I predict a blue lives matter memorial will take place with numerous black and white posters of fallen officers, speeches and tears.
Then someone will research afterwards and realize that all these officers were not the victims of violence but the victims of retaliation, and that the entire memorial was a defund the police protest.
The most shocking thing to me is how blatently mainstream outlets are ignoring the protests after the initial ones. If it weren't for social media, they would maybe have just dissappeared from public consioucness altogether.
Saw this last night when i was trying to go to bed and it was pretty great and relevant.
My take away was those guys were legends and.. riots work.
The silver medalist, Peter Norman from Australia, wore the same Olympic Project for Humans Rights badge and stood in solidarity with them, and more or less sacrificed any chance of his participating in future Olympics because of it.
There is an Olympic Black Power Statue in Atlanta commemorating the protest, and Norman's place on the pedestal is left empty on his suggestion, to "allow visitors to stand on his spot in solidarity with the civil rights movement for years to come."
The long and short of it is, he was effectively exiled from the sports community in Australia for his support of John Carlos and Tommie Smith for the rest of his life. His record time in the 200 meter remains unbeaten in Australia to this day. It took until 2012--well after his death--before the country's government formally apologized to him and his family for the way they were treated by literally everyone in the country.
The most shocking thing to me is how blatently mainstream outlets are ignoring the protests after the initial ones. If it weren't for social media, they would maybe have just dissappeared from public consioucness altogether.
Saw this last night when i was trying to go to bed and it was pretty great and relevant.
My take away was those guys were legends and.. riots work.
The silver medalist, Peter Norman from Australia, wore the same Olympic Project for Humans Rights badge and stood in solidarity with them, and more or less sacrificed any chance of his participating in future Olympics because of it.
There is an Olympic Black Power Statue in Atlanta commemorating the protest, and Norman's place on the pedestal is left empty on his suggestion, to "allow visitors to stand on his spot in solidarity with the civil rights movement for years to come."
The long and short of it is, he was effectively exiled from the sports community in Australia for his support of John Carlos and Tommie Smith for the rest of his life. His record time in the 200 meter remains unbeaten in Australia to this day. It took until 2012--well after his death--before the country's government formally apologized to him and his family for the way they were treated by literally everyone in the country.
I know I bring this up every time, but Peter is my cousin! He was treated like shit and had to give up his life's greatest passion.
He lived on the opposite side of the country to me and we weren't close at all, but it's something that would come up during family gatherings fairly regularly. He was pretty depressed and adrift after he realised he was on the outer. The Australian athletics community was (probably still is) a pretty tight clique and the people tend to live and breathe it at the highest levels. He also couldn't make much money off it afterwards. Turns out racist Australia isn't very interested in giving ad deals and speaking gigs to 'race traitors'. He is on the record as saying even if he could turn back time, he wouldnt change what he did.
He was a problematic guy though. That side of the family has quite a few really religious types. They all had a major problem with LGTBQI people
Because they can't give up their military grade weapons, because (they think) that wouldn't make people as sympathetic as the thought of firing personnel, because they're just fucking lying .. I could go on.
Give the post office the Bearcats no more stolen mail with that
A question I brought up with some black teenagers several years ago during the travon Martin protests and stupid girl getting punched out by cop after jaywalking 5 lanes under a bridge, Seattle memories, Was how could one justify joining these infamous police departments knowing their history?
The answer is you really can't. Especially departments like the LAPD and the NYPD, whose corruption is practically a film genre.
Because they can't give up their military grade weapons, because (they think) that wouldn't make people as sympathetic as the thought of firing personnel, because they're just fucking lying .. I could go on.
Give the post office the Bearcats no more stolen mail with that
Because they can't give up their military grade weapons, because (they think) that wouldn't make people as sympathetic as the thought of firing personnel, because they're just fucking lying .. I could go on.
Give the post office the Bearcats no more stolen mail with that
Yo if they got air conditioning I'm on board
Made by Carrier
Still when they wanted to take their business Hecho En Mexico and the troll said he saved the jobs but they ended up cutting them and moving anyways
waiting until a more politically opportune moment to do so
+1
turtleantGunpla Dadis the best.Registered Userregular
A question I brought up with some black teenagers several years ago during the travon Martin protests and stupid girl getting punched out by cop after jaywalking 5 lanes under a bridge, Seattle memories, Was how could one justify joining these infamous police departments knowing their history?
The answer is you really can't. Especially departments like the LAPD and the NYPD, whose corruption is practically a film genre.
I feel like at this point the justification is probably mostly just that you want in on that corruption. You want to legally murder nonwhite people but don't want to join the army for whatever reason, so instead you join the police.
It's really easy to justify if you agree with the racism and police brutality, which is part of the problem.
+1
Metzger MeisterIt Gets Worsebefore it gets any better.Registered Userregular
Honestly, I disagree with this bit; everything about the article screams to me that these are nuts who care only about controlling land. They didn't think it was a mob that had come for them, they thought the protesters might cut through their lawn or drop trash in it and that pointing guns at them was a appropriate level of reaction to this threat.
Metzger MeisterIt Gets Worsebefore it gets any better.Registered Userregular
I mean the lady went on the news and lied about the protesters telling her they were gonna burn their house down and how afraid they were for their lives so I think they were looking for an excuse to shoot people
I mean the lady went on the news and lied about the protesters telling her they were gonna burn their house down and how afraid they were for their lives so I think they were looking for an excuse to shoot people
Their asshole chakra is large enough they could be randomly dickish to folks near their property, then lie about it after the fact.
I mean the lady went on the news and lied about the protesters telling her they were gonna burn their house down and how afraid they were for their lives so I think they were looking for an excuse to shoot people
Their asshole chakra is large enough they could be randomly dickish to folks near their property, then lie about it after the fact.
Their asshole chakra is goatse
It is large, wide open, and spewing its toxic contents out into the world
I mean the lady went on the news and lied about the protesters telling her they were gonna burn their house down and how afraid they were for their lives so I think they were looking for an excuse to shoot people
Their asshole chakra is large enough they could be randomly dickish to folks near their property, then lie about it after the fact.
Their asshole chakra is goatse
It is large, wide open, and spewing its toxic contents out into the world
I mean... even if someone hadn't been playing close attention to any prior election, I think the dem primary we allegedly just had illustrated this phenomenon perfectly
the way he just panics and walks off like he doesn't have actual leadership skills
how do these people get elected
I don't think there's a ton of correlation between "actual leadership skills" and getting elected Mayor.
How often have you voted for a Mayor? How often have you picked a specific person because you were impressed by their leadership skills? How often have you even spent a couple minutes figuring out which of the couple folks running were like not horrendous?
I've voted for like three mayors ever, and I think only the latest one I've voted for was one where I could catch any event during which I could see all the candidates answer questions and therefore form a remotely reasonable opinion about which one I thought seemed like a better choice.
If you're in a relatively small city it's extremely difficult to figure out who's running, what their positions are, and whether they seem to be a reasonable person. And then you have the smaller positions like City Council or School Board and like good luck. I only knew not to vote for one asshole for school board because while googling everyone ELSE turned up nothing, googling them turned up a lot of local news articles about how they were a giant asshole crank who'd show up to council meetings to complain about how we should be meaner to kids and cut the school budgets because they're growing up soft.
Like Columbus already has the next mayor lined up after Ginther and probably the next one after that too
I’m not even sure mayor means a shit in a lot of cities anyway, Columbus included
+1
GustavFriend of GoatsSomewhere in the OzarksRegistered Userregular
edited July 2020
My history of voting for mayor is much more of a stop the local real estate dudes that want to fuck with some stuff running than it ever really is excitement for another candidate.
Like Columbus already has the next mayor lined up after Ginther and probably the next one after that too
I’m not even sure mayor means a shit in a lot of cities anyway, Columbus included
In most American municipalities, mayor positions do not carry extensive legal power. Real decision making power is usually almost solely invested in an elected council. Again, there are exceptions where mayors are given broad policy making discretion in some areas, but usually a mayor is sort of... "town spokesman" type role. In that sense though they are still pretty important as they are still very important in that they are way, way more visible than town boards. Mayors can put pressure on town councils, to some extent, and they also play an important role in both taking and spreading information about community problems/concerns. Like a mayor can to some extent pop on the radar of a state legislature to potentially get something done.
0
MayabirdPecking at the keyboardRegistered Userregular
The article is almost a year old, but I'm sure the numbers have gotten worse: there are fifteen states that spend more than $27,000 per prisoner than they do per student and at least eighteen that spend more per prisoner than they pay for student. That's just the prison side of the "justice" system, not counting the police and courts and everything else. Part of the school-to-prison pipeline is not having anything at the school level to prevent kids from going down that pipeline. An ounce of prevention doesn't make big bucks for the for-profit prison system.
Society would fall apart if juries had social workers, lawyers, and scientists on them, surely
In a way, yes, it would.
It would be replaced by a new, better, society, but the society as is would not work if you allowed smart, thoughtful, empathic, people who pay attention into juries.
I mean, they might find police to be untrustworthy, or point out how flimsy the evidence is.
And societal order as it exists now kinda depends on that not happening.
I just spent the morning in a virtual version of an escape room which was basically a jury deliberation room. Strong spoilers below: if you think you'd ever be interested in playing this kind of game, do not read! But do feel free to ask me for a link, it's a pretty good way to do a remote game night!
We had access to a bunch of evidence, and could interview the defendant, and had to decide on the verdict amongst ourselves. Everyone involved was either an academic, a psychologist, or an MD, so we took a pretty analytical approach I guess? We figured out in due course that the defendent was likely innocent of two charges, was probably guilty of the third most serious charge (murder), BUT also the police and crown prosecution had done an horrendously lax job with the investigation, plus there was evidence of some involvement in the case by a high up official in the Ministry of Justice, and he hadn't even been called in for questioning.
So given the lack of material evidence, plus a bunch of procedural problems, we voted to acquit even though we were all pretty much convinced he was guilty of murder, because the framing leant so heavily on the trappings of the real court system. So I was very comfortable with the way we voted - a guilty verdict really needed to have an extremely heavy burden of proof attached. And I know that, since it was a game, we could have condemned the guy and it would have been NBD, but it seemed like our process was the bare minimum for the way the game should be played, let alone if someone's life was actually on the line.
Anyway I guess the point is, we talked to the game designers afterwards, and they told us we were pretty much the only group to uncover all the evidence*, but also one of the few not to convict the defendant. Every other jury who voted to convict on the murder did so based on not much more than gut feeling. And yeah it's just a game, but ...
*(apparently the only way to 'win' the game with any real proof of his guilt was to push the defendant really hard till he broke down and admitted it - we soft-balled him a little in the cross-questioning)
Society would fall apart if juries had social workers, lawyers, and scientists on them, surely
In a way, yes, it would.
It would be replaced by a new, better, society, but the society as is would not work if you allowed smart, thoughtful, empathic, people who pay attention into juries.
I mean, they might find police to be untrustworthy, or point out how flimsy the evidence is.
And societal order as it exists now kinda depends on that not happening.
I just spent the morning in a virtual version of an escape room which was basically a jury deliberation room. Strong spoilers below: if you think you'd ever be interested in playing this kind of game, do not read! But do feel free to ask me for a link, it's a pretty good way to do a remote game night!
We had access to a bunch of evidence, and could interview the defendant, and had to decide on the verdict amongst ourselves. Everyone involved was either an academic, a psychologist, or an MD, so we took a pretty analytical approach I guess? We figured out in due course that the defendent was likely innocent of two charges, was probably guilty of the third most serious charge (murder), BUT also the police and crown prosecution had done an horrendously lax job with the investigation, plus there was evidence of some involvement in the case by a high up official in the Ministry of Justice, and he hadn't even been called in for questioning.
So given the lack of material evidence, plus a bunch of procedural problems, we voted to acquit even though we were all pretty much convinced he was guilty of murder, because the framing leant so heavily on the trappings of the real court system. So I was very comfortable with the way we voted - a guilty verdict really needed to have an extremely heavy burden of proof attached. And I know that, since it was a game, we could have condemned the guy and it would have been NBD, but it seemed like our process was the bare minimum for the way the game should be played, let alone if someone's life was actually on the line.
Anyway I guess the point is, we talked to the game designers afterwards, and they told us we were pretty much the only group to uncover all the evidence*, but also one of the few not to convict the defendant. Every other jury who voted to convict on the murder did so based on not much more than gut feeling. And yeah it's just a game, but ...
*(apparently the only way to 'win' the game with any real proof of his guilt was to push the defendant really hard till he broke down and admitted it - we soft-balled him a little in the cross-questioning)
Huh, yeah, I skimmed the first paragraph and this sounds entirely like my thing, please send me a link when you have time!
Society would fall apart if juries had social workers, lawyers, and scientists on them, surely
In a way, yes, it would.
It would be replaced by a new, better, society, but the society as is would not work if you allowed smart, thoughtful, empathic, people who pay attention into juries.
I mean, they might find police to be untrustworthy, or point out how flimsy the evidence is.
And societal order as it exists now kinda depends on that not happening.
I just spent the morning in a virtual version of an escape room which was basically a jury deliberation room. Strong spoilers below: if you think you'd ever be interested in playing this kind of game, do not read! But do feel free to ask me for a link, it's a pretty good way to do a remote game night!
We had access to a bunch of evidence, and could interview the defendant, and had to decide on the verdict amongst ourselves. Everyone involved was either an academic, a psychologist, or an MD, so we took a pretty analytical approach I guess? We figured out in due course that the defendent was likely innocent of two charges, was probably guilty of the third most serious charge (murder), BUT also the police and crown prosecution had done an horrendously lax job with the investigation, plus there was evidence of some involvement in the case by a high up official in the Ministry of Justice, and he hadn't even been called in for questioning.
So given the lack of material evidence, plus a bunch of procedural problems, we voted to acquit even though we were all pretty much convinced he was guilty of murder, because the framing leant so heavily on the trappings of the real court system. So I was very comfortable with the way we voted - a guilty verdict really needed to have an extremely heavy burden of proof attached. And I know that, since it was a game, we could have condemned the guy and it would have been NBD, but it seemed like our process was the bare minimum for the way the game should be played, let alone if someone's life was actually on the line.
Anyway I guess the point is, we talked to the game designers afterwards, and they told us we were pretty much the only group to uncover all the evidence*, but also one of the few not to convict the defendant. Every other jury who voted to convict on the murder did so based on not much more than gut feeling. And yeah it's just a game, but ...
*(apparently the only way to 'win' the game with any real proof of his guilt was to push the defendant really hard till he broke down and admitted it - we soft-balled him a little in the cross-questioning)
prosecutors do not want people who understand the legal system on a jury unless they have an absolutely rock-solid case
+14
Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
Society would fall apart if juries had social workers, lawyers, and scientists on them, surely
In a way, yes, it would.
It would be replaced by a new, better, society, but the society as is would not work if you allowed smart, thoughtful, empathic, people who pay attention into juries.
I mean, they might find police to be untrustworthy, or point out how flimsy the evidence is.
And societal order as it exists now kinda depends on that not happening.
I just spent the morning in a virtual version of an escape room which was basically a jury deliberation room. Strong spoilers below: if you think you'd ever be interested in playing this kind of game, do not read! But do feel free to ask me for a link, it's a pretty good way to do a remote game night!
We had access to a bunch of evidence, and could interview the defendant, and had to decide on the verdict amongst ourselves. Everyone involved was either an academic, a psychologist, or an MD, so we took a pretty analytical approach I guess? We figured out in due course that the defendent was likely innocent of two charges, was probably guilty of the third most serious charge (murder), BUT also the police and crown prosecution had done an horrendously lax job with the investigation, plus there was evidence of some involvement in the case by a high up official in the Ministry of Justice, and he hadn't even been called in for questioning.
So given the lack of material evidence, plus a bunch of procedural problems, we voted to acquit even though we were all pretty much convinced he was guilty of murder, because the framing leant so heavily on the trappings of the real court system. So I was very comfortable with the way we voted - a guilty verdict really needed to have an extremely heavy burden of proof attached. And I know that, since it was a game, we could have condemned the guy and it would have been NBD, but it seemed like our process was the bare minimum for the way the game should be played, let alone if someone's life was actually on the line.
Anyway I guess the point is, we talked to the game designers afterwards, and they told us we were pretty much the only group to uncover all the evidence*, but also one of the few not to convict the defendant. Every other jury who voted to convict on the murder did so based on not much more than gut feeling. And yeah it's just a game, but ...
*(apparently the only way to 'win' the game with any real proof of his guilt was to push the defendant really hard till he broke down and admitted it - we soft-balled him a little in the cross-questioning)
prosecutors do not want people who understand the legal system on a jury unless they have an absolutely rock-solid case
They do not even want them then.
Because the jury automatically defers to them and you generally have no idea what kind of biases they will have (generally, it’s a lot)
Humor can be dissected as a frog can, but dies in the process.
Society would fall apart if juries had social workers, lawyers, and scientists on them, surely
In a way, yes, it would.
It would be replaced by a new, better, society, but the society as is would not work if you allowed smart, thoughtful, empathic, people who pay attention into juries.
I mean, they might find police to be untrustworthy, or point out how flimsy the evidence is.
And societal order as it exists now kinda depends on that not happening.
I just spent the morning in a virtual version of an escape room which was basically a jury deliberation room. Strong spoilers below: if you think you'd ever be interested in playing this kind of game, do not read! But do feel free to ask me for a link, it's a pretty good way to do a remote game night!
We had access to a bunch of evidence, and could interview the defendant, and had to decide on the verdict amongst ourselves. Everyone involved was either an academic, a psychologist, or an MD, so we took a pretty analytical approach I guess? We figured out in due course that the defendent was likely innocent of two charges, was probably guilty of the third most serious charge (murder), BUT also the police and crown prosecution had done an horrendously lax job with the investigation, plus there was evidence of some involvement in the case by a high up official in the Ministry of Justice, and he hadn't even been called in for questioning.
So given the lack of material evidence, plus a bunch of procedural problems, we voted to acquit even though we were all pretty much convinced he was guilty of murder, because the framing leant so heavily on the trappings of the real court system. So I was very comfortable with the way we voted - a guilty verdict really needed to have an extremely heavy burden of proof attached. And I know that, since it was a game, we could have condemned the guy and it would have been NBD, but it seemed like our process was the bare minimum for the way the game should be played, let alone if someone's life was actually on the line.
Anyway I guess the point is, we talked to the game designers afterwards, and they told us we were pretty much the only group to uncover all the evidence*, but also one of the few not to convict the defendant. Every other jury who voted to convict on the murder did so based on not much more than gut feeling. And yeah it's just a game, but ...
*(apparently the only way to 'win' the game with any real proof of his guilt was to push the defendant really hard till he broke down and admitted it - we soft-balled him a little in the cross-questioning)
Huh, yeah, I skimmed the first paragraph and this sounds entirely like my thing, please send me a link when you have time!
Posts
Then someone will research afterwards and realize that all these officers were not the victims of violence but the victims of retaliation, and that the entire memorial was a defund the police protest.
http://www.fallout3nexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=16534
A longer article about Peter Norman.
The long and short of it is, he was effectively exiled from the sports community in Australia for his support of John Carlos and Tommie Smith for the rest of his life. His record time in the 200 meter remains unbeaten in Australia to this day. It took until 2012--well after his death--before the country's government formally apologized to him and his family for the way they were treated by literally everyone in the country.
I know I bring this up every time, but Peter is my cousin! He was treated like shit and had to give up his life's greatest passion.
He lived on the opposite side of the country to me and we weren't close at all, but it's something that would come up during family gatherings fairly regularly. He was pretty depressed and adrift after he realised he was on the outer. The Australian athletics community was (probably still is) a pretty tight clique and the people tend to live and breathe it at the highest levels. He also couldn't make much money off it afterwards. Turns out racist Australia isn't very interested in giving ad deals and speaking gigs to 'race traitors'. He is on the record as saying even if he could turn back time, he wouldnt change what he did.
He was a problematic guy though. That side of the family has quite a few really religious types. They all had a major problem with LGTBQI people
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better
bit.ly/2XQM1ke
Give the post office the Bearcats no more stolen mail with that
The answer is you really can't. Especially departments like the LAPD and the NYPD, whose corruption is practically a film genre.
http://www.fallout3nexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=16534
Yo if they got air conditioning I'm on board
https://www.paypal.me/hobnailtaylor
turns out they're maybe the most heinous people alive!
PSN: jrrl_absent
What the actual fuck
I didn’t think I could be madder
Made by Carrier
Still when they wanted to take their business Hecho En Mexico and the troll said he saved the jobs but they ended up cutting them and moving anyways
waiting until a more politically opportune moment to do so
Fucking mind boggling. Mfer like a real life version of a family movie villian. Air Bud gonna pee on his leg at the end lookin ass.
I feel like at this point the justification is probably mostly just that you want in on that corruption. You want to legally murder nonwhite people but don't want to join the army for whatever reason, so instead you join the police.
It's really easy to justify if you agree with the racism and police brutality, which is part of the problem.
One hopes they have the same joy returned to them that they've put into the world.
Honestly, I disagree with this bit; everything about the article screams to me that these are nuts who care only about controlling land. They didn't think it was a mob that had come for them, they thought the protesters might cut through their lawn or drop trash in it and that pointing guns at them was a appropriate level of reaction to this threat.
Their asshole chakra is large enough they could be randomly dickish to folks near their property, then lie about it after the fact.
http://www.fallout3nexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=16534
They're totally insulated by money.
Their asshole chakra is goatse
It is large, wide open, and spewing its toxic contents out into the world
the way he just panics and walks off like he doesn't have actual leadership skills
how do these people get elected
Hey, goatse did nothing wrong.
Unlike these fuckin assholes
I mean... even if someone hadn't been playing close attention to any prior election, I think the dem primary we allegedly just had illustrated this phenomenon perfectly
I don't think there's a ton of correlation between "actual leadership skills" and getting elected Mayor.
How often have you voted for a Mayor? How often have you picked a specific person because you were impressed by their leadership skills? How often have you even spent a couple minutes figuring out which of the couple folks running were like not horrendous?
I've voted for like three mayors ever, and I think only the latest one I've voted for was one where I could catch any event during which I could see all the candidates answer questions and therefore form a remotely reasonable opinion about which one I thought seemed like a better choice.
If you're in a relatively small city it's extremely difficult to figure out who's running, what their positions are, and whether they seem to be a reasonable person. And then you have the smaller positions like City Council or School Board and like good luck. I only knew not to vote for one asshole for school board because while googling everyone ELSE turned up nothing, googling them turned up a lot of local news articles about how they were a giant asshole crank who'd show up to council meetings to complain about how we should be meaner to kids and cut the school budgets because they're growing up soft.
I’m not even sure mayor means a shit in a lot of cities anyway, Columbus included
I just spent the morning in a virtual version of an escape room which was basically a jury deliberation room. Strong spoilers below: if you think you'd ever be interested in playing this kind of game, do not read! But do feel free to ask me for a link, it's a pretty good way to do a remote game night!
So given the lack of material evidence, plus a bunch of procedural problems, we voted to acquit even though we were all pretty much convinced he was guilty of murder, because the framing leant so heavily on the trappings of the real court system. So I was very comfortable with the way we voted - a guilty verdict really needed to have an extremely heavy burden of proof attached. And I know that, since it was a game, we could have condemned the guy and it would have been NBD, but it seemed like our process was the bare minimum for the way the game should be played, let alone if someone's life was actually on the line.
Anyway I guess the point is, we talked to the game designers afterwards, and they told us we were pretty much the only group to uncover all the evidence*, but also one of the few not to convict the defendant. Every other jury who voted to convict on the murder did so based on not much more than gut feeling. And yeah it's just a game, but ...
*(apparently the only way to 'win' the game with any real proof of his guilt was to push the defendant really hard till he broke down and admitted it - we soft-balled him a little in the cross-questioning)
Goatse was more than just a meme, he was a dude that liked stretching his butthole
Huh, yeah, I skimmed the first paragraph and this sounds entirely like my thing, please send me a link when you have time!
3DS Friend Code: 0216-0898-6512
Switch Friend Code: SW-7437-1538-7786
prosecutors do not want people who understand the legal system on a jury unless they have an absolutely rock-solid case
They do not even want them then.
Because the jury automatically defers to them and you generally have no idea what kind of biases they will have (generally, it’s a lot)
Yo, send that to me, too, please!