Scrub Jay Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 Wow. https://twitter.com/ShimonPro/status/537069497484455936 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SemiSweet Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 I have no words. :( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrsMommy Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 I have no words. :( I have none, either. At least none that are suitable for a public forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
umsami Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 I really find it difficult to believe that there was not enough evidence for an indictment...but I wasn't on the grand jury. Probable cause. Even the police say that all Michael Brown and his friend were doing is blocking traffic. That gets you killed? Really? To me, it seems like there was enough evidence for 9/12 people to want to indict for something when an unarmed man is killed. For those who think that racism is not alive and well in America, just look at some of the comments on the news story sites. It is really sickening. How the heck can somebody say to the officer, thank you for your service, when you killed an unarmed man? I don't get it. Where's the remorse for the lost life...even if you believe that perhaps the officer acted in good faith or whatever. Where's your remorse for the grief a community feels? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scrub Jay Posted November 25, 2014 Author Share Posted November 25, 2014 I just do not understand why people would be happy that this officer doesn't get his day in court. That's all this was about, it wasn't about declaring him guilty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renee in NC Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 I'll say it - I'm personally satisfied that they went over the evidence, testimonies, and circumstances regarding the case, and believed he was acting in a suitable manner for his profession and responsibility at the time. This wasn't cut and dry, flagrant overstepping of his duties as an officer, from all my little layperson assessment can tell. I'm proud of the jury for not bowing to immense public pressure, because this was surely a more difficult decision vis a vis the current public sentiment than an indictment would have been. (scurrying away under flameproof anorak) I agree with you. At the same time, this isn't a "win" for anyone, as Michael Brown was still killed, and Officer Wilson's life was forever changed as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 I really find it difficult to believe that there was not enough evidence for an indictment...but I wasn't on the grand jury. To me, it seems like there was enough evidence for 9/12 people to want to indict for something when an unarmed man is killed. For those who think that racism is not alive and well in America, just look at some of the comments on the news story sites. It is really sickening. How the heck can somebody say to the officer, thank you for your service, when you killed an unarmed man? I don't get it. Where's the remorse for the lost life...even if you believe that perhaps the officer acted in good faith or whatever. Where's your remorse for the grief a community feels? I agree. Some people have no sense of compassion for people whose lives they have no clue about. It's a sad indictment of our society. I wonder if the family will bring a civil suit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renee in NC Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 I just do not understand why people would be happy that this officer doesn't get his day in court. That's all this was about, it wasn't about declaring him guilty. He did, in effect, get his day in court. The evidence was presented, and the grand jury made its decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QueenCat Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 I have no words. :( Me either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scrub Jay Posted November 25, 2014 Author Share Posted November 25, 2014 Someone on my Twitter feed just retweeted this: "Mike Vick's dogs got more justice." Yup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
umsami Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 He did, in effect, get his day in court. The evidence was presented, and the grand jury made its decision. It was not a trial. You get that, right? They were just supposed to decide if there was probable cause to indict....for anything...for the fact that an unarmed man was shot for blocking traffic. It wasn't a normal trial in that there was a jury chosen. This was a 9 white/3 black sitting Grand Jury that sits for a set period of time. They were not examined by prosecution to see what prejudices they might already hold. The Officer did not get a trial and was not declared innocent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoPlaceLikeHome Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 I have none, either. At least none that are suitable for a public forum. Why? I despise racism and was raised not to be prejudiced. However, I do not find it hard to believe that this officer was attacked by this man. From what I read even multiple eyewitness testimonies were conflicting and the evidence was pointing to the police officer's side. The a jury of 12 citizens had to examine the evidence to see if any charges had to be brought. They only needed 9 votes to convict him so it even did not have to be unanimous. So I think justice was served here. I do agree that sometimes we have have bad cops, but I would like to think most cops are not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Peregrine Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 Gotta love all the pics of the Officer smiling. From a city council meeting in February. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renee in NC Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 It was not a trial. You get that, right? They were just supposed to decide if there was probable cause to indict....for anything...for the fact that an unarmed man was shot for blocking traffic. It wasn't a normal trial in that there was a jury chosen. This was a 9 white/3 black sitting Grand Jury that sits for a set period of time. They were not examined by prosecution to see what prejudices they might already hold. The Officer did not get a trial and was not declared innocent. I do get that. No one is declared "innocent" at trial - you are either guilty or not guilty (which does not mean innocent.) I don't claim to know much of anything about what happened, and I don't have an emotional stake in it. I'm sorry for Michael Brown's family, I'm sorry for the community, and I am sorry for Officer Wilson, too. As I said above, no one wins in this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scrub Jay Posted November 25, 2014 Author Share Posted November 25, 2014 Michael Brown's family response shows so much class. https://twitter.com/MoveOn/status/537071563640954880 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoPlaceLikeHome Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 I agree. Some people have no sense of compassion for people whose lives they have no clue about. It's a sad indictment of our society. I wonder if the family will bring a civil suit. Maybe I am confused but I thought I read that there was evidence of a struggle in the car for the gun and that there were several eyewitnesses collaborating the policeman's version of events. There was also evidence that the officer was attacked from my understanding. I get it that racism still exists and I am appalled by that but I would also like to believe that much less prevalent today than in the past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 Gotta love all the pics of the Officer smiling. From a city council meeting in February. So he is never allowed to smile ever again? We know too much and not enough about this case. Our media is insane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
umsami Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 Maybe I am confused but I thought I read that there was evidence of a struggle in the car for the gun and that there were several eyewitnesses collaborating the policeman's version of events. There was also evidence that the officer was attacked from my understanding. I get it that racism still exists and I am appalled by that but I would also like to believe that much less prevalent today than in the past. But there are other witnesses who dispute this and say he was running away and still others who say that he had his hands up when he was shot. That's the problem. Conflicting witnesses....needed a real trial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donna A. Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 It was not a trial. You get that, right? They were just supposed to decide if there was probable cause to indict....for anything...for the fact that an unarmed man was shot for blocking traffic. It wasn't a normal trial in that there was a jury chosen. This was a 9 white/3 black sitting Grand Jury that sits for a set period of time. They were not examined by prosecution to see what prejudices they might already hold. The Officer did not get a trial and was not declared innocent. Are you implying that the Grand Jury was prejudiced just because the majority of them were white? What makes you think the members of the Grand Jury weren't examined for prejudices? They were chosen long before this event even occurred. They would've still been interviewed/examined, regardless. Because if you're implying racism among the Grand Jury and not even willing to assume that they wrestled with this decision night and day, lost sleep over it, agonized over having to say that there was no crime BASED ON THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE.... Well, that sort of accusation (racism) is the very thing that made this event such a media circus in the first place. Did y'all not hear the LONG list of evidences (scientific) and so-called "witness" reports (many of which even contradicted themselves) that were presented to the Grand Jury? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrsMommy Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 Why? I despise racism and was raised not to be prejudiced. However, I do not find it hard to believe that this officer was attacked by this man. From what I read even multiple eyewitness testimonies were conflicting and the evidence was pointing to the police officer's side. The a jury of 12 citizens had to examine the evidence to see if any charges had to be brought. They only needed 9 votes to convict him so it even did not have to be unanimous. So I think justice was served here. I do agree that sometimes we have have bad cops, but I would like to think most cops are not. You know what? I'm far too upset by this whole thing to even respond. I hope you can respect that. This is my town, and my heart is breaking tonight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin M Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 nm...changed my mind about saying anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renee in NC Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 You know what? I'm far too upset by this whole thing to even respond. I hope you can respect that. This is my town, and my heart is breaking tonight. ((((Amanda)))) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
umsami Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 I just watched the full statement and they will be releasing all the documentation. The evidence and facts support the decision. How can you say that when they haven't released all the documentation yet? I find that baffling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 Maybe I am confused but I thought I read that there was evidence of a struggle in the car for the gun and that there were several eyewitnesses collaborating the policeman's version of events. There was also evidence that the officer was attacked from my understanding. Which version of events? What is the evidence that he was attacked? A lot of wrong information has been put out in the media. Even the POLICE version of events states that Brown was unarmed and *running away* when he was shot at least six times *from a distance*. Recently released video shows Wilson without serious injury to his face despite leaks to the media that his eye socket had been broken. I get it that racism still exists and I am appalled by that but I would also like to believe that much less prevalent today than in the past. I do think racism is probably less prevalent than it used to be. But, now people are too freaking stupid and/or uncaring to hide it or even recognize when they are being racist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happi duck Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 You know what? I'm far too upset by this whole thing to even respond. I hope you can respect that. This is my town, and my heart is breaking tonight. (Hugs) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NicksMama-Zack's Mama Too Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 70 hours of testimony, 3 independent autopsies, endless witnesses and for some people it boils down to there were more white people on the jury than black? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donna A. Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 But there are other witnesses who dispute this and say he was running away and still others who say that he had his hands up when he was shot. That's the problem. Conflicting witnesses....needed a real trial. The scientific evidence would clearly corroborate some of those testimonies, and refute others. Especially when many of those testimonies accusing the officer (defending Brown) conflicted their own testimonies. They couldn't keep their stories straight. I'm glad for forensic science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Peregrine Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 So he is never allowed to smile ever again? We know too much and not enough about this case. Our media is insane. My point was the media is purposely choosing to circulate a picture from almost a year ago, in uniform in what appears to be a courtroom type setting to stir the pot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slartibartfast Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 The scientific evidence would clearly corroborate some of those testimonies, and refute others. Especially when many of those testimonies accusing the officer (defending Brown) conflicted their own testimonies. They couldn't keep their stories straight. I'm glad for forensic science. That's odd, I thought a grand jury proceeding was not public. How did you have access? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BarbecueMom Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 I get it, and I don't. The problem is that once the gun went off in the car struggle, with the way Missouri law is written, the officer can reasonably be in fear for his life and use deadly force. Whether or not Michael Brown was armed was actually irrelevant at that point. I don't think officers are trained to switch back and forth between guns and Tasers. Along with race relations, perhaps the situations where lethal force is authorized need to be scrutinized. There's got to be a better way to both protect officers and keep these situations from escalating to someone's death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
umsami Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 Are you implying that the Grand Jury was prejudiced just because the majority of them were white? What makes you think the members of the Grand Jury weren't examined for prejudices? They were chosen long before this event even occurred. They would've still been interviewed/examined, regardless. Because if you're implying racism among the Grand Jury and not even willing to assume that they wrestled with this decision night and day, lost sleep over it, agonized over having to say that there was no crime BASED ON THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE.... Well, that sort of accusation (racism) is the very thing that made this event such a media circus in the first place. Did y'all not hear the LONG list of evidences (scientific) and so-called "witness" reports (many of which even contradicted themselves) that were presented to the Grand Jury? My guess is that, no, they were not examined for prejudice they would have been for a jury trial. Also, as Grand Juries sit for a long time, did you know that they tend to be made up of retired people who don't have to worry about missing work? Don't tell me that there is not more prejudice among older white Americans. I hope I'm wrong, though. (I have not found anywhere that lists their ages. Gender/race is all I find.) The racism accusations in part stem from the systemic racism in the Ferguson Police Department. There are strong racism issues regarding arrest in this country. Are you not aware that 1/3 of black men have done time in jail? Do you really think that 1/3 of them are all guilty? Do you think if Brown had been white and Wilson had been black that the jury would have indicted? Are you 100% sure that the results would be the same? I surely am not. I'm white, BTW. I would like to believe that the Grand Jury was fair and without bias. At this point, I cannot. I cannot see why there was not enough evidence, even conflicting evidence, that would warrant a real trial. Oh, and let's not forget that prosecutor's father, a policeman, was shot and killed by a black man in 1964. That couldn't possibly influence things or put any shadow of doubt on the proceedings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donna A. Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 I do think racism is probably less prevalent than it used to be. But, now people are too freaking stupid and/or uncaring to hide it or even recognize when they are being racist. Soooo..... Listening to, and repeating the announcement of the physical evidence is being racist? Did you not listen to the prosecuting attorney's statement? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunshine72 Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 I really find it difficult to believe that there was not enough evidence for an indictment...but I wasn't on the grand jury. Probable cause. Even the police say that all Michael Brown and his friend were doing is blocking traffic. That gets you killed? Really? To me, it seems like there was enough evidence for 9/12 people to want to indict for something when an unarmed man is killed. I find it difficult to believe that anyone believes that Michael Brown was shot for blocking traffic. I trust that the grand jury who heard all the evidence, saw all the autopsies and heard from all the witnesses made the best informed decision that they could. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farrar Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 70 hours of testimony, 3 independent autopsies, endless witnesses and for some people it boils down to there were more white people on the jury than black? Sadly, yes. Because statistically this makes a big difference in conviction rates in trials (yes, this wasn't a trial - only a grand jury). :( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 I get it, and I don't. The problem is that once the gun went off in the car struggle, with the way Missouri law is written, the officer can reasonably be in fear for his life and use deadly force. Whether or not Michael Brown was armed was actually irrelevant at that point. I don't think officers are trained to switch back and forth between guns and Tasers. Along with race relations, perhaps the situations where lethal force is authorized need to be scrutinized. There's got to be a better way to both protect officers and keep these situations from escalating to someone's death. Right. I think this is the problem. I think *many* states have a problem with allowing shooters (of all types) to get away too easily. We need to bring back duty to retreat clauses. I think the officer should feel in immediate danger in order to fatally shoot someone. He wasn't in immediate danger if the guy was running away and the officer was shooting at a distance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lisbeth Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 I think it speaks volumes that people in authority felt the need to massively beef up security, provide safe houses, etc. The president needs to get on tv to urge people not to get violent?...um, yeah. I'm glad the just decision, instead of the political one, was made here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 Soooo..... Listening to, and repeating the announcement of the physical evidence is being racist? Did you not listen to the prosecuting attorney's statement? I don't think I have EVER seen a bigger twisting of someone's words on this board, EVER. REALLY? THIS is your response to what I said? I think institutional racism is the reason Brown was shot in the first place. I think institutional racism is the reason that Wilson isn't going to be punished for shooting an unarmed man to death who was running away. I think racism is the reason that this situation exists, period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slartibartfast Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 It was not a trial. You get that, right? They were just supposed to decide if there was probable cause to indict....for anything...for the fact that an unarmed man was shot for blocking traffic. It wasn't a normal trial in that there was a jury chosen. This was a 9 white/3 black sitting Grand Jury that sits for a set period of time. They were not examined by prosecution to see what prejudices they might already hold. The Officer did not get a trial and was not declared innocent. A prosecutor can still choose to bring someone to trial even without a grand jury if they feel the evidence warrants it. They just need a judge to agree that the evidence is strong enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donna A. Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 My guess is that, no, they were not examined for prejudice they would have been for a jury trial. Also, as Grand Juries sit for a long time, did you know that they tend to be made up of retired people who don't have to worry about missing work? Don't tell me that there is not more prejudice among older white Americans. I hope I'm wrong, though. Wow, there are a LOT of assumptions being made in that paragraph. :huh: The racism accusations in part stem from the systemic racism in the Ferguson Police Department. There are strong racism issues regarding arrest in this country. Are you not aware that 1/3 of black men have done time in jail? Do you really think that 1/3 of them are all guilty? Do you think if Brown had been white and Wilson had been black that the jury would have indicted? Are you 100% sure that the results would be the same? I surely am not. I'm white, BTW. You don't suppose it's possible that 1/3 of those black men deserved time in jail? Do you also have a statistic on how many white men have done time in jail? Do you know how many black men don't have fathers that stick around to raise them... or fathers who train them up to be responsible men? (This is a problem among white men, too, btw, but it seems to be more prevalent among black.) If 1/3 of black men have done in time in jail, how is that the fault of a police officer in Po-Dunk U.S.A.? Do you just want a white police officer to be made an example for the problems among black men that you cited? What I think would've happened if Brown had been white and Wilson had been black was that the media and various activists would've never jumped on it in the first place. Did you not hear the prosecuting attorney basically blame social media for the situation getting so out of control? Did you even listen to news conference? I'm sincerely asking because some of your statements seem to indicate that you did not. :confused1: Have you not heard about the four black men who brutally murdered a white police officer in... some eastern state, I forget now which one. This just happened a week or two ago. But no, the media hasn't turned THAT one into a firestorm. :glare: I would like to believe that the Grand Jury was fair and without bias. At this point, I cannot. I cannot see why there was not enough evidence, even conflicting evidence, that would warrant a real trial. And you want me to believe that the Grand Jury was NOT fair and without bias, yes? :( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
umsami Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 A prosecutor can still choose to bring someone to trial even without a grand jury if they feel the evidence warrants it. Something tells me that this prosecutor, whose father was a policeman and was killed by a black man back in the 60s, will not. I hope I'm wrong, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farrar Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 I think it speaks volumes that people in authority felt the need to massively beef up security, provide safe houses, etc. The president needs to get on tv to urge people not to get violent?...um, yeah. I'm glad the just decision, instead of the political one, was made here Putting aside the whole question of whether this decision was just or political and whether or not the shooting was justified, the whole idea that it's right that they gear up and go out in force tonight is part of the culture that caused this in the first place. The culture that said, if you pull your gun, shoot to kill. Shoot as many times as you can. Don't come in a car when you can come in a tank. Don't use a small firearm when you can have cast off military weaponry meant for war zones. That's part of the culture that created this shooting. So someone should say to the police as well, I urge calm, don't resort to violence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slartibartfast Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 You don't suppose it's possible that 1/3 of those black men deserved time in jail? Do you also have a statistic on how many white men have done time in jail? Do you know how many black men don't have fathers that stick around to raise them... or fathers who train them up to be responsible men? (This is a problem among white men, too, btw, but it seems to be more prevalent among black.) If 1/3 of black men have done in time in jail, how is that the fault of a police officer in Po-Dunk U.S.A.? Do you just want a white police officer to be made an example for the problems among black men that you cited? No. http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-prison-industry-in-the-united-states-big-business-or-a-new-form-of-slavery/8289 https://www.aclu.org/prisoners-rights/private-prisons Some governors are making quite a bit of money from the private prison industry, And are you suggesting that Umsami would like to see a white police officer attacked? That's rather nasty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrsMommy Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 Something tells me that this prosecutor, whose father was a policeman and was killed by a black man back in the 60s, will not. I hope I'm wrong, though. You're not wrong. If he was a true professional, he would have recused himself. If the governor had had any stones, he would have removed McCulloch when he failed to recuse himself. Still, no words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farrar Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 I'm just deeply disappointed by this decision. I saw it coming, but I'm still deeply disappointed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrsMommy Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 I'm just deeply disappointed by this decision. I saw it coming, but I'm still deeply disappointed. This. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
umsami Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 Donna...a bit on racial prejudice and the elderly....http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-elderly-racism_wittsep24-story.html#page=1 ""We learn stereotyping at a young age when we can't really appreciate it's not the right thing to do," said William von Hippel, a psychologist who studies age-related declines in the area of the brain devoted to inhibiting unwanted or socially inappropriate thoughts. "Once we get older, we can decide that racial stereotypes are wrong and we can inhibit them with an effortful act. But older adults gradually lose that ability to inhibit." Von Hippel, a professor at the University of Queensland in Australia, has found that as the brain's frontal lobe begins to atrophy with age, elderly adults exhibit greater social inappropriateness and increased stereotyping and prejudice. And it happens despite their best intentions." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donna A. Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 (edited) I don't think I have EVER seen a bigger twisting of someone's words on this board, EVER. REALLY? THIS is your response to what I said? I think institutional racism is the reason Brown was shot in the first place. I think institutional racism is the reason that Wilson isn't going to be punished for shooting an unarmed man to death who was running away. I think racism is the reason that this situation exists, period. It's my response to ALL of the continued accusations of racism as the cause of this whole mess..... despite the evidence. Edited November 25, 2014 by Susan Wise Bauer This started the fight. I removed the accusatory statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donna A. Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 I hope that as a country we will learn from this. I would hope that the media would learn from this. :glare: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slartibartfast Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 Donna...a bit on racial prejudice and the elderly....http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-elderly-racism_wittsep24-story.html#page=1 ""We learn stereotyping at a young age when we can't really appreciate it's not the right thing to do," said William von Hippel, a psychologist who studies age-related declines in the area of the brain devoted to inhibiting unwanted or socially inappropriate thoughts. "Once we get older, we can decide that racial stereotypes are wrong and we can inhibit them with an effortful act. But older adults gradually lose that ability to inhibit." Von Hippel, a professor at the University of Queensland in Australia, has found that as the brain's frontal lobe begins to atrophy with age, elderly adults exhibit greater social inappropriateness and increased stereotyping and prejudice. And it happens despite their best intentions." That isn't even mentioning that people in that generation attended segregated schools and there were no equal opportunity laws when they joined the workforce. They were the ones that were either a part of the civil rights movement, fighting against it, or doing nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 (edited) It's my response to ALL of the continued accusations of racism as the cause of this whole mess. The fact that Wilson confronted Brown for crossing the street AT ALL is evidence of racism. Edited November 25, 2014 by Susan Wise Bauer Edited to de-escalate... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts