A
Azaryin
Guest
I didn't find that line in the 'Deadly Force' article. Or at least not one that had the word 'unarmed' in it.
Ferguson - No indictment leads to riots
- Thread starter Jorick
- Start date
- Invitation Status
- Look for groups
- Looking for partners
- Posting Speed
- 1-3 posts per week
- One post per week
- Slow As Molasses
- Online Availability
- My time zone is Mountain Standard Time. I work a very stressful job, and am usually busy.
- Writing Levels
- Intermediate
- Adept
- Advanced
- Adaptable
- Preferred Character Gender
- No Preferences
- Genres
- I don't have a favorite genre. I can role-play under any genre and I enjoy doing so. Though, I tend to stray more towards Fantasy, Modern, Scifi, Drama, Magical, Supernatural, and Romance (BL/Hetero/GL).
I agree that the explosion of peaceful protest was necessary, and that the violence and hatred was inevitable. Unfortunately I do not agree with the notion that violent protests is necessary. In fact it is uncalled for and there is no excuse for it. We do not fight wrong with wrong. We do not fight violence with more violence.
I just hope that you are right that the peaceful protests do make an impact and lead to a better future.
L
Lady B
Guest
Because people don't riot over lone incidents. They riot over bullshit that's been building up for decades and centuries. And I understand their anger. The same thing keeps happening over and over. Trayvon. Amadou. Oscar. VonDerritt. Kimani. Akai. Renisha. Ayana. The list goes on, just google "unarmed black men deaths", you'll see shit going back at least 50 years. Innocent black men and boys, killed by a fear and hate they've done nothing to instigate.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/08/darren-wilson-donors-racist-ferguson
Just look at that. People are giving their money to Wilson, because he "did a great job at removing an unnecessary thing from the public" and because "Ofc. Wilson did his duty. Michael Brown was just a common street thug". Shit, just reading that makes me wanna go out and smash some cars with a bat. Can't imagine how I'd feel if it had been going on for a long time. Oh wait, it has! Now, I'm not saying that gives me the right to go out smashing cars, but I think we should show the same understanding as we show Wilson when we say it was a natural reaction for him to shoot Michael Brown to death because he may have felt threatened.
Just some examples of how black victims and criminals are represented in the media versus how white victims and criminals are represented:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/14/media-black-victims_n_5673291.html
And regarding the riots:
http://www.vox.com/cards/mike-brown...ts-ferguson-mo-peace-violent-violence-looting
http://www.vox.com/cards/mike-brown...o-st-louis-military-militarized-army-tear-gas
http://www.vox.com/cards/mike-brown...itary-equipment-tanks-tear-gas-rubber-bullets
Most of the protesters are peaceful, don't forget that. The few "troublemakers" are widely condemned by the rest of the community and leaders, and should not be lumped together with them. But, sure, if one group of black rioters give the whole race a bad reputation, let's not forget when the Seahawk's won the Super Bowl. Or when the SF Giants won the world series. Or that one surfing competition on Huntington Beach.
I loled at this one
The voices of these people are not drowned out by the few who act unruly. They're drowned out by those who refuse to listen and sit there, waggling their fingers saying "No, no, I won't listen until you calm down".
I should point out Malcolm X and MLK were assassinated while wearing suits and giving speeches. So, y'know, fuck respectability politics. They don't hate you because you're being unruly, they hate you and kill you for speaking out at all.
Last edited by a moderator:
C
Crab Claws
Guest
While I didn't follow the case too closely, I did however watch a live stream from a guy who was there in the middle of the protests (well before his phone got stolen by another protestor). On it you saw one of the first police cars getting trashed by a group of people. Also one aspect that I did find kind of interesting was that some protestors were trying to protect others from looting certain shops. I say interesting because at least for one of the shops they were saying not to attack it because the owners were African American.
I dunno, it's the gringo's fault they're here to begin with. I wonder if the stuff that happened in LA went into rioting as well, I should have gotten me some 5 finger black friday discounts like those people who looted walmart in ferguson did.
I dunno, it's the gringo's fault they're here to begin with. I wonder if the stuff that happened in LA went into rioting as well, I should have gotten me some 5 finger black friday discounts like those people who looted walmart in ferguson did.
Last edited by a moderator:
T
The Nexerus
Guest
@Lady Bernkastel
Malcolm X was a segregationist and black supremacist. He was about as much of a human rights activist as George Wallace, the difference between the two being that Wallace was less violent. If you're going to co-opt protesters from the civil rights era, try to avoid including racial supremacists.
Malcolm X had more in common with the KKK than with MLK.
Malcolm X was a segregationist and black supremacist. He was about as much of a human rights activist as George Wallace, the difference between the two being that Wallace was less violent. If you're going to co-opt protesters from the civil rights era, try to avoid including racial supremacists.
Malcolm X had more in common with the KKK than with MLK.
L
Lady B
Guest
@The Nexerus Correction: He was, when he was part of the Nation of Islam. A person can start at one end of the political spectra and end on the other.
T
The Nexerus
Guest
Continuing on with the George Wallace comparison, Wallace ended up renouncing segregation before eventually being shot five times and narrowly avoiding death by assassination. Malcolm X might have softened his stances after breaking with Nation of Islam, but he was still undoubtedly racist, and how much of what he espoused during his decade long run with a black supremacist group was his own personal sentiment is up for debate. Regardless, it's offensive to the memory of Martin Luther King, Jr. to mention his name alongside Malcolm X.
Last edited by a moderator:
A
Asena
Guest
It was actually really hard for me to find just now. It only says it on one spot on the Wikipedia page for Tennessee v. Garner. It says it on the box on the right under Holding.
- Invitation Status
- Posting Speed
- 1-3 posts per week
- One post per week
- Slow As Molasses
- Online Availability
- Afternoons and evenings, some weekends.
- Writing Levels
- Intermediate
- Adept
- Advanced
- Prestige
- Douche
- Adaptable
- Preferred Character Gender
- Male
- Female
- Primarily Prefer Male
- Primarily Prefer Female
- Genres
- Fantasy, Science Fiction, Post Apocalypse, Horror, Romance, Survival...
I kind of wish they still wore suits. Also, "they" is incredible vague, and highly underscores an issue that isn't as black and white (ha!) as it implies. "They" are human beings, with families, and friends, and beliefs. Some of those beliefs are even noble, others are heavily flawed. The thing that bothers me most about this case isn't that it's being talked about--it should be, really, as I noted in my own post. It's that they think they're going to get anything out of violence, and that people keep buying stupid shit for this case.
Hell I would say this is the worst possible case to explode out about it because the details are unclear, and because the most sensible story is coming from the police, not the supposed victim's side. If this was more like Trayvon Martin, where he went down to the convenience store, bought some shit, then got wasted because he was a black person who happened to be carrying store products, I'd be screaming for bloody retribution as loudly as the protests would be. Except this isn't Trayvon Martin. This is a person who got video taped robbing a convenience store ten minutes prior, in a neighbourhood that I pretty much guarantee practices "snitches get stitches". This is a tragedy, but Brown is hardly innocent of crime, and the several differing witness testimonies show nothing out of the ordinary.
Anyway, there's not much else that can be said that I haven't already said. This case is sad. Racism is prevalent in this town, regardless of Brown's condition of innocence or not, and that needs to be dealt with, as soon as possible... But in my humble opinion? They would get a lot more positive attention if they grouped together in Sunday's Best and made public statements as a cohesive group, rather than looking like a flash mob of alcoholics and hobos who make it impossible for the police to stop some of the more violent members of their group from lighting stores on fire and vandalizing property. The pictures above don't strike me as a group of people lashing out at injustice in a logical manner: It strikes me as the hissy fit thrown by a community that is woefully discriminated against. Neither side is "clean" in this. Besides this, you compared to Malcom X and MLK. Malcom X and MLK had clear goals in mind. They wanted X rights, they wanted Y changes in society, and they were willing to make public speeches and gather their fellow African Americans to the cause. A cause which had a clear set of goals, some of which they even managed to accomplish.
What goals can you even prescribe to this group aside from wanting the justice system to do a Biblical Smite™ someone over a case whose very details are acknowledge as being vague at best on both sides of the table here? This isn't being built on rational discourse. This is being built on an emotional outrage, which while justified, isn't helping them when part of that emotional outrage involves razing private property to the ground and destroying motor vehicles.
- Invitation Status
- Posting Speed
- One post per week
- Slow As Molasses
- Writing Levels
- Adept
- Advanced
- Prestige
- Douche
- Adaptable
- Preferred Character Gender
- Male
- Female
- Genres
- Fantasy is my #1; I will give almost anything a chance if it has strong fantasy elements. Post apocalyptic, superhero, alternate history, science fantasy, some supernatural, romance, and a few fandoms (especially Game of Thrones) are also likely to catch my eye.
Alright, time for me to answer my own questions now that there's been some good discussion on the topic.
In my opinion, the grand jury made the only decision that they could have logically reached. We have to keep in mind the fact that they spent many hours examining all the actual evidence gathered and listening to the witness testimony on both sides, so they were far more qualified to make a judgment call on this than any news pundit or average person who has heard about the case. If they couldn't find enough of a legal basis amongst all the evidence to warrant indicting Darren Wilson for anything from murder to manslaughter, then I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. It very well could have gone to court and then had a trial jury examine everything and come to the same conclusion, and people would still be dissatisfied with the result because they happen to think they know for sure what happened. The fact of the matter is that the details of the case are very unclear on both sides, so all they had to go on was the physical evidence and the witness testimony. The thing that convinced me of the grand jury having made the right decision was in fact the witness testimony. If you look at what initial news reports were saying about what happened, statements from witnesses, they gave rather different details than what they gave later to the grand jury (see the link below), and many of them did not fit with the actual physical evidence. When witness testimony changes from version to version, this is legally recognized as being bad evidence. On the other hand, Darren Wilson's account did not change in details at any point that I can find from his initial recorded interview for the police internal investigation all the way up to the grand jury, and his version of events perfectly matches the physical evidence. The evidence against him was inconsistent and didn't add up, the evidence for him was consistent and added up. When it comes to a "he said, she said" situation you have to go with the more consistent and reliable side, else you're doing it wrong. The grand jury made the only rational choice available to them.
As for the riots, I'd have to peg it as a mix of criminal opportunism and mob mentality at work. The violence directly against police is what I'd call mob mentality at work, not at all a reasonable way to protest the decision. As for all the looting and burning, my guess is that some people just wanted to use the opportunity to break shit and steal stuff because they're criminal assholes. They broke into stores that very clearly supported Michael Brown's side of the case (I saw one instance of this unfolding live on Fox News when I was flipping through news networks, where a store displaying Michael Brown's artwork was broken into and looted), so I can't really see it as any kind of organized protest against injustice. It was criminal opportunism at its core, then it picked up steam because of mob mentality. The ones who were truly concerned about the decision and reasonably opposing it were the ones at the peaceful protests, not the vandals and thieves. My opinion on why these kinds of riot happens were very clearly alluded to in the questions I asked: I feel that it's a mix of legitimate anger over discrimination and the news media sensationalizing the whole affair. If not for Michael Brown's case being plastered all over the news for months, I seriously doubt it would have gotten anywhere near as bad as it did; at the same time, if not for things like the disproportionally high rate of police attention turned to black people and the fact that this is just one more in the line of unarmed black men being shot and killed by police, I seriously doubt things would have gotten this bad. It's a sort of symbiotic relationship going on here, where the anger at discrimination makes for sensational news and the news coverage increases unrest over the situation and gives them new sound bites and such to sensationalize it further, so on and so forth. One thing to make clear is that the violent activity is not in any way a good thing. All it does is act as justification for discriminatory thoughts (such as the ones about how black people are violent and dangerous) and detract from what people should actually be focusing on.
Also, when I was poking around internet news sources today I found an article that points out some interesting facts about the grand jury case: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...on-docs-how-the-grand-jury-reached-a-decision . The documents of the case were released to the public, and this article has some available for anyone to look at, including the following bits.
One of the witnesses who initially told authorities that Brown was executed while surrendering had a change of tone in the grand jury testimony. There he says that it wasn't clear whether Brown was surrendering or not, but that he was in fact moving toward Wilson while Wilson was yelling at him to stop. This, imo, is a probably a key piece of why the grand jury found no cause for indictment: after the assault and fight for the gun, this could very easily be seen as Brown heading back to him with the intention of further violence. Whether or not that was actually Brown's intent is irrelevant, as the law states that Wilson needed only reasonable fear for his own safety to justify self-defense.
Wilson says he was hit in the face twice and pulled his gun, telling Brown to get back or he would shoot. He says that Brown then grabbed the gun and there was a fight for it; Wilson at that point feared he would die if Brown got hold of the gun, so he managed to raise it and fire. Some witness statements that spread around the news said that Wilson first started firing when Brown was running away, not in the car during the struggle, and some also said Brown was shot in the back at least once. The physical evidence shows that blood in the car and on the gun supports Wilson's version of the events of the first shots fired, and the autopsies performed found that Brown was not shot in the back at all.
And, finally, there were a few things said in this thread that I want to respond to.
Under the law of use of force, the number of shots is actually irrelevant. As Asena noted, police are trained that when it comes to use of deadly force they are supposed to keep shooting until the target is down. It's called "deadly force" for a reason. Just the fact that he fired about 10 times doesn't mean it was not a legally authorized use of deadly force. If he continued to fire at Brown after he was down, or if he went over and started kicking him, then you'd have a point about it going way beyond self defense. However, both the law and the training agree: if the gun is to be used, keep using it until the target is down.
How much of that fear came from the fact that Brown was significantly physically larger than Wilson? How much of that fear stemmed from the fact that a man came up to his car and punched him in the face in broad daylight? It's rather reasonable to assume that someone willing to blatantly assault a cop like that is a dangerous individual. Plus there's the whole issue of the struggle over the gun: if Wilson's testimony about Brown trying to take his gun away was true then that's another indication that Brown was a very dangerous person regardless of race.
Claiming that race was the one thing that triggered Wilson's fear for his life is a little ridiculous. That would be assuming you know the inner workings of someone else's mind, which is frankly impossible.
You think the looting and arson will lead to good things, and that they were necessary? Interesting. Many would say that all the violence only detracted from the situation, that it turned what could have been the start of a rigorous discussion about racism and police use of force into a discussion about riots. Most people are focusing on the damage done rather than on the grand jury decision now. How do you see that leading to good things?
The laws state that when a situation arises in which deadly force is legally authorized, the officer is under no obligation to try lesser methods first. Once it reaches a state of the gun being legal to use then that's it, if the gun is used then it was legal no matter what other tools the officer had at their disposal. It is lawful to shoot an unarmed assailant under the circumstances I already outlined in the first post (threat to someone's life or if they are fleeing after committing a felony, which for the record that latter one is under a lot of scrutiny now), among others. There are mountains of precedent in past cases where the ruling was that a person does not need to have a weapon to be considered a threat to one's life. It's all about circumstances and actions, not the tools either party has at hand.
In my opinion, the grand jury made the only decision that they could have logically reached. We have to keep in mind the fact that they spent many hours examining all the actual evidence gathered and listening to the witness testimony on both sides, so they were far more qualified to make a judgment call on this than any news pundit or average person who has heard about the case. If they couldn't find enough of a legal basis amongst all the evidence to warrant indicting Darren Wilson for anything from murder to manslaughter, then I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. It very well could have gone to court and then had a trial jury examine everything and come to the same conclusion, and people would still be dissatisfied with the result because they happen to think they know for sure what happened. The fact of the matter is that the details of the case are very unclear on both sides, so all they had to go on was the physical evidence and the witness testimony. The thing that convinced me of the grand jury having made the right decision was in fact the witness testimony. If you look at what initial news reports were saying about what happened, statements from witnesses, they gave rather different details than what they gave later to the grand jury (see the link below), and many of them did not fit with the actual physical evidence. When witness testimony changes from version to version, this is legally recognized as being bad evidence. On the other hand, Darren Wilson's account did not change in details at any point that I can find from his initial recorded interview for the police internal investigation all the way up to the grand jury, and his version of events perfectly matches the physical evidence. The evidence against him was inconsistent and didn't add up, the evidence for him was consistent and added up. When it comes to a "he said, she said" situation you have to go with the more consistent and reliable side, else you're doing it wrong. The grand jury made the only rational choice available to them.
As for the riots, I'd have to peg it as a mix of criminal opportunism and mob mentality at work. The violence directly against police is what I'd call mob mentality at work, not at all a reasonable way to protest the decision. As for all the looting and burning, my guess is that some people just wanted to use the opportunity to break shit and steal stuff because they're criminal assholes. They broke into stores that very clearly supported Michael Brown's side of the case (I saw one instance of this unfolding live on Fox News when I was flipping through news networks, where a store displaying Michael Brown's artwork was broken into and looted), so I can't really see it as any kind of organized protest against injustice. It was criminal opportunism at its core, then it picked up steam because of mob mentality. The ones who were truly concerned about the decision and reasonably opposing it were the ones at the peaceful protests, not the vandals and thieves. My opinion on why these kinds of riot happens were very clearly alluded to in the questions I asked: I feel that it's a mix of legitimate anger over discrimination and the news media sensationalizing the whole affair. If not for Michael Brown's case being plastered all over the news for months, I seriously doubt it would have gotten anywhere near as bad as it did; at the same time, if not for things like the disproportionally high rate of police attention turned to black people and the fact that this is just one more in the line of unarmed black men being shot and killed by police, I seriously doubt things would have gotten this bad. It's a sort of symbiotic relationship going on here, where the anger at discrimination makes for sensational news and the news coverage increases unrest over the situation and gives them new sound bites and such to sensationalize it further, so on and so forth. One thing to make clear is that the violent activity is not in any way a good thing. All it does is act as justification for discriminatory thoughts (such as the ones about how black people are violent and dangerous) and detract from what people should actually be focusing on.
Also, when I was poking around internet news sources today I found an article that points out some interesting facts about the grand jury case: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...on-docs-how-the-grand-jury-reached-a-decision . The documents of the case were released to the public, and this article has some available for anyone to look at, including the following bits.
One of the witnesses who initially told authorities that Brown was executed while surrendering had a change of tone in the grand jury testimony. There he says that it wasn't clear whether Brown was surrendering or not, but that he was in fact moving toward Wilson while Wilson was yelling at him to stop. This, imo, is a probably a key piece of why the grand jury found no cause for indictment: after the assault and fight for the gun, this could very easily be seen as Brown heading back to him with the intention of further violence. Whether or not that was actually Brown's intent is irrelevant, as the law states that Wilson needed only reasonable fear for his own safety to justify self-defense.
Wilson says he was hit in the face twice and pulled his gun, telling Brown to get back or he would shoot. He says that Brown then grabbed the gun and there was a fight for it; Wilson at that point feared he would die if Brown got hold of the gun, so he managed to raise it and fire. Some witness statements that spread around the news said that Wilson first started firing when Brown was running away, not in the car during the struggle, and some also said Brown was shot in the back at least once. The physical evidence shows that blood in the car and on the gun supports Wilson's version of the events of the first shots fired, and the autopsies performed found that Brown was not shot in the back at all.
And, finally, there were a few things said in this thread that I want to respond to.
Lady Bernkastel said:
Under the law of use of force, the number of shots is actually irrelevant. As Asena noted, police are trained that when it comes to use of deadly force they are supposed to keep shooting until the target is down. It's called "deadly force" for a reason. Just the fact that he fired about 10 times doesn't mean it was not a legally authorized use of deadly force. If he continued to fire at Brown after he was down, or if he went over and started kicking him, then you'd have a point about it going way beyond self defense. However, both the law and the training agree: if the gun is to be used, keep using it until the target is down.
Asena said:
How much of that fear came from the fact that Brown was significantly physically larger than Wilson? How much of that fear stemmed from the fact that a man came up to his car and punched him in the face in broad daylight? It's rather reasonable to assume that someone willing to blatantly assault a cop like that is a dangerous individual. Plus there's the whole issue of the struggle over the gun: if Wilson's testimony about Brown trying to take his gun away was true then that's another indication that Brown was a very dangerous person regardless of race.
Claiming that race was the one thing that triggered Wilson's fear for his life is a little ridiculous. That would be assuming you know the inner workings of someone else's mind, which is frankly impossible.
Lady Bernkastel said:
You think the looting and arson will lead to good things, and that they were necessary? Interesting. Many would say that all the violence only detracted from the situation, that it turned what could have been the start of a rigorous discussion about racism and police use of force into a discussion about riots. Most people are focusing on the damage done rather than on the grand jury decision now. How do you see that leading to good things?
Bootfist said:
The laws state that when a situation arises in which deadly force is legally authorized, the officer is under no obligation to try lesser methods first. Once it reaches a state of the gun being legal to use then that's it, if the gun is used then it was legal no matter what other tools the officer had at their disposal. It is lawful to shoot an unarmed assailant under the circumstances I already outlined in the first post (threat to someone's life or if they are fleeing after committing a felony, which for the record that latter one is under a lot of scrutiny now), among others. There are mountains of precedent in past cases where the ruling was that a person does not need to have a weapon to be considered a threat to one's life. It's all about circumstances and actions, not the tools either party has at hand.
K
Kooriryu
Guest
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/6748...ap-exclusive-ferguson-no-fly-zone-aimed-media
http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/n.../283661761.html?_osource=SocialFlowFB_DCBrand
EDIT: extra blooooooop http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2014/03/black-boys-older.aspx
Annnd I'm out.
EDIT #2: Wait no, I lied, I need to leave something for the little Asian kids too
http://www.racefiles.com/2014/08/20/why-ferguson-matters-to-asian-americans/
http://18millionrising.org/blog/2014/oct/20/ferguson-aapi-solidarity/#
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/asian-american-leaders-stand-solidarity-ferguson-n182131
http://colorlines.com/archives/2014/08/following_ferguson_where_do_asian_americans_belong.html
kdone
http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/n.../283661761.html?_osource=SocialFlowFB_DCBrand
EDIT: extra blooooooop http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2014/03/black-boys-older.aspx
Annnd I'm out.
EDIT #2: Wait no, I lied, I need to leave something for the little Asian kids too
http://www.racefiles.com/2014/08/20/why-ferguson-matters-to-asian-americans/
http://18millionrising.org/blog/2014/oct/20/ferguson-aapi-solidarity/#
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/asian-american-leaders-stand-solidarity-ferguson-n182131
http://colorlines.com/archives/2014/08/following_ferguson_where_do_asian_americans_belong.html
kdone
Last edited by a moderator:
L
LeVen
Guest
@Jorick I agree with a lot of what you said. I also believe that media played a huuge role in how people are reacting. And a lot of it is about race.
I do agree that Wilson used his gun in self defense, I would too if I were in his situation. While shooting him ten times does feel a bit excessive, it does make sense why he would.
But I can almost guarantee that if it were a white person who was shot by a black person there would be little to no talk about it. Because Brown was African American, and because he was killed by a white cop, all of this spilled over and into riots. The media didn't help, with everyone angry and all those posts about how unjustified it was only makes things worse. Yes, a 19 year old was killed, but I don't believe that it was a cause for massive riots.
I do agree that Wilson used his gun in self defense, I would too if I were in his situation. While shooting him ten times does feel a bit excessive, it does make sense why he would.
But I can almost guarantee that if it were a white person who was shot by a black person there would be little to no talk about it. Because Brown was African American, and because he was killed by a white cop, all of this spilled over and into riots. The media didn't help, with everyone angry and all those posts about how unjustified it was only makes things worse. Yes, a 19 year old was killed, but I don't believe that it was a cause for massive riots.
- Invitation Status
- Looking for partners
- Posting Speed
- 1-3 posts per day
- One post per day
- Multiple posts per week
- 1-3 posts per week
- One post per week
- Slow As Molasses
- Online Availability
- Omnipresent
- Writing Levels
- Give-No-Fucks
- Advanced
- Prestige
- Adaptable
- Preferred Character Gender
- Male
- Primarily Prefer Male
- Genres
- Open to anything, but particularly enjoy gothic horror, urban fantasy, science fiction, post-apocalypse, and steampunk.
So while I don't condone the rioting in any way, shape, or fashion, I'm just gonna leave this here.
Who told these people to calm down? And they were just reacting to sporting events and/or pumpkins.
LOOK AT THOSE GODDAMNED THU- oh, that was in Huntington Beach after a surf competition.
Denver, 2014. Because a football team lost.
San Fransisco, 2012. Because a baseball team won.
Vancouver, 2011. Because a hockey team lost.
Tennessee, 2010. Because Lane Kiffin was no longer going to coach their football team.
West Virginia, 2014. Because a football team unexpectedly won a regular season game.
Just sayin'.
SOURCE: Twitter, because I'm lazy
Who told these people to calm down? And they were just reacting to sporting events and/or pumpkins.
LOOK AT THOSE GODDAMNED THU- oh, that was in Huntington Beach after a surf competition.
Denver, 2014. Because a football team lost.
San Fransisco, 2012. Because a baseball team won.
Vancouver, 2011. Because a hockey team lost.
Tennessee, 2010. Because Lane Kiffin was no longer going to coach their football team.
West Virginia, 2014. Because a football team unexpectedly won a regular season game.
Just sayin'.
SOURCE: Twitter, because I'm lazy
K
Kooriryu
Guest
C
Crab Claws
Guest
What's more important is if you'll take these fine men up on their offer.
Because Korean men shooting other minorities will cause less backlash than if they were roof whites.
Because Korean men shooting other minorities will cause less backlash than if they were roof whites.
K
Kooriryu
Guest
- Invitation Status
- Posting Speed
- 1-3 posts per week
- One post per week
- Slow As Molasses
- Online Availability
- Afternoons and evenings, some weekends.
- Writing Levels
- Intermediate
- Adept
- Advanced
- Prestige
- Douche
- Adaptable
- Preferred Character Gender
- Male
- Female
- Primarily Prefer Male
- Primarily Prefer Female
- Genres
- Fantasy, Science Fiction, Post Apocalypse, Horror, Romance, Survival...
- Invitation Status
- Posting Speed
- One post per week
- Writing Levels
- Adept
- Advanced
- Douche
- Adaptable
- Preferred Character Gender
- Primarily Prefer Female
- Genres
- Fantasy of varying types. Some sci-fi.
To specifically answer this question, I don't think a lack of indictment was the right choice. In 2010, there were 162,000 cases of US attorneys prosecuting federal cases {Source}. Grand juries declined to indict eleven of those. For all of the others, there was deemed to be enough of a case or conflict of testimonies (and conflict of testimonies is definitely something going on with Ferguson) to take it to trial. Ignoring arguments about who was right or wrong, I feel there still should have definitely been an indictment, and that this should have been decided in a trial.
