You're right. I should have said RIOT instead of PROTEST. I simply said that you can't prove group behavior before it happens but you can predict it. Acknowledging that it doesn't exist is no reason to back off the assertion; it's a reason to withdraw the demand! I didn't single out a race. I said "group of people." I imagine there will be people of many races throwing **** on the fan. Here's a piece about calls to violence in the aftermath of a particular decision in the Trayvon Martin verdict" http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...devoted-to-trayvon-martin-calls-for-violence/
It says ".... if rioting occurs." The called a meeting specifically to plan for a possible outcome of a specific. There is never any evidence that any kind of group behavior is definitley going to happen.
Giddy, you did in fact mention race. In the initial post I responded to, you said it was about one race wanting This is what you said.
And yet, apparently you knew that riots were going to happen in the OJ case: They were ready to riot in LA if the obviously guilty OJ got convicted and they are ready to riot of the ambigously not-guilty GZ does not get convicted.
OJ has a race. Trayvon has a race. They are the same. They would be the inspiration for the riots-- one "obviously" guilty and one "obviously" not-guilty regardless of the "facts." The group that riots will be varied. Some will be organized. Some will be spontaneous.
I think when the preidency spends time preparing for RIOTS, it is time to pay attention. They don't like to waste their valuable time on things insignificant. I really don't get your arguing with. President Clinton's administration spent time preparing and you want to argue that or do you want to argue that it never happened?
Assuming that in a trial when one of the people involved is black means that there will be riots is a form of stereotyping not based on accurate evidence. Yes there were riots before, but it hasn't been the norm at any time. Being prepared for the worst in a case doesn't mean that outcome will definitely happen. You made the claim that there would have been riots had OJ been found guilty.
But assuming and stating that there will be riots based on the race isn't accurate of the history in this nation. Yet that's what you did and you based on the race. You did not claim that if GZ is found guilty a different race will riot.
Who said it has to be the norm? It's these high profile cases that explode. The federal government was preparing for those riots; what else is there to debate? Are they racist?
Are any of us doubting that both the OJ Case and the Trayvon Martin Case were infused with racial issues. One of those is the perpetrator and one is the victim for Pete's sake.
If you're going to claim that there would have been riots had OJ been found guilty and you know that it isn't the norm, then something is off. The federal govt. preparing for something isn't the same as saying it is going to happen. To look at the norm and assume that is what will happen is reasonable. To look at outlying examples that are the exception and still say that is what will happen is unreasonable and may need to be examined. For the govt. to prepare for something that is an outlier but in no way stating that it will be a definite outcome isn't the same at all as what you did. You stated that there would have been riots had OJ been found guilty. You didn't suggest it was only a possibility. You said there would be riots if GZ is found not guilty, not that it's a possibility. The qualifier you mentioned when initiating the talk was race. You are aware that the U.S. govt. has plans of what to do if China attacks, if there is a rogue missle from Russia that is launched, if N. Korea invades S. Korea etc? That doesn't mean they are saying China will attack us or any of those other scenarios are going to happen. It's their job to be prepared.
So the OJ trial is on par with China attacking and rogue missiles? Point made, thank you! What I said is that people were "ready to riot." I have no doubt that some would have erupted. Apparently you think nothing would have happened. Let's ask Reginald Denny about that. Earlier in this 300+ page thread I seem to recall there were some news reports about a) people fomenting racial tensions over this case and b) people appealing for calm. I choose not to spend a couple of hours looking for them. If you choose to believe that nothing would happen... sleep tight. I'll side with the Administration 20 years ago and the concerns for Sanford peach as this trial approaches.
Point you apparently missed. It's not that OJ trial is on par with China attacking. It's that govt. preparation for possible events is on par with govt. preparation for possible events. Oh look at that. They're actually the exact same thing. I'm asking you to clarify, because it seems like what you're saying is "that if there is ever a verdict that is unfavorable to most blacks, then you can count on the blacks to riot." I'd rather not accuse you of saying that, which is why I'm asking for clarification on what you are saying, but you're doing very little to wipe away that impression.
Frankly I have no idea what this means: "govt. preparation for possible events is on par with govt. preparation for possible events." All possible events are not equal. If you don't think the OJ case and the Trayvon case are "out of the norm" than you just need to wake up. Look at the magnitude of this very thread, man. What's the government plan for when they run out of strawberries at the Farmer's Market? That they don't plan for everything is the point. They prepared for the OJ verdict in the event he got CONVICTED even though he was "obviously" guilty. If the magnitude of the anticipated disruption is significant enough they get involved. The did that for the OJ trial. I wonder if they are doing that for Trayvon? Maybe it began with Obama's speech about ~having a son much like Trayvon...
If you really think that criminal trials and the way that law evolves in light of decisions in real cases does not matter, then I'm not sure I can help you.
