Ferguson Case Decision: Grand Jury Decides NOT to Indict.

We shouldn't censor freedom of expression based on what racist people think.

That's literally playing the racist peoples' game and is nurturing a politically correct and scared society.

Well, since neither you nor I possess stats to back up our suspicions, and it's judged based on our sense of things and experience, I don't know why you'd claim I'm pulling my judgement of things "out of my ass" any more than you are. I could see it if I'd cited made up stats like people often do (that is certainly pulling out of the derriere), but I wasn't.

Ahhhh, liberals and their respectability politics.

I hope this puts things in perspective.

https://storify.com/betakateenin/white-people-riots

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2014/11/25/white-americans-care-more-about-property-damage-than-dead-people

So true! If this thread is an indicator of anything.

Congratulations on your handsome strawman. Finely constructed.

@dsmccracken: M8, you're really trying to claim that me telling you to prove your claims is fallacious?

Me? You were asking it of Stevo_the_gamer...

I didn't say asking for proof was fallacious. What I took issue with was your strawman. You said, and I quote "You (Stevo_the gamer) claim news don't comment on asian or hispanic races. Prove it." Where did he, or anyone, ever say that? Classic strawman.

Strawman

1. Person 1 asserts proposition X.
2. Person 2 argues against a false but superficially similar proposition Y, as if that were an argument against X.

@Jebus213: If you think that my country is full of bs, watch this video of an american seing how we have it

Video Link

He said:

"Why do we not commonly see "white man stabs black man" or "asian man shoots and kills hispanic female"?

And you don't see the difference between the statement qualified with "commonly", and your rephrasing of "You claim news don't comment on asian or hispanic races. Prove it.", implying ever? That is pure strawman.

Can you see the difference between the following 2 statements:

1. I don't smoke.
2. I don't often smoke.

Which one is a definitive statement, and which one is a qualified statement?

Also, I was mostly quoting this post of yours:

"Well, since neither you nor I possess stats to back up our suspicions, and it's judged based on our sense of things and experience, I don't know why you'd claim I'm pulling my judgement of things "out of my ass" any more than you are. I could see it if I'd cited made up stats like people often do (that is certainly pulling out of the derriere), but I wasn't."

1) I have nothing to prove, I didn't claim anything.

2) You're saying that you do not possess the stats but at the same time you are not talking out of your ass. This is contradictory. If you don't have the stats or science to prove the things you are saying, you are talking out of your ass.

1) You're not his lawyer.

2) You're arguing semantics and grasping at straws on my incomplete wording. Give me a break. In any case he has to prove that the news commonly don't report it.

Jesus...

1) This is a very subjective debate. No one has to, or CAN, prove anything. Not every debate has a black and white (no pun intended) quantitatively measurable "truth".

2) By your definition, every position that anyone ever takes that doesn't have a scientifically verified study behind it is "talking out of your a$$." What is my favourite Tom Cruise movie? Can't discuss it, don't have the statistical analysis to prove it. Do I approve of the President? Can't discuss or share opinion, not scientifically tested.

When discussing actual science, or math, astronomy or physics, etc., it is appropriate to ask for evidence. Asking for evidence on an opinion, which has no study to verify one way or the other, and is merely stated as what one has empirically observed, is just being a turd.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha....

After the verdict, Michael Brown's step father made a call to burn Ferguson down. The place sounds like a plague infested shithole. Let them burn in it.

lol. no. he was an exemplary cop that had never once shot his gun on patrol. the kid got what he deserved because his behavior was way over the line. that's just something his parents are going to have to accept because that's the way it is. but they never will accept it. they'll live with a grudge in their hearts forever and i think that may be the saddest thing about this whole mess.

I didn't ask anyone to prove opinions, I asked him to prove what he claimed was reality and fact.

So because he didn't preface every sentence with "IMHO", you are interpreting that he has presented this as some higher proven truth?

Holy shit dude.

He said that title was race baiting because news generally don't mention other races besides black and white.

I asked him to show some stats to prove it or something because I don't think that it's inherently race baiting if there's not a bigger pattern here.

Just stop quoting me, you're just tiresome and all over the place with accusations.

I love it when people complain that someone is "arguing semantics." Yes, congratulations, I'm arguing semantics. Semantics is "the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning." When you take a poster's argument and alter it, it seems to me that "arguing semantics" is a completely appropriate response.

I would love to know where people got the idea that "arguing semantics" equates to "arguing trivialities." It's not. When debating meanings and phrasing, what the hell else would you EXPECT me to argue? Chemistry?

You're trying to twist my argument and make it seem like I accused him of saying EVERY reporter EVER did something, which I did not.

You're just sucking up to him, please stop this.

Good lord... quite the contrary, it was YOU saying that he (Stevo_the_gamer) accused every reporter of NEVER doing something.

Sucking up to him... I don't even know him. I've literally never heard the handle "Stevo_the_gamer" until this thread... to my recollection, at least. Why would I be sucking up to him? Or are you redefining "agreeing" as "sucking up"? But forgive me, is that me "arguing semantics" again? So silly, debating over words. How dare different one's in different orders mean different things....

@plageus900 said:

Maybe Brown didn't go to heaven as some assume, maybe he went to Soon? lol

No I didn't, at least that was not my intention.

I already said my wording was poor. Sue me or something, what else do you want me to say?

Don't derail this any further, he STILL has to prove whatever he claimed.

@plageus900 said:

I wonder if these people are self aware of how dumb they look right now.

Hey protesters: The rest of the country think you are fucking stupid...

Okay so you backed up my point....

@kakamoura:

He doesn't have to prove what he claimed. Let me explain why:

When the parents who don't vaccinate their kids defend their "right to their opinions", it is fully justifiable to demand they substantiate their claims with proof. That they cannot illustrates that they aren't coming from a place of evidence, but that rather their position is more of a belief system. The wealth of evidence debunking their position, yet their steadfast refusal to budge from that position, shows that their "opinion" is non-falsifiable, and therefore not in any way based on evidence (all of which is readily at hand).

There are many similar situations like the above example... conspiracy theorists or "deniers" often come to mind (Kennedy assassination, climate change, 9/11). To demand that the kooks prove their untenable position is fair game, because the bottom line is that there is a wealth of refuting evidence out there.

So you commonly see, in forums like this, when such a debate ignites, people like yourself demanding "proof". But this is not always appropriate or reasonable. Why? Not every subject has been as exhaustively researched and sources as the ones listed above. You want "scientific" proof of his position? How? He can't furnish a study if the study doesn't exist. So with the lack of "proof", does that mean that we simply can't address this, or any other subject where empirical personal observation is our only source of data? Of course not! That would be ridiculous. We'd never be able to talk about any subject (save a few thoroughly researched ones) if that was the requirement. "Is the bus taking longer than usual today? Since I don't have a comprehensive study as to the average wait time at this stop, I simply can't comment on the subject." That's absurd. If we have nothing but personal experience and observation to go by, it is ENTIRELY APPROPRIATE to voice our opinion based on that as long as we don't profess to be basing it on something more.

I think OT is a little too gleefull about all of this. You guys sure love your violence and you sure don't mind breaking a ton of eggs, while making your law enforcement omelet.

This is the dumbest thing I've read all month.

If it was, surely it was topped by your response.

No. There's rules of engagement. Never ceases to amaze the ignorance some countries have of the US.

K,

When they teach you in school the distinction between opinions and facts and why the latter needs proof, let me know.

You've made a claim which you cannot prove and this is the HARDEST I've seen anyone backpeddle in an argument ever.

I cringed in real life, I'm actually embarrassed for you.

Out of curiosity, does anyone know the skin color of those that were apart of the grand jury? Was it majority "White" or "Black"?...

So if i think someone shooting an unarmed man, it's uncalled for

it ain't when they're going to beat you to death. kid got what he deserved. no more and no less.

"The grand jury consists of six white men, three white women, two black women and one black man. Nine votes are needed to indict."

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ferguson-case-racial-and-gender-makeup-of-grand-jury-revealed/

@tocool340: At least three of them are black and if I'm not mistaken the rest are white. I'm pretty sure those three black jurors are being called Uncle Toms right now. Regardless of who they are, if their identities are leaked they will be harassed.

But these are just people rioting over random things. It has nothing to do with race.

@plageus900 said:

@LostProphetFLCL said:

So there was something on my facebook feed about how I can help donate to Ferguson so it can rebuild. Yeah, **** that. You don't tear your fucking community apart and then expect me to donate to help repair the damage you caused yourselves especially when it was over something as stupid as this.

Detroit is just now finally starting to see some real push for improvement. Any guesses on how long before such a thing happens in Ferguson?

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha....

After the verdict, Michael Brown's step father made a call to burn Ferguson down. The place sounds like a plague infested shithole. Let them burn in it.

It's clear that the POS Brown didn't fall far from the tree.

Maybe this is where he gets it from.

No, you're comparing two different countries.

U.S. has way more crime and far worse criminals. The way your police works would never work here.

5 shootings throughout the whole year? That's a day in Chicago.

Guy done his job right; justice was served.

Now entitled people are throwing hissy fits expecting the law to be bent.

I'm under the impression that you're kinda dumb because you don't seem to get it no matter how it's explained.

The officer feared for his life, the 300 lb man had already attempted to take the officers gun once and had broken the bones around his eye. He was still charging the officer after being shot once.

If you had been there would you have just let the thug kill you?

I know the difference between opinion and fact. The difference between the two is not what is at issue here, which you would understand if you had adequate reading comprehension skills. What I am talking about is, when the facts are not readily accessible, does that mean (as you would apparently have us believe) that we are no longer able to either have or vocalize our opinions? That is a ridiculous position. If your opponent in a debate is too lazy (or ignorant) to provide available facts, or falsifies them, they certainly deserve calling out. But if the facts can't be accessed because they HAVEN'T BEEN COLLECTED (there is no study, there is no survey on the subject), then it is perfectly valid to discuss our opinions based on our experience.

LOL... I am the dumb one for questioning the evidence this guy said? Under oath this guy said Mike Brown grabbed for the gun, yet there are no fingerprints of him on the gun. They did not write down his first interrogation. You're saying he could not handle himself? The guy is 6 4 and 220. Wilson is not a small guy. Yet under oath he said he knew that he knew he robbed the store, even though the commissioner even said Wilson did not know about the robbery.

And yeah he charged the officer because he was shooting at him... He said he knew he didn't have a gun on him UNDER OATH, and said that he shot him when he reached in his pants...

If you can't comprehend that, then you're dumb

That doesn't mean you won't be called out for talking out of your ass which is exactly what you did no matter how you want to sugarcoat it.

If you want to make a statement of fact, you'll have to provide evidence, that's how it's been working for thousands of years now.

kid was a full grown huge man that was beating a cop. you don't get to beat up a cop and then expect to live. sorry. he got what he deserved.

For those that want it, here's a link to all the evidence presented to grand jury. If it's already been posted, then good. Here it is again because I see it's been ignored:

List of evidence

There's a publicly available forensics report that backs up his story, and yeah you are kinda dumb for ignoring that. The bones in his face were already broken and Brown had gone for his gun, so yes, Wilson did "handle it". I feel like if you were in this situation you would have not used your gun, have had it taken from you and then died yourself instead of the thug.

Attempting to steal somebodies gun and actually getting it are two different things.

"and yeah he charged the officer because he was shooting him". How dumb does somebody have to be to attack somebody who has a gun?

and you say that brown reached in his pants and he fired? Then that just backs up Wilson, why would he assume he was going for anything but a weapon?

You're kinda dumb, people keep explaining basic facts of the case to you and you're not getting it.

All that would be great, except for one thing. I never made a statement of fact. If someone states opinion as provable, verifiable fact, then by all means, go ahead and call that person out. But make sure they actually... you know... do what you are accusing them of. Otherwise, you come off looking stupid. Like now.

My original statement: "If it had been a confrontation between officer Wilson and someone of Indian (as in India) or Japanese heritage, would the media have been as likely to mention race? Doubt it." Doubt it... not "I know it" or "fact! no chance!" Not exactly the definitive statement of fact you have characterized it as. You're criticizing the fact checking of others, while yours efforts within this very thread are wearing clown shoes.