False. You accused me of not being specific enough on overarching categories. That's not the same as being "vague". Overarching != specific.
I'm not going to argue with you about what we're arguing about. That's just silly. Stick to the topic.
Huh? I was very specific. I went step by step through the timeline of events. Your problem is that you repeatedly failed to grasp that the action of Zimmerman pursuing Martin through the complex is separate from the action of Martin attacking Zimmerman. Zimmerman "initiated" a completely lawful and reasonable action. Martin "initiated" the violent confrontation. You seem to be under the impression that because Zimmerman pursued Martin this somehow made Martin's decision to attack Zimmerman justified. Guess what? The law, and common sense, both disagree with you.
See post 678. Reply there.
Wait? You're making me read a years old thread, where it looks like you responded to a post I wrote about school vouchers with a completely out of topic screed alleging some kind of inconsistency in my statements about the Martin shooting? You get that this is just supporting my point about how you ramble around, lurching from point to point, and constantly changing the topic, right?
I don't have an issue with you quoting me and then responding to the thing I was talking about. But you have this bizarre habit of quoting a very broad line from me (like "You should really have started a separate thread for this Alma. But I'll pay anyway! ;)"), but then talking about something completely different. This creates a disconnect since I have no clue what you're talking about when you respond. You did it there, and now you're referencing you doing it to do it yet again.
if you have a specific claim that I was inconsistent in something I wrote, then quote the actual things I wrote that you think are inconsistent and then respond to them. You're not doing this. You just quote some random thing I wrote, then declare some other thing I wrote to be inconsistent. Which makes it kinda hard to follow.
But, and I'm dreading even starting down this trail, if you want a response, you're still conflating multiple things and apparently unable to see how different reactions occur as a result of different things.
1. Zimmerman first action was to place a call to police after seeing what he believed was suspicious behavior by Martin.
2. Martin's first action (involving Zimmerman) was when he saw Zimmerman talking on the phone in his car and chose to run from him.
3. Zimmerman responded to that action by pursuing Martin.
4. Zimmerman lost sight of Martin and began heading back to his car.
5. Martin attacked Zimmerman at some point after that.
Each of these actions and reactions needs to be examined on their own. The point I consistently made through all my arguments was that the first illegal act was taken by Martin when he attacked Zimmerman. None of the known actions by Zimmerman can be seen as a lawful justification for Martin's decision to attack. But, when I made these points back then, you keep meandering back and forth between the fight and the phone call and Zimmerman getting out of his car. None of those earlier actions justify Martin's later action. I was *very* consistent about this.
It's like you want to argue every single thing except the point. The point isn't even about Martin and Zimmerman. Again, I brought that case only to show the pattern of public outrage being generated based on horribly incorrect (or sometimes just outright false) information being reported on these cases well before the actual facts are known. It's startling just how consistently the events which have resulted in the most outrage and the most rioting and the most violence have been the ones where the facts were the least accurate.
Which is a pattern one might just want to pay attention to.
Given that you don't actually follow the news, I will go out on a limb and say that I was following this much more closely than you. You are simply nit-picking things that support your narrative; however,the overall concern was the process; hence "Black Lives Matter".
Repeating a statement doesn't make it any more true, or relevant. I'll ask you again: What part of the process was so horribly handled in the Brown shooting? What do you think they should have done differently?
I think I confused Wilson with the police officer who killed Tamir Rice, but I guess that his past of being "unfit" is irrelevant as well. In any case, Wilson's first police department was disbanded for racial tactics. So, I guess that shouldn't be taken in consideration either.
Yeah. Kinda easy to read between the lines there though. And it's a lot of politics, and frankly another point I've been kinda holding off making (since it's just another thing really). It seems as though many of these cities with heavily black urban neighborhoods have made an effort to change their police forces so as to be more diverse. They've done this specifically to try to avoid the narrative of "white cops patrolling black neighborhoods", presumably to decrease the likelihood of charges of racial profiling and whatnot. This is presumably why Wilson's former department was disbanded (presumably re-organized and absorbed into other departments, since it's not like no one's covering the same area anymore).
What's interesting is that as city managers have moved to do this, in direct response to very kinds of allegations we're talking about, it does not seem to have made things better, but instead has caused things to get worse. So the question is: Have things actually gotten worse, or have the political factions who demanded and go such changes become emboldened to demand even more and thus need to keep lowering the bar for "outrage" in order to achieve it? Cause that's sure what this looks like. The case in Milwaukee is a perfect example of this. A department that has taken all the right steps. They've implemented all of the changes that BLM (and other groups) have demanded. They've diversified their police force. They've implemented training courses. They've installed body cameras. Yet, despite this, and despite what appears to be an absolutely clean shoot, we not only got riots, we got them faster than ever before.
Is this really about black lives anymore? Or about perpetuating the perception of the problem out of a need to institutionalize those leading the political charge for a "solution"?
Care to explain how any of the rioting going on right now is even remotely justified?
[/spoiler]It isn't justified. You're just proving my point that you are incapable of acknowledging factors that don't support your Fox News talking points. Hence, you're not taking this discussion seriously.
Huh? So you acknowledge that the rioting isn't justified, but I'm still wrong somehow? I'm not sure what you're trying to say. My main argument is that there's a faction in our politics that wants the violence and the rioting (we can speculate about reasons), and thus will deliberately create them, even when the circumstances don't warrant it. And that's certainly what appears to be going on in Milwaukee right now. There is *zero* reason for rioting. There's zero reason for peaceful protests. There's nothing to protest.
It does not appear to be about black lives anymore, or about bad police actions. It's about rioting in order to create some kind of very loud and very angry platform. But what is the message? I guess that's the issue I've been having all along. BLM seems to love to use any opportunity they can to make people angry about things, but doesn't seem to have any intention of using those people for anything productive. They just mobilize them in yet another and even more angry protest. Demanding "something" isn't terribly useful. It honestly doesn't seem like they want anything other than more violence.
But hey. That's just my opinion. I'm sure you see them as shining beacons of civility and justice, fighting for a better tomorrow or something. Me? I just don't see it. Edited, Aug 15th 2016 4:44pm by gbaji