Rioting in St Louis

[Irish Insanity]

That black on black crime is relevant.

Funny how people only bring up black on black crime in a negative, non-constructive way when a white on black crime occurs.

Is there a type of black on black crime, or any crime, that isn't non-constructive or negative?

How many different people in this thread have pulled the "b-b-but I have black friends!" card so far?

I may have over looked it, but I haven't read it anywhere in this thread

My guess is as many times as you've labeled people as racist on here.

No, he's actually labeled people racist.

 

[IrishLax]

I mean it's not but go ahead.

Issues with Part 1:
-"America is hyper segregated by design"... is comical considering there have been laws on the books for decades and decades to mitigate or eliminate any implicit or explicit racism, sexism, etc. So BY DESIGN there is legally no segregation possible except by volition of person (i.e. choosing to live in the "gay" part of the city because you WANT to live there, etc.). No seller or renter can discriminate based on any of the protected classes (race/color/religion/sex/age/etc.). So even the most cursory understanding of laws in this country and the civil rights movement of the 60s would enable you to understand that anything that suggests that America is "designed" to be segregated doesn't pass the briefest sniff test.

-Time for some fun with basic algebra and statistics. First, the stats presented don't account for raw incidence rates. In the interest of brevity let's move past this for now and focus on what's actually in your image... but here's a simplistic illustration using hypothetical extremes to show why that matters. If you had a population of 100 blacks and 1000 whites... and the blacks committed 1000 crimes then 930 would be against a small population of 100 blacks, and if the whites only committed 100 crimes then 84 of them would be against a large population of 1000 whites. So the 100 person black population would have a whopping 9.3 "black-on-black" crimes per person committed against them... and the white population would have only 0.084 "white-on-white" crimes per person against them... so in other words, accepting those percentage values from your slide, you can rather easily conceive of a black population where virtually every person would feel the effect of "black on black" crime and most white people would live their lives completely unaffected. You could also completely flip the scenarios replacing every instance of "white" with "black" and get juxtaposed results. The point is that your numbers are completely worthless and make no point at all without other supporting data. Classic internet drivel for people that don't get math.

OK... and even with that being said... here's something else to understand about your numbers. Assuming completely equivalent incident rates, the difference between 93% and 84% is gigantic in context. It is assumed that your numbers mean that if a white person commits a violent crime, 84% of the time the victim is white... and if a black person commits a crime, 93% of the time the victim is black. This isn't explicitly clear, but it's implied the way it is phrased. That means in just raw odds black-on-black crime is 2.3 times as likely an occurrence as white-on-white crime when looking at the criminal and the target.

Then when you control for population, it gets even more disparate. If violent crime was race neutral, it would proportionally affect each chunk of the pie. Consider that the United States is 77.7% white and the 84% of white-on-white number... the rate only outpaces the expected "race neutral" number by 6.3% (raw) or 8.1% (relative proportional percentage). The United States, by contrast, is 13.2% black... so the 93% rate outpaces a race-neutral expected outcome by 79.8% (raw) or 604.5% (relative proportional percentage). That is... the ACTUAL rate of black-of-black crime (93%) is 604.5% higher than what you'd expect it to be if violent crime was race neutral... whereas the white-on-white crime level is relatively close to where you'd expect it to be.

This is basic middle school math.

-See: above.

 

[Rack Em]

Anything I post that might have any substance is just ignored by the people who are ignorant about this.

That's because everything "of substance" you've posted here has been from non-reputable sources like random tweets and websites. And you lost 99% of your little credibility when you continually tried to link Wilson to the KKK.

Also, no one is going to listen to you if you keep calling all the honkies with different viewpoints on here "ignorant." Ain't nobody got time for that.

 

[BobbyMac]

How many different people in this thread have pulled the "b-b-but I have black friends!" card so far?

B-b-b-ut my 3 black friends who are cops and a US Marshall said, "Punch a cop, get shot"

 

[Rack Em]

How many different people in this thread have pulled the "b-b-but I have black friends!" card so far?

B-b-but do you have white friends?!?!?!?

 

[pkt77242]

Legal Experts? Ok, let's do this:

Syracuse, NY -- Onondaga County District Attorney William Fitzpatrick - Fitzpatrick concluded that the evidence didn't support criminal charges against the officer.


Micheal Meyers - Executive DIrector of the New York Civil Rights Colation


David Figler, Defense Attorney, Las Vegas, NV



Best Article, linked here, basically debunks all the "experts" you've cited point by point:

From Paul Cassell, Professor of Law at the University of Utah

You're right, you don't have to believe some guy on NDNation.

It just turns out he's right.

He isn't right. The first two quotes have nothing to do with the topic. The legal experts are not saying that Officer Wilson should have been indicted. If you can not understand that, then that is your fault. They are arguing that the prosecutor did not cross examine Wilson on his inconsistencies (fact he didn't). That is true, you can't argue it. Also to your last quote, I laughed. Prosecutors normally do not present evidence that exonerates the accused. That is rare beyond belief, it wouldn't happen if you or I are being indicted. To argue that that is fair, when he got obviously biased treatment is laughable.

If you haven't read my posts, I have said that Officer Wilson probably isn't guilty but the Grand Jury process as conducted by the prosecutor wasn't fair (the actual jury did their part correctly within the evidence they were given).

 

[IrishLax]

I mean it's not but go ahead.

Issues with Part 3:
-The raw quantity of blacks in jail is IS NOT REFLECTIVE OF VIOLENT CRIME. Come on. This is absolutely common sense, which will be enumerated below. In fact, your image basically contradicts itself starting right now.
-Incarceration rates... also obviously irrelevant to a violent crime discussion for the same reasons... are you seriously not informed enough about mandatory minimums and drug sentencing guidelines that cause these statistics? Oh wait... you can't be... BECAUSE THE NEXT SECTION TALKS ABOUT THEM. These are non-violent or victimless crimes... explain how these raw statistics are remotely relevant to the discussion of "black-on-black crime" like the image purports to be about?

-The header to this section and the first point IS NOT WRONG AT ALL... but again, it's COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT TO VIOLENT CRIME!
-The second point is also relatively accurate and a truth about the unfair nature of drug laws... and also completely irrelevant to any discussion on "black-on-black violent crime". Common sense.

But hey... you grabbed this from somewhere on the internet... so it must be all true and logical.

 

[phgreek]

That black on black crime is relevant.

Funny how people only bring up black on black crime in a negative, non-constructive way when a white on black crime occurs.

it seems only relevant insomuch as the disparity in response. IMHO, Razing chunks of a community likely does not happen if this cop was black. You can say this is about police brutality...but the response had little to do with "cop" and way more to do with "white". Further the response of leaders in the black community only ramps up to this level when the shooter happens to be white. I'm not saying they aren't involved in trying to find solutions in Chicago etc....but I am saying THEIR disparate response sends a message...

So I think the constructive things I've heard that might make sense to fix the "cop" part could be looked at...like Law enforcement folks from outside to run investigations when there is a cop involved shooting, and body cameras.

In some way that might help to alleviate some distrust in the "cop" part.

As for the race component...IMO, Mike Brown was NOT innocent. Mike Brown was the aggressor. Counting Bullets fired once an officer decides his/her life is in danger is idiocy...if you are scared you fire til the threat ends. Mike Brown already proved to be a threat to others...thats why the police were on him...so no, I will NEVER support a cop NOT pursuing someone acting in an aggressive manner, PARTICULARLY one who was aggressive toward a cop..."let him go" is total bullshit, and affront to why we have cops in the first place...let him go so he can go rough up another shop owner, or intimidate another citizen...or worse? The fact that this case is the one that caused all the introspection and call for change is only going to prove confusing and polarizing because those "outraged" need to keep trying to find something about the Brown case to make them so, and those on the other side aren't going to distort facts to sing kumbaya...this is not going to help mend anything...until people stop basing their conversation on Brown.

All I hope for is people leave the specifics of the Brown case behind them, and find themselves motivated to talk and solve problems simply because it needs to happen.

 

[Irish#1]

Here is a comment from Lisa Bloom (MSNBC Legal Analyst and Yale Law grad.)

Ferguson Coverage: MSNBC | Hot 107.9

There has been a growing number of lawyers who thought that the prosecutor took it easy on Wilson and who believes that the prosecutor didn't do his job to his fullest abilities/didn't want an indictment.

Wooly I respectfully disagree, there has been a number of former federal prosecutors (including one who is a Stanford Law professor) as well as other legal experts who have done this before (grand juries) and say that what the prosecutor did was highly unusual and he cross examined other witnesses but not officer Wilson for his testimony though there were numerous holes in it. Do I think that Officer Wilson should have been indicted, I don't know, and I highly doubt he ever would have been convicted in a full trial but the truth is that the prosecutor had no interest in getting an indictment based off of his questioning of witnesses that disagreed with officer Wilson and his lack of questioning of Officer Wilson.

Sorry guys, I posted this before I read the post that states my point so much better.

I'll tell you why I believe he handled it this way as opposed to the normal route. He knew this was a volatile situation. A powder keg waiting to blow. He knew if he made the sole decision not to indict, there would be a huge outcry of injustice. By allowing the grand jury to make the decision he is showing that more people than just himself felt there wasn't sufficient evidence to indict.

 

[Irishman77]

this person shouldn't be on the site anymore

Sorry if you find that statement offensive. Watching humans destroy and burn a city to the ground is disgusting. The stepdad should be in prison for inciting a riot! And btw if a bunch of white people was burning a city down I would say the same damn thing!

 

[Irish#1]

"I'm right! look, here's data from 9 years ago."

nope, you're wrong. here's the data, look for yourself.

"I'm right! I don't have to look at the data, you have to look at the data"

ok, here's the data in a graph.

"I'm still right! I just need to change the question slightly, but I'm still right. I don't believe the actual data that you pointed me to. I don't believe the people who analyze that data. you have to find another way to prove I'm wrong."

ok, now that you've changed the question here's another page that focuses specifically on black on black crime: The Myth of the Black-on-Black Crime Epidemic | Demos

I know you won't give up, like that annoying 8 year old. it's difficult to be wrong. but here are some more tips: 1) change the question again so that you can be right. 2) don't actually look at the data that I've sent you in multiple forms - if you don't look, it doesn't really exist. 3) try to find at least a couple words in one of your sentences that is partially right and focus on those - or find one or two that could be misconstrued and focus on those. 4) just keep insisting you're right. in a war of attrition, you've got 9,500 posts and i've got work to do so you win that one.

I didn't even think you would go back to your original approach of assuming history stopped in 2005. this is innovative, even for you. well done.

beautiful. you went with #2, don't look at the data and it doesn't exist. if you read the post you would have found data that went through 2011. again though, your strength is in the war of attrition. I seriously have to work. your tantrum is awesome to watch though.

Let's assume you are right and that black on black crimes have decreased. Even if they have, they are disproportionately higher than white on white crime and white on black crime.

Here's the bottom line. Regardless of race or circumstance there is no validation or justification for someone to commit a crime. This never would have happened if Brown hadn't entered that store with stealing in mind.

 

[Irish#1]

He also terminated a cop a couple months ago for unnecessarily killing a citizen. He received a vote of no confidence from the officers on his force.

I like him too, and happen to have had some dialogue with him. He's smart, he's fair, and he cares about people being killed in his city. that came through in this clip which people seem to love.

what isn't discussed on the right wing sites playing this clip is that he has proven that if an officer behaves in an overly aggressive way and kill someone, the blame will not automatically be placed on the dead victim. if someone had mentioned Chief Flynn a month ago, before this interview and after his officers voted no confidence, a whole bunch of you would not have liked him very much.

I call BS!

 

[tankjeep]

That article, that entire site for that matter, is really off it's rocker. That's not journalism at all. Here is one part I take specific concern with:



I don't know why.... Maybe it was the same reason that made him steal from a convenient store and assault the owner. That isn't even something we don't know for sure, we know for a fact that it happened. So why would it be so "out of character" for him to talk back to an officer? Attack an officer when confronted? Maybe because he isn't just some sweet "18 year old kid preparing for college", but rather a criminal.

What is it about Michael Brown that people know that seemed so out of character? Because would those people also say that it was out of character for him to steal and assault from a convenient store?

amen, a voice of reason.

 

[Irish#1]

How many different people in this thread have pulled the "b-b-but I have black friends!" card so far?

Not me, but really, what's your point?

 

[Woneone]

He isn't right. The first two quotes have nothing to do with the topic. The legal experts are not saying that Officer Wilson should have been indicted. If you can not understand that, then that is your fault. They are arguing that the prosecutor did not cross examine Wilson on his inconsistencies (fact he didn't). That is true, you can't argue it. Also to your last quote, I laughed. Prosecutors normally do not present evidence that exonerates the accused. That is rare beyond belief, it wouldn't happen if you or I are being indicted. To argue that that is fair, when he got obviously biased treatment is laughable.

If you haven't read my posts, I have said that Officer Wilson probably isn't guilty but the Grand Jury process as conducted by the prosecutor wasn't fair (the actual jury did their part correctly within the evidence they were given).

What are you seriously not getting? Here is your exact quote:

I get the fact that Officer Wilson was never going to be found guilty of a crime

If you believe that, if that is true, then the point is it SHOULD NOT HAVE GONE TO A GRAND JURY IN THE FIRST PLACE. That was the whole point of the NDNation post that you laughed about. Did you not read it?

The fact that you're argument is he got biased treatment in the Grand Jury, when he got snowballed into a Grand Jury in the first place, is laughable. I'll go back to a quote from the NDNation poster:

The takeaway from the evidence is so obvious, it is not open to rational debate: the criminal case against Darren Wilson was non-prosecutable. No prosecutor--no matter how talented or persuasive--could possibly overcome Officer Wilson's presumption of innocence, beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt. Given the weight of the evidence, any prosecution of Officer Wilson would have been unethical.

So, what your basically arguing, from my understanding is this: You understand that there was not going to be an indictment and that no conviction was possible. Yet, you complain about an aspect of a process that should never have proceeded as being unfair?

You understand how silly that sounds, right?

 

[ulukinatme]

Thugs just started another cop car on fire. Disgusting behavior from these animals.

this person shouldn't be on the site anymore

Sorry if you find that statement offensive. Watching humans destroy and burn a city to the ground is disgusting. The stepdad should be in prison for inciting a riot! And btw if a bunch of white people was burning a city down I would say the same damn thing!

I have to agree with Irishman77 here, and I think it's a bit overkill to say he shouldn't be on the site anymore for his statement. What is so outrageous about his statement? That thugs started another cop car fire? Who else starts cop car fires, good and law abiding citizens? It is disgusting behavior, two wrongs don't make a right. Even if Brown was somehow innocent in all this, which the evidence doesn't seem to support based on testimony and the gun powder on him, it doesn't justify the protester's violence.

 

[IrishinSyria]

Issues with Part 1:
-"America is hyper segregated by design"... is comical considering there have been laws on the books for decades and decades to mitigate or eliminate any implicit or explicit racism, sexism, etc. So BY DESIGN there is legally no segregation possible except by volition of person (i.e. choosing to live in the "gay" part of the city because you WANT to live there, etc.). No seller or renter can discriminate based on any of the protected classes (race/color/religion/sex/age/etc.). So even the most cursory understanding of laws in this country and the civil rights movement of the 60s would enable you to understand that anything that suggests that America is "designed" to be segregated doesn't pass the briefest sniff test.

Counter-point: "by design" runs a little deeper than our laws. When you look at the phenomenon of "white-flight", look at how public transportation and highways are built, how we fund schools using property taxes, etc... racial segregation is not a coincidence but a feature of the system.

That being said, I'd agree that since the 60s federal laws have been trying to mitigate that, but their scope is very modest when compared to the problem of segregation in this country.

 

[tankjeep]

It's not racist to understand that mike brown dug his own grave. I'll jump on the protest for the black child who was shot with a toy gun this week. I'd jump on with the large black man choked to death in New York. This is just people being misled by media and false claims to violence and looting. The self-destruction of this community is now theater for the world and it is a shame. But using the racist claim is just BS

agree wholeheartedly.

 

[autry_denson]

Sorry if you find that statement offensive. Watching humans destroy and burn a city to the ground is disgusting. The stepdad should be in prison for inciting a riot! And btw if a bunch of white people was burning a city down I would say the same damn thing!

thank you for this. it's the language that was used, not the substance. thug has become a codeword, but the comparison of black people (and Japanese people, and Jews) to animals has a very long history in the US as a way to dehumanize a segment of the population in order to explain their behavior. it's an ugly history where violence against people is rationalized by referring to them as subhuman.

language is powerful, even on an online football site. if the statement was made without an awareness of that history or the connotations, I can understand it and would take back my call for a ban. I know I'm just one person here but I do think the post should be deleted or edited regardless.

 

[Irish#1]

Anything I post that might have any substance is just ignored by the people who are ignorant about this.

Not true my friend. I pointed out earlier that the majority of your rebuttals are simple sentences that contain no evidence, fact or theory to support your position. I asked you for a response on numerous posts I made and you've ignore most of them.

You want to keep blaming the system and I agree that the system has probably made life more difficult for blacks, but the bottom line is this. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Lifestyle is no excuse for committing a crime. No one is holding a gun to anyone's head and telling them they have to take the criminal route. Brown made that decision on his own and it unfortunately led to his demise.

 

[kmoose]

thank you for this. it's the language that was used, not the substance. thug has become a codeword, but the comparison of black people (and Japanese people, and Jews) to animals has a very long history in the US as a way to dehumanize a segment of the population in order to explain their behavior. it's an ugly history where violence against people is rationalized by referring to them as subhuman.

language is powerful, even on an online football site. if the statement was made without an awareness of that history or the connotations, I can understand it and would take back my call for a ban. I know I'm just one person here but I do think the post should be deleted or edited regardless.

You must have some big shoulders, to carry that giant chip around on?

If you're so concerned about inflammatory language that casts aspersions on people of color, go protest against rap music.

 

[tankjeep]

Releasing the verdict at night was asking for violence. Tell me otherwise.

they did that so people wouldn't be at stores or at work and be potentially injured or killed. makes sense to me.

 

[autry_denson]

You must have some big shoulders, to carry that giant chip around on?

If you're so concerned about inflammatory language that casts aspersions on people of color, go protest against rap music.

nah, i care about Notre Dame. i'd prefer when people come to an ND recruiting site that they don't see a post about "thugs" and "animals" in Ferguson, repeating the language that has been used to justify slavery, internment, white supremacy over the course of the nation's history. nothing personal about it.

 

[Irishman77]

nah, i care about Notre Dame. i'd prefer when people come to an ND recruiting site that they don't see a post about "thugs" and "animals" in Ferguson, repeating the language that has been used to justify slavery, internment, white supremacy over the course of the nation's history. nothing personal about it.

Any human being of any race burning a city to the ground is acting like an animal IMHO. I realize that people are sensitive given the situation and will refrain from using these terms going fwd...just know I was referring to human beings not black human beings. I see us all as one and I wish the violence would stop!

 

[Woneone]

You must have some big shoulders, to carry that giant chip around on?

If you're so concerned about inflammatory language that casts aspersions on people of color, go protest against rap music.

I can act like an animal ain't nothin to it, gangsta rap made me do it.
If I eat you like a cannibal ain't nothin to it, gangsta rap made me do it.

- Ice Cube

(Sorry, listening to Ice Cube now on my headphones and just thought the timing was perfect).

 

[Irish#1]

Ben Watson from the Saints posted this on his FB page and I found it to be very well said and powerful. Sorry if it's already been posted.

"At some point while I was playing or preparing to play Monday Night Football, the news broke about the Ferguson Decision. After trying to figure out how I felt, I decided to write it down. Here are my thoughts:

I'M ANGRY because the stories of injustice that have been passed down for generations seem to be continuing before our very eyes.

I'M FRUSTRATED, because pop culture, music and movies glorify these types of police citizen altercations and promote an invincible attitude that continues to get young men killed in real life, away from safety movie sets and music studios.

I'M FEARFUL because in the back of my mind I know that although I'm a law abiding citizen I could still be looked upon as a "threat" to those who don't know me. So I will continue to have to go the extra mile to earn the benefit of the doubt.

I'M EMBARRASSED because the looting, violent protests, and law breaking only confirm, and in the minds of many, validate, the stereotypes and thus the inferior treatment.

I'M SAD, because another young life was lost from his family, the racial divide has widened, a community is in shambles, accusations, insensitivity hurt and hatred are boiling over, and we may never know the truth about what happened that day.

I'M SYMPATHETIC, because I wasn't there so I don't know exactly what happened. Maybe Darren Wilson acted within his rights and duty as an officer of the law and killed Michael Brown in self defense like any of us would in the circumstance. Now he has to fear the backlash against himself and his loved ones when he was only doing his job. What a horrible thing to endure. OR maybe he provoked Michael and ignited the series of events that led to him eventually murdering the young man to prove a point.

I'M OFFENDED, because of the insulting comments I've seen that are not only insensitive but dismissive to the painful experiences of others.

I'M CONFUSED, because I don't know why it's so hard to obey a policeman. You will not win!!! And I don't know why some policeman abuse their power. Power is a responsibility, not a weapon to brandish and lord over the populace.

I'M INTROSPECTIVE, because sometimes I want to take "our" side without looking at the facts in situations like these. Sometimes I feel like it's us against them. Sometimes I'm just as prejudiced as people I point fingers at. And that's not right. How can I look at white skin and make assumptions but not want assumptions made about me? That's not right.

I'M HOPELESS, because I've lived long enough to expect things like this to continue to happen. I'm not surprised and at some point my little children are going to inherit the weight of being a minority and all that it entails.

I'M HOPEFUL, because I know that while we still have race issues in America, we enjoy a much different normal than those of our parents and grandparents. I see it in my personal relationships with teammates, friends and mentors. And it's a beautiful thing.

I'M ENCOURAGED, because ultimately the problem is not a SKIN problem, it is a SIN problem. SIN is the reason we rebel against authority. SIN is the reason we abuse our authority. SIN is the reason we are racist, prejudiced and lie to cover for our own. SIN is the reason we riot, loot and burn. BUT I'M ENCOURAGED because God has provided a solution for sin through the his son Jesus and with it, a transformed heart and mind. One that's capable of looking past the outward and seeing what's truly important in every human being. The cure for the Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin, Tamir Rice and Eric Garner tragedies is not education or exposure. It's the Gospel. So, finally, I'M ENCOURAGED because the Gospel gives mankind hope."

NJNP..........I'd still like to hear your thoughts on this.

 

[IrishLax]

Counter-point: "by design" runs a little deeper than our laws. When you look at the phenomenon of "white-flight", look at how public transportation and highways are built, how we fund schools using property taxes, etc... racial segregation is not a coincidence but a feature of the system.

That being said, I'd agree that since the 60s federal laws have been trying to mitigate that, but their scope is very modest when compared to the problem of segregation in this country.

Well I guess then it boils down to your definition of "design"... but I do appreciate your counter-point, which is well made and accurate.

In my opinion, what your describing is a product of volition and affluence, not necessarily "designed segregation." I grew up in suburbs my entire life and moved around a bit within the DC area... the first area was predominantly Jewish in Maryland, then we moved and the middle school I attended was about an even split 40/40 black/white, and then the high school I attended was majority Asian... the other one I could've attended was about 40% Latino/Hispanic. Cost of living in each area was relatively comparable, and they were all DC suburbs. People tend to group with "like" people out of volition even if there are no barriers to where they want to live. You'll see demographic clumps but I don't think you can make a case that it's "designed" segregation that way, and I think it's more an organic product of freedom and volition. When I review multi-family dwellings in DC now for my job, I find that the people with the least options (i.e. rent controlled or otherwise assisted occupancy) tend to be the most integrated and diverse... and that's people placed by the "system."

 

[BobbyMac]

Counter-point: "by design" runs a little deeper than our laws. When you look at the phenomenon of "white-flight", look at how public transportation and highways are built, how we fund schools using property taxes, etc... racial segregation is not a coincidence but a feature of the system.

That being said, I'd agree that since the 60s federal laws have been trying to mitigate that, but their scope is very modest when compared to the problem of segregation in this country.

Today, economic segregation is much more prevalent than racial segregation. If a black doctor moves into my neighborhood, none of the uptight and white set give it a second thought. That didn't happen in the 60's and 70's. I lived through that time in America's #1 white flight case study.

.

 

[ulukinatme]

they did that so people wouldn't be at stores or at work and be potentially injured or killed. makes sense to me.

Yeah, I initially questioned the decision as well, but it makes sense from a standpoint when it comes to bodily harm to others. You don't want to put kids in harm's way here...but then again, a children's hospital was on their list of possible riot targets to hit at one point:

#Ferguson Protest Group Releases List of Targets, Including: Anheuser Busch, Boeing, Emerson Electric, Airport | The Gateway Pundit

 

[Irish#1]

nah, i care about Notre Dame. i'd prefer when people come to an ND recruiting site that they don't see a post about "thugs" and "animals" in Ferguson, repeating the language that has been used to justify slavery, internment, white supremacy over the course of the nation's history. nothing personal about it.

What's funny is you and others automatically think we associate thug with being black. Not even close. Color has no bearing on being a thug IMO. A 50 year old member of the Mafia is just as much a thug as Billy Bob who steals and commits crimes to support his meth habit. Animals? Same thing. Those KKK members who kill or burn down a church are animals.

Yet as I write this, I realize that you and others are guilty of the same thing you accuse others of. Your narrow minded and racist if you think that thug and animal only mean black. But I guess you can't understand that since you don't live my life.