redhouse, since when is being a criminal and/or (allegedly) committing a crime that day a forfeiture of the right not to be lethally assaulted? Criminals have rights too. This sort of callous, racist (given that white people are charged with felonies a lot less) disregard appalls me.
Yes, the court case was muddled, yes, there were other examples the movement could have used, but that's exactly the thing, they have. It's a social movement, with as yet no clear leaders - certainly politicians are reacting to it on both sides, and civil rights groups support it, but there is no leader to it. So, it's not using one single example, and in as much as it has a single aim, it is to get cops to stop murdering black people so much.
I am amazed that people trust police forces that have clearly betrayed that trust by lying and use of excessive force, time and again. In the recent riots in Ferguson, the police used chemical weapons that they had quite obviously had prepared for this specific eventuality. They knew that there would be demonstrations. The only things they made sure of was that this time, they would tell people they would be gassed before gassing them. The police believes it is in a state of open war with the citizens, and act accordingly. That makes them an occupying army, not a police force.
Does the right of a person to live depend on the color of their skin? Doesn't that seem a bit absurd?