Michael Brown was 18 years old, black and unarmed when a police officer in Ferguson, Missouri shot him to death after a scuffle in the street. The incident has provoked ongoing mass protests, vandalism, and national calls for an independent investigation and higher standards of police accountability.
The police, citing death threats, have refused to release the name of the police officer who shot Brown. The hacker collective Anonymous has promised to discover and make public the officer's identity anyway. I suspect they will succeed (if they haven't already).
General questions for those who have followed this story:
Do you think the shooting was reasonable under the circumstances?
How do you feel about the police?
Do you trust the police? Why or why not?
Who do the police answer to? Who ought the police answer to?
Are police held too accountable, properly accountable or not accountable enough for their actions?
More inflammatory verbiage.
More ignorance, only this time it's wilful ignorance.
Gallop referring to Officer Wilson as 'a killer with a itchy trigger finger'...
The overeager trigger declarations belong in Belle's bailiwick. I mentioned it in reference to her description of shooting incidents like this one and asked how it applies to Officer Wilson.
Belle: I personally believe it's o lack of training, too much overtime, and not enough rest. THAT is what makes people trigger happy.
Gallup: And you're basing the 'too much overtime makes untrained police trigger happy' claim on what? You just know it? Exactly how does this apply to Officer Wilson's itchy trigger finger?
...is picking a side.
I've already explained where I stand under what circumstances and why. I've asked you to explain where my reasoning is faulty: why should I not pick that particular side? Moaning that I've picked a side (like it's inherently flawed to do so) is meaningless. If you can't reasonably explain your point you haven't made one.
"Multiple witnesses in riot-torn Ferguson, Mo., said that the unarmed black teen killed by a white cop attacked the officer in his patrol car before the teen was shot, according to a new report."
This whole thing shows why eyewitness testimony is so unreliable. Witnesses also claim Brown was shot in the back while running. Only the very survivable shot in his arm MIGHT have come from the back, but it's hard to know because any part of the arm that can face forward can also face backward. However, even the family's own medical examiner says most of the shots entered his body from the front which is consistent with him rushing the cop. There was also a head wound described as "to the top of his head" and I don't know what to make of that unless brown was shot in the head while he was dropping.
"More ignorance, only this time it's willful ignorance."
a lack of knowledge, understanding, or education : the state of being ignorant
"Everyone is ignorant, only on different subjects."
Which would make me ignorant, just not this time, "willful" of otherwise.
Gallop, your claim:
"The overeager trigger declarations belong in Belle's bailiwick."
Gallop, here's your full sentence:
"Exactly how does this apply to Officer Wilson's itchy trigger finger?"
You can't blame your sentence construction on Belle, your question asserts that Officer Wilson has an "itchy trigger finger". Your sentence contains a positive declarative statement defining the state of Officer Wilson's finger, those are your words not Belle's, are they not?
And I consider that inflammatory verbiage.
ignorance: a lack of knowledge, understanding, or education : the state of being ignorant
Yes, in this case you're wilfully ignoring that definitions and descriptions of "inflammatory language" don't resemble the language that I'm using...
Gallop, here's your full sentence: "Exactly how does this apply to Officer Wilson's itchy trigger finger?"
...and you're wilfully ignoring the context of the conversation in which I'm questioning Belle's position and her description of it using language similar to hers.
For instance, you responded using the word 'ignorant' after I pointed out that you're being wilfully ignorant. That does not mean that you introduced the subject of your ignorance into the conversation instead of me. It means you're describing my position as part of addressing and responding to it.
You can't blame your sentence construction on Belle your question asserts that Officer Wilson has an "itchy trigger finger". Your sentence contains a positive declarative statement defining the state of Officer Wilson's finger, those are your words not Belle's, are they not?
What "blame" are you referring to? You're suggesting there's wrongdoing and culpability here? Please.
I don't know if you're pretending to be obtuse or really are this slow to understand, but substantially there is little difference in meaning between "trigger happy" and "itchy trigger finger". They both refer to irresponsible use of firearms. The fact remains: Belle first suggested that Officer Wilson was "trigger happy" and I was responding to that. That's not "blame" that's what happened.
And I consider that inflammatory verbiage.
You do not get to have your own definition of inflammatory language.
(in a metaphorical in your own opinion sense)
Geez Gallup, lighten up! lol
YOU WIN!!! (in a metaphorical in your own opinion sense) :)
I didn't win anything. You're just wrong.
Name calling is one form of inflammatory language. The most basic definition of "killer" is a person who kills, and no one is disputing that Officer Wilson killed Michael Brown. But it's not that simple, IMO. True enough, the link explains that inflammatory language is used with the intent to stir up emotions, and maybe that was not the intent. But with synonyms like assassin, butcher, executioner, and exterminator, "killer" stirs up emotions, intended or not.
Name calling is one form of inflammatory language.
Name calling is the use of offensive names especially to win an argument or to induce rejection or condemnation (as of a person or project) without objective consideration of the facts.
Are you suggesting it's not an objective fact that Officer Wilson killed Michael Brown? That I said Officer Wilson is a killer without consideration of that fact?
Of course you're not...
The most basic definition of "killer" is a person who kills, and no one is disputing that Officer Wilson killed Michael Brown.
...you're just moaning about my choice of words (going so far as to haul out a thesaurus) even after admitting my usage is correct by definition and applies to what Officer Wilson did.
But it's not that simple, IMO.
Of course it is. What do you call a man who kills someone, Erock? Is there a more neutral term than killer? (Murderer? Assassin? Executioner?) Or are you suggesting that I should avoid using any word that makes reference to it at all?
True enough, the link explains that inflammatory language is used with the intent to stir up emotions, and maybe that was not the intent.
I've explained repeatedly that it wasn't. And frankly Erock, I don't buy the idea that you or Gregg became strongly emotional because I wrote "killer", any more than I believe you think I actually set out to incite you to anger.
But I also don't care, even if you were offended. There has never been a promise or policy on TA where everyone must be kept free from taking offense.
But with synonyms like assassin, butcher, executioner, and exterminator, "killer" stirs up emotions, intended or not.
You do not get to substitute a list of different words for the word I actually used and then cry foul.
As for the emotional aspect, Brown's killing (not the fact that I'm discussing it here) is inherently emotionally charged, whether it was legal or not. If you're too sensitive to discuss it, don't.
It's not in GM's DNA. And, yes, I actually HAVE granted that someone has a point. Not often, but sometimes, when they have actually proved their point.