White teenager shot in back

[craz07]

wow its been about a year now...

[Guppy35]

The quote you put up from that headline alone proves that the original author is a clueless ****ing idiot, and his work holds absolutely no water.

The issue remains the same though Serenity.  A white guy with a AR-15 is a militia man.  A black guy with an AR-15 is a threat.  That's why I used that example with my two sons.  My neighbor is about as average American Joe as you can get.  Great guy, his son and my oldest were best friends and did ARs and AKs together.  He said that same thing.  With Andrew my oldest and his AK it was that it was just a kid with an interest in guns.  He knows my youngest and they love Matthew as much as they did Andrew.  He said it loud and clear.  Matthew could never get away with the same things Andrew and his buddy did with guns as the perception is totally different. 

[Serenity]

The issue remains the same though Serenity.  A white guy with a AR-15 is a militia man.  A black guy with an AR-15 is a threat.  That's why I used that example with my two sons.  My neighbor is about as average American Joe as you can get.  Great guy, his son and my oldest were best friends and did ARs and AKs together.  He said that same thing.  With Andrew my oldest and his AK it was that it was just a kid with an interest in guns.  He knows my youngest and they love Matthew as much as they did Andrew.  He said it loud and clear.  Matthew could never get away with the same things Andrew and his buddy did with guns as the perception is totally different.

While I certainly don't have the same life experience as you, that particular situation does NOT prove your point. In that individual situation, the black people with weapons HAVE used them to destroy peoples property, and hurt/kill people, whereas the white people with guns are attempting to discourage said destruction and violence.

[craz07]

its not a black or white issue its a wtf are you doin issue... guy was yelling burn the town down after the mike brown decision if i remember correctly, it's just wtf are you doing...?

[SysError]

The quote you put up from that headline alone proves that the original author is a clueless ****ing idiot, and his work holds absolutely no water.

Serenity: Normally when I see a response like yours, I usually chose not to reply.  No real point in it.  It does not matter if the response I see is articulate or incoherent; if there is just too much distance between our positions a result that ends in sour feeling is a fairly predictable outcome.  I hold a few exceptions; when I will plow ahead and dam the torpedoes.  I should state that your response does not fall within my exception list. 
   
So why am I replying to your response?

I am genuinely curious as to what you see in “…that headline alone proves that the original author is a clueless…”  What short coming, inconsistency, illogic or perhaps fabrication is it that you see in “that headline” that leads you to, as I see it, such a strong emotional response?

(And please do not let my causation suggestions dictate your line of reasoning).

And just so that you know, I have no interest in, and I am not willing to get into, a gun rights debate or such.  But if the roots of your opinion sprout from there, I would be interested in knowing that and then I guess we can just leave it at that.

 

[Serenity]

Serenity: Normally when I see a response like yours, I usually chose not to reply.  No real point in it.  It does not matter if the response I see is articulate or incoherent; if there is just too much distance between our positions a result that ends in sour feeling is a fairly predictable outcome.  I hold a few exceptions; when I will plow ahead and dam the torpedoes.  I should state that your response does not fall within my exception list. 
   
So why am I replying to your response?

I am genuinely curious as to what you see in “…that headline alone proves that the original author is a clueless…”  What short coming, inconsistency, illogic or perhaps fabrication is it that you see in “that headline” that leads you to, as I see it, such a strong emotional response?

(And please do not let my causation suggestions dictate your line of reasoning).

And just so that you know, I have no interest in, and I am not willing to get into, a gun rights debate or such.  But if the roots of your opinion sprout from there, I would be interested in knowing that and then I guess we can just leave it at that.

 

I don't mind answering. Those are NOT automatic weapons. There is NO WAY for them to be. If the author of an article cannot be bothered to do enough research to understand this, and is willing enough to use words like that just to incite a reaction, then it calls into question the integrity of everything else. Clearly, the use of the word "automatic weapons" was chosen, despite being factually wrong, to sway your opinion, so how should I believe any of his other "facts" are true?

[SysError]

I don't mind answering. Those are NOT automatic weapons. There is NO WAY for them to be. If the author of an article cannot be bothered to do enough research to understand this, and is willing enough to use words like that just to incite a reaction, then it calls into question the integrity of everything else. Clearly, the use of the word "automatic weapons" was chosen, despite being factually wrong, to sway your opinion, so how should I believe any of his other "facts" are true?

OK thanks. 

BTW this is interesting: I went just went back to reread the article and I saw this:

A group of young black men were incorrectly arrested on suspicion of firearm possession during a protest in Ferguson, Missouri, as a group of white militiamen, armed with rifles and wearing body armour and camouflage claimed they were granted permission to walk through the protests by police officers.

The original article said:

A group of young black men were incorrectly arrested on suspicion of firearm possession during a protest in Ferguson, Missouri, as a group of white militiamen, armed with automatic [emphasis added] rifles and wearing body armour and camouflage claimed they were granted permission to walk through the protests by police officers.

Interesting.  So they corrected their article.  As I said in my original post

(First reports are often modified after some of the dust settles).

So as a follow on question let me ask, if someone corrects an error they made do you still ascribe to them your original impression?

 

[Serenity]

OK thanks. 

BTW this is interesting: I went just went back to reread the article and I saw this:

The original article said:

Interesting.  So they corrected their article.  As I said in my original post

So as a follow on question let me ask, if someone corrects an error they made do you still ascribe to them your original impression?

It would depend on what I felt of their overall intent and integrity. In a situation like this, misidentifying an agency involved, sure, I can accept that, but the use of the word "automatic rifle" is something else. This is a term used VERY often by media outlets in order to make a situation seem more scary, and try to incite a reaction. It's not a simple mistake to use those words. It's intentionally deceitful. I would put it up there with an article claiming an unarmed black man being shot in the back by police recanting to say that he was actually carrying a knife and swinging a bat. It's not a small mistake. You KNOW what you wanted people's knee-jerk reaction to be, and you lied to get it.

(By "you", I don't mean you, SysError, I mean the author of the article")

[DREDIOCK]

Police in South Carolina have shot a white unarmed teen in the back during a pot bust.
I presume there will follow public outrage and rioting.

Or not

Just a suggestion

http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,240185.0.html

[Scherf]

Sorry, don't mean to stir the pot, legit question as a confirmed civilian with next to no knowledge of such things - beeb website describes the dudes in question as carrying assault rifles. Is that the correct term for, say, an AR-15?

[zack1234]

If i lived in the US i would have lots of guns not to protect myself from the North koreans but because i could.

And it would be nothing to with my constipated rights.

like it has been said if a dirty scum crimminal has a gun i would shoot him stone dead and then go make a cup tea and eat a biscuit.

Your all obssessed by colour in the US, but not particularly offened by fat people, they make my blood boil

I ex wife was fat and has a enormous effect on my viewpoint

[Triton28]

Sorry, don't mean to stir the pot, legit question as a confirmed civilian with next to no knowledge of such things - beeb website describes the dudes in question as carrying assault rifles. Is that the correct term for, say, an AR-15?

No.  The original use of the term meant a select fire (read: capable of fully automatic fire) rifle shooting an intermediate cartridge from a detachable magazine.  I've read it in other places, but even Wiki credits Nazi Germany propaganda, and maybe Hitler himself, with first using the term to describe a weapon.

Like Serenity said, the word is used by reporters today to scare the hell out of everyone.     

[Zimme83]

Semi automatic should be the used term. Automatic reload but can only fire one round at the time.

[Serenity]

No.  The original use of the term meant a select fire (read: capable of fully automatic fire) rifle shooting an intermediate cartridge from a detachable magazine.  I've read it in other places, but even Wiki credits Nazi Germany propaganda, and maybe Hitler himself, with first using the term to describe a weapon.

Like Serenity said, the word is used by reporters today to scare the hell out of everyone.   

Spot on. It's use shows a major lack of journalistic integrity.

[Triton28]

Semi automatic should be the used term. Automatic reload but can only fire one round at the time.

Can't.  Doesn't sound scary enough.  That term is really just a sideshow though.  The point of that article was to make the readers think that St. Louis is the old west, complete with dirty cops and vigilantes who just want to make the streets turn red with the blood of very peaceful and docile protesters.  Especially considering it's audience is largely outside the US, it's effective.