Total Posts:54|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Ferguson riot will start a second civil war?

Itani
Posts: 32
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2014 11:58:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Do agree or disagree? If you think it will, whose side would you support/fight for? (and no, there's not just two sides anymore, there are many)
"Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely." -Lord Acton

🔯`51; Has science gone to far? `51;🔯
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2014 12:05:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/30/2014 11:58:31 PM, Itani wrote:
Do agree or disagree? If you think it will, whose side would you support/fight for? (and no, there's not just two sides anymore, there are many)

It won't, if it does, I'm against the rioters (doubt anyone is surprised by that).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Itani
Posts: 32
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2014 12:15:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Actually, for some reason, I have a feeling most people would be against the government. But, anyway, I'm not sure which side I'd be on" maybe the government. All the sides seem to be right and wrong at the same time.
"Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely." -Lord Acton

🔯`51; Has science gone to far? `51;🔯
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2014 1:47:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/1/2014 12:15:08 AM, Itani wrote:
Actually, for some reason, I have a feeling most people would be against the government. But, anyway, I'm not sure which side I'd be on" maybe the government. All the sides seem to be right and wrong at the same time.

Most people like to complain about the government, but if it comes to raising arms against them, there will not be a lot of support.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
debate_power
Posts: 726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2014 1:57:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/30/2014 11:58:31 PM, Itani wrote:
Do agree or disagree? If you think it will, whose side would you support/fight for? (and no, there's not just two sides anymore, there are many)

Just give it a couple of months and then we'll never hear about these stupid protests ever again.
You can call me Mark if you like.
Got_Rebuttal
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2014 3:50:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/30/2014 11:58:31 PM, Itani wrote:
Do agree or disagree? If you think it will, whose side would you support/fight for? (and no, there's not just two sides anymore, there are many)

That's ridiculous. Besides, the last thing this country needs is another war. People just think that the officer was racist, which is also ridiculous because not everything is about racism and feminism, maybe the officer was just doing his job and now everyone's calling him racist. I'm not answering on what side I'd be on.
kbub
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2014 10:40:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/1/2014 1:57:36 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 11/30/2014 11:58:31 PM, Itani wrote:
Do agree or disagree? If you think it will, whose side would you support/fight for? (and no, there's not just two sides anymore, there are many)

Just give it a couple of months and then we'll never hear about these stupid protests ever again.

These protests are far from "stupid." I think that it takes a very hard-hearted person not to at least be affected a little by the riots. Or far-removed. But worrying about police brutality is a day-to-day terror for many people, particularly black and Latin@ persons.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2014 11:12:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/1/2014 10:40:38 PM, kbub wrote:
At 12/1/2014 1:57:36 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 11/30/2014 11:58:31 PM, Itani wrote:
Do agree or disagree? If you think it will, whose side would you support/fight for? (and no, there's not just two sides anymore, there are many)

Just give it a couple of months and then we'll never hear about these stupid protests ever again.

These protests are far from "stupid." I think that it takes a very hard-hearted person not to at least be affected a little by the riots. Or far-removed. But worrying about police brutality is a day-to-day terror for many people, particularly black and Latin@ persons.

And white people too.

http://www.washingtontimes.com...

And cops in general, after all, a cop is killed every other day in American.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Itani
Posts: 32
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2014 9:13:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/1/2014 1:57:36 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 11/30/2014 11:58:31 PM, Itani wrote:
Do agree or disagree? If you think it will, whose side would you support/fight for? (and no, there's not just two sides anymore, there are many)

Just give it a couple of months and then we'll never hear about these stupid protests ever again.

I was saying the same thing a few months ago!
"Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely." -Lord Acton

🔯`51; Has science gone to far? `51;🔯
debate_power
Posts: 726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2014 9:36:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/2/2014 9:13:14 AM, Itani wrote:
At 12/1/2014 1:57:36 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 11/30/2014 11:58:31 PM, Itani wrote:
Do agree or disagree? If you think it will, whose side would you support/fight for? (and no, there's not just two sides anymore, there are many)

Just give it a couple of months and then we'll never hear about these stupid protests ever again.

I was saying the same thing a few months ago!

Well, a few months from now, hopefully. I hope.
You can call me Mark if you like.
debate_power
Posts: 726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2014 9:53:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/1/2014 10:40:38 PM, kbub wrote:
At 12/1/2014 1:57:36 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 11/30/2014 11:58:31 PM, Itani wrote:
Do agree or disagree? If you think it will, whose side would you support/fight for? (and no, there's not just two sides anymore, there are many)

Just give it a couple of months and then we'll never hear about these stupid protests ever again.

These protests are far from "stupid." I think that it takes a very hard-hearted person not to at least be affected a little by the riots. Or far-removed. But worrying about police brutality is a day-to-day terror for many people, particularly black and Latin@ persons.

Naturally, I am affected. I also worry about police brutality/excessive use of force and I do realize that those minorities you mention are the subjects of discrimination. However, I can't endorse violent looting and burning of buildings, and I dislike the manner in which the protests were conducted.
You can call me Mark if you like.
kbub
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2014 10:03:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/2/2014 9:53:16 AM, debate_power wrote:
At 12/1/2014 10:40:38 PM, kbub wrote:
At 12/1/2014 1:57:36 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 11/30/2014 11:58:31 PM, Itani wrote:
Do agree or disagree? If you think it will, whose side would you support/fight for? (and no, there's not just two sides anymore, there are many)

Just give it a couple of months and then we'll never hear about these stupid protests ever again.

These protests are far from "stupid." I think that it takes a very hard-hearted person not to at least be affected a little by the riots. Or far-removed. But worrying about police brutality is a day-to-day terror for many people, particularly black and Latin@ persons.

Naturally, I am affected. I also worry about police brutality/excessive use of force and I do realize that those minorities you mention are the subjects of discrimination. However, I can't endorse violent looting and burning of buildings, and I dislike the manner in which the protests were conducted.

That's stuff. We're talking people. I'm not saying stealing is wrong, but if that's are focus then I think we should maybe be re-prioritizing. And the fact that the police were protecting the white area from looters and not the black neighborhoods suggests that not only does the government seem to care more about property than people, but that they seem to care more about white people's property. If the police aren't there to protect black people, and aren't there to serve black people, then what part of the police *isn't* a lie?
debate_power
Posts: 726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2014 10:09:47 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/2/2014 10:03:35 AM, kbub wrote:
At 12/2/2014 9:53:16 AM, debate_power wrote:
At 12/1/2014 10:40:38 PM, kbub wrote:
At 12/1/2014 1:57:36 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 11/30/2014 11:58:31 PM, Itani wrote:
Do agree or disagree? If you think it will, whose side would you support/fight for? (and no, there's not just two sides anymore, there are many)

Just give it a couple of months and then we'll never hear about these stupid protests ever again.

These protests are far from "stupid." I think that it takes a very hard-hearted person not to at least be affected a little by the riots. Or far-removed. But worrying about police brutality is a day-to-day terror for many people, particularly black and Latin@ persons.

Naturally, I am affected. I also worry about police brutality/excessive use of force and I do realize that those minorities you mention are the subjects of discrimination. However, I can't endorse violent looting and burning of buildings, and I dislike the manner in which the protests were conducted.

That's stuff. We're talking people. I'm not saying stealing is wrong, but if that's are focus then I think we should maybe be re-prioritizing. And the fact that the police were protecting the white area from looters and not the black neighborhoods suggests that not only does the government seem to care more about property than people, but that they seem to care more about white people's property. If the police aren't there to protect black people, and aren't there to serve black people, then what part of the police *isn't* a lie?

I realize we shouldn't misconstrue priorities, but I still believe that less destructive means would have painted the protesters involved in said destruction in a better light.
You can call me Mark if you like.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2014 10:24:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/2/2014 10:03:35 AM, kbub wrote:
At 12/2/2014 9:53:16 AM, debate_power wrote:
At 12/1/2014 10:40:38 PM, kbub wrote:
At 12/1/2014 1:57:36 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 11/30/2014 11:58:31 PM, Itani wrote:
Do agree or disagree? If you think it will, whose side would you support/fight for? (and no, there's not just two sides anymore, there are many)

Just give it a couple of months and then we'll never hear about these stupid protests ever again.

These protests are far from "stupid." I think that it takes a very hard-hearted person not to at least be affected a little by the riots. Or far-removed. But worrying about police brutality is a day-to-day terror for many people, particularly black and Latin@ persons.

Naturally, I am affected. I also worry about police brutality/excessive use of force and I do realize that those minorities you mention are the subjects of discrimination. However, I can't endorse violent looting and burning of buildings, and I dislike the manner in which the protests were conducted.

That's stuff. We're talking people. I'm not saying stealing is wrong, but if that's are focus then I think we should maybe be re-prioritizing. And the fact that the police were protecting the white area from looters and not the black neighborhoods suggests that not only does the government seem to care more about property than people, but that they seem to care more about white people's property. If the police aren't there to protect black people, and aren't there to serve black people, then what part of the police *isn't* a lie?

The police have to protect themselves first before attempting to service a riot prone area.
After the riots burned out, then the police department will decide who the next "Wilsons" are to serve that dangerous area.
kbub
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2014 10:57:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/2/2014 10:24:19 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 12/2/2014 10:03:35 AM, kbub wrote:
At 12/2/2014 9:53:16 AM, debate_power wrote:
At 12/1/2014 10:40:38 PM, kbub wrote:
At 12/1/2014 1:57:36 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 11/30/2014 11:58:31 PM, Itani wrote:
Do agree or disagree? If you think it will, whose side would you support/fight for? (and no, there's not just two sides anymore, there are many)

Just give it a couple of months and then we'll never hear about these stupid protests ever again.

These protests are far from "stupid." I think that it takes a very hard-hearted person not to at least be affected a little by the riots. Or far-removed. But worrying about police brutality is a day-to-day terror for many people, particularly black and Latin@ persons.

Naturally, I am affected. I also worry about police brutality/excessive use of force and I do realize that those minorities you mention are the subjects of discrimination. However, I can't endorse violent looting and burning of buildings, and I dislike the manner in which the protests were conducted.

That's stuff. We're talking people. I'm not saying stealing is wrong, but if that's are focus then I think we should maybe be re-prioritizing. And the fact that the police were protecting the white area from looters and not the black neighborhoods suggests that not only does the government seem to care more about property than people, but that they seem to care more about white people's property. If the police aren't there to protect black people, and aren't there to serve black people, then what part of the police *isn't* a lie?

The police have to protect themselves first before attempting to service a riot prone area.
After the riots burned out, then the police department will decide who the next "Wilsons" are to serve that dangerous area.

Exactly how many police officers were arrested for shooting rubber bullets, bean bag guns, flashbangs, tear gas, pepper spray, and smoke bombs into protesters? And how many reporters were arrested for sitting peacefully in a McDonalds? And after prior assurances of no teargas to enforce the curfew, how many cans of teargas were used? How many members of the media did the police (on camera) threaten with mace? How many peaceful photojournalists were arrested? How many *hundreds* of peaceful protesters were arrested for merely being in the way, or not dispersing fast enough?

Again, how many police officers were arrested for their role in the riots? Was Ray Albers arrested for POINTING A SEMI-AUTOMATIC RIFLE AT PEACEFUL PROTESTERS and then THREATENING TO KILL THEM? If an unarmed man can be shot 12 times (several after running away) for making a police feel threatened, why is it that a police officer who points a rifle at civilians and threatens to kill them isn't considered at danger? By the logic of the law, the protesters had the right to kill Albers in self defense. But no, Albers was merely suspended.

What about the excessive arrests? The police brutality? The lack of police protection for black people? What about the police who threatened the crowd of "f**king animals," the police who publicly wished the Boston Bomber had hit the Ferguson protesters, or the police officer who suggested that, like "rabid dogs," the protesters should be put down? What about the unconstitutional "Keep moving" rule that had police officers make brutal arrests against people merely standing still?

Again, how many police officers were arrested?
kbub
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2014 11:33:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/2/2014 10:09:47 AM, debate_power wrote:
At 12/2/2014 10:03:35 AM, kbub wrote:
At 12/2/2014 9:53:16 AM, debate_power wrote:
At 12/1/2014 10:40:38 PM, kbub wrote:
At 12/1/2014 1:57:36 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 11/30/2014 11:58:31 PM, Itani wrote:
Do agree or disagree? If you think it will, whose side would you support/fight for? (and no, there's not just two sides anymore, there are many)

Just give it a couple of months and then we'll never hear about these stupid protests ever again.

These protests are far from "stupid." I think that it takes a very hard-hearted person not to at least be affected a little by the riots. Or far-removed. But worrying about police brutality is a day-to-day terror for many people, particularly black and Latin@ persons.

Naturally, I am affected. I also worry about police brutality/excessive use of force and I do realize that those minorities you mention are the subjects of discrimination. However, I can't endorse violent looting and burning of buildings, and I dislike the manner in which the protests were conducted.

That's stuff. We're talking people. I'm not saying stealing is wrong, but if that's are focus then I think we should maybe be re-prioritizing. And the fact that the police were protecting the white area from looters and not the black neighborhoods suggests that not only does the government seem to care more about property than people, but that they seem to care more about white people's property. If the police aren't there to protect black people, and aren't there to serve black people, then what part of the police *isn't* a lie?

I realize we shouldn't misconstrue priorities, but I still believe that less destructive means would have painted the protesters involved in said destruction in a better light.

No one was holding the police accountable--not for their brutality towards persons in neighborhoods primarily occupied by POC, nor for their not protecting anyone in these same neighborhoods. This happens all the time. Look up "zones of exclusion" for some explanations of how this gentrification functions. There are these displaced communities, often in the middle of cities, who are excluded from basic services, such as most grocery stores, deliveries, fire protection, and police protection. That's why there were so many burnt buildings and gunshots in these neighborhoods. The police don't protect these areas. They don't serve the people of color. The police aren't legally oblidged to answer any calls--if you are in such a displaced community, you aren't likely to get the police to come. You can see that clearly in Ferguson. The police were fairly unconcerned with crime in these gentrified zones--so long as it didn't bleed (literally?) into the zones of exclusion.
kbub
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2014 11:52:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/2/2014 10:09:47 AM, debate_power wrote:
At 12/2/2014 10:03:35 AM, kbub wrote:
At 12/2/2014 9:53:16 AM, debate_power wrote:
At 12/1/2014 10:40:38 PM, kbub wrote:
At 12/1/2014 1:57:36 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 11/30/2014 11:58:31 PM, Itani wrote:
Do agree or disagree? If you think it will, whose side would you support/fight for? (and no, there's not just two sides anymore, there are many)

Just give it a couple of months and then we'll never hear about these stupid protests ever again.

These protests are far from "stupid." I think that it takes a very hard-hearted person not to at least be affected a little by the riots. Or far-removed. But worrying about police brutality is a day-to-day terror for many people, particularly black and Latin@ persons.

Naturally, I am affected. I also worry about police brutality/excessive use of force and I do realize that those minorities you mention are the subjects of discrimination. However, I can't endorse violent looting and burning of buildings, and I dislike the manner in which the protests were conducted.

That's stuff. We're talking people. I'm not saying stealing is wrong, but if that's are focus then I think we should maybe be re-prioritizing. And the fact that the police were protecting the white area from looters and not the black neighborhoods suggests that not only does the government seem to care more about property than people, but that they seem to care more about white people's property. If the police aren't there to protect black people, and aren't there to serve black people, then what part of the police *isn't* a lie?

I realize we shouldn't misconstrue priorities, but I still believe that less destructive means would have painted the protesters involved in said destruction in a better light.

I think what we should take away from the thefts in Ferguson is what desperation looks like. For the real pointless greed, we can see this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk... That same even can also give us an insight into why the thefts associated with Ferguson occurred. It occurred because the same consumerism that is designed to drive people mad for their products infects everyone, rich and poor alike. Society promises you these things. These same items, these same services, are the one's that people of color in Ferguson will never receive. They are frustrated by the lie that consumerism push on them, and the services that society takes from them. Privileged people like me can talk about unfairness, but we should remember that they *live* unfairness. The idea that "stealing is wrong" in their context is a joke. They've been stolen from all this time. What has happened isn't the result of some moral shift. They've simply had enough. *That's* what the focus should be one. That, and the fact that despite all this nothing is being done to listen to these people or change the status quo.
Itani
Posts: 32
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2014 1:47:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/2/2014 10:03:35 AM, kbub wrote:
At 12/2/2014 9:53:16 AM, debate_power wrote:
At 12/1/2014 10:40:38 PM, kbub wrote:
At 12/1/2014 1:57:36 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 11/30/2014 11:58:31 PM, Itani wrote:
Do agree or disagree? If you think it will, whose side would you support/fight for? (and no, there's not just two sides anymore, there are many)

Just give it a couple of months and then we'll never hear about these stupid protests ever again.

These protests are far from "stupid." I think that it takes a very hard-hearted person not to at least be affected a little by the riots. Or far-removed. But worrying about police brutality is a day-to-day terror for many people, particularly black and Latin@ persons.

Naturally, I am affected. I also worry about police brutality/excessive use of force and I do realize that those minorities you mention are the subjects of discrimination. However, I can't endorse violent looting and burning of buildings, and I dislike the manner in which the protests were conducted.

That's stuff. We're talking people. I'm not saying stealing is wrong, but if that's are focus then I think we should maybe be re-prioritizing. And the fact that the police were protecting the white area from looters and not the black neighborhoods suggests that not only does the government seem to care more about property than people, but that they seem to care more about white people's property. If the police aren't there to protect black people, and aren't there to serve black people, then what part of the police *isn't* a lie?

I agree, except about the fact that the government cares more about property. I saw a video where they were attacking a neighborhood (where there were peaceful protesters saying "don't shoot") Spark grenades caught a yard on fire and exploded someone's roof. People rushed out of the building. I think that proves it.
"Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely." -Lord Acton

🔯`51; Has science gone to far? `51;🔯
debate_power
Posts: 726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2014 1:57:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/2/2014 11:52:16 AM, kbub wrote:
At 12/2/2014 10:09:47 AM, debate_power wrote:
At 12/2/2014 10:03:35 AM, kbub wrote:
At 12/2/2014 9:53:16 AM, debate_power wrote:
At 12/1/2014 10:40:38 PM, kbub wrote:
At 12/1/2014 1:57:36 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 11/30/2014 11:58:31 PM, Itani wrote:
Do agree or disagree? If you think it will, whose side would you support/fight for? (and no, there's not just two sides anymore, there are many)

Just give it a couple of months and then we'll never hear about these stupid protests ever again.

These protests are far from "stupid." I think that it takes a very hard-hearted person not to at least be affected a little by the riots. Or far-removed. But worrying about police brutality is a day-to-day terror for many people, particularly black and Latin@ persons.

Naturally, I am affected. I also worry about police brutality/excessive use of force and I do realize that those minorities you mention are the subjects of discrimination. However, I can't endorse violent looting and burning of buildings, and I dislike the manner in which the protests were conducted.

That's stuff. We're talking people. I'm not saying stealing is wrong, but if that's are focus then I think we should maybe be re-prioritizing. And the fact that the police were protecting the white area from looters and not the black neighborhoods suggests that not only does the government seem to care more about property than people, but that they seem to care more about white people's property. If the police aren't there to protect black people, and aren't there to serve black people, then what part of the police *isn't* a lie?

I realize we shouldn't misconstrue priorities, but I still believe that less destructive means would have painted the protesters involved in said destruction in a better light.

I think what we should take away from the thefts in Ferguson is what desperation looks like. For the real pointless greed, we can see this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk... That same even can also give us an insight into why the thefts associated with Ferguson occurred. It occurred because the same consumerism that is designed to drive people mad for their products infects everyone, rich and poor alike. Society promises you these things. These same items, these same services, are the one's that people of color in Ferguson will never receive. They are frustrated by the lie that consumerism push on them, and the services that society takes from them. Privileged people like me can talk about unfairness, but we should remember that they *live* unfairness. The idea that "stealing is wrong" in their context is a joke. They've been stolen from all this time. What has happened isn't the result of some moral shift. They've simply had enough. *That's* what the focus should be one. That, and the fact that despite all this nothing is being done to listen to these people or change the status quo.

Well, I agree that with you that capitalism is extortion. Anyone who is exploited effectively has most of their product stolen from them.
You can call me Mark if you like.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2014 1:57:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/2/2014 11:52:16 AM, kbub wrote:
At 12/2/2014 10:09:47 AM, debate_power wrote:
At 12/2/2014 10:03:35 AM, kbub wrote:
At 12/2/2014 9:53:16 AM, debate_power wrote:
At 12/1/2014 10:40:38 PM, kbub wrote:
At 12/1/2014 1:57:36 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 11/30/2014 11:58:31 PM, Itani wrote:
Do agree or disagree? If you think it will, whose side would you support/fight for? (and no, there's not just two sides anymore, there are many)

Just give it a couple of months and then we'll never hear about these stupid protests ever again.

These protests are far from "stupid." I think that it takes a very hard-hearted person not to at least be affected a little by the riots. Or far-removed. But worrying about police brutality is a day-to-day terror for many people, particularly black and Latin@ persons.

Naturally, I am affected. I also worry about police brutality/excessive use of force and I do realize that those minorities you mention are the subjects of discrimination. However, I can't endorse violent looting and burning of buildings, and I dislike the manner in which the protests were conducted.

That's stuff. We're talking people. I'm not saying stealing is wrong, but if that's are focus then I think we should maybe be re-prioritizing. And the fact that the police were protecting the white area from looters and not the black neighborhoods suggests that not only does the government seem to care more about property than people, but that they seem to care more about white people's property. If the police aren't there to protect black people, and aren't there to serve black people, then what part of the police *isn't* a lie?

I realize we shouldn't misconstrue priorities, but I still believe that less destructive means would have painted the protesters involved in said destruction in a better light.

I think what we should take away from the thefts in Ferguson is what desperation looks like. For the real pointless greed, we can see this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk... That same even can also give us an insight into why the thefts associated with Ferguson occurred. It occurred because the same consumerism that is designed to drive people mad for their products infects everyone, rich and poor alike. Society promises you these things. These same items, these same services, are the one's that people of color in Ferguson will never receive. They are frustrated by the lie that consumerism push on them, and the services that society takes from them. Privileged people like me can talk about unfairness, but we should remember that they *live* unfairness. The idea that "stealing is wrong" in their context is a joke. They've been stolen from all this time. What has happened isn't the result of some moral shift. They've simply had enough. *That's* what the focus should be one. That, and the fact that despite all this nothing is being done to listen to these people or change the status quo.

So which is it, looters are enslaved to white greed or is it looters taking back what the greedy black shops stole from them?

Is it both? If it is either, someone better inform those poor folk about the welfare office and black separatism.
kbub
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2014 1:59:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/2/2014 1:57:12 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 12/2/2014 11:52:16 AM, kbub wrote:
At 12/2/2014 10:09:47 AM, debate_power wrote:
At 12/2/2014 10:03:35 AM, kbub wrote:
At 12/2/2014 9:53:16 AM, debate_power wrote:
At 12/1/2014 10:40:38 PM, kbub wrote:
At 12/1/2014 1:57:36 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 11/30/2014 11:58:31 PM, Itani wrote:
Do agree or disagree? If you think it will, whose side would you support/fight for? (and no, there's not just two sides anymore, there are many)

Just give it a couple of months and then we'll never hear about these stupid protests ever again.

These protests are far from "stupid." I think that it takes a very hard-hearted person not to at least be affected a little by the riots. Or far-removed. But worrying about police brutality is a day-to-day terror for many people, particularly black and Latin@ persons.

Naturally, I am affected. I also worry about police brutality/excessive use of force and I do realize that those minorities you mention are the subjects of discrimination. However, I can't endorse violent looting and burning of buildings, and I dislike the manner in which the protests were conducted.

That's stuff. We're talking people. I'm not saying stealing is wrong, but if that's are focus then I think we should maybe be re-prioritizing. And the fact that the police were protecting the white area from looters and not the black neighborhoods suggests that not only does the government seem to care more about property than people, but that they seem to care more about white people's property. If the police aren't there to protect black people, and aren't there to serve black people, then what part of the police *isn't* a lie?

I realize we shouldn't misconstrue priorities, but I still believe that less destructive means would have painted the protesters involved in said destruction in a better light.

I think what we should take away from the thefts in Ferguson is what desperation looks like. For the real pointless greed, we can see this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk... That same even can also give us an insight into why the thefts associated with Ferguson occurred. It occurred because the same consumerism that is designed to drive people mad for their products infects everyone, rich and poor alike. Society promises you these things. These same items, these same services, are the one's that people of color in Ferguson will never receive. They are frustrated by the lie that consumerism push on them, and the services that society takes from them. Privileged people like me can talk about unfairness, but we should remember that they *live* unfairness. The idea that "stealing is wrong" in their context is a joke. They've been stolen from all this time. What has happened isn't the result of some moral shift. They've simply had enough. *That's* what the focus should be one. That, and the fact that despite all this nothing is being done to listen to these people or change the status quo.

Well, I agree that with you that capitalism is extortion. Anyone who is exploited effectively has most of their product stolen from them.

What do you think about the "zones of exclusion" and gentrification?
kbub
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2014 2:05:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/2/2014 1:57:49 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 12/2/2014 11:52:16 AM, kbub wrote:
At 12/2/2014 10:09:47 AM, debate_power wrote:
At 12/2/2014 10:03:35 AM, kbub wrote:
At 12/2/2014 9:53:16 AM, debate_power wrote:
At 12/1/2014 10:40:38 PM, kbub wrote:
At 12/1/2014 1:57:36 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 11/30/2014 11:58:31 PM, Itani wrote:
Do agree or disagree? If you think it will, whose side would you support/fight for? (and no, there's not just two sides anymore, there are many)

Just give it a couple of months and then we'll never hear about these stupid protests ever again.

These protests are far from "stupid." I think that it takes a very hard-hearted person not to at least be affected a little by the riots. Or far-removed. But worrying about police brutality is a day-to-day terror for many people, particularly black and Latin@ persons.

Naturally, I am affected. I also worry about police brutality/excessive use of force and I do realize that those minorities you mention are the subjects of discrimination. However, I can't endorse violent looting and burning of buildings, and I dislike the manner in which the protests were conducted.

That's stuff. We're talking people. I'm not saying stealing is wrong, but if that's are focus then I think we should maybe be re-prioritizing. And the fact that the police were protecting the white area from looters and not the black neighborhoods suggests that not only does the government seem to care more about property than people, but that they seem to care more about white people's property. If the police aren't there to protect black people, and aren't there to serve black people, then what part of the police *isn't* a lie?

I realize we shouldn't misconstrue priorities, but I still believe that less destructive means would have painted the protesters involved in said destruction in a better light.

I think what we should take away from the thefts in Ferguson is what desperation looks like. For the real pointless greed, we can see this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk... That same even can also give us an insight into why the thefts associated with Ferguson occurred. It occurred because the same consumerism that is designed to drive people mad for their products infects everyone, rich and poor alike. Society promises you these things. These same items, these same services, are the one's that people of color in Ferguson will never receive. They are frustrated by the lie that consumerism push on them, and the services that society takes from them. Privileged people like me can talk about unfairness, but we should remember that they *live* unfairness. The idea that "stealing is wrong" in their context is a joke. They've been stolen from all this time. What has happened isn't the result of some moral shift. They've simply had enough. *That's* what the focus should be one. That, and the fact that despite all this nothing is being done to listen to these people or change the status quo.

So which is it, looters are enslaved to white greed or is it looters taking back what the greedy black shops stole from them?

Is it both? If it is either, someone better inform those poor folk about the welfare office and black separatism.

I have no idea how you got any of that. To over-simplify my argument, I'm saying that the thefts at Ferguson are the reactions to systematic injustices committed against them. These systematic injustices are society-wide.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2014 2:15:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/2/2014 2:05:57 PM, kbub wrote:
So which is it, looters are enslaved to white greed or is it looters taking back what the greedy black shops stole from them?

Is it both? If it is either, someone better inform those poor folk about the welfare office and black separatism.

I have no idea how you got any of that. To over-simplify my argument, I'm saying that the thefts at Ferguson are the reactions to systematic injustices committed against them. These systematic injustices are society-wide.

The thefts of Black looters from Black capitalists.

I got it.
debate_power
Posts: 726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2014 2:15:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/2/2014 1:59:05 PM, kbub wrote:
At 12/2/2014 1:57:12 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 12/2/2014 11:52:16 AM, kbub wrote:
At 12/2/2014 10:09:47 AM, debate_power wrote:
At 12/2/2014 10:03:35 AM, kbub wrote:
At 12/2/2014 9:53:16 AM, debate_power wrote:
At 12/1/2014 10:40:38 PM, kbub wrote:
At 12/1/2014 1:57:36 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 11/30/2014 11:58:31 PM, Itani wrote:
Do agree or disagree? If you think it will, whose side would you support/fight for? (and no, there's not just two sides anymore, there are many)

Just give it a couple of months and then we'll never hear about these stupid protests ever again.

These protests are far from "stupid." I think that it takes a very hard-hearted person not to at least be affected a little by the riots. Or far-removed. But worrying about police brutality is a day-to-day terror for many people, particularly black and Latin@ persons.

Naturally, I am affected. I also worry about police brutality/excessive use of force and I do realize that those minorities you mention are the subjects of discrimination. However, I can't endorse violent looting and burning of buildings, and I dislike the manner in which the protests were conducted.

That's stuff. We're talking people. I'm not saying stealing is wrong, but if that's are focus then I think we should maybe be re-prioritizing. And the fact that the police were protecting the white area from looters and not the black neighborhoods suggests that not only does the government seem to care more about property than people, but that they seem to care more about white people's property. If the police aren't there to protect black people, and aren't there to serve black people, then what part of the police *isn't* a lie?

I realize we shouldn't misconstrue priorities, but I still believe that less destructive means would have painted the protesters involved in said destruction in a better light.

I think what we should take away from the thefts in Ferguson is what desperation looks like. For the real pointless greed, we can see this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk... That same even can also give us an insight into why the thefts associated with Ferguson occurred. It occurred because the same consumerism that is designed to drive people mad for their products infects everyone, rich and poor alike. Society promises you these things. These same items, these same services, are the one's that people of color in Ferguson will never receive. They are frustrated by the lie that consumerism push on them, and the services that society takes from them. Privileged people like me can talk about unfairness, but we should remember that they *live* unfairness. The idea that "stealing is wrong" in their context is a joke. They've been stolen from all this time. What has happened isn't the result of some moral shift. They've simply had enough. *That's* what the focus should be one. That, and the fact that despite all this nothing is being done to listen to these people or change the status quo.

Well, I agree that with you that capitalism is extortion. Anyone who is exploited effectively has most of their product stolen from them.

What do you think about the "zones of exclusion" and gentrification?

The two things you listed are despicable. I researched them. It's a shame they actually take place, and they show how far our society really has to go, in a social sense. We claim to be so intelligent and advanced, but more often than not, we're pompous brats.

Those forms of discrimination would all die out, theoretically, with social classes. In a democratic society where the means of production are publicly owned, there would be no way to make material gains at the cost of others- rather, there would be agreed-upon trades of money for resources- so like capitalism but without exploitation. The people, rather than a higher power, would be able to make decisions, and so discrimination could easily be done away with with a vote. Since everyone would have equal opportunity in such a system, I believe the two instances of discrimination you mentioned would become nonexistent. In the model I'm thinking of, there would be strong safeguards in place to prevent discrimination.
You can call me Mark if you like.
kbub
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2014 3:54:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/2/2014 2:15:16 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 12/2/2014 1:59:05 PM, kbub wrote:
At 12/2/2014 1:57:12 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 12/2/2014 11:52:16 AM, kbub wrote:
At 12/2/2014 10:09:47 AM, debate_power wrote:
At 12/2/2014 10:03:35 AM, kbub wrote:
At 12/2/2014 9:53:16 AM, debate_power wrote:
At 12/1/2014 10:40:38 PM, kbub wrote:
At 12/1/2014 1:57:36 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 11/30/2014 11:58:31 PM, Itani wrote:
Do agree or disagree? If you think it will, whose side would you support/fight for? (and no, there's not just two sides anymore, there are many)

Just give it a couple of months and then we'll never hear about these stupid protests ever again.

These protests are far from "stupid." I think that it takes a very hard-hearted person not to at least be affected a little by the riots. Or far-removed. But worrying about police brutality is a day-to-day terror for many people, particularly black and Latin@ persons.

Naturally, I am affected. I also worry about police brutality/excessive use of force and I do realize that those minorities you mention are the subjects of discrimination. However, I can't endorse violent looting and burning of buildings, and I dislike the manner in which the protests were conducted.

That's stuff. We're talking people. I'm not saying stealing is wrong, but if that's are focus then I think we should maybe be re-prioritizing. And the fact that the police were protecting the white area from looters and not the black neighborhoods suggests that not only does the government seem to care more about property than people, but that they seem to care more about white people's property. If the police aren't there to protect black people, and aren't there to serve black people, then what part of the police *isn't* a lie?

I realize we shouldn't misconstrue priorities, but I still believe that less destructive means would have painted the protesters involved in said destruction in a better light.

I think what we should take away from the thefts in Ferguson is what desperation looks like. For the real pointless greed, we can see this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk... That same even can also give us an insight into why the thefts associated with Ferguson occurred. It occurred because the same consumerism that is designed to drive people mad for their products infects everyone, rich and poor alike. Society promises you these things. These same items, these same services, are the one's that people of color in Ferguson will never receive. They are frustrated by the lie that consumerism push on them, and the services that society takes from them. Privileged people like me can talk about unfairness, but we should remember that they *live* unfairness. The idea that "stealing is wrong" in their context is a joke. They've been stolen from all this time. What has happened isn't the result of some moral shift. They've simply had enough. *That's* what the focus should be one. That, and the fact that despite all this nothing is being done to listen to these people or change the status quo.

Well, I agree that with you that capitalism is extortion. Anyone who is exploited effectively has most of their product stolen from them.

What do you think about the "zones of exclusion" and gentrification?

The two things you listed are despicable. I researched them. It's a shame they actually take place, and they show how far our society really has to go, in a social sense. We claim to be so intelligent and advanced, but more often than not, we're pompous brats.

Those forms of discrimination would all die out, theoretically, with social classes. In a democratic society where the means of production are publicly owned, there would be no way to make material gains at the cost of others- rather, there would be agreed-upon trades of money for resources- so like capitalism but without exploitation. The people, rather than a higher power, would be able to make decisions, and so discrimination could easily be done away with with a vote. Since everyone would have equal opportunity in such a system, I believe the two instances of discrimination you mentioned would become nonexistent. In the model I'm thinking of, there would be strong safeguards in place to prevent discrimination.

Still, short of overthrowing the current system of economics there's still no excuse for this radical social, economic, and political inequality.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2014 4:26:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/2/2014 10:03:35 AM, kbub wrote:
At 12/2/2014 9:53:16 AM, debate_power wrote:
At 12/1/2014 10:40:38 PM, kbub wrote:
At 12/1/2014 1:57:36 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 11/30/2014 11:58:31 PM, Itani wrote:
Do agree or disagree? If you think it will, whose side would you support/fight for? (and no, there's not just two sides anymore, there are many)

Just give it a couple of months and then we'll never hear about these stupid protests ever again.

These protests are far from "stupid." I think that it takes a very hard-hearted person not to at least be affected a little by the riots. Or far-removed. But worrying about police brutality is a day-to-day terror for many people, particularly black and Latin@ persons.

Naturally, I am affected. I also worry about police brutality/excessive use of force and I do realize that those minorities you mention are the subjects of discrimination. However, I can't endorse violent looting and burning of buildings, and I dislike the manner in which the protests were conducted.

That's stuff. We're talking people. I'm not saying stealing is wrong, but if that's are focus then I think we should maybe be re-prioritizing. And the fact that the police were protecting the white area from looters and not the black neighborhoods suggests that not only does the government seem to care more about property than people, but that they seem to care more about white people's property. If the police aren't there to protect black people, and aren't there to serve black people, then what part of the police *isn't* a lie?

The most likely reason for that is that the cops assumed ahead of time that mainly white property would be targeted by the mostly black looters. Then again, if the looters were to indiscriminately target everyone's property, and the cops knew this, then you'd be right.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2014 5:29:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/2/2014 4:26:46 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 12/2/2014 10:03:35 AM, kbub wrote:
At 12/2/2014 9:53:16 AM, debate_power wrote:
At 12/1/2014 10:40:38 PM, kbub wrote:
At 12/1/2014 1:57:36 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 11/30/2014 11:58:31 PM, Itani wrote:
Do agree or disagree? If you think it will, whose side would you support/fight for? (and no, there's not just two sides anymore, there are many)

Just give it a couple of months and then we'll never hear about these stupid protests ever again.

These protests are far from "stupid." I think that it takes a very hard-hearted person not to at least be affected a little by the riots. Or far-removed. But worrying about police brutality is a day-to-day terror for many people, particularly black and Latin@ persons.

Naturally, I am affected. I also worry about police brutality/excessive use of force and I do realize that those minorities you mention are the subjects of discrimination. However, I can't endorse violent looting and burning of buildings, and I dislike the manner in which the protests were conducted.

That's stuff. We're talking people. I'm not saying stealing is wrong, but if that's are focus then I think we should maybe be re-prioritizing. And the fact that the police were protecting the white area from looters and not the black neighborhoods suggests that not only does the government seem to care more about property than people, but that they seem to care more about white people's property. If the police aren't there to protect black people, and aren't there to serve black people, then what part of the police *isn't* a lie?

The most likely reason for that is that the cops assumed ahead of time that mainly white property would be targeted by the mostly black looters. Then again, if the looters were to indiscriminately target everyone's property, and the cops knew this, then you'd be right.

I can't tell if Kbub is happy or upset that the Black capitalists were not protected by the honky police.
kbub
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2014 5:51:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/2/2014 4:26:46 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 12/2/2014 10:03:35 AM, kbub wrote:
At 12/2/2014 9:53:16 AM, debate_power wrote:
At 12/1/2014 10:40:38 PM, kbub wrote:
At 12/1/2014 1:57:36 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 11/30/2014 11:58:31 PM, Itani wrote:
Do agree or disagree? If you think it will, whose side would you support/fight for? (and no, there's not just two sides anymore, there are many)

Just give it a couple of months and then we'll never hear about these stupid protests ever again.

These protests are far from "stupid." I think that it takes a very hard-hearted person not to at least be affected a little by the riots. Or far-removed. But worrying about police brutality is a day-to-day terror for many people, particularly black and Latin@ persons.

Naturally, I am affected. I also worry about police brutality/excessive use of force and I do realize that those minorities you mention are the subjects of discrimination. However, I can't endorse violent looting and burning of buildings, and I dislike the manner in which the protests were conducted.

That's stuff. We're talking people. I'm not saying stealing is wrong, but if that's are focus then I think we should maybe be re-prioritizing. And the fact that the police were protecting the white area from looters and not the black neighborhoods suggests that not only does the government seem to care more about property than people, but that they seem to care more about white people's property. If the police aren't there to protect black people, and aren't there to serve black people, then what part of the police *isn't* a lie?

The most likely reason for that is that the cops assumed ahead of time that mainly white property would be targeted by the mostly black looters. Then again, if the looters were to indiscriminately target everyone's property, and the cops knew this, then you'd be right.

I would under normal circumstances say you're right, maybe they did stay there thinking it'll be looted there--Except for the fact that this happens *all the time, all over the country.* there are in many, many cities areas that the cops decide they won't go to. One of my good white friends had an eye opening experience when he moved to such an area and called the police to report danger, and was told that they wouldn't come. Same for pizza delivery, road cleaners, pavers, public painters... It was that area people are told not to go to. Drug deals happen in the open. Everyone is pretty much on their own--and precisely those people who would have a hard time in their own. For the police, then, there is the perception that pretty much everyone living in that area is a criminal, and that the reason that they don't protect that area is because they are all criminals, so they need to be kept in line since arresting them all is impossible. This labeling and mentality allow the police officers to justify treating everyone like a criminal. They then simply pick and choose who they want to arrest that day. If there's been a bad crime, they'll sweep in and start making drug arrests (an easy target because they don't sweep those areas). They then get to show to their bosses that they've met their quota. It has nothing to do with justice--it's how their system works. They can arrest pretty much any resident at any time they feel like. And because there's usually enough crime there generally (remember, there's no police protection there), they can get away with it. Usually, the one time when the police come out it when they commit a crime outside of their zone of exception, and then the police come down hard. A few days ago, Ferguson decided to do en masse.

Now, think about the police actions in Ferguson. During the protests, police would simply make huge sweeps of arrests, dozens or even almost a hundred at a time. This is a new situation for them though. They aren't as able to get away with it, because they also accidentally arrested several journalists and news persons. Hundreds of people, including journalists, were merely arrested because they "weren't moving fast enough." Seriously. That was the charge.

Notice also in Ferguson that passionate but peaceful protestors committing acts of civil disobedience such as trespassing (including Dr. West, a famous Cornell professor) in the white neighborhoods were arrested, pepper sprayed, hit with rubber bullets, or beaned. In contrast, gunshots and arson could be heard and seen in these places were the police generally didn't go. And they kept happening, and the police kept refusing to intervene.

Let's also look at the discourse of the officers--the officers who called them animals, rabid dogs, vermin worthy of death. For these officers, not only were the guilt of all of these protesters pre-supposed, but their very lives were already judged as worthless. Not each individually, but as a group--they were all nothing more than criminals in the police's view, criminals who deserve to be put down, even if the law won't allow them to do so. So now we get to Brown's case. His is a picture perfect explanation of everything that's wrong with the system. The officer who shot was genuinely scared--not because of a threat, nor a well-thought fear, but because he was one of *them*, one of the chriminals. This meant four things to the officer without his needing to even think: 1 he is dangerous, 2 he's a criminal--he's not like me, 3 he's a criminal--he deserves to die, and 4 he's a criminal--I likely won't be arrested for shooting. All of those associations of a big man from Ferguson wen through the officer's head without him even thinking. So he shot him.

Like most sweeping arrests in these situations, the police waited to find some record of his criminal activity to make the shooting seem justified. It makes no sense to do this, because it's irrelevant, but it works. They found some dirt and released it--a convenience store robbery that was irrelevant, even by the officer's admission. But they showed the jury he was a criminal--one of *them*. And he gets off, like most such murders do. The only difference was this time Ferguson stood up, and people listened. That's the true story that privilege can't understand. But we can still be angry, even if we aren't terrified on a daily basis.
kbub
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2014 6:42:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/2/2014 5:29:53 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 12/2/2014 4:26:46 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 12/2/2014 10:03:35 AM, kbub wrote:
At 12/2/2014 9:53:16 AM, debate_power wrote:
At 12/1/2014 10:40:38 PM, kbub wrote:
At 12/1/2014 1:57:36 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 11/30/2014 11:58:31 PM, Itani wrote:
Do agree or disagree? If you think it will, whose side would you support/fight for? (and no, there's not just two sides anymore, there are many)

Just give it a couple of months and then we'll never hear about these stupid protests ever again.

These protests are far from "stupid." I think that it takes a very hard-hearted person not to at least be affected a little by the riots. Or far-removed. But worrying about police brutality is a day-to-day terror for many people, particularly black and Latin@ persons.

Naturally, I am affected. I also worry about police brutality/excessive use of force and I do realize that those minorities you mention are the subjects of discrimination. However, I can't endorse violent looting and burning of buildings, and I dislike the manner in which the protests were conducted.

That's stuff. We're talking people. I'm not saying stealing is wrong, but if that's are focus then I think we should maybe be re-prioritizing. And the fact that the police were protecting the white area from looters and not the black neighborhoods suggests that not only does the government seem to care more about property than people, but that they seem to care more about white people's property. If the police aren't there to protect black people, and aren't there to serve black people, then what part of the police *isn't* a lie?

The most likely reason for that is that the cops assumed ahead of time that mainly white property would be targeted by the mostly black looters. Then again, if the looters were to indiscriminately target everyone's property, and the cops knew this, then you'd be right.

I can't tell if Kbub is happy or upset that the Black capitalists were not protected by the honky police.

Why didn't you just ask?

I think that the police were oppressing and not serving the Ferguson community. The police slogan is "protect and serve," but neither of these are the truth for Ferguson. They've made hundreds of arrests on protesters who weren't moving fast enough, including four journalists (that I know of). They lined up anti-rioting gear--including tear gas and pepper stray--to keep protesters outside the white neighborhoods. But gunshots could be heard across the black neighborhood, but the police were content to stay put as long as it didn't move into the white neighborhoods. Where were those arrests? Where was the peace they said they would keep? So long as the zones of exclusion were safe, and enough black men were arrested to make it seem like theyre fighting crime, the police prefered to watch the carnige from afar. So yes, I am upset at the police.