Post

Samukan wrote:

And yet by saying that it's definitely the protesters, you're assuming. Considering that a number of the targets are black-owned businesses (including Michael Brown's father's church), I would say that at least some of it is anti-protesters.[quote]
The majority of the population is black, so that makes sense. This whole scenario sounds more like a coincidence.

[quote=samukan;8762131]Does that really justify deploying 2,000 National Guard troops and tear gassing peaceful protesters? Keep in mind that none of these businesses were guarded; they're too focused on stopping the peaceful protests.

Sending the National Guard for events such as these are entirely reasonable. They deployed them in anticipation of violent protests, which in fact, did happen. And besides, they didn't even actually use the National Guard, they were just present. The tear gassing was done by police. Which would be an example of police brutality if it was done on non-violent protesters.

Too focused on stopping the peaceful protests? Where did you hear that?

Samukan wrote:

That's completely unrelated to what I said. I said that the goal of the media here is to highlight the violent rioters over the peaceful protesters to make the whole movement look bad.

That's the media for you. They make a big deal out of anything to get a story going. Take the Boston "Bombing" for example. This isn't new. Media outlets have their biases and agendas, and you should expect to see those agendas reflected with certain ones going after certain groups of people. It happens all of the time. And once again, it happens here. Look at Fox news. It primarily makes liberals look bad. Look at CNN. It primarily makes conservatives look bad.

This whole event is over-sensationalized for that matter. None of this is even news-worthy. A criminal assaults a police officer and attempts to disarm the officer, fight ensues, someone dies. That should honestly be the end of it news-wise.

Samukan wrote:

Yes, they can. But the Grand Jury had an opportunity to guarantee a trial, and they didn't take it. They should have, since it was possible -- not definite, maybe not even likely, but possible, given someone's death -- that Darren Wilson committed a crime.

Yeah, they had an opportunity, but they decided there wasn't enough evidence that would make Officer Wilson guilty. If it isn't even likely, then why should they have? Brown family can still file a lawsuit if they want, what does it matter what they should have done?

The only crime committed here was that of Mike Brown. Whether lethal force was necessary or not is questionable, but under the circumstances, I don't blame Wilson.