Seriously Gorman, it's been announced for weeks by the police that a large portion of rioters arrested have come from outside the community. A generalization, and a false one at that, about a predominately black community can almost certainly be construed as racist.


Maybe you'll also like to remember that Zimmerman went on to threaten his girlfriend and her father with a gun and kicked her out of her own house, and only escaped charges because the girlfriend, for whatever reason, declined to press charges after reporting the event? Or that Zimmerman, on his own account, committed textbook vigilantism when he approached Martin, which is illegal, and only escaped a murder charge because of the technicalities of a stand your ground law? Or that Zimmerman wasn't a cop, he was a neighborhood watch member, a civilian organization that has no jurisdiction with enforcing the law?

So if we want to get into an old case of a man who escaped prison on a technicality, I can bring up all the things that Zimmerman did in his own account of the event that are illegal and would have voided his claim of self-defense in a non-stand your ground law state. Or we can pass over it and ignore that you're uninformed on the very case you tried to use to justify your opinion.


It's a pity the police resorted to a character assassination, but it's a bigger pity that it's taken a hold. It is not important as to the criminality of the victim. A person killed by an officer merits investigation, to make sure that the cop acted within reasonable limits.

An autopsy saying Brown was shot from the front does not mean Brown was charging the cop, it does not mean Brown turned to the cop and surrendered, it means Brown was shot from the front.

The majority of this case has been dominated by he said she said statements, and the majority of arguments made are resorting to these statements as proof. We don't know who is lying about what happened, and it's fallacious to make judgement on a statement solely on the character who gives it. Until more information is available, assumptions on guilt and innocence are for the most part base-less and opinionated.

You act like you disagreed with me but what you said does not go against what I said.

Just because a portion of the rioters are outsiders doesn't mean that a portion of the community aren't rioters. That's non sequitur logic.

An observation that many are indulging in mindless violent behaviour definitely lends credence to the speculation that a person perhaps was doing something mindless and violent.

Is the entire community rioting? No. Is the majority of the community rioting? No. Is it logical to make a generalization about a population based on the actions of a minority? No.

No matter how you approach it Gorman, you're making a sweeping generalization on a majority black community.

I didn't say either of those things though.

Is at least 1 person in the community rioting? If yes, then isn't that an example supporting my suggestion?

Simple reasons Gorman why your logic is flawed.

First, you're attributing riots that occurred in response to the shooting as rationale to justify calling Brown a violent individual because "the community is violent". This point is just a reiteration of your opinion, so I'll expand upon it in my second point. Second, you are calling the community violent when it is a minority of the community that is committing the violence. This would be like calling all Catholic priests pedophiles because a minority of them have been convicted of sexually abusing minors. It's fallacious logic, typically called overgeneralization, and I know you know it is. You've called people out on it before.

Third, your own justification of "if some members of the community are violent, then Brown could have been violent" also works for a counter statement of "if some members of the community are not violent, then Brown could have been not violent". The entirety of the community did not riot, the entirety of the community did not resort to violence, so under your justification there's as much reason to suppose that Brown was not a violent individual. Without further justification, your logic doesn't hold up when administered across the spectrum.

No, I'm using the violent actions of the community as an example to show BP that people that do violent things exist.


Inconsequential, if some fruit are apples, then if we are given a random fruit it is possible that it is an apple.


Indeed it does, but again, inconsequential. I was providing an example to BP to show that people can be violent. Using an example so close to the context was merely for convenience and effect.

BP said "There is no reason in the world for him to sprint at a police officer pointing a gun his way." so I was just providing an example of a reason.

Lol you're really stretching to bait a response but okay explain to me how "being violent" logically concludes in "I'm going to play tag with bullets"

I'm not the smartest guy in the world, BP, but I'd say violent people might charge cops?

Wouldn't be the first time!

I like how boredpayne thinks Brown couldn't have charged the cops because he would have no reason to. We are talking about a police officer (who is supposedly not insane) shooting an unarmed man. You readily accept that Brown was not charging and that the police officer shot because he was a racist while denying that Brown, someone who could very likely have been on drugs or just violent/illogical, might have tried to attack a police officer attempting an arrest.

Even if the police officer is a racist he probably would not have chosen to risk being arrested and facing jail or the death sentence just to satisfy his fascist urges. I am not assuming that Brown was violent or high. Neither am I assuming that he charged the policeman. I just think a policeman is probably not going to shoot someone unprovoked. I also think Brown charging at the officer is unlikely if unprovoked, but charging at a policemen is not unthinkable for someone being arrested. I basically have no idea what happened. Whether the policeman was a racist is actually completely irrelevant since his crime would be the same. I am just looking at motives.

I am also wondering if the policeman could have said anything other than "Freeze" since this could explain some sort of reaction from Brown which could explain the terrible reaction from the policemen.

I do not think any of what happened is acceptable. The police's reaction to rioting was terrible both in terms of effectiveness and morally. The actions of the rioters were also unacceptable. You had people from other states traveling to Ferguson just to make trouble. Many visitors harassed the police from within groups of peacefull protesters trying to make problems while the peacefull protesters had to turn the troublemakers in to the police so they were not at risk of police retaliation. This whole story just makes me so angry about our inability to sort things out logically.

Thank you for reading, sorry if this isn't structured too well.