Police Power and Racial Tensions in Ferguson, Missouri

[[size/HUGE] boobs [/size]]

Zimmerman hunted Martin down while lying to martin about doing so, then, when martin finally felt threatened enough to fight rather than flee, shot Martin. He did not deserve an acquittal.

Nice tirade. You don't under stand the word justice as used by one E J Wells.

 

[One Brow]

I will answer the question, my point was it has more force coming from someone it affected. The reason it is a problem, is because there are people like you that will continue to assume he only got into Yale because he was black.

I do? I think he was admitted only because he was black? Do I think that if Thomas had graduated from Georgia Tech with a 2.1 grade average and had a 130 LSAT, he would have been admitted to Yale because he was black?

I'm guessing you are not quite that delusional.

You can backpedal and say he deserved to be there, but put yourself in Thomas' shoes and tell me how it would make you feel if someone told you that you only got where you are because of AA--essentially because you are black.

I only got where I am because I am white. You've gotten multiple benefits over the years, most of them not asked for, because you are white. Why should Thomas not receive a, by comparison, minor and occasional benefit from his blackness?

I've said all along he deserved to be there, why is it suddenly backpedaling?

Why are you still using the arguments, including the caricatures, of racists?

It is biased and offensive.

If all you can do to demonstrate that is create a gross caricature, out of hyperbole which even you don't actually believe, then I'm not inclined to take this seriously. Your caricature is certainly offensive, no question.

His law school grades tell me there is a very high likelihood that he scored very high on the LSAT, and he would have gotten in regardless.

Where's your evidence for this? What's the correlation between LSAT scores and GPAs of Yale law-school graduates?

You stated without AA he would have gone to a lesser law school and had a lesser career. It is a flawed assumption that AA caused.

Actually, it was caused by the historical facts of his being raised speaking non-standard English, his not attending an Ivy League college, and his very-good-but-not-great grades. I would assume a white person of Thomas' background got in via a legacy, while Thomas had AA. You only think the second assumption is insulting, and only are ranting about the second assumption. Why is that?

It goes back to your comment on how to fix a broken leg. You don't just put a band-aid on it that won't fix the leg. That is all AA is in current form. You fix the ****ing crack in the sidewalk that is causing people to break there legs so you don't need an ineffective band-aid.

Again, why not both?

I honestly feel like Constitutional courses should be mandatory in high school. It is a disservice to the citizens of this country not to be taught the very laws that make this country what it is. I'm not going to give you a full lesson on constitutional law, but the recent decision of Heller v. Doe case spells it out clearly.

Where?

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/92-351.ZO.html

The closest I can find is "a classification neither involving fundamental rights nor proceeding along suspect lines is accorded a strong presumption of validity". In what way did Kentucky's commitment laws discriminate by class?

The first example that comes to mind is abortion. There have been cases where the plaintiff alleged that a State's refusal to provide public assistance for abortions that were not medically necessary did not deny indigent women equal protection BECAUSE indigent are not a suspect class, and so it will always pass a rational basis review. If the law instead was written to deny abortion in these same cases to blacks, it would have to pass strict scrutiny, which it never would.

Can you list a couple of these cases? Was the state providing non-medically-necessary abortions to the non-indigent?

My understanding is that federal funding of abortions is denied to black people. However, it is also denied to white people, so it is not discriminatory.

 

[Stoked]

I do? I think he was admitted only because he was black? Do I think that if Thomas had graduated from Georgia Tech with a 2.1 grade average and had a 130 LSAT, he would have been admitted to Yale because he was black?

I'm guessing you are not quite that delusional.



I only got where I am because I am white. You've gotten multiple benefits over the years, most of them not asked for, because you are white. Why should Thomas not receive a, by comparison, minor and occasional benefit from his blackness?

I've said all along he deserved to be there, why is it suddenly backpedaling?

Why are you still using the arguments, including the caricatures, of racists?



If all you can do to demonstrate that is create a gross caricature, out of hyperbole which even you don't actually believe, then I'm not inclined to take this seriously. Your caricature is certainly offensive, no question.



Where's your evidence for this? What's the correlation between LSAT scores and GPAs of Yale law-school graduates?



Actually, it was caused by the historical facts of his being raised speaking non-standard English, his not attending an Ivy League college, and his very-good-but-not-great grades. I would assume a white person of Thomas' background got in via a legacy, while Thomas had AA. You only think the second assumption is insulting, and only are ranting about the second assumption. Why is that?



Again, why not both?



Where?

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/92-351.ZO.html

The closest I can find is "a classification neither involving fundamental rights nor proceeding along suspect lines is accorded a strong presumption of validity". In what way did Kentucky's commitment laws discriminate by class?



Can you list a couple of these cases? Was the state providing non-medically-necessary abortions to the non-indigent?

My understanding is that federal funding of abortions is denied to black people. However, it is also denied to white people, so it is not discriminatory.

That sucks that you have no other qualifications for anything other than your skin tone.

 

[JAZZGASM]

Mr Brow:

You make a reply to me saying that "Thomas would be better off if he had been admitted only to a lesser law school..." You make a statement like this, yet seem to think I am racist when I assume his scores got him where he is. He had very high grades in law school, so I believe he earned his degree and his position. You infer otherwise. So call me a racist for thinking that a genius Jurist could have gotten into Yale on his own accord without AA. Then you go on to make assumptions about my color and how it has helped me. Give me a break.

If you know anything about law school admissions, you would know 99.99% of schools give more favor to the LSAT than GPA as the LSAT is highly regulated and provides consistent results where GPA does not.

You ask why not both "fixes" and it is because AA is not a good fix. It is a crutch for a broken leg which in turn a broken arm (in current form).

And in regards to abortion, federal funding is denied in circumstances to all (abortion funding for medical is offered to those who can't afford it-the poor, so it does not apply to the wealthy...) The law was intended that way, and was in no way made to discriminate against race. It denies abortion to all of those in poverty, and was in fact intended to discriminate against those who cannot afford it in application. All it requires is a rational basis review, which it will always pass. Cases on issues like this likely do not exist because even if you can find a lawyer to bring a suit, it will not get pass a motion for summary judgment.

 

[One Brow]

One could argue that this case (among others) is proof that your theory is incorrect.

One could, if one had no experience with police repression. Occasionally, the anger becomes stronger than the fear, and once one person speaks out, it makes it easier for others to join in.

 

[One Brow]

That sucks that you have no other qualifications for anything other than your skin tone.

Well called, sir. It was hyperbolic and not at all true. While my skin color was a benefit to me, I do have other qualifications. Thank you for your correction.

 

[One Brow]

You make a reply to me saying that "Thomas would be better off if he had been admitted only to a lesser law school..." You make a statement like this, yet seem to think I am racist when I assume his scores got him where he is. He had very high grades in law school, so I believe he earned his degree and his position. You infer otherwise. So call me a racist for thinking that a genius Jurist could have gotten into Yale on his own accord without AA. Then you go on to make assumptions about my color and how it has helped me. Give me a break.

I can understand that ten pages of posts and six days, the memory can be a little fuzzy, so I'll link that post for you:

https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php...guson-Missouri&p=893286&viewfull=1#post893286

As you can see, I'm not making a statement, I'm asking you if this is your position. Calling it my statement is an error, but I will assume it was an honest error of remembering it wrong. I hope in the future, you will go back and chack the context again before pulling out such a quote.

I'm glad you've implicitly retracted the notion that I think Thomas got in Yale only because he was black. I agree, Thomas' LSAT scores would have to have been high to get him into Yale.

I'm not making any assumptions about your color helping you, just stating a fact of American culture.

If you know anything about law school admissions, you would know 99.99% of schools give more favor to the LSAT than GPA as the LSAT is highly regulated and provides consistent results where GPA does not.

Which law school admission boards are you on or have you been on?

I know that many things are considered, and I'm sure LSAT scores hold a prominent position, as does the school attended, the GPA at that school, the major and overall course load, the students background generally, etc.

You ask why not both "fixes" and it is because AA is not a good fix. It is a crutch for a broken leg which in turn a broken arm (in current form).

I understand this is your belief. In reality, the corrections from AA are relatively mild. In the example you offered, it was four points on the LSAT, less than half a standard deviation. The only way to make it milder would be to eliminate it entirely.

And in regards to abortion, federal funding is denied in circumstances to all (abortion funding for medical is offered to those who can't afford it-the poor, so it does not apply to the wealthy...) The law was intended that way, and was in no way made to discriminate against race. It denies abortion to all of those in poverty, and was in fact intended to discriminate against those who cannot afford it in application. All it requires is a rational basis review, which it will always pass. Cases on issues like this likely do not exist because even if you can find a lawyer to bring a suit, it will not get pass a motion for summary judgment.

On it's face, it denies federal funding to all, poor or wealthy. In its application, availability of clinics is a much greater discrimination against the poor than funding; because there are actually sizable donations for abortion clinics available, when you can keep one open. Making a claim that this the lack of abortion funding is discriminatory is equivalent to making a claim that school funding is discriminatory because O'Fallon schools are so much better funded than East St. Louis schools. It's true on a moral level, but not on a legal level.

 

[Stoked]

Well called, sir. It was hyperbolic and not at all true. While my skin color was a benefit to me, I do have other qualifications. Thank you for your correction.

I know it was and I was just giving you a hard time in good fun.

 

[JAZZGASM]

I can understand that ten pages of posts and six days, the memory can be a little fuzzy, so I'll link that post for you:

https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php...guson-Missouri&p=893286&viewfull=1#post893286

As you can see, I'm not making a statement, I'm asking you if this is your position. Calling it my statement is an error, but I will assume it was an honest error of remembering it wrong. I hope in the future, you will go back and chack the context again before pulling out such a quote.


On it's face, it denies federal funding to all, poor or wealthy. In its application, availability of clinics is a much greater discrimination against the poor than funding; because there are actually sizable donations for abortion clinics available, when you can keep one open. Making a claim that this the lack of abortion funding is discriminatory is equivalent to making a claim that school funding is discriminatory because O'Fallon schools are so much better funded than East St. Louis schools. It's true on a moral level, but not on a legal level.

Your response was based on me stating that AA hurt Thomas by creating a stigma he didn't deserve. My comments were based on Thomas' own words. It is clear to me that he believes AA didn't need to help him, why don't you? Your statement inferred that without AA he would have gone to a lesser law school and having a lesser career without. So your inference was telling, as I never said anything of the sort.

In regards to the abortion hypothetical, I don't even know how to respond to your sideways logic. I refer to public funding against poor in abortion as an example legal discrimination against the indigent, to which you respond that there are sizable donations available to clinics. What do private donations have to do with public discrimination? That makes no sense. Then can we offer public scholarships to whites when there are plenty of private scholarships through the UNCF? No, because that would be discrimination by the government against a protected class. Being poor is not protected, and there are plenty of examples to show discrimination against class that would not be allowed against a protected class. Sorry, that was a ridiculous comment.

And with regards to the schools, it actually is legal discrimination when poor counties get less for schools. There are plenty of cases, (not going to look it up, but Texas had some landmark decisions in this area) that when funding is based on area, it is allowable, even if the poorer areas get less funding. As long as a law is not targeted against a protected class, etc. Classic example of government's use of tax dollars to discriminate against class.

 

[♪alt13]

So a good friend of mine was an engineer with GM during the crash (and for 10 years before). His role was to implement Lean in his facility (he worked at the Corvette facility in Bowling Green and one other facility). To implement improvements, either to the process or the work environment for the workers to be more productive they were required to provide the union with a "worker impact" assessment, in short, how many jobs will be lost due to this "improvement" or how many hours will be cut. If it was anything the union wouldn't agree on, which was basically anything that implies they might need fewer people to make the car, then they refused to buy off on it and it got nixed. So yes, union involvement can have a very real effect on quality output. Even when they showed that the jobs would not be lost but rather relocated to a different production line or something like that it was often still killed, as all they wanted was the status quo and anything except increasing jobs or wages was viewed as a threat to the union, so they said no way. So any improvements he tried to make, or any efforts to eliminate errors in the process met stiff resistance from the unions in the interest of worker benefits, and at the ultimate cost of nearly destroying an industry.

edit:

In the interest of full disclosure, no the unions were not solely and entirely to blame. Those big companies were horribly managed through and through. But we cannot pretend that the union influence had nothing to do with it, in some cases very directly, as I mentioned above.

I know unions can cause issues, of course they do they are a human institution. It is hard to see how America would have built a strong middle class, to the same extent, without labor unions. I also don't think the auto industry is a particularly good one to look at when discussing labor unions. It has been entirely over politicized to the point that there is way too much rhetorical noise. I think a better industry to discuss would be electric power. Almost all of the employees working for any power company are represented by a union. The relationship between the power companies and their unions has been much more pragmatic and a little less adversarial. This has lead to a very reliable electric grid with reasonable rates and employees that can enjoy a middle class lifestyle.

I also think that unions are only appropriate in certain conditions. Basically for skilled labor that isn't quite professional. If the worker can be replaced in less than 6 months to a year than a labor union doesn't really have a product(skilled workforce) and so will not be able to sell a contract without resorting to extortion like practices(often this is aided by governments).

 

[One Brow]

Your response was based on me stating that AA hurt Thomas by creating a stigma he didn't deserve. My comments were based on Thomas' own words. It is clear to me that he believes AA didn't need to help him, why don't you? Your statement inferred that without AA he would have gone to a lesser law school and having a lesser career without. So your inference was telling, as I never said anything of the sort.

I have read no statement by Thomas that he would have gotten into Yale without affirmative action. CNN says that he acknowledges it was a factor.

https://www.cnn.com/2013/06/09/us/clarence-thomas-three-questions/

He acknowledges that he made it to Yale because of affirmative action but says the stigma of preferential treatment made it difficult for him to find a job after college.

I will accept this indirect acknowledgement until I hear of a more authoritative source.

So, would Thomas have been better off if he had not been admitted to Yale?

In regards to the abortion hypothetical, I don't even know how to respond to your sideways logic. I refer to public funding against poor in abortion as an example legal discrimination against the indigent, to which you respond that there are sizable donations available to clinics. What do private donations have to do with public discrimination? That makes no sense. Then can we offer public scholarships to whites when there are plenty of private scholarships through the UNCF?

Do we offer public funding of abortions to the wealthy? If not, how is this a valid comparison?

I do not understand, and you have not explained, why not offering abortion funding is discriminatory. What is the government doing for wealthy women, regarding abortion, that they are not doing for poor women?

And with regards to the schools, it actually is legal discrimination when poor counties get less for schools. There are plenty of cases, (not going to look it up, but Texas had some landmark decisions in this area) that when funding is based on area, it is allowable, even if the poorer areas get less funding. As long as a law is not targeted against a protected class, etc. Classic example of government's use of tax dollars to discriminate against class.

Agreed, except that it's actually two different, local governments, so no single government is discriminating. That's why you don't see a similar situation in the City of St. Louis; rather, they have to spend as much on residents in the northern city as they do for residents on the Hill and further south.

 

[One Brow]

I know unions can cause issues, of course they do they are a human institution. It is hard to see how America would have built a strong middle class, to the same extent, without labor unions. I also don't think the auto industry is a particularly good one to look at when discussing labor unions. It has been entirely over politicized to the point that there is way too much rhetorical noise. I think a better industry to discuss would be electric power. Almost all of the employees working for any power company are represented by a union. The relationship between the power companies and their unions has been much more pragmatic and a little less adversarial. This has lead to a very reliable electric grid with reasonable rates and employees that can enjoy a middle class lifestyle.

Another example is grocery stores, many of which work relatively cooperatively with the union personnel.

 

[One Brow]

Another article indicating the police attitude:

Before any violence occurred, police desecrated the the memorial for Brown, by running over it with cars and by allowing a police dog to urinate on it.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/08/ferguson-st-louis-police-tactics-dogs-michael-brown

 

[One Brow]

Protest at Powell Symphony Hall, the residence of our symphony orchestra:

https://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/10...ouis-symphony-with-requiem-for-michael-brown/

 

[Stoked]

Another article indicating the police attitude:

Before any violence occurred, police desecrated the the memorial for Brown, by running over it with cars and by allowing a police dog to urinate on it.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/08/ferguson-st-louis-police-tactics-dogs-michael-brown

Absolutely disgusting. If true, I'd fire every officer involved.

 

[framer]

Absolutely disgusting. If true, I'd fire every officer involved.

So the "memorial" is in the middle of the street? Could that perhaps be the reason that parts of it were "run over by cars?" Not mentioning that brings into question the objectivity of the writer. Also, I would need to see video evidence of a police officer taking his dog to urinate on a memorial during this tense situation before I am buying it. There are open cameras 24X7 right now. It would be an astounding bit of luck for the police officer to allow that in full view of the public and not have it recorded.

 

[Stoked]

So the "memorial" is in the middle of the street? Could that perhaps be the reason that parts of it were "run over by cars?" Not mentioning that brings into question the objectivity of the writer. Also, I would need to see video evidence of a police officer taking his dog to urinate on a memorial during this tense situation before I am buying it. There are open cameras 24X7 right now. It would be an astounding bit of luck for the police officer to allow that in full view of the public and not have it recorded.

If the memorial is in the middle of the street shouldn't the cops go from running it over to having it moved?

Also that does not justify a police dog urinating on it.

Again, my responses are "if true"

 

[framer]

If the memorial is in the middle of the street shouldn't the cops go from running it over to having it moved?

Also that does not justify a police dog urinating on it.

Again, my responses are "if true"

Looking at the picture the "memorial" looks like cards and rose petals placed on the spot where Brown died. It wouldn't necessarily have been run over by the police, but by all of the crossing traffic. I guess I am REALLY skeptical because I have dealt with the press during a "crisis" situation with political overtones. For the most part they are all sensationalist mouth breathers. The person I met from Mother Jones was actually one of my favorites, but he was an actual reporter, unlike the guy who wrote this story, who appears to be an editorialist on location, judging by his body of work.

 

[Hotdog]

Another article indicating the police attitude:

Before any violence occurred, police desecrated the the memorial for Brown, by running over it with cars and by allowing a police dog to urinate on it.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/08/ferguson-st-louis-police-tactics-dogs-michael-brown

What do you think about predominantly black communities being policed by black cops only, or mostly made up of?

I would think that might help. But I could be wrong.

 

[LogGrad98]

What do you think about predominantly black communities being policed by black cops only, or mostly made up of?

I would think that might help. But I could be wrong.

Makes me wonder if there are any instances of black cops being harder on black folks than on white folks in similar circumstances. Tougher to find I bet as "black cop shoots black man" is no where near as inflammatory as "white cop shoots black man" no matter what the circumstances.