sent this as a pm, but it's so good i had to type it out. if you can't get it after this, then i'm leaving the theatre again and hiding in the bushes.
why on earth would someone make it easier for that to happen? those are all presumably bullshit reasons to be stopped. i'm not saying that its right, but i bet you didn't drive with a drop of booze in your system knowing that. edit to include parker's comments:that does shed some more light on the situation. i still feel that in this one team b should run the ball as that is what would happen in a real game. no sense in giving in and going down doing what obviously isn't going to work. great analogy though, helped me wrap my head around it more.
again, dude, the reason i was stopped was just a pretext. if i acknowledged that being pulled over for going too slow was bullshit, if i didn't ask for the officer's name, department and badge number and if i didn't present myself as capable of legally defending myself he was going to find something worth writing a ticket for. the question is not whether or not i was breaking which law, the question is why was i a target for police attention when i wasn't a danger to public safety? driving slowly didn't make me a target, but my vehicle, appearance and time did...those are assumptions the officer makes not based on my behavior or demeanor but on his prejudices and to be fair, experiences. i happened to be the case that disproved his assumptions, but he has enough control over the situation to subjectively apply other bullshit charges based on whether or not he thinks i can fight them (vs. him making them stick). those assumptions, repeated often enough and played out over and over again, cause this problem. again, you want to try to avoid the chicken/egg argument: do black communities commit more crimes (and justify police attention) or does police attention disproportionately focus on black communities and cause/find crimes? in situations where the police have little oversight (cop's word vs. citizens), the police can selectively apply charges (and charge them with everything under the sun to see what sticks), and there's little trust between the police and community then i am arguing it's the latter.
except that the serious crimes like shootings, arsons, burglaries, stabbings, and muggings are much more common in the shitty parts of town. you can't possibly argue that the cops are ignoring the shootings in white suburbs. the serious crimes bring more police attention, which leads to higher enforcement of lesser crimes, particularly the drug crimes.
so my good friends close, personal friend is actually the mayor of ferguson. apparently he's been receiving death threats because of all of this. its crappy to see innocent people suffer because of this upheaval.
well, now wait a minute. nobody deserves to be getting death threats. but, innocent people suffer? the mayor is top dog. leadership starts there, he (and council) appoint the city manager, who appoints the chief of police. again, i have no idea of what exactly happened in this incident, and what guilt lies with the officer. but, if the case is bringing up questions about a representative police force for the demographics, or whether or not there is persistent racism in the force, then it is definitely relevant for the mayor to be accountable. death threats? no. but, an innocent person? also no. if the local people that are angry about this shooting will stay convicted and organized long enough, they can actually make a difference in a peaceful way, as opposed to burning down convenience stores and what not. here's a way.
this seems like a good stopping point. what a fun thread! next week: your thoughts on abortion. coming soon: what do you think about obama? cya next week folks!