[an error occurred while processing this directive]
About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Sanction: 18, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 18, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 18, No Sanction: 0
Post 0

Monday, December 1 - 7:23pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

To begin with, recall the aftermath of the O.J. verdict in which Simpson was acquitted, by a largely black jury, of murdering Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman both of whom were white. The verdict was widely recognized as a travesty of justice, yet there were no widespread public demonstrations against it, let alone violent protests involving the destruction of private property and the looting of local businesses.

 

Had the race of the accused, the victims and the jury been reversed, would the aftermath have been the same?

 

Fast forward to Ferguson in which white police officer Darren Wilson shoots and kills black suspect Michael Brown in self-defense just moments after Brown, who had committed a robbery, attacked Wilson, tried to get his gun, then later rushed the officer, forcing him to defend himself. These facts were corroborated by physical evidence as well as by seven black witnesses who courageously came forward and confirmed the officer’s account of the shooting, even though they feared retaliation by the protestors. As a result of their eye-witness testimony and the accompanying physical evidence, the grand jury could find no grounds on which to indict the officer.

 

What was the response? Massive public demonstrations that took the form of a lynch mob demanding the officer’s conviction along with numerous death threats against him and his family. The demonstrations quickly turned violent with the burning and looting of over two dozen neighborhood businesses, which served and employed the city’s residents.

 

The riots, physical destruction and looting could have been largely prevented had the national guard been present the first day as backup for the police, but the governor was unavailable to dispatch them. The rioting could also have been prevented had the demonstrators not been allowed to assemble.

 

The idea that people have a free-speech right to take over the streets in order to voice their grievances is a myth. There is no such thing as free speech on someone else’s property absent consent of the owner. The city, which owns the streets, should have denied a public protest, because of the obvious threat that it posed for ensuing violence and public safety.

 

As for a rush to judgment, who was guilty of pre-judging the officer’s action? It wasn’t the grand jury. It was the lynch mob that demanded the officer’s head before any objective evaluation of the evidence.

 

In the wake of everything that transpired, the officer was forced to resign (and with no severance pay) not only out of fear for his life and the lives of his family, but also because the police department and its officers were themselves threatened with violence had he remained on the force and received any additional compensation.

 

With that, the protestors had effectively taken over law enforcement and were now dictating how the police department conduct its operations.

 

Adding insult to injury, five St. Louis Rams football players raised their hands on field in a clueless display of solidarity with the Ferguson protestors. They were quickly condemned by the St. Louis Police Officers Association.

 

We are now witnessing a descent into barbarism and the introduction of a new form of social order: mob rule. Yet in a society that enshrines public protests against perceived injustice, no one is bothering to protest the real injustice that occurred here: the burning and looting of businesses and the intimidation and railroading of an innocent police officer and his department.



Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Post 1

Monday, December 1 - 11:14pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

That is precisely how I view it too.  At the VERY least he should be awarded compensation for having to leave his career for not only saving his own live but just doing his job.  

Obamas weak " behave people I know there are things wrong down there" was weak and disgusting.  It is like he passively aggressively condoned the actions of the looters and rioters.  He SHOULD have sent in what ever forces necessary to stop this.  I mean what would the people do? Call him an anti-black racist?  He had the ability to enforce the rule of law and he failed.  I am embarrassed that Canada has supporters for the actions of these thug life criminals.



Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 2

Tuesday, December 2 - 8:53amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

We are now witnessing a descent into barbarism and the introduction of a new form of social order: mob rule. 

Well said, Bill.  I couldn't agree more.  

 

Included in this barbarism is a new racism... just as our culture had finally put the old racism out of business.  It is also a kind of control by an "elite" - a tiny portion of the population pretend to be representative of large percentages and under the cover of racial intimidation, and counterfit "justice" they sanction violence and engage in violence.  The media and the Progressives in office let them get away with not just the bad actions, but the public pretense of being a sizable portion of the population.

 

Like Gresham's law in economics where bad money drives good money out of circulation, their phoney justice can only eliminate real justice.

 

Demonstrators should be allowed to demonstrate as much as they want, but only if it doesn't interfer with anyone else's rights.  If a demonstration turns into a riot, the rioters should end up serving prison sentences.  And looters or people destroying property should be shot.  That should be the simple standard and those politicians that don't adhere to it should be impeached.



Post 3

Wednesday, December 3 - 8:05pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

"Former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani came under fire yesterday after making controversial remarks about the protests taking place in Ferguson. In a heated debate on NBC’s 'Meet the Press,' that featured Dr. Michael Eric Dyson, the former New York City mayor questioned why there are protests for fatal shootings at the hands of the police, but never any for black-on-black crimes. He claimed that the reason white officers are present in black neighborhoods is because of crimes committed by people of color. 'Why don’t you cut it down so many white police officers don’t have to be in black areas? The white police officers wouldn’t be there if you weren’t killing each other,' said Giuliani. 'I find it very disappointing that you’re not talking about the fact that 93% of blacks in America are killed by other blacks.' Giuliani’s remarks sent Twitter into a frenzy, with many people claiming that his opinion was not needed.'"

 

Although Guiliani's remarks may not have been phrased as judiciously as one would have liked, what he said was essentially correct.  A greater police presence is required in inner-city high crime neighborhoods, so if there are more complaints by blacks against the police, it could very well be due to the fact that there are simply more interactions between police and black suspects.

 

The fact that Guiliani's remarks are considered controversial instead of insightful is another example of just how much political correctness has come to dominate public opinion.



Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 4

Wednesday, December 3 - 8:40pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

I think what we are seeing goes far beyond the usual idiotic bounds of "political correctness" - we are seeing a kind of subcultural insanity that is being condoned.  It is as if all German-Americans were protesting that Jews needed to be locked up for crimes that the protesters were imagining.  And then the progressives and media were ignoring the idiocy, condoning the violent protests, and rationalizing the emotionalism and anger.  



Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 5

Thursday, December 4 - 9:26amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

". . . And then the progressives and media were ignoring the idiocy, condoning the violent protests, and rationalizing the emotionalism and anger."

 

I think you've nailed it, Steve:  "condoning the violent protests, and rationalizing the emotionalism and anger."  That's our lovable mainstream media telling it like it isn't.

 

(Edited by William Dwyer on 12/04, 9:27am)



Post 6

Thursday, December 4 - 7:51pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

It seems to me that the police are conditioned by this into being PC and are hamstrung.  What should have been done was bring in the national guard.  Rioters detained and looters shot.  I do not think military would think twice in ventilating a few looters with an M-16.  Rinse and repeat and send a clear message that skin color is not an issue.  If you are a criminal you will be dealt with.  Why the heavy stance?  Because it is necessary to restore order and the rule of law.  These asshole politicians and activists like Sharpton instead of doing their best to quell and restore order added rocket fuel to the fire.

Perhaps the NSA should put their surveillance to actual good use and identify every last one of them for arrest.  

 

Up here in Canada we had riots in Vancouver over the loss of a hockey game.  It took up to 6 months to track down the agitators but they were found and they were imprisoned.

 

(Edited by Jules Troy on 12/04, 7:52pm)



Post to this thread
[an error occurred while processing this directive]


User ID Password or create a free account.