Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[AugustWest]

Similar, from last night:
MIL: I went to Best Buy and told them I wanted to be able to stream movies, like everyone else does. They sold me some sort of Apple TV box for $200, and said it was easy to hook up, but I couldn't figure it out. Then Geek Squad wanted $150 to come install it for me. Another guy I talked to said I should get a video game console and stream through that.
Me: You should return all that crap, because that TV you got last year is internet-enabled and you can probably stream Netflix to it directly. I'll come over and set it up. Why didn't you ask me in the first place?
MIL: Well, I didn't want to bother you.

Sheesh, get a Chromecast for $35 at least...

[Arachno-capitalist]

What technology is going to be fuck*ng me up in my dotage, I wonders.

I'd like to think I can stay current, but... Yknow.

That's the spirit. Just comfortably accept the fact that your grandchildren grew up in a world of technology from conception and will run circles around you in every tech related subject. You're around 50, right (I simplify my life by assuming all grown men are around 50)? You've got another 60 years ahead of you and you will not understand half the shit kids are talking about.

[theinevitable]

watching horror unfold in a town I consider my home, meanwhile my roommates are screaming at each other about whether it is rude to leave the teapot on the stove. Stop the world, I want to get off.

[wombat]

As someone on Twitter said, "White privilege is the ability to be outraged by the Ferguson decision, rather than terrified by it."

And where the hell else are you supposed to leave the teapot? Please get a new roommate before I come up there and punch someone. It's not a long train ride and I'm really in mood to punch someone.

[AugustWest]

Why should I be outraged by the Ferguson decision? 

A duly constituted grand jury reviewed all the evidence available and reached a decision that there was not sufficient evidence to prosecute the police officer.  They are the only ones who have reviewed all the testimony and all the physical evidence.  Do facts and evidence just not matter anymore?

I'm not suggesting that there isn't racism in this country.  I'm not suggesting that the Ferguson Police Department is fair and unbiased.  I'm not suggesting that black people are not subject to institutional racism.  I'm only saying that the evidence in this particular case did not support an indictment.  Why is that so inconceivable? 

Should we just sacrifice this cop so we can have a meaningless show trial?  Then what happens when he gets acquitted?  Or should we just ignore the evidence at his trial too?

I accept that racial injustice exists, and that people of color are often treated unjustly.  But shouldn't you have to prove that injustice occurred in this particular case before you punish someone for it?  Why should this particular cop be the fall-guy for centuries of institutional racism, especially if the evidence shows that he acted legally?     

[wombat]

Look, I am not the lawyer here. But I do know that an indictment is a low bar to meet.

Former New York state Chief Judge Sol Wachtler famously remarked that a prosecutor could persuade a grand jury to “indict a ham sandwich.” The data suggests he was barely exaggerating: According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics,U.S. attorneys prosecuted 162,000 federal cases in 2010, the most recent year for which we have data. Grand juries declined to return an indictment in 11 of them.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/ferguson-michael-brown-indictment-darren-wilson/

Add that to the institutional racism you mention which is clearly a problem in that jurisdiction to put it mildly, and I don't think it's too much for citizens to ask that when an unarmed person is shot, that there is at least a trial. What I've read about the evidence makes it pretty clear that it wasn't obvious. When there's a bunch of conflicting statements and evidence, that's what we have trials for, isn't it?

You're asking people to trust the system. I think there's a point at which you can understand why certain people don't trust that system and I think this is that point.

And yeah, there would be riots if he were found innocent but at least if you let the system play out in full, maybe there would be somewhat fewer people at the riots and apparently that's about all we can hope for in the world nowadays.

[wombat]

While I couldn't stand to read this whole thing, the other problem is that apparently it is basically always legal for a cop to shoot someone if he thinks he has to.
http://www.thenation.com/article/190937/why-its-impossible-indict-cop#
So yeah, maybe he did act legally, but are you asking people to just be OK with that?

[wombat]

OK, I'm not a lawyer, but the National Bar Association doesn't get it either.

The National Bar Association is questioning how the Grand Jury, considering the evidence before them, could reach the conclusion that Darren Wilson should not be indicted and tried for the shooting death of Michael Brown.

http://us7.campaign-archive1.com/?u=b493e6c4d31beda32fdaf8e2d&id=73514e334b

[AugustWest]

While I couldn't stand to read this whole thing, the other problem is that apparently it is basically always legal for a cop to shoot someone if he thinks he has to.
http://www.thenation.com/article/190937/why-its-impossible-indict-cop#
So yeah, maybe he did act legally, but are you asking people to just be OK with that?

This isn't the way to change that.

[AugustWest]

OK, I'm not a lawyer, but the National Bar Association doesn't get it either.http://us7.campaign-archive1.com/?u=b493e6c4d31beda32fdaf8e2d&id=73514e334b

But the jury made the decision.  12 individual citizens.  Not elected officials, police officers or politicians. 

If indictment was the only acceptable result, why bother having a preliminary hearing at all?  Why not just take him directly to trial?  What's the point in pretending to make a honest determination about probable cause if there is only one acceptable result, regardless of the evidence?

[AugustWest]

But I do understand wanting to burn shit up.

I do too. 

[wombat]

So I ain't smart enough to say how to make this more better. But I do understand wanting to burn shit up.

Yeah.

[wombat]

But the jury made the decision.  12 individual citizens.  Not elected officials, police officers or politicians. 

If indictment was the only acceptable result, why bother having a preliminary hearing at all?  Why not just take him directly to trial?  What's the point in pretending to make a honest determination about probable cause if there is only one acceptable result, regardless of the evidence?

Yeah, well that's exactly the problem: the suspicion that the whole thing was just about pretending to make an honest determination.

The thing is, there may have been twelve individual citizens involved in the system, but that's not much of an argument if you don't trust the system and if you don't trust your fellow citizens to see clearly when race is involved.

[Carlos del Vaca]

But it's a black thing, I don't understand. Not really.

We can't truly understand, but we have to at least try.

[wombat]

Thank you, I tried to post that earlier and couldn't get it to work. Have to laugh so you don't cry and that made me laugh more than once.