Jump to content
KJP

Police Use of Force

Recommended Posts

^Why does that conversation make you feel uncomfortable?  It is a very real issue.  Let's face it, no one admits they are racist...... sometimes not even to themselves.  In fact, I would suggest that many people have forgotten what exactly 'racism' means.  That comment applies equally to all races, just so your not confused.

 

Just a thought. Does anyone think the popularity of the word thug in rap/hip hop has anything to do with the word being used to describe blacks more than whites? There are more examples than I could possibly list here of either rappers themselves (Slim Thug, Bone Thugs) or their lyrics that use the word thug to describe themselves and or their actions.  If the word was popularized by rap and hip hop, who is really to blame for the mental association people have with the word?

 

We had that conversation in another thread.  I don't know if the chicken or the egg came first, but why would it matter?  What matters is the 'mental association', which you acknowledge is present.  The problem is how generalized it has become to the point of any black youth behaving in the slightest illegal way, or appearing similar to a stereotypical urban youth, is automatically labeled as a thug.  Gangsta rap (not hip-hop, there is a difference) generally used thug, not to describe every young black man who might have stolen something out of a convenience store and/or shoved another human being.  You had to do something much, much worse to 'earn' that label in that silly little world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Accusing someone of being a bigot or racist isn't insulting in your book?

 

Is punching a bully in the face 'bullying' in your book?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We had that conversation in another thread.  I don't know if the chicken or the egg came first, but why would it matter?  What matters is the 'mental association', which you acknowledge is present.  The problem is how generalized it has become to the point of any black youth behaving in the slightest illegal way, or appearing similar to a stereotypical urban youth, is automatically labeled as a thug.  Gangsta rap (not hip-hop, there is a difference) generally used thug, not to describe every young black man who might have stolen something out of a convenience store and/or shoved another human being.  You had to do something much, much worse to 'earn' that label in that silly little world.

 

^This.  Aaaaannnd...

 

Is punching a bully in the face 'bullying' in your book?

 

^This.


"You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Turns out that the officer's contact with Brown had nothing to do with a reported robbery.

 

EDIT: there also appears to be some doubt (I'm not sure how believable) that the man in the video at the convenience store is in fact Brown.  Something about Brown not having a hat on and different shoes.  Remember, this was 10 minutes after the robbery.  Regardless, I guess it doesn't matter one way or the other with the Chief's admission.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Turns out that the officer's contact with Brown had nothing to do with a reported robbery.

 

 

 

Yep. It was jaywalking. Jaywalking......  Speechless.


"Nearly every problem that we have in the USA -- unaffordable health care, prison overpopulation, hyper militarization, climate change, racism, gun violence, poverty, poor education, urban sprawl and others -- cannot be positively addressed because bribery and conflicts of interest are legal under campaign finance laws which protect the uber-wealthy and the narrow self-interests who grossly benefit from our afflictions."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ferguson police chief: Officer didn't stop Brown as robbery suspect

 

Ferguson, Missouri (CNN) -- The Ferguson police officer who shot Michael Brown didn't stop him because he was suspected in a recent robbery, but because he was "walking down the middle of the street blocking traffic," the city's police chief said Friday.

 

Ferguson Police Chief Thomas Jackson told reporters the alleged "robbery does not relate to the initial contact between the officer and Michael Brown."

 

So why did Ferguson police decide to release surveillance video of the alleged convenience store Friday -- the same day that they named, six days after the shooting, the white police officer who fatally shot the African-American teenager -- if the two incidents are not related?

 

Jackson said he released the videotape "because the press asked for it," noting some in the media had filed Freedom of Information requests for the footage and that he couldn't withhold indefinitely. The chief added "we needed to release that at the same time we needed to release the name of the officer involved in the shooting," though he didn't elaborate more on why.

 

More below:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/15/us/missouri-teen-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t1


"You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

We had that conversation in another thread.  I don't know if the chicken or the egg came first, but why would it matter?  What matters is the 'mental association', which you acknowledge is present.  The problem is how generalized it has become to the point of any black youth behaving in the slightest illegal way, or appearing similar to a stereotypical urban youth, is automatically labeled as a thug.  Gangsta rap (not hip-hop, there is a difference) generally used thug, not to describe every young black man who might have stolen something out of a convenience store and/or shoved another human being.  You had to do something much, much worse to 'earn' that label in that silly little world.

 

I agree that it is problematic that the word thug has become a bit of a label for 'urban black youth' in general.  I was just trying to offer an explanation for why the term might be used more for blacks exhibiting 'thuggish' behavior than whites exhibiting the same behavior.  FYI, I don't really think the term was always used to describe some hardened criminal.  See Tupac's Thugs Mansion as an example. 

 

Another point that I have found interesting is how these racial flair ups are now well documented by social media.  It has been interesting to see the response of my Facebook friends to not just this story, but also Trayvon Martin, Eric Garner, etc.  When I read the reactions of my black friends to these stories, I find it both sad and a bit confusing.  I don't mean to say that each of these stories aren't tragedies- they 100% are.  But it does seem odd that out of the dozens of black men who are murdered every day in this country, only the stories of intra racial violence get attention.  I've read things in the past week like "I fear for my brother every time he leaves the house" or "no black person in this country is safe from the police".  It just seems like....hyperbole to me.  When I asked one of my FB friends about this, I got this response:

 

"Even though all police officers aren't bad, I don't know if I'll run into a good or bad one when I interact with a police officer so I have to be on guard at all times. That's the same as knowing all men aren't rapists but I have to be careful when I'm out some at night because I don't know if I'll run into a man that may try to take advantage of me."

 

The thing that got me was how racist this would sound if you substituted 'black people' for 'police officer'.  I know that, statistically, I am way more likely to be robbed or assaulted by a black male in the city of Cincinnati than a white or Asian male, black female, etc.  Does that mean that I need to be on guard every time I interact with a black male?  Of course not.  I understand there is a history of abuse against black people at the hands of the police, but I, as a white male, see these incidents as being outliers, not the rule.  The vast majority of arrests and police interactions are peaceful and uneventful. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the base of the dialogue, the cornerstone:  These events never happen to white people.  NEVER.  That should tell everybody something.

 

Name one white Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin, Roger Owensby, Timothy Thomas, Amadou Diallo, Eric Garner.  Four separate police departments in four different states, same result.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^Here is a good read getting at your point of 'selective outrage' - http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/eugene-robinson-our-selective-outrage/2014/08/14/22a72dba-23e5-11e4-958c-268a320a60ce_story.html

 

There should be outrage over any murder, regardless of the skin color of the suspect or the victim.  I sincerely hope we someday reach that point.  But, I believe, that stories like this garner so much attention due to the fear of a 'racially-motivated' or other prejudiced-driven killing.  People are killed everyday.  They are murdered for something they did or didn't do, or simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time.  It is almost always a tragedy.  But when someone is killed (i.e. would be alive otherwise) specifically because they are a particular race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc., the public outcry is inevitably going to be louder.  That's what separates this incident (if that is indeed the case) from the popular right-wing meme about "what about all the killings in Chicago last weekend?  Where is all the outrage over that?"  And murders committed by those who are supposed to protect are also always monumentally more troubling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But when someone is killed (i.e. would be alive otherwise) specifically because they are a particular race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc + murders committed by those who are supposed to protect = Edale's answer.

 

If you want an alternative case that made national headlines due to someone being killed for being a minority, look at Matthew Shephard.


"You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you all for the dialogue.  It's refreshing to be able to actually talk about these issues, as prickly as they can be.  I know Facebook might not be the right medium for it, but it seems like anytime I would try to engage there I would just get shouted down as 'not getting it'.  I am saddened by what happened to Michael Brown, and I'm outraged by the militarized response from the police this week.  There are plenty of injustices that need to be corrected in this situation, to be sure.  At the same time, I know I don't feel as strongly about this as some other people do, largely for the reasons I outlined above.  When you don't know something, I think the best course of action is to ask and find out.  Thanks for allowing a healthy exchange of information and perspective.  It's refreshing :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ it gets viewers and a lot of website clicks. Same reason Cleveland.com spits out terribly written crime "stories". Takes no effort and brings in the advertising dollars. Hell, UrbanOhio probably even benefits from these big events. These threads always get the most views and comments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the base of the dialogue, the cornerstone:  These events never happen to white people.  NEVER.  That should tell everybody something.

 

Name one white Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin, Roger Owensby, Timothy Thomas, Amadou Diallo, Eric Garner.  Four separate police departments in four different states, same result.

 

Just to play devil's advocate, some people I know would say David "Bones" Hebert would be a white example.

 

I'm glad the FBI is involved here. I wish they would have gotten involved with the Timothy Thomas case. It's clear local investigators and local courts are unequipped to deliver justice in cases of criminal police actions.

 

I don't know if anyone posted this article in this thread:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/15/the-day-ferguson-cops-were-caught-in-a-bloody-lie.html

 

Sheds some light on past policies and actions by Ferguson police. I hope this guy gets the justice he deserves. How just...indescribably sad that he probably wouldn't have had a chance without this whole Mike Brown thing.

 

Schottel figures the courts might take the problems of the Ferguson Police Department as more than de minimis as a result of the protests sparked when an officer shot and killed an unarmed 18-year-old named Michael Brown on the afternoon of Aug. 9.

 

“Your chances on appeal are going up,” a fellow lawyer told him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But when someone is killed (i.e. would be alive otherwise) specifically because they are a particular race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc + murders committed by those who are supposed to protect = Edale's answer.

 

If you want an alternative case that made national headlines due to someone being killed for being a minority, look at Matthew Shephard.

 

He was probably killed in a twisted meth-dealing relationship gone bad. All of this stuff is shades of gray.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was flipping channels tonight watching the coverage.  Don Lemon of CNN seems to be their new face for this story.  He was out on the streets asking lame questions of any joe walking by ("what do you think of the release of the police officer's name the same as the release of the store video?").  There's no actual news left to report, so their just filling time, getting local reactions....  Rachel Maddow was of course outraged.  More interesting though was the live coverage behind her.  It appeared to be some sort of main street in Ferguson.  No cops around and the street was gridlocked with people cruising, blasting car horns & stereos, people walking amidst the cars in the streets, hanging out everywhere.  Both channels had interviews with a man who is now attorney for Dorian Wilson, who was with Mike Brown when he was shot.  Wilson also appears to have been with Brown when the robbery occurred. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the base of the dialogue, the cornerstone:  These events never happen to white people.  NEVER.  That should tell everybody something.

 

Name one white Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin, Roger Owensby, Timothy Thomas, Amadou Diallo, Eric Garner.  Four separate police departments in four different states, same result.

 

Sheesh.  Quick google search came up with this incident.  So there's at least ONE.

 

http://fox13now.com/2014/08/11/breaking-man-dead-after-officer-involved-shooting-in-s-salt-lake-police-say/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the base of the dialogue, the cornerstone:  These events never happen to white people.  NEVER.  That should tell everybody something.

 

Name one white Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin, Roger Owensby, Timothy Thomas, Amadou Diallo, Eric Garner.  Four separate police departments in four different states, same result.

Bones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the base of the dialogue, the cornerstone:  These events never happen to white people.  NEVER.  That should tell everybody something.

 

Name one white Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin, Roger Owensby, Timothy Thomas, Amadou Diallo, Eric Garner.  Four separate police departments in four different states, same result.

Bones

 

Dan Ficker.

 

In this case, I do believe that Brown resisted the cop and if they did not see him as a robbery suspect, he knew they should.  If that's the case, zero sympathy for him.

 

There's clearly a kernel of truth to the idea that this PD had issues, but a lot of this reaction is the same mindset that caused people to run Damon Wells out of Mount Pleasant.  Not even racial, at its root.

 

I am sort of amused by the people tweeting that the rioters should go into the white neighborhoods.  Even the looters are smarter than that.  Though one fails to see what trashing one's own neighborhood accomplishes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Local police are now in a tough game of chicken...  watching the coverage, it's pretty clear the area is filled with a lot of non-residents who've just been attracted by the buzz and are hanging around looking for something to happen.  Sure enough, someone throws a brick through a window of a liquor store last night and its on again.  Police are basically powerless at this point.  Anything they do will reinforce the notion that they are acting too heavy handed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sort of amused by the people tweeting that the rioters should go into the white neighborhoods.  Even the looters are smarter than that.  Though one fails to see what trashing one's own neighborhood accomplishes.[/color]

 

Don't believe what you read on those white power sites. Half those twitter accts are probably fakes. The 'revolution' is not here yet and is much more of a pipe dream then they'd like to admit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the base of the dialogue, the cornerstone:  These events never happen to white people.  NEVER.  That should tell everybody something.

 

Name one white Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin, Roger Owensby, Timothy Thomas, Amadou Diallo, Eric Garner.  Four separate police departments in four different states, same result.

 

Just to play devil's advocate, some people I know would say David "Bones" Hebert would be a white example.

 

I'm glad the FBI is involved here. I wish they would have gotten involved with the Timothy Thomas case. It's clear local investigators and local courts are unequipped to deliver justice in cases of criminal police actions.

 

I don't know if anyone posted this article in this thread:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/15/the-day-ferguson-cops-were-caught-in-a-bloody-lie.html

 

Sheds some light on past policies and actions by Ferguson police. I hope this guy gets the justice he deserves. How just...indescribably sad that he probably wouldn't have had a chance without this whole Mike Brown thing.

 

Schottel figures the courts might take the problems of the Ferguson Police Department as more than de minimis as a result of the protests sparked when an officer shot and killed an unarmed 18-year-old named Michael Brown on the afternoon of Aug. 9.

 

“Your chances on appeal are going up,” a fellow lawyer told him.

 

Bones, according to Cincinnati Police, was high as a kite and wielding a blade.  That's a lot different than the circumstances preceding the deaths of these black men:

 

Tim Thomas: Wielding a video game

Roger Owensby: Wielding 400 lbs

Eric Garner: Wielding loosies

Michael Brown: Wielding stolen Swishers

Trayvon Martin: Being a young, unapologetic black male

Amadou Diallo: Being African

 

Bones engaged in a violent act previous to his death that was reported by the affected party.  Black males don't have to put anyone in harm's way to be slain by the police.  That has been proven over and over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"@clairecmc: America, please don't hold small group of looters against hundreds & hundreds of peaceful protesters.Rather hold small group accountable."

 

Suspected looters http://t.co/ZVVJXWsaXI


"Nearly every problem that we have in the USA -- unaffordable health care, prison overpopulation, hyper militarization, climate change, racism, gun violence, poverty, poor education, urban sprawl and others -- cannot be positively addressed because bribery and conflicts of interest are legal under campaign finance laws which protect the uber-wealthy and the narrow self-interests who grossly benefit from our afflictions."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

POLITICS AND POLICY

In Ferguson's Wake, Odd Bedfellows

By JANET HOOK

Aug. 15, 2014 10:18 p.m. ET

 

The use of military-style power in Ferguson, Mo., has galvanized a coalition of libertarians and liberals calling for curbs on the use of force by police—a partnership that departs from the party-line splits that have long dominated American politics.

 

The alliance that has arisen in the wake of protests over the police shooting of an unarmed black teenager in Ferguson is the latest in a growing list of issues where liberals and libertarians have found common cause. The scope of National Security Agency surveillance, U.S. drone policy, criminal sentencing and corporate power all have emerged in recent months as topics of concern among both liberal Democrats and libertarian quarters of the GOP.

 

These instances of agreement hardly signal an end to partisan gridlock in Washington. Liberals and libertarians remain fundamentally at odds over basic policy questions such as government safety-net programs and federal regulation. But their occasional alliances do point to new political dynamics as national policy debates shift from the tax-and-spending issues that so easily split along party lines—and as the growth of libertarian sentiment within the Republican Party has created new coalition-building opportunities.

 

http://online.wsj.com/articles/in-fergusons-wake-odd-bedfellows-1408155483

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, what he's saying is, people only get upset when it is white on black shootings.  There has been nothing proven as yet, the only evidence from the police reports says that someone was actually fighting in the police car for the officer's gun. If true, that should get you shot every time!  The "other person", the only eyewitness said "he was innocent".  Everyone says they are innocent! 

 

Pictures of people lighting Molotov cocktails is always good for a peaceful protest.

 

As a person of color and mixed races, who are these "people".  I'm more upset about people of color committing crimes against one another!

 

I wonder who these "people" are?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"@CityLab: Ferguson is mostly black. Why is its government so white? http://t.co/d1M9foO9fN via @slate #cityreads"

 

This seems like a fair enough question. However in regards to why the police department is "so white," we have to ask ourselves is that because of some sort of institutional racism? Or is it part of a more national trend in urban police departments where whites are the majority because of something else, such as the possibility that not enough qualified minority candidates have gone through the training?

 

Voting!  I've said it before, if you don't vote, you have no voice in several things.  You can't vote in those you want to make a difference, you have no voice in the hiring/firing of those in your community, nor can you be called for jury duty. 

 

Many times, those who are disenfranchised help disenfranchise themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"@CityLab: Ferguson is mostly black. Why is its government so white? http://t.co/d1M9foO9fN via @slate #cityreads"

 

This seems like a fair enough question. However in regards to why the police department is "so white," we have to ask ourselves is that because of some sort of institutional racism? Or is it part of a more national trend in urban police departments where whites are the majority because of something else, such as the possibility that not enough qualified minority candidates have gone through the training?

 

Voting!  I've said it before, if you don't vote, you have no voice in several things.  You can't vote in those you want to make a difference, you have no voice in the hiring/firing of those in your community, nor can you be called for jury duty. 

 

Many times, those who are disenfranchised help disenfranchise themselves.

 

The electoral process has been sabotaged repeatedly and legally.  The locations of the polls, gerrymandering, and the fact that the people being voted on are almost always white outside of the most local of politicians does not stimulate faith in minority communities that their ballot is a catalyst of change.  When minorities vote and said elected official offers them more of the same, which is less than what the majority is getting, they naturally get discouraged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
s, according to Cincinnati Police, was high as a kite and wielding a blade.  That's a lot different than the circumstances preceding the deaths of these black men:

 

Bones engaged in a violent act previous to his death that was reported by the affected party.  Black males don't have to put anyone in harm's way to be slain by the police.  That has been proven over and over.

so now a police account is AOK?

Or it's AOK to kill White Men?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

s, according to Cincinnati Police, was high as a kite and wielding a blade.  That's a lot different than the circumstances preceding the deaths of these black men:

 

Bones engaged in a violent act previous to his death that was reported by the affected party.  Black males don't have to put anyone in harm's way to be slain by the police.  That has been proven over and over.

so now a police account is AOK?

Or it's AOK to kill White Men?

 

Let's examine what I said vs. what you interpreted my words as...

 

"Bones, according to Cincinnati Police, was high as a kite and wielding a blade.  That's a lot different than the circumstances preceding the deaths of these black men"

 

"Bones engaged in a violent act previous to his death that was reported by the affected party"

 

Slicing somebody with a sword and having them call the cops on you is different from selling cigarettes on the street or shoplifting, which is what Eric Garner and Michael Brown died over.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

s, according to Cincinnati Police, was high as a kite and wielding a blade.  That's a lot different than the circumstances preceding the deaths of these black men:

 

Bones engaged in a violent act previous to his death that was reported by the affected party.  Black males don't have to put anyone in harm's way to be slain by the police.  That has been proven over and over.

so now a police account is AOK?

Or it's AOK to kill White Men?

 

Let's examine what I said vs. what you interpreted my words as...

 

"Bones, according to Cincinnati Police, was high as a kite and wielding a blade.  That's a lot different than the circumstances preceding the deaths of these black men"

 

"Bones engaged in a violent act previous to his death that was reported by the affected party"

 

Slicing somebody with a sword and having them call the cops on you is different from selling cigarettes on the street or shoplifting, which is what Eric Garner and Michael Brown died over.

 

Has Brown ben identified as the shoplifter who was roughing people up?

The guy who complained of Bones was also high as a kite & could never be considered credible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

s, according to Cincinnati Police, was high as a kite and wielding a blade.  That's a lot different than the circumstances preceding the deaths of these black men:

 

Bones engaged in a violent act previous to his death that was reported by the affected party.  Black males don't have to put anyone in harm's way to be slain by the police.  That has been proven over and over.

so now a police account is AOK?

Or it's AOK to kill White Men?

 

Let's examine what I said vs. what you interpreted my words as...

 

"Bones, according to Cincinnati Police, was high as a kite and wielding a blade.  That's a lot different than the circumstances preceding the deaths of these black men"

 

"Bones engaged in a violent act previous to his death that was reported by the affected party"

 

Slicing somebody with a sword and having them call the cops on you is different from selling cigarettes on the street or shoplifting, which is what Eric Garner and Michael Brown died over.

 

Has Brown ben identified as the shoplifter who was roughing people up?

The guy who complained of Bones was also high as a kite & could never be considered credible.

 

But the man who called the police to report an assault was assaulted, right?  Ok, then.

 

I've seen that surveillance video.  The man alleged to be Brown pushed the shopkeeper in the chest ONE TIME.  Again, this is different from cutting someone with an enormous blade.  Can you accept that the Michael Brown circumstance is extremely different from the Bones circumstance?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

s, according to Cincinnati Police, was high as a kite and wielding a blade.  That's a lot different than the circumstances preceding the deaths of these black men:

 

Bones engaged in a violent act previous to his death that was reported by the affected party.  Black males don't have to put anyone in harm's way to be slain by the police.  That has been proven over and over.

so now a police account is AOK?

Or it's AOK to kill White Men?

 

Let's examine what I said vs. what you interpreted my words as...

 

"Bones, according to Cincinnati Police, was high as a kite and wielding a blade.  That's a lot different than the circumstances preceding the deaths of these black men"

 

"Bones engaged in a violent act previous to his death that was reported by the affected party"

 

Slicing somebody with a sword and having them call the cops on you is different from selling cigarettes on the street or shoplifting, which is what Eric Garner and Michael Brown died over.

 

Has Brown ben identified as the shoplifter who was roughing people up?

The guy who complained of Bones was also high as a kite & could never be considered credible.

 

But the man who called the police to report an assault was assaulted, right?  Ok, then.

 

I've seen that surveillance video.  The man alleged to be Brown pushed the shopkeeper in the chest ONE TIME.  Again, this is different from cutting someone with an enormous blade.  Can you accept that the Michael Brown circumstance is extremely different from the Bones circumstance?

The guy who complained of Bones refused medical treatment. Dunno if the police even talked to him in person since he didn't know his address. AFAIK, no evidence of an assault was ever found.

A customer or another employee at the store claims to have been shoved as well.

But now people are saying Brown wasn't stopped for the incident at the convenience store. I don't know as there is any reason to even discuss Brown til this stuff gets all cleared up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

s, according to Cincinnati Police, was high as a kite and wielding a blade.  That's a lot different than the circumstances preceding the deaths of these black men:

 

Bones engaged in a violent act previous to his death that was reported by the affected party.  Black males don't have to put anyone in harm's way to be slain by the police.  That has been proven over and over.

so now a police account is AOK?

Or it's AOK to kill White Men?

 

Let's examine what I said vs. what you interpreted my words as...

 

"Bones, according to Cincinnati Police, was high as a kite and wielding a blade.  That's a lot different than the circumstances preceding the deaths of these black men"

 

"Bones engaged in a violent act previous to his death that was reported by the affected party"

 

Slicing somebody with a sword and having them call the cops on you is different from selling cigarettes on the street or shoplifting, which is what Eric Garner and Michael Brown died over.

 

Has Brown ben identified as the shoplifter who was roughing people up?

The guy who complained of Bones was also high as a kite & could never be considered credible.

 

But the man who called the police to report an assault was assaulted, right?  Ok, then.

 

I've seen that surveillance video.  The man alleged to be Brown pushed the shopkeeper in the chest ONE TIME.  Again, this is different from cutting someone with an enormous blade.  Can you accept that the Michael Brown circumstance is extremely different from the Bones circumstance?

The guy who complained of Bones refused medical treatment. Dunno if the police even talked to him in person since he didn't know his address. AFAIK, no evidence of an assault was ever found.

A customer or another employee at the store claims to have been shoved as well.

But now people are saying Brown wasn't stopped for the incident at the convenience store. I don't know as there is any reason to even discuss Brown til this stuff gets all cleared up.

 

If the papers released the name of the man who called in the assault, then the police talked to the guy.  Even if he wasn't about to bleed out or didn't get cut deep enough to cause nerve damage, he still was cut by a blade.  Shoving is not stabbing.  It's not a power struggle between two men with a knife in hand.  It's a shove.

 

I didn't see Brown push anybody but the one shopkeeper, so the legend of Brown bullying the whole convenience store sounds like a legend to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

legends?

sheesh...

dude, you're just making stuff up as you go.

 

The video that I saw showed a young man shove the shopkeeper one time and did not show said young man shove anybody else.  Until I see a video that shows the same guy in the St. Louis hat pushing somebody else around, it's a legend to me that he did so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Amnesty International condemning the curfew in #Ferguson http://t.co/4mflc1MPMx


"Nearly every problem that we have in the USA -- unaffordable health care, prison overpopulation, hyper militarization, climate change, racism, gun violence, poverty, poor education, urban sprawl and others -- cannot be positively addressed because bribery and conflicts of interest are legal under campaign finance laws which protect the uber-wealthy and the narrow self-interests who grossly benefit from our afflictions."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The relevant analysis for the purposes of the discussions is not what the suspects actually did before their encounter with the police, but what the police knew at the time of the encounter.  I don't know about this "Bones" guy, but here it appears that the officer might have learned that Brown was a suspect in a shoplifting incident after he came in contact with him.  It further sounds like the officer tried to force Brown into the cruiser and Brown got free somehow.  There was a reported struggle in the cruiser.  The initial question I have is why was the officer trying to force Brown inside the vehicle without first placing him in handcuffs and without backup present.  Both would be fairly standard SOP and highly advisable given Brown's size.  Regardless, if Brown started to struggle, then the use of force was justified.  However, it seems that a lot of people trying to assasinate this kid's character in a Trayvon Martin style hit-job don't understand that there is a difference between the use of force and the use of deadly force.  There is a use of force continuum which cops are trained to follow.  A suspect simply resisting arrest is not enough to shoot him (sorry, stand your ground folks.... it isn't).  If shooting was justified in that circumstance, then we wouldn't have any debate over the  use of tasers, billy-clubs, flashlights, etc. 

 

The really relevant inquiry, if all these witness accounts are true, begins once Brown broke free.  Even if he had just pummeled the cop, use of deadly force is not justified against a suspect who is no longer engaged in a violent act.  So, if he indeed did have his hands up and was indicating a willingness to surrender, then shooting  him would be akin to execution.  THAT's the issue, regardless of the video from the convenience store Fox is bound to play on a never-ending loop for the next few months.  The police are doing themselves no favors by allowing the witnesses to tell the story?  With all of this militarized equipment, could they not invest in some dash or lapel cams.  Video not only keeps cops in line, it protects them against bogus allegations.

 

EDIT:  interesting note on the alliance b/t the 'libs' on this one.  Would that be the Libertarians or the libertarians?  Us Freedomonians are on the side of justice.... whichever side that ends up being once the facts are established.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The relevant analysis for the purposes of the discussions is not what the suspects actually did before their encounter with the police, but what the police knew at the time of the encounter.  I don't know about this "Bones" guy, but here it appears that the officer might have learned that Brown was a suspect in a shoplifting incident after he came in contact with him.  It further sounds like the officer tried to force Brown into the cruiser and Brown got free somehow.  There was a reported struggle in the cruiser.  The initial question I have is why was the officer trying to force Brown inside the vehicle without first placing him in handcuffs and without backup present.  Both would be fairly standard SOP and highly advisable given Brown's size.  Regardless, if Brown started to struggle, then the use of force was justified.  However, it seems that a lot of people trying to assasinate this kid's character in a Trayvon Martin style hit-job don't understand that there is a difference between the use of force and the use of deadly force.  There is a use of force continuum which cops are trained to follow.  A suspect simply resisting arrest is not enough to shoot him (sorry, stand your ground folks.... it isn't).  If shooting was justified in that circumstance, then we wouldn't have any debate over the  use of tasers, billy-clubs, flashlights, etc. 

 

The really relevant inquiry, if all these witness accounts are true, begins once Brown broke free.  Even if he had just pummeled the cop, use of deadly force is not justified against a suspect who is no longer engaged in a violent act.  So, if he indeed did have his hands up and was indicating a willingness to surrender, then shooting  him would be akin to execution.  THAT's the issue, regardless of the video from the convenience store Fox is bound to play on a never-ending loop for the next few months.  The police are doing themselves no favors by allowing the witnesses to tell the story?  With all of this militarized equipment, could they not invest in some dash or lapel cams.  Video not only keeps cops in line, it protects them against bogus allegations.

 

EDIT:  interesting note on the alliance b/t the 'libs' on this one.  Would that be the Libertarians or the libertarians?  Us Freedomonians are on the side of justice.... whichever side that ends up being once the facts are established.

 

So you're of the opinion that, no matter what happened before the shooting, unless Wilson was involved in an active struggle with Brown at the time of the shooting, there was no reason why Wilson needed to shoot him to death? I suspect that once the police release their side of the story, that's exactly what they're going to claim, that Brown had not disengaged and did not put his hands up. At which point it becomes the word of a handful of witnesses (none of whom would likely tell say that it was Brown's fault even if it was the truth) versus Wilson's word (who himself would obviously have motivation to bend the facts in his favor).

 

Without getting too emotional or taking sides, it's possible we'll never know what really happened because there isn't an unbiased witness around. What's worse, getting way ahead of myself here, but imagine the outrage that might come if the jury decides to let Wilson off with manslaughter...or even less. Yikes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(none of whom would likely tell say that it was Brown's fault even if it was the truth)

How exactly would you know this?

 

Just listening to the comments coming from residents, it seems there is a lot of distrust of the police in that community (and I'm not even saying it's unwarranted). I just don't think any of them would be likely to give the police the benefit of the doubt. Heck there's been debate about the validity of witness testimony, so even if these people believe that they're telling the truth (in other words, if they're not going out of their way to change the story, which is also possible), if they have the inherent biases about the police that I believe is likely, their brains may be more apt to seeing the story in the light that it wants to see it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The cop may not have known that Brown was involved in the store robbery, but there was no way that Brown would have known that.

 

Having just robbed the store/roughed up the clerk, and then getting stopped by the police 10 minutes later - it seems one would probably automatically assume the two to be related. I.e., "This cop is pulling me over because I just stole those cigars and shoved that guy."

 

That puts Brown's mindset and expectations of what's about to occur (get arrested) at odds with those of the cop, who was reportedly just stopping because they were jaywalking. It's not difficult to see how that situation could potentially get out of control and escalate to something dangerous/completely unanticipated by both parties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just listening to the comments coming from residents, it seems there is a lot of distrust of the police in that community (and I'm not even saying it's unwarranted). I just don't think any of them would be likely to give the police the benefit of the doubt. Heck there's been debate about the validity of witness testimony, so even if these people believe that they're telling the truth (in other words, if they're not going out of their way to change the story, which is also possible), if they have the inherent biases about the police that I believe is likely, their brains may be more apt to seeing the story in the light that it wants to see it.

 

I think there's a discussion about how much the Ferguson community DISTRUSTS police and how much it DISRESPECTS police.  The initial confrontation with Mike Brown is very telling.  The officer pulls up, tells the boys to get out of the middle of the street and the boy ends up in an altercation with the officer? 

 

When I was a student at OSU in the late 90s I recall students getting rowdy after beating Notre Dame.  Some couches were burned in the streets, etc.  Cops showed up and arrested anyone standing around, rubber bullets were fired at students, tear gas was shot also.  I don't recall anyone being outraged by police heavy-handedness...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The cop may not have known that Brown was involved in the store robbery, but there was no way that Brown would have known that.

 

Having just robbed the store/roughed up the clerk, and then getting stopped by the police 10 minutes later - it seems one would probably automatically assume the two to be related. I.e., "This cop is pulling me over because I just stole those cigars and shoved that guy."

 

That puts Brown's mindset and expectations of what's about to occur (get arrested) at odds with those of the cop, who was reportedly just stopping because they were jaywalking. It's not difficult to see how that situation could potentially get out of control and escalate to something dangerous/completely unanticipated by both parties.

 

While I definitely agree with this possibility, I have to wonder how long it would have taken for a suspect description to get out over the radio. Could Wilson have had the description and possible whereabouts of the suspect of the convenience store robbery in that ten minute span?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The most believable chronology of events I heard was that Wilson was aware of the robbery when he stopped Brown for walking in the street.  It was during that encounter that Wilson saw the box of cigars and made the connection to the robbery.  He went to take Brown into custody and what happens from there is where we are likely to hear conflicting accounts.

 

So you're of the opinion that, no matter what happened before the shooting, unless Wilson was involved in an active struggle with Brown at the time of the shooting, there was no reason why Wilson needed to shoot him to death?

 

I'm saying that no matter what happened before the shooting, if Brown had his hands up, then the shooting would be an unjustified use of deadly force.  We got rid of the firing squad awhile back.  It wouldn't matter if Brown had just blown up a school bus full of children according to our laws.  Wilson's side of the story is going to be critical to his defense, if a legal defense is ever necessary.  He hasn't been charged.  Every officer involved shooting is investigated.  That's where it's at.  Like I said, the police are allowing the witnesses to give the only account of the incident and it doesn't look good for Wilson based on that.  Ballistics should tell a lot of the story, mainly the distance and angles of the kill shots.  The closer the shots, the better it will be for Wilson.  Brown's fingerprints on the handle or any part of the duty belt would help as well.

 

Another reason Wilson's complete recount is not being released is due to complications from what is called the Garrity rule.  When a police officer kills someone, he has no right to 'remain silent' like the rest of us.  He has to write a report for the administrative review of the shooting.  That report is given a confidentiality so that no criminal investigator, prosecutor, judge, or jury are able to ever see it.  The police officer can then both maintain his job and his 5th Amendment rights.  He has to elect to use his Garrity rights, but they are available and Wilson might be wise to do so.  A lot will probably depend on whether he decides to testify should the case be submitted to a grand jury

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm saying that no matter what happened before the shooting, if Brown had his hands up, then the shooting would be an unjustified use of deadly force. 

 

I think we're on the same page here. Wilson's job was to apprehend Brown, and unless things went terribly awry, Brown should still be alive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never, once they show how violent he was to the police officer, trying to take his gun.  Justifiable homicide.  If he was going to put his hands in the air, he would have done it immediately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How ironic... ‪#‎FoxNews‬ is ignoring ‪the latest ‎Ferguson‬ events, and instead is running pre-recorded interview of author of book "Police State" which apparently applies only to whites.


"Nearly every problem that we have in the USA -- unaffordable health care, prison overpopulation, hyper militarization, climate change, racism, gun violence, poverty, poor education, urban sprawl and others -- cannot be positively addressed because bribery and conflicts of interest are legal under campaign finance laws which protect the uber-wealthy and the narrow self-interests who grossly benefit from our afflictions."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...