Pretty much this:
Quote
(a public who can't fully understand the circumstances)
The initial/early reactions and information (often misinformation and over reactions) that come from any and all emotionally charged tragedies over history should be enough to educate us on the pitfalls of spewing in relative ignorance. It is terrible these things occur, have occurred, and will continue to occur, but they are most often far more complex than we realize. Here are some things to consider at least:
My brother is in the Navy, we had a disicussion about this today before i logged on here. He said that anytime an attacker come within (he used an official term I don't remember) reach of an armed officer/armed forces officer, the the danger above all else is the opportunity the assailant has to disarm and use said weapon against the officer or the public. In that circumstance, at least in the Navy, they are trained to use lethal force as a means to self preservation, and to protect the public. I do not know the details of the Ferguson case, and therefore will not comment on whether or not it was necessary for the officer to shoot his assailant.
The 12 year old being killed is tragic, yet it really does not surprise me that this occurred in todays USA. We are "gun shy" to use a terrible pun, but given the recent history of mass shootings in schools, theaters, etc...my guess is that law enforcement officers have been trained differently than they were in the past, and the whole notion of "shoot first, ask questions later," comes to mind. I'm not saying the officer didn't do the right thing, I'm saying that there are reasons why they would be extremely on guard about avoiding another large scale tragedy. Apparently, in today's USA, it is no longer ok for kids to play their games with toy guns. It's a sad commentary on where we have arrived, and the questions will continue to be posed; what are we doing differently now, as a society, as parents, as kids, as a popular culture?
Quote
One of the problems of representation is that a lot of the juries (almost all?) are pulled from voter registration pools - and when the system disincentivizes the black vote by making it more difficult for them to register to vote or by putting felonies on people (revoking the right to vote), it's often not easy to balance the juries.
As a mere FYI: The selection, especially for a grand jury, is rather complex with more than a few checks and balances along the way. I myself have been placed in the large group that gets to watch the video..wait around, and then get wittled down to a smaller but still too large group. Then you get to sit in a courtroom and be asked questions by both defense and prosecuting attorneys, then they go deliberate. (by this time your whole day sacrificed.) Then you get narrowed further based on a fair bit of sorcery, and possibly some necromancy mixed in. What I am saying is this...The fact that it was 6 whites and 3 blacks when 67% of the population are black, well shame on the prosecution then if they felt that it mattered to have more black jurists. Or it could be that they felt that the 6 white jurists were not racist, nor had police offers as family members. I don't think it had anything to do with having only 3 black people to choose from in a group of 100 people called in to jury duty.