Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Yeah, the most likely scenario is just so BORING RT. Not partisan enough!

 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.

 Rented Tritium wrote:
What exactly is it that you think they did with that 860 someodd dollars?

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.

 Rented Tritium wrote:
Yeah that's the national review. Not actually worth posting as a source.

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.

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.

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?

 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.

 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

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.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
provide inter-community dialogue and mediation

What, precisely, do you think this means?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Being a part of a racial agitator's rally

I'm still curious how you think this happened or even how you are suggesting the government should decide who is one of these?

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.

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.

Er...so hanging out with the guy trying to stir up racial hatred is a good thing?

No.

 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.

-What were they doing?

-To US citizens not being terrorists. Er..
Bill Ayers
Boston Bomber
Fort Hood Shooter
Hanson (now they were terrrosists!)

 Rented Tritium wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
provide inter-community dialogue and mediation

What, precisely, do you think this means

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.

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?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Rented Tritium wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
provide inter-community dialogue and mediation

What, precisely, do you think this means

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.

 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?

I think you've got the wrong idea about the racial situation down there.

 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.

 Rented Tritium wrote:
I think you've got the wrong idea about the racial situation down there.

Perhaps you could illuminate me then.

 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.

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

 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.

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...