221
Post by: Frazzled
http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/10/doj-provided-security-for-anti-zimmerman-protests/
Docs: Justice Department facilitated anti-Zimmerman protests
12:59 PM 07/10/2013
A division of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) was deployed to Sanford, Florida in 2012 to provide assistance for anti-George Zimmerman protests, including a rally headlined by activist Al Sharpton, according to newly released documents.
The Community Relations Service (CRS), a unit of DOJ, reported expenses related to its deployment in Sanford to help manage protests between March and April 2012, according to documents obtained by the watchdog group Judicial Watch.
CRS spent $674.14 between March 25-27 related to having been “deployed to Sanford, FL, to work marches, demonstrations, and rallies related to the shooting and death of an African-American teen by a neighborhood watch captain.” CRS spent another $1,142.84 for the same purpose between March 25-28.
CRS spent $892.55 “to provide support for protest deployment in Florida” between March 30-April 1, and $751.60 “to provide technical assistance to the City of Sanford, event organizers, and law enforcement agencies for the march and rally on March 31.”
Sharpton, who promoted the Tawana Brawley hoax in the 1980s and in 1995 led a protest against the “white interloper” owner of a Harlem clothing store that ended in a deadly shooting rampage at the store, was a featured speaker at the March 31 rally, called “The March for Trayvon Martin,” where he advocated for Zimmerman’s prosecution.
CRS expenditures related to the anti-Zimmerman protests continued through mid-April. Between April 11 and April 12, CRS spent $552.35 “to provide technical assistance for the preparation of possible marches and rallies related to the fatal shooting of a 17 year old African American male.”
Local government officials noticed the Department of Justice’s efforts in building “bridges of understanding” in Sanford.
“Congratulations to our partners, Thomas Battles, Regional Director, and Mildred De Robles, Miami-Dade Coordinator and their co-workers at the U.S. Department of Justice Community Relations Service for their outstanding and ongoing efforts to reduce tensions and build bridges of understanding and respect in Sanford, Florida,” wrote Amy Carswell, Miami-Dade County Community Relations Board Program Officer, in an April 16 email.
“Thank you Partner. You did lots of stuff behind the scene to make Miami a success. We will continue to work together,” DOJ official Thomas Battles wrote in reply to Carswell.
“That’s why we make the big bucks,” Carswell replied.
CRS was established by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. According to the CRS web page, “The Community Relations Service is the Department’s ‘peacemaker’ for community conflicts and tensions arising from differences of race, color, and national origin. Created by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, CRS is the only Federal agency dedicated to assist State and local units of government, private and public organizations, and community groups with preventing and resolving racial and ethnic tensions, incidents, and civil disorders, and in restoring racial stability and harmony.”
A Department of Justice spokesperson said that she did not know off the top of her head what CRS’ role was in the anti-Zimmerman protests but is currently trying to figure out that answer. The Daily Caller will update this story upon receiving a statement from DOJ.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/10/doj-provided-security-for-anti-zimmerman-protests/#ixzz2YfTK0zlk
4402
Post by: CptJake
A Holder lead DOJ is political? Who woulda thunk it.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
I should be surprised by this, but given the amount of other scandals hitting this Administration I'm really not.
8922
Post by: ironicsilence
I remember the good ole days when our government had different branches for that checks and balances nonsense
34390
Post by: whembly
Are you sure they'd try to limit the anguish and violence in this case?
If I was a crass, cynical donkey-cave, I'd say this was nothing more an attempt to gin up racial outrage during the election season in order to motivate blacks to vote.
4402
Post by: CptJake
I wonder if the local and state LE agencies requested Federal help. If not, and there was no violence/threat of violence that the local and state LE could not handle, at best it was a waste of tax payer money.
Not everything is a Federal issue.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
 whembly wrote:
Are you sure they'd try to limit the anguish and violence in this case?
If I was a crass, cynical donkey-cave, I'd say this was nothing more an attempt to gin up racial outrage during the election season in order to motivate blacks to vote.
You're almost making it sound like the President made an ill advised statement about the case before the full facts were out....
221
Post by: Frazzled
If they lent support for protests thats the exact opposite. Nothing like a Justice Department that fans the flames of racism.
241
Post by: Ahtman
 Frazzled wrote:If they lent support for protests thats the exact opposite. Nothing like a Justice Department that fans the flames of racism.
I know your idea of controlling a protest is to have the police bring out the fire hoses and k9 units, but interacting with the protests and ensuring they don't get wonky is much less messy.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
But why are they providing security? That seems outside both their man power and their remit
http://www.mainjustice.com/2010/07/21/dojs-community-relations-service-expanding-its-mandate/
Even with their "expanding remit" they are supposed to "get into a room and get single or multilateral talks with parties who have opposition to one another, that they will develop some understanding". And they seem quite short staffed to provide security for these protests - "Today, a staff of 34 full-time employees man four field offices and 10 regional offices"
http://www.justice.gov/crs/
CRS is the only Federal agency dedicated to assist State and local units of government, private and public organizations, and community groups with preventing and resolving racial and ethnic tensions, incidents, and civil disorders, and in restoring racial stability and harmony.
CRS facilitates the development of viable, mutual understandings and agreements as alternatives to coercion, violence, or litigation. It also assists communities in developing local mechanisms, conducting training, and other proactive measures to prevent racial/ethnic tension and violent hate crimes committed on the basis of actual or perceived race, color, national origin, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, or disability. CRS does not take sides among disputing parties and, in promoting the principles and ideals of non-discrimination, applies skills that allow parties to come to their own agreement. In performing this mission, CRS deploys highly skilled professional conciliators, who are able to assist people of diverse backgrounds.
http://www.justice.gov/crs/mandate.htm
§ 2000g-1. Functions of Service
It shall be the function of the Service to provide assistance to communities and persons therein in resolving disputes, disagreements, or difficulties relating to discriminatory practices based on race, color, or national origin which impair the rights of persons in such communities under the Constitution or laws of the United States or which affect or may affect interstate commerce. The Service may offer its services in cases of such disputes, disagreements, or difficulties whenever, in its judgement, peaceful relations among the citizens of the community involved are threatened thereby, and it may offer its services either upon its own motion or upon the request of an appropriate State or local official or other interested person.
221
Post by: Frazzled
 Ahtman wrote: Frazzled wrote:If they lent support for protests thats the exact opposite. Nothing like a Justice Department that fans the flames of racism.
I know your idea of controlling a protest is to have the police bring out the claymores and terminator units, but interacting with the protests and ensuring they don't get wonky is much less messy.
Corrected your typo. 
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
Now by Terminator units are we talking those from the films, or Officers in Tactical Dreadnought Armour?
221
Post by: Frazzled
 Dreadclaw69 wrote:Now by Terminator units are we talking those from the films, or Officers in Tactical Dreadnought Armour?
yes.
33541
Post by: Rented Tritium
That's not a whole lot of money. It's annoying that federal staff came down to do it though. There's already a pretty good infrastructure set up to give the local departments a bit of grant money to pay for some overtime for things like this.
34390
Post by: whembly
 Rented Tritium wrote:That's not a whole lot of money. It's annoying that federal staff came down to do it though. There's already a pretty good infrastructure set up to give the local departments a bit of grant money to pay for some overtime for things like this.
But the real question is why the hell is the government doing an organization of a protest against the interests of individual citizens? I wondered that had the DoJ had not done this, would all this racial antagonism be muted?
Here's another good question from my twittah feed... How much will they spend if there are riots following acquittal (due to this case being a racial-politics witch hunt from the start)?
37231
Post by: d-usa
Rented Tritium wrote:That's not a whole lot of money. It's annoying that federal staff came down to do it though. There's already a pretty good infrastructure set up to give the local departments a bit of grant money to pay for some overtime for things like this.
Have you ever applied for a grant? It's not exactly a quick turnaround kind of deal... Automatically Appended Next Post: whembly wrote: Rented Tritium wrote:That's not a whole lot of money. It's annoying that federal staff came down to do it though. There's already a pretty good infrastructure set up to give the local departments a bit of grant money to pay for some overtime for things like this.
But the real question is why the hell is the government doing organizing a protest against the interests of individual citizens? I wondered that had the DoJ had not done this, would all this racial antagonism be muted?
Where did you get that they organized a protest against the interest of individual citizens?
34390
Post by: whembly
 d-usa wrote: Rented Tritium wrote:That's not a whole lot of money. It's annoying that federal staff came down to do it though. There's already a pretty good infrastructure set up to give the local departments a bit of grant money to pay for some overtime for things like this.
Have you ever applied for a grant? It's not exactly a quick turnaround kind of deal...
Really? It's been hit or miss... at least on the research side. 
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Rented Tritium wrote:That's not a whole lot of money. It's annoying that federal staff came down to do it though. There's already a pretty good infrastructure set up to give the local departments a bit of grant money to pay for some overtime for things like this.
But the real question is why the hell is the government doing organizing a protest against the interests of individual citizens? I wondered that had the DoJ had not done this, would all this racial antagonism be muted?
Where did you get that they organized a protest against the interest of individual citizens?
? wait wut?
37231
Post by: d-usa
They provided support to the city in manpower and equipment to help manage the protest.
They didn't provide support and manpower to the protesters.
It's a little difference there...
221
Post by: Frazzled
Not actually sure what the CRS did (if anything), but after NSAgate, IRSgate, and Gategate(ok I made that one up) I don't give government the benefit of the doubt. Automatically Appended Next Post: d-usa wrote: They provided support to the city in manpower and equipment to help manage the protest. They didn't provide support and manpower to the protesters. It's a little difference there...
How do you know that? If so, thats the State of Florida's job, not me having to pay for it. Its Florida's problem, not mine.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
Rented Tritium wrote:That's not a whole lot of money. It's annoying that federal staff came down to do it though. There's already a pretty good infrastructure set up to give the local departments a bit of grant money to pay for some overtime for things like this.
It may not be a whole lot of money compared to other Federal groups, but we're talking about an organisation with 34 full time staff that is supposed to be resolving conflict and tension through dialogue and mutual understanding. That is money and resources that have been reallocated away from it's remit, and which may run counter to it's stated mission.
37231
Post by: d-usa
Frazzled wrote:Not actually sure what the CRS did (if anything), but after NSAgate, IRSgate, and Gategate(ok I made that one up) I don't give government the benefit of the doubt.
Well, I just think that people thinking "they provided support for protestors" or "they organized protests" are getting it pretty wrong.
Now people making the argument of "The Federal Government should not be spending money supplementing local and state level law enforcement functions" have a much better point. I will agree with that.
221
Post by: Frazzled
d-usa wrote: Frazzled wrote:Not actually sure what the CRS did (if anything), but after NSAgate, IRSgate, and Gategate(ok I made that one up) I don't give government the benefit of the doubt.
Well, I just think that people thinking "they provided support for protestors" or "they organized protests" are getting it pretty wrong. Now people making the argument of "The Federal Government should not be spending money supplementing local and state level law enforcement functions" have a much better point. I will agree with that.
Again,my presumption is not of innocence as far as this Justice Department is concerned.
37231
Post by: d-usa
Frazzled wrote: d-usa wrote: Frazzled wrote:Not actually sure what the CRS did (if anything), but after NSAgate, IRSgate, and Gategate(ok I made that one up) I don't give government the benefit of the doubt.
Well, I just think that people thinking "they provided support for protestors" or "they organized protests" are getting it pretty wrong.
Now people making the argument of "The Federal Government should not be spending money supplementing local and state level law enforcement functions" have a much better point. I will agree with that.
Again,my presumption is not of innocence as far as this Justice Department is concerned.
And yet, your gut feeling is nothing but that, and there is no evidence of it actually happening. If you want to be "Wiener Dog Alex Jones" then more power to you though
25990
Post by: Chongara
Frazzled wrote: d-usa wrote: Frazzled wrote:Not actually sure what the CRS did (if anything), but after NSAgate, IRSgate, and Gategate(ok I made that one up) I don't give government the benefit of the doubt.
Well, I just think that people thinking "they provided support for protestors" or "they organized protests" are getting it pretty wrong.
Now people making the argument of "The Federal Government should not be spending money supplementing local and state level law enforcement functions" have a much better point. I will agree with that.
Again,my presumption is not of innocence as far as this Justice Department is concerned.
Is that confined to this case, or is that a general rule?
34390
Post by: whembly
d-usa wrote: They provided support to the city in manpower and equipment to help manage the protest. They didn't provide support and manpower to the protesters. It's a little difference there...
Eh... you don't thing this whole think is dubious at least? I mean, why make it about race? GZ isn't even white! And... I know this is a different topic, but my ex brother-in-law who I still stay in contact with... happens to be USDA all black (his words)...doesn't follow politics at all, just cannot gin up any outrage about this case. He said it perfectly... "until the public/media/politicians start talking about the black-on-black crimes, STFU about the TM/GZ case." Automatically Appended Next Post: Frazzled wrote:Not actually sure what the CRS did (if anything), but after NSAgate, IRSgate, and Gategate(ok I made that one up) I don't give government the benefit of the doubt.
BTW Fraz... I'm stealing "Gategate" from ya... 
221
Post by: Frazzled
Chongara wrote: Frazzled wrote: d-usa wrote: Frazzled wrote:Not actually sure what the CRS did (if anything), but after NSAgate, IRSgate, and Gategate(ok I made that one up) I don't give government the benefit of the doubt.
Well, I just think that people thinking "they provided support for protestors" or "they organized protests" are getting it pretty wrong. Now people making the argument of "The Federal Government should not be spending money supplementing local and state level law enforcement functions" have a much better point. I will agree with that.
Again,my presumption is not of innocence as far as this Justice Department is concerned.
Is that confined to this case, or is that a general rule?
General at this point. I haven't felt this way since I was a fire breathing commie and that buttface Georgian was trying to run all the meetings.
25990
Post by: Chongara
Frazzled wrote:Chongara wrote: Frazzled wrote: d-usa wrote: Frazzled wrote:Not actually sure what the CRS did (if anything), but after NSAgate, IRSgate, and Gategate(ok I made that one up) I don't give government the benefit of the doubt.
Well, I just think that people thinking "they provided support for protestors" or "they organized protests" are getting it pretty wrong.
Now people making the argument of "The Federal Government should not be spending money supplementing local and state level law enforcement functions" have a much better point. I will agree with that.
Again,my presumption is not of innocence as far as this Justice Department is concerned.
Is that confined to this case, or is that a general rule?
General at this point.
I heard a from a credible source that the everyone in the Justice Department enjoys kicking puppies, for no other reason than to see the betrayal in their big watery eyes.
37231
Post by: d-usa
whembly wrote: d-usa wrote: They provided support to the city in manpower and equipment to help manage the protest. They didn't provide support and manpower to the protesters. It's a little difference there...
Eh... you don't thing this whole think is dubious at least?
If you want to make this yet another instance of a topic that is all about "how things feel" instead of known facts, then just let me know and I will go ahead and bow out of the discussion.
33541
Post by: Rented Tritium
d-usa wrote: Rented Tritium wrote:That's not a whole lot of money. It's annoying that federal staff came down to do it though. There's already a pretty good infrastructure set up to give the local departments a bit of grant money to pay for some overtime for things like this.
Have you ever applied for a grant? It's not exactly a quick turnaround kind of deal...
I literally manage law enforcement grants, some of which are actually for this kind of detail.
34390
Post by: whembly
d-usa wrote: If you want to make this yet another instance of a topic that is all about "how things feel" instead of known facts, then just let me know and I will go ahead and bow out of the discussion.
[i] No... my point really was why was the CRS really involved in the first place. In other news... this doesn't bode well: http://www.naacp.org/pages/convention Man... seems odd to schedule this court case at around the same time as this convention. Automatically Appended Next Post: Rented Tritium wrote: d-usa wrote: Rented Tritium wrote:That's not a whole lot of money. It's annoying that federal staff came down to do it though. There's already a pretty good infrastructure set up to give the local departments a bit of grant money to pay for some overtime for things like this.
Have you ever applied for a grant? It's not exactly a quick turnaround kind of deal...
I literally manage law enforcement grants, some of which are actually for this kind of detail.
Well, question for you then... in your opinion, is this a legit use of the dept/fundings so close to TM's death, but so far away from actual court date?
33541
Post by: Rented Tritium
whembly wrote: d-usa wrote:
If you want to make this yet another instance of a topic that is all about "how things feel" instead of known facts, then just let me know and I will go ahead and bow out of the discussion.
[i]
No... my point really was why was the CRS really involved in the first place.
In other news... this doesn't bode well:
http://www.naacp.org/pages/convention
Man... seems odd to schedule this court case at around the same time as this convention.
The thinking was probably "this is going to happen with or without us, we should get a liaison in there to make sure things don't get out of hand."
34390
Post by: whembly
Rented Tritium wrote: whembly wrote: d-usa wrote:
If you want to make this yet another instance of a topic that is all about "how things feel" instead of known facts, then just let me know and I will go ahead and bow out of the discussion.
[i]
No... my point really was why was the CRS really involved in the first place.
In other news... this doesn't bode well:
http://www.naacp.org/pages/convention
Man... seems odd to schedule this court case at around the same time as this convention.
The thinking was probably "this is going to happen with or without us, we should get a liaison in there to make sure things don't get out of hand."
Fair enough... thanks.
37231
Post by: d-usa
Rented Tritium wrote: d-usa wrote: Rented Tritium wrote:That's not a whole lot of money. It's annoying that federal staff came down to do it though. There's already a pretty good infrastructure set up to give the local departments a bit of grant money to pay for some overtime for things like this.
Have you ever applied for a grant? It's not exactly a quick turnaround kind of deal...
I literally manage law enforcement grants, some of which are actually for this kind of detail.
I'm not questioning that a grant could be used for this kind of thing. I'm questioning the speed of the grant process. I admit that it's not LE, but I have been involved with a few Fire Department grants. And I don't think that they resulted in approval in less than 6 months, plus actual time it takes for money to be send your way, plus that money being converted into something that is actually useful. Like fighting brush fires: The Government would send crews to help us for really big fires, and we could argue "couldn't they give us a bit of grant money instead". Which is true, they could have. We actually applied for a grant for a tanker/tender. We had to wait for the grant window to open, then 6 months for approval, then 4 months for the money to get to us, then spec out the truck for bids for 30 days, go through bids and vote on them (1 week), then 3 more months to have the truck build. So it took us almost a year and a half to do that with a grant. The government was actually able to send us physical help within a day. I am sure that there are LE grants for things like that, but I was just guessing that it also takes a bit of time. I would be surprised if grant money would go through that quickly even if they applied on day 1 of the shooting. The grant process is a time consuming biatch, that was really my only question on that.
33541
Post by: Rented Tritium
whembly wrote:
Rented Tritium wrote: d-usa wrote: Rented Tritium wrote:That's not a whole lot of money. It's annoying that federal staff came down to do it though. There's already a pretty good infrastructure set up to give the local departments a bit of grant money to pay for some overtime for things like this.
Have you ever applied for a grant? It's not exactly a quick turnaround kind of deal...
I literally manage law enforcement grants, some of which are actually for this kind of detail.
Well, question for you then... in your opinion, is this a legit use of the dept/fundings so close to TM's death, but so far away from actual court date?
Well, I don't know anything about the particular office that went down there, so I can't really speak to their mission.
But I can tell you that it would be fine for a variety of random federal grant programs which likely use similar rules. It has nothing to do with timing vs the trial, though. For a lot of grants you could just say "hey, there's this big protest coming up and we want to cooperate with them to make sure it goes smoothly and we can't pay for all those overtime hours". I'm betting that was the same justification used by this agency. They just said "the locals don't have the resources to handle this protest, so we're going to go down and liaison with the protesters to prevent violence." Automatically Appended Next Post: d-usa wrote: Rented Tritium wrote: d-usa wrote: Rented Tritium wrote:That's not a whole lot of money. It's annoying that federal staff came down to do it though. There's already a pretty good infrastructure set up to give the local departments a bit of grant money to pay for some overtime for things like this.
Have you ever applied for a grant? It's not exactly a quick turnaround kind of deal...
I literally manage law enforcement grants, some of which are actually for this kind of detail.
I'm not questioning that a grant could be used for this kind of thing.
I'm questioning the speed of the grant process.
I admit that it's not LE, but I have been involved with a few Fire Department grants. And I don't think that they resulted in approval in less than 6 months, plus actual time it takes for money to be send your way, plus that money being converted into something that is actually useful.
Like fighting brush fires: The Government would send crews to help us for really big fires, and we could argue "couldn't they give us a bit of grant money instead". Which is true, they could have. We actually applied for a grant for a tanker/tender. We had to wait for the grant window to open, then 6 months for approval, then 4 months for the money to get to us, then spec out the truck for bids for 30 days, go through bids and vote on them (1 week), then 3 more months to have the truck build. So it took us almost a year and a half to do that with a grant. The government was actually able to send us physical help within a day.
I am sure that there are LE grants for things like that, but I was just guessing that it also takes a bit of time. I would be surprised if grant money would go through that quickly even if they applied on day 1 of the shooting.
The grant process is a time consuming biatch, that was really my only question on that.
You're talking about purchasing stuff, though. Purchasing always requires a lot of approval. Here we would be talking about a grant for X number of overtime hours AND it would be a special case where the agency calls and asks an administrator personally. You could turn a grant like that around in a week.
37231
Post by: d-usa
That would make a huge difference then, I'm used to snail grants so that influenced my statements obviously.
Thanks for the clarification.
12313
Post by: Ouze
When an engineer on the F35 program sneezes, it wastes more money than this does even if these guys spent all $2 grand on pez candy (and of course, we have no real idea what they actually did with it, not that I've seen). . I'm not arguing for a nirvana fallacy, poor use of taxpayer money is poor use but... priorities. I'm sure the outrage machine can find meatier fuel to run it.
12313
Post by: Ouze
Like this, for example - make sure you read through to the end of the story on page 2 for the likely outcome.
I guess that's the cost of lining defense contractor pockets "defending America", though.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
Rented Tritium wrote:I literally manage law enforcement grants, some of which are actually for this kind of detail.
Out of curiosity is it common for grants to be submitted/approved for counselors and mediators to provide security, or step outside their mandate?
33541
Post by: Rented Tritium
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Rented Tritium wrote:I literally manage law enforcement grants, some of which are actually for this kind of detail.
Out of curiosity is it common for grants to be submitted/approved for counselors and mediators to provide security, or step outside their mandate?
Everything has different rules, but generally you are required to itemize the whole project in advance. It's not like you just get a blank check that says "for counselors". You would have filled out a budget that says "overtime for 1 counselor, 1 mediator and 3 security officers, X hours at Y/hour" and the approval would have been based on that.
That's assuming it was a federal program that covers all of those things. It has to fall into the scope of that particular type of money.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
Rented Tritium wrote:Everything has different rules, but generally you are required to itemize the whole project in advance. It's not like you just get a blank check that says "for counselors". You would have filled out a budget that says "overtime for 1 counselor, 1 mediator and 3 security officers, X hours at Y/hour" and the approval would have been based on that.
That's assuming it was a federal program that covers all of those things. It has to fall into the scope of that particular type of money.
That's where the difficulty comes in for me. Here we have a body who has a remit for dialogue, reducing community tension, and mediation (operating with very few staff) exceeding their remit and providing security - a function that should be left to local LEOs.
33541
Post by: Rented Tritium
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Rented Tritium wrote:Everything has different rules, but generally you are required to itemize the whole project in advance. It's not like you just get a blank check that says "for counselors". You would have filled out a budget that says "overtime for 1 counselor, 1 mediator and 3 security officers, X hours at Y/hour" and the approval would have been based on that.
That's assuming it was a federal program that covers all of those things. It has to fall into the scope of that particular type of money.
That's where the difficulty comes in for me. Here we have a body who has a remit for dialogue, reducing community tension, and mediation (operating with very few staff) exceeding their remit and providing security - a function that should be left to local LEOs.
Well again, I have no idea what their exact mission and scope is, as I have no experience working with that office, but an awful lot of agencies who are not for police are still allowed to bring security for their guys.
And like I said, I would prefer they had done the whole thing through local contracts anyway.
That said, it's possible that they tried to get a local to do it, but couldn't find a department that was interested in doing it. You still have to find a local who will take your money to go in.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
Rented Tritium wrote:Well again, I have no idea what their exact mission and scope is, as I have no experience working with that office, but an awful lot of agencies who are not for police are still allowed to bring security for their guys.
And like I said, I would prefer they had done the whole thing through local contracts anyway.
That said, it's possible that they tried to get a local to do it, but couldn't find a department that was interested in doing it. You still have to find a local who will take your money to go in.
The problem isn't so much that they brought security for their guys - its that they are the security. Their remit from the first page;
Dreadclaw69 wrote:But why are they providing security? That seems outside both their man power and their remit
http://www.mainjustice.com/2010/07/21/dojs-community-relations-service-expanding-its-mandate/
Even with their "expanding remit" they are supposed to "get into a room and get single or multilateral talks with parties who have opposition to one another, that they will develop some understanding". And they seem quite short staffed to provide security for these protests - "Today, a staff of 34 full-time employees man four field offices and 10 regional offices"
http://www.justice.gov/crs/
CRS is the only Federal agency dedicated to assist State and local units of government, private and public organizations, and community groups with preventing and resolving racial and ethnic tensions, incidents, and civil disorders, and in restoring racial stability and harmony.
CRS facilitates the development of viable, mutual understandings and agreements as alternatives to coercion, violence, or litigation. It also assists communities in developing local mechanisms, conducting training, and other proactive measures to prevent racial/ethnic tension and violent hate crimes committed on the basis of actual or perceived race, color, national origin, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, or disability. CRS does not take sides among disputing parties and, in promoting the principles and ideals of non-discrimination, applies skills that allow parties to come to their own agreement. In performing this mission, CRS deploys highly skilled professional conciliators, who are able to assist people of diverse backgrounds.
http://www.justice.gov/crs/mandate.htm
§ 2000g-1. Functions of Service
It shall be the function of the Service to provide assistance to communities and persons therein in resolving disputes, disagreements, or difficulties relating to discriminatory practices based on race, color, or national origin which impair the rights of persons in such communities under the Constitution or laws of the United States or which affect or may affect interstate commerce. The Service may offer its services in cases of such disputes, disagreements, or difficulties whenever, in its judgement, peaceful relations among the citizens of the community involved are threatened thereby, and it may offer its services either upon its own motion or upon the request of an appropriate State or local official or other interested person.
Providing security does not feature anywhere within their remit, making their actions prima facie ultra vires.
33541
Post by: Rented Tritium
An office's mandate is a lot more complicated than a single paragraph mission. Dozens of different laws may have granted them little bits of authority here and there that aren't mentioned in their founding statute.
Considering that nobody here had even HEARD of this office until this story, I think we should tread carefully when talking about what their job is.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
Those links concerning their mission, and the lawful authority they derive their powers from, came direct from their own homepage. The first link came from their Community Relations Service Director.
From the horse's mouth if you will.
33541
Post by: Rented Tritium
Plus the money they spent was way too low to provide security for an entire protest, so I will argue that they likely were only providing security for their own staff and the immediate area of any talks.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dreadclaw69 wrote:Those links concerning their mission, and the lawful authority they derive their powers from, came direct from their own homepage. The first link came from their Community Relations Service Director.
From the horse's mouth if you will.
Webpages provide a broad touchy feely explanation for laymen. They're not actually reliable for what you're using this to argue.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
From the OP
A division of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) was deployed to Sanford, Florida in 2012 to provide assistance for anti-George Zimmerman protests, including a rally headlined by activist Al Sharpton, according to newly released documents. . .
CRS spent $674.14 between March 25-27 related to having been “deployed to Sanford, FL, to work marches, demonstrations, and rallies related to the shooting and death of an African-American teen by a neighborhood watch captain.” CRS spent another $1,142.84 for the same purpose between March 25-28.
CRS spent $892.55 “to provide support for protest deployment in Florida” between March 30-April 1, and $751.60 “to provide technical assistance to the City of Sanford, event organizers, and law enforcement agencies for the march and rally on March 31.”
Sharpton, who promoted the Tawana Brawley hoax in the 1980s and in 1995 led a protest against the “white interloper” owner of a Harlem clothing store that ended in a deadly shooting rampage at the store, was a featured speaker at the March 31 rally, called “The March for Trayvon Martin,” where he advocated for Zimmerman’s prosecution
Nowhere do they say that they were there to promote community relations, provide mediation, or reduce tension. Instead they were "to provide assistance" at a rally headlined by someone promoting a racial agenda. That is somewhat at odds with their stated goals and remit.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Well, secuirity no. If they were working the room in some manner to keep it calm then it was cool If they were helping support the march however, extremely uncool. There are constant death threats to Z and his family now.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
Rented Tritium wrote:Webpages provide a broad touchy feely explanation for laymen. They're not actually reliable for what you're using this to argue.
Then I eagerly await your rebuttal of my reading of their position from the information that they provide on their own site, including the law that granted them the powers that they exercise. Unless "The Community Relations Service (CRS) was established by Title X of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C 2000g et seq.)" does not grant them the following powers;
§ 2000g-1. Functions of Service
It shall be the function of the Service to provide assistance to communities and persons therein in resolving disputes, disagreements, or difficulties relating to discriminatory practices based on race, color, or national origin which impair the rights of persons in such communities under the Constitution or laws of the United States or which affect or may affect interstate commerce. The Service may offer its services in cases of such disputes, disagreements, or difficulties whenever, in its judgement, peaceful relations among the citizens of the community involved are threatened thereby, and it may offer its services either upon its own motion or upon the request of an appropriate State or local official or other interested person.
§ 2000g-2. Cooperation with other agencies; conciliation assistance in confidence and without publicity; information as confidential; restriction on performance of investigative or prosecution functions; violations and penalties
(a) The Service shall, whenever possible, in performing its functions, seek and utilize the cooperation of appropriate State or local, public, or private agencies.
(b) The activities of all officers and employees of the Service in providing conciliation assistance shall be conducted in confidence and without publicity, and the Service shall hold confidential any information acquired in the regular performance of its duties upon the understanding that it would be so held. No officer or employee of the Service shall engage in the performance of investigative or prosecuting functions of any department or agency in any litigation arising out of a dispute in which he acted on behalf of the Service. Any officer or other employee of the Service, who shall make public in any manner whatever any information in violation of this subsection, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than one year.
33541
Post by: Rented Tritium
Dreadclaw69 wrote:From the OP
A division of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) was deployed to Sanford, Florida in 2012 to provide assistance for anti-George Zimmerman protests, including a rally headlined by activist Al Sharpton, according to newly released documents. . .
CRS spent $674.14 between March 25-27 related to having been “deployed to Sanford, FL, to work marches, demonstrations, and rallies related to the shooting and death of an African-American teen by a neighborhood watch captain.” CRS spent another $1,142.84 for the same purpose between March 25-28.
CRS spent $892.55 “to provide support for protest deployment in Florida” between March 30-April 1, and $751.60 “to provide technical assistance to the City of Sanford, event organizers, and law enforcement agencies for the march and rally on March 31.”
Sharpton, who promoted the Tawana Brawley hoax in the 1980s and in 1995 led a protest against the “white interloper” owner of a Harlem clothing store that ended in a deadly shooting rampage at the store, was a featured speaker at the March 31 rally, called “The March for Trayvon Martin,” where he advocated for Zimmerman’s prosecution
Nowhere do they say that they were there to promote community relations, provide mediation, or reduce tension. Instead they were "to provide assistance" at a rally headlined by someone promoting a racial agenda. That is somewhat at odds with their stated goals and remit.
The secondary source reporting 2 phrases from a document that we haven't read is conflicting with the vague and PR polished mission statement of the office we only just heard about?
Sorry if I'm not getting my pitchfork over this.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
Frazzled wrote:Well, secuirity no. If they were working the room in some manner to keep it calm then it was cool If they were helping support the march however, extremely uncool.
That's my position too. If anything I'm concerned that an agency that is meant to reduce community tensions, act in an impartial manner, and promote understandings is undermining its over credibility and reducing its ability to discharge its actual duties by being involved with protests that have a racial leaning.
33541
Post by: Rented Tritium
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Rented Tritium wrote:Webpages provide a broad touchy feely explanation for laymen. They're not actually reliable for what you're using this to argue.
Then I eagerly await your rebuttal of my reading of their position from the information that they provide on their own site, including the law that granted them the powers that they exercise. Unless "The Community Relations Service (CRS) was established by Title X of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C 2000g et seq.)" does not grant them the following powers;
§ 2000g-1. Functions of Service
It shall be the function of the Service to provide assistance to communities and persons therein in resolving disputes, disagreements, or difficulties relating to discriminatory practices based on race, color, or national origin which impair the rights of persons in such communities under the Constitution or laws of the United States or which affect or may affect interstate commerce. The Service may offer its services in cases of such disputes, disagreements, or difficulties whenever, in its judgement, peaceful relations among the citizens of the community involved are threatened thereby, and it may offer its services either upon its own motion or upon the request of an appropriate State or local official or other interested person.
§ 2000g-2. Cooperation with other agencies; conciliation assistance in confidence and without publicity; information as confidential; restriction on performance of investigative or prosecution functions; violations and penalties
(a) The Service shall, whenever possible, in performing its functions, seek and utilize the cooperation of appropriate State or local, public, or private agencies.
(b) The activities of all officers and employees of the Service in providing conciliation assistance shall be conducted in confidence and without publicity, and the Service shall hold confidential any information acquired in the regular performance of its duties upon the understanding that it would be so held. No officer or employee of the Service shall engage in the performance of investigative or prosecuting functions of any department or agency in any litigation arising out of a dispute in which he acted on behalf of the Service. Any officer or other employee of the Service, who shall make public in any manner whatever any information in violation of this subsection, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than one year.
I'm sorry my actual understanding of how government works is getting in the way of your narrative. It seems clear that you're deadset on demonizing this whole thing despite not knowing what a single penny of that money was ACTUALLY spent on besides "assistance" and "support", which don't tell us anything.
I don't think it's possible to have a productive conversation about this with the paucity of actual primary sources that we're dealing with.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
Rented Tritium wrote:The secondary source reporting 2 phrases from a document that we haven't read is conflicting with the vague and PR polished mission statement of the office we only just heard about?
So shooting the messenger and not the message?
33541
Post by: Rented Tritium
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Rented Tritium wrote:The secondary source reporting 2 phrases from a document that we haven't read is conflicting with the vague and PR polished mission statement of the office we only just heard about?
So shooting the messenger and not the message?
No. I'm saying that I don't know the message because the messenger quoted less than a paragraph. Automatically Appended Next Post: Again, I read government documents all day. This is pretty typical language they're using. "support" and "assistance" are the most overused buzzwords in government. They actually tell us nothing about what the money was spent to do.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
Rented Tritium wrote:I'm sorry my actual understanding of how government works is getting in the way of your narrative. It seems clear that you're deadset on demonizing this whole thing despite not knowing what a single penny of that money was ACTUALLY spent on besides "assistance" and "support", which don't tell us anything.
I don't think it's possible to have a productive conversation about this with the paucity of actual primary sources that we're dealing with.
I'd appreciate it if you didn't attempt to mischaracterise what I am saying, that sort of reply is what makes it difficult to have a productive conversation. I'd appreciate more insight from you and your "actual understanding" that there is not a prima facie argument that they have acted ultra vires.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Likewise, that was part of my previous employment also. [redacted]
33541
Post by: Rented Tritium
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Rented Tritium wrote:I'm sorry my actual understanding of how government works is getting in the way of your narrative. It seems clear that you're deadset on demonizing this whole thing despite not knowing what a single penny of that money was ACTUALLY spent on besides "assistance" and "support", which don't tell us anything.
I don't think it's possible to have a productive conversation about this with the paucity of actual primary sources that we're dealing with.
I'd appreciate it if you didn't attempt to mischaracterise what I am saying, that sort of reply is what makes it difficult to have a productive conversation. I'd appreciate more insight from you and your "actual understanding" that there is not a prima facie argument that they have acted ultra vires.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Likewise, that was part of my previous employment also. The difference is that I don't talk down to people based on my employment history.
There isn't anything to point to that says "they can do this". What I'm saying is that the mission statement on their website and a couple paragraphs of statute are almost NEVER what actually dictates what an agency can do.
For instance, forestry officers are generally state law enforcement and can pull over cars and investigate crimes anywhere in the state. Most state's forestry pages don't say this, but they still have that power.
Most agencies' powers are defined broadly. If the law says that an agency makes lollipops, that might be defined further down in the statute as "making lollipops and supporting the making of lollipops through, but not limited to the following: Construction of lollipop factories, security for lollipop making staff, promotion of lollipop events, security considerations for lollipop events, etc etc". The basic paragraph explaining their purpose does not actually tell us what any of those phrases actually mean. Every law has definitions.
And further, even if that law says that thing, there still might be some OTHER law that they didn't feel like mentioning on their website (because government websites don't mention everything, just the basics), saying that the justice department can order them to xyz etc etc etc. This stuff is really complicated. There could be dozens of random bits of law or definitions on their original law giving them the authority to do certain things. And that's BEFORE you start talking about executive orders.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
Some of my last post may have been more in anger than constructive. I'm sorry about that.
Rented Tritium wrote:There isn't anything to point to that says "they can do this". What I'm saying is that the mission statement on their website and a couple paragraphs of statute are almost NEVER what actually dictates what an agency can do.
For instance, forestry officers are generally state law enforcement and can pull over cars and investigate crimes anywhere in the state. Most state's forestry pages don't say this, but they still have that power.
Most agencies' powers are defined broadly. If the law says that an agency makes lollipops, that might be defined further down in the statute as "making lollipops and supporting the making of lollipops through, but not limited to the following: Construction of lollipop factories, security for lollipop making staff, promotion of lollipop events, security considerations for lollipop events, etc etc". The basic paragraph explaining their purpose does not actually tell us what any of those phrases actually mean. Every law has definitions.
And further, even if that law says that thing, there still might be some OTHER law that they didn't feel like mentioning on their website (because government websites don't mention everything, just the basics), saying that the justice department can order them to xyz etc etc etc. This stuff is really complicated. There could be dozens of random bits of law or definitions on their original law giving them the authority to do certain things. And that's BEFORE you start talking about executive orders.
And would that lollipop agency be providing support for dentists protesting against lollipops?
Seeing as that is the source of their power though it is a good indication as to the role that they play within the Federal government. And again, I would say that security should fall to local LEOs, not a group that has fewer than 50 full time employees who do not appear to be trained to provide security. For such a small organisation tasked with mediation and community interaction I do not see them having wide sweeping powers in other areas simply because they do not have adequate resources. If you can so me the contrary though I'd appreciate it
Fair point though about the executive orders, I hadn't considered that.
33541
Post by: Rented Tritium
Dreadclaw69 wrote:Some of my last post may have been more in anger than constructive. I'm sorry about that.
Rented Tritium wrote:There isn't anything to point to that says "they can do this". What I'm saying is that the mission statement on their website and a couple paragraphs of statute are almost NEVER what actually dictates what an agency can do.
For instance, forestry officers are generally state law enforcement and can pull over cars and investigate crimes anywhere in the state. Most state's forestry pages don't say this, but they still have that power.
Most agencies' powers are defined broadly. If the law says that an agency makes lollipops, that might be defined further down in the statute as "making lollipops and supporting the making of lollipops through, but not limited to the following: Construction of lollipop factories, security for lollipop making staff, promotion of lollipop events, security considerations for lollipop events, etc etc". The basic paragraph explaining their purpose does not actually tell us what any of those phrases actually mean. Every law has definitions.
And further, even if that law says that thing, there still might be some OTHER law that they didn't feel like mentioning on their website (because government websites don't mention everything, just the basics), saying that the justice department can order them to xyz etc etc etc. This stuff is really complicated. There could be dozens of random bits of law or definitions on their original law giving them the authority to do certain things. And that's BEFORE you start talking about executive orders.
And would that lollipop agency be providing support for dentists protesting against lollipops?
Seeing as that is the source of their power though it is a good indication as to the role that they play within the Federal government. And again, I would say that security should fall to local LEOs, not a group that has fewer than 50 full time employees who do not appear to be trained to provide security. For such a small organisation tasked with mediation and community interaction I do not see them having wide sweeping powers in other areas simply because they do not have adequate resources. If you can so me the contrary though I'd appreciate it
Fair point though about the executive orders, I hadn't considered that.
Well again, we don't know how the money was exactly spent. The security may not have been staff members. It could have been private contractors or even local cops. We can't actually tell because the story just talked about the money and didn't show us any actual expenditures.
It is really common though for an agency to have a particular mission, but also be allowed to hire security to protect that mission. If your employees are going into a potentially dangerous situation, you should be able to send some protection.
37231
Post by: d-usa
I work for an agency that provides healthcare to veterans. But burried within the laws that govern us is the authority for federal armed law enforcement officers that are part of the hospital. I am fairly certain that is not part of our "mandate"
NOAA has a law enforcement function as well.
If the weatherman can be a cop, then an agency that is part of the DOJ most likely has a law enforcement power somewhere.
121
Post by: Relapse
whembly wrote: Rented Tritium wrote:That's not a whole lot of money. It's annoying that federal staff came down to do it though. There's already a pretty good infrastructure set up to give the local departments a bit of grant money to pay for some overtime for things like this.
But the real question is why the hell is the government doing an organization of a protest against the interests of individual citizens? I wondered that had the DoJ had not done this, would all this racial antagonism be muted?
Here's another good question from my twittah feed... How much will they spend if there are riots following acquittal (due to this case being a racial-politics witch hunt from the start)?
Don't worry about an acquittal. Obama was already making the noose for Zimmerman when he started in on all the "Trevor could have been my son" and other crap he was spouting about the case. Zimmerman will be convicted for something because the mob wants it and Obama is all about appeasing mobs.
33541
Post by: Rented Tritium
Relapse wrote: whembly wrote: Rented Tritium wrote:That's not a whole lot of money. It's annoying that federal staff came down to do it though. There's already a pretty good infrastructure set up to give the local departments a bit of grant money to pay for some overtime for things like this.
But the real question is why the hell is the government doing an organization of a protest against the interests of individual citizens? I wondered that had the DoJ had not done this, would all this racial antagonism be muted?
Here's another good question from my twittah feed... How much will they spend if there are riots following acquittal (due to this case being a racial-politics witch hunt from the start)?
Don't worry about an acquittal. Obama was already making the noose for Zimmerman when he started in on all the "Trevor could have been my son" and other crap he was spouting about the case. Zimmerman will be convicted for something because the mob wants it and Obama is all about appeasing mobs.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Rented Tritium wrote:Relapse wrote: whembly wrote: Rented Tritium wrote:That's not a whole lot of money. It's annoying that federal staff came down to do it though. There's already a pretty good infrastructure set up to give the local departments a bit of grant money to pay for some overtime for things like this.
But the real question is why the hell is the government doing an organization of a protest against the interests of individual citizens? I wondered that had the DoJ had not done this, would all this racial antagonism be muted?
Here's another good question from my twittah feed... How much will they spend if there are riots following acquittal (due to this case being a racial-politics witch hunt from the start)?
Don't worry about an acquittal. Obama was already making the noose for Zimmerman when he started in on all the "Trevor could have been my son" and other crap he was spouting about the case. Zimmerman will be convicted for something because the mob wants it and Obama is all about appeasing mobs.
Why
The Sheriff already stated there was heavy pressure to arrest from outside. Note the investigator who recommended who busted as well.
Obama interjected himself into it.
33541
Post by: Rented Tritium
Frazzled wrote: Rented Tritium wrote:Relapse wrote: whembly wrote: Rented Tritium wrote:That's not a whole lot of money. It's annoying that federal staff came down to do it though. There's already a pretty good infrastructure set up to give the local departments a bit of grant money to pay for some overtime for things like this.
But the real question is why the hell is the government doing an organization of a protest against the interests of individual citizens? I wondered that had the DoJ had not done this, would all this racial antagonism be muted?
Here's another good question from my twittah feed... How much will they spend if there are riots following acquittal (due to this case being a racial-politics witch hunt from the start)?
Don't worry about an acquittal. Obama was already making the noose for Zimmerman when he started in on all the "Trevor could have been my son" and other crap he was spouting about the case. Zimmerman will be convicted for something because the mob wants it and Obama is all about appeasing mobs.
Why
The Sheriff already stated there was heavy pressure to arrest from outside. Note the investigator who recommended who busted as well.
Obama interjected himself into it.
Because he's implying that no matter what, Obama will make him get convicted.
He's saying that Obama has power over the end result of this trial and presumably the jury.
That is tinfoil hat insane.
121
Post by: Relapse
Frazzled wrote: Rented Tritium wrote:Relapse wrote: whembly wrote: Rented Tritium wrote:That's not a whole lot of money. It's annoying that federal staff came down to do it though. There's already a pretty good infrastructure set up to give the local departments a bit of grant money to pay for some overtime for things like this.
But the real question is why the hell is the government doing an organization of a protest against the interests of individual citizens? I wondered that had the DoJ had not done this, would all this racial antagonism be muted?
Here's another good question from my twittah feed... How much will they spend if there are riots following acquittal (due to this case being a racial-politics witch hunt from the start)?
Don't worry about an acquittal. Obama was already making the noose for Zimmerman when he started in on all the "Trevor could have been my son" and other crap he was spouting about the case. Zimmerman will be convicted for something because the mob wants it and Obama is all about appeasing mobs.
Why
The Sheriff already stated there was heavy pressure to arrest from outside. Note the investigator who recommended who busted as well.
Obama interjected himself into it.
Anything to throw Zimmerman into the fire seems acceptable but anything to prove Martin was a scumbag is thrown out or suppressed. If Zimmerman gets less than 20 I'll be surprised. Automatically Appended Next Post: Rented Tritium wrote: Frazzled wrote: Rented Tritium wrote:Relapse wrote: whembly wrote: Rented Tritium wrote:That's not a whole lot of money. It's annoying that federal staff came down to do it though. There's already a pretty good infrastructure set up to give the local departments a bit of grant money to pay for some overtime for things like this.
But the real question is why the hell is the government doing an organization of a protest against the interests of individual citizens? I wondered that had the DoJ had not done this, would all this racial antagonism be muted?
Here's another good question from my twittah feed... How much will they spend if there are riots following acquittal (due to this case being a racial-politics witch hunt from the start)?
Don't worry about an acquittal. Obama was already making the noose for Zimmerman when he started in on all the "Trevor could have been my son" and other crap he was spouting about the case. Zimmerman will be convicted for something because the mob wants it and Obama is all about appeasing mobs.
Why
The Sheriff already stated there was heavy pressure to arrest from outside. Note the investigator who recommended who busted as well.
Obama interjected himself into it.
Because he's implying that no matter what, Obama will make him get convicted.
He's saying that Obama has power over the end result of this trial and presumably the jury.
That is tinfoil hat insane.
It's tinfoil hat insane to think otherwise if you take into account all the outside pressure on this case and Obama's little speech indicating his want of a conviction and all the justice department scandals.
33541
Post by: Rented Tritium
Relapse wrote: Frazzled wrote: Rented Tritium wrote:Relapse wrote: whembly wrote: Rented Tritium wrote:That's not a whole lot of money. It's annoying that federal staff came down to do it though. There's already a pretty good infrastructure set up to give the local departments a bit of grant money to pay for some overtime for things like this.
But the real question is why the hell is the government doing an organization of a protest against the interests of individual citizens? I wondered that had the DoJ had not done this, would all this racial antagonism be muted?
Here's another good question from my twittah feed... How much will they spend if there are riots following acquittal (due to this case being a racial-politics witch hunt from the start)?
Don't worry about an acquittal. Obama was already making the noose for Zimmerman when he started in on all the "Trevor could have been my son" and other crap he was spouting about the case. Zimmerman will be convicted for something because the mob wants it and Obama is all about appeasing mobs.
Why
The Sheriff already stated there was heavy pressure to arrest from outside. Note the investigator who recommended who busted as well.
Obama interjected himself into it.
Anything to throw Zimmerman into the fire seems acceptable but anything to prove Martin was a scumbag is thrown out or suppressed. If Zimmerman gets less than 20 I'll be surprised.
Prepare to be surprised because he's going to get aquitted because guess what, Obama doesn't have super secret puppetmaster powers over the jury.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Relapse wrote:
It's tinfoil hat insane to think otherwise if you take into account all the outside pressure on this case and Obama's little speech indicating his want of a conviction and all the justice department scandals.
"outside pressure" + "obama said he wanted a conviction" = Obama literally controls the jury.
No dude, that is fething insane. You are insane. You are literally insane to think this.
37231
Post by: d-usa
M can be the biggest scumbag that ever walked the face of the earth. But if Z didn't know that when he shot him then it has absolutely feth to do with the decisions Z made and has nothing to do with the trial.
Did Z think "oh my God, a scumbag wannabe thug who can't spell and things he is a gangster who has skittles to flavor his cough syrup and got expelled from school and smoked some weed at some point is siting on top of my, I better kill him before he remembers those texts he send last month about being a thug"?
It is not relevant in this trial because it was not anything Z knew when he decided that he felt like he had no other choice but to pull the trigger.
But let the foaming at the mouth continue.
33541
Post by: Rented Tritium
I even think this judge sucks and is biased against the defense, and he is STILL going to get acquitted.
121
Post by: Relapse
d-usa wrote:M can be the biggest scumbag that ever walked the face of the earth. But if Z didn't know that when he shot him then it has absolutely feth to do with the decisions Z made and has nothing to do with the trial.
Did Z think "oh my God, a scumbag wannabe thug who can't spell and things he is a gangster who has skittles to flavor his cough syrup and got expelled from school and smoked some weed at some point is siting on top of my, I better kill him before he remembers those texts he send last month about being a thug"?
It is not relevant in this trial because it was not anything Z knew when he decided that he felt like he had no other choice but to pull the trigger.
But let the foaming at the mouth continue.
It shows that Martin was capable and willing to attack someone with intent to do harm.
37231
Post by: d-usa
And it is nothing that Z knew when he made the decision and is irrelevant because of that. Z has to have reason that he had a valid fear for his life when he pulled the trigger, stuff he didn't know about have nothing to do with that.
If you can't understand that basic fact of law then there is really no point in keeping this line of conversation going.
33541
Post by: Rented Tritium
d-usa wrote:And it is nothing that Z knew when he made the decision and is irrelevant because of that. Z has to have reason that he had a valid fear for his life when he pulled the trigger, stuff he didn't know about have nothing to do with that.
If you can't understand that basic fact of law then there is really no point in keeping this line of conversation going.
What relapse is arguing is that we can use that information to establish that Martin attacked first. This requires some minority report style precrime nonsense, but that's where he's coming from.
121
Post by: Relapse
d-usa wrote:And it is nothing that Z knew when he made the decision and is irrelevant because of that. Z has to have reason that he had a valid fear for his life when he pulled the trigger, stuff he didn't know about have nothing to do with that.
If you can't understand that basic fact of law then there is really no point in keeping this line of conversation going.
It does help bolster Zimmerman's case that he was attacked and at that point felt he had to draw his gun and shoot to protect his life.
37231
Post by: d-usa
Rented Tritium wrote: d-usa wrote:And it is nothing that Z knew when he made the decision and is irrelevant because of that. Z has to have reason that he had a valid fear for his life when he pulled the trigger, stuff he didn't know about have nothing to do with that.
If you can't understand that basic fact of law then there is really no point in keeping this line of conversation going.
What relapse is arguing is that we can use that information to establish that Martin attacked first. This requires some minority report style precrime nonsense, but that's where he's coming from.
So its like arguing that because Z had a gun and took fighting lessons and criminal justice lessons he was prepared to kill somebody in a fight and was aware of how he could get away with it?
1206
Post by: Easy E
This whole thread needs to be covered in tinfoil and put in the oven to bake.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Rented Tritium wrote: Frazzled wrote: Rented Tritium wrote:Relapse wrote: whembly wrote: Rented Tritium wrote:That's not a whole lot of money. It's annoying that federal staff came down to do it though. There's already a pretty good infrastructure set up to give the local departments a bit of grant money to pay for some overtime for things like this.
But the real question is why the hell is the government doing an organization of a protest against the interests of individual citizens? I wondered that had the DoJ had not done this, would all this racial antagonism be muted?
Here's another good question from my twittah feed... How much will they spend if there are riots following acquittal (due to this case being a racial-politics witch hunt from the start)?
Don't worry about an acquittal. Obama was already making the noose for Zimmerman when he started in on all the "Trevor could have been my son" and other crap he was spouting about the case. Zimmerman will be convicted for something because the mob wants it and Obama is all about appeasing mobs.
Why
The Sheriff already stated there was heavy pressure to arrest from outside. Note the investigator who recommended who busted as well.
Obama interjected himself into it.
Because he's implying that no matter what, Obama will make him get convicted.
He's saying that Obama has power over the end result of this trial and presumably the jury.
That is tinfoil hat insane.
As insane as the IRS scandal, the NSA scandal, hiding a terrorist attack for an election, or selling rifles to the Mexican cartels? Tinfoil hat was only insane until they came true.
Oh it turns out the judge is a lifelong Democrat.
Also turns out the protest the JD covered was the Sharpton march. There's no way the JD is helping anything if they are suporting that. Sharpton is a fraud who has supporting criminally fraudluent bahevior in the past.
This could get sticky. Automatically Appended Next Post:  Easy E wrote:This whole thread needs to be covered in tinfoil and put in the oven to bake.
PRISM.
33541
Post by: Rented Tritium
I'm sorry, do you have some evidence that Barack Obama controls the jury in the Zimmerman case?
Because "some crazy things happened, so we should believe all crazy things without evidence" is not how things work.
I think Obama has a secret moonbase. I mean, prism right? Clearly he really has a secret moonbase and saying he has a secret moonbase is not insane because the NSA spying scandal.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
Frazzled wrote:
Also turns out the protest the JD covered was the Sharpton march. There's no way the JD is helping anything if they are suporting that. Sharpton is a fraud who has supporting criminally fraudluent bahevior in the past.
This could get sticky.
So you promote racial harmony, respect, and dialogue by covering a notorious race baiter's rally? Is there anything to suggest that they also attended pro-Zimmerman rallies?
121
Post by: Relapse
d-usa wrote: Rented Tritium wrote: d-usa wrote:And it is nothing that Z knew when he made the decision and is irrelevant because of that. Z has to have reason that he had a valid fear for his life when he pulled the trigger, stuff he didn't know about have nothing to do with that.
If you can't understand that basic fact of law then there is really no point in keeping this line of conversation going.
What relapse is arguing is that we can use that information to establish that Martin attacked first. This requires some minority report style precrime nonsense, but that's where he's coming from.
So its like arguing that because Z had a gun and took fighting lessons and criminal justice lessons he was prepared to kill somebody in a fight and was aware of how he could get away with it?
Zimmerman, like a lot of people, wanted to know how to defend himself. He wasn't recording his friends beating up people and joking about it as Martin did nor was he caught with stolen jewelry and a burgerlary tool as Martin was. There was a lot of evidence about Martin that was not allowed that proved him violent and willing to hurt people.
33541
Post by: Rented Tritium
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Frazzled wrote:
Also turns out the protest the JD covered was the Sharpton march. There's no way the JD is helping anything if they are suporting that. Sharpton is a fraud who has supporting criminally fraudluent bahevior in the past.
This could get sticky.
So you promote racial harmony, respect, and dialogue by covering a notorious race baiter's rally? Is there anything to suggest that they also attended pro-Zimmerman rallies?
What does "covering" mean in this post? What exactly is it that you think they did with that 860 someodd dollars? Automatically Appended Next Post: Relapse wrote:There was a lot of evidence about Martin that was not allowed that proved him violent and willing to hurt people.
You're saying there was evidence that proved that Martin was an INHERENTLY violent person who was ALWAYS willing to hurt people to the extent that it literally tells us what he would do in a particular situation?
Again, that's some minority report gak.
121
Post by: Relapse
Rented Tritium wrote: Dreadclaw69 wrote: Frazzled wrote:
Also turns out the protest the JD covered was the Sharpton march. There's no way the JD is helping anything if they are suporting that. Sharpton is a fraud who has supporting criminally fraudluent bahevior in the past.
This could get sticky.
So you promote racial harmony, respect, and dialogue by covering a notorious race baiter's rally? Is there anything to suggest that they also attended pro-Zimmerman rallies?
What does "covering" mean in this post? What exactly is it that you think they did with that 860 someodd dollars?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Relapse wrote:There was a lot of evidence about Martin that was not allowed that proved him violent and willing to hurt people.
You're saying there was evidence that proved that Martin was an INHERENTLY violent person who was ALWAYS willing to hurt people to the extent that it literally tells us what he would do in a particular situation?
Again, that's some minority report gak.
Are you saying that with everything that's come to light about Martin that the judge threw out, he was a mother's angle incapable of hurting a fly?
5182
Post by: SlaveToDorkness
d-usa wrote: Rented Tritium wrote: d-usa wrote:And it is nothing that Z knew when he made the decision and is irrelevant because of that. Z has to have reason that he had a valid fear for his life when he pulled the trigger, stuff he didn't know about have nothing to do with that.
If you can't understand that basic fact of law then there is really no point in keeping this line of conversation going.
What relapse is arguing is that we can use that information to establish that Martin attacked first. This requires some minority report style precrime nonsense, but that's where he's coming from.
So its like arguing that because Z had a gun and took fighting lessons and criminal justice lessons he was prepared to kill somebody in a fight and was aware of how he could get away with it?
The entire trial is based upon who attacked whom. It has been established that Z was an idiot (which is not a crime...unfortunately). It has been established that TM was beating Z savagely. The question is who attacked who. Establishing that TM was less than the poor innocent little boy the prosecution and the media made him out to be has bearing on that question. As much bearing as the facts about Z that were admitted.
If you'd take your fingers out of your ears every now and again you'd be able to admit that.
33541
Post by: Rented Tritium
Relapse wrote:
Are you saying that with everything that's come to light about Martin that the judge threw out, he was a mother's angle incapable of hurting a fly?
No. I'm saying that the evidence that was thrown out would not actually tell us whether or not he attacked first.
To be clear, he did attack first. Zimmerman is going to be acquitted. But saying that we know he attacked first because he talked about fighting at some point is presuming pre-crimes. It's supposing that we can tell what he did later by who he was as a person. That is an idea that our entire justice system rejects. That kind of evidence can be used for MOTIVE, but it cannot be used for "did it happen".
121
Post by: Relapse
Rented Tritium wrote:Relapse wrote:
Are you saying that with everything that's come to light about Martin that the judge threw out, he was a mother's angle incapable of hurting a fly?
No. I'm saying that the evidence that was thrown out would not actually tell us whether or not he attacked first.
To be clear, he did attack first. Zimmerman is going to be acquitted. But saying that we know he attacked first because he talked about fighting at some point is presuming pre-crimes. It's supposing that we can tell what he did later by who he was as a person. That is an idea that our entire justice system rejects. That kind of evidence can be used for MOTIVE, but it cannot be used for "did it happen".
What I am saying is that the evidence thrown out by the judge, including the lead investigator's statement about Zimmerman's statment that Martin attacked is credible, proves that Martin is quite possibly not the innocent victim he is portrayed as by the prosecution.
33541
Post by: Rented Tritium
Relapse wrote: Rented Tritium wrote:Relapse wrote:
Are you saying that with everything that's come to light about Martin that the judge threw out, he was a mother's angle incapable of hurting a fly?
No. I'm saying that the evidence that was thrown out would not actually tell us whether or not he attacked first.
To be clear, he did attack first. Zimmerman is going to be acquitted. But saying that we know he attacked first because he talked about fighting at some point is presuming pre-crimes. It's supposing that we can tell what he did later by who he was as a person. That is an idea that our entire justice system rejects. That kind of evidence can be used for MOTIVE, but it cannot be used for "did it happen".
What I am saying is that the evidence thrown out by the judge, including the lead investigator's statement about Zimmerman's statment that Martin attacked is credible, proves that Martin is quite possibly not the innocent victim he is portrayed as by the prosecution.
No. The correct counter-argument for "he did not attack first" is not "he is a violent person". Those two things actually do not conflict with each other.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Frazzled wrote:
Also turns out the protest the JD covered was the Sharpton march. There's no way the JD is helping anything if they are suporting that. Sharpton is a fraud who has supporting criminally fraudluent bahevior in the past.
This could get sticky.
So you promote racial harmony, respect, and dialogue by covering a notorious race baiter's rally? Is there anything to suggest that they also attended pro-Zimmerman rallies?
This.
No I am not saying Obama controls the jury. I think pressure from a variety of sources did get us here though, including by Obama. Automatically Appended Next Post: Rented Tritium wrote:Relapse wrote:
Are you saying that with everything that's come to light about Martin that the judge threw out, he was a mother's angle incapable of hurting a fly?
No. I'm saying that the evidence that was thrown out would not actually tell us whether or not he attacked first.
No it establishes mental state and prediliction to be aggressive.
If TM had a previous history of being Buddhist Monk morally opposed to violence in all its forms that would help establish he would have been less likely to ambush Z.
121
Post by: Relapse
Frazzled wrote: Dreadclaw69 wrote: Frazzled wrote:
Also turns out the protest the JD covered was the Sharpton march. There's no way the JD is helping anything if they are suporting that. Sharpton is a fraud who has supporting criminally fraudluent bahevior in the past.
This could get sticky.
So you promote racial harmony, respect, and dialogue by covering a notorious race baiter's rally? Is there anything to suggest that they also attended pro-Zimmerman rallies?
This.
No I am not saying Obama controls the jury. I think pressure from a variety of sources did get us here though, including by Obama.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rented Tritium wrote:Relapse wrote:
Are you saying that with everything that's come to light about Martin that the judge threw out, he was a mother's angle incapable of hurting a fly?
No. I'm saying that the evidence that was thrown out would not actually tell us whether or not he attacked first.
No it establishes mental state and prediliction to be aggressive.
If TM had a previous history of being Buddhist Monk morally opposed to violence in all its forms that would help establish he would have been less likely to ambush Z.
The jury finds the post exalted on both counts.
34390
Post by: whembly
This story is still going around...
I really don't think there's much meat to it, but... alas, here's take: (posting the whole thing so that dogma don't complain)
Obama’s Alinskyite Administration
Judicial Watch, a conservative legal foundation, has used the Freedom of Information Act to uncover documents that show Eric Holder’s Justice Department used a “community relations” unit to support and stage-manage public protests in Florida against George Zimmerman after his controversial February 2012 shooting of Trayvon Martin.
Justice’s Community Relations Service (CRS) even helped organize a meeting between Sanford, Fla., public officials and the local NAACP. The result was the resignation of police chief Bill Lee over his handling of the Martin case. While his resignation was rescinded after a few weeks by local officials, Chief Lee faced further pressure to leave his job and ultimately quit for good two months later. Valerie Houston, one of the pastors leading the protests against Zimmerman and Lee, praised the Community Relations Service as being “there for us.”
The website for the CRS claims it “does not take sides among disputing parties” and only provides “impartial conciliation and mediation services.” But the evidence of its activities in Sanford shows that it placed a large thumb on the scales of justice in the Zimmerman case. What can providing support for a “March for Trayvon Martin” rally headlined by the rabble-rousing Reverend Al Sharpton have to do with “conciliation and mediation”?
From top to bottom, the handling of the Zimmerman case was marinated in racial political correctness. Lee, the former Sanford police chief, told CNN this week that he faced severe pressure from outside forces to conduct his investigation in an unprofessional way so as to placate the public. “It was [relayed] to me that they just wanted an arrest. They didn’t care if it got dismissed later,” he said. “You don’t do that.” Lee told CNN that arresting Zimmerman based on the evidence he had collected would have violated Zimmerman’s Fourth Amendment rights. But he said political influence “forced a change in the course of the normal criminal-justice process. . . . That investigation was taken away from us. We weren’t able to complete it.”
It looks as if the trial of George Zimmerman on second-degree-murder charges will go to the jury today, but regardless of the verdict, the Justice Department has some questions to answer about its role in the pressure campaign leading up to his indictment. “My guess is that most Americans would rightly object to taxpayers paying government employees to help organize racially charged demonstrations,” says Tom Fitton, the president of Judicial Watch, in a statement on the group’s website.
Sadly, I am not surprised that Eric Holder’s Justice Department engaged in suspect activity in the Trayvon Martin case. Barack Obama frequently touted his experience as a “community organizer” during his 2008 campaign. The media gave him almost a complete pass on the more controversial parts of his record, especially his role as a top trainer and lawyer for the infamous Saul Alinsky–inspired group ACORN, which by 2008 had had many of its employees convicted of voter fraud. After Obama’s election, the Justice Department dropped any pending investigations of ACORN. Congress finally revoked the group’s federal funding in 2010 after filmmaker James O’Keefe’s hidden cameras caught its employees giving advice on how to conceal money gained from a fictional teenage prostitution ring. It soon declared bankruptcy, and some of its affiliates continued operations under new mismanagement.
I wondered back in 2008 how the federal government’s focus would change with a left-wing “community organizer” installed as president. We now have a partial answer. It appears that some of the tactics and approaches ACORN used have been moved into the Justice Department and other federal agencies. In the old days, when individual appropriations bills for federal agencies were still passed by Congress, it was possible to defund groups like ACORN. But now, with congressional gridlock ensuring that federal agencies are financed by dubious annual spending resolutions that simply continue existing program funding, any effective oversight by Congress is a dead letter. The question now isn’t really how many other left-wing “community organizing” projects like the one at Justice are being subsidized by the Obama administration. The real issue is whether the entire Obama administration has basically become an enabler and cheerleader for every Saul Alinsky tactic its radical appointees want to embrace — from the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s bullying local officials over public-housing construction demands to the Environmental Protection Agency’s colluding with environmentalist groups to lose lawsuits the groups file against the EPA in court.
33541
Post by: Rented Tritium
Yeah that's the national review. Not actually worth posting as a source.
1206
Post by: Easy E
I feel likethe right-wing is really trying to pin whatever they can on the Democrats right now. It feels a bit like...
That said, they only thing that seems like it could be a "real" thing is PRISM.
33541
Post by: Rented Tritium
It kind of sucks thinking that Zimmerman was justified, but also an idiot, and that Martin most likely attacked first, but wasn't some vicious bloodthirsty gangster, that the judge and prosecution in this case suck, but that the trial isn't actually rigged.
I get argued at from both sides about this all the time.
1206
Post by: Easy E
Yeah, the most likely scenario is just so BORING RT. Not partisan enough!
221
Post by: Frazzled
Rented Tritium wrote:It kind of sucks thinking that Zimmerman was justified, but also an idiot, and that Martin most likely attacked first, but wasn't some vicious bloodthirsty gangster, that the judge and prosecution in this case suck, but that the trial isn't actually rigged.
I get argued at from both sides about this all the time.
Actually thats my sentiment.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
Not what they are meant to do - i.e. promote racial harmony.
Frazzled wrote:No I am not saying Obama controls the jury. I think pressure from a variety of sources did get us here though, including by Obama.
The POTUS saying that if he had a son, that he would look like Trayvon was just ill advised. He should have stayed out of the matter.
Shooting the messenger again instead of offering an actual rebuttal?
If there is another plausible explanation as to why they were in attendance at, and offering support to, a rally lead by someone who is known for being racially divisive when their role is to mediate and promote good community relations then I would be grateful to hear it.
33541
Post by: Rented Tritium
The national review isn't a messenger. What was posted was partisan editorial content, not actual news. I'm not going to rebut a tinfoil hat rant as though it was a real thing.
As for their mission, if a protest is going to happen with or without you, you have an interest in getting in there and networking with the protesters. You can make sure they're in the right places, make sure they feel like they're being heard, etc etc.
Riots happen when a crowd thinks they aren't being heard. When the government shows up and helps with the paperwork and shows them the best place to set up their protest, it makes it a lot harder for someone to convince the crowd that they're being ignored.
The idea is that you give them some dignity by saying "We know you have a first amendment right to demonstrate. We can help make this go smoothly if you like". This keeps heads cool. The reason you didn't see a lot of this with the pro-zimmerman protests is that the pro-zimmerman protests had a much lower risk of riots. There wasn't a sufficient need for intervention.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
That is a lot of supposition as to what you think they are doing without any actual facts to back it up (something you were critical of earlier if I recall)
So where is the cross community dialogue, building bridges, mediation between communities and inter-community relations in attending rallies for one one aggrieved party?
33541
Post by: Rented Tritium
Dreadclaw69 wrote:That is a lot of supposition as to what you think they are doing without any actual facts to back it up (something you were critical of earlier if I recall)
So where is the cross community dialogue, building bridges, mediation between communities and inter-community relations in attending rallies for one one aggrieved party?
I'm explaining the principles behind this type of organization and why they were created.
You seem really insistent on strictly interpreting their mission to make this some giant government overreach. If NOAA can have sworn officers, this is probably fine.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
Rented Tritium wrote:I'm explaining the principles behind this type of organization and why they were created.
You seem really insistent on strictly interpreting their mission to make this some giant government overreach. If NOAA can have sworn officers, this is probably fine.
The principal behind this office is to provide inter-community dialogue and mediation. Being a part of a racial agitator's rally does not further this objective.
Because the CRS have to uphold treaties and federal statutes with their <50 staff? http://www.magazine.noaa.gov/stories/mag230.htm
221
Post by: Frazzled
I'd bet mig bucks they weren't "providing security." The bills would be higher.
On another article apparently this was one person's air fare and board.
33541
Post by: Rented Tritium
What, precisely, do you think this means? Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'm still curious how you think this happened or even how you are suggesting the government should decide who is one of these?
221
Post by: Frazzled
I don't think it means hanging with a known fraud and race baiter while he launches a protest with intent to fill his pockets with filthy lucor.
Frankly it sounde like department #12,356,654 of the governemnt that does nothing worthwhile and needs to be shut down.
33541
Post by: Rented Tritium
I'm not particularly comfortable with the government deciding that a particular person is an "agitator". That smacks of mcarthyism.
If you're REALLY concerned someone is starting riots, that's even more justification for getting in there and making sure the people they are trying to rile up like you.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Er...so hanging out with the guy trying to stir up racial hatred is a good thing?
No.
33541
Post by: Rented Tritium
Frazzled wrote:Er...so hanging out with the guy trying to stir up racial hatred is a good thing?
No.
"hanging out with"
Like they're just on his couch watching football with him, right?
Because that's what's happening.
Again, these are not terrorists, these are united states citizens.
221
Post by: Frazzled
-What were they doing?
-To US citizens not being terrorists. Er..
Bill Ayers
Boston Bomber
Fort Hood Shooter
Hanson (now they were terrrosists!)
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
Working with both communities. Not just one. What they have been doing seems to sort of defeat the purpose of cross community dialogue
Rented Tritium wrote:I'm not particularly comfortable with the government deciding that a particular person is an "agitator". That smacks of mcarthyism.
If you're REALLY concerned someone is starting riots, that's even more justification for getting in there and making sure the people they are trying to rile up like you.
Yes, because someone disturbing the public sphere to push a racial agenda (and who has a history of this conduct), regardless of the accuracy, is equivalent to McCarthyism..... If they wanted to get in there and prevent riots then they organise meetings between the different groups to find common ground to alleviate tensions. They didn't do that.
1206
Post by: Easy E
I bleiee they helpd negotiate the stepping aside of the police chief with the city council. Does that count as both sides? The city council and the protesters?
33541
Post by: Rented Tritium
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Working with both communities. Not just one. What they have been doing seems to sort of defeat the purpose of cross community dialogue
Rented Tritium wrote:I'm not particularly comfortable with the government deciding that a particular person is an "agitator". That smacks of mcarthyism.
If you're REALLY concerned someone is starting riots, that's even more justification for getting in there and making sure the people they are trying to rile up like you.
Yes, because someone disturbing the public sphere to push a racial agenda (and who has a history of this conduct), regardless of the accuracy, is equivalent to McCarthyism..... If they wanted to get in there and prevent riots then they organise meetings between the different groups to find common ground to alleviate tensions. They didn't do that.
What do you mean "different groups" and "both communities"? Do you think this is two groups of protesters against each other? This is one group against the government and a second smaller group kind of complaining about the first group, but they are much smaller and aren't really doing anything.
They are not even in the same ballpark.
This is not like soccer riots or something. There aren't two camps across from each other, it's basically one protest.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
Rented Tritium wrote:What do you mean "different groups" and "both communities"? Do you think this is two groups of protesters against each other? This is one group against the government and a second smaller group kind of complaining about the first group, but they are much smaller and aren't really doing anything.
They are not even in the same ballpark.
This is not like soccer riots or something. There aren't two camps across from each other, it's basically one protest.
I'm talking about dialogue between the Black and White Hispanic communities.
You do know that what you're saying is actually putting them further from their remit, right?
33541
Post by: Rented Tritium
I think you've got the wrong idea about the racial situation down there.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Easy E wrote:I bleiee they helpd negotiate the stepping aside of the police chief with the city council. Does that count as both sides? The city council and the protesters?
Why? Thats not their purview. Yep another department that needs to be closed and everyone fired.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
Perhaps you could illuminate me then.
33541
Post by: Rented Tritium
Frazzled wrote: Easy E wrote:I bleiee they helpd negotiate the stepping aside of the police chief with the city council. Does that count as both sides? The city council and the protesters?
Why? Thats not their purview. Yep another department that needs to be closed and everyone fired.
It can't be true. The CRS was not in Florida at the time of the Chief's resignation in late april. He "Stepped down" the first time before the mediator got there, and he was officially fired weeks after they left.
34390
Post by: whembly
So... is the CRS going to "mediate" this crew?
InterOccupy.Net has set itself up as a hub for demonstrations to react to the verdict in the trial of George Zimmerman. The prosecution and defense have both rested, and the case is expected to go to the jury shortly.
The Stop Mass Incarceration Network has set up a Facebook Page for people to list any planned actions responding to the imminent verdict in the George Zimmerman Murder Trial.
Below are some planned actions. If you don’t see yours here please email us at info@interoccupy.net AND contact the Stop Mass Incarceration Network through any of the following avenues
121
Post by: Relapse
whembly wrote:So... is the CRS going to "mediate" this crew?
InterOccupy.Net has set itself up as a hub for demonstrations to react to the verdict in the trial of George Zimmerman. The prosecution and defense have both rested, and the case is expected to go to the jury shortly.
The Stop Mass Incarceration Network has set up a Facebook Page for people to list any planned actions responding to the imminent verdict in the George Zimmerman Murder Trial.
Below are some planned actions. If you don’t see yours here please email us at info@interoccupy.net AND contact the Stop Mass Incarceration Network through any of the following avenues
I like the lynch mob mentality. Like I say, even if Zimmerman gets acquitted here fully, which I doubt, the politicians are not going to let him walk. I saw this happen with the LA riots when the cops were acquitted. The politicians at the time saw to it they were marched back into court and found guilty on other charges to appease the mobs.
34390
Post by: whembly
Wow... perusing my twittah feed... MSNBC showed TM's body sprawled out on the ground, unedited earlier this afternoon. I ain't posting it here.
It's like they're determine to incite a riot or something...
At least no one watches MSNBC...
|
|
