not succeed because he used non-violence, he succeeded because he carefully planned his protests so that they would provoke the governor of Alabama to use dogs, and then made absolutely certain that reporters were there to capture the event. A single iconic photo of a black teenager being attacked by a police dog changed public attitude to such an extent that it put enough pressure on the federal government to make a change. One reporter said that at a certain protest, he dropped his camera to help a couple of black teenagers who were getting beat up by police. King chided the reporter afterwards saying, "if you don't capture this, it was all for nought." King was a good marketing professional; non-violence itself is not a very powerful force. The government ignores it.

Read up on the history of King. Even Rosa Parks was handpicked for the photo op of refusing to get off the bus. They had previously picked another young black woman to be the person to get arrested for refusing to sit in the back, but because she turned out to be pregnant, they decided she wouldn't be a good face for the movement, and only attempted to publicize the Parks' story. It was all carefully contrived. And King did not have the massive support you think. Why do you think he was using children in Alabama? Because the adults would not follow him. He achieved all of his successes with a surprisingly small number of protesters. It was more about the media attention. And the riots have gotten media attention, whereas none of the town hall meetings and peaceful activism that came before it got *any* attention at all. The media has as much fault in this -- for only covering negative events -- as do the rioters. If anyone took their cause seriously when they were being non-violent, they would not have resorted to violence.

So have they really set back race relations by 100 years? No, only in the minds of racists who think that this event proves that all black people are violent. If anything, they got the media to focus again on the Ferguson shootings and the problems that occurred in the grand jury proceeding. These riots will be remembered no differently than the LA riots. No one when discussing race relations today says, "forget it, all black people are violent, remember the LA riots; we can't co-exist with them."
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2014 6:27:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I want to know why these idiots think people should be charged and convicted of crimes based on public opinion.

You see this with every high profile case.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2014 9:01:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/25/2014 3:19:26 AM, numberwang wrote:
At 11/25/2014 2:48:20 AM, donald.keller wrote:
At 11/25/2014 2:40:33 AM, numberwang wrote:
Forget all the riots and race relations, is anyone else disgusted this didn't even go to trial for manslaughter in any degree? Cops can't just kill people, even by wilson's own account brown was 10 feet away when he was shot in the head. At that point, there was no reason for wilson to kill him, if he had killed him when they were fighting for the gun in his squad car that would be a different story. The fact that the prosecutor would protect the cop like that when he killed a teenager sickens me, I would be much happier with him going to trial and getting off than not even being indicted. We need some sort of criminal justice and law enforcement reform. Put cameras on the lot of them.

Likely because they couldn't find anything good enough to charge him on. Despite how your conformed news feed may have you thinking, there is hardly half enough evidence to convict him. It's innocent until proven guilty, not vice versa.

Meanwhile, in your narrow-sided pov, you miss that one cop killing a man is fractions as bad as the riots are. And you want us to forget the riots, and head back to something that is mere cartoon humor in comparison? The death of that boy isn't the tragedy... The reaction is. More harm, physically and symbolically, has been committed per minute than from what Wilson did.

Nothing to charge him on? Why did wilson have to shoot him in the head? Why not in the leg? Why shoot him at all? Why not taze him, mace him, or club him? By his own admission wilson shot brown from a distance of roughly 10 feet, why was it necessary to use lethal force when he knew wilson was unarmed at that point? A grand jury only needs reasonable doubt to indite, and there is a very strong argument that he killed wilson and he was motivated to kill wilson from an adequate cause but it was not premeditated, which is the missouri definition of manslaughter.

Perhaps he did have to.
If this was the protocol, then is he guilty for doing his job the way he was trained to do it? If so, the issue is the police procedures, not the individual cop.

And I agree there is hardly enough evidence to convict him of first degree murder, but grand juries aren't making that decision to begin with. There was probably enough evidence to try him on second degree murder (but he would be innocent) and there certainly is enough evidence to try him on manslaughter.
Grand juries make the decision for the charges brought.
If it wouldn't be murder, and it won't hold up in court, it actually weakens the case, and is thus, just for show (or worse, by weakening the case, they are trying to get acquital).

I cannot comment too much on it, as I don't know what happened.
I have not followed the story.
You say he was shot in the head. Was he aiming for the head?
My work here is, finally, done.
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2014 9:47:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/25/2014 3:19:26 AM, numberwang wrote:
At 11/25/2014 2:48:20 AM, donald.keller wrote:
At 11/25/2014 2:40:33 AM, numberwang wrote:
Forget all the riots and race relations, is anyone else disgusted this didn't even go to trial for manslaughter in any degree? Cops can't just kill people, even by wilson's own account brown was 10 feet away when he was shot in the head. At that point, there was no reason for wilson to kill him, if he had killed him when they were fighting for the gun in his squad car that would be a different story. The fact that the prosecutor would protect the cop like that when he killed a teenager sickens me, I would be much happier with him going to trial and getting off than not even being indicted. We need some sort of criminal justice and law enforcement reform. Put cameras on the lot of them.

Likely because they couldn't find anything good enough to charge him on. Despite how your conformed news feed may have you thinking, there is hardly half enough evidence to convict him. It's innocent until proven guilty, not vice versa.

Meanwhile, in your narrow-sided pov, you miss that one cop killing a man is fractions as bad as the riots are. And you want us to forget the riots, and head back to something that is mere cartoon humor in comparison? The death of that boy isn't the tragedy... The reaction is. More harm, physically and symbolically, has been committed per minute than from what Wilson did.

Nothing to charge him on? Why did wilson have to shoot him in the head? Why not in the leg? Why shoot him at all? Why not taze him, mace him, or club him? By his own admission wilson shot brown from a distance of roughly 10 feet, why was it necessary to use lethal force when he knew wilson was unarmed at that point? A grand jury only needs reasonable doubt to indite, and there is a very strong argument that he killed wilson and he was motivated to kill wilson from an adequate cause but it was not premeditated, which is the missouri definition of manslaughter.

We could debate for hours, like they did. Injuries to the hand. Marijuana in Brown's system, it was night time and Brown was taller and a hundred pounds bigger... There are many issues... The biggest is that there are NO VIDEO, and no reliable testimony that all agrees on what happened. That grounds to no charge someone. You do NOT charge people because "well he totes did it, I just knowes it, and your wrong if you say otherwise."

And I agree there is hardly enough evidence to convict him of first degree murder, but grand juries aren't making that decision to begin with. There was probably enough evidence to try him on second degree murder (but he would be innocent) and there certainly is enough evidence to try him on manslaughter.

All trails come down to if they can or can't prove guilt. The grand jury didn't send him to trail? It's because they viewed the lack of evidence and decided he couldn't be charged on that (hint, not guilty.)

When I said forgot about the riots I didn't mean they didn't matter, and I wasn't endorsing or justifying them, I just wanted to see what anyone else thought about the prosecutor's lack of attempt to even take it to trail. Why shouldn't something which caused so much controversy at least go to trail so the public can see the process? That would definitely have gone a long way prevent or significantly reduce riots. I don't think the vandalism and looting is at all justified and its obviously tragic, but a kid getting shot is tragic too. What about what I said was narrow minded? I just asked a question.

This thread is about the riot. You come in and say "what about the case? forget the riots." (not in precise quotes) on a thread that is only about the riots, than "...they didn't matter" is exactly what you imply.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2014 9:50:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/25/2014 4:39:21 AM, bluesteel wrote:
At 11/25/2014 1:12:25 AM, donald.keller wrote:
To keep track of the Ferguson Riots, use this Facebook Page:
https://www.facebook.com...

The rioters have set black relations back nearly a century. Martin Luther's legacy of peace will mean nothing after this.

You're implying that society will somehow condemn all black people for the actions of the rioters. It's not like every black person in the city is out there destroying Walgreen's stores.

During Martin Luther King's time, there were also black advocacy groups that engaged in violence, such as the Black Panthers. Malcolm X was a famous advocate of violence to achieve his ends. The fact that Dr. King is still hailed for his efforts in achieving change through non-violent protest, despite the fact that violent groups of black people co-existed with his movement, proves that society is not so stupid to lump all black people together as incapable of peaceful action merely because *some* black people engaged in violent struggle.

Also, no offense, but Ferguson kind of deserves it. They could have reacted by shaking up the police department. Wisconsin's police chief fired an officer merely for defending himself against a mentally ill person (and shooting him to death) because the officer did not follow protocol when approaching the mentally ill person in a park, leading to the individual stealing the officer's baton and beating him with it. While this might seem like self-defense, officers are supposed to approach mentally ill people more cautiously. Wisconsin PD made clear that it would not tolerate the shooting of unarmed civilians and that it took protocol seriously. Ferguson -- in contrast -- has shown that it doesn't care about following protocol, even if that leads to the deaths of unarmed black people. The shooting in the Ferguson case may have even been self-defense, but the officer certainly didn't follow protocol by being violent with Michael Brown, which seems to have precipitated all of the events that led to the shooting. The officer in question pulled Michael Brown through the window of the cruiser and did not issue a stand down order when Brown appeared to be rushing him. Police departments ought to strictly enforce a policy of first, keeping officers from needing to use lethal force, and second, using it only when it's strictly necessary and the officer's lives are actually in danger. Self-defense against an unarmed person will rarely rise to that level. While it sucks to be a cop in some respects, you're imbued with the power of the sovereign. If you wrongfully kill someone, sovereign immunity protects you from lawsuits. The fact that the blue uniform imbues you with special power means you're held to a higher standard. In contrast, Ferguson's attitude has been: deal with it. It was self-defense; we shoot who we want in self-defense. Black people are scary; we'll kill them if we have to.

That said, I don't think the store owners who are having their property destroyed should be held responsible for the failures of the Ferguson PD and the prosecutor (who followed non-standard protocol and let the officer essentially put on a "defense" in the grand jury proceeding, which *never* happens; the prosecutor usually only presents his side of the story). The Ferguson government clearly did not want the grand jury to return an indictment.

Honestly, the violence should make you think twice. The rioters are not people who are inherently evil. They're people like you and me. The fact that they are resorting to violence should show you how bad they think conditions in Ferguson are. The LA riots had a similar character. You can't seriously claim that the LAPD at the time of the Rodney King beating did not have *serious* problems. There was rampant use of excessive force and racism within the department. They've cleaned things up a bit, and part of that was due to the reactions of the local community to the police activity.

The sad truth is that violence makes news, peaceful meetings don't. Violence is listened to because it's scary; citizen voices are not. Martin Luther King -- in fact -- did not succeed because he used non-violence, he succeeded because he carefully planned his protests so that they would provoke the governor of Alabama to use dogs, and then made absolutely certain that reporters were there to capture the event. A single iconic photo of a black teenager being attacked by a police dog changed public attitude to such an extent that it put enough pressure on the federal government to make a change. One reporter said that at a certain protest, he dropped his camera to help a couple of black teenagers who were getting beat up by police. King chided the reporter afterwards saying, "if you don't capture this, it was all for nought." King was a good marketing professional; non-violence itself is not a very powerful force. The government ignores it.

Read up on the history of King. Even Rosa Parks was handpicked for the photo op of refusing to get off the bus. They had previously picked another young black woman to be the person to get arrested for refusing to sit in the back, but because she turned out to be pregnant, they decided she wouldn't be a good face for the movement, and only attempted to publicize the Parks' story. It was all carefully contrived. And King did not have the massive support you think. Why do you think he was using children in Alabama? Because the adults would not follow him. He achieved all of his successes with a surprisingly small number of protesters. It was more about the media attention. And the riots have gotten media attention, whereas none of the town hall meetings and peaceful activism that came before it got *any* attention at all. The media has as much fault in this -- for only covering negative events -- as do the rioters. If anyone took their cause seriously when they were being non-violent, they would not have resorted to violence.

So have they really set back race relations by 100 years? No, only in the minds of racists who think that this event proves that all black people are violent. If anything, they got the media to focus again on the Ferguson shootings and the problems that occurred in the grand jury proceeding. These riots will be remembered no differently than the LA riots. No one when discussing race relations today says, "forget it, all black people are violent, remember the LA riots; we can't co-exist with them."

Have you been on facebook? You know how society works. They will judge everyone for the actions of a few. Need I bring up Islam? What one group of rioters did today will hurt everything every black person will do. Even if only half of society judges them, that's all it takes. Hell, a third is all they need.

The difference between here and then... Media coverage. Every human in the modern world knows about Ferguson now..... Media and Facebook.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
UchihaMadara
Posts: 1,049
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2014 11:02:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/25/2014 9:47:08 AM, donald.keller wrote:
At 11/25/2014 3:19:26 AM, numberwang wrote:
At 11/25/2014 2:48:20 AM, donald.keller wrote:
At 11/25/2014 2:40:33 AM, numberwang wrote:
Forget all the riots and race relations, is anyone else disgusted this didn't even go to trial for manslaughter in any degree? Cops can't just kill people, even by wilson's own account brown was 10 feet away when he was shot in the head. At that point, there was no reason for wilson to kill him, if he had killed him when they were fighting for the gun in his squad car that would be a different story. The fact that the prosecutor would protect the cop like that when he killed a teenager sickens me, I would be much happier with him going to trial and getting off than not even being indicted. We need some sort of criminal justice and law enforcement reform. Put cameras on the lot of them.

Likely because they couldn't find anything good enough to charge him on. Despite how your conformed news feed may have you thinking, there is hardly half enough evidence to convict him. It's innocent until proven guilty, not vice versa.

Meanwhile, in your narrow-sided pov, you miss that one cop killing a man is fractions as bad as the riots are. And you want us to forget the riots, and head back to something that is mere cartoon humor in comparison? The death of that boy isn't the tragedy... The reaction is. More harm, physically and symbolically, has been committed per minute than from what Wilson did.

Nothing to charge him on? Why did wilson have to shoot him in the head? Why not in the leg? Why shoot him at all? Why not taze him, mace him, or club him? By his own admission wilson shot brown from a distance of roughly 10 feet, why was it necessary to use lethal force when he knew wilson was unarmed at that point? A grand jury only needs reasonable doubt to indite, and there is a very strong argument that he killed wilson and he was motivated to kill wilson from an adequate cause but it was not premeditated, which is the missouri definition of manslaughter.

We could debate for hours, like they did. Injuries to the hand. Marijuana in Brown's system, it was night time and Brown was taller and a hundred pounds bigger... There are many issues... The biggest is that there are NO VIDEO, and no reliable testimony that all agrees on what happened. That grounds to no charge someone. You do NOT charge people because "well he totes did it, I just knowes it, and your wrong if you say otherwise."

And I agree there is hardly enough evidence to convict him of first degree murder, but grand juries aren't making that decision to begin with. There was probably enough evidence to try him on second degree murder (but he would be innocent) and there certainly is enough evidence to try him on manslaughter.

All trails come down to if they can or can't prove guilt. The grand jury didn't send him to trail? It's because they viewed the lack of evidence and decided he couldn't be charged on that (hint, not guilty.)

When I said forgot about the riots I didn't mean they didn't matter, and I wasn't endorsing or justifying them, I just wanted to see what anyone else thought about the prosecutor's lack of attempt to even take it to trail. Why shouldn't something which caused so much controversy at least go to trail so the public can see the process? That would definitely have gone a long way prevent or significantly reduce riots. I don't think the vandalism and looting is at all justified and its obviously tragic, but a kid getting shot is tragic too. What about what I said was narrow minded? I just asked a question.

This thread is about the riot. You come in and say "what about the case? forget the riots." (not in precise quotes) on a thread that is only about the riots, than "...they didn't matter" is exactly what you imply.

No. You were complaining about how the riots were setting back race relations a hundred years; Number was simply bringing up the point that by at least putting the officer on trial, the government could easily have reduced the amount of damage being inflicted by these riots. Of course it is inappropriate to destroy the private property of innocent bystanders; however, the government *has* gravely mishandled the situation. There is sufficient reason to put him on trial-- he is a police officer who is supposed to be a protector of the civilians, yet he shot and killed and an unarmed civilian in a situation where lethal force could easily have been avoided.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2014 11:22:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
While the politics forum would have been a better place for this post...

I find it troubling that the prosecutor very clearly was NOT going for indictment. It's well known that prosecutors could "indict a ham sandwich" if that's what they wanted. Considerably less than 1% of the time is an indictment not handed down. In 2010 in federal court (so, not Missouri or even another state, but federal court), slightly more than 162 THOUSAND cases were filed. 11 grand juries declined to charge. 11 out of 162,000.

Further, while based on what's public he stood a good chance of being acquitted, there was ABSOLUTELY enough evidence for an indictment--there is no obligation to present exculpatory evidence, there is no obligation to present evidence that contradicts what you want indicted whatsoever. And whether you think it was good evidence or not, that would be normally decided during the fact finding--that is, at the TRIAL.

If the prosecutor wants an indictment, they can get an indictment. This prosecutor didn't want an indictment. Which makes me ask the question why bother to bring it to the grand jury then. One could say it was merely for politics--but how is it helpful politically to bring an indictment, and purposefully scuttle it?

This is a police department who charged a man after they beat him for bleeding on their uniforms--and perjured themselves while doing so. While, like Jim Gordon in Gotham, it's entirely possible that the officer in question is a fantastic and honorable cop, and it's at least theoretically possible he cannot be blamed in any way, it's not ridiculous to think that unlikely, and it's troubling that this place which has so many obvious and real problems would ALSO purposefully botch an indictment about a troubling case.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2014 11:35:49 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/25/2014 11:22:48 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
While the politics forum would have been a better place for this post...

I find it troubling that the prosecutor very clearly was NOT going for indictment. It's well known that prosecutors could "indict a ham sandwich" if that's what they wanted. Considerably less than 1% of the time is an indictment not handed down. In 2010 in federal court (so, not Missouri or even another state, but federal court), slightly more than 162 THOUSAND cases were filed. 11 grand juries declined to charge. 11 out of 162,000.

Further, while based on what's public he stood a good chance of being acquitted, there was ABSOLUTELY enough evidence for an indictment--there is no obligation to present exculpatory evidence, there is no obligation to present evidence that contradicts what you want indicted whatsoever. And whether you think it was good evidence or not, that would be normally decided during the fact finding--that is, at the TRIAL.

If the prosecutor wants an indictment, they can get an indictment. This prosecutor didn't want an indictment. Which makes me ask the question why bother to bring it to the grand jury then. One could say it was merely for politics--but how is it helpful politically to bring an indictment, and purposefully scuttle it?

To avoid blame.
Simple as that.
If they went to a judge and failed at trial, who knows what would happen.
By going this route, they can blame the CITIZENS and not themselves, and if things get too heated, just go to the grand jury again.

This is a police department who charged a man after they beat him for bleeding on their uniforms--and perjured themselves while doing so. While, like Jim Gordon in Gotham, it's entirely possible that the officer in question is a fantastic and honorable cop, and it's at least theoretically possible he cannot be blamed in any way, it's not ridiculous to think that unlikely, and it's troubling that this place which has so many obvious and real problems would ALSO purposefully botch an indictment about a troubling case.

Don't talk about Gotham. It's an awful, awful show :(
My work here is, finally, done.
thett3
Posts: 14,349
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2014 11:37:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/25/2014 11:22:48 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
While the politics forum would have been a better place for this post...

I find it troubling that the prosecutor very clearly was NOT going for indictment. It's well known that prosecutors could "indict a ham sandwich" if that's what they wanted. Considerably less than 1% of the time is an indictment not handed down. In 2010 in federal court (so, not Missouri or even another state, but federal court), slightly more than 162 THOUSAND cases were filed. 11 grand juries declined to charge. 11 out of 162,000.

Haha we read the same article, didn't we? 538?


Further, while based on what's public he stood a good chance of being acquitted, there was ABSOLUTELY enough evidence for an indictment--there is no obligation to present exculpatory evidence, there is no obligation to present evidence that contradicts what you want indicted whatsoever. And whether you think it was good evidence or not, that would be normally decided during the fact finding--that is, at the TRIAL.

If the prosecutor wants an indictment, they can get an indictment. This prosecutor didn't want an indictment. Which makes me ask the question why bother to bring it to the grand jury then. One could say it was merely for politics--but how is it helpful politically to bring an indictment, and purposefully scuttle it?

This is a police department who charged a man after they beat him for bleeding on their uniforms--and perjured themselves while doing so. While, like Jim Gordon in Gotham, it's entirely possible that the officer in question is a fantastic and honorable cop, and it's at least theoretically possible he cannot be blamed in any way, it's not ridiculous to think that unlikely, and it's troubling that this place which has so many obvious and real problems would ALSO purposefully botch an indictment about a troubling case.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2014 11:38:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/25/2014 11:35:49 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 11/25/2014 11:22:48 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
While the politics forum would have been a better place for this post...

I find it troubling that the prosecutor very clearly was NOT going for indictment. It's well known that prosecutors could "indict a ham sandwich" if that's what they wanted. Considerably less than 1% of the time is an indictment not handed down. In 2010 in federal court (so, not Missouri or even another state, but federal court), slightly more than 162 THOUSAND cases were filed. 11 grand juries declined to charge. 11 out of 162,000.

Further, while based on what's public he stood a good chance of being acquitted, there was ABSOLUTELY enough evidence for an indictment--there is no obligation to present exculpatory evidence, there is no obligation to present evidence that contradicts what you want indicted whatsoever. And whether you think it was good evidence or not, that would be normally decided during the fact finding--that is, at the TRIAL.

If the prosecutor wants an indictment, they can get an indictment. This prosecutor didn't want an indictment. Which makes me ask the question why bother to bring it to the grand jury then. One could say it was merely for politics--but how is it helpful politically to bring an indictment, and purposefully scuttle it?

To avoid blame.
Simple as that.
If they went to a judge and failed at trial, who knows what would happen.
By going this route, they can blame the CITIZENS and not themselves, and if things get too heated, just go to the grand jury again.

I don't think it's going to work out like that...

This is a police department who charged a man after they beat him for bleeding on their uniforms--and perjured themselves while doing so. While, like Jim Gordon in Gotham, it's entirely possible that the officer in question is a fantastic and honorable cop, and it's at least theoretically possible he cannot be blamed in any way, it's not ridiculous to think that unlikely, and it's troubling that this place which has so many obvious and real problems would ALSO purposefully botch an indictment about a troubling case.

Don't talk about Gotham. It's an awful, awful show :(

There's a show? I was thinking Year One. Or is that just a running joke, like when people try to tell me "there were two more Matrix movies" or "George Lucas made Star Wars Prequels" or "Terminator had more than 2 movies"?
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2014 11:39:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/25/2014 11:37:40 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 11/25/2014 11:22:48 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
While the politics forum would have been a better place for this post...

I find it troubling that the prosecutor very clearly was NOT going for indictment. It's well known that prosecutors could "indict a ham sandwich" if that's what they wanted. Considerably less than 1% of the time is an indictment not handed down. In 2010 in federal court (so, not Missouri or even another state, but federal court), slightly more than 162 THOUSAND cases were filed. 11 grand juries declined to charge. 11 out of 162,000.

Haha we read the same article, didn't we? 538?

I did.
My work here is, finally, done.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2014 11:45:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/25/2014 11:37:40 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 11/25/2014 11:22:48 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
While the politics forum would have been a better place for this post...

I find it troubling that the prosecutor very clearly was NOT going for indictment. It's well known that prosecutors could "indict a ham sandwich" if that's what they wanted. Considerably less than 1% of the time is an indictment not handed down. In 2010 in federal court (so, not Missouri or even another state, but federal court), slightly more than 162 THOUSAND cases were filed. 11 grand juries declined to charge. 11 out of 162,000.

Haha we read the same article, didn't we? 538?

MAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaybe.

Though I follow Popehat, and the whole "grand juries indicting ham sandwiches" thing has been mentioned there a bunch before.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
thett3
Posts: 14,349
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2014 11:55:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/25/2014 11:45:58 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 11/25/2014 11:37:40 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 11/25/2014 11:22:48 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
While the politics forum would have been a better place for this post...

I find it troubling that the prosecutor very clearly was NOT going for indictment. It's well known that prosecutors could "indict a ham sandwich" if that's what they wanted. Considerably less than 1% of the time is an indictment not handed down. In 2010 in federal court (so, not Missouri or even another state, but federal court), slightly more than 162 THOUSAND cases were filed. 11 grand juries declined to charge. 11 out of 162,000.

Haha we read the same article, didn't we? 538?

MAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaybe.

Though I follow Popehat, and the whole "grand juries indicting ham sandwiches" thing has been mentioned there a bunch before.

I was surprised at how rarely grand juries decline to charge. Makes them seem kinda pointless
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right