I have to admit there is a LOT of media bias out there Comrade Anklebiter... I still wonder why I didn't hear about the police shooting dead that vagrant while I hear from every source about this shooting.
thejeff... so much crime goes unpunished it's frightening. I really doubt most of the racist officers OR the race rioters will ever see any punishment. They will be free to do this again next time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'll favorite this, but I got the feeling that Zimmie could have shot anybody of any color. But it's just a hunch.Also, speaking of political correctness, I don't really get the line "this is only news because he's black." My buddy was attending community college during the Trayvon Martin thing and he said all the young white kids kept saying "It's just 'cuz he's black."Of course it's just cuz he's black.
If he wasn't black, he wouldn't have been shot. That's the point!
Again I agree with Comrade Anklebiter... Zimmie would have shot anyone. He certainly didn't strike me as racist during all that... just a loose cannon.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have to admit there is a LOT of media bias out there Comrade Anklebiter... I still wonder why I didn't hear about the police shooting dead that vagrant while I hear from every source about this shooting.
I'm going to guess because the riots have gone on for longer and have been more destructive, but it's just a guess.
A second, darker, guess occurs to me, and that is that this story might be more likely to be picked up by certain media outlets because it allows people to call black people "animals" and get away with it.
Hmmm... stripped of PC we get the following:
[PC off]Black criminal murdered by white cop. Riots and an abusive police crackdown to follow.[PC on]
Its sadly a necessary process. If you don't have the demonstrations you don't get the FBI involvement you want: I don't know if you're not from America or something, but you really should know that they don't show up at every police shooting. If you don't make a fuss about it, they just sweep it under the rug, file the report they want, and then nothing happens. (like when they charged that guy for bleeding on their uniforms)
No demonstration, no feebs.
And yes I am going to pray for BOTH sides. Because when each side decided to get evil then it is the innocent on both sides that get to suffer. The peaceful protester tear gassed and shot at with bean bags, the hardworking shopkeeper watching helplessly as people destroy his shop.
There are more than orders of magnitude between an person who is dead and a person who has to fill out an insurance claim and sweep up some glass.
Ultimately the cop will face the FBI and be found guilty or innocent but until then lets all behave like frenzied barbarians or jackbooted thugs.
What % of the rioters did that? Less than 1%. You can't blame every demonstrator because one kid said "Hey, this would be a great time to get some liquor!"
I wasn't blaming every demonstrator just the criminal ones. I already said i am praying for the protestors who were unjustly gassed and bruised by the police... as far as I have heard the police haven't killed anyone during the riots so you can take your straw man and leave him at your place where he belongs. And as a victim of crime myself I can tell you it is NOT as simple as filling out a form and sweeping up the glass when dealing with insurance agencies. I got back pennies on my dollars after they took away the deductible and reduced the value of my damages by declaring massive devaluation for the stuff having been "used" and accepting only the lowest possible bid on repairs. These poor people are out tens of thousands of dollars AFTER insurance. And on top of all that there is the very real fear you face for years and years after the attack.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wasn't blaming every demonstrator just the criminal ones. I already said i am praying for the protestors who were unjustly gassed and bruised by the police... as far as I have heard the police haven't killed anyone during the riots so you can take your straw man and leave him at your place where he belongs. And as a victim of crime myself I can tell you it is NOT as simple as filling out a form and sweeping up the glass when dealing with insurance agencies. I got back pennies on my dollars after they took away the deductible and reduced the value of my damages by declaring massive devaluation for the stuff having been "used" and accepting only the lowest possible bid on repairs. These poor people are out tens of thousands of dollars AFTER insurance. And on top of all that there is the very real fear you face for years and years after the attack.
First and foremost, I would prefer that looters not be lumped in with the protesters if only to avoid having to bring up the classic 'scavengers versus looters' images from post-Kattrina as another example of implicit bias (and also because I would be glad to see the a!+*#*~$s in question brought to actual justice for what they did); secondly, though, last I checked, innocent until proven guilty was how this was supposed to work. So the phrasing used...
[PC off]Black criminal murdered by white cop. Riots and an abusive police crackdown to follow.[PC on]
Assumption of criminality is bad enough, but supplement that with the explicit assumption that the police were not only truthful in their synopsis but that ANY of what the suspect might have possibly done on the most expansive list of hypothetical crimes merited the immediate escalation to lethal force strains the boundaries of credibility.
As for the lack of reports in other regards, my personal theory is that it doesn't sell copy, unless it is seen as funny (reference Don't Taze Me Bro), self-satisfied justification (see the different Occupy movement police crackdowns on protesters including many spontaneous pepper spraying), or so egregious in their overtness and location and possibly conspicuous in their lack of other typifying qualities that their abhorrent nature simply cannot be ignored (reference the New Mexico shooting of the homeless man, or the opening of fire on the woman with the car full of kids following a traffic stop when she panicked and tried to flee).
In no way do I object to business being given able to self-protect; the QuickTrip situation in particular hits very close to home for me considering one significant other works for the company and a dear friend in St. Louis was applying to work in the very store that was burned down. I'm sure that the insurance companies will do their utmost to try to get out of paying as much as they can get away with, and what they will pay is also likely to not cover revenue lost during the tumult. I have no easy solution for this unfortunately, because I feel that, should an investigation into the event reveal liability, the monies would be apt to take out of the departmental budget for riot gear and MRAVs, yet that's probably overly specific and counterproductive, in addition to failing to address the principle underlying issue.
I don't mean this as a pile-on; it is meant as light, not fire.
The reason for my earlier comment vis a vis the chief going on Hannity is because of the association with its home network, and the known disinformation campaign perpetuated by same. I need not invoke the Simpsons byline applied to the matter, I trust?
I'm not going to remotely claim a lack of bias in this subject; I will at least contextualize my skepticism as others have, as elsewhere on the series of tube the backlash has largely centered on involvement by the National Action Network (and thus by extension Al Sharpton) and thus to a certain demographic instant proof that the kid was a cocoa butter scented thuglet who must have been attacking that poor cop out of racial hatred.
While not verbatim, the sentiment is there.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I want to give Aranna props here for being one of the few people involved in this conversation that I've seen - across several forums and communications platforms - to be able to get a shift in perspective and think about this from a new angle. Can we do that? Can we as a group give Aranna some props?
Thank you.
And secondly, not to change the narrative on this over to the Martin/Zimmerman case, but I feel a need to point out that Zimmerman's recorded 911 call had some pretty overtly racist statements in it, most of which have been systematically downplayed by the media and the legal system. Dude was definitely a loose cannon - he was ordered by the 911 dispatcher to remain in his vehicle and let the police handle the situation, and he pursued an unarmed youth on foot while inebriated and with a loaded weapon - but to dismiss his overtly racist commentary is doing a disservice to truth.
Is it possible that he was only saying those things and acting that way because he was drunk? Yes. But we should not ignore the fact that he (a) had been drinking in his vehicle while "on patrol" (What ARE the laws for that sort of thing in Florida, anyway?) and (b) made those statements while being recorded by a legal authority (the 911 service).
Dude was certainly a loose cannon. Dude is *most likely* at least a latent racist. They're not exclusive.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
And now, after another round of looting the police are being criticized for not doing more. Damned if you do and damned if you don't.
Also, a curfew has been imposed on the city.
Wait? What does *not shooting reporters with rubber bullets and firing tear gas into unarmed crowds* have to do with *preventing looting*
Damned if you do (shoot reporters and use tear gas on crowds) and damned if you don't (do your job) indeed.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And now, after another round of looting the police are being criticized for not doing more. Damned if you do and damned if you don't.
Also, a curfew has been imposed on the city.
Interesting that the looting is mentioned but not what happened in response to it on the part of the protesters .
You know, like how so many people complain about not happening ever?
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks for making great points everybody!
The issue of terms such as criminal, illegal, rioter, protester, are personal for me.
Ten years ago I was the one who got arrested when the Miami Model was used during the 2004 RNC visit to New York City. I was right in the middle of a situation that could very well be described as riotous, and was arrested 8/27/04. The NYPD Brute Squad beat up my friend, impounded hundreds of bicycles, and slapped overly tight zip cuffs on hundreds of us. Then things got weirder. We were held overnight in a huge really filthy bus repair building. In this big place they had built metal chainlink cages topped with coiled razorwire. The next day, a variety of handcuff arrangements, hours spent on a hot bus, mugshots, fingerprints, bologna, and late that night, I finally saw a judge and appointed defense attorney. That was the first time since my arrest that I found out what I was accused of: Two counts of Disorderly Conduct (Blocking traffic and failure to disperse), parading without a permit, and Obstruction of government administration (a misdemeanor similar to resisting arrest). Over 24 hours after I was detained, I was an indited criminal, released until my next court date. The mayor said that the actions of some protesters were like a "form of terrorism", and 1,800 others would have near identical experiences that week.
However, things didn't actually happen the way the prosecutors claimed. Many people had video taped the arrests and protests. When it came to light that the city was editing video evidence and this was reported in the NY Times, my criminal charges were dropped, as were many of the 1,800 people arrested that week. In fact, about 90% of the cases related to the RNC have been dismissed.
Several lawsuits have been filed against NYC. Recently the largest protest related class action settlement in history has been awarded to those arrested.
Now were are only a week or two from the 10 year anniversary of that experience. A month ago I spoke before the State Judge in protest of that settlement verdict for failure to designate where I was arrested as a "Mass Arrest Location Subclass". As it is, I only fall into the class of people who were put into the overly tight zip cuffs, and subjected to the filthy bus depot. The city was found to have done several actions that did not pass the legal threshold, such as arresting people in mass groups, and poor conditions of confinement. Other actions by the city, such as holding people for extended period was deemed legal because people on the internet said they would keep protesting after getting arrested.
The short version of all this is: when I was an "accused criminal", they held me in a filthy pen, took my stuff, and treated me like s$%@ for a day, then it was court dates and such for months. When I accused them of being criminals, it takes ten years, and now they pay me with everyone's tax money. In two weeks, ten years will have passed since then, and I still haven't gotten a dime from it.
Law and morality have very little connection. A vast number of people generally held in the highest esteem in our society, from Galileo, to George Washington, to Gandhi have all been accused of some of the harshest crimes. While it has generally bad connotations, the truth is that being a criminal sometimes puts you on the moral high ground, while some of the worst actions are not illegal at all. What is legal can become illegal, and the process often takes years or decades.
As related to Ferguson, what the kid did in the store would not result in criminal charges, and probably nothing more serious then a warning or probation. Even if he were found to have committed a violation that would not make him a "criminal" anymore then getting a speeding ticket or forgetting to insure your car for a month- wait, sorry, that is a felony, the most serious form of crime. Anyway, if you or I started shooting people with less lethal rounds and using military vehicles against crowds, we would quickly be convicted criminals, however the legality will probably take many years to decide.
And now, after another round of looting the police are being criticized for not doing more. Damned if you do and damned if you don't.
Also, a curfew has been imposed on the city.
Interesting that the looting is mentioned but not what happened in response to it on the part of the protesters .
You know, like how so many people complain about not happening ever?
Not everyone is of one mind not even in the black community as seen here where one photo shows a sign saying "don't shoot" while the video under it has a black man asking "Why didn't the police shoot those looters?"
And now, after another round of looting the police are being criticized for not doing more. Damned if you do and damned if you don't.
Also, a curfew has been imposed on the city.
Interesting that the looting is mentioned but not what happened in response to it on the part of the protesters .
You know, like how so many people complain about not happening ever?
Not everyone is of one mind not even in the black community as seen here where one photo shows a sign saying "don't shoot" while the video under it has a black man asking "Why didn't the police shoot those looters?"
I prepared to make an observation until I foolishly clicked the link on my phone instead of the computer.
TGP has been cited by Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Drudge, The Blaze, Mark Levin, FOX Nation and by several international news organizations.
ಠ_ಠ
While we're at it, let's get input from James O'Keefe.
eh? The point was to watch the street interview, not to look for who else reads a page I found while surfing for new news? I think it highlights the trouble here. On one side are the people who are aghast at the police violence and on the other are people who clearly think the looters deserve some. And this is just inside the black community.
Clearly this community needs help. They need to unite against crime and hire a police force they can trust to make the right calls. If they don't do both then this won't end with a dead teen and a jailed officer.
|
eh? The point was to watch the street interview, not to look for who else reads a page I found while surfing for new news? I think it highlights the trouble here. On one side are the people who are aghast at the police violence and on the other are people who clearly think the looters deserve some. And this is just inside the black community.
Clearly this community needs help. They need to unite against crime and hire a police force they can trust to make the right calls. If they don't do both then this won't end with a dead teen and a jailed officer.
It must end with a charge of treason against police and looters for violating the constitutional rights of others. If the constitution isnt strong enough to destroy its violators it is little better than old toilet paper in need of flushing.
People are looting because the police force has proven to be incapable of correctly doing its job.
This stuff isn't rocket science. We have been dealing with this sort of thing in the US since the days of the Boston Tea Party (looters!), and the Boston "Massacre". How did that work out for the British back then?
The Ferguson PD F-ed up. They shot someone who was surrendering or at least not a threat. Then they left his body in the street. They also seemed to take no action against the shooter. At that point I would think most traditional policing play books (because, you know, you can learn from the past...) would say outreach, get the community involved, make compromises, hear what people have to say, etc. all that boring miserable work. Instead someone decided, "we don't do nation building." and went in GI Joe vs Cobra. It is a lot less work to play guns and APCs, then you know... do your job. Now the people could have respected their authority, or like in almost EVERY SINGLE time this stuff happens from 1770's Boston, to 2010 Iraq, they tell the police to get bent. They show the police that they do not respect their authority.
I think the big question is who ordered breaking out the "insurrection" playbook? Was it the local guy, the county, state, or homeland security or what? Or, has the actual protocol been changed, and who authorized that?
I think the initial SWAT style response was the local police chief. But this new curfew situation was from the State Governor.
"Why didn't the police shoot those looters?"
Traditionally the answer is- they don't shoot (or even try to stop the looting) because it is a black or minority neighborhood being looted. If that was the rich part of town, you can bet that stuff would never be tolerated. When I was in a march on Wall Street, there were THOUSANDS of police standing shoulder to shoulder to protect the richest peoples assets. They just don't do that for poorer people.
The bottom line is that the police don't stop the looting because they don't care, and/or are not skilled enough at law enforcement to do it.
eh? The point was to watch the street interview, not to look for who else reads a page I found while surfing for new news? I think it highlights the trouble here. On one side are the people who are aghast at the police violence and on the other are people who clearly think the looters deserve some. And this is just inside the black community.
Clearly this community needs help. They need to unite against crime and hire a police force they can trust to make the right calls. If they don't do both then this won't end with a dead teen and a jailed officer.
The problem is, and I will try to put this in as forthright and politely informative a manner as possible, I do not trust the source of the sincerity of what was presented. The interview, such as it was, served to distract from the issue in exactly the same way as the video release from the police department. If the only viable option is to put up chaff to draw attention from the root cause of the entire situation, which was the shooting precipitating all of this, then it's moot to engage in discussion of the subject because there will be nothing but deflection.
Which is, I hope, a far more tactful way of saying 'because the selectively editing disingenuous authority-worshippers who also already assume those dirty thug spooks are criminals and have been besides themselves that there is a darkie in THEIR White House would do literally every single thing possible to try to find some agreement with themselves, regardless of irony and context, so long as it continues to validate their prejudices and justify their worldviews'.
This doesn't take into account white flight, people elected into position and lingering by faking a measure of pandering, voter turn out and the repercussions it has on electoral results, endeavors at ddisenfranchisement en masse, or any other top down or bottom up method of correction of the problem because, right now, fixing those problems is secondary to the facts of what happened, how the authorities handled it, and the continued bungling of the response by efforts to defame the deceased while defending someone should be in custody but is not because of internal protectionism and careful manipulation of the system.
With that I think I need to get some fresh air. I don't think that you are being a shill or defender or oppressor or anything else of the sort, just to clarify - I cast no aspersions on your character.
I have, due to personal experiences, massive distrust of the source. The contents can be factual, but that doesn't change the usage and methods of procurement. After all, I am still leery of trusting the picture showing a Confederate flag in the house of the police chief because of its manner of acquisition.
In a democracy the population is supposed to be in control, not under it.
Unfortunately, this most often is only seen as applicable to a homogeneous populace.
~sigh~
TheAntiElite... where to start with that? That post is dripping with paranoia, I truly hope you can see that. I would rather trust people and fix the root of the problem in the first place. A murder was done and justice will be served. The more I read the more I think it's that lack of trust that caused this tragedy in the first place.
My guess is that the officer encountered an angry and belligerent teen and decided to arrest him for... I have no idea (probably jaywalking) since he didn't know about the crimes the boy was a suspect in. As the teen was being placed in the cruiser the teen foolishly decided to fight back and at some point they struggled over the officer's weapon which was fired into the cruiser. The teen ran and in the heat of rage the officer gunned him down.
We had two people who clearly didn't trust each other and it ended in violence and death. Was the boy behaving badly? probably. Was the officer profiling? probably. Was there needless escalation from both of them? obviously. Now two families are devastated and both men won't be going home... one is dead and the other likely headed to prison. THAT situation is over. We now have a new one with unrest and looting.
As for the Confederate flag and the police chief... That flag means very different things to different people. I would have to ask the man about it to know which of the meanings it has for him? Is it his symbol of southern pride? Is it his symbol of racism and slavery? Or is it his symbol of rebellion against an oppressive government? Those are the big three meanings it has for different groups. Can you be sure it is the chief's declaration of support for racism? And if it is that to him it seems silly to hang it up for everyone to see... like he is proud of it... like maybe it means southern pride? Just maybe? Since he is part of the government I think we can safely rule out the third meaning. Although I am no expert, maybe he is proudly displaying his love of racism? And if so... why not elect some one else in this black community? I mean I struggle to see why anyone would vote for a proud racist to be head of police in a black community.
Shouldn't we try now to see all the sides (and there are more than two) and work to rebuild trust? If the sides cling to distrust then this will happen again at some point.
---
thejeff may be more right than I was initially when I started this argument. But even I can see that the police probably didn't shoot looters because they didn't want to be accused of racism and murder.
It must end with a charge of treason against police and looters for violating the constitutional rights of others. If the constitution isnt strong enough to destroy its violators it is little better than old toilet paper in need of flushing.eh? The point was to watch the street interview, not to look for who else reads a page I found while surfing for new news? I think it highlights the trouble here. On one side are the people who are aghast at the police violence and on the other are people who clearly think the looters deserve some. And this is just inside the black community.
Clearly this community needs help. They need to unite against crime and hire a police force they can trust to make the right calls. If they don't do both then this won't end with a dead teen and a jailed officer.
The Constitution has a very specific definition of treason, and this doesn't fit. Treason charges not only shouldn't be used (granted, I very firmly believe that treason should not be a punishable crime at all), they legally can't.
"Why didn't the police shoot those looters?"Traditionally the answer is- they don't shoot (or even try to stop the looting) because it is a black or minority neighborhood being looted. If that was the rich part of town, you can bet that stuff would never be tolerated. When I was in a march on Wall Street, there were THOUSANDS of police standing shoulder to shoulder to protect the richest peoples assets. They just don't do that for poorer people.
The bottom line is that the police don't stop the looting because they don't care, and/or are not skilled enough at law enforcement to do it.
There is also the fact that the rich can retaliate against the police politically and financially, and the poor can't.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the main thing we need to take from this is that cops really do need to be wearing vest cameras, and the unedited footage needs to be public domain except in cases where it would violate standing laws protecting children, rape victims, and the like. If what happened in the initial shooting was obvious, the local police probably still handle it poorly, but it'll be much more clear that they did so. Also, as the state police showed, the soft approach really does work.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My guess is that the officer encountered an angry and belligerent teen and decided to arrest him for... I have no idea (probably jaywalking) since he didn't know about the crimes the boy was a suspect in. As the teen was being placed in the cruiser the teen foolishly decided to fight back and at some point they struggled over the officer's weapon which was fired into the cruiser. The teen ran and in the heat of rage the officer gunned him down.
When was the last time you saw/ heard of a white teenager placed in the back of a patrol car for jaywalking?
As for the Confederate flag and the police chief... That flag means very different things to different people. I would have to ask the man about it to know which of the meanings it has for him? Is it his symbol of southern pride? Is it his symbol of racism and slavery? Or is it his symbol of rebellion against an oppressive government? Those are the big three meanings it has for different groups. Can you be sure it is the chief's declaration of support for racism? And if it is that to him it seems silly to hang it up for everyone to see... like he is proud of it... like maybe it means southern pride? Just maybe? Since he is part of the government I think we can safely rule out the third meaning. Although I am no expert, maybe he is proudly displaying his love of racism? And if so... why not elect some one else in...
It was his love of racism, whether he admits that to himself or anyone else.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Shouldn't we try now to see all the sides (and there are more than two) and work to rebuild trust? If the sides cling to distrust then this will happen again at some point.
I find this idea or rebuilding trust troublesome, at least without some drastic consequences. Everything about this incident, and the build up to it has injustice written all over it. Why in the world would the people trust these cops?
Also, our countries founding documents are all about NOT having to trust your government. You don't have a 2nd Amendment because you have faith in your government. You have it so that The People control the government, and not the other way around. Good government is derived through transparency, not blind faith. Right winger types should be all over that idea, and I think they would be if it were white people resisting their government.
EDIT: Not to say that I disagree with what I think your point is Aranna, just that changes, big changes need to be made for it to happen.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
First, I'm pretty sure looters don't have anything to distinguish them from normal peaceful protestors except during the comission of the crime itself. And, if they are like most criminals would prefer to commit their crimes while the police are either not present or have their hands very full.
Beyond that, I suspect police had pretty strict orders of what they could and could not do to the crowd. Also, they were very likely nervous as hell and not comfortable taking their attention off the large portion of the crowd to deal with a small portion of it. Cops are people to, and at the end of the day they want to go back home to their families as much as the next guy.
Now in a perfect world they would have been able to deal with every single looter and not interfere with a single protestor, and none of the protestors would have interfered or done anything to cause the situation to escalate. We don't live in that world.
I'm pretty sure nothing distinguishes you from murderous sociopath except the commission of the crime. Or for that matter, nothing distinguishes me from a wife beater except that I don't beat my wife.
On the other hand, nothing distinguishes racist-cop/murders from from officer friendly until they shoot an unarmed black kid for giving them lip.
I think the main thing we need to take from this is that cops really do need to be wearing vest cameras, and the unedited footage needs to be public domain except in cases where it would violate standing laws protecting children, rape victims, and the like. If what happened in the initial shooting was obvious, the local police probably still handle it poorly, but it'll be much more clear that they did so. Also, as the state police showed, the soft approach really does work.Vest and cruiser cameras are necessary. That's really the next step across the country. Stop spending money on all the military surplus gear and buy the damn cameras.
Also: Recruit from the local community. Start actual community policing. Check cops for steroids.
I don't think the unedited footage needs to be public. There's a lot of privacy concerns there even beyond the existing protection laws and I don't think it's necessary. Having it available for discovery in any legal proceeding, including civil suits is probably sufficient. And just knowing it's there is a deterrent.
Protects cops from false accusations too, so it's a win-win.
I don't think it should be automatically made public, but the video should be stored indefinitely and unedited. It should also be available with a FOIA request.
Since I am having a bad day at an anime convention that I should be having fun at, and the subject of paranoia was brought up, now would be a great time to paste this from my recent Facebook post.
Fri ·
This is a repost from a discussion, only adjusted to remove a name. Not to protect the innocent or shame the guilty, but to spare him the hassles that might result.
----------------------------------------------
There are so many things that people fail to grasp in the context of this incident and like would not understand without being directly impacted.
I don't think it's possible to distill the entirety of the 'why' of this moment into a suitably pithy sound bite for people to snack on, but I'm frustrated and masochistic enough to try.
It says a substantial amount that people think that 'cop kills young adult' is something that is enough of a normality that it doesn't merit media attention. It says just as much that in light of the deliberate withholding of information about the officer in question, regardless of the history of controversy in both the precinct and the industry as a whole, that there is apparently a lack of skepticism. But when the context of the action is taken into account with, say, the Gardener choke hold in New York City, the Trayvon Martin incident, the most recent shooting in LA, and just about every other incident where people in position of real or perceived power is allowed to treat other members of its citizenry in such callous and irresponsible manner, and topped off by a perception that people are actually okay with state of affairs, one can't help but think, you know that whole post-racial society thing? Not so much.
It isn't simply about those of us who have been subject to DWB. It isn't about how people still hold their breath in terror if I have to share an elevator with them while dressed professionally and hygienicly sound, thank you very much. It isn't about people crossing the street and clutching their bags a little more tightly rather tha share sidewalk with me.
It is about how perception in society says that my life, specifically based on what I am, is expendable under circumstances that, were it YOUR son, authority figures not only would not be bothered, they would likely both assist and encourage him.
I know of no better way to clarify the matter.
I know that, statistically speaking, if my brother-in-law was taking part in a 2nd Amendment rally, he would be left in peace.
I would be left dead in the street if the happenstance in Ferguson were taken as precedent. Or the shooting of the 22 year old in a Wal-Mart for having a BB gun in his hand.
A BB GUN.
All this, without even touching on the vitriolic mendacity of those who are whining about the President's vacation time with a straight face while not considering that we have a verifiable record to compare to his predecessors. PLURAL.
Yet people wonder why 'you people' are so bent out of shape.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
~sigh~
TheAntiElite... where to start with that? That post is dripping with paranoia
It isn't paranoia when you're right
Hell, I'm white enough to bellyrub police dogs and I think you're being overly optimistic. I don't want to think how you come across to people that actually put up with racial profiling and other such nonsense from the police.
I truly hope you can see that. I would rather trust people and fix the root of the problem in the first place. A murder was done and justice will be served.
And why on earthy might the residents think this won't be the case?
Could it be because it HASN"T been the case , especially for black people.
The more I read the more I think it's that lack of trust that caused this tragedy in the first place.
Put the blame on the police that repeatedly blew the public trust.
We had two people who clearly didn't trust each other and it ended in violence and death. Was the boy behaving badly? probably. Was the officer profiling? probably. Was there needless escalation from both of them? obviously.
Blowing someone away while they've got their hands in the air because they denied your authoritai is bloody murder, not "needless escalation".
Now two families are devastated and both men won't be going home... one is dead and the other likely headed to prison. THAT situation is over.
Its not, because the whole him going to prison thing is going to take continued community action.
We now have a new one with unrest and looting.
GOOD! There's been enough of this going on that the people SHOULDN"T be restful! Cops do not actually file paperwork spelling out that the assault on their person was from the blood splatter from the beating they delivered unless they know they have a bureaucracy in place that will cover their keisters no matter what.
I will take smashed windows over sheepish complacency any day of the week.
As for the Confederate flag and the police chief... That flag means very different things to different people.
He's either the worlds biggest dukes of hazard fan, an idiot that buys that dross about slavery not being the cause of the war, or a racist.
Probably a combination of all three. Two of them should render you ineligible for public office.
Or is it his symbol of rebellion against an oppressive government?
The definition of irony...
Shouldn't we try now to see all the sides (and there are more than two) and work to rebuild trust?
NO.
I absolutely despise this psuedointellectual "wisdom" that epistemic nihlism and the golden mean fallacy are anything other than the dross that they are. You need to reach a conclusion at some point and that conclusion needs to be mired in the best available information you have, not simply averaged out between the two most extreme possible views on the matter.
Not to belabor the point any, but given that a plurality of states involved in the Confederacy specifically called out the abolition of slavery as - if not their primary reason, one of their top three reasons - why they were seceding from the Union..., well...
You can wrap it up politely in "southern pride" and the like, but the simple fact is that that flag stands for a regime that wanted to keep slavery legal, white people in power over people of color, and was actively involved in the practices of eugenics, genocide, and forced oppression through lethal force.
It's cool (though perhaps a bit naive) if you want to try and edge-case it as "well maybe he's one of the GOOD Confederates" or something, but the abolition of slavery as the driving force for secession is right there in black and white in publicly available archives of the Confederacy/Secession documents of the states in question. To say that the Confederate flag stands for other things is your prerogative, but to say that it isn't rooted in slavery, oppression, and violence is just sanitizing history.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would be left dead in the street if the happenstance in Ferguson were taken as precedent. Or the shooting of the 22 year old in a Wal-Mart for having a BB gun in his hand.
A BB GUN.
Many of them look real enough. If you point one of those at someone expect to be shot. (a brief web search doesn't make it seem like he was just playing with it in the isle where it was sold)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
First, I'm pretty sure looters don't have anything to distinguish them from normal peaceful protestors except during the comission of the crime itself. And, if they are like most criminals would prefer to commit their crimes while the police are either not present or have their hands very full.
Beyond that, I suspect police had pretty strict orders of what they could and could not do to the crowd. Also, they were very likely nervous as hell and not comfortable taking their attention off the large portion of the crowd to deal with a small portion of it. Cops are people to, and at the end of the day they want to go back home to their families as much as the next guy.
Now in a perfect world they would have been able to deal with every single looter and not interfere with a single protestor, and none of the protestors would have interfered or done anything to cause the situation to escalate. We don't live in that world.
I'm pretty sure nothing distinguishes you from murderous sociopath except the commission of the crime. Or for that matter, nothing distinguishes me from a wife beater except that I don't beat my wife.
On the other hand, nothing distinguishes racist-cop/murders from from officer friendly until they shoot an unarmed black kid for giving them lip.
In the case of a sociopathic murderer there is blood, a murder weapon, and physical evidence. In a looting not only are you not going to have time to dust for prints, you're probably not going to have an inclanation to do so when it means taking your attention off the crowd who is shooting at you. In a looting nothing distinguishes the guy who just emptied a register into his pockets from the person next to him except the contents of his pockets, and gods help a police officer here who randomly starts detaining people to search their pockets for stolen money.
Good try though.
Also, way to judge the cop guilty before a trial.
Yeah, good thing I don't have a gun, situational authority, and something to prove...
|
I'm going to armchair QB this without political agenda or bias as best as I can based upon what information I already know.
---
Brown roughs up the clerk and takes cigs (or doesn't, - doesn't really matter)
Brown and friend are walking, cop sees them in the street and drives up wanting to question/harass them (as cops are wont to do either way).
Cop doesn't know that Brown is a suspect in the strongarm robbery, so he sees some guys walking and decides to question them.
Brown knows what he did, and maybe (maybe) assumes the cop may already know and is going to try to bust him. Brown approaches vehicle to talk to cop.
Brown figuring the cop is going to arrest him anyway (not knowing that the cop is ignorant of the strongarm robbery), is still on a high from his actions in the store decides to pound on the cop (based on limited injuries to cop).
Struggle ensues for weapon (or not - may never know the truth on this).
Then the rest of what's being described (this is where I have the problems).
-----------------------
A) Cop either fires in close proximity and in self-defense and it's a justified shoot (fist fight and then fight over his weapon).
B) Struggle near car as above, Brown breaks off and cop then shoots Brown at a distance in back and in front (as described by friend witness and other witness). Cop is a murderer or in the least should be charged with manslaughter for being incapable of taking some hits and then rage shooting a fleeing/surrendering suspect in the back (and front).
These last two points are critical. They are the only thing I'm really looking at. The rest is agenda and smoke.
Forensics will bear out if this was a point blank shoot (and the friend and witness are lying) or if this was a shooting at a distance (in which case the cop should be charged with murder).
The fact that the family wants a second autopsy indicates that this may have been a close quarters shoot or they didn't like the tox report (if that was already finished). I don't really care if Brown had weed in his system or not (which may be part of the tox report hold up and may not come out till trial). I care about:
Range of the shots
Angle of shots
Number of shots
Entry point of bullets (in the back and at distance - cop does not pass go and goes directly to jail)
Problem is - we don't know any of this beyond eyewitness accounts.
We have hearsay from either side with a reason to provide a narrative: friend witness may have been involved in the robbery, 2nd witness is coached.
For the other side - the cop is CYA so he doesn't go to jail as the police dept circles wagons around him protecting a cop in a questionable shoot.(standard response in most questionable shootings).
-----------------------
Bottom line - people there and here need to check their political agenda of defending/attacking Brown or defending/attacking the cop(s)/police since it does nothing to help the situation.
Ballistics will bear out on who is telling the truth and what likely happened.
Eyewitness reports become very specious when each party has an agenda tied to it.
I like science - science works.
-----------------------
Full disclaimer: Growing up punk and skin I was never a friend of the cops, nor do I approve of the hardware small pd have been given these days for their war on...whatever they are fighting.
I lean strong conservative in my world views but I also believe that people should be policed by their own neighbors (vs. cops commuting to their work). Having police that live in the same area/grow up in same community/culture does work - it seems to have worked well in West Hollywood which has a large gay community where WEHO PD have hired some gay police officers to better deal with the residents. I would say that this applies to same race/policed by same race. Helps with policing residents and understanding cultural issues, overcoming language barriers, etc. Just makes more sense IMO.
I don't know if their is a racial component to the shooting - their could be but without more info/crime stats/arrest/police abuse reports or the ability to use ESP I can't tell.
I think cops coming in from outside the community only adds to the Us vs. Them mentality that comes with being a cop (race issues aside).
Anyway, tear it apart.