In Ferguson, 150 unarmed black people occupied a blocked off street.

[MohRokTah]

They were gassed, threatened with automatic weapons, and were actually shot at with rubber bullets.

Just sayin'.

[GGJohn]

1. So 2 wrongs make a right?

What kind of sick think is this crap?

[daleanime]

9. +1

[GummyBearz]

2. They should have done it in Oregon I guess

Everyone knew Ferguson cops had racists in their ranks at that time

[MohRokTah]

4. Nah, I figure law enforcement would ahve reacted the same way regardless of location.

Just like I figure if 150 armed white people took over a federal building in Ferguson, nothing would happen to them either.

[GummyBearz]

6. Just like nothing happened in Waco?

uhuh

[Chakab]

26. The Branch Davidians had a massive stock pile of weapons and engaged the ATF in a firefight when the

raid commenced.

What's your point?

[GummyBearz]

29. You just made my point

That it does happen, even to white people, when the situation calls for it. As far as I know at this time, the situation doesn't call for setting a building on fire and killing those inside.... maybe janet reno would disagree

[GGJohn]

11. Where are you getting this 150 armed white people?

According to reporters on the ground in OR, there are no more than 15 in that building, yet, to satisfy your unfathomable bloodlust, you want to escalate the situation to a shootout.
I just can't wrap my head around your desire for bloodshed.

[tblue37]

16. Apparently the protesters made the 150 claim. nt

[GGJohn]

17. From what I understand,

there were appox. 150 protesters and then a small cadre of them broke off and broke into and occupied that Fed. building.

I am so appalled at the calls for extreme violence by the Feds to dislodge these assholes.

[Igel]

18. Why would you even start to think that?

Different jurisdictions, different people making decisions, different set of conditions on which to base conditions.

It's like saying, "Well, this black person made this decision, so that's what all black people would have done." Sounds like an insane statement, thoroughly stereotyping. In this case, it's racial stereotyping, but if you look at the posts over this incident they're dripping with racial animus and bitterness, some all but calling for a massacre to balance out some other injustice and achieve some sort of communal justice.

But overall, there's a lot of stereotyping of law enforcement that goes on, typically in the same way racial stereotyping goes--pick the exemplars that most agree with how you want to portray the foe, and generalize those examples to the entire group.

Leaving out the racial aspect, at its core there's still that nice "false generalization" fallacy.

I'll also leave out the idea that law enforcement are people. There's a lot of "X feared the police, so his actions are understandable" but "Officer X feared that person, but that's no excuse." Dehumanizing the enemy is a common ploy, once often seen, say, in some of the more unsavory accounts of events given by racist cops. (Yes, I refuse to become what I despise, at least I refuse to do so easiily.)

[MohRokTah]

20. The situation is still black and white.

[cali]

3. So you believe that violence is the solution?

By your way of thinking the BLM protesters in Seattle, who took over the stage this summer from Sanders at an event about Social Security, should have been forcibly removed.

[MohRokTah]

7. Violence is the only answer with armed terrorists.

Non violence is the only answer with unarmed non-violent protesters.

In this country, the reverse is what happens.

[pintobean]

13. Arson and looting isn't violence?

[MohRokTah]

19. There was no arson or looting when those protesters occupied the blocked off street.

Different occurrences on different days.

[pintobean]

21. Lol

No, really, I laughed out loud. I startled my dog and one of our cats, and got a funny look from my wife.

[MohRokTah]

24. White privilege. Eom

[malaise]

22. Then you miss why they are protesting

They are against their friends being locked up for arson o Federal land.

[MohRokTah]

25. They were protesting earlier.

Then they decided to engage in armed terrorism because simply protesting weren't getting their arsonist buddies out of doing time.

[Logical]

15. Were they armed? Think real hard and get back to me. nt

[malaise]

23. The BLM protesters were not armed and they did not take over

a Federal building.

[Chakab]

27. If they had guns strapped to their body when they stepped up to the podium next to Senator Sanders,

they would most certainly have been removed if not killed on site.

I really don't know how anybody can argue the point that the threadstarter is trying to make.

[JonathanRackham]

5. Actually they rioted in multiple cities.

Restate was burned and police were assaulted. The ugliness just escalated.

[Vincardog]

28. The same " 150 unarmed black people "?

[LiberalArkie]

8. They just did not have any weapons. No AR-15's or anything. Therefore they were not a

peaceful protest.

[Scuba]

10. Source please.

[KeepItReal]

12. Does this ring a bell?

[IMG][/IMG]

[Logical]

14. And Hillary supports Rahm? Hmmmm, weird. nt