Be Excellent To Each Other

All the evidence, none of the arguments. If trials/grand juries were decided on evidence, trial lawyers wouldn't earn a fucking fortune.

That's not irony, you berk. That's just me being wrong.

I prefer "hypocritical"

Of course it is. You call me out over something, and the very argument you use against me, is the failing you have.

Get a haircut.

That's hypocrisy, isn't it?

You need to look up the definition of irony.

Still, you believing that they would come to a fair decision not based on race is fairly naive and a bit laughable. Sorry.

If it was a generic failing, then yes. A specific factual error being used against someone, when it turns out that error is exactly their own error. That's ironic.

No it's not! Look it up.

Anyway, thanks for distracting from my idiocy with this semantic argument. At least I know I'm right this time.

Wait, are you Alanis Morrisette?

http://www.dailywritingtips.com/what-is ... -examples/

"Is it ironic that someone steps into a puddle and you make fun of them… and the next thing you know – YOU step in one!?
Reader’s Verdict: 94% IRONIC; 6% NOT IRONIC. Final Verdict: IRONIC."

That seems to be what happened to me



All I (and anyone) can do is try and put myself in that situation and wonder what I would do. Then extrapolate that out to other people I know and think what they would do.

I can honestly say, I can't think of anyone I know enough to have an opinion on (even including every single person on Beex), that I believe wouldn't do their best in that situation to come to the best decision.
Why would I think that people I don't know wouldn't do the same as a whole? What makes me and the people I know different.

If that's a laughable opinion to have and approach to take to things, then laugh away hairball.

"the full significance of a character's words or actions is clear to the audience or reader although unknown to the character."

So yeah. That.

That's dramatic irony, Dave. A literary device.

It would be ironic had I said there had been no jury knowing full well there had been. Of course I had just got confused because there was a decision not to have a trial (and therefore a jury for the murder charge). Not irony.

So, ironic then.

Thanks for clearing that up.

You do realise we're not in a play?

We're not? I thought you were just here for the comic relief!

Irony is feigned ignorance. I was not feigning, but thanks for giving me credit for that.

You're welcome.

Now get a haircut.

But it's ok, most people use it incorrectly, so you're in good company.

Ironically, most people who say that most people use it incorrectly, don't know how to use it themselves either.

That's not irony either. Keep trying though.

Regardless, I don't think it was likely a racist decision, I do however strongly think it was a very poorly conducted grand jury with the prosecution either willfully or negligently failing to put across a decent case.

It was a joke, doofus.

Poe's Law

.

Aye, that seems to be a reasonable conclusion to come to at the moment.

You know when stuff like this is being printed in the Telegraph, that something is horribly wrong.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens ... -kids.html

I agree. That people actually feel like that shows that it's fucked up.

Comments like this don't help her case though!
"He was marked as other, as criminal, threatening and suspicious, by virtue of being big and black"
... plus, you know, the fact he was a criminal. It's difficult to decry stereotypes, if you use someone who fit that stereotype to do it.

Before anyone starts again. No he didn't deserve to be killed. No his crime was not a factor in him being killed and shouldn't be judged as such.

They also shot a 12 year old who had a BB gun, so there's that.

It's also concerning that they'll take a white boy in alive who shoots up a school, but an unarmed black guy? Shoot first, ask questions later. Anyone who doesn't think this is a race thing needs their heads looking at.

I can't see anyone here saying these incidents aren't race related. Or to be more precise, race and culture related.

I agree with virtually everything you say and then with this sentence you go on one of the worlds greatest strawmanning adventures that I've ever seen. Disappointed.

Obviously the situations are always different, but white criminals are treated differently (ie mentally ill) whereas black people are just evil. Even Wilson was quoted in the indictment hearing as saying "it looked like a devil" about Brown. He didn't see him as a human being.

I actually took offence that you imply that you refer to every US police officer using the absolute heading 'they' and used two extreme examples to define their behavior as a whole. I've no personal connection with 'them' but that blanket treatment assists no one. Unless it has been determined that all cops are murderers?

Incidentally my reading of Ferguson extends to little further than this thread and links from there so I have nothing to add other than I agree it all feels a bit hokey.

In wider terms though, I do feel uneasy about the naming of the officer from the outset. I think arming US police as a whole was a bad decision but once you've escalated things to that degree you can't sensibly reverse it without putting more lives in jeopardy. But when you give someone a tool to use in the furtherance of their job, for the theoretical purpose of protecting lives (including their own) conducting the investigation in public helps no one (even accepting the initial Ferguson reaction).

Why? Because in future the logical reaction is to imply even further doubt in the persons head next time he is called upon to maybe use his gun. In this regard I think we have it right, where although the Menezes and Duggan inquests (the only ones I can think off offhand) were public, the individuals are anonymous until the point of decision to prosecute arises.

If these were two unusual incidents then you'd probably have a point.

Separate Michael Brown thread?

You've convinced me. Every white US police officer doesn't see it as going on shift, he sees the rest of his day as a game of black man duck hunt. Glad we cleared that up.

Dangerously close to saying 'not all police officers' here. Once is too often. It's happened with alarming frequency over the last 40 years. It's definitely a trend, and saying 'not all police officers' is unhelpful.

Does it really happen all that often? What about compared to every other moment of the police person's life? What about every other case they take on? Stats etc

Anyway, I came here to post this. I made it through about 5 minutes. It hurts trying to keep up with the logical connections.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32mxZxv3dYM

Thread split please

Carry on!

Footage of the Tamir Rice incident has been released. This is the 12 year old boy who was reported as "waving around a gun, probably fake" (it was a BB gun) who was they shot by police. The video is chilling. The police don't appear to call out, to hesitate, to think -- the car rolls up and a couple of seconds later Tamir is dead.

(Nothing graphic in it but very disturbing.)

Video shows Cleveland officer shooting 12-year-old Tamir Rice within seconds - The Washington Post

I watched the video and it's very strange. The police officer clearly thought that he was going to get shot so reacted quickly and possibly without thinking. He also wasn't told that the gun was probably fake.

It's a horrible situation but if you're going to give police officers guns, you're going to have to expect them to use them. Sometimes with horrible consequences.

Looks more like a drive-by than an effort at policing.

Deadly Force, in Black and White - ProPublica



That's ~400 police shootings per year. The only data that exists on which ones were deemed excessive force is collected on a volunteered basis by a tiny handful of police departments. There is absolutely no US-wide tracking of statistics of appropriate use of police deadly force. That, in itself, makes you ponder just how accountable the police are for their actions.

Not sure if there was another Policeman there, odd that he was on his own so only his word against a dead guy.

Also watched him on TV he said after giving chasing he shot at the guy a lot as he ran towards him missing most times before hitting him in the head when he was 8ft away.

Not for one minute supporting his actions, but I got the impression he wasn't very confident or good with a gun. His side of it was that this guy was huge and he was worried he had a gun, I got the impression he was believed the guy was going to kill him, but it all looks to be not right somehow.

I don't want to wade into this argument because I don't really know the facts, but I do know that it's really difficult to hit anything with a handgun - especially if you're panicked and the target is moving.

Over fifteen feet and you might as well be aiming at something "over there, ish".

I'm sensing an interesting backstory there, Grim....

Afraid not, sir. Cans and targets was all I ever shot at.

I agree with Grim... Now I think about it. I'm an ace shot normally but using a hand gun in a range proved to be most difficult.

And I was relaxed and calm too.

I hope this thread has taken a satirical turn.