As pointed out by others, it only takes one or two to change that situation rather quickly.

And as I indicated, it is questioned if those kind of people who are inclined to change matters in that fashion have a "connection to Al.

And even if they do not, turns ugly fast.

And the matter still gets turned around onto the cops once again.

and I really hate to bring it up...but...

How quickly people forget....

20,000 went to Jena 6 ( a town of 5,000) and shut the town down....no arrests (except for the idiot with a noose in a truck try to incite a riot) altho some assumed that it would turn into a riot.

I can't say that the same will happen in NYC but one should not assume that a riot will happen !

So? This is the case with every mobilization effort in the world.

SHUT UP EM DOWN.

The biggest fish fry in this country's history? :) Don't get me started on Jena but I agree with your point.

There are still some people who would be quick to call those that went to Jena 'terrorists' because of thier actions I had a nice heated debate with one of those loonies a few weeks ago) ...last time I checked the Constituion still allowed for people to assemble peacefully...hehe

Hey...Jena was perfect for the small businessperson who made tshirts and dinner plates. :)

Unfortunately the larger point can be lost on many when some of the Jena 6 appear to be idiots.

I want another Million Man March and a Million Family March. And a Get On the Bus 2008 while we're at it. :)

And Jon, it only takes inflammatory assumptions like in your first sentence to lead down the slippery slope of infringing on civil liberties. Denying citizens their rights to peaceably assemble and redress grievances is how totalitarian governments squelch the voice of the people. Trying to justify it by inciting fear of violence before anything even happens is manipulation at its worst.

I also caught how you made sure to refer to "peace" officers in an earlier post. That title has not been earned by the police officers in this case. That does not mean that citizens as a whole distrust or don't see the need for police officers in general (who at their best, are "peace" officers). But it does mean that when someone who wears a badge blatantly does something wrong, the badge shouldn't protect them from being held accountable. Which is too often the case.

And another person said something about people needing to get as upset about police officer shootings as they are in this case. I think people's sympathies are always with officers (and their families) who are lost while they are faithfully executing their duties. However, name a case where a police officer was killed in a hail of 50 bullets, the shooters were caught, and they walked.

Oh yeah....riiight...!!!

I'm still called a terrorist or a rabble rouser for attending those events.....;)

Probably by the same people who thought the Rodney King riot was a peaceful protest gone sour. "See?! You people can't get together in peaceful protest if you tried!!"

On another note, there have been a lot of race riots in this nation's great history. It's crazy. And a lot of race protests.

Nittany, I didn't see anything indicating that Jon was in favor of infringing on the right to assemble.

But one could make the argument that Sharpton's comments could have been made more..."responsibly" I suppose. I don't find his comments reckless, but others could probably argue a similar point with some success.

He is a leader (to some) in a volatile situation, and he'd be well served by choosing his words carefully. Maybe he has. I don't expect people to riot over this, but anytime this much emotion is involved, there is a threat. Thus, I think it should be expected that anyone speaking publicly on such a matter should be cautious, unless they're indifferent to the result.

The situation isn't as volatile as people are interpreting it. The cause speeds on but there is no overwhelming sense of outrage that is likely to lead to a riot. Riots happen for a combination of reasons beyond an incident of injustice. They usually are a culmination of discontent with underlying inequalities and social issues like joblessness, poverty, and racial antagonism and a particular incident provides the venue. The riot probably would've begun already if it was going to happen in the Bell case. And Sharpton has his faults but he's generally too responsible and political to incite a riot.

Out of respect for his "widow," child, and family the Bell situation is likely to be handled in a different fashion. Even Roc A Wear is allowing Nicole Paultre-Bell to speak out.

I wanted to ask someone about this, if anyone has seen this "ad." I saw a blip about it but haven't actually seen it. What is it appearing in?

I was somewhat disturbed by it at first, but it sounds like it may not be a traditional advertising relationship. I looked briefly but couldn't find details, anyone know more?

I was just thinking the same thing

http://binside.typepad.com/photos/un...llcampaign.jpg

http://www.hiphopdx.com/index/news/i...in-rocawear-ad

http://www.defsounds.com/news/Rocawe...ks_controversy



....aaaahhhhh...but there was no jury.....

I don't see it as a traditional advertising relationship, either.

I think it's a good idea because it provides a voice whereas not having a voice is what the desire for violent protest are made of.

I can't show the image that's on my computer but it's just a very simple ad. There's a photo of Nicole Bell (I assume it's Mrs. Bell) wearing Roc A Wear earrings. The caption reads "we are going to be here 'til the end, 'til justice is served." At the bottom it says "Roc a Wear--I will not lose."