DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site

General => Political and Religious Forum (aka the echo chamber) => Topic started by: KevShmev on August 12, 2014, 08:32:54 AM

Title: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: KevShmev on August 12, 2014, 08:32:54 AM
Police brutality:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/18-year-old-shot-dead-missouri-witnesses-article-1.1898333

Looting:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/vandalism-looting-reported-vigil-missouri-man-killed-cop/story?id=24923516

Also, much of the looting was on live TV for everyone in the St. Louis area to see. 

Which of course leads to this:

http://twitchy.com/2014/08/11/loot-and-rob-them-not-your-own-twitter-users-advise-black-people-to-loot-white-neighborhoods/

So yeah, it's been a bad week in North St. Louis.  :tdwn :tdwn
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Stadler on August 12, 2014, 08:53:02 AM
Police brutality:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/18-year-old-shot-dead-missouri-witnesses-article-1.1898333

Anyone who even gives half a shit about due process and waiting until all the facts are in before making any conclusions would be sickened to the point of nausea at that article.    "Slaughtered", "gunned down", "executed"...   good thing we're going to wait until the "lengthy investigation" to find out what really happened.   For all the talk of "inncocent" and "unarmed" and "for no reason", you'll notice buried way down in the third article it says that Brown WAS in the custody of the police (he was allegedly in the car) and that a disturbance "spilled out of the car into the street", culminating with the boy being shot.  So if there is a conflict between two people, and one gets hurt, hard to see how that is de facto "no reason".  Not saying he deserved to die - no one does - but let's not burn the cop at the stake just yet, okay?

It is equally as likely, at this point, that this is a case of very bad judgment on the part of one individual who just happens to be a police officer as opposed to "police brutality".  But that doesn't matter when there's free TVs to be had!!!!

Oh, and it only took, what, 48 hours for Al Sharpton to show up on the scene?

Forgive me if I don't share the outrage.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: KevShmev on August 12, 2014, 09:00:49 AM
Well, Sharpton is a horrible human being, who always looks to take advantage of any situation involving race, so I won't be defending him.

Regardless of the way it has been overstated, the murder of this young man is a tragedy, and from the eyewitness reports, it sounds very bad.  Call it bad judgment or police brutality, but either way, it resulted in a death.

Read this: http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/eyewitness-michael-brown-fatal-shooting-missouri

Regarding the looting, my stance on that is that the great majority of looters are knuckleheads who just look for any excuse to do something stupid like that. Kind of like when people riot in cities where a team just won a sports championship. There is no sensible rationale behind it; it's just criminals taking advantage of a situation to do their worst.  Hence, them going from small city to small city in the area and looting some more, and morons on social media riling them up don't help.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: El Barto on August 12, 2014, 09:04:20 AM
Surprising though this may be, I tend to give a whole lot of deference to coppers when things like this occur. If this knucklehead started a wrestling match with the cop then Johnny gets a whole lot of leeway in this one. That said, I'm still quite curious if there was a shell casing in the car, and where the entry wounds were. I don't see anything that suggests this would be in line with Garner and if he did plug this kid running away I hope they string him up (which of course they won't).
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: kirksnosehair on August 12, 2014, 09:05:19 AM

Yeah, nothing to be outraged about when an unarmed kid gets waxed on the street.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Chino on August 12, 2014, 09:11:51 AM

Yeah, nothing to be outraged about when an unarmed kid gets waxed on the street.

If the unarmed kid was beating a police officer and going for his gun in an attempt to arm himself, the cop has to act. I don't know if this was the case of not, but just because he was unarmed doesn't mean he wasn't a threat.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: El Barto on August 12, 2014, 09:18:21 AM
We had an interesting and similar case down here a couple of years ago. Terrible part of town. Johnny is trying to bust a doper. Doper belts him a couple of time and then bolts out the back. Foot chase ensues and carries on for a mile or two. At a couple of points during the chase the kid turns and wallops Johnny again before resuming flight. After about the third time Johnny double-tapped him. His explanation, which I considered perfectly sound, was that after 1-2 miles of running and fighting he was completely exhausted and had absolutely no fight left in him. He was convinced that he'd wind up on the losing end of a 4th altercation and opted to stop it before he began. While there was no rioting, it came very close, despite the fact that in the situation shooting an unarmed man was perfectly reasonable.

Also, the reason there was no rioting in that instance is because a local and well respected preacher showed up and calmed the crowd. Just because Sharpton is a troublemaking douchebag, frequently on the wrong side of the facts, doesn't mean that he can't help out or even be right once in a while. Even morons get one right every once in a while. It's too easy to dismiss the guy due to past stupidity.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: KevShmev on August 12, 2014, 09:28:56 AM

Yeah, nothing to be outraged about when an unarmed kid gets waxed on the street.

If the unarmed kid was beating a police officer and going for his gun in an attempt to arm himself, the cop has to act. I don't know if this was the case of not, but just because he was unarmed doesn't mean he wasn't a threat.

Agreed.  Also, if the victim went for the cop's gun, and then when he got away, maybe he was making a movement that looked like he was going for a weapon of his own.  You can't know ahead of time if someone is armed or not, and if you wait, you might be dead.  These are just hypotheticals, but I just hate that kind of "an unarmed man was executed on the street" rhetoric, as it exaggerates what is already a terrible event.  But if the cop was totally in the wrong, and they can prove it, I hope he rots in prison.

We had an interesting and similar case down here a couple of years ago. Terrible part of town. Johnny is trying to bust a doper. Doper belts him a couple of time and then bolts out the back. Foot chase ensues and carries on for a mile or two. At a couple of points during the chase the kid turns and wallops Johnny again before resuming flight. After about the third time Johnny double-tapped him. His explanation, which I considered perfectly sound, was that after 1-2 miles of running and fighting he was completely exhausted and had absolutely no fight left in him. He was convinced that he'd wind up on the losing end of a 4th altercation and opted to stop it before he began. While there was no rioting, it came very close, despite the fact that in the situation shooting an unarmed man was perfectly reasonable.

Also, the reason there was no rioting in that instance is because a local and well respected preacher showed up and calmed the crowd. Just because Sharpton is a troublemaking douchebag, frequently on the wrong side of the facts, doesn't mean that he can't help out or even be right once in a while. Even morons get one right every once in a while. It's too easy to dismiss the guy due to past stupidity.

That story is a reminder of how tough a job cops have.  I know I wouldn't want it.  You're damned if you, and damned (and possibly dead) if you don't.  It's a thankless job nowadays.  Now that thank yous are why they do it, but considering they put their lives on the line every day, you'd think more people would show some appreciation for them.

Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: El Barto on August 12, 2014, 09:33:25 AM
That story is a reminder of how tough a job cops have.  I know I wouldn't want it.  You're damned if you, and damned (and possibly dead) if you don't.  It's a thankless job nowadays.  Now that thank yous are why they do it, but considering they put their lives on the line every day, you'd think more people would show some appreciation for them.
Nah, fuck that. They volunteer to do the job, often for crappy reasons, and then exploit their authority every chance they get. Just because there are instances where they lawfully use force doesn't excuse the far too frequent instances of them beating the shit out of somebody quite needlessly and justify it by yelling "STOP RESISTING" the whole time.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Scheavo on August 12, 2014, 09:37:28 AM
Regarding the looting, my stance on that is that the great majority of looters are knuckleheads who just look for any excuse to do something stupid like that. Kind of like when people riot in cities where a team just won a sports championship. There is no sensible rationale behind it; it's just criminals taking advantage of a situation to do their worst.  Hence, them going from small city to small city in the area and looting some more, and morons on social media riling them up don't help.

Those individuals are acting out of real problems and issues. To simply dismiss them as criminals ignores the system they are protesting against. This specific case may not even be the best example, but there are serious problems with the police system, and there are some serious systemic prejudices and disadvantages for minorities.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: El Barto on August 12, 2014, 09:40:06 AM
Regarding the looting, my stance on that is that the great majority of looters are knuckleheads who just look for any excuse to do something stupid like that. Kind of like when people riot in cities where a team just won a sports championship. There is no sensible rationale behind it; it's just criminals taking advantage of a situation to do their worst.  Hence, them going from small city to small city in the area and looting some more, and morons on social media riling them up don't help.

Those individuals are acting out of real problems and issues. To simply dismiss them as criminals ignores the system they are protesting against. This specific case may not even be the best example, but there are serious problems with the police system, and there are some serious systemic prejudices and disadvantages for minorities.
Real issues like lack of fortified wine.

(http://www.trbimg.com/img-53e85a1e/turbine/lat-missourishooting-wre0019482914-20140810/1150/16x9)

Fantastic action shot, BTW. Great photography.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: KevShmev on August 12, 2014, 09:50:54 AM
That story is a reminder of how tough a job cops have.  I know I wouldn't want it.  You're damned if you, and damned (and possibly dead) if you don't.  It's a thankless job nowadays.  Now that thank yous are why they do it, but considering they put their lives on the line every day, you'd think more people would show some appreciation for them.
Nah, fuck that. They volunteer to do the job, often for crappy reasons, and then exploit their authority every chance they get. Just because there are instances where they lawfully use force doesn't excuse the far too frequent instances of them beating the shit out of somebody quite needlessly and justify it by yelling "STOP RESISTING" the whole time.

Fair enough.

Regarding the looting, my stance on that is that the great majority of looters are knuckleheads who just look for any excuse to do something stupid like that. Kind of like when people riot in cities where a team just won a sports championship. There is no sensible rationale behind it; it's just criminals taking advantage of a situation to do their worst.  Hence, them going from small city to small city in the area and looting some more, and morons on social media riling them up don't help.

Those individuals are acting out of real problems and issues. To simply dismiss them as criminals ignores the system they are protesting against. This specific case may not even be the best example, but there are serious problems with the police system, and there are some serious systemic prejudices and disadvantages for minorities.

Dismissive or not, when you loot like that, you are a criminal, plain and simple.  The footage of much of it was on live TV here and it was scary to watch. 

I agree about the prejudices and disadvantages, but the problem is that activity like all of this looting merely feeds into the stereotype and makes some people think, "Here we go again; black people feel like an injustice is done against them and respond like this."  It's not fair, especially since, like I said before, I think the vast majority are probably criminals already who are taking advantage of a situation.  They even said that it is suspected that most of the looters were not from Ferguson, so you had criminals coming from other areas to take advantage of the situation and do their worst.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Cool Chris on August 12, 2014, 09:54:14 AM
but there are serious problems with the police system, and there are some serious systemic prejudices and disadvantages for minorities.

Of course there are. But trashing Apu's Quick-E-Stop doesn't do anything but hurt Apu.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: kirksnosehair on August 12, 2014, 10:04:32 AM

Yeah, nothing to be outraged about when an unarmed kid gets waxed on the street.

If the unarmed kid was beating a police officer and going for his gun in an attempt to arm himself, the cop has to act. I don't know if this was the case of not, but just because he was unarmed doesn't mean he wasn't a threat.


Oh, I definitely agree.  IF they were in close contact and the kid made a move for the gun, that's one thing, but if that struggle was over and the kid was surrendering (according to eye-witness accounts so says the media) with his hands up in the air as alleged, that's an entirely different thing altogether. 



Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: El Barto on August 12, 2014, 10:10:32 AM
Oh, I definitely agree.  IF they were in close contact and the kid made a move for the gun, that's one thing, but if that struggle was over and the kid was surrendering (according to eye-witness accounts so says the media) with his hands up in the air as alleged, that's an entirely different thing altogether.
Trying to decide who to believe between eye witnesses (including self-serving relatives) and cops (self-serving liars) is an impossibility. That's why I'm waiting to hear about the physical evidence. Based on the two stories I think it'll wind up being fairly conclusive once we know the details on the actual shots fired.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: kirksnosehair on August 12, 2014, 10:20:05 AM
That story is a reminder of how tough a job cops have.  I know I wouldn't want it.  You're damned if you, and damned (and possibly dead) if you don't.  It's a thankless job nowadays.  Now that thank yous are why they do it, but considering they put their lives on the line every day, you'd think more people would show some appreciation for them.
Nah, fuck that. They volunteer to do the job, often for crappy reasons, and then exploit their authority every chance they get. Just because there are instances where they lawfully use force doesn't excuse the far too frequent instances of them beating the shit out of somebody quite needlessly and justify it by yelling "STOP RESISTING" the whole time.


Prison guards are even worse.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: kirksnosehair on August 12, 2014, 10:24:55 AM
Oh, I definitely agree.  IF they were in close contact and the kid made a move for the gun, that's one thing, but if that struggle was over and the kid was surrendering (according to eye-witness accounts so says the media) with his hands up in the air as alleged, that's an entirely different thing altogether.
Trying to decide who to believe between eye witnesses (including self-serving relatives) and cops (self-serving liars) is an impossibility. That's why I'm waiting to hear about the physical evidence. Based on the two stories I think it'll wind up being fairly conclusive once we know the details on the actual shots fired.


I agree.  Physical evidence trumps any eye-witness accounts which are sure to be at the very least biased and more than likely partially made up.  Unfortunately, that's often how these things go down.   I'm wondering if any video will hit the street.  Someone must have pulled out a phone, I think.


I really hope the cop didn't just wax that dude...it's bad for everyone if that's what happened.  For all we know it could have been completely justified. Time will might tell.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: El Barto on August 12, 2014, 11:00:16 AM
That story is a reminder of how tough a job cops have.  I know I wouldn't want it.  You're damned if you, and damned (and possibly dead) if you don't.  It's a thankless job nowadays.  Now that thank yous are why they do it, but considering they put their lives on the line every day, you'd think more people would show some appreciation for them.
Nah, fuck that. They volunteer to do the job, often for crappy reasons, and then exploit their authority every chance they get. Just because there are instances where they lawfully use force doesn't excuse the far too frequent instances of them beating the shit out of somebody quite needlessly and justify it by yelling "STOP RESISTING" the whole time.


Prison guards are even worse.
Yeah, Christ man. Have you red the DOJ's Riker's report? I think it was just released in the last day or two. They should take most of those guards and throw their sorry asses into the general population for a month, although they probably deserve even worse.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Scheavo on August 12, 2014, 12:18:20 PM
but there are serious problems with the police system, and there are some serious systemic prejudices and disadvantages for minorities.

Of course there are. But trashing Apu's Quick-E-Stop doesn't do anything but hurt Apu.

And I never said otherwise. (But lets be real, in this America, it's most likely not Apu's, and they prob have insurance)

Quote
I agree about the prejudices and disadvantages, but the problem is that activity like all of this looting merely feeds into the stereotype and makes some people think, "Here we go again; black people feel like an injustice is done against them and respond like this."  It's not fair, especially since, like I said before, I think the vast majority are probably criminals already who are taking advantage of a situation.  They even said that it is suspected that most of the looters were not from Ferguson, so you had criminals coming from other areas to take advantage of the situation and do their worst.

Why are those people you consider criminals, criminals? Because of the broken system that puts them in that position, most notably, the War on Drugs and the police which enforce those horrible laws. Not only does it make them feel targetted, but it destroys their family, disenchranices them, makes it very, very hard to get a job, impossible to get financial aid to get an education, and basically make it so they have no real opportunities other than to commit crimes and become a "criminal."

The "not fairness" is exactly what I'm arguing against. You say yourself it's wrong, but then I'd say implicitly do it. Looting and rioting is wrong, and people shouldn't do it, but neither should we think it says something about a person or the people if they do riot or loot.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: El Barto on August 12, 2014, 12:30:18 PM
Why are those people you consider criminals, criminals? Because of the broken system that puts them in that position, most notably, the War on Drugs and the police which enforce those horrible laws. Not only does it make them feel targetted, but it destroys their family, disenchranices them, makes it very, very hard to get a job, impossible to get financial aid to get an education, and basically make it so they have no real opportunities other than to commit crimes and become a "criminal."
Now you're making assumptions. I agree with a lot of your concerns, but at the same time, who's to say that kid up there looting the QT doesn't live in a good neighborhood, have two good parents and attend a decent school somewhere. Maybe he's just acting like a fucking thug because he wants to be a fucking thug, emulating his thug buddies. It does actually happen, and in both cases it might look exactly the same.

Like I said, I think a lot of your concerns are dead on and need to be addressed, but at the same time it's no free pass. The disadvantaged occasionally turn out quite well, and the privilidged can sometimes turn into real shitbags.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: KevShmev on August 12, 2014, 12:34:57 PM
I don't consider them criminals; they are criminals, by the very definition of the word.

A co-worked posted this on facebook:

http://themattwalshblog.com/2014/08/11/police-officers-arent-the-ones-destroying-the-black-community/

I don't agree with everything he wrote, but there is quite a bit of truth in much of what he said there.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: hefdaddy42 on August 12, 2014, 12:54:42 PM
but there are serious problems with the police system, and there are some serious systemic prejudices and disadvantages for minorities.

Of course there are. But trashing Apu's Quick-E-Stop doesn't do anything but hurt Apu.

But lets be real, in this America, it's most likely not Apu's, and they prob have insurance
I don't know, I live in a very small town in rural NC, and even WE have one convenience store run by an Apu and his family. 

And whether or not they have insurance is irrelevant.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: kirksnosehair on August 12, 2014, 01:07:33 PM
That story is a reminder of how tough a job cops have.  I know I wouldn't want it.  You're damned if you, and damned (and possibly dead) if you don't.  It's a thankless job nowadays.  Now that thank yous are why they do it, but considering they put their lives on the line every day, you'd think more people would show some appreciation for them.
Nah, fuck that. They volunteer to do the job, often for crappy reasons, and then exploit their authority every chance they get. Just because there are instances where they lawfully use force doesn't excuse the far too frequent instances of them beating the shit out of somebody quite needlessly and justify it by yelling "STOP RESISTING" the whole time.


Prison guards are even worse.
Yeah, Christ man. Have you red the DOJ's Riker's report? I think it was just released in the last day or two. They should take most of those guards and throw their sorry asses into the general population for a month, although they probably deserve even worse.


I don't need to read it.  I lived it for the better part of two decades.    :|
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: El Barto on August 12, 2014, 01:17:52 PM
That story is a reminder of how tough a job cops have.  I know I wouldn't want it.  You're damned if you, and damned (and possibly dead) if you don't.  It's a thankless job nowadays.  Now that thank yous are why they do it, but considering they put their lives on the line every day, you'd think more people would show some appreciation for them.
Nah, fuck that. They volunteer to do the job, often for crappy reasons, and then exploit their authority every chance they get. Just because there are instances where they lawfully use force doesn't excuse the far too frequent instances of them beating the shit out of somebody quite needlessly and justify it by yelling "STOP RESISTING" the whole time.


Prison guards are even worse.
Yeah, Christ man. Have you red the DOJ's Riker's report? I think it was just released in the last day or two. They should take most of those guards and throw their sorry asses into the general population for a month, although they probably deserve even worse.


I don't need to read it.  I lived it for the better part of two decades.    :|
Not to belittle your experience, but you didn't live this. Apparently in NY there is no distinction between 16 and adulthood when it comes to prison. If you're 16 then it's off to the general population for you. Most of the report was dealing with the treatment of those guys, sandwiched between lifers and guards who were generally worse than lifers.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Scheavo on August 12, 2014, 02:56:51 PM
Why are those people you consider criminals, criminals? Because of the broken system that puts them in that position, most notably, the War on Drugs and the police which enforce those horrible laws. Not only does it make them feel targetted, but it destroys their family, disenchranices them, makes it very, very hard to get a job, impossible to get financial aid to get an education, and basically make it so they have no real opportunities other than to commit crimes and become a "criminal."
Now you're making assumptions. I agree with a lot of your concerns, but at the same time, who's to say that kid up there looting the QT doesn't live in a good neighborhood, have two good parents and attend a decent school somewhere. Maybe he's just acting like a fucking thug because he wants to be a fucking thug, emulating his thug buddies. It does actually happen, and in both cases it might look exactly the same.

Like I said, I think a lot of your concerns are dead on and need to be addressed, but at the same time it's no free pass. The disadvantaged occasionally turn out quite well, and the privilidged can sometimes turn into real shitbags.

I'm talking generalities, not specifics. There probably are a few dolts doing it that are scumbags, that doesn't make all of them such.

I don't consider them criminals; they are criminals, by the very definition of the word.

To be a criminal, you must commit a crime. A crime is a legal construct we make, based upon our morality. For you to consider someone a criminal, you must consider what they did to be morally reprehensible.

Someone who goes 36 in a 35 is breaking the law and could be punished as such. By the strict definition, that person is a criminal. Do you consider someone going 36 in a 35 to be a criminal? I sure don't. I distinguish between performing a criminal act and being a criminal.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Stadler on August 12, 2014, 03:16:57 PM

Yeah, nothing to be outraged about when an unarmed kid gets waxed on the street.

How about being outraged at trivializing this poor kid's death, and using it as a lame excuse to grind axes? 

I'm extremely outraged that this kid doesn't get to grow old, doesn't get to be a dad, doesn't get to fall in love, doesn't get to be cool (okay, so I copped that from Neil Young).  But I can also be outraged that people are more than willing - with half the story, and most of that from the parents of the kid that died - to hang this cop out to dry without even knowing his f-ing name (and therefore what his history is).
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: El Barto on August 12, 2014, 03:23:15 PM
Interesting. In a situation like this why does his name or history matter? Either the shooting was justified or not, and personal history probably isn't going to factor into that.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Stadler on August 12, 2014, 03:25:16 PM
That story is a reminder of how tough a job cops have.  I know I wouldn't want it.  You're damned if you, and damned (and possibly dead) if you don't.  It's a thankless job nowadays.  Now that thank yous are why they do it, but considering they put their lives on the line every day, you'd think more people would show some appreciation for them.
Nah, fuck that. They volunteer to do the job, often for crappy reasons, and then exploit their authority every chance they get. Just because there are instances where they lawfully use force doesn't excuse the far too frequent instances of them beating the shit out of somebody quite needlessly and justify it by yelling "STOP RESISTING" the whole time.

We've had this conversation before, I know, but it's a new context, so I'll bite.   My brother is on the job.  He did, in fact "volunteer" for this job.   And for that, he gets to put himself in harm's way several times a week for a paycheck that barely makes ends meet (in a blast of "fairness and justness", I literally make three times what he does and I working as an attorney for a company that sells trains.  Yes, trains.)

Not every cop, in fact not even most cops, in fact not even the majority of cops "exploit their authority", and at least on my brother's force, they don't tolerate that crap.  They are acutely aware that many people have the nihilistic attitude that you do.  They are also acutely aware that a lot of people are dickheads.   I was on patrol with him one night and he had THREE stops in a row where the person tried - even after being told multiple times to stay in the vehicle with their hands on the wheel (in plain sight) - to get out of the vehicle.  In none of those instances did he even move for his weapon, and no force was used either.   He kept his cool and he was able to diffuse all three situations without incident, as he is trained to do.  Incidentially, he issued no citations in any of the three stops, even though two had clearly broken the law (the third wasn't black and white, but he could have found something if he was the vindictive dickhead that cops are being painted here as being). 

My experience?  Even in the relatively rare instances where force is used, it is almost never unprovoked in some way.  We can debate whether the provocation was just, but is almost always SOME provocation.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Stadler on August 12, 2014, 03:28:46 PM


Those individuals are acting out of real problems and issues. To simply dismiss them as criminals ignores the system they are protesting against. This specific case may not even be the best example, but there are serious problems with the police system, and there are some serious systemic prejudices and disadvantages for minorities.

I call bullshit on that.  That's not "protest".  What exactly was being protested after the Lakers won the NBA Championship??? 

And since you're so willing to give the second "bad act" a pass as a result of the first "bad act", I'll wait for your compassion and sympathy and excuses for the police officer when it comes out that the shooting was a second "bad act" as a result of a first "bad act".   
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: El Barto on August 12, 2014, 03:32:05 PM
That story is a reminder of how tough a job cops have.  I know I wouldn't want it.  You're damned if you, and damned (and possibly dead) if you don't.  It's a thankless job nowadays.  Now that thank yous are why they do it, but considering they put their lives on the line every day, you'd think more people would show some appreciation for them.
Nah, fuck that. They volunteer to do the job, often for crappy reasons, and then exploit their authority every chance they get. Just because there are instances where they lawfully use force doesn't excuse the far too frequent instances of them beating the shit out of somebody quite needlessly and justify it by yelling "STOP RESISTING" the whole time.

We've had this conversation before, I know, but it's a new context, so I'll bite.   My brother is on the job.  He did, in fact "volunteer" for this job.   And for that, he gets to put himself in harm's way several times a week for a paycheck that barely makes ends meet (in a blast of "fairness and justness", I literally make three times what he does and I working as an attorney for a company that sells trains.  Yes, trains.)

Not every cop, in fact not even most cops, in fact not even the majority of cops "exploit their authority", and at least on my brother's force, they don't tolerate that crap.  They are acutely aware that many people have the nihilistic attitude that you do.  They are also acutely aware that a lot of people are dickheads.   I was on patrol with him one night and he had THREE stops in a row where the person tried - even after being told multiple times to stay in the vehicle with their hands on the wheel (in plain sight) - to get out of the vehicle.  In none of those instances did he even move for his weapon, and no force was used either.   He kept his cool and he was able to diffuse the situation. 

My experience?  Even in the relatively rare instances where force is used, it is almost never unprovoked in some way.  We can debate whether the provocation was just, but is almost always SOME provocation.
And out of curiosity, would your brother be willing to, let's say stretch the rules just a tiny bit, in deference to the greater good?
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Stadler on August 12, 2014, 03:38:58 PM

To be a criminal, you must commit a crime. A crime is a legal construct we make, based upon our morality. For you to consider someone a criminal, you must consider what they did to be morally reprehensible.

Someone who goes 36 in a 35 is breaking the law and could be punished as such. By the strict definition, that person is a criminal. Do you consider someone going 36 in a 35 to be a criminal? I sure don't. I distinguish between performing a criminal act and being a criminal.

You are GROSSLY oversimplifying to make your point.  The majority of crimes are NOT morally based (though they may have started out that way), in the sense that they are not crimes simply because "stealing is immoral".   "Stealing" is about protecting the property rights of the one that was stolen from.  "Homicide" has nothing to do with the morals of killing another human being; it is about depriving that other soul of the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".

Your definition is entirely your own, and not shared by the criminal justice system (and not by me, either, I should add).  If I boost a gas station, that I did it to buy hookers or to feed my starving kid does not matter; either way, I AM A CRIMINAL.    The definition of a "criminal" is one who pleads or is otherwise found guilty of a violation of the relevant criminal code.    That definition is decidedly, and purposefully, lacking a "moral" component. 
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Stadler on August 12, 2014, 03:41:50 PM
Interesting. In a situation like this why does his name or history matter? Either the shooting was justified or not, and personal history probably isn't going to factor into that.

Well, I happen to agree with you, but here, the ENTIRE case against the cop (and the justification for using such egregious terms as "slaughtered" and "gunned down" and "executed") is based on the humanizing of the victim.  We know HIS name, we know at least the parents biased and grief-soaked version of HIS history.  None of that bears on whether he reached for the gun or not, but the parents are wasting no opportunity to obscure that fact. 
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Stadler on August 12, 2014, 03:49:26 PM
And out of curiosity, would your brother be willing to, let's say stretch the rules just a tiny bit, in deference to the greater good?

I'm trying to give you as honest an answer as I can.  I don't know.   I think it depends on what you mean by "stretch the rules", which I know (and I would argue too) is not an answer of degrees.  You either do or you don't.   

I do know this:   he had an opportunity to get a job for the son of one of his friends.   A son he knows to have had a history of drug issues but claimed to be clean.  He told the kid up front to disclose his history and to make sure he was clean for the next "x" days because he could be called in at any time for a test. 

When my brother was given the application on which he was to affix his recommendation, he realized the kid didn't disclose all.  The kid also popped on the test.  My brother withdrew his recommendation, calling the kid out for lying (though you could argue it was self-serving, knowing that if he didn't and the kid popped, he would look bad).   Not the same circumstance you are going for, I know, but data nonetheless.   I don't profess to say my brother is perfect or a saint; I know he is not.   But he does take his job seriously, and he doesn't let his personal demons drive his behavior (i.e. his job is not a paid therapy session for him to get his agressions out) like many of the posts here imply. 
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: The Dark Master on August 12, 2014, 03:57:17 PM


You are GROSSLY oversimplifying to make your point.  The majority of crimes are NOT morally based (though they may have started out that way), in the sense that they are not crimes simply because "stealing is immoral".   "Stealing" is about protecting the property rights of the one that was stolen from.  "Homicide" has nothing to do with the morals of killing another human being; it is about depriving that other soul of the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".

Your definition is entirely your own, and not shared by the criminal justice system (and not by me, either, I should add).  If I boost a gas station, that I did it to buy hookers or to feed my starving kid does not matter; either way, I AM A CRIMINAL.    The definition of a "criminal" is one who pleads or is otherwise found guilty of a violation of the relevant criminal code.    That definition is decidedly, and purposefully, lacking a "moral" component.

Yeah, I've always viewed law and crime, at least the modern Western version of the concepts, as being less based in morality and more based on what is or is not an anti-social behavior.  Murder is not illegal because it is "wrong", it is illegal because it is disruptive to society, and indeed, the act itself undermines the legitimacy of the very concept of a society.  Likewise theft is also a very distinctly anti-social behavior that, for the sake of creating a society, cannot be permitted.  A society where people are permitted to just kill, rape and pillage each other at will is not a society, or at least, not a functioning society, by any definition of the term. 



As for the OP, I'm going to wait until more solid, physical, non-emotionally biased facts become known before I form an opinion, but right now, it looks like this is shaping up to become the next Tryvon Martin debacle. 
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Scheavo on August 12, 2014, 04:53:25 PM


Those individuals are acting out of real problems and issues. To simply dismiss them as criminals ignores the system they are protesting against. This specific case may not even be the best example, but there are serious problems with the police system, and there are some serious systemic prejudices and disadvantages for minorities.

I call bullshit on that.  That's not "protest".  What exactly was being protested after the Lakers won the NBA Championship??? 

What a fantastic red herring.

Quote
And since you're so willing to give the second "bad act" a pass as a result of the first "bad act", I'll wait for your compassion and sympathy and excuses for the police officer when it comes out that the shooting was a second "bad act" as a result of a first "bad act".

Wow.  I do believe I have not commented ONCE on the cops actions in this case. The only even slight reference I gave to this case was to say it may not even be a good example for this kind of thing, in and of itself. But nice snotty attitude and good job pigeonholing me.


To be a criminal, you must commit a crime. A crime is a legal construct we make, based upon our morality. For you to consider someone a criminal, you must consider what they did to be morally reprehensible.

Someone who goes 36 in a 35 is breaking the law and could be punished as such. By the strict definition, that person is a criminal. Do you consider someone going 36 in a 35 to be a criminal? I sure don't. I distinguish between performing a criminal act and being a criminal.

You are GROSSLY oversimplifying to make your point.  The majority of crimes are NOT morally based (though they may have started out that way), in the sense that they are not crimes simply because "stealing is immoral".   "Stealing" is about protecting the property rights of the one that was stolen from.  "Homicide" has nothing to do with the morals of killing another human being; it is about depriving that other soul of the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".

I'm honestly not sure if this is supposed to be serious, and I don't intend to offend. You just defended something not being moral... by pointing out how they're moral... rights are moral claims. to say you are protecting anyone rights is to make a moral claim. It is your morality that says it is someone's right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Quote
Your definition is entirely your own, and not shared by the criminal justice system (and not by me, either, I should add).  If I boost a gas station, that I did it to buy hookers or to feed my starving kid does not matter; either way, I AM A CRIMINAL.    The definition of a "criminal" is one who pleads or is otherwise found guilty of a violation of the relevant criminal code.    That definition is decidedly, and purposefully, lacking a "moral" component. 

Yes, the legal system can "objectively" execute the law, but the law itself is subjective to the will of the people, based upon their morality. In the purely legal sense, you are correct. The legal definition of a criminal is purely one of administrative bureaucracy, and seeks to ignore the moral opinions of the people executing the laws. However, the legal definition is not THE definition, and if you would go look it up in the dictionary, you'll notice it means several things, and is somewhat convoluted.

Either way, the concept of a criminal is most certainly a moral concept based upon morality and what we consider appropriate behavior.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: El Barto on August 12, 2014, 06:09:25 PM
And out of curiosity, would your brother be willing to, let's say stretch the rules just a tiny bit, in deference to the greater good?

I'm trying to give you as honest an answer as I can.  I don't know.   I think it depends on what you mean by "stretch the rules", which I know (and I would argue too) is not an answer of degrees.  You either do or you don't.   

I do know this:   he had an opportunity to get a job for the son of one of his friends.   A son he knows to have had a history of drug issues but claimed to be clean.  He told the kid up front to disclose his history and to make sure he was clean for the next "x" days because he could be called in at any time for a test. 

When my brother was given the application on which he was to affix his recommendation, he realized the kid didn't disclose all.  The kid also popped on the test.  My brother withdrew his recommendation, calling the kid out for lying (though you could argue it was self-serving, knowing that if he didn't and the kid popped, he would look bad).   Not the same circumstance you are going for, I know, but data nonetheless.   I don't profess to say my brother is perfect or a saint; I know he is not.   But he does take his job seriously, and he doesn't let his personal demons drive his behavior (i.e. his job is not a paid therapy session for him to get his agressions out) like many of the posts here imply.
First off, and I might have explained this to you before, I don't think the majority of cops are looking to take out their aggressions on others. There are certainly some, but it's the exception not the rule. I also think most of them get into the business for valid reasons. However, I also think the nature of the job turns them away from that more often than not. Simply put, most people who become cops aren't assholes, but the job has a tendency to turn them into just that for a variety of reasons.

Now, you're correct that bending the rules is a binary thing (I was actually thinking the opposite, BTW--there are degrees of bending, but since it's a replacement for breaking rules, it is in fact quite binary). Something else that is quite binary is corruption. Corruption need not be bad acting. Somebody here posted a story in my "cop stories" thread about a cop not citing him for speeding because he recognized him as the guy who served him pizza. This pissed me off since I don't have a job that affords me the regular opportunity to make nice with cops to catch a break down the line. Giving a break to somebody because you like him is no different than extorting a blowjob from some prostitute; they're both corruption. It's letting your personal feelings, motivations or perspectives influence how you do or do not carry out your job. This is something that happens more often than not in law enforcement. If your brother pulled you over for driving 80 in a 65 would he write you for it? Would he write me for the same thing?

This is at the heart of my problem with cops. To varying degrees their personal feelings and motivations will always dictate how they do their job. I would have to call that exploiting one's authority. Moreover, if you spend all of your time dealing with certain types of people, you're going to develop opinions on them that will further influence how you do your job. All of this is basic human nature and the surprising part would be if it weren't the case. As others here can attest, I look like a doper. Isn't it likely that when Johnny sees me he might make such an assumption. Isn't it also the case that he might look for any reason to pull me over? And then any reason to toss my car? A friend and I were pulled over because "we didn't look like we belonged in the neighborhood" (2 blocks from his home). We then had the car completely tossed because a baseball bat was in the backseat. All bullshit, honestly, and not an isolated event. Nobody I know hasn't had numerous instances of such things happening.

From there, is it really such a stretch to go onto beating somebody for five minutes because he brushed up against you and then proceeded to try and protect his face? All of this stems from discretionary practices, and cops have the benefit of many highly discretionary laws. Disorderly conduct down here. That's the catchall crime for anything that doesn't have a penal code number. Resisting arrest for any use of force. You've certainly seen many instances of people "resisting arrest" by covering their face while somebody is pummeling it. I'm not saying that all cops are waiting to get all The Hitcher on you (You just spit on my hand, boy. Wipe it off!), but they're afforded a great deal of leeway in their actions and those actions are in a large way influenced by their attitude.

Also, if you think about it, isn't trying to get a family friend hired on in a position you know him to be unqualified for also an example of corruption? Departments will generally tolerate dopers and drunks, but they will never hire them. Past drug use is almost always an immediate DQ.

And I want to assure you, I'm not slagging on your brother in any way. In fact, the reason I'm using him as an example here is that as your brother I'm assuming he's a perfectly good and fair cop. Yet, even in his case there's now some question as to fairness and his use of discretion.

I can also believe that he might work for a good department; I know they certainly exist. There's actually a department down here that I fully trust and respect. They're such monumental hardasses that they made national news for taking a 93 year old woman to jail in handcuffs for driving without her license. While most people were outraged, I defended them and considered it proof that they were willing to treat every single person the same. Those are the only cops around I'd trust not to tazer me to death for expressing my opinions.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: El Barto on August 12, 2014, 07:08:31 PM
Quote
The race of officers should not matter as long as their work is fair and professional, said Dave Klinger, a former police officer and criminal justice professor at the University of Missouri-St. Louis.

"If the officer behaved inappropriately, we've got to sanction the officer and figure out what it is that led him to do what he did," Klinger said. "Was he poorly trained? Was there a pattern in this agency?"
Or maybe was he an asshole? Part of the problem I have with cops (this is turning into my Fuck the Police thread, sorry) is that they're seemingly so incapable of finding fault in each other. There are no bad cops. Only poorly trained ones or victims of all of us who "don't know what it's like." That's part of the reason the "us against the world" mentality bugs me so much. Makes defensiveness and solidarity paramount to the exclusion of all else.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: KevShmev on August 12, 2014, 10:30:38 PM

To be a criminal, you must commit a crime. A crime is a legal construct we make, based upon our morality. For you to consider someone a criminal, you must consider what they did to be morally reprehensible.

Someone who goes 36 in a 35 is breaking the law and could be punished as such. By the strict definition, that person is a criminal. Do you consider someone going 36 in a 35 to be a criminal? I sure don't. I distinguish between performing a criminal act and being a criminal.

I don't consider going one mile over the speed limit to be morally reprehensible.  I cannot say the same about those people who were looting and rioting the other night.  Feel free to disagree and make excuses for the looters.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Stadler on August 13, 2014, 07:39:45 AM
Wow.  I do believe I have not commented ONCE on the cops actions in this case. The only even slight reference I gave to this case was to say it may not even be a good example for this kind of thing, in and of itself. But nice snotty attitude and good job pigeonholing me.

Not meant to be snotty, and if it struck you that way, then I apologize.   I hate that a kid died, no doubt, but I hate the witch hunt even more.   


I'm honestly not sure if this is supposed to be serious, and I don't intend to offend. You just defended something not being moral... by pointing out how they're moral... rights are moral claims. to say you are protecting anyone rights is to make a moral claim. It is your morality that says it is someone's right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

No, actually in this context, that is not accurate.  The inalienable right that I noted is a fundamental component of our rule of law as set forth in the Constitution of the United States, the blue print for the entire system.  "Morals" are of man; the notion of "inalienable" and "under God" in this context is meant to say that no man (specifically, in context, a monarch) can take those rights away from any person.  That is not a "moral" qualification here, that is a notion of where power originates.   Certainly there are laws with a moral component, and there are laws that have BOTH a moral and a practical rationale.  There might even be some laws that are just morally based - off the cuff I would suggest marriage laws and perhaps obscenity laws, but you'll note that most of those are falling rather quickly (as to whether that is right or not is a debate for another day).

Quote
Yes, the legal system can "objectively" execute the law, but the law itself is subjective to the will of the people, based upon their morality. In the purely legal sense, you are correct. The legal definition of a criminal is purely one of administrative bureaucracy, and seeks to ignore the moral opinions of the people executing the laws. However, the legal definition is not THE definition, and if you would go look it up in the dictionary, you'll notice it means several things, and is somewhat convoluted.

Either way, the concept of a criminal is most certainly a moral concept based upon morality and what we consider appropriate behavior.

Your first sentence is nominally correct, up until the phrase "based upon their morality".  Again, I'm not saying you are totally off base, since many laws serve both a practical purpose and a moral one.   As for the second, well, we can debate this (in a friendly way; I apologize again for any "snottiness", it was purely unintended), but the only one that matters is the legal definition.   Nothing else is binding on any citizen of the United States.   You don't know me from a row of assholes, but I'm not big at all on letting society decide shit, and especially when it comes to things based on morality.  In my humble opinion, we only seem to get in trouble when we DO legislate morality, and while this is not a critique of our Supreme Court, I will throw out there that they are a better court than the extremists (of either side) would have you believe, primarily because they do such a good job of keeping morals out of it (as proof I note that since Roe v. Wade in '73, the Chief Justice of the Court has only ever been a Republican President appointee, and the Court has, in that time, had some of the most Conservative leaning justices in its history, and yet Roe v. Wade has never even once been seriously in danger of being overturned). 
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Stadler on August 13, 2014, 07:44:49 AM
Quote
The race of officers should not matter as long as their work is fair and professional, said Dave Klinger, a former police officer and criminal justice professor at the University of Missouri-St. Louis.

"If the officer behaved inappropriately, we've got to sanction the officer and figure out what it is that led him to do what he did," Klinger said. "Was he poorly trained? Was there a pattern in this agency?"
Or maybe was he an asshole? Part of the problem I have with cops (this is turning into my Fuck the Police thread, sorry) is that they're seemingly so incapable of finding fault in each other. There are no bad cops. Only poorly trained ones or victims of all of us who "don't know what it's like." That's part of the reason the "us against the world" mentality bugs me so much. Makes defensiveness and solidarity paramount to the exclusion of all else.

I don't want to go off on a tangent, or contradict anything I might say in response to your longer post, but the "us against the world" mentality DOES exist (i.e. the "thin blue line") but it is as much reactionary as it is proactive.  Not defending it, but look at St. Louis: the only people even asking for any kind of fairness (not even going so far as to defend him) are other cops.   And even you have to admit that at this point in time, we don't have information enough to draw any meaningful conclusions beyond "we need more information". 
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Stadler on August 13, 2014, 08:10:58 AM
First off, and I might have explained this to you before, I don't think the majority of cops are looking to take out their aggressions on others. There are certainly some, but it's the exception not the rule. I also think most of them get into the business for valid reasons. However, I also think the nature of the job turns them away from that more often than not. Simply put, most people who become cops aren't assholes, but the job has a tendency to turn them into just that for a variety of reasons.

Now, you're correct that bending the rules is a binary thing (I was actually thinking the opposite, BTW--there are degrees of bending, but since it's a replacement for breaking rules, it is in fact quite binary). Something else that is quite binary is corruption. Corruption need not be bad acting. Somebody here posted a story in my "cop stories" thread about a cop not citing him for speeding because he recognized him as the guy who served him pizza. This pissed me off since I don't have a job that affords me the regular opportunity to make nice with cops to catch a break down the line. Giving a break to somebody because you like him is no different than extorting a blowjob from some prostitute; they're both corruption. It's letting your personal feelings, motivations or perspectives influence how you do or do not carry out your job. This is something that happens more often than not in law enforcement. If your brother pulled you over for driving 80 in a 65 would he write you for it? Would he write me for the same thing?

This is at the heart of my problem with cops. To varying degrees their personal feelings and motivations will always dictate how they do their job. I would have to call that exploiting one's authority. Moreover, if you spend all of your time dealing with certain types of people, you're going to develop opinions on them that will further influence how you do your job. All of this is basic human nature and the surprising part would be if it weren't the case. As others here can attest, I look like a doper. Isn't it likely that when Johnny sees me he might make such an assumption. Isn't it also the case that he might look for any reason to pull me over? And then any reason to toss my car? A friend and I were pulled over because "we didn't look like we belonged in the neighborhood" (2 blocks from his home). We then had the car completely tossed because a baseball bat was in the backseat. All bullshit, honestly, and not an isolated event. Nobody I know hasn't had numerous instances of such things happening.

Let me say that we've had this conversation before, yet this is a very different (in a positive way) version.  :)

I think now that we're down to definitions, we're on to something.  As you can guess, I am more than willing to give cops the benefit of the doubt.  I don't think they should get special treatment, but I don't think they deserve half (most?) of the abuse they get.  Having said that, I don't actually disagree with much that you wrote there.  When I hear "corruption" I immediately think "NYC in 1974", not "letting the guy that delivers my pizza off with a verbal warning".   I will send your head into convulsions here, but I, in a very real way, do not have to worry about a speeding ticket ever again (though I don't take advantage of it).   I have had this conversation in some form or fashion at least three times (incidentially, in three different states) in the last five years: 
"Here's your ticket, the response date is on the bottom.  You need to..."
"I know what I need to do; I've been here before.  Thanks for your service, and I don't mean that sarcastically; my brother is on the job too.  He's a traffic cop in [insert City]."
"Dude... you should have told me before I put it in the system.  I can't do anything now I called it in, but I wouldn't have written you if I had known." 

If that's corruption, then I agree with you.  And I can't and won't defend it except to say that I do STRONGLY disagree that it is a "short hop" (my words) to beating someone.   I respect you for having your principles in that regard (seriously) but that level of corruption is systemic in all walks of life, not just cops.   We can debate whether cops should (or even can) be different, but I guarantee you people in service industries like that do this all the time.  How many times have you seen people walk into a bar and drink for free, if not all night, then at least a round or two?   Be it because they played softball for the bar, or did some work on the side for the bar, or whatever.  Quid pro quo (or in economic terms, "transfer payments"). 

Quote
Also, if you think about it, isn't trying to get a family friend hired on in a position you know him to be unqualified for also an example of corruption? Departments will generally tolerate dopers and drunks, but they will never hire them. Past drug use is almost always an immediate DQ.

Well, in this case (and I am not adjusting the facts to argue. :)  he was qualified (it was not an officer position, but admin in the Department) and would not have been DQ'd for the drug use.  He was DQ'd because he lied on the forms (even the pop was because it proved that he lied on the forms, though if the app went further it could have been enough to disqualify him).   My bro didn't do anything against policy in that instance; if he helped cover it up to help a "friend", he would have.

As for "what you look like", well, that is a different discussion, no?   I get the notion - the somewhat idealist notion - that we should all be judged by the "content of our character" not the metaphoric in this case "color of our skin", but is that again indemic only to cops?   I look like a right and proper WASP now, but I had long(er) hair back in the day, and fit in nicely at the Dio and Maiden shows I frequented in my youth, and I do notice a difference.  Is that bad?  Honest question: what responsibility do I have in how I am perceived?   This is somewhat of a metaphysical discussion, but isn't it part of our DNA to perceive our situations and assess danger in any way we can?  Why are cops different in this regard?   Are you familiar with the study that "tested" for "gaydar"?   People can tell - with up to 80% accuracy (which is VERY high when you consider that gay males only make up about 2% of the overall population) http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/05/16/study-finds-gaydar-up-to-80-percent-accurate-on-sexuality   (In fairness, this is not the only study; I know of one other that somewhat contradicts this, in that the rate was about 70%, wasn't limited to sexuality, and said MALE gayness was more accurate than lesbianism (which was about the same as random chance).  The only other "group" that had a better rate of detection was....can you guess?)
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: El Barto on August 13, 2014, 08:12:04 AM
Quote
The race of officers should not matter as long as their work is fair and professional, said Dave Klinger, a former police officer and criminal justice professor at the University of Missouri-St. Louis.

"If the officer behaved inappropriately, we've got to sanction the officer and figure out what it is that led him to do what he did," Klinger said. "Was he poorly trained? Was there a pattern in this agency?"
Or maybe was he an asshole? Part of the problem I have with cops (this is turning into my Fuck the Police thread, sorry) is that they're seemingly so incapable of finding fault in each other. There are no bad cops. Only poorly trained ones or victims of all of us who "don't know what it's like." That's part of the reason the "us against the world" mentality bugs me so much. Makes defensiveness and solidarity paramount to the exclusion of all else.

I don't want to go off on a tangent, or contradict anything I might say in response to your longer post, but the "us against the world" mentality DOES exist (i.e. the "thin blue line") but it is as much reactionary as it is proactive.  Not defending it, but look at St. Louis: the only people even asking for any kind of fairness (not even going so far as to defend him) are other cops.   And even you have to admit that at this point in time, we don't have information enough to draw any meaningful conclusions beyond "we need more information".
I agree completely that the mentality is reactionary and have said so many times. Again, I think it's being a cop that makes cops bad. That doesn't make it any less of a problem or bad thing. Also, plenty of people are cutting Johnny slack at this point, myself included. I've pretty much defended the cop in this situation in lieu of facts contradictory to his story.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Stadler on August 13, 2014, 08:19:00 AM
Again, I think it's being a cop that makes cops bad.

Honest question:  is it "being a cop" or "facing the reaction to being a cop" that makes cops bad?  Do you see the difference I'm trying to make?  In other words, if the world was perfect, and we all treated each other with respect, would cops still go bad?  Or does it take the odd dynamic we have these days to do it?
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: El Barto on August 13, 2014, 08:37:21 AM

I think now that we're down to definitions, we're on to something.  As you can guess, I am more than willing to give cops the benefit of the doubt.  I don't think they should get special treatment, but I don't think they deserve half (most?) of the abuse they get.  Having said that, I don't actually disagree with much that you wrote there.  When I hear "corruption" I immediately think "NYC in 1974", not "letting the guy that delivers my pizza off with a verbal warning".   I will send your head into convulsions here, but I, in a very real way, do not have to worry about a speeding ticket ever again (though I don't take advantage of it).   I have had this conversation in some form or fashion at least three times (incidentially, in three different states) in the last five years: 
"Here's your ticket, the response date is on the bottom.  You need to..."
"I know what I need to do; I've been here before.  Thanks for your service, and I don't mean that sarcastically; my brother is on the job too.  He's a traffic cop in [insert City]."
"Dude... you should have told me before I put it in the system.  I can't do anything now I called it in, but I wouldn't have written you if I had known." 
Yeesh, those fucking PBA cards.  :lol

Interestingly, this is the one and only time I ever saw cops argue with each other over at Officer.com. PBA cards are entirely and East coast thing, and all cops further West were outraged by the whole idea. Now, those same outraged cops would still cut friends and family plenty of slack, but the idea of codifying it into the system that the Easterners have was pretty offensive to them. Quite honestly, they preferred their corruption to be more discreet.

Quote
If that's corruption, then I agree with you.  And I can't and won't defend it except to say that I do STRONGLY disagree that it is a "short hop" (my words) to beating someone.   I respect you for having your principles in that regard (seriously) but that level of corruption is systemic in all walks of life, not just cops.   We can debate whether cops should (or even can) be different, but I guarantee you people in service industries like that do this all the time.  How many times have you seen people walk into a bar and drink for free, if not all night, then at least a round or two?   Be it because they played softball for the bar, or did some work on the side for the bar, or whatever.  Quid pro quo (or in economic terms, "transfer payments"). 
Well, in this very thread you're arguing (quite correctly) about the role of morality in CJ. You're approaching it from a strict and legal viewpoint of how the law works. From that viewpoint, you have to recognize that cops and pizza guys have a very different obligation when it comes to the role of discretion in their work. Hell, I do work for friends/family for free on occasion. I'm sure you would as well. Neither of us are in a job where we're supposed to be strictly impartial, though. I granted that it's human nature for cops to let their feelings affect how they do their job, but that doesn't make it a good thing with regards to the role they're supposed to play in society.

And while there is a big step from giving somebody a pass on a ticket to tazing them to death, it's still part of the continuum when you're letting your emotions affect your work. Many cops interestingly have a real issue with any written use of force continuum. Yet such policies actually have lines marked on the ruler telling them how far to go and when. These cops that object are of the opinion that it should be their feeling or instinct that determines when things escalate. That bothers me and it seems to be the way LE is handled nowadays.

Quote
As for "what you look like", well, that is a different discussion, no?   I get the notion - the somewhat idealist notion - that we should all be judged by the "content of our character" not the metaphoric in this case "color of our skin", but is that again indemic only to cops?   I look like a right and proper WASP now, but I had long(er) hair back in the day, and fit in nicely at the Dio and Maiden shows I frequented in my youth, and I do notice a difference.  Is that bad?  Honest question: what responsibility do I have in how I am perceived?   This is somewhat of a metaphysical discussion, but isn't it part of our DNA to perceive our situations and assess danger in any way we can?  Why are cops different in this regard?
That's an interesting question, but as it applies to law enforcement, I'm not sure it matters. Isn't every person your brother interacts with innocent? Yes, I've made a conscious decision to not look like Mr. Law And Order, and there are plenty of circumstances where I put up with the ramifications (security following me around inside Target, for example), and now that you mention it I suppose I'm obligated to do so based on that decision. There are also instances where I expect people to do their damn job and do it professionally. Inventing RS and PC to give me a hard time because I look like I'm a doper doesn't qualify.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: El Barto on August 13, 2014, 08:46:34 AM
As you can guess, I am more than willing to give cops the benefit of the doubt.
Why? Do you think that's fair in the society we've agreed to live in where there is a steadfast presumption of innocence?

I'm not saying to automatically take the word of the accused over the cop, but at the same time, in the absence of evidence I don't the cop should automatically be taken at his word which is how the system works now. This is another of my core problems with cops and CJ in this country. Juries tend to automatically take their word. Judges do, as well, despite being quite outspoken to the fact that cops are professional liars when it comes to courtrooms. The laws offering qualified immunity give great protection to cops based on how they might have perceived a situation or felt while it was happening.

Interestingly, in the "debate" on body cameras over at O.com, one of the key concerns is that cops would lose their "testimonial authority" if video were to become commonplace. They know that anything they say will probably be believed on the stand, and if every cop had video of every encounter it would undermine that. I found this rather repugnant.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: El Barto on August 13, 2014, 08:48:14 AM
Again, I think it's being a cop that makes cops bad.

Honest question:  is it "being a cop" or "facing the reaction to being a cop" that makes cops bad?  Do you see the difference I'm trying to make?  In other words, if the world was perfect, and we all treated each other with respect, would cops still go bad?  Or does it take the odd dynamic we have these days to do it?
In the world you describe I can't see any need for cops. I would say that as long as there's a role for cops to play, then there will be an impetus towards corruption. Cops have power and power corrupts.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Scheavo on August 13, 2014, 09:46:41 AM

To be a criminal, you must commit a crime. A crime is a legal construct we make, based upon our morality. For you to consider someone a criminal, you must consider what they did to be morally reprehensible.

Someone who goes 36 in a 35 is breaking the law and could be punished as such. By the strict definition, that person is a criminal. Do you consider someone going 36 in a 35 to be a criminal? I sure don't. I distinguish between performing a criminal act and being a criminal.

I don't consider going one mile over the speed limit to be morally reprehensible.  I cannot say the same about those people who were looting and rioting the other night.  Feel free to disagree and make excuses for the looters.

I consider the act morally reprehensible, I do not consider the person morally reprehensible, and that's where you're getting confused about my position.

Also, you did not say they were criminals because they were out there, you said they're out there because they're criminals. Big difference.

All I'm doing is trying to evoke empathy. That does not excuse, but it does soften the dialogue and lead to actual positive results.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Stadler on August 13, 2014, 11:33:42 AM
Yeesh, those fucking PBA cards.  :lol

Interestingly, this is the one and only time I ever saw cops argue with each other over at Officer.com. PBA cards are entirely and East coast thing, and all cops further West were outraged by the whole idea. Now, those same outraged cops would still cut friends and family plenty of slack, but the idea of codifying it into the system that the Easterners have was pretty offensive to them. Quite honestly, they preferred their corruption to be more discreet.

I forgot about those!   :D  Well, I wasn't really talking about anything so institutionalized and formal.   I meant it in a more discreet way. 

And full disclosure (though you have no real reason to believe me on this other than my word), I would be as pissed as you if a cop let me or anyone else get away with something because they were or are closely related to a cop, and then further down the road they hit a kid on a bike or something.   I mean, you do this with the full knowledge of the risk and an acceptance of the consequences.  I'm relying (a little) on the disctinctions that I think it was Scheavo noted earlier.   In other words I wouldn't expect a cop to give me a pass if I blow a .15 on a breathalyzer. 

Quote
And while there is a big step from giving somebody a pass on a ticket to tazing them to death, it's still part of the continuum when you're letting your emotions affect your work. Many cops interestingly have a real issue with any written use of force continuum. Yet such policies actually have lines marked on the ruler telling them how far to go and when. These cops that object are of the opinion that it should be their feeling or instinct that determines when things escalate. That bothers me and it seems to be the way LE is handled nowadays.

Honest question here:  this comes up when talking about teachers too, and is HIGHLY dependent on which side of the tracks you are looking from.  The "standards" and "continuum" make sense when you're talking about a line in the sand working to dial back a cop.   What about those instances - if they exist - that the line in effect says to the cop, "you probably would have stopped here, at 5, but you know, you COULD go to 7!".  Just like the standardized tests that are designed to be a bar for all to aspire to, but have worked out in many cases to reign in teachers from shooting for the moon and end up just teaching the bare minimum to pass the tests. 

Quote
That's an interesting question, but as it applies to law enforcement, I'm not sure it matters. Isn't every person your brother interacts with innocent? Yes, I've made a conscious decision to not look like Mr. Law And Order, and there are plenty of circumstances where I put up with the ramifications (security following me around inside Target, for example), and now that you mention it I suppose I'm obligated to do so based on that decision. There are also instances where I expect people to do their damn job and do it professionally. Inventing RS and PC to give me a hard time because I look like I'm a doper doesn't qualify.

Well, it is interesting and I recognize it goes both ways; one would think (and here I think we might even agree) that perhaps cops should be held to a higher standard; protect your life and well-being, but in a way that recognizes that "long hair" doesn't equal "criminal".   I recognize that this is not equivalent to an old lady crossing the street because the three kids in front of her have hoodies on at night and shirts that have the Insane Clown Posse on the front.  She has no duty to them. 
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: hefdaddy42 on August 13, 2014, 11:40:23 AM
The cop might say that it is his duty to the little old lady that would cause him to pay a little more attention to the ICP guys.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Stadler on August 13, 2014, 11:44:50 AM
As you can guess, I am more than willing to give cops the benefit of the doubt.
Why? Do you think that's fair in the society we've agreed to live in where there is a steadfast presumption of innocence?

I'm not saying to automatically take the word of the accused over the cop, but at the same time, in the absence of evidence I don't the cop should automatically be taken at his word which is how the system works now. This is another of my core problems with cops and CJ in this country. Juries tend to automatically take their word. Judges do, as well, despite being quite outspoken to the fact that cops are professional liars when it comes to courtrooms. The laws offering qualified immunity give great protection to cops based on how they might have perceived a situation or felt while it was happening.

Interestingly, in the "debate" on body cameras over at O.com, one of the key concerns is that cops would lose their "testimonial authority" if video were to become commonplace. They know that anything they say will probably be believed on the stand, and if every cop had video of every encounter it would undermine that. I found this rather repugnant.

I do, and I think it goes all ways.   There is no more reason to assume a cop is corrupt than there is to assume a black man walking the street at night is looking for a gas station to boost.   Unless and until one of them does something to change that assumption. 

Let me say straight up that although "repugnant" isn't the word I would use, I am in agreement with you on the last paragraph.  I see the other point:  that one or two cops whose testimony differs from the video will spoil the entire lot (how much of the general suspicion of cops is based on ONE precinct of ONE police department that made some pretty bad missteps in the mid 90's?  You know what I'm talking about.)     

Not sure why anyone would not want corroborating evidence IF they are acting as they believe is in the right.  Having said that, you and I have talked about this and we differ on the motivations.  I firmly believe there is far more incentive for the accused to lie than the cop.  There is no upside to the cop lying, at least not as compares to that of the accused.   Plus there is the general human aversion to "punishment" that the cop is not seeking to avoid with his testimony.  It is not a minor point that generally speaking, in a crime situation, the cop is not the actor (I know this thread is about a situation where the cop IS an actor, and by the way, I don't know that I would extend my "benefit of the doubt" to this case either, because the cop DOES have something to gain by lying).   
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Stadler on August 13, 2014, 11:47:49 AM
Again, I think it's being a cop that makes cops bad.

Honest question:  is it "being a cop" or "facing the reaction to being a cop" that makes cops bad?  Do you see the difference I'm trying to make?  In other words, if the world was perfect, and we all treated each other with respect, would cops still go bad?  Or does it take the odd dynamic we have these days to do it?
In the world you describe I can't see any need for cops. I would say that as long as there's a role for cops to play, then there will be an impetus towards corruption. Cops have power and power corrupts.

Not sure where that was going; I can certainly envision a world that needs cops but that doesn't instantly hate cops because they are cops.   Again, another discussion for another time, but I absolutely do not believe a totally peaceful society with no conflict can ever exist.  Even if the cops are only around to handle the "outliers", there will always be a subset of our society that are sociopaths, and whether they are "functioning" or not, there will always be situations where the general empathy required to toe the line won't be there.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: El Barto on August 13, 2014, 12:06:20 PM

Let me say straight up that although "repugnant" isn't the word I would use, I am in agreement with you on the last paragraph.  I see the other point:  that one or two cops whose testimony differs from the video will spoil the entire lot (how much of the general suspicion of cops is based on ONE precinct of ONE police department that made some pretty bad missteps in the mid 90's?  You know what I'm talking about.)     
Plenty of good points, and I'll be giving them some thought before cranking out another long-winded reply.

I do want to address this, though, as it wasn't really the point they were making. From the cop's perspective, cops never lie. They're not concerned about his testimony not matching what's on video (and according to at least one court it doesn't matter anyway as the testimony trumps video to the contrary (https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140405/17142626817/indiana-supreme-court-declares-officers-testimony-is-more-reliable-than-video-evidence.shtml)). What they're concerned about is that it'll be the video that creates the perception of truth, and not Johnny's testimony. As it stands now, their badge and demeanor are what make them honest and truthful. Their concern is about that being undermined by ubiquitous video. At some point if he busts somebody off camera or the camera isn't working his word will no longer be good enough based solely on his badge and demeanor (as it should be, IMO).
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Stadler on August 13, 2014, 02:04:40 PM
Plenty of good points, and I'll be giving them some thought before cranking out another long-winded reply.

I do want to address this, though, as it wasn't really the point they were making. From the cop's perspective, cops never lie. They're not concerned about his testimony not matching what's on video (and according to at least one court it doesn't matter anyway as the testimony trumps video to the contrary (https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140405/17142626817/indiana-supreme-court-declares-officers-testimony-is-more-reliable-than-video-evidence.shtml)). What they're concerned about is that it'll be the video that creates the perception of truth, and not Johnny's testimony. As it stands now, their badge and demeanor are what make them honest and truthful. Their concern is about that being undermined by ubiquitous video. At some point if he busts somebody off camera or the camera isn't working his word will no longer be good enough based solely on his badge and demeanor (as it should be, IMO).

Yeah, I don't get that logic.   I believe you, but I don't understand it.   Isn't that already the case?  That generally speaking hard evidence (video, a fingerprint, a recording...) has more "credibility" than a witness?
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: El Barto on August 13, 2014, 03:08:15 PM
Plenty of good points, and I'll be giving them some thought before cranking out another long-winded reply.

I do want to address this, though, as it wasn't really the point they were making. From the cop's perspective, cops never lie. They're not concerned about his testimony not matching what's on video (and according to at least one court it doesn't matter anyway as the testimony trumps video to the contrary (https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140405/17142626817/indiana-supreme-court-declares-officers-testimony-is-more-reliable-than-video-evidence.shtml)). What they're concerned about is that it'll be the video that creates the perception of truth, and not Johnny's testimony. As it stands now, their badge and demeanor are what make them honest and truthful. Their concern is about that being undermined by ubiquitous video. At some point if he busts somebody off camera or the camera isn't working his word will no longer be good enough based solely on his badge and demeanor (as it should be, IMO).

Yeah, I don't get that logic.   I believe you, but I don't understand it.   Isn't that already the case?  That generally speaking hard evidence (video, a fingerprint, a recording...) has more "credibility" than a witness?
Cops have a great deal of credibility on the stand. Unless you're in Compton or Camden juries trust them. Judges know they lie but let it slide since calling them out would be more trouble than they want. Any time one precedes a statement with "because of my training and experience I was able to discern" then damn near anything that follows will be presumed true unless proven false. That's what they're afraid of losing, and why I dislike, the presumption of innocence on their part so much (although I'm actually a bit flustered by something you said earlier on that point which I've yet to get to).
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: KevShmev on August 13, 2014, 10:59:16 PM
It's still very ugly in the city of Ferguson, and the cops arresting two reporters tonight (who were quickly released) for simply being in their way in a McDonald's is proof that they have lost control of the situation.  Reinforcements need to be brought in by the feds.  This is awful.  :(
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Chino on August 14, 2014, 07:12:26 AM
Yeah. This is getting ugly. This is going to sound horrible, but in a sick way I want it to get way worse. I want a war to erupt down there. I want the country to realize what's actually happening here.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: KevShmev on August 14, 2014, 07:30:04 AM
Considering I live about 40 minutes from where all of this is happening, I'd rather not see that.  A selfish attitude, sure, especially when it's involving such an important issue, but I doubt most would want this kind of thing in their own neighborhood.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: El Barto on August 14, 2014, 08:37:15 AM
The cop might say that it is his duty to the little old lady that would cause him to pay a little more attention to the ICP guys.
He has a duty to them both, actually.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: kirksnosehair on August 14, 2014, 08:47:40 AM
I firmly believe there is far more incentive for the accused to lie than the cop.  There is no upside to the cop lying, at least not as compares to that of the accused.   Plus there is the general human aversion to "punishment" that the cop is not seeking to avoid with his testimony.  It is not a minor point that generally speaking, in a crime situation, the cop is not the actor (I know this thread is about a situation where the cop IS an actor, and by the way, I don't know that I would extend my "benefit of the doubt" to this case either, because the cop DOES have something to gain by lying).


Which is it? 


I'm gonna go way out on a limb here and speculate that keeping himself out of prison for violating someone's civil rights is most definitely an incentive for the cop to lie.  There are more and more people coming forward in this case and confirming that this kid had his hands up in the air and was more than 20' away from the cruiser when he was shot.  I've yet to hear or read a compelling refutation of this.  Right now it's an allegation and while it may not yet be a "fact" by the criminal justice definition of such, at the very least this cop would appear to have demonstrated a serious lack of critical thinking.  We can slice it and dice it all we want, but if what the witnesses are saying is proven to be true, that cop should do time in the joint. 
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Chino on August 14, 2014, 08:53:05 AM
My town just got one of these (this is the exact one. Photo taken at the police station).

(http://cdn1.therepublic.com/smedia/6/4/64ffedde8f6a40d1a50dc510d50919f8/inline_471405285955.jpg)
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: El Barto on August 14, 2014, 09:00:57 AM
And full disclosure (though you have no real reason to believe me on this other than my word), I would be as pissed as you if a cop let me or anyone else get away with something because they were or are closely related to a cop, and then further down the road they hit a kid on a bike or something.   I mean, you do this with the full knowledge of the risk and an acceptance of the consequences.  I'm relying (a little) on the disctinctions that I think it was Scheavo noted earlier.   In other words I wouldn't expect a cop to give me a pass if I blow a .15 on a breathalyzer. 
Well letting the possible drunk go on to cause an accident is certainly one example. I was approaching it from the opposite direction. I'm more annoyed that I'm part of the 50% that doesn't have anything to earn me extra slack; a pizza maker, a relative, another cop, etc. I'm happy that MetalJunkie didn't get a ticket, but annoyed with the realization that I would have.

And while you probably wouldn't get off after blowing a .15 (unless it was your brother, and I mean no disrespect towards either of you for that), other cops almost always will. They get rides home. The instances of cops actually being arrested are few and far between and mostly limited to those really uptight departments like I referred to earlier.

This is something else that pisses me off. From Johnny's perspective, a cop driving drunk is a sad consequence of his job and and not something to be exploited for federal grant money.

Honestly, the us against the world mentality reminds me of all of the depressed people on the thread I started elsewhere. If you're not one of them then you have no basis whatsoever for comment because you could never, ever understand. There are certain groups of people intolerant of criticism by outside members (no matter how rational and logical my argument is, if I disagree with a die-hard feminist it can only possibly be because I hate women). This is the attitude that a lot of cops have and something that I think is a consequence of their job.

Quote
Honest question here:  this comes up when talking about teachers too, and is HIGHLY dependent on which side of the tracks you are looking from.  The "standards" and "continuum" make sense when you're talking about a line in the sand working to dial back a cop.   What about those instances - if they exist - that the line in effect says to the cop, "you probably would have stopped here, at 5, but you know, you COULD go to 7!".  Just like the standardized tests that are designed to be a bar for all to aspire to, but have worked out in many cases to reign in teachers from shooting for the moon and end up just teaching the bare minimum to pass the tests.
In the case of the use of force continuum, there's nothing set in stone and none of it is actually codified. They're general guidelines. After any use of force there are going to be questions and inquiries, and I suspect the standard to generally be that a person does what's necessary to get the situation under control, but nothing more. This is contrary to the way I see it for civvies, who I feel have less obligation to an attacker, but the police have numerous advantages that most civvies do not. This is not to say that I expect Johnny to get shot slowly moving step by step along the continuum, but I also don't expect him to jump straight to the strongest means. In essence, if he goes to seven when most would stop at five I don't really have a problem with it if there was a valid reason to do so. 

I do, and I think it goes all ways.   There is no more reason to assume a cop is corrupt than there is to assume a black man walking the street at night is looking for a gas station to boost.   Unless and until one of them does something to change that assumption.     

Not sure why anyone would not want corroborating evidence IF they are acting as they believe is in the right.  Having said that, you and I have talked about this and we differ on the motivations.  I firmly believe there is far more incentive for the accused to lie than the cop.  There is no upside to the cop lying, at least not as compares to that of the accused.   Plus there is the general human aversion to "punishment" that the cop is not seeking to avoid with his testimony.  It is not a minor point that generally speaking, in a crime situation, the cop is not the actor (I know this thread is about a situation where the cop IS an actor, and by the way, I don't know that I would extend my "benefit of the doubt" to this case either, because the cop DOES have something to gain by lying).   
Yeah, this one kinda threw me. I'm obviously looking at it from the perspective of the cop being the accuser, and when it turns out that I'm the one accusing the cop of corruption it really gave me pause. Damn people challenging my beliefs. 

However, don't you think that if you're going to put people in a position of authority over everybody else, ostensibly for the purpose of protecting them, that you need to hold them to a higher standard? Furthermore, if those people are also in charge of policing themselves, doesn't that make it even more important to do so? As I've been pointing out, there are a lot of things that make the system lean in Johnny's favor. You and I would both want to approach anything the government does with a highly skeptical eye, and I think doing so with police is every bit as important. To assume that their actions are kosher in lieu of any evidence to the contrary seems pretty risky to me.

Also, cops do have reasons to lie. While the accused might have better reasons, they're there all the same. Professional pride comes to mind. If you bust some guy for having a QP in the trunk and his lawyer challenges the legality of the search, do you really want to concede that he actually was driving quite well and lose your case? As for actual incentives, depending on the crime there are incentives both financial and personal. Busting drunks and dopers makes money for your department, and that means better conditions for you. Also, one of those poorly kept secrets is that cops actually are judged on the performance of their jobs. Bungled collars are certainly not going to look great on your write-up. Seizing 100g and 8 Ferraris will probably get you a pretty nice one, though.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: El Barto on August 14, 2014, 09:02:09 AM
My town just got one of these (this is the exact one. Photo taken at the police station).

(http://cdn1.therepublic.com/smedia/6/4/64ffedde8f6a40d1a50dc510d50919f8/inline_471405285955.jpg)
Uncle Sammy is giving those things away all the time. Drove past one of ours the other day (except it was camouflaged and and a turret on top).
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: El Barto on August 14, 2014, 09:08:56 AM
I firmly believe there is far more incentive for the accused to lie than the cop.  There is no upside to the cop lying, at least not as compares to that of the accused.   Plus there is the general human aversion to "punishment" that the cop is not seeking to avoid with his testimony.  It is not a minor point that generally speaking, in a crime situation, the cop is not the actor (I know this thread is about a situation where the cop IS an actor, and by the way, I don't know that I would extend my "benefit of the doubt" to this case either, because the cop DOES have something to gain by lying).


Which is it? 


I'm gonna go way out on a limb here and speculate that keeping himself out of prison for violating someone's civil rights is most definitely an incentive for the cop to lie.  There are more and more people coming forward in this case and confirming that this kid had his hands up in the air and was more than 20' away from the cruiser when he was shot.  I've yet to hear or read a compelling refutation of this.  Right now it's an allegation and while it may not yet be a "fact" by the criminal justice definition of such, at the very least this cop would appear to have demonstrated a serious lack of critical thinking.  We can slice it and dice it all we want, but if what the witnesses are saying is proven to be true, that cop should do time in the joint.
He'll field the "which is it" part, so I'll just say that I get what he was saying and it made perfect sense in context.

As for the facts of the case, like I said before, the reports of the witnesses mean about as much as the reports of the cop does right now. I'll also say that a lot of the witness's reports are conflicting with each other right now. Whether there's blood and a shell casing in the car, and whether the guy was shot front of back will answer most of the questions. The one good thing about this whole mess is that the accounts are so different right now that it won't be too hard to tell who's lying and who's not.

What bugs me is that right now it actually won't matter for dick. If the evidence shows that the kid was shot in the car while scuffling, would any of the rioters actually believe it? Hell, from the opposite perspective, I'm not entirely sure the state and the department wouldn't hang this cop out to dry just so they can quell the uprising by making an example out of him.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: gmillerdrake on August 14, 2014, 09:12:19 AM


I'm gonna go way out on a limb here and speculate that keeping himself out of prison for violating someone's civil rights is most definitely an incentive for the cop to lie.  There are more and more people coming forward a couple questionble eyewitness in this case and confirming that this kid had his hands up in the air and was more than 20' away from the cruiser when he was shot. I've yet to hear or read a compelling refutation of this.  Right now it's an allegation and while it may not yet be a "fact" by the criminal justice definition of such, at the very least this cop would appear to have demonstrated a serious lack of critical thinking.  We can slice it and dice it all we want, but if what the witnesses are saying is proven to be true, that cop should do time in the joint.

I call the eyewitnesses 'questionable' because of the same reason one would question the police officers story....to avoid jail time for wrongly shooting an unarmed kid.....I question this communities 'testimony' because of the actions they've displayed since and the fact I think they'd say anything to get 'justice'.

And, the 'key' eyewitness in this case is a 22 year old kid who was arrested last year for providing a false identiy to police to try and avoid going to jail. from http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/key-witness-meets-with-authorities-to-discuss-brown-shooting/article_3a5a3a2b-96aa-50f1-b9e5-345c29dd80dc.html (http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/key-witness-meets-with-authorities-to-discuss-brown-shooting/article_3a5a3a2b-96aa-50f1-b9e5-345c29dd80dc.html) article:


"Johnson has revealed little about himself. He attended Lincoln University in Jefferson City for two semesters in 2011, but “wound up back here, struggling to find a job,” Bosley said.

During the summer after his first semester at Lincoln, Johnson was charged with a misdemeanor after giving police a false first name after he was arrested on suspicion of theft. He later pleaded guilty.

He was accused of stealing a package containing a backpack belonging to someone else from an apartment complex. When he was arrested in that case, he identified himself as Derrick Johnson and said he was 16.

An officer found a student ID card in his sock identifying him as Dorian Johnson. Johnson told him he was carrying a friend’s ID, but two Lincoln University Police Officers recognized him as Dorian Johnson. He pleaded guilty in circuit court to a misdemeanor charge of filing a false report.

He is wanted for failing to appear in Jefferson City municipal court to answer to the theft charge, court officials said.

Johnson declined to be interviewed by the Post-Dispatch.

On Wednesday, Bosley acknowledged that Johnson told him he did “know something about that” and that he’d ask him more about it when he got the chance."




Before this blew up into the national side show that it is.....the initial incident was the police officer involved showing up in that neighborhood from a call from the very QT those residents decided to burn to the ground concerning (2) young black men matching Brown and his buddies description who had just hopped over the QT counter and taken some cigarretts.

I'm curious as to what the investigation will provide. There are reports that this police officer was/is injured from the struggle in the patrol car....that there was a shot fired in the struggle allegedly from Brown and buddy wrestling with the officer.

I don't have the distain for police officers that some of you apparently do and in cases like this that involve an officer and kids like Brown (who has 4 arrests in 6 months since turning 18) and the 'key' witness who has a questionable past as well.....I gravitate towards taking the officers word. Maybe that's a flaw of mine....who knows.

Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: El Barto on August 14, 2014, 09:30:40 AM
It's still very ugly in the city of Ferguson, and the cops arresting two reporters tonight (who were quickly released) for simply being in their way in a McDonald's is proof that they have lost control of the situation.  Reinforcements need to be brought in by the feds.  This is awful.  :(
Well, on the bright side it seems that a senator got tear gassed the other night.   :tup

The governor is getting ready to yank the St. Louis county sherrif's department out of this, but it's undecided who's going to take over crowd control. I'm not honestly sure what the best approach would be. The feds definitely shouldn't be getting involved for their own good (outside of an investigatory capacity in which they're already present). I doubt they're going to find any state or local departments that aren't essentially military organizations now, so I don't see them as any better. I'm not honestly convinced that the best option isn't to just pull out and let them do whatever the fuck they want for a couple of nights. See how that works out.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Chino on August 14, 2014, 09:33:48 AM
It's still very ugly in the city of Ferguson, and the cops arresting two reporters tonight (who were quickly released) for simply being in their way in a McDonald's is proof that they have lost control of the situation.  Reinforcements need to be brought in by the feds.  This is awful.  :(
Well, on the bright side it seems that a senator got tear gassed the other night.   :tup

The governor is getting ready to yank the St. Louis county sherrif's department out of this, but it's undecided who's going to take over crowd control. I'm not honestly sure what the best approach would be. The feds definitely shouldn't be getting involved for their own good (outside of an investigatory capacity in which they're already present). I doubt they're going to find any state or local departments that aren't essentially military organizations now, so I don't see them as any better. I'm not honestly convinced that the best option isn't to just pull out and let them do whatever the fuck they want for a couple of nights. See how that works out.

I'm with you. More/Greater or continued police presence isn't going to do anything in regards to lightening the mood down there. I'd say withdraw and let it ride. I wouldn't expect to see the looting start back up like it did a few nights ago. The people will feel rejoiced and happy. They'll be proud and not in the destructive mood.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: gmillerdrake on August 14, 2014, 09:47:10 AM
I'm not honestly convinced that the best option isn't to just pull out and let them do whatever the fuck they want for a couple of nights. See how that works out.

I'm with you. More/Greater or continued police presence isn't going to do anything in regards to lightening the mood down there. I'd say withdraw and let it ride. I wouldn't expect to see the looting start back up like it did a few nights ago. The people will feel rejoiced and happy. They'll be proud and not in the destructive mood.
[/quote]

Really? I think that's a horrible idea. It's like me giving my 4 year old a gallon of chocolate ice cream and package of gummy bears after he just screamed his a$$ off and threw a temper tantrum for an hour that he wanted them.

Introduce a curfew and let the entire community know that if you are found outside after (whatever time) you're getting arrested for violation of that curfew. Add extra officers/precincts...whatever to enforce it and go from there. "Backing down" at this point IMO only would encourage future rioting...
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: El Barto on August 14, 2014, 09:53:34 AM
I'm not honestly convinced that the best option isn't to just pull out and let them do whatever the fuck they want for a couple of nights. See how that works out.

I'm with you. More/Greater or continued police presence isn't going to do anything in regards to lightening the mood down there. I'd say withdraw and let it ride. I wouldn't expect to see the looting start back up like it did a few nights ago. The people will feel rejoiced and happy. They'll be proud and not in the destructive mood.

Really? I think that's a horrible idea. It's like me giving my 4 year old a gallon of chocolate ice cream and package of gummy bears after he just screamed his a$$ off and threw a temper tantrum for an hour that he wanted them.

Introduce a curfew and let the entire community know that if you are found outside after (whatever time) you're getting arrested for violation of that curfew. Add extra officers/precincts...whatever to enforce it and go from there. "Backing down" at this point IMO only would encourage future rioting...
[/quote]How would your 4 year old feel after scarfing down a gallon of ice cream and a bag of gummy bears?

Truthfully, I don't disagree with you about the message it sends, and I'm not seeing any good moves here. Turning hardass will definitely make the situation worse (although I'm not sure that's a bad thing, either). Taking the phone off the hook and leaving them to do whatever they want sends a bad message, but will defuse the situation.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: KevShmev on August 14, 2014, 10:01:39 AM
See, since I am of the opinion that most of the looters/rioters are not protesters, but opportunistic criminals who are just looking to do their worst, pulling back altogether would only make it easier for the criminals to, to us that expression again, do their worst, and with the weekend approaching, this is not the time to allow a free-for-all.  But what they are doing now is not working either, so I don't know what the answer is.  Granted, there is no one answer that will solve everything, but there has to be a way to diffuse the situation a bit without extreme scenarios.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: gmillerdrake on August 14, 2014, 10:08:27 AM
Truthfully, I don't disagree with you about the message it sends, and I'm not seeing any good moves here. Turning hardass will definitely make the situation worse (although I'm not sure that's a bad thing, either). Taking the phone off the hook and leaving them to do whatever they want sends a bad message, but will defuse the situation.

There really isn't a 'right' choice.....both suck and will have horrible side effects.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Scheavo on August 14, 2014, 10:17:41 AM
I don't have the distain for police officers that some of you apparently do and in cases like this that involve an officer and kids like Brown (who has 4 arrests in 6 months since turning 18) and the 'key' witness who has a questionable past as well.....I gravitate towards taking the officers word. Maybe that's a flaw of mine....who knows.


Who has something to gain? Clearly it's the cop, and not the numerous witnesses who could face a misdemeanor for lying. There's a reason we don't take the accused word for it.

Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: gmillerdrake on August 14, 2014, 10:29:17 AM
I don't have the distain for police officers that some of you apparently do and in cases like this that involve an officer and kids like Brown (who has 4 arrests in 6 months since turning 18) and the 'key' witness who has a questionable past as well.....I gravitate towards taking the officers word. Maybe that's a flaw of mine....who knows.


Who has something to gain? Clearly it's the cop, and not the numerous witnesses who could face a misdemeanor for lying. There's a reason we don't take the accused word for it.

I think the comminity does have 'something to gain' from it as a whole in their eyes.....and I think that's where racism comes in from their side as well. It's a chance to do and say whatever they can to make sure 'they' "get justice" and that the white cop 'gets what he deserves'......even if that cop did indeed act within the law. Given 'their' (the comminities) actions since the incident I highly doubt the threat of facing a misdemeanor charge for lying is something they're too concerned about wheras the officer lying could land him a much greater charge. 
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: kirksnosehair on August 14, 2014, 10:33:06 AM
wow, dude  :facepalm:
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: gmillerdrake on August 14, 2014, 10:43:36 AM
wow, dude  :facepalm:

How's that a 'wow dude'? That is no way far fetched considering what's been going on.

For me to suggest that some witness statments would be slanted to favor Brown is the same as some of the suggestions here that the officers account of the incident is slanted to favor him. Hopefully the investigation proves without a doubt what really happened.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Stadler on August 14, 2014, 10:46:58 AM
Plenty of good points, and I'll be giving them some thought before cranking out another long-winded reply.

I do want to address this, though, as it wasn't really the point they were making. From the cop's perspective, cops never lie. They're not concerned about his testimony not matching what's on video (and according to at least one court it doesn't matter anyway as the testimony trumps video to the contrary (https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140405/17142626817/indiana-supreme-court-declares-officers-testimony-is-more-reliable-than-video-evidence.shtml)). What they're concerned about is that it'll be the video that creates the perception of truth, and not Johnny's testimony. As it stands now, their badge and demeanor are what make them honest and truthful. Their concern is about that being undermined by ubiquitous video. At some point if he busts somebody off camera or the camera isn't working his word will no longer be good enough based solely on his badge and demeanor (as it should be, IMO).

Yeah, I don't get that logic.   I believe you, but I don't understand it.   Isn't that already the case?  That generally speaking hard evidence (video, a fingerprint, a recording...) has more "credibility" than a witness?
Cops have a great deal of credibility on the stand. Unless you're in Compton or Camden juries trust them. Judges know they lie but let it slide since calling them out would be more trouble than they want. Any time one precedes a statement with "because of my training and experience I was able to discern" then damn near anything that follows will be presumed true unless proven false. That's what they're afraid of losing, and why I dislike, the presumption of innocence on their part so much (although I'm actually a bit flustered by something you said earlier on that point which I've yet to get to).

I was on a jury about two months ago, and while I concede this is totally anecdotal, I have to say my direct experience is not consistent with yours.   First, the notion that "judges know they lie but let it slide" is nonsense, or at least subject to argument (in the grand sense) from the defense counsel.  In my trial (drug trafficking and weapons offenses on a four-time repeat felon; this guy has a newborn and would not likely see high school graduation if convicted), if anything, the judge paid the MOST deference to the defense.  He was actually very demanding of the star witness for the prosecution, not coincidentially a police officer. 

As for the jury, I can't talk too much about the specifics, as I took an oath, but I can tell you it was not at all like the clichés would have you believe.   Put a different way, be careful what you assume. 
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Stadler on August 14, 2014, 10:51:09 AM
Yeah. This is getting ugly. This is going to sound horrible, but in a sick way I want it to get way worse. I want a war to erupt down there. I want the country to realize what's actually happening here.

And what exactly will that "war" show that we don't already know?  That people are quick to point fingers, especially at author-i-tie?  That every kid is all of a sudden the model citizen when he takes a bullet?   That there is a certain subset of people - regardless of color or economic status - that will use a societal issue to gain personal advantage without a shred of guilt?  Thanks, but I'm not sure we need more people killed and/or injured to see that. 

I'm being a little sarcastic here, but the best thing for everyone would be to let this calm down, let cooler heads prefail, and let the system that has, for the most part, served us well for almost 250 years do what it does.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Scheavo on August 14, 2014, 10:53:42 AM
I don't have the distain for police officers that some of you apparently do and in cases like this that involve an officer and kids like Brown (who has 4 arrests in 6 months since turning 18) and the 'key' witness who has a questionable past as well.....I gravitate towards taking the officers word. Maybe that's a flaw of mine....who knows.


Who has something to gain? Clearly it's the cop, and not the numerous witnesses who could face a misdemeanor for lying. There's a reason we don't take the accused word for it.

I think the comminity does have 'something to gain' from it as a whole in their eyes.....and I think that's where racism comes in from their side as well. It's a chance to do and say whatever they can to make sure 'they' "get justice" and that the white cop 'gets what he deserves'......even if that cop did indeed act within the law. Given 'their' (the comminities) actions since the incident I highly doubt the threat of facing a misdemeanor charge for lying is something they're too concerned about wheras the officer lying could land him a much greater charge. 

I haven't read or heard anything about the race of the cop. Chances are your right, but until I see otherwise, I'm calling this an assumption. The response by the department is also highly suspicious, and downright inept.

And it's about much more than just this incident, it's about years of problems. Problems like what we see right now. They don't need to lie, there is more than abundant evidence to back up their complaints.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/even-before-teen-michael-browns-slaying-in-mo-racial-questions-have-hung-over-police/2014/08/13/78b3c5c6-2307-11e4-86ca-6f03cbd15c1a_story.html

I'm sorry, but the idea that the cop would be more concerned about lying when he just shot a young man is ridiculous.

Let's be honest: The War on Drugs is the new Jim Crow and there are serious human rights issues in America. These riots and protests are a result of that, this latest shooting is just another event in years, if not centuries, of subjugation and racism.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Scheavo on August 14, 2014, 10:55:21 AM
I'm being a little sarcastic here, but the best thing for everyone would be to let this calm down, let cooler heads prefail, and let the system that has, for the most part, served us well for almost 250 years do what it does.

...

Unless your skin is black

...

Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Stadler on August 14, 2014, 10:56:29 AM
I firmly believe there is far more incentive for the accused to lie than the cop.  There is no upside to the cop lying, at least not as compares to that of the accused.   Plus there is the general human aversion to "punishment" that the cop is not seeking to avoid with his testimony.  It is not a minor point that generally speaking, in a crime situation, the cop is not the actor (I know this thread is about a situation where the cop IS an actor, and by the way, I don't know that I would extend my "benefit of the doubt" to this case either, because the cop DOES have something to gain by lying).


Which is it? 

Read the post; the first case, when the cop is merely testifying, the incentive to lie is no more or less than any other person doing their job, especially as compared to the defendant who presumably is looking at some form of direct punishment if found to have committed the crimes of which he/she is accused.  The second case, when the cop is actually a PARTY in the case (and there is no scenario that can happen except that the cop is a defendant) is vastly different, and the cop WOULD have the same incentive to lie that any other defendant facing punishment for his crimes would face. 

Quote
I'm gonna go way out on a limb here and speculate that keeping himself out of prison for violating someone's civil rights is most definitely an incentive for the cop to lie.  There are more and more people coming forward in this case and confirming that this kid had his hands up in the air and was more than 20' away from the cruiser when he was shot.  I've yet to hear or read a compelling refutation of this.  Right now it's an allegation and while it may not yet be a "fact" by the criminal justice definition of such, at the very least this cop would appear to have demonstrated a serious lack of critical thinking.  We can slice it and dice it all we want, but if what the witnesses are saying is proven to be true, that cop should do time in the joint.

Wouldn't argue with you one bit.  IF.    I wish I could write that "IF" bigger, because it IS a big IF.   Don't put any words in my mouth; I am not defending bad behavior.  If this is not a "good shooting" as they say on TV, I am with you in terms of the justness of the punishment.   My only beef is with the kangaroo courtroom antics going on.  We have a process for a reason. 
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Stadler on August 14, 2014, 11:11:39 AM

Honestly, the us against the world mentality reminds me of all of the depressed people on the thread I started elsewhere. If you're not one of them then you have no basis whatsoever for comment because you could never, ever understand. There are certain groups of people intolerant of criticism by outside members (no matter how rational and logical my argument is, if I disagree with a die-hard feminist it can only possibly be because I hate women). This is the attitude that a lot of cops have and something that I think is a consequence of their job.

Well, anything that I say to the contrary is poor communication skills on my part, but I'm with you.  I don't generally get the "us against the world mentality" in any context; cops, gays, feminists, sports teams, whatever.  It's artificial in my view, because the honest truth is, 90% of the time the world doesn't give enough of a shit to actually muster up enough care to BE against you.  :)  (As an off-topic aside, I love when the young athlete invariably says "we shocked the world!".  No, no you didn't.  The vast majority of the "world" doesn't even know you exist let alone that you accomplished some minor task that doesn't do a thing to feed, clothe, bathe, care for, or in any other way enrich them.)


Quote
However, don't you think that if you're going to put people in a position of authority over everybody else, ostensibly for the purpose of protecting them, that you need to hold them to a higher standard? Furthermore, if those people are also in charge of policing themselves, doesn't that make it even more important to do so? As I've been pointing out, there are a lot of things that make the system lean in Johnny's favor. You and I would both want to approach anything the government does with a highly skeptical eye, and I think doing so with police is every bit as important. To assume that their actions are kosher in lieu of any evidence to the contrary seems pretty risky to me.

Well, the first part of this, the higher standard, I honesly struggle with.  I don't know even how I feel about this let alone how society should handle it.  I mean, let's use the President instead of cops.  You presumably "hire" (vote for) him or her BECAUSE of their judgment.  So does smoking weed in college say anything about that judgement?  How about a little coke back in the day?  How about a little head under the desk.  He is, after all, THE MOST POWERFUL MAN ON THE PLANET; there must be no shortage of temptation in that department.  I know for me, I'm not a huge "cheating" kind of guy, but I know that the reasoning skills I use to formulate a strategic transaction are NOT the same reasoning skills I use to convince myself that it is better that I go home to my girlfriend than continue down whatever path I'm on with the cute redhead at the local publick house.  But is that the same for everyone else?   So, I can't even answer the GENERAL question on differing standards, let alone for a cop who is potentially looking down the barrel of a gun being held by someone that wants to shoot him just for his uniform.

Quote
Also, cops do have reasons to lie. While the accused might have better reasons, they're there all the same. Professional pride comes to mind. If you bust some guy for having a QP in the trunk and his lawyer challenges the legality of the search, do you really want to concede that he actually was driving quite well and lose your case? As for actual incentives, depending on the crime there are incentives both financial and personal. Busting drunks and dopers makes money for your department, and that means better conditions for you. Also, one of those poorly kept secrets is that cops actually are judged on the performance of their jobs. Bungled collars are certainly not going to look great on your write-up. Seizing 100g and 8 Ferraris will probably get you a pretty nice one, though.

Well, I can't and won't argue this on an absolute level, but nuance and degree matter.  Is the incentive zero?   No.   But there's a level of inherent incentive instilled in all of us (why would a cop's professional pride be any greater, necessarily, than mine or yours?) but the circumstantial (meaning based in the circumstances) incentive is VERY much higher in the case of the defendant.   This was intangible, but nonetheless CRYSTAL CLEAR in the case I heard.   
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Stadler on August 14, 2014, 11:15:29 AM
Brown (who has 4 arrests in 6 months since turning 18)

Whoa, whoa, whoa.  Not according to his mom and step dad.   He was a good kid who "just wanted to go to college" before he was "executed" by the cops.    I believe the mom.  ;) 
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Dark Castle on August 14, 2014, 11:19:17 AM
Do you even know what those arrests are for?
Kind of bullshit to use an arrest record as a judgement of character if you don't even know what the arrests were for.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: El Barto on August 14, 2014, 11:25:58 AM
Do you even know what those arrests are for?
Kind of bullshit to use an arrest record as a judgement of character if you don't even know what the arrests were for.
Nah, bullshit is bringing it up in the first place. Those arrests had no bearing on the OIS in question. Whether he was a saint or a shitbag isn't really a factor at this stage of the game. At the point in which this encounter began he was a citizen and nothing more or less.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Dark Castle on August 14, 2014, 11:26:39 AM
Also:
http://www.firstcoastnews.com/story/news/nation/2014/08/14/michael-brown-no-criminal-record/14049261/
Also agree with your above post Barto.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: gmillerdrake on August 14, 2014, 11:31:19 AM
Brown (who has 4 arrests in 6 months since turning 18)

Whoa, whoa, whoa.  Not according to his mom and step dad.   He was a good kid who "just wanted to go to college" before he was "executed" by the cops.    I believe the mom.  ;)

Do you even know what those arrests are for?
Kind of bullshit to use an arrest record as a judgement of character if you don't even know what the arrests were for.

Also:
http://www.firstcoastnews.com/story/news/nation/2014/08/14/michael-brown-no-criminal-record/14049261/


My statment was based off a interview I listened to on the radio Tuesday afternoon.......I'm going to send an e-mail to the talk show and let them know their guest blatantly lied to everyone.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Chino on August 14, 2014, 11:31:50 AM
Brown (who has 4 arrests in 6 months since turning 18)

Whoa, whoa, whoa.  Not according to his mom and step dad.   He was a good kid who "just wanted to go to college" before he was "executed" by the cops.    I believe the mom.  ;)

Even if that were the case... if this dude's hands were up, the cops were out of line. It doesn't matter how many arrests the kid had.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Stadler on August 14, 2014, 11:34:20 AM
I'm being a little sarcastic here, but the best thing for everyone would be to let this calm down, let cooler heads prefail, and let the system that has, for the most part, served us well for almost 250 years do what it does.

...

Unless your skin is black

...

Still haven't got the "multiple quote" thing down yet, so this is for this comment AND the one before, but that you have an element of truth in your statements doesn't mean that it is the abiding truth.  The mob mentality can easily be as racist if not more racist (because of the lack of accountability for any one member of the mob) than the individual.    Obviously, that "race" is even being mentioned here before we know the race of the cop says that "racism" is alive and well in the US of A, but it's fanning the fires to be making this either a racial event or indicative of any grander racial temperature of the country.  Race doesn't belong in this discussion unless and until a distinct racial component is determined to exist between the two (or however many cops/kids there are involved) primary actors.  "Race" works both ways, and in so doing, works FOR neither side.

Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Stadler on August 14, 2014, 11:38:29 AM
Do you even know what those arrests are for?
Kind of bullshit to use an arrest record as a judgement of character if you don't even know what the arrests were for.
Nah, bullshit is bringing it up in the first place. Those arrests had no bearing on the OIS in question. Whether he was a saint or a shitbag isn't really a factor at this stage of the game. At the point in which this encounter began he was a citizen and nothing more or less.

Look, my point should have been in green, and should have been clearer.  I apologize for taking the easy way out.   The arrests DON'T bear on his character (though there is some relevance IF, for example, he has been arrested four times for boosting gas stations, and he is the primary observed suspect on a call to a boosted gas station; this is not subject to discussion but is well-settled law, regardless of color of skin).  The commentary was to the fluid nature of information at this point and the inherent bias in ALL sides of this. 

Someone mentioned getting the cops out of their and letting things go as they go... if you ask me, we should get the MEDIA out of there, and let people act according to their conscience, without making this a reality TV show where everyone gets their 86 seconds of fame.   
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: KevShmev on August 14, 2014, 11:44:13 AM
There is no doubt that the system works against blacks more than whites, but my frustration is with the "white guilt" folks (I know a few) who shrug off every arrest of a black as being another injustice.*

Having said that, are some blacks unfairly arrested, prosecuted and/or convicted?  Absolutely.  It would be naive to suggest otherwise. 

*This is meant in general and not at all referring to the circumstances pertaining to the death of Michael Brown.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Chino on August 14, 2014, 11:45:52 AM
Do you even know what those arrests are for?
Kind of bullshit to use an arrest record as a judgement of character if you don't even know what the arrests were for.
Nah, bullshit is bringing it up in the first place. Those arrests had no bearing on the OIS in question. Whether he was a saint or a shitbag isn't really a factor at this stage of the game. At the point in which this encounter began he was a citizen and nothing more or less.


Someone mentioned getting the cops out of their and letting things go as they go... if you ask me, we should get the MEDIA out of there, and let people act according to their conscience, without making this a reality TV show where everyone gets their 86 seconds of fame.

According to the first amendment, the media has just as much of a right to be there as the people who should be acting according to their conscience.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: El Barto on August 14, 2014, 11:58:19 AM
Yeah, I don't know as these people are hamming it up for the cameras.

While I have no opinion on the shooting, and my opinion on the rioting is that they were a stupid unruly mob, the cop's behavior after those events has been questionable. Those people have a right to protest and according to most of the media folk the protests have been quite nonviolent in nature. While I'll certainly celebrate when a politician get's teargassed, it really does seem like the heavy handed approach is uncalled for at this point. One of the videos was of a group of people standing inside a fenced off yard on somebody's private property and having a CS canister lobbed directly at them over the fence. There's something very wrong with that. You've got media people being arrested and their gear disassembled. I should think that three days after the rioting there should be no need for the police state that they're instituting, particularly since the more they try to quell demonstrations the more they'll create.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Scheavo on August 14, 2014, 11:58:28 AM
I'm being a little sarcastic here, but the best thing for everyone would be to let this calm down, let cooler heads prefail, and let the system that has, for the most part, served us well for almost 250 years do what it does.

...

Unless your skin is black

...

Still haven't got the "multiple quote" thing down yet, so this is for this comment AND the one before, but that you have an element of truth in your statements doesn't mean that it is the abiding truth.  The mob mentality can easily be as racist if not more racist (because of the lack of accountability for any one member of the mob) than the individual.    Obviously, that "race" is even being mentioned here before we know the race of the cop says that "racism" is alive and well in the US of A, but it's fanning the fires to be making this either a racial event or indicative of any grander racial temperature of the country.  Race doesn't belong in this discussion unless and until a distinct racial component is determined to exist between the two (or however many cops/kids there are involved) primary actors.  "Race" works both ways, and in so doing, works FOR neither side.

The cop could be black. That does not change the fact that blacks live in an unfair system. And the people in Ferguson are protesting that system as much as they are protesting this shooting. There's been problems seething for a while, and it's not as if one black person got shot by a cop and then this happened.

This country is so god damn delusional that something like this needs to happen to waken them up to what's really going on. Do you think a huge group of black people are upset for no reason? There's very good reasons why they feel the way they do, and to pretend as if race isn't a factor in that is harmful to actually solving the issues.

If you want to call it fanning the flames, then I'd say good riddance. Let the fire burn the fuel out, so that there is no longer any fire.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Chino on August 14, 2014, 12:26:27 PM
I feel like if it was a black cop that shot the kid, that would have been made public by now in an effort to diffuse the situation.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: bosk1 on August 14, 2014, 12:54:29 PM
Scheavo, your race baiting in the thread is inappropriate, and you have been told that in the past.  Consider this your warning.  Stick to the topic and not unfounded accusations regarding race.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Dark Castle on August 14, 2014, 12:59:28 PM
What race baiting, he's just pointing out that the system has never really worked in the favor of African Americans..
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: El Barto on August 14, 2014, 01:06:00 PM
I was on a jury about two months ago, and while I concede this is totally anecdotal, I have to say my direct experience is not consistent with yours.   First, the notion that "judges know they lie but let it slide" is nonsense, or at least subject to argument (in the grand sense) from the defense counsel.  In my trial (drug trafficking and weapons offenses on a four-time repeat felon; this guy has a newborn and would not likely see high school graduation if convicted), if anything, the judge paid the MOST deference to the defense.  He was actually very demanding of the star witness for the prosecution, not coincidentially a police officer. 

As for the jury, I can't talk too much about the specifics, as I took an oath, but I can tell you it was not at all like the clichés would have you believe.   Put a different way, be careful what you assume.
In your case, if the 4 time loser and the cop both told directly oppositional stories and there was no evidence whatsoever to support either claim, who would you, the jury and the judge find more credible? Hell, even I might have some reason to believe the cop more. Combine that with a second tendency: do you honestly think that judges really believe that dopers are constantly dropping their stash by accident right at the foot of cops? Apparently it's a constant occurrence in New York--clumsiest potheads on Earth from what I can tell. In 30+ years I have never once dropped my stash in front of anybody problematic. You reckon they believe that every person driving with dope in the car couldn't keep their car inside the two lines? Cops will tell you flat out that it's the people driving the speed limit, coming to full stops and driving as safely as possible that are the dopers, yet when they bust them it's because they were driving erratically. Judges aren't stupid and they know that PC gets fudged all the time, yet in treating every case as a closed event, where every witness starts with a clean slate, the cop still seems more credible than most defendants.

Good ole testilying, and we all know it happens.

And I want to point out here that I don't think most cops are going around lying about shooting people or extorting blowjobs form prostitutes. It's not the criminal behavior that I'm on about. This (particular tangent, at least) started with us discussing abuse of authority and corruption, and lying about the circumstances of a bust qualify as both, IMO.

Quote
Well, anything that I say to the contrary is poor communication skills on my part, but I'm with you.  I don't generally get the "us against the world mentality" in any context; cops, gays, feminists, sports teams, whatever.  It's artificial in my view, because the honest truth is, 90% of the time the world doesn't give enough of a shit to actually muster up enough care to BE against you.  :)  (As an off-topic aside, I love when the young athlete invariably says "we shocked the world!".  No, no you didn't.  The vast majority of the "world" doesn't even know you exist let alone that you accomplished some minor task that doesn't do a thing to feed, clothe, bathe, care for, or in any other way enrich them.)
When doing some reading up on the whole testilying thing, I read some of the motivations, and one of them was quite intriguing. Not only are the cops going up against the bad guys, but in their efforts to do so they're also going up against what [strictly for the sake of this discussion] we'll call the liberal courts system. This is a good point. I'm personally a big fan of Mapp, but I suspect that most police find it an awful, awful thing. A big component of "fudging" some facts on the stand is going to be their attempt to do their job while fighting a law that from their perspective is designed to hinder them and protect criminals. Wouldn't you be inclined to embellish your PC a wee bit?


Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Scheavo on August 14, 2014, 02:43:22 PM
Scheavo, your race baiting in the thread is inappropriate, and you have been told that in the past.  Consider this your warning.  Stick to the topic and not unfounded accusations regarding race.

This thread has "racism" in it's title. It's about a situations where race is playing a role. There is no way to not talk about this event, and the response to the event, without talking about race - especially not the proven, substantiated evidence showing the unfair treatment blacks and minorities face in our legal system, and have faced for years. And I'm not sure what "unfounded accusations regarding race" you could possibly be talking about. I mean, I don't even know where to begin by demonstrating that black people face an unfair system. It's like trying to defend the fact that the sky is blue. I even linked to an article earlier in the thread that showed how black people, specifically black people in Ferguson, we're being unfairly treated - and that the department has a long history of facing accusations of unfair practices surrounding race. I believe there's been lawsuits, but I could be mistaken on that last part.

Whether this young kid was shot because he was  black, I don't know. I haven't ever once commented on that. I have only discussed the reaction to those shootings, and tried to explain why that response is as strong as it is. You may not think race is a factor, it may not be a factor, but clearly thousands of people do. Can you explain to me why it is black people are far more likely to be pullled over and arrested for the same crimes as whites? Why it is that blacks use drugs at about the same levels as whites, but are far, far more likely to be in jail for it? I guess these historical trends and problems are just coincidence, and have nothing to do with race? Any rational debate about these events that are going on in Fergusson has to look at and examine the fact that blacks are unfairly targetted and incarcerated for the same crimes as whites. It's why there's tense relationships between black communities and cops. It's why a young black man might try to break away from the police, go for his gun, and get shot in the process (if that's indeed what happened). It's why a large community of black persons feel as if the police are not protecting them. It's why so many black people and black families are torn apart, can't get a job, and turn to the vicious cycle of crime.

http://www.sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/rd_stateratesofincbyraceandethnicity.pdf
http://www.drugpolicy.org/docUploads/NewJimCrowFactSheet.pdf

Just a small sampling.

It's frankly laughable to me that you consider what I said to be race-baiting. Do you even know what the term means? How could I be clouding logic and reason by pointing to statistics and history? I'm doing the exact opposite of race-baiting, because I'm not using false facts or seeking to cloud the logic of the situation. I'm trying to clarify the argument to what the problem really is.

If what I've talked about is off-topic or not "kosher" for debate on this topic, then frankly, I see no reason to actually have the debate or participate in this forum. So just ban me, and stop with this nonsense of yours where you warn me for something ridiculous. I would actually gain some respect for you, because if there's one thing I really hate, it's insincerity. So ban me because you don't like me, not because of some obviously ridiculous claim that I'm off-topic or "race-baiting."

Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: KevShmev on August 14, 2014, 02:46:52 PM
Slightly off-topic: Scheavo, do you ever post anywhere here but in P/R? I am genuinely curious, as I never see your name in any threads except the ones here.  Just wondering.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Scheavo on August 14, 2014, 02:50:34 PM
I peruse from time to time, but never really feel like I have anything to add or say.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: antigoon on August 14, 2014, 03:08:42 PM
Hate to be a drive by poster in this thread, but I agree with Scheavo that it's naive and pointless to talk about this incident without talking about racism and systems of racism.

This isn't a random, isolated incident.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: hefdaddy42 on August 15, 2014, 06:04:44 AM
I agree.  Race relations are at the very heart of this problem in this community.  And in many other communities across America.

But it's a systemic problem, so there is no easy solution.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: bosk1 on August 15, 2014, 08:21:26 AM
Scheavo, discussing racism is clearly in-bounds.  Picking fights with people who disagree with you and indirectly accusing anyone who disagrees with you of being racist is not.  It's not a question of whether I like or dislike you.  One type of conduct is fine; the other is not.  And if you have problems with a moderation decision, the thread is not the place to handle it.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: soundgarden on August 15, 2014, 09:00:54 AM
Scheavo, discussing racism is clearly in-bounds.  Picking fights with people who disagree with you and indirectly accusing anyone who disagrees with you of being racist is not.  It's not a question of whether I like or dislike you.  One type of conduct is fine; the other is not.  And if you have problems with a moderation decision, the thread is not the place to handle it.

If I may; I suspect Sheavo is suggesting the "latent" racism of American culture which is oftentimes ignored and easily dismissed.  For example, he pointed out Stadler's comment about 250 years of a system working; where clearly it doesn't for one race of people.  Is Stadler a direct racist; I don't see that at all, but its a "latent" mentality that exists in the majority mindset that is easily skirted around.  Its the same phenomena when a woman grabs her purse when walking past a black man.  Its these latent behaviors that the black community is so angry about.

Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: gmillerdrake on August 15, 2014, 09:50:05 AM
Brown and the 'key' witness named as suspects in strong arm robbery that took place minutes before the confrontation with the officer who responded to the call.



Couple pics of the 'gentle giant'....

(http://i791.photobucket.com/albums/yy197/gmillerdrake/53ee1fa3433fe_preview-100.jpg) (http://s791.photobucket.com/user/gmillerdrake/media/53ee1fa3433fe_preview-100.jpg.html)


(http://i791.photobucket.com/albums/yy197/gmillerdrake/53ee21e266260_preview-620.jpg) (http://s791.photobucket.com/user/gmillerdrake/media/53ee21e266260_preview-620.jpg.html)

(http://i791.photobucket.com/albums/yy197/gmillerdrake/2014-08-15T152807Z_1460881089_GM1EA8F1T4N01_RTRMADP_3_USA-MISSOURI-SHOOTING-OFFICER.jpg) (http://s791.photobucket.com/user/gmillerdrake/media/2014-08-15T152807Z_1460881089_GM1EA8F1T4N01_RTRMADP_3_USA-MISSOURI-SHOOTING-OFFICER.jpg.html)


In my view the pics and the account of the clerks who were robbed only give more credibilty to the officers account that Brown and his associate physically confronted him when questioned/detained.

Link to story on StL today:
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/michael-brown-a-suspect-in-robbery-of-cigars-from-store/article_52c40b84-ad90-5f9a-973c-70d628d0be04.html
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: El Barto on August 15, 2014, 10:07:27 AM
It looks like the other two dudes are on the short side, but he's a big-ass boy regardless.

Has nothing to do with the shooting, though. Even if he did assault Johnny, if (and I can't stress that "if" strongly enough) he was running away you can't shoot him. He has to pose an immediate threat to yourself or others (as you're no doubt aware from your training). If he had a gun on him, then you could make a sound argument, but you'd have a hard time demonstrating that his size and demeanor made him such a threat that he had to be stopped immediately.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Scheavo on August 15, 2014, 10:08:32 AM
I see a few blurry pics of a big black man. I can't see the face, and don't see any evidence that's Brown. The clothes could be an indicator if I knew what Brown was wearing, but I'd hardly call a plain white shirt and non-descript shorts solid evidence.

And where did the gun go?
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Stadler on August 15, 2014, 10:12:55 AM


Having said that, are some blacks unfairly arrested, prosecuted and/or convicted?  Absolutely.  It would be naive to suggest otherwise. 



I'm assuming you mean "blacks unfairly arrested because they are black" and just didn't type it.  This isn't a small difference or a difference of semantics.  It is very relevant.  And I realize I am on touchy ground here, but I don't believe any discussion of the criminal justice system vis-à-vis race can be had without a corresponding discussion of the criminal justice system vis-à-vis economics. 

In other words, I am not denying "racism" or minimizing impact.  I am saying, though, that it is not as simple as many - particularly those with something to gain from the conversation - say it is or would like it to be.  There are always multiple factors at play and some of those factors may change even in the middle of the situation.   
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Stadler on August 15, 2014, 10:15:08 AM
Do you even know what those arrests are for?
Kind of bullshit to use an arrest record as a judgement of character if you don't even know what the arrests were for.
Nah, bullshit is bringing it up in the first place. Those arrests had no bearing on the OIS in question. Whether he was a saint or a shitbag isn't really a factor at this stage of the game. At the point in which this encounter began he was a citizen and nothing more or less.


Someone mentioned getting the cops out of their and letting things go as they go... if you ask me, we should get the MEDIA out of there, and let people act according to their conscience, without making this a reality TV show where everyone gets their 86 seconds of fame.

According to the first amendment, the media has just as much of a right to be there as the people who should be acting according to their conscience.

 :facepalm:  Of course they do.   You're going to lecture me on what the Constitution says?

Someone want to help me with protocol here?   I get the idea of "green" for sarcasm, but what is the international color for "facetiousness" and "metaphor"?
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: KevShmev on August 15, 2014, 10:28:37 AM
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/ferguson-police-name-michael-brown

Looks like the key witness admitted that they took the cigars from the store.  Uh oh.

As peaceful as Ferguson was last night, I fear that this bit of news is gonna make for a bad weekend. :(

Ron Johnson, the cop from the highway patrol, is doing an awesome job thus far, though.  :tup :tup
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Dark Castle on August 15, 2014, 10:38:10 AM
Scheavo, discussing racism is clearly in-bounds.  Picking fights with people who disagree with you and indirectly accusing anyone who disagrees with you of being racist is not.  It's not a question of whether I like or dislike you.  One type of conduct is fine; the other is not.  And if you have problems with a moderation decision, the thread is not the place to handle it.
He didn't accuse  anyone of being racist though
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: kirksnosehair on August 15, 2014, 10:42:39 AM
It looks like the other two dudes are on the short side, but he's a big-ass boy regardless.

Has nothing to do with the shooting, though. Even if he did assault Johnny, if (and I can't stress that "if" strongly enough) he was running away you can't shoot him. He has to pose an immediate threat to yourself or others (as you're no doubt aware from your training). If he had a gun on him, then you could make a sound argument, but you'd have a hard time demonstrating that his size and demeanor made him such a threat that he had to be stopped immediately.


I don't care if he committed the most heinous crime imaginable, if the kid was fleeing and/or had raised his hands, coupled with the fact that he was unarmed, the cop that shot him is, at the very least, guilty of manslaughter. 
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: KevShmev on August 15, 2014, 10:47:54 AM
Right, that's still what we don't know.  This scenario seems very plausible:

-Brown and his friend rob the store.
-The cops are called to the scene.
-Recognizing the description of the two when seeing them on the street, the cop stops and yells at them.
-Brown, knowing he had just robbed a store, gets aggressive when the cops goes to get out of his car.  A scuffle ensues inside.
-Brown, being a much bigger guy and having the momentum advantage of leaning down into the car, gets the better of that exchange and exits the cop car.

What we don't know for sure is what happened next. 

If the cop jumped out and just started firing, then, hell yes, lock him up and throw away the key, but if Brown gave the impression that he was about to charge the cop again, which you can do even if your arms are up (like, "Yeah, I am surrendering," while lurching forward to attack) he may have had no choice but to fire (although he didn't have to shoot to kill).  It's easy to say, "he was unarmed," but if a much bigger man is gonna charge you, a police officer, and you know you have no way of winning that physical battle, it's basically "use your gun to protect yourself or get your ass beaten or possibly killed."
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Stadler on August 15, 2014, 10:49:10 AM
Scheavo, discussing racism is clearly in-bounds.  Picking fights with people who disagree with you and indirectly accusing anyone who disagrees with you of being racist is not.  It's not a question of whether I like or dislike you.  One type of conduct is fine; the other is not.  And if you have problems with a moderation decision, the thread is not the place to handle it.

If I may; I suspect Sheavo is suggesting the "latent" racism of American culture which is oftentimes ignored and easily dismissed.  For example, he pointed out Stadler's comment about 250 years of a system working; where clearly it doesn't for one race of people.  Is Stadler a direct racist; I don't see that at all, but its a "latent" mentality that exists in the majority mindset that is easily skirted around.  Its the same phenomena when a woman grabs her purse when walking past a black man.  Its these latent behaviors that the black community is so angry about.

I don't take offense easily (almost at all) so if asking hard questions and demanding more than blanket assumptions that serve the argument makes me a "racist", well I've been called worse (my 46 years on this planet as a NON-racist stands on it's own). 

But what if one disagrees with the "latent" mentality, either in substance or degree?   Every one of the concepts that Scheavo has pointed out has a economic component to it (independent from the circular argument that the economics themselves are evidence of "latent racism").   Why is the example above automatically an example of "latent racism"?   Why isn't an example of "latent sexism"?   I know FAR AND AWAY more women that would grab their purse not because the guy was black but because it was a guy.

And even if we were going to concede the "latent racism", at what point do we go to the next step?   When the population is 2/3 of one race, at what point does the burden of proof shift?   In a recent election in Ferguson - after a scandal involving a popular, effective, well-qualified black school superintendent that was unfairly forced to resign - three African Americans ran for School Board (seven seats) and despite having 67% of the population, only one was able to win seat (which, by the way, is consistent with the NATIONAL average, even if it doesn't reflect the local community).   Can it really be called "latent racism" when the MAJORITY doesn't take advantage of it's standing?   I don't for a second deny that there are problems with this scenario, but why is it bad to demand that we dig deep and get it right?   The voting issue in Ferguson is huge (and is reflected in other communities across the country) but this issue is likely one of ECONOMICS, not race.   I stole this line, but it is a good one:  "Voting, like paying taxes and obeying the law, is a quaint middle-class occupation."   

Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: gmillerdrake on August 15, 2014, 12:12:35 PM
It looks like the other two dudes are on the short side, but he's a big-ass boy regardless.

Has nothing to do with the shooting, though. Even if he did assault Johnny, if (and I can't stress that "if" strongly enough) he was running away you can't shoot him. He has to pose an immediate threat to yourself or others (as you're no doubt aware from your training). If he had a gun on him, then you could make a sound argument, but you'd have a hard time demonstrating that his size and demeanor made him such a threat that he had to be stopped immediately.


I don't care if he committed the most heinous crime imaginable, if the kid was fleeing and/or had raised his hands, coupled with the fact that he was unarmed, the cop that shot him is, at the very least, guilty of manslaughter.


I completely agree.....and, the interaction between Brown , Johnson and the Officer is the question here. Dorian Johnson confirmed to the police that it is indeed he and Brown on the convenience store video.

What the video and crime does for me is cast a doubt on Johnson's story that he and Brown in no way resisted arrest or fought back and give more credibility to the Officers account of the interaction simply because of the fact that literally less than 10 minutes before that interaction Brown was choking a man who wanted to hold him accountable to pay for what he was stealing. It doesn't lend well to then say that Brown 'would never' act in the manner in which the police attest after just acting in that manner moments before.

I hope that the truth of what happened is able to be discovered through investigation as to not have a shadow of doubt lingering in the air over this.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Dark Castle on August 15, 2014, 12:15:41 PM
It looks like the other two dudes are on the short side, but he's a big-ass boy regardless.

Has nothing to do with the shooting, though. Even if he did assault Johnny, if (and I can't stress that "if" strongly enough) he was running away you can't shoot him. He has to pose an immediate threat to yourself or others (as you're no doubt aware from your training). If he had a gun on him, then you could make a sound argument, but you'd have a hard time demonstrating that his size and demeanor made him such a threat that he had to be stopped immediately.


I don't care if he committed the most heinous crime imaginable, if the kid was fleeing and/or had raised his hands, coupled with the fact that he was unarmed, the cop that shot him is, at the very least, guilty of manslaughter.


Dorian Johnson confirmed to the police that it is indeed he and Brown on the convenience store video.

Not seeing anything about this, link?
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: KevShmev on August 15, 2014, 12:18:06 PM
I posted it earlier.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/ferguson-police-name-michael-brown
 
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Dark Castle on August 15, 2014, 12:20:32 PM
Ah, thanks, must have scrolled past it.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Scheavo on August 15, 2014, 12:30:42 PM
Scheavo, discussing racism is clearly in-bounds.  Picking fights with people who disagree with you and indirectly accusing anyone who disagrees with you of being racist is not.  It's not a question of whether I like or dislike you.  One type of conduct is fine; the other is not.  And if you have problems with a moderation decision, the thread is not the place to handle it.

If I may; I suspect Sheavo is suggesting the "latent" racism of American culture which is oftentimes ignored and easily dismissed.  For example, he pointed out Stadler's comment about 250 years of a system working; where clearly it doesn't for one race of people.  Is Stadler a direct racist; I don't see that at all, but its a "latent" mentality that exists in the majority mindset that is easily skirted around.  Its the same phenomena when a woman grabs her purse when walking past a black man.  Its these latent behaviors that the black community is so angry about.

I don't take offense easily (almost at all) so if asking hard questions and demanding more than blanket assumptions that serve the argument makes me a "racist", well I've been called worse (my 46 years on this planet as a NON-racist stands on it's own). 

But what if one disagrees with the "latent" mentality, either in substance or degree?   Every one of the concepts that Scheavo has pointed out has a economic component to it (independent from the circular argument that the economics themselves are evidence of "latent racism").   Why is the example above automatically an example of "latent racism"?   Why isn't an example of "latent sexism"?   I know FAR AND AWAY more women that would grab their purse not because the guy was black but because it was a guy.

And even if we were going to concede the "latent racism", at what point do we go to the next step?   When the population is 2/3 of one race, at what point does the burden of proof shift?   In a recent election in Ferguson - after a scandal involving a popular, effective, well-qualified black school superintendent that was unfairly forced to resign - three African Americans ran for School Board (seven seats) and despite having 67% of the population, only one was able to win seat (which, by the way, is consistent with the NATIONAL average, even if it doesn't reflect the local community).   Can it really be called "latent racism" when the MAJORITY doesn't take advantage of it's standing?   I don't for a second deny that there are problems with this scenario, but why is it bad to demand that we dig deep and get it right?   The voting issue in Ferguson is huge (and is reflected in other communities across the country) but this issue is likely one of ECONOMICS, not race.   I stole this line, but it is a good one:  "Voting, like paying taxes and obeying the law, is a quaint middle-class occupation."   

How many of those black people can't vote because they've been given a felony for drug possession? Or can't vote on a Tuesday because they have to work? Lastly, why are you assuming black people will vote for the black guy? Maybe they voted for whom they thought is the better candidate?


There's certainly an economic element to this, but even when that's in play, you can't just ignore race. Why are blacks economically disadvantaged? There's also things like Crack-Cocaine. If you read through my links earlier in the thread, you'll notice that whites make up the majority of Crack-Cocaine users. Yet blacks are the vast majority of people in prison for crack-cocaine. Not only that, but crack-cocaine had (until Obama) harsher punishment, with the only distinguishable characteristic being that powder cocaine was not as common in the black communities. Time after time, studies show black people are more likely to be pulled over, arrested or questioned as opposed to whites, even in the same neighborhoods, which directly refutes the idea that it is purely an issue of economics (I also pointed out earlier how, in Fergusson, blacks were more likely to be pulled over and arrested for the same thing as whites).

There's also the history of why drugs became illegal in the first place, which was often founded upon racial prejudices and issues. So once again, just talking about drug incarceration and the reasons for it being illegal, you run into the issue of race.

Now here's where I think what you say has import: in how to deal with the problem. The solution to the problem is one that doesn't deal with race, mention race, or anything like that. Ending the War on Drugs is the right thing to do, and the reasons for it have nothing to do with race. This one rather simple thing would dramatically change so much, that it's mindboggling to me at times.

Is racism the only reason? No. And I doubt most police officers involved in the circumstances are racist. You can have instituionalized racism and practices that are unfair and target people without the individual actors being racist or necessarily unfair. I think El Barto has explained how this works in other ways, and I think it applies here.

And as a general thought:

I also want to bring up something I feel like I would in other circumstances. Let us say the cops story is 100% accurate. Brown went for the cops, and his life was in imminent danger. Well, what about if our cops weren't armed with guns? Then there would be no gun to potentially threaten his life. In the Trayvon Martin case, I harped on the fact that Zimmerman brought the gun into the situation, and as such, bears responsibility for it. The same is true in this case. I can see the rational behind saying a citizen has the right to defend himself with a gun, even though I generally disagree with it, but a cop is doing the job on his own free will, and as such, should take on danger, instead of making situations where citizens are in danger. Officers should have non-lethal weapons on hand, with guns being held in reserve and requiring approval to be handed out (like Norway).

Police not having a gun would dramatically change the relationship and dynamics of a relationship between citizens and officers. Officers would be more cautious, maybe more respectful. Citizens would know that the cop is more on an equal footing.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: soundgarden on August 15, 2014, 12:35:45 PM
Scheavo, discussing racism is clearly in-bounds.  Picking fights with people who disagree with you and indirectly accusing anyone who disagrees with you of being racist is not.  It's not a question of whether I like or dislike you.  One type of conduct is fine; the other is not.  And if you have problems with a moderation decision, the thread is not the place to handle it.

If I may; I suspect Sheavo is suggesting the "latent" racism of American culture which is oftentimes ignored and easily dismissed.  For example, he pointed out Stadler's comment about 250 years of a system working; where clearly it doesn't for one race of people.  Is Stadler a direct racist; I don't see that at all, but its a "latent" mentality that exists in the majority mindset that is easily skirted around.  Its the same phenomena when a woman grabs her purse when walking past a black man.  Its these latent behaviors that the black community is so angry about.

I don't take offense easily (almost at all) so if asking hard questions and demanding more than blanket assumptions that serve the argument makes me a "racist", well I've been called worse (my 46 years on this planet as a NON-racist stands on it's own). 

But what if one disagrees with the "latent" mentality, either in substance or degree?   Every one of the concepts that Scheavo has pointed out has a economic component to it (independent from the circular argument that the economics themselves are evidence of "latent racism").   Why is the example above automatically an example of "latent racism"?   Why isn't an example of "latent sexism"?   I know FAR AND AWAY more women that would grab their purse not because the guy was black but because it was a guy.

And even if we were going to concede the "latent racism", at what point do we go to the next step?   When the population is 2/3 of one race, at what point does the burden of proof shift?   In a recent election in Ferguson - after a scandal involving a popular, effective, well-qualified black school superintendent that was unfairly forced to resign - three African Americans ran for School Board (seven seats) and despite having 67% of the population, only one was able to win seat (which, by the way, is consistent with the NATIONAL average, even if it doesn't reflect the local community).   Can it really be called "latent racism" when the MAJORITY doesn't take advantage of it's standing?   I don't for a second deny that there are problems with this scenario, but why is it bad to demand that we dig deep and get it right?   The voting issue in Ferguson is huge (and is reflected in other communities across the country) but this issue is likely one of ECONOMICS, not race.   I stole this line, but it is a good one:  "Voting, like paying taxes and obeying the law, is a quaint middle-class occupation."

I didn't call you a racist at all. I am suggesting latent behavior which, yes, can also be sexist.  Both can happen and both should be addressed.  In this occurrence; I am raising the race situation.

For the situation you raised; are you suggesting the black majority should have voted for the black candidate solely on race?
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: kirksnosehair on August 15, 2014, 12:42:01 PM
Guns?


(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/55966936/pics/worms.jpg)




Worm, anyone?  :P

 :biggrin:

Just trying to break the tension a little bit :-*
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: El Barto on August 15, 2014, 12:47:05 PM
Police not having a gun would dramatically change the relationship and dynamics of a relationship between citizens and officers. Officers would be more cautious, maybe more respectful. Citizens would know that the cop is more on an equal footing.
Definitely more fitting in one of the 8 or so Guns Are Icky threads, but there are too many guns here now for that to work.

Another interesting aspect of your idea is that when prevented with lesser options, cops tend to go way overboard with using them. We're seeing that now with tazers. Cops love their fucking tazers. Seems more plausible that if you want to reduce cop on citizen violence you remove everything but the gun. My take on it is that most cops, just like most civvies, don't want to shoot anybody. It's a huge pain in the ass. But if the end result of escalating a confrontation is a fist fight or a shooting, perhaps they won't be so keen to be dicks.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: kirksnosehair on August 15, 2014, 01:10:25 PM
It looks like the other two dudes are on the short side, but he's a big-ass boy regardless.

Has nothing to do with the shooting, though. Even if he did assault Johnny, if (and I can't stress that "if" strongly enough) he was running away you can't shoot him. He has to pose an immediate threat to yourself or others (as you're no doubt aware from your training). If he had a gun on him, then you could make a sound argument, but you'd have a hard time demonstrating that his size and demeanor made him such a threat that he had to be stopped immediately.


I don't care if he committed the most heinous crime imaginable, if the kid was fleeing and/or had raised his hands, coupled with the fact that he was unarmed, the cop that shot him is, at the very least, guilty of manslaughter.

I completely agree.....and, the interaction between Brown , Johnson and the Officer is the question here.



Actually, no, it's not.  The question is whether or not that kid had his hands in the air when that cop pumped a few rounds into him.  Everything is just noise.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Stadler on August 15, 2014, 01:32:09 PM

How many of those black people can't vote because they've been given a felony for drug possession? Or can't vote on a Tuesday because they have to work? Lastly, why are you assuming black people will vote for the black guy? Maybe they voted for whom they thought is the better candidate?

"They've been given" a felony?   Felonies are EARNED.   At what point does the nonsense stop and accountability and personal responsibility take over?  This is, after all, a country where black Americans can and do run successfully for President of the United States, Senator, Representative, the CEO of my business is an African American... Even if the "latent racism" argument is accurate, it doesn't PRECLUDE any of the things I'm saying even if it makes it harder.

In Atlanta in the late '90's and early 00's, the churches in South Atlanta would have "voting parties".  What would happen is, the pastor of the church would convene everyone at the parish, and there would be food, and drinks, and services... and every hour or so, the bus would take the parishoners to the voting booth to vote.  This would run from when the polls open at 8:00a to when they closed (I think it was 10:00 pm then).  Now, the only proviso was that the parishoners  would have to vote for the candidate that the pastor recommended, but that's a small point.  ;0  Either way, I'm white and it's funny, I have to work on a Tuesdays as well, but when I am inclined to do so, I find a way.  I have, in my life, walked, driven, and ridden my bike to the polling place. 

As for the last, then it isn't latent racism if they have the choice, they made the choice and the numbers of black elected officials represents the will of the community.  I only assumed that they would vote for the black candidate, because the other assumption de facto rules out the notion of "latent racism". 

Quote
There's certainly an economic element to this, but even when that's in play, you can't just ignore race. Why are blacks economically disadvantaged? There's also things like Crack-Cocaine. If you read through my links earlier in the thread, you'll notice that whites make up the majority of Crack-Cocaine users. Yet blacks are the vast majority of people in prison for crack-cocaine. Not only that, but crack-cocaine had (until Obama) harsher punishment, with the only distinguishable characteristic being that powder cocaine was not as common in the black communities. Time after time, studies show black people are more likely to be pulled over, arrested or questioned as opposed to whites, even in the same neighborhoods, which directly refutes the idea that it is purely an issue of economics (I also pointed out earlier how, in Fergusson, blacks were more likely to be pulled over and arrested for the same thing as whites).

Those facts are all over the map, and DON'T point to the "grand conspiracy" that you are trying to paint.   Over 70% of the population is white; no wonder "more whites use crack cocaine".  The actual PERCENTAGES tell a different story:  FROM YOUR OWN SOURCE:  http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/quicktables/quickoptions.do, 5% of blacks have ever used crack, only 3% of whites.  The "prison" stat is every bit as much an economic issue as it is a race issue.    And not as common because why?  To get to crack you NEED powder; so it isn't availability.  Might it not be an economic issue?   You can stretch a unit of powder a LONG way (and therefore make more money) with the rock.  Don't see "race" in that equation either. 

Quote

There's also the history of why drugs became illegal in the first place, which was often founded upon racial prejudices and issues. So once again, just talking about drug incarceration and the reasons for it being illegal, you run into the issue of race.

Now here's where I think what you say has import: in how to deal with the problem. The solution to the problem is one that doesn't deal with race, mention race, or anything like that. Ending the War on Drugs is the right thing to do, and the reasons for it have nothing to do with race. This one rather simple thing would dramatically change so much, that it's mindboggling to me at times.

Is racism the only reason? No. And I doubt most police officers involved in the circumstances are racist. You can have instituionalized racism and practices that are unfair and target people without the individual actors being racist or necessarily unfair. I think El Barto has explained how this works in other ways, and I think it applies here.

If it matters to you, I agree with you on the war on drugs (though probably for other reasons).   I think it is asinine that we are spending the resources we are spending on fighting that.   I don't think people quite understand how massive a shift that would be economically by ending that debacle.

And I am not suggesting race places NO part.  I just think the emphasis is out of whack and often misleading.  There has to be some rigor and some substance to looking at the numbers, so that we are on firm ground with respect to "cause", "effect", "correlation" and "coincidence".


Quote

And as a general thought:

I also want to bring up something I feel like I would in other circumstances. Let us say the cops story is 100% accurate. Brown went for the cops, and his life was in imminent danger. Well, what about if our cops weren't armed with guns? Then there would be no gun to potentially threaten his life. In the Trayvon Martin case, I harped on the fact that Zimmerman brought the gun into the situation, and as such, bears responsibility for it. The same is true in this case. I can see the rational behind saying a citizen has the right to defend himself with a gun, even though I generally disagree with it, but a cop is doing the job on his own free will, and as such, should take on danger, instead of making situations where citizens are in danger. Officers should have non-lethal weapons on hand, with guns being held in reserve and requiring approval to be handed out (like Norway).

Police not having a gun would dramatically change the relationship and dynamics of a relationship between citizens and officers. Officers would be more cautious, maybe more respectful. Citizens would know that the cop is more on an equal footing.

That is absolutely not how it would go down.   El Barto has it right of course.   That solution would just make sitting ducks of the police. 
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Stadler on August 15, 2014, 01:36:11 PM


Another interesting aspect of your idea is that when prevented with lesser options, cops tend to go way overboard with using them. We're seeing that now with tazers. Cops love their fucking tazers. Seems more plausible that if you want to reduce cop on citizen violence you remove everything but the gun. My take on it is that most cops, just like most civvies, don't want to shoot anybody. It's a huge pain in the ass. But if the end result of escalating a confrontation is a fist fight or a shooting, perhaps they won't be so keen to be dicks.

Cops love their fucking tazers?   C'mon, we're just piling on now.  Really.  The generalizations are getting out of hand.  The vast majority of cops DON'T want to shoot anybody, and not because it is a pain in the ass, but because THEY DON'T WANT TO SHOOT ANYBODY.   And the vast majority of cops DON'T want to taze anyone either.    I get that there are those exceptions, and I certainly understand the argument of "we need to stay diligent until there are no exceptions", I'll grant you that.  But operating on the premise that every cop IS the exception; how is that any different than operating under the assumption that every black man is a criminal?     
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: El Barto on August 15, 2014, 02:07:13 PM


Another interesting aspect of your idea is that when prevented with lesser options, cops tend to go way overboard with using them. We're seeing that now with tazers. Cops love their fucking tazers. Seems more plausible that if you want to reduce cop on citizen violence you remove everything but the gun. My take on it is that most cops, just like most civvies, don't want to shoot anybody. It's a huge pain in the ass. But if the end result of escalating a confrontation is a fist fight or a shooting, perhaps they won't be so keen to be dicks.

Cops love their fucking tazers?   C'mon, we're just piling on now.  Really.  The generalizations are getting out of hand.  The vast majority of cops DON'T want to shoot anybody, and not because it is a pain in the ass, but because THEY DON'T WANT TO SHOOT ANYBODY.   And the vast majority of cops DON'T want to taze anyone either.    I get that there are those exceptions, and I certainly understand the argument of "we need to stay diligent until there are no exceptions", I'll grant you that.  But operating on the premise that every cop IS the exception; how is that any different than operating under the assumption that every black man is a criminal?   
I said they don't want shoot anybody. Just like us civvies. My point about it being a PITA wasn't to offer an explanation as to why, but to reenforce it. People will be less willing to shoot somebody, even if there's a valid cause, because of the hassle that will follow. It could possibly provide the bad guy a small amount of extra leeway before the bang.

As for the tazers, they do enjoy them. I mean let's be honest, wouldn't you? More to the point, though, is that they've made cops lazy. When it becomes that easy to incapacitate somebody, do you really want to exercise the same amount of patience you had to before you were issued one? Do you really want to go hands on, even if a minimal amount of restraint was necessary, if you can drop them with nearly no effort at all?

At this point I'll mention I'm aware of the possible advantage of tazing somebody versus restraining them. Given the tendency for people to "break their own arm" by having cops restrain them (and feel free to Youtube "cop breaks arm" if you need dozens of graphic examples), the ride might well be the better alternative. This doesn't alter the fact that cops have been very quick to avail themselves of the opportunity to take the easy way out. Which, as I pointed out in the post you quoted, is a pretty organic thing to happen.

Look, I'll admit that I tend to generalize a bit when discussing cops. At the same time, I don't think you recognize just how many rotten apples there are. Moreover, I don't think you recognize how endemic it is. My point generally isn't to rag on cops on a personal level. It's to point out that the both human nature and the nature of the job put them into a position where a great many people would be foolish not to recognize them as the bad guys.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: kirksnosehair on August 15, 2014, 02:30:53 PM

How many of those black people can't vote because they've been given a felony for drug possession?

"They've been given" a felony?   Felonies are EARNED.   




Lecturing the forum on semantics and/or grammar doesn't come off as a particularly strong position from which to argue your point  :)


You know what he meant, just like the rest of us knew what he meant.  Obfuscation may seem like a viable tactic here, but that dog don't hunt.



Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: El Barto on August 15, 2014, 02:39:43 PM

How many of those black people can't vote because they've been given a felony for drug possession?

"They've been given" a felony?   Felonies are EARNED.   




Lecturing the forum on semantics and/or grammar doesn't come off as a particularly strong position from which to argue your point  :)


You know what he meant, just like the rest of us knew what he meant.  Obfuscation may seem like a viable tactic here, but that dog don't hunt.
Nah, it was a valid distinction. In whether or not it's fair that a person can or can't vote, whether or not they are felons for a fair or valid reason is important.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: kirksnosehair on August 15, 2014, 02:41:57 PM
uh, you missed my point


my point is, whether or not the word "given" or "earned" was used in the point that Schevo was making is nothing but a diversion to pivot the conversation into blaming the victim.  Again.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Scheavo on August 15, 2014, 02:52:51 PM

How many of those black people can't vote because they've been given a felony for drug possession? Or can't vote on a Tuesday because they have to work? Lastly, why are you assuming black people will vote for the black guy? Maybe they voted for whom they thought is the better candidate?

"They've been given" a felony?   Felonies are EARNED.   At what point does the nonsense stop and accountability and personal responsibility take over?  This is, after all, a country where black Americans can and do run successfully for President of the United States, Senator, Representative, the CEO of my business is an African American... Even if the "latent racism" argument is accurate, it doesn't PRECLUDE any of the things I'm saying even if it makes it harder.

We're the ones who made non-violent drug crimes a felony. More importantly, as kirk points out, youre taking the word out of context. Wish you would be as understanding of context for me as you do fot Gene Simmons.

Exceptions don't make the rule, and I'd say thats what you did at the end there.

Quote
In Atlanta in the late '90's and early 00's, the churches in South Atlanta would have "voting parties".  What would happen is, the pastor of the church would convene everyone at the parish, and there would be food, and drinks, and services... and every hour or so, the bus would take the parishoners to the voting booth to vote.  This would run from when the polls open at 8:00a to when they closed (I think it was 10:00 pm then).  Now, the only proviso was that the parishoners  would have to vote for the candidate that the pastor recommended, but that's a small point.  ;0  Either way, I'm white and it's funny, I have to work on a Tuesdays as well, but when I am inclined to do so, I find a way.  I have, in my life, walked, driven, and ridden my bike to the polling place. 

What does the first part have to do with anything? And statistically speaking, more white people have the ability to go on tuesdays and vote. And when many elections are won by a few percentage difference, that makes an important difference.

Quote
As for the last, then it isn't latent racism if they have the choice, they made the choice and the numbers of black elected officials represents the will of the community.  I only assumed that they would vote for the black candidate, because the other assumption de facto rules out the notion of "latent racism".

Huh? Youre making my head hurt with all your circular logic. I also don't see how it matters one iota what color of skin the officials are. Lets talk about the policies and practices.

Quote
Quote
There's certainly an economic element to this, but even when that's in play, you can't just ignore race. Why are blacks economically disadvantaged? There's also things like Crack-Cocaine. If you read through my links earlier in the thread, you'll notice that whites make up the majority of Crack-Cocaine users. Yet blacks are the vast majority of people in prison for crack-cocaine. Not only that, but crack-cocaine had (until Obama) harsher punishment, with the only distinguishable characteristic being that powder cocaine was not as common in the black communities. Time after time, studies show black people are more likely to be pulled over, arrested or questioned as opposed to whites, even in the same neighborhoods, which directly refutes the idea that it is purely an issue of economics (I also pointed out earlier how, in Fergusson, blacks were more likely to be pulled over and arrested for the same thing as whites).

Those facts are all over the map, and DON'T point to the "grand conspiracy" that you are trying to paint.   Over 70% of the population is white; no wonder "more whites use crack cocaine".  The actual PERCENTAGES tell a different story:  FROM YOUR OWN SOURCE:  http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/quicktables/quickoptions.do, 5% of blacks have ever used crack, only 3% of whites.  The "prison" stat is every bit as much an economic issue as it is a race issue.    And not as common because why?  To get to crack you NEED powder; so it isn't availability.  Might it not be an economic issue?   You can stretch a unit of powder a LONG way (and therefore make more money) with the rock.  Don't see "race" in that equation either. 

Nice obfuscation with percentages, which is a complete butchery of logic and statistics. More whites do crack-cocaine. We would then expect, in a fair system, for incarceration rates to be close to this reality. But we see the entire thing massively reversed, with more blacks being incarcerated for crack-cocaine. Could you tell me why you believe the percentages to matter?

http://www.npc.umich.edu/poverty/

There are more poor whites in America than blacks. Overall, its fairly similar in number, at about 5 million. If economics were a large factor, then we would expect there to be fairly similar incarceration number. We don't. Your hypothesis is factually wrong.

Quote
Quote
And as a general thought:

I also want to bring up something I feel like I would in other circumstances. Let us say the cops story is 100% accurate. Brown went for the cops, and his life was in imminent danger. Well, what about if our cops weren't armed with guns? Then there would be no gun to potentially threaten his life. In the Trayvon Martin case, I harped on the fact that Zimmerman brought the gun into the situation, and as such, bears responsibility for it. The same is true in this case. I can see the rational behind saying a citizen has the right to defend himself with a gun, even though I generally disagree with it, but a cop is doing the job on his own free will, and as such, should take on danger, instead of making situations where citizens are in danger. Officers should have non-lethal weapons on hand, with guns being held in reserve and requiring approval to be handed out (like Norway).

Police not having a gun would dramatically change the relationship and dynamics of a relationship between citizens and officers. Officers would be more cautious, maybe more respectful. Citizens would know that the cop is more on an equal footing.

That is absolutely not how it would go down.   El Barto has it right of course.   That solution would just make sitting ducks of the police.

Like how last night in Ferguson was supposed to be worse?
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: El Barto on August 15, 2014, 02:58:11 PM
uh, you missed my point


my point is, whether or not the word "given" or "earned" was used in the point that Schevo was making is nothing but a diversion to pivot the conversation into blaming the victim.  Again.
Scheavo says:
How many of those black people can't vote because they've been given a felony for drug possession?

Making no distinction between how many of those felonies were valid or not.

Stadler asks the question:At what point does the nonsense stop and accountability and personal responsibility take over?

And follows it up with: Even if the "latent racism" argument is accurate, it doesn't PRECLUDE any of the things I'm saying even if it makes it harder.

Seems to me that the point was that Scheavo ascribed victim status to all of the felons, and Stadler suggested that some of them might have victimized themselves. Neither a diversion nor an unfair statement.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: KevShmev on August 15, 2014, 03:07:28 PM
Okay, I'd like to see this explained a little better:

How many of those black people can't vote because they've been given a felony for drug possession? Or can't vote on a Tuesday because they have to work? 

What about the white people or Mexicans or Asians who can't vote on a Tuesday because they have to work?  What about blacks specifically makes it more likely that they'd be working on a Tuesday to the point where they can't vote?

And statistically speaking, more white people have the ability to go on tuesdays and vote.

If the argument is, "There are more whites than blacks, therefore more whites have the ability vote than blacks," then okay.  Otherwise, I don't get this at all.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Scheavo on August 15, 2014, 03:28:32 PM
Poverty, and the kinds of jobs whites work vs blacks.**

And I never said it didn't apply to a lot of people, or other races, and it's fallacious to assume I did. It certainly does apply to a lot of whites, Hispanics and Asians. Stadler was making the argument that blacks should take it to the polls and I gave a list of reasons why the election results aren't accurate or a good measure of the populace and its' desires.

** in a GENERAL and STATISTICAL sense, not a case by case issue, or as if there are black or white jobs.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: El Barto on August 15, 2014, 03:54:51 PM
Poverty, and the kinds of jobs whites work vs blacks.**

And I never said it didn't apply to a lot of people, or other races, and it's fallacious to assume I did. It certainly does apply to a lot of whites, Hispanics and Asians. Stadler was making the argument that blacks should take it to the polls and I gave a list of reasons why the election results aren't accurate or a good measure of the populace and its' desires.

** in a GENERAL and STATISTICAL sense, not a case by case issue, or as if there are black or white jobs.
And some of your reasons are being questioned. For the record, I'm inclined to agree to the larger point, but some of the specifics seem a bit shaky. Why is it that black folk can't go to the poles on Tuesday again? You'd think that those of us who work 9-5 M-F would have the harder time.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Scheavo on August 15, 2014, 05:11:27 PM
It's not just working 9-5, it's the kind of job you have, or maybe even jobs. If you work a service industry job, you have a harder time getting off that little bit of time you need to vote. There's more competition for the shifts, and very often too poor to take the time off. Lastly, more 9-5 jobs are salary, and employers more willing to let their employees take a slightly longer lunch break to vote. And it is a problem for everyone, and effects poor whites just as much. But there are a lot more affluent whites who can make it. I've heard it mentioned this is one reason we see Dems being generally more successfull (in recent years) in Presidential election years, and Republicans in the off years. As well as a major problem with the primary and caucus system.

Hell, being poor also makes it harder to get to the polls.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/01/why-are-the-poor-and-minorities-less-likely-to-vote/282896/2/

Quote
A close examination of the reasons non-voters give for staying home—especially those lower down the socioeconomic ladder—suggests that a slew of practical barriers continue to stand in the way of full and equal exercise of the franchise. According to a Caltech/MIT survey of both registered and unregistered eligible voters who did not cast a ballot in 2008, disapproval of candidate choices, busyness, illness, transportation, and registration/ administrative problems were the leading causes of non-participation, with considerable variation across groups.

While income and education levels were not recorded in the survey, race and age were major factors influencing who made it to the polls on Election Day and what kind of barriers they faced. Black and Hispanic citizens, for whom the poverty rate is close to three times that of whites, were three times as likely as whites to not have the requisite I.D. and to have difficulty finding the correct polling place. They were more than three times as likely as whites to not receive a requested absentee ballots, and roughly twice as likely to be out of town on Election Day or to have to wait in long lines. They were also substantially more likely than whites to report transportation problems and bad time and location as reasons for not getting to the polls, while white voters were the most likely to cite disapproval of candidate choices. Taken together, the surveys suggest that white citizens who abstain from voting do so primarily by choice, while the majority of minority non-voters face problems along the way.

....

Then there are the lines. Nearly 40 percent of voters reported waiting in line on Election Day 2012 and 17 percent reported waits of 30 minutes or more—primarily people of color in urban areas and the state of Florida. Black and Hispanic voters waited an average of more than 20 minutes to vote, almost twice as long as whites. In larger, urban counties with populations exceeding 150,000 voters, the average wait was almost 20 minutes, more than double the time in counties with 50,000 voters or less. Young voters also experienced significantly longer wait times, and other Election Day hurdles, than their older counterparts. Finally, in Florida, voters waited an average of 45 minutes. An estimated 200,000 Florida voters "gave up in frustration" before they could cast a ballot in 2012. Overall, nearly one in 10 Americans reported that they or someone they knew tried to vote but was not able to in 2012, and close to half of eligible Americans who did not cast a ballot cited external administrative barriers as the major cause.

There is no one reason, theres a host of them. It's easier to vote during a work day if you don't have to travel as far, own a car, and don't have long a long wait time when you get there.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: El Barto on August 15, 2014, 07:54:14 PM
I will reiterate what I said before. I largely agree with you on the larger point that there is systemic disenfranchisement taking place, and also think that a lot of the examples are bullshit. Can't find the polling place? Really? The hours don't work for you? Polling is 12 hours, isn't it? The thing about IDs and missing absentee ballots is very real, but some of the reasons are simple enough things to get around if you actually give a damn.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Scheavo on August 15, 2014, 07:54:29 PM
It looks like the other two dudes are on the short side, but he's a big-ass boy regardless.

Has nothing to do with the shooting, though. Even if he did assault Johnny, if (and I can't stress that "if" strongly enough) he was running away you can't shoot him. He has to pose an immediate threat to yourself or others (as you're no doubt aware from your training). If he had a gun on him, then you could make a sound argument, but you'd have a hard time demonstrating that his size and demeanor made him such a threat that he had to be stopped immediately.


I don't care if he committed the most heinous crime imaginable, if the kid was fleeing and/or had raised his hands, coupled with the fact that he was unarmed, the cop that shot him is, at the very least, guilty of manslaughter.


I completely agree.....and, the interaction between Brown , Johnson and the Officer is the question here. Dorian Johnson confirmed to the police that it is indeed he and Brown on the convenience store video.

What the video and crime does for me is cast a doubt on Johnson's story that he and Brown in no way resisted arrest or fought back and give more credibility to the Officers account of the interaction simply because of the fact that literally less than 10 minutes before that interaction Brown was choking a man who wanted to hold him accountable to pay for what he was stealing. It doesn't lend well to then say that Brown 'would never' act in the manner in which the police attest after just acting in that manner moments before.

I hope that the truth of what happened is able to be discovered through investigation as to not have a shadow of doubt lingering in the air over this.

For me, it does the opposite. Well, not the video, but the fact that Johnson? is being so candid about the events. He's talking to the authorities and admitting to participating in a crime. He's sticking his neck out a little, telling the truth when it doesn't benefit him, and that to me says the rest of his story is more likely to be true.

And choking seems way hyperbolic. He shoved him. His actions aren't very good, but stealing a pack of cigars and shoving away someone is hardly the most violent thing, and is a FAR stretch from being violent or dangerous. He's a young kid, he's allowed to make some stupid decisions, and it doesn't make him dangerous or say anything about him getting shot.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: gmillerdrake on August 15, 2014, 08:15:43 PM
For me, it does the opposite. Well, not the video, but the fact that Johnson? is being so candid about the events. He's talking to the authorities and admitting to participating in a crime. He's sticking his neck out a little, telling the truth when it doesn't benefit him, and that to me says the rest of his story is more likely to be true.

And choking seems way hyperbolic. He shoved him. His actions aren't very good, but stealing a pack of cigars and shoving away someone is hardly the most violent thing, and is a FAR stretch from being violent or dangerous. He's a young kid, he's allowed to make some stupid decisions, and it doesn't make him dangerous or say anything about him getting shot.

Really....Johnson being candid about the events?  :lol He only admitted it was he and Brown AFTER faced with a video that captured him and Brown committing a crime. Nothing candid about that at all.

Sure the 'choke' wasn't MMA caliber but it was a shot to the throat area of a much smaller man....and not only that Brown then uses his enormous size to intimidate the victim even further by confidently strutting towards him.

Yeah he's a young kid but that doesn't pardon you from the consequences of your actions....it only makes those consequences tougher to take.




I just had a 15 minute conversation with my neighbor who works in intelligence directly for the St. Louis police departments Chief....Chief Dodson.  He said like so many of us are wondering....it's going to come down to the autopsy and 'where' Brown was shot and that if he was helplessly gunned down as is contested by the community that there really will be no way to 'hide' that fact. He wouldn't divulge much else....only that it's been a long week.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Scheavo on August 15, 2014, 08:23:29 PM
I will reiterate what I said before. I largely agree with you on the larger point that there is systemic disenfranchisement taking place, and also think that a lot of the examples are bullshit. Can't find the polling place? Really? The hours don't work for you? Polling is 12 hours, isn't it? The thing about IDs and missing absentee ballots is very real, but some of the reasons are simple enough things to get around if you actually give a damn.

Then lets ignore most everything else, because I doubt we'll get anywhere with them, and deal solely with the wait time to vote, and place to vote. If you have a small window to vote, you cant vote if you have a long wait time. And if you're polling place got moved recently, and you weren't informed about it (which is happening more lately, in part because more people vote absentee and not as many polling places are needed), you may not have the time to recover, find the new place, and get back to work in time. Especially when once yo udo get to the right place, you'd be likely to wait a lot longer.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/04/heres-why-black-people-have-to-wait-twice-as-long-to-vote-as-whites/274791/

Quote
    "Viewed nationally, African Americans waited an average of 23 minutes to vote, compared to 12 minutes for whites; Hispanics waited 19 minutes. While there are other individual-level demographic difference present in the responses, none stands out as much as race."

What's impressive is how comparatively little variation there was in other demographic categories:

    The average wait time among those with household incomes less than $30,000 was 12 minutes versus 14 minutes for those with household incomes greater than $100,000.
    Strong Democrats waited an average of 16 minutes versus 11 minutes for strong Republicans.
    Respondents who said they paid close attention to the news waited 13.2 minutes; those who said they had little interest waited 12.8 minutes.
    Residents of the wealthiest ZIP codes (average household incomes of $50,000 and up) waited 13 minutes, versus 12 minutes for residents of the poorest ZIP codes ($30,000 and below).

Good points in the article about how race may not be the reason for this, but that doesn't invalidate my point about it being more difficult for them to vote on a Tuesday. People have lives to live, maybe kids to take care of, a family to feed and groceries to buy, maybe a lot of things on week day. And my point earlier about it being in a list of things is that this may not be all that common of a reason. It was a list of reasons, which all add up to something important. I feel like you're placing undue importance on this issue, and acting as if I said it was the only reason, or a major reason, when I was just rambling off a list of reasons. I really only need one person for my statement to technically be valid.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: hefdaddy42 on August 16, 2014, 04:18:38 AM
All of the stuff about the kid stealing the cigars is interesting, doesn't really have anything to do with the case, because apparently the cop who shot him was unaware of the heist; his encounter with the kid was unrelated.

It does color the impression that some in the community were attempting to paint of him, though.  But again, no direct bearing, especially if he was shot in the back.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Stadler on August 16, 2014, 07:21:11 AM
As for the tazers, they do enjoy them. I mean let's be honest, wouldn't you? More to the point, though, is that they've made cops lazy. When it becomes that easy to incapacitate somebody, do you really want to exercise the same amount of patience you had to before you were issued one? Do you really want to go hands on, even if a minimal amount of restraint was necessary, if you can drop them with nearly no effort at all?

At this point I'll mention I'm aware of the possible advantage of tazing somebody versus restraining them. Given the tendency for people to "break their own arm" by having cops restrain them (and feel free to Youtube "cop breaks arm" if you need dozens of graphic examples), the ride might well be the better alternative. This doesn't alter the fact that cops have been very quick to avail themselves of the opportunity to take the easy way out. Which, as I pointed out in the post you quoted, is a pretty organic thing to happen.

Depends who it is I am tazing.  ;)   

But seriously, I do understand your point, but - and I hope I'm not out of line with this - can you see even a little bit how to me it sounds like the conclusion is leading the evidence?  Why does a tazer have to be the easy way out, and a thrill?  Why can't it be that the cops are given tools; some are permanent and some are temporary, and if it means stabilizing a situation NOW and ABSOLUTELY not using the permanent tool versus letting things go longer, potentially out of control, and perhaps requiring the permanent tool, why is that choice being looked at as defacto bad?   And your point about "hands on" is a GREAT one (I'll tell you an interesting point in a minute) but again, why does that automatically mean a BAD choice by the officer?   What would you rather have, all things being equal?

Quote
Look, I'll admit that I tend to generalize a bit when discussing cops. At the same time, I don't think you recognize just how many rotten apples there are. Moreover, I don't think you recognize how endemic it is. My point generally isn't to rag on cops on a personal level. It's to point out that the both human nature and the nature of the job put them into a position where a great many people would be foolish not to recognize them as the bad guys.

No, I do, actually, because the couple times a year I see my brother in person (actually going to see him next week!) honest to god, we talk about this stuff.  We WILL talk about Ferguson, I guarantee you.  We WILL talk about the incident in Glastonbury, CT where the mom is bitching about these very things (even though everv time the police have come to her house they have either observed, photographed or video'd an incident of underage drinking or drugging that she did or should have known about).  I do tend (tend, not 100% there) to agree that the nature of the job leaves a lot of opportunity for these things to happen, I just disagree that it is "human nature" and that somehow cops are different than the rest of society when it comes to this stuff. 

Google "Enfield Cop" and you'll see another story.  Now, I've named three stories right in a row, but let's not lose perspective:  that is still not the "majority" of officers or precincts, and at least in the Enfield case, the police are doing the right thing.   The guy is off the street and on leave.   They want nothing to do with his nonsense!!  if you want to talk about "human nature" what about the human instinct to be safe and be liked?  Why would that department want to be associated with that nonsense???   It makes no sense. 

(Interesting point:  As I understand it, you want to know what the BIGGEST concern is for the police, at least the ones I've talked with?  MRSA.  You want a get out of jail free card?  You want to beat that ticket?  Tell the officer you were speeding to get the results of your MRSA test.   I don't buy many of your arguments with respect to tazers and laziness and such - at least not for the majority of the police - but if you told me cops were going tazer crazy because they wanted to minimize physical contact with their suspects, I'd buy that in a heartbeat.)
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Stadler on August 16, 2014, 07:29:44 AM

How many of those black people can't vote because they've been given a felony for drug possession?

"They've been given" a felony?   Felonies are EARNED.   




Lecturing the forum on semantics and/or grammar doesn't come off as a particularly strong position from which to argue your point  :)


You know what he meant, just like the rest of us knew what he meant.  Obfuscation may seem like a viable tactic here, but that dog don't hunt.

Jeesus.   This is like the fourth or fifth post where you've got a hair across your ass about me or my posts.  You don't have to agree with them, or like them (couldn't care less either way) but at least be fair.

It is NOT a "lecture on grammar".  It's a viable - but subtle - point.  He's on about "latent racism" and a system that is "unfair" toward blacks, the implication being that there is not a fair shake in the court room.  The "been given" has meaning in this context, and whether he intended it purposefully or not, the implication is that the judgment was at least in part because of the court itself, and not the defendant.  My response - again, subtle, I can see how you might have missed it - was to clarify, because words matter, words mean something, that regardless of whether there is profiling by the police, regardless of whether there is inherent bias in the courtroom, at SOME point there is a level of personal responsibility that has to be had.  Unless it is just the single greatest railroad in the history of US jurisprudence, and unless you are going to completely overturn every single conviction, at some point you have to acknowledge that to get that far there is SOME personal culpability on the part of the defendant. 
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Stadler on August 16, 2014, 07:30:33 AM
uh, you missed my point


my point is, whether or not the word "given" or "earned" was used in the point that Schevo was making is nothing but a diversion to pivot the conversation into blaming the victim.  Again.

Wrong.  Again.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Stadler on August 16, 2014, 08:34:27 AM

We're the ones who made non-violent drug crimes a felony. More importantly, as kirk points out, youre taking the word out of context. Wish you would be as understanding of context for me as you do fot Gene Simmons.

Exceptions don't make the rule, and I'd say thats what you did at the end there.

But whether non-violent drug crimes should be a felony or not is a different matter than the latent racism of the court system.   I'm actually with you on that point.   I think - independent of race - the notion of being in jail for a non-violent drug crime is ridiculous and a waste of resources. 

And as I've explained above, I WAS giving you the benefit of context, and crediting you with making a subtle but important point.   I am sorry if I misunderstood. 


Quote
What does the first part have to do with anything? And statistically speaking, more white people have the ability to go on tuesdays and vote. And when many elections are won by a few percentage difference, that makes an important difference.

It's directly relevant.  I don't know where you get your stat on "white person Tuesday", but the point was, when black communities (or any community for that matter) WANT to vote, they find a way.  Some of those communities in Atlanta get 100% turnout - on a Tuesday - from the black constituency.  I'm struggling to see how that translates into some disadvantage for blacks. 



Quote
Huh? Youre making my head hurt with all your circular logic. I also don't see how it matters one iota what color of skin the officials are. Lets talk about the policies and practices.

Aren't we talking about the latent racism in the system?  Doesn't that concern skin color?   It's not circular logic, it is straightforward:  If I am black, and I have a black candidate, and I don't vote for them, opting for the white candidate, how can I complain about the "racism" in the system? 


Quote

Nice obfuscation with percentages, which is a complete butchery of logic and statistics. More whites do crack-cocaine. We would then expect, in a fair system, for incarceration rates to be close to this reality. But we see the entire thing massively reversed, with more blacks being incarcerated for crack-cocaine. Could you tell me why you believe the percentages to matter?

http://www.npc.umich.edu/poverty/

There are more poor whites in America than blacks. Overall, its fairly similar in number, at about 5 million. If economics were a large factor, then we would expect there to be fairly similar incarceration number. We don't. Your hypothesis is factually wrong.

Stop.  There is no obfuscation.  To the first point, DOING crack cocaine and SELLING crack cocaine are very different matters.   Again, circumstantial evidence, I know, but the trial I was on, the defendant (for crack dealing charges, of which he was convicted FOUR prior times and yet was not in jail) and two co-conspirators were all black or Hispanic.  In EVERY picture purporting to show a "drug transaction" the defendant was seen talking to a white person.    I saw these with my own eyes.    So percentages matter, yes, but we have to be careful WHAT percentages we are talking about.   

And to show you I'm being fair, I'm going to point out your mistake, even though it helps your argument.   The "5 million" number is CHILDREN UNDER 18.    The total poverty numbers for whites are roughly 315,000,000 people times 63% white times 11% (rough poverty rate for non-Hispanic whites): 21.8 million.   The total poverty numbers for blacks are roughly 315,000,000 times 13% black times 27.5% (rough poverty rate for blacks): 11.2 million.   So there are actually about twice as many impoverished whites as there are blacks.  But here's the difference:  Over 70% of blacks in jail did not finish high school, compared with only about 10 to 15% whites.  High school graduation rates for blacks are at about 50%, whereas they are at about 80% for whites; dropout rates for blacks are about double that of whites.   We know unemployment for people without a high school degree is about double that of those with a high school degree (or better) and we know that wages for people without a high school degree are about half of those with a  high school degree (and a fraction of that of those with more than a high school degree).    Unless we want to argue that HIGH SCHOOL DROPOUT RATES ARE RACIST (which is possible, not arguing that, though we also know that the single greatest predictor of graduation rates is economics, not race) the chance of being in prison is far more likely an economic issue than a race issue.

Dismiss all of this as "obfuscation".  Your prerogative.   But if you're going to try to point fingers doesn't it make sense to do the work, put in the effort, and see if the simple statistics really reflect the reality?   




Quote

Like how last night in Ferguson was supposed to be worse?

I don't get the reference, I'm sorry.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Scheavo on August 16, 2014, 08:35:56 AM
uh, you missed my point


my point is, whether or not the word "given" or "earned" was used in the point that Schevo was making is nothing but a diversion to pivot the conversation into blaming the victim.  Again.

Wrong.  Again.

I'd say he's pretty spot on. "Given" does not imply what was gave was unearned. "The cashier gave me back my change." "The teacher gave me an A." "The cop gave me a speeding ticket." "My boss gave me my paycheck." In all of these, what was given  was also earned. They are not opposing ideas, as you are making it out to be.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Stadler on August 16, 2014, 08:48:06 AM
Poverty, and the kinds of jobs whites work vs blacks.**

And I never said it didn't apply to a lot of people, or other races, and it's fallacious to assume I did. It certainly does apply to a lot of whites, Hispanics and Asians. Stadler was making the argument that blacks should take it to the polls and I gave a list of reasons why the election results aren't accurate or a good measure of the populace and its' desires.

** in a GENERAL and STATISTICAL sense, not a case by case issue, or as if there are black or white jobs.

But to the point that El Barto, KevShmev (I giggle every time I write that), and I are making is that a) none of those reasons are endemic to blacks, and b) none of them are reasons that other communities - including black communities - haven't overcome multiple times in the past.  In fact, in 2008, about the same number of blacks voted (on a percentage basis) than whites did, and in 2012, MORE blacks voted than whites (on a percentage basis)!   Over 66% of eligible black voters found a way, on a Tuesday, to get out of work and make it to the polls, whereas only 64% of whites did. 
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Stadler on August 16, 2014, 09:02:52 AM
uh, you missed my point


my point is, whether or not the word "given" or "earned" was used in the point that Schevo was making is nothing but a diversion to pivot the conversation into blaming the victim.  Again.

Wrong.  Again.

I'd say he's pretty spot on. "Given" does not imply what was gave was unearned. "The cashier gave me back my change." "The teacher gave me an A." "The cop gave me a speeding ticket." "My boss gave me my paycheck." In all of these, what was given  was also earned. They are not opposing ideas, as you are making it out to be.

I stand by my post above.  Not sure what else you want me to tell you. 
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Scorpion on August 16, 2014, 09:33:56 AM
Is voting in the US always on a Tuesday?

If yes, why?
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: KevShmev on August 16, 2014, 09:55:16 AM
Poverty, and the kinds of jobs whites work vs blacks.**

And I never said it didn't apply to a lot of people, or other races, and it's fallacious to assume I did. It certainly does apply to a lot of whites, Hispanics and Asians. Stadler was making the argument that blacks should take it to the polls and I gave a list of reasons why the election results aren't accurate or a good measure of the populace and its' desires.

** in a GENERAL and STATISTICAL sense, not a case by case issue, or as if there are black or white jobs.

But to the point that El Barto, KevShmev (I giggle every time I write that), and I are making is that a) none of those reasons are endemic to blacks, and b) none of them are reasons that other communities - including black communities - haven't overcome multiple times in the past.  In fact, in 2008, about the same number of blacks voted (on a percentage basis) than whites did, and in 2012, MORE blacks voted than whites (on a percentage basis)!   Over 66% of eligible black voters found a way, on a Tuesday, to get out of work and make it to the polls, whereas only 64% of whites did.

Exactly.  If someone really wants to vote, they'll find a way to make time to do it.  Hell, there have been Tuesdays where I didn't give that much of a darn about what was being voted on, so I didn't go out of my way to do it, and I suspect many people have that same attitude, regardless of what ethnicity they are.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: El Barto on August 16, 2014, 09:57:15 AM
Is voting in the US always on a Tuesday?

If yes, why?
I suspect it's the same reason Thanksgiving is always on a Thursday. In both cases it's always a specific Tuesday or Thursday. In the case of voting the 2nd Thursday of whatever month. Presidential elections are always in November, so you could look at a calender and find out that the 2096 presidential election will be on November 8th. States usually follow this convention, but you will hear about some cities holding their elections on Saturday (Dallas does, I think).
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: El Barto on August 16, 2014, 10:10:21 AM
Poverty, and the kinds of jobs whites work vs blacks.**

And I never said it didn't apply to a lot of people, or other races, and it's fallacious to assume I did. It certainly does apply to a lot of whites, Hispanics and Asians. Stadler was making the argument that blacks should take it to the polls and I gave a list of reasons why the election results aren't accurate or a good measure of the populace and its' desires.

** in a GENERAL and STATISTICAL sense, not a case by case issue, or as if there are black or white jobs.

But to the point that El Barto, KevShmev (I giggle every time I write that), and I are making is that a) none of those reasons are endemic to blacks, and b) none of them are reasons that other communities - including black communities - haven't overcome multiple times in the past.  In fact, in 2008, about the same number of blacks voted (on a percentage basis) than whites did, and in 2012, MORE blacks voted than whites (on a percentage basis)!   Over 66% of eligible black voters found a way, on a Tuesday, to get out of work and make it to the polls, whereas only 64% of whites did.

Exactly.  If someone really wants to vote, they'll find a way to make time to do it.  Hell, there have been Tuesdays where I didn't give that much of a darn about what was being voted on, so I didn't go out of my way to do it, and I suspect many people have that same attitude, regardless of what ethnicity they are.
In general I agree with this. As an aspect of Schevo's point, I can also see why some people (blacks in Fruguson, perhaps) might feel that it's absolutely pointless to bother as the system works against them anyway. Since I know the system's a sham so I don't think I've voted in 20 years, so I can certainly see their point. It's not a direct result of the system being crafted to keep them down (although I still think there is some of that), but the belief is there and the end result gets reenforced, so they reenforce it further with apathy.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Stadler on August 16, 2014, 10:38:43 AM
Is voting in the US always on a Tuesday?

If yes, why?
I suspect it's the same reason Thanksgiving is always on a Thursday. In both cases it's always a specific Tuesday or Thursday. In the case of voting the 2nd Thursday of whatever month. Presidential elections are always in November, so you could look at a calender and find out that the 2096 presidential election will be on November 8th. States usually follow this convention, but you will hear about some cities holding their elections on Saturday (Dallas does, I think).

Actually, no (though that may be the reason it remains that day and hasn't been changed).   It was a vestige of the dynamics of the Republic back when the union was formed.  We were largely an agriculture society, one that often had to travel long distances to get to a population center, and one that held weekends sacred for religious observation.  So the month was November (after the harvest, but before winter weather), and, with a day of travel to, and a day of travel from, that left either Tuesday or Wednesday as possible days for voting.   I think Wednesday was typically "market day", so that left Tuesday.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Stadler on August 16, 2014, 10:44:34 AM
In general I agree with this. As an aspect of Schevo's point, I can also see why some people (blacks in Fruguson, perhaps) might feel that it's absolutely pointless to bother as the system works against them anyway. Since I know the system's a sham so I don't think I've voted in 20 years, so I can certainly see their point. It's not a direct result of the system being crafted to keep them down (although I still think there is some of that), but the belief is there and the end result gets reenforced, so they reenforce it further with apathy.

This is an honest question, open to all.   At what point DOES responsibility play in?   I can actually see the logic in all of that, and while I don't know if it is actually true, I understand your point well.  But at what point (if at all) does apathy become "speech" in the sense of a statement?   

I know back when Obama was first elected, there were some pundits that noted that his election was the first step in removing one of the big "excuses" (quotes because I wish I had a better word) given by minorities.   it's a fair point to say "I'm not going to participate in a system that is rigged against me", but when a member of your demographic attains the highest office in the land, it's much harder to claim "glass ceiling", isn't it?   So, notwithstanding that maybe ONE candidate isn't proof of anything (we'll see how the next black Vice Presidential candidate fares, when it isn't a statement in and of itself) at what point does the belief simply become a fallacy?  At what point does the "choice" to not vote become a choice with no quotes?   I personally would argue that we're already past that point, but then again, I tend to lean heavily on the personal responsibility side of the equation.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: El Barto on August 16, 2014, 12:03:36 PM
Well I think there are two different things working here. Obama getting elected certainly does negate some of the racial aspect of voter apathy, but not the other practical one. I don't vote because my vote simply doesn't matter. Even if Pete Sessions get's caught on video fucking underaged male goats, he will still win the congressional seat for my district. If Jesus himself ran as a democrat, he'd still not get Texas's 38 electoral votes. So while I can see how Obama might give some more hope to the black constituent, I don't know as it'll change a whole lot.

At the same time, I agree that there does need to be some personal responsibility there. There only being 3 black cops in Ferguson should concern them. Not because they won't get hired, obviously they will, but because there aren't enough people trying. Same I imagine with the local politic side.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: El Barto on August 16, 2014, 12:17:39 PM
Tales from Ferguson (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/15/the-day-ferguson-cops-were-caught-in-a-bloody-lie.html)

Cliff's: Cops bust the wrong guy for an outstanding warrant. Confirm the mistake at the jail, but hold him anyway. When they don't like the way he asks for a mat to sleep on they handcuff and beat the shit out of him. Looking for a felony to charge him with, they file four charges of destruction of property for bleeding all over their uniforms.  :lol
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Scheavo on August 16, 2014, 12:52:31 PM
Quote
What does the first part have to do with anything? And statistically speaking, more white people have the ability to go on tuesdays and vote. And when many elections are won by a few percentage difference, that makes an important difference.

It's directly relevant.  I don't know where you get your stat on "white person Tuesday", but the point was, when black communities (or any community for that matter) WANT to vote, they find a way.  Some of those communities in Atlanta get 100% turnout - on a Tuesday - from the black constituency.  I'm struggling to see how that translates into some disadvantage for blacks. 

But see, I was simply pointing out reasons why a black person may not have been able to vote. That doesn't say that it only applies to blacks, just that the results of an election may not (and usually don't, anymore) reflect the will of the people.


Quote
Quote
Huh? Youre making my head hurt with all your circular logic. I also don't see how it matters one iota what color of skin the officials are. Lets talk about the policies and practices.

Aren't we talking about the latent racism in the system?  Doesn't that concern skin color?   It's not circular logic, it is straightforward:  If I am black, and I have a black candidate, and I don't vote for them, opting for the white candidate, how can I complain about the "racism" in the system?

Latent racism doesn't mean  there's a white guy going, "Fuck black people, they're inferior." It means the way in which the laws are enacted and enforced have unequal impact along racial lines. Plus, assuming the black guy would represent black people is absurd. He could advocate policies that most black people don't support or which arent helpful to most black people. Like Hermain Cain. Voting for the black guy because he's black is racist as well, so it does litttle to actually absolve the system of racism.

And more importantly, with the level of corruption in our system, just electing more blacks doesn't mean the system will change. It's not because of racism per say, more greed, but it helps perpetuate a system which unfairly harms blacks and other minorities moreso than whites.

Quote
Quote

Nice obfuscation with percentages, which is a complete butchery of logic and statistics. More whites do crack-cocaine. We would then expect, in a fair system, for incarceration rates to be close to this reality. But we see the entire thing massively reversed, with more blacks being incarcerated for crack-cocaine. Could you tell me why you believe the percentages to matter?

http://www.npc.umich.edu/poverty/

There are more poor whites in America than blacks. Overall, its fairly similar in number, at about 5 million. If economics were a large factor, then we would expect there to be fairly similar incarceration number. We don't. Your hypothesis is factually wrong.

Stop.  There is no obfuscation.  To the first point, DOING crack cocaine and SELLING crack cocaine are very different matters.   Again, circumstantial evidence, I know, but the trial I was on, the defendant (for crack dealing charges, of which he was convicted FOUR prior times and yet was not in jail) and two co-conspirators were all black or Hispanic.  In EVERY picture purporting to show a "drug transaction" the defendant was seen talking to a white person.    I saw these with my own eyes.    So percentages matter, yes, but we have to be careful WHAT percentages we are talking about.   

And to show you I'm being fair, I'm going to point out your mistake, even though it helps your argument.   The "5 million" number is CHILDREN UNDER 18.    The total poverty numbers for whites are roughly 315,000,000 people times 63% white times 11% (rough poverty rate for non-Hispanic whites): 21.8 million.   The total poverty numbers for blacks are roughly 315,000,000 times 13% black times 27.5% (rough poverty rate for blacks): 11.2 million.   So there are actually about twice as many impoverished whites as there are blacks.  But here's the difference:  Over 70% of blacks in jail did not finish high school, compared with only about 10 to 15% whites.  High school graduation rates for blacks are at about 50%, whereas they are at about 80% for whites; dropout rates for blacks are about double that of whites.   We know unemployment for people without a high school degree is about double that of those with a high school degree (or better) and we know that wages for people without a high school degree are about half of those with a  high school degree (and a fraction of that of those with more than a high school degree).    Unless we want to argue that HIGH SCHOOL DROPOUT RATES ARE RACIST (which is possible, not arguing that, though we also know that the single greatest predictor of graduation rates is economics, not race) the chance of being in prison is far more likely an economic issue than a race issue.

Dismiss all of this as "obfuscation".  Your prerogative.   But if you're going to try to point fingers doesn't it make sense to do the work, put in the effort, and see if the simple statistics really reflect the reality?   


D'oh, I knew I should have just done the math, what I get for being lazy. Misread that table (obviously).

But why don't those people finish highschool? Often it's bad schools, which are underfunded and poorly staffed. That, and they see a broken system around them where getting their diploma won't do them as much good. They don't see the jobs or opportunities, and it creates a vicious cycle. More black people havinh a diploma wouldn't make more jobs are change the laws ofs scarcity, so in a sense, it's also pragmatically irrelevant as far as I can see.

Plus, like you said, you just undermined your own argument. More white people are poor. Therefor, more whites should be in prison for the same offenses if the main driving force were purely economic. Poor whites have just as much incentive to sell drugs as poor blacks, and there are a lot more of them. We should expect a higher percentage of blacks to be in prison than whites, given the statistics, but the prison population should reflect the society at large, and it doesn't, and by a long shot.

The problem was that I know the general facts, that more whites are poor than blacks, and so I was lazy in finding support for that when I needed it. Partly cause one-handed typing is aggravating, and the less I had to write, the more it pleased me.


Quote
Quote

Like how last night in Ferguson was supposed to be worse?

I don't get the reference, I'm sorry.

People thought that removing the militarized police response would just allow looters and rioters to have a free for all. But what we saw was nothing of the sort, and that the looting and rioting was a response to the police. I'm suggesting that generally disarming the police would be like this, that when we escalate the situation by arming the police, we create the very problem we use as justification for the escalation. Like when people say drugs should be illegal because of gang violence and such, even though there's gang violence because it's illegal.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Scheavo on August 16, 2014, 01:13:33 PM
For me, it does the opposite. Well, not the video, but the fact that Johnson? is being so candid about the events. He's talking to the authorities and admitting to participating in a crime. He's sticking his neck out a little, telling the truth when it doesn't benefit him, and that to me says the rest of his story is more likely to be true.

And choking seems way hyperbolic. He shoved him. His actions aren't very good, but stealing a pack of cigars and shoving away someone is hardly the most violent thing, and is a FAR stretch from being violent or dangerous. He's a young kid, he's allowed to make some stupid decisions, and it doesn't make him dangerous or say anything about him getting shot.

Really....Johnson being candid about the events?  :lol He only admitted it was he and Brown AFTER faced with a video that captured him and Brown committing a crime. Nothing candid about that at all.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/ferguson-police-name-michael-brown

Quote
“We see that there’s tape, that they claim they got a tape that shows there was some sort of strong-armed robbery,” said Freeman Bosley, Johnson’s attorney. “We need to see that tape, my client did tell us and told the FBI that they went into the store. He told FBI that [Brown] did take cigarillos. He told that to the DOJ and the St. Louis County Police.”

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/attorney-confirms-that-is-his-client-and-michael-brown-in-surveillance-video/

Quote
Freeman Bosley, Jr. told CNN’s Don Lemon that he did not believe Johnson “lied” when he neglected to tell the media about the incident in the convenience store. But when he and his client met with the FBI, they did tell them what had happened.

Wrong. The admission became PUBLIC after the release of the video, but that he was talking with the FBI and DOJ prior to the release of the video. How could he, when he didn't even see or know about the video?

Quote
Sure the 'choke' wasn't MMA caliber but it was a shot to the throat area of a much smaller man....and not only that Brown then uses his enormous size to intimidate the victim even further by confidently strutting towards him.

Shoving is not choking, and even the police don't allege choking. Let's not make this into something it's not.

Quote
Yeah he's a young kid but that doesn't pardon you from the consequences of your actions....it only makes those consequences tougher to take.

Never said otherwise, just that one documented case of taking some cigars, pushing someone, and walking out the door doesn't make someone some hard and fast criminal deserving of havinh his life ruined, thought of as a societal threat, and certainly not deserving of being shot.

Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Scheavo on August 16, 2014, 01:17:18 PM
Definitely more fitting in one of the 8 or so Guns Are Icky threads, but there are too many guns here now for that to work.
[/quote]

I'd say it plays into police brutality. And you can't fire a gun without bullets, so there is something that can be done. Australia is also a powerful counter example. But we can have that discussion elsewhere.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: gmillerdrake on August 17, 2014, 12:30:30 PM
An eye witness to the shooting describing it to his buddy as his buddy filmed the scene after the shooting states that Brown "doubled back" on to the police after he got out of the truck and ran from them...even after he was being fired at. Nothing about having his hands raised in the air....nothing about him being 'executed'....only that Brown continued towards the police even after he was being shot at.......

Article:
A previously unnoticed detail in a background conversion of a video taken minutes after the Ferguson shooting could change the course of the investigation into Mike Brown’s death.

The original video poster appears sympathetic to the narrative that Mike Brown was shot unarmed with his hands in the air. But he unknowingly picks up conversation between a man who saw the altercation and another neighbor.

An approximate transcription of the background conversation, as related by the “Conservative Treehouse” blog:

@6:28/6:29 of video
#1 How’d he get from there to there?
#2 Because he ran, the police was still in the truck – cause he was like over the truck
{crosstalk}
#2 But him and the police was both in the truck, then he ran – the police got out and ran after him
{crosstalk}
#2 Then the next thing I know he doubled back toward him cus - the police had his gun drawn already on him –
#1. Oh, the police got his gun
#2 The police kept dumpin on him, and I’m thinking the police kept missing – he like – be like – but he kept coming toward him
{crosstalk}

#2 Police fired shots – the next thing I know – the police was missing
#1 The Police?
#2 The Police shot him
#1 Police?
#2 The next thing I know … I’m thinking … the dude started running … (garbled something about “he took it from him”)

This is terribly important because if Mike Brown had been shot, and he advanced towards the cop instead of surrendering, it would substantiate the narrative that the policeman shot in self-defense due to the fact that he was being threatened with severe bodily harm.

This corroborates an account of the event given by a friend of Officer Darren Wilson:

Well, then Michael takes off and gets to be about 35 feet away. And, Darren’s first protocol is to pursue. So, he stands up and yells, “Freeze!” Michael and his friend turn around. And Michael taunts him… And then all the sudden he just started bumrushing him. He just started coming at him full speed. And, so he just started shooting. And, he just kept coming. And, so he really thinks he was on something.”

It’s far too unlikely that these two accounts are similar accidentally, having been from such disparate sources. The seeming witness in the background conversation is speaking with detail about the tragic shooting, and in a manner that runs contrary to the widespread version. Those who watch the video need to judge for themselves if the witness sounds reliable (but he would seemingly have nothing to gain by telling such a story.)

A third piece of the puzzle would be the toxicology report. If there happens to be anything found that might explain how Mike Brown might have been shot and kept advancing toward the officer, then the defense becomes even more believable. Unless someone is emotionally invested in an alternative narrative to the extent that one might ignore plain facts.

We shall see.






Doesn't sound like the 'hands up' version of the story that the community and many media outlets have been continuously claiming. Sounds near identical to the account that the officer of the law said happened though........



Link:

http://www.ijreview.com/2014/08/168698-eyewitness-recalls-important-detail-background-video-mins-ferguson-shooting/
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Scheavo on August 17, 2014, 03:35:03 PM
"He doubled back" and "But he kept coming towards him"doesn't mean Brown was running at him in a threatening manner. It could be slowly walking. It could be a shocked look at his face because he was just shot. It could be running at him in a threatening manner. Hell, it could be a verbal slip, and refer to the police offier. And the, "he like - be like-" could be Brown raising his hands in the air, it could be a lot of things. It's certainly not proof against the contentions of numerous other eyewitnesses, which corroborates each other. It's pretty hard for me to just throw away numerous eyewitnesses, who have been interviewed, including going on television, being public, talking to the DOJ and FBI and other numerous organizations - who most certainly will notice any inconsistency in Johnson story, if he is indeed lying as you imply, that's the great thing about a large record.

Look, I'm not saying the Police version isn't correct. I'll wait for a complete investigation on that matter. I'm arguing against the counter-argument being given. IJReview didn't interview the people being heard, they didn't get their story. They noticed some ambiguous dialogue, which would serve as a good place to start an investigation. I imagine in court, it wouldn't be allowed because it's hearsay. 

Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: gmillerdrake on August 17, 2014, 07:42:05 PM
"He doubled back" and "But he kept coming towards him"doesn't mean Brown was running at him in a threatening manner.

You're absolutely correct....it doesn't mean that. I happen to think it does because of the fact that is what the officer said he did and the fact that 10 minutes earlier he used the same type of intimidating move on the store owner he just robbed. But sure I can agree that "doubled back" could mean something different.



It's certainly not proof against the contentions of numerous other eyewitnesses

That's exactly what this is....proof that a person who witnessed the entire event is recounting the same story that the police officer told and the opposite story of what other 'witnesses' have stated. This video was taken within minutes of that shooting and already the 'hands up' theme had begun to spread and the commentator rebuked that story by telling what he saw

It's pretty hard for me to just throw away numerous eyewitnesses, who have been interviewed, including going on television, being public, talking to the DOJ and FBI and other numerous organizations - who most certainly will notice any inconsistency in Johnson story, if he is indeed lying as you imply, that's the great thing about a large record.

Exactly. The problem as I see it is that the entire 'hands up' version of the story is the version that has been latched onto by social media...by celebrities....it's the one being re-tweeted and face booked and having tee shirts made without even being verified as truth. So, when the truth does hit and is made public and if it is different than the now famous 'hands up' Brown was doing nothing wrong version.....you're going to get a level of disbelief and cries of even more racism if that happens.....even if it is the actual truth. Because just as the officers account of the incident is just his version....this whole 'hands up' Brown was assasinated at this point is just as suspicious as the officers account....only it's being treated as cannon.


I imagine in court, it wouldn't be allowed because it's hearsay. 


I have no idea what the law says about this type of video. He's a witness essentially giving a statement. If they identify that person I see an issue getting him to actually testify and say what he did on that tape. When he said that....it was fresh....he was being honest and as the article mentioned...he had nothing to gain. Now, it's a national story and his entire community is in an uproar. We all saw the huge graffiti "Snitches get Stitches" sprayed on the walls of the looted and burned down Quick Trip. There is no way this guy would ever admit that was him or enter that same statment into record despite what the video suggests is exactly what he saw. But if I were a lawyer defending that officer (if it came to that) I'd certainly do all I could to get it admissable because it verifies his account to the tee.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: KevShmev on August 17, 2014, 11:12:13 PM
It appears as if the story told by Dorian Johnson, the friend of the deceased and the supposed key witness, was a farce.  His story talked about how Brown was shot in the back, but the autopsy report shows that six bullets hit Brown, all of which were in the front.  In other words, he was not shot in the back once.

Meanwhile, things are getting bad in Ferguson again with the protesters, as some from the crowd are throwing shit at police officers and allegedly a gun was fired tonight, too. Like the guy on CNN said, when that happens, and you are facing a large crowd of angry protestors, you don't have the luxury of trying to figure out which one of the hundred in the crowd did it; you have to protect yourselves.  But we'll still have some saying the police are awful for being aggressive with protestors.

Honestly, while it's not their job, and they are dealing with so much already, but I think it would be awesome if Michael Brown's family spoke out very publicly, asking that all public protesting stop.  It's obvious that a few bad eggs are gonna make a mess out of it no mater what, and at some point you have to ask yourself: what is the end goal? 
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Stadler on August 18, 2014, 08:14:30 AM
Well I think there are two different things working here. Obama getting elected certainly does negate some of the racial aspect of voter apathy, but not the other practical one. I don't vote because my vote simply doesn't matter. Even if Pete Sessions get's caught on video fucking underaged male goats, he will still win the congressional seat for my district. If Jesus himself ran as a democrat, he'd still not get Texas's 38 electoral votes. So while I can see how Obama might give some more hope to the black constituent, I don't know as it'll change a whole lot.

At the same time, I agree that there does need to be some personal responsibility there. There only being 3 black cops in Ferguson should concern them. Not because they won't get hired, obviously they will, but because there aren't enough people trying. Same I imagine with the local politic side.

Maybe not here, maybe not now, but we should address that comment for a second.  The "my vote doesn't matter" comment.  It DOES matter, just not in the way that most people assume.  I will work on the assumption that you know the concept "the tragedy of the commons"? It's kind of this in reverse.    It sort of has to be measured not on an individual basis, but on the basis of "all the people that would vote as you do".   So in the context of "I'm in the minority" (as I am on many issues), maybe the notion that your vote can't change the direction of the ship immediately is true.   But if everyone that was on the losing side in any given election sat out, we would be in deep trouble as a collective. 

To that end, it is interesting to see the demographics of the elections from 2004, 2008, and 2012, and the differences between them.  I think it may not be a clear statement, but it hints at the concepts you are talking about, and having a black candidate at that level has certainly opened a level interest in certain demographics (NOT just blacks, either) that wasn't there before. 
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Stadler on August 18, 2014, 08:35:33 AM
But see, I was simply pointing out reasons why a black person may not have been able to vote. That doesn't say that it only applies to blacks, just that the results of an election may not (and usually don't, anymore) reflect the will of the people.

And I totally understand that; but for it to be a reason that a BLACK person may not be able to vote (as opposed to any other demographic) it has to be exclusive to that demographic.  And none of those things are.  They are, frankly, all excuses, as proven by the two most recent Federal elections, where black turnout was equal to ('08) and exceeded ('12) white turnout.  What changed on that Tuesday? 

Quote
Latent racism doesn't mean  there's a white guy going, "Fuck black people, they're inferior." It means the way in which the laws are enacted and enforced have unequal impact along racial lines. Plus, assuming the black guy would represent black people is absurd. He could advocate policies that most black people don't support or which arent helpful to most black people. Like Hermain Cain. Voting for the black guy because he's black is racist as well, so it does litttle to actually absolve the system of racism.

And more importantly, with the level of corruption in our system, just electing more blacks doesn't mean the system will change. It's not because of racism per say, more greed, but it helps perpetuate a system which unfairly harms blacks and other minorities moreso than whites.

I understand what "latent" means.  ;)  I get the statistics, and there is some correlation with what you are saying but in my experience (I am not an expert, but my experience is not minor; I am certified in Six Sigma, which is a statistics-based analytical tool) one of the main problems with statistical analysis is not proving correlation, but rather proving cause and effect.  I have no doubt that certain laws and certain schema tend to impact blacks differently than other demographics, but as I have tried to show (poorly) it is often just as much if not more impactful to certain economic classes. 

And yes, of course electing the black candidate because he is black is "racist".  ANY time "skin color" is a factor EITHER way it is technically racist.   But, by way of example only, I point to Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter's comments on the night of the '08 election when interviewed following the concession by McCain:  "We have been waiting 400 years for this moment!!!!!!".   Uh, who's we and where did the "400 years" come from; at my count the US was 'in play' for about 232 years at that point...    please don't try and tell me there wasn't ONE VOTE for Obama that wasn't because he was black.  I don't claim that is the ONLY reason he was elected (it was, as I usually say, economics, even if the economics was totally wrong), but it IS a factor.   And if even those that WOULD vote for a black candidate because of his/her skin color don't bother, there is no answer for that other than APATHY, and not the kind that El Barto is talking about.

Quote
D'oh, I knew I should have just done the math, what I get for being lazy. Misread that table (obviously).

But why don't those people finish highschool? Often it's bad schools, which are underfunded and poorly staffed. That, and they see a broken system around them where getting their diploma won't do them as much good. They don't see the jobs or opportunities, and it creates a vicious cycle. More black people havinh a diploma wouldn't make more jobs are change the laws ofs scarcity, so in a sense, it's also pragmatically irrelevant as far as I can see.

Plus, like you said, you just undermined your own argument. More white people are poor. Therefor, more whites should be in prison for the same offenses if the main driving force were purely economic. Poor whites have just as much incentive to sell drugs as poor blacks, and there are a lot more of them. We should expect a higher percentage of blacks to be in prison than whites, given the statistics, but the prison population should reflect the society at large, and it doesn't, and by a long shot.

The problem was that I know the general facts, that more whites are poor than blacks, and so I was lazy in finding support for that when I needed it. Partly cause one-handed typing is aggravating, and the less I had to write, the more it pleased me.

Look no harm no foul on the mistake, we all make them, and it doesn't change your argument.  I get where you are coming from.   And yes I undermined my own argument, because the stats don't lie.   But, in a different sense, they do.   Read "Dumbing Down Our Schools" by Charles Sykes if you haven't already (by the way, to anyone here with a kid, you owe it to yourself and them to read that book.  You don't have to agree with all - or any - of it, but it will give you insight if you are looking to do the best you can by your kid re: education).  The single greatest PREDICTOR (remember, we're trying to dig deeper than just "correlation") of a student's success is not race, and it isn't even (directly) the economics of the schools (some of the poorest performing schools actually get some of the most funding, though admittedly sometimes there is a lag between the funding and the performance).   Grossly simplifying it is "what do the kids do over the summer".   Again, grossly simplifying, and this involved a multitude of factors, including economics, but generally speaking, the kids that stay "educationally focused" through the summer through reading lists, camps, etc. outperform those that "take the summer off". 

You can't really point to "race" here, unless you are willing to risk saying that some races are "lazier" than others.   I don't mean that literally, it's meant a little facetiously, but I am serious to the extent we are getting close to the area that is an untenable argument for me:  I don't doubt that some families have "given up" for many of the reasons stated here, but I don't think it is unfair to say that if you make a choice - regardless of how attractive (or not) the other choices are - you have to own your consequences. 


Quote
People thought that removing the militarized police response would just allow looters and rioters to have a free for all. But what we saw was nothing of the sort, and that the looting and rioting was a response to the police. I'm suggesting that generally disarming the police would be like this, that when we escalate the situation by arming the police, we create the very problem we use as justification for the escalation. Like when people say drugs should be illegal because of gang violence and such, even though there's gang violence because it's illegal.

Eh, I understand you now, but that is apples and oranges.   You are not dealing with a closed system in the latter case, and you have a TON of money involved which skews things dramatically.   And don't confuse a "militarized police response" with a general disarming. 
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Stadler on August 18, 2014, 08:45:10 AM
"He doubled back" and "But he kept coming towards him"doesn't mean Brown was running at him in a threatening manner. It could be slowly walking. It could be a shocked look at his face because he was just shot. It could be running at him in a threatening manner. Hell, it could be a verbal slip, and refer to the police offier. And the, "he like - be like-" could be Brown raising his hands in the air, it could be a lot of things. It's certainly not proof against the contentions of numerous other eyewitnesses, which corroborates each other. It's pretty hard for me to just throw away numerous eyewitnesses, who have been interviewed, including going on television, being public, talking to the DOJ and FBI and other numerous organizations - who most certainly will notice any inconsistency in Johnson story, if he is indeed lying as you imply, that's the great thing about a large record.

Look, I'm not saying the Police version isn't correct. I'll wait for a complete investigation on that matter. I'm arguing against the counter-argument being given. IJReview didn't interview the people being heard, they didn't get their story. They noticed some ambiguous dialogue, which would serve as a good place to start an investigation. I imagine in court, it wouldn't be allowed because it's hearsay.

It could be all those things; but those things are SPECULATION.  ANY counter-argument at this point is specious and meaningless.   Not one of those facts should be taken on their own and out of the context of the conversation.   As for the throwing away of "numerous eyewitnesses" while I don't think it is the likeliest outcome, the notion that "buzz" went through the crowd saying "he was executed" and that there are people testifying to things they didn't actually see, but just heard about, is not totally out of the question (how many people CLAIM to have been at Woodstock?) 

And I'm not sure what you mean by "hearsay"; if that person takes the stand, if they testify to the "consensus" version, then the prosecution can introduce the background tape - to the extent that they can prove it is the same person speaking of the same events - and use it to impeach the initial testimony.   It just can't be used in lieu of the real witness. 
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: kirksnosehair on August 18, 2014, 08:49:15 AM
6 shots, two in the head.  I see a lot of the noise on this going away now.   6 shots.  If he carries a revolver, he emptied it.  Into an unarmed person.


I'm sorry, but defending the cop at this point looks pretty silly.


6 shots.  6 
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Stadler on August 18, 2014, 08:52:51 AM
Honestly, while it's not their job, and they are dealing with so much already, but I think it would be awesome if Michael Brown's family spoke out very publicly, asking that all public protesting stop.  It's obvious that a few bad eggs are gonna make a mess out of it no mater what, and at some point you have to ask yourself: what is the end goal?

This will not at all be a popular statement, but not only do I agree with you on them making a statement, but if they don't I would pursue them for contributing to the rioting, for all the statements they made in the immediate aftermath that fanned the flames.  I get that they are grieving, but that doesn't entitle them to make up facts, or act as judge and jury before all the facts are in.  The initial comments regarding Brown being "executed" and "slaughtered" and "gunned down" were all from the family or those close to the family.   They wasted no time in hiring an attorney; that attorney should have IMMEDIATELY staged a press conference and stated the position of the family:  "We believe there to be two sides to this story, we believe in the goodness of our son Michael Brown, but we ask that all people stand down until the facts and evidence have been collected, analyzed and adjudicated on.  In the meantime, please respect our privacy."  At the same time that attorney should have called the police department or better yet the Attorney General and made it clear that they were staying out of the media on a temporary basis and only to keep peace, but that the SECOND there was a hint of bias, impropriety, or corruption, they were going nuclear and involving every media outlet they could find.   

They did not do that. 
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: kirksnosehair on August 18, 2014, 08:57:48 AM
I think you're trying too hard and it's starting to become pretty obvious.   Now the family of the guy who was shot dead are at fault for the rioting that has taken place? 


More victim blaming. 
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: KevShmev on August 18, 2014, 09:01:36 AM
6 shots, two in the head.  I see a lot of the noise on this going away now.   6 shots.  If he carries a revolver, he emptied it.  Into an unarmed person.


I'm sorry, but defending the cop at this point looks pretty silly.


6 shots.  6

Him being unarmed is meaningless.  Given the size of Brown - 6'3'' and nearly 300 lbs - if he was charging back at the officer, who was much smaller and had taken somewhat of a pounding in the car reportedly from Brown, then he may have had no choice.  6 shots may have been excessive, yes, but remember that this is in the heat of the moment, and it is very possible the cop feared for his life.  Plus, there is this:

Some commentary (which I read elsewhere) on "lethal force" by lawofficer.com reveals two interesting takeaways:

• The suspect must be a lethal threat or reasonably perceived as one.
An individual does NOT need to be armed to be reasonably considered a lethal threat. This is taught in self defense firearm classes as well as LEO training. In personal self defense cases they look for Capacity and Intent to do lethal harm. I can't speak to the baseline for LEO.
 
• A minimum number of officers fire a minimum number of rounds.
Minimum number of rounds is highly subjective. In the heat of the moment, its tough to expect an officer to fire, wait to assess the threat, fire again, etc. I think it's reasonable to expect any shooting to be done in bursts...particularly if the threat is immediate.  In this case the officer emptied about 1/3 to half of his magazine into the suspect. IF it turns out the suspect was charging him, I'm not sure thats easy to prove as excessive against a man of this size.


This will not at all be a popular statement, but not only do I agree with you on them making a statement, but if they don't I would pursue them for contributing to the rioting, for all the statements they made in the immediate aftermath that fanned the flames.  I get that they are grieving, but that doesn't entitle them to make up facts, or act as judge and jury before all the facts are in.  The initial comments regarding Brown being "executed" and "slaughtered" and "gunned down" were all from the family or those close to the family.   They wasted no time in hiring an attorney; that attorney should have IMMEDIATELY staged a press conference and stated the position of the family:  "We believe there to be two sides to this story, we believe in the goodness of our son Michael Brown, but we ask that all people stand down until the facts and evidence have been collected, analyzed and adjudicated on.  In the meantime, please respect our privacy."  At the same time that attorney should have called the police department or better yet the Attorney General and made it clear that they were staying out of the media on a temporary basis and only to keep peace, but that the SECOND there was a hint of bias, impropriety, or corruption, they were going nuclear and involving every media outlet they could find.   

They did not do that.

Okay, but like I said last night, that is not their job.  Yes, it would be awesome if they would do that, but it's neither their job nor their responsibility.  They are not responsible for an entire city protesting and some of them acting like fools.

Jackasses like Al Sharpton should be doing more to calm the community.  He was supposedly hanging out at the casino downtown the other night when the protesting was hitting a fever pitch.  Of course.  He came to town to race bait, stir up the masses, and hopefully benefit from it some fashion, while bailing when the going got tough.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Stadler on August 18, 2014, 09:03:36 AM
6 shots, two in the head.  I see a lot of the noise on this going away now.   6 shots.  If he carries a revolver, he emptied it.  Into an unarmed person.


I'm sorry, but defending the cop at this point looks pretty silly.


6 shots.  6

Two witnesses have now said that even after the cop started firing, Brown kept advancing on him.  One witness made the point of saying in so many words that he couldn't tell if the cop was missing or not, as Brown CONTINUED to advance on him even as he fired.   It is not silly at all to wait for due process to take its course and see if in fact the cop (or his partner) could tell if any of the six found their target. 

The concepts involved in a shooting like this are not evaluated with the benefit of hindsight, but rather what was going through the mind of the actors at the time of the incident.  If the cop is still shooting and Brown was still advancing (we have clear statement on whether Brown registered impact of the shots; as noted one witness indicated that he couldn't tell if the cop was missing or not) then it is not unreasonable to think that not only did the cop still think he was in danger, but that the danger was increasing as Brown got nearer. 
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: gmillerdrake on August 18, 2014, 09:18:11 AM
A local reporter/radio show personality was 'live tweeting' last night from Ferguson. He mentioned that there were (2) very clear groups of people forming in the large crowds of folks in Ferguson throughout the evening heading into the night. There were people there to rally/protest and there were people there to loot and riot. Even the Higway Patrol Captain came out this morning after 7 more people were arrested last night and one person being shot and said that the rioting last night was not random....that it was calculated and systematic.

I think that our Governor did a horrible disservice to the situation by buckling to political and social pressure and removing the St. Louis County police who were doing their job....effectively signaling to the rioters that Law enforcement and leadership was weak. All the outcry about the County being 'militarized' and over stepping their authority was a joke because the Highway Patrol was forced to do the exact same thing when faced with the exact same set of circustances ie (flaming bottles being thrown at them, guns being fired at them, people being shot, businesses being looted)...oh...what's the word for that....oh yeah Rioting. Police tend to put on riot gear and respond with tear gas and force when facing rioters. Now, the Governor....who accused the St. Louis County police of being too forceful has ordered the National Guard in to help try and get control of the situation.

It appears as if the story told by Dorian Johnson, the friend of the deceased and the supposed key witness, was a farce.  His story talked about how Brown was shot in the back, but the autopsy report shows that six bullets hit Brown, all of which were in the front.  In other words, he was not shot in the back once.

It's not going to matter what the actual evidence proves in this case. The police officer has already been villified and convicted in the media. Even as alternate accounts of what happen surface that conflict with the now famous 'hands up' version and autopsy reports come back that conflict with the 'key' witnesees statement.....public opinion has been set in place and that is going to trump the truth....if the truth happens to turn out to be the officers account.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Chino on August 18, 2014, 09:26:53 AM
6 shots, two in the head.  I see a lot of the noise on this going away now.   6 shots.  If he carries a revolver, he emptied it.  Into an unarmed person.


I'm sorry, but defending the cop at this point looks pretty silly.


6 shots.  6

Two witnesses have now said that even after the cop started firing, Brown kept advancing on him.  One witness made the point of saying in so many words that he couldn't tell if the cop was missing or not, as Brown CONTINUED to advance on him even as he fired.   It is not silly at all to wait for due process to take its course and see if in fact the cop (or his partner) could tell if any of the six found their target. 

The concepts involved in a shooting like this are not evaluated with the benefit of hindsight, but rather what was going through the mind of the actors at the time of the incident.  If the cop is still shooting and Brown was still advancing (we have clear statement on whether Brown registered impact of the shots; as noted one witness indicated that he couldn't tell if the cop was missing or not) then it is not unreasonable to think that not only did the cop still think he was in danger, but that the danger was increasing as Brown got nearer.

If that's the real story, that 'key witness' is just as responsible for fanning these flames as the parents.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: El Barto on August 18, 2014, 09:30:24 AM
People thought that removing the militarized police response would just allow looters and rioters to have a free for all. But what we saw was nothing of the sort, and that the looting and rioting was a response to the police. I'm suggesting that generally disarming the police would be like this, that when we escalate the situation by arming the police, we create the very problem we use as justification for the escalation. Like when people say drugs should be illegal because of gang violence and such, even though there's gang violence because it's illegal.
Looks like the calm and friendly approach didn't work as well as it seemed. Everybody played nice for one night, and then there was looting and rioting. Now we've had two nights of marshal law and tonight the national guard will be there, and they will be militarized.


6 shots, two in the head.  I see a lot of the noise on this going away now.   6 shots.  If he carries a revolver, he emptied it.  Into an unarmed person.


I'm sorry, but defending the cop at this point looks pretty silly.


6 shots.  6 
Nonsense. The cop or anybody else will keep firing until the threat ceases, and plenty of people will remain a genuine threat after multiple gunshots.


6 shots, two in the head.  I see a lot of the noise on this going away now.   6 shots.  If he carries a revolver, he emptied it.  Into an unarmed person.


I'm sorry, but defending the cop at this point looks pretty silly.


6 shots.  6
The concepts involved in a shooting like this are not evaluated with the benefit of hindsight, but rather what was going through the mind of the actors at the time of the incident.  If the cop is still shooting and Brown was still advancing (we have clear statement on whether Brown registered impact of the shots; as noted one witness indicated that he couldn't tell if the cop was missing or not) then it is not unreasonable to think that not only did the cop still think he was in danger, but that the danger was increasing as Brown got nearer. 
This is true, but it's also part of the problem. It's really a pretty low bar for OIS cases. It'll clear Johnny in the case, which is quite possibly the correct result, but it will also continue to clear a whole lot of really shitty cops and their actions. Remember, this is what cleared the assholes who beat Kelly Thomas to death.



If that's the real story, that 'key witness' is just as responsible for fanning these flames as the parents.
Absolutely. And plenty of others.


Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: KevShmev on August 18, 2014, 09:32:44 AM
Gary, that is sad, but true.  No matter what the truth ends up being, there will be people who will never believe it.   

Chino, Dorian Johnson appears to have given a false statement, and given that he was once charged with that, it makes sense now why he was avoiding talking to the police and going to the media with his fabricated story; he didn't want to get charged again with lying to the police.  In that regard, he is a real piece of shit, as he basically fanned the flames and then poured gasoline on them with his fake story.  Pretty disgusting.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: El Barto on August 18, 2014, 09:35:15 AM
Honestly, while it's not their job, and they are dealing with so much already, but I think it would be awesome if Michael Brown's family spoke out very publicly, asking that all public protesting stop.  It's obvious that a few bad eggs are gonna make a mess out of it no mater what, and at some point you have to ask yourself: what is the end goal?

This will not at all be a popular statement, but not only do I agree with you on them making a statement, but if they don't I would pursue them for contributing to the rioting, for all the statements they made in the immediate aftermath that fanned the flames.  I get that they are grieving, but that doesn't entitle them to make up facts, or act as judge and jury before all the facts are in.  The initial comments regarding Brown being "executed" and "slaughtered" and "gunned down" were all from the family or those close to the family.   They wasted no time in hiring an attorney; that attorney should have IMMEDIATELY staged a press conference and stated the position of the family:  "We believe there to be two sides to this story, we believe in the goodness of our son Michael Brown, but we ask that all people stand down until the facts and evidence have been collected, analyzed and adjudicated on.  In the meantime, please respect our privacy."  At the same time that attorney should have called the police department or better yet the Attorney General and made it clear that they were staying out of the media on a temporary basis and only to keep peace, but that the SECOND there was a hint of bias, impropriety, or corruption, they were going nuclear and involving every media outlet they could find.   

They did not do that.
Add to that, their attorney (who makes Bush sound like fucking Hemingway), is doing the same thing by bullshitting everyone with the autopsy reports. I get that it's his job, but he's not helping anybody but himself. He's claiming that the report corroborates the eye witness testimony, which I guess is true if you interview everybody and only go with the one you want. It refutes the testimony of the two people that were there, though.

And seriously, how can somebody that inarticulate graduate high school, college, and law school? I wouldn't want the guy working the counter of my 7-11 with speech skills so poor.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Chino on August 18, 2014, 09:44:47 AM
Chino, Dorian Johnson appears to have given a false statement, and given that he was once charged with that, it makes sense now why he was avoiding talking to the police and going to the media with his fabricated story; he didn't want to get charged again with lying to the police.  In that regard, he is a real piece of shit, as he basically fanned the flames and then poured gasoline on them with his fake story.  Pretty disgusting.

That says a lot about the guy's intelligence. "I've got an idea. I am going to go on national TV and lie through my teeth about the biggest story in country. No one is ever going to find out". It also takes a lot of balls to rob a place, and then voluntarily go on TV a day later. 
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: gmillerdrake on August 18, 2014, 09:59:22 AM
Chino, Dorian Johnson appears to have given a false statement, and given that he was once charged with that, it makes sense now why he was avoiding talking to the police and going to the media with his fabricated story; he didn't want to get charged again with lying to the police.  In that regard, he is a real piece of shit, as he basically fanned the flames and then poured gasoline on them with his fake story.  Pretty disgusting.

That says a lot about the guy's intelligence. "I've got an idea. I am going to go on national TV and lie through my teeth about the biggest story in country. No one is ever going to find out".

Actually Johnson admitted to and was convicted of giving a false identity. Anyway, as the facts of the case make their way out.....the only version of the account that is supported by the facts is the account provided by the police officers.

Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Scheavo on August 18, 2014, 10:27:36 AM
"He doubled back" and "But he kept coming towards him"doesn't mean Brown was running at him in a threatening manner.

You're absolutely correct....it doesn't mean that. I happen to think it does because of the fact that is what the officer said he did and the fact that 10 minutes earlier he used the same type of intimidating move on the store owner he just robbed. But sure I can agree that "doubled back" could mean something different.

He did that against an unarmed, non-police officer. Different context entirely.

You could also say the fact that Brown did that earlier made him more submissive. He could've thought he was caught, and was giving up. Hell, if what the family is saying, he could've been thinking, "the fucking ONE TIME I do anything like this, and I get caught." It could also help explain how a gunshot wound came into his skull at the angles it did.


Quote
It's certainly not proof against the contentions of numerous other eyewitnesses

That's exactly what this is....proof that a person who witnessed the entire event is recounting the same story that the police officer told and the opposite story of what other 'witnesses' have stated. This video was taken within minutes of that shooting and already the 'hands up' theme had begun to spread and the commentator rebuked that story by telling what he saw

Except you just said yourself it could mean something else! The problem is that you don't KNOW what the guy was saying. If he was saying what you THINK he was saying, it would be proof, but the contention isn't about the truth of what he said, it's about WHAT he said. Which, by the way, is what makes it hearsay evidence, Stadler.

Quote
It's pretty hard for me to just throw away numerous eyewitnesses, who have been interviewed, including going on television, being public, talking to the DOJ and FBI and other numerous organizations - who most certainly will notice any inconsistency in Johnson story, if he is indeed lying as you imply, that's the great thing about a large record.

Exactly. The problem as I see it is that the entire 'hands up' version of the story is the version that has been latched onto by social media...by celebrities....it's the one being re-tweeted and face booked and having tee shirts made without even being verified as truth. So, when the truth does hit and is made public and if it is different than the now famous 'hands up' Brown was doing nothing wrong version.....you're going to get a level of disbelief and cries of even more racism if that happens.....even if it is the actual truth. Because just as the officers account of the incident is just his version....this whole 'hands up' Brown was assasinated at this point is just as suspicious as the officers account....only it's being treated as cannon.

I don't know what your exactly is referring to based upon what came after. And I don't see how what the media has done or is doing is really that relevant. Other people acting poorly doesn't justify you acting poorly. My position would be that the evidence and testimonies given should prompt a response that is entirely different then the one being given by the police.

The thing is, the levels of evidence being given for each side is lopsided. One side has overheard hearsay which doesn't actually say what you want it to say, and the testimony of someone who has something to gain by it. The other side has numerous people willing to be interviewed and give their story, including going to numerous agencies to do so. They are not even close to being on equal footing.

Quote
I imagine in court, it wouldn't be allowed because it's hearsay. 


I have no idea what the law says about this type of video. He's a witness essentially giving a statement. If they identify that person I see an issue getting him to actually testify and say what he did on that tape. When he said that....it was fresh....he was being honest and as the article mentioned...he had nothing to gain. Now, it's a national story and his entire community is in an uproar. We all saw the huge graffiti "Snitches get Stitches" sprayed on the walls of the looted and burned down Quick Trip. There is no way this guy would ever admit that was him or enter that same statment into record despite what the video suggests is exactly what he saw. But if I were a lawyer defending that officer (if it came to that) I'd certainly do all I could to get it admissable because it verifies his account to the tee.

Except like I said above, it is a matter of verifying what was actually said in the overheard audio. If the audio was unambigious in it's story, if the person could be substantiated and questioned and back up your interpretation, it would be actual evidence and be admissable in court. But at this point, it is NOT and using at proof of your bias is fallacious.


Overall, I just don't understand this entire response. You admit at the beginning that it could mean something other than what you're saying, but then go on to ignore that admission and assume it does mean what you say it says.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Scheavo on August 18, 2014, 10:33:24 AM
It appears as if the story told by Dorian Johnson, the friend of the deceased and the supposed key witness, was a farce.  His story talked about how Brown was shot in the back, but the autopsy report shows that six bullets hit Brown, all of which were in the front.  In other words, he was not shot in the back once.

Just re-read Johnson version (though admittedly not all of his interviews, so fell free to point out an inconsistency if you find one), and the only problem with his story and the autopsy is a minor one that may yet be resolved. He says he was shot while running away once, then turned around. But it's very reasonable to ask if Johnson would actually KNOW if Brown was shot. They were running away, he hears a gunshot, he see's Brown turn around, and he imagines he was shot. It certainly doesn't invalidate the rest of his story. More importantly, the release I saw said he was shot "at least" six times, and that a few other wounds were still be investigated as to what they were, etc. I think one was on his arm, and at this point, it's entirely concievable it was a wound from a bullet that hit him from behind.

Again, not saying you're wrong, just that there isn't any good reason to support what you're saying is true.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Stadler on August 18, 2014, 10:47:28 AM


If that's the real story, that 'key witness' is just as responsible for fanning these flames as the parents.

No argument from me on that.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: gmillerdrake on August 18, 2014, 10:53:35 AM
"He doubled back" and "But he kept coming towards him"doesn't mean Brown was running at him in a threatening manner.

You're absolutely correct....it doesn't mean that. I happen to think it does because of the fact that is what the officer said he did and the fact that 10 minutes earlier he used the same type of intimidating move on the store owner he just robbed. But sure I can agree that "doubled back" could mean something different.

He did that against an unarmed, non-police officer. Different context entirely.

You could also say the fact that Brown did that earlier made him more submissive. He could've thought he was caught, and was giving up. Hell, if what the family is saying, he could've been thinking, "the fucking ONE TIME I do anything like this, and I get caught." It could also help explain how a gunshot wound came into his skull at the angles it did.


Quote
It's certainly not proof against the contentions of numerous other eyewitnesses

That's exactly what this is....proof that a person who witnessed the entire event is recounting the same story that the police officer told and the opposite story of what other 'witnesses' have stated. This video was taken within minutes of that shooting and already the 'hands up' theme had begun to spread and the commentator rebuked that story by telling what he saw

Except you just said yourself it could mean something else! The problem is that you don't KNOW what the guy was saying. If he was saying what you THINK he was saying, it would be proof, but the contention isn't about the truth of what he said, it's about WHAT he said. Which, by the way, is what makes it hearsay evidence, Stadler.

Quote
It's pretty hard for me to just throw away numerous eyewitnesses, who have been interviewed, including going on television, being public, talking to the DOJ and FBI and other numerous organizations - who most certainly will notice any inconsistency in Johnson story, if he is indeed lying as you imply, that's the great thing about a large record.

Exactly. The problem as I see it is that the entire 'hands up' version of the story is the version that has been latched onto by social media...by celebrities....it's the one being re-tweeted and face booked and having tee shirts made without even being verified as truth. So, when the truth does hit and is made public and if it is different than the now famous 'hands up' Brown was doing nothing wrong version.....you're going to get a level of disbelief and cries of even more racism if that happens.....even if it is the actual truth. Because just as the officers account of the incident is just his version....this whole 'hands up' Brown was assasinated at this point is just as suspicious as the officers account....only it's being treated as cannon.

I don't know what your exactly is referring to based upon what came after. And I don't see how what the media has done or is doing is really that relevant. Other people acting poorly doesn't justify you acting poorly. My position would be that the evidence and testimonies given should prompt a response that is entirely different then the one being given by the police.

The thing is, the levels of evidence being given for each side is lopsided. One side has overheard hearsay which doesn't actually say what you want it to say, and the testimony of someone who has something to gain by it. The other side has numerous people willing to be interviewed and give their story, including going to numerous agencies to do so. They are not even close to being on equal footing.


I imagine in court, it wouldn't be allowed because it's hearsay. 


I have no idea what the law says about this type of video. He's a witness essentially giving a statement. If they identify that person I see an issue getting him to actually testify and say what he did on that tape. When he said that....it was fresh....he was being honest and as the article mentioned...he had nothing to gain. Now, it's a national story and his entire community is in an uproar. We all saw the huge graffiti "Snitches get Stitches" sprayed on the walls of the looted and burned down Quick Trip. There is no way this guy would ever admit that was him or enter that same statment into record despite what the video suggests is exactly what he saw. But if I were a lawyer defending that officer (if it came to that) I'd certainly do all I could to get it admissable because it verifies his account to the tee.
[/quote]

Except like I said above, it is a matter of verifying what was actually said in the overheard audio. If the audio was unambigious in it's story, if the person could be substantiated and questioned and back up your interpretation, it would be actual evidence and be admissable in court. But at this point, it is NOT and using at proof of your bias is fallacious.


Overall, I just don't understand this entire response. You admit at the beginning that it could mean something other than what you're saying, but then go on to ignore that admission and assume it does mean what you say it says.
[/quote]

My 'exactly' meant that as the statements are collected and the real evidence is evaluated......the truth about this situation will come out. Just as my Police Officer neighbor stated....there will be no way to hide from the actual, physical evidence. If the cop shot this kid in cold blood in the back like the witnesses were saying...it'll come out. If he didn't (like the evidence is beginning to prove) it'll come out.

As for the rest of our debate or exchange....I really don't see the point in re-engaing it because there are two sides to this 'fence' and we are on opposite sides of it and neither is going to convince the other to jump over...so.....I don't see the point in debating arguing further about it. I'd rather just wait until the report is made public and then pick it up from there.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Stadler on August 18, 2014, 10:53:39 AM
I think you're trying too hard and it's starting to become pretty obvious.   Now the family of the guy who was shot dead are at fault for the rioting that has taken place? 


More victim blaming.


Just stop.  You keep ascribing things to me that are not true.  It's not "victim blaming".   But it is saying that we are ALL accountable and we all have inputs and abilities to drive change.  NO ONE, not the police, not the victim's family, not the government, not the media, not the citizens, are either totally BLAMELESS or totally AT FAULT.   I'm just recognizing that fact.   
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Scheavo on August 18, 2014, 11:23:54 AM
And I totally understand that; but for it to be a reason that a BLACK person may not be able to vote (as opposed to any other demographic) it has to be exclusive to that demographic.  And none of those things are.  They are, frankly, all excuses, as proven by the two most recent Federal elections, where black turnout was equal to ('08) and exceeded ('12) white turnout.  What changed on that Tuesday? 

No they don't. They just have to effect black persons more so than other demographics, in no way does it have to be exclusive.

What changed on that Tuesday? What Tuesday was it? Was it the same day as the Presidential election, or was it a Tuesday in June in 2009? It is harder for black people to vote. We could argue the reasons for this, but survey and study after study shows that it IS harder for black people to vote. Given that, they could make the EXTRA effort to vote during the Presidential election, in '08 and '12, and it doesn't prove apathy for them to not be able to put in that extra effort into every other election.

On top of that, if it is a Presidential, more employers would probably be more leniant and letting of people voting. So during those elections, it's easier for them to vote. But for a local election, on a Tuesday in June, maybe they can't get the time off to go vote - or maybe just can't fenangle a busy schedule again to get the chance to go vote.


Quote
Quote
Latent racism doesn't mean  there's a white guy going, "Fuck black people, they're inferior." It means the way in which the laws are enacted and enforced have unequal impact along racial lines. Plus, assuming the black guy would represent black people is absurd. He could advocate policies that most black people don't support or which arent helpful to most black people. Like Hermain Cain. Voting for the black guy because he's black is racist as well, so it does litttle to actually absolve the system of racism.

And more importantly, with the level of corruption in our system, just electing more blacks doesn't mean the system will change. It's not because of racism per say, more greed, but it helps perpetuate a system which unfairly harms blacks and other minorities moreso than whites.

I understand what "latent" means.  ;)  I get the statistics, and there is some correlation with what you are saying but in my experience (I am not an expert, but my experience is not minor; I am certified in Six Sigma, which is a statistics-based analytical tool) one of the main problems with statistical analysis is not proving correlation, but rather proving cause and effect.  I have no doubt that certain laws and certain schema tend to impact blacks differently than other demographics, but as I have tried to show (poorly) it is often just as much if not more impactful to certain economic classes. 

Except there isn't as much of a correlation with class as there is with race. Correlation does not prove causation, but non-correlation does prove non-causation. Poor whites are more likely to be in jail than rich whites, but poor whites are less likely to be in jail than poor blacks (there are more poor whites in America, but make up a minority of the Prison population). Our system is unfair to poor people, yes, but that does not invalidate or really overlap with the system also being unfair to minorities.

https://www.amacad.org/content/publications/pubContent.aspx?d=808

If it were a matter of education, why are whites who drop out of high school less likely to be in Prison? Why are Blacks who complete College more likely to be arrested? You see, you're making a hypothesis, that it's class, not race, but when examined, even by class and educational opportunities, we see race being far more important.

Quote
And yes, of course electing the black candidate because he is black is "racist".  ANY time "skin color" is a factor EITHER way it is technically racist.   But, by way of example only, I point to Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter's comments on the night of the '08 election when interviewed following the concession by McCain:  "We have been waiting 400 years for this moment!!!!!!".   Uh, who's we and where did the "400 years" come from; at my count the US was 'in play' for about 232 years at that point...    please don't try and tell me there wasn't ONE VOTE for Obama that wasn't because he was black.  I don't claim that is the ONLY reason he was elected (it was, as I usually say, economics, even if the economics was totally wrong), but it IS a factor.   And if even those that WOULD vote for a black candidate because of his/her skin color don't bother, there is no answer for that other than APATHY, and not the kind that El Barto is talking about.

Red herring. Anything of value of responding to in this I'll respond to elsewhere.

Quote
Quote
D'oh, I knew I should have just done the math, what I get for being lazy. Misread that table (obviously).

But why don't those people finish highschool? Often it's bad schools, which are underfunded and poorly staffed. That, and they see a broken system around them where getting their diploma won't do them as much good. They don't see the jobs or opportunities, and it creates a vicious cycle. More black people havinh a diploma wouldn't make more jobs are change the laws ofs scarcity, so in a sense, it's also pragmatically irrelevant as far as I can see.

Plus, like you said, you just undermined your own argument. More white people are poor. Therefor, more whites should be in prison for the same offenses if the main driving force were purely economic. Poor whites have just as much incentive to sell drugs as poor blacks, and there are a lot more of them. We should expect a higher percentage of blacks to be in prison than whites, given the statistics, but the prison population should reflect the society at large, and it doesn't, and by a long shot.

The problem was that I know the general facts, that more whites are poor than blacks, and so I was lazy in finding support for that when I needed it. Partly cause one-handed typing is aggravating, and the less I had to write, the more it pleased me.

Look no harm no foul on the mistake, we all make them, and it doesn't change your argument.  I get where you are coming from.   And yes I undermined my own argument, because the stats don't lie.   But, in a different sense, they do.   Read "Dumbing Down Our Schools" by Charles Sykes if you haven't already (by the way, to anyone here with a kid, you owe it to yourself and them to read that book.  You don't have to agree with all - or any - of it, but it will give you insight if you are looking to do the best you can by your kid re: education).  The single greatest PREDICTOR (remember, we're trying to dig deeper than just "correlation") of a student's success is not race, and it isn't even (directly) the economics of the schools (some of the poorest performing schools actually get some of the most funding, though admittedly sometimes there is a lag between the funding and the performance).   Grossly simplifying it is "what do the kids do over the summer".   Again, grossly simplifying, and this involved a multitude of factors, including economics, but generally speaking, the kids that stay "educationally focused" through the summer through reading lists, camps, etc. outperform those that "take the summer off". 

I'll just reference my above link. If this were as true as yo usay, then blacks who complete College wouldn't be more likely to be in prison, and whites who drop out of high school wouldn't be less likely to be in prison.

Citing under performing schools that are over funded doesn't prove that underfunding schools doesn't effect performance. Fallacious logic there.

I would have more questions for this "educationally focused" aspect, and availability of programs for poor blacks vs poor whites. Not saying it's because of race here, because I'd be willing to guess that a lot of poor whites live in rural communities, as opposed to urban communities, and that has a big effect. In fact, if you were to try and make this more geosocioeconomic argument, I'd be more amendable. But you're making an argument that it's about class and poverty, which just doesn't seem to play itself out in anything I've ever seen.

And I don't see where yo uaddressed the laws of scarcity. How does more black people graduating high school create more and higher paying jobs for them to get hired doing? Show me the job openings which can't be filled because of a lack of education, and specifically how blacks graduating high school would fill those job openings. Job creation is a different issue than education, and education does not create jobs. Jobs are created by factors outside of education. Which is proven by the education gap we DO have in America in regards to tradeskills and manual labor. If you can weld well, you can probably get yourself a six figure salary. Those job openings exist now, despite the fact that we don't have enough training for welding.

Quote
You can't really point to "race" here, unless you are willing to risk saying that some races are "lazier" than others.   I don't mean that literally, it's meant a little facetiously, but I am serious to the extent we are getting close to the area that is an untenable argument for me:  I don't doubt that some families have "given up" for many of the reasons stated here, but I don't think it is unfair to say that if you make a choice - regardless of how attractive (or not) the other choices are - you have to own your consequences. 

Unless you experience the reality first hand,, live in a community of depression, and face systemic poverty. To lay it down to apathy is to show a complete lack of empathy. There have been psychological studies of poverty, and they show the negative effects of just being poor, caused by the stresses of being poor. If you're constantly worrying about where that next meal will come from, it draws a lot of your energy away from what could be time thinking about improving your lot.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/am-i-right/201210/the-effects-poverty-the-brain

Quote
Quote
People thought that removing the militarized police response would just allow looters and rioters to have a free for all. But what we saw was nothing of the sort, and that the looting and rioting was a response to the police. I'm suggesting that generally disarming the police would be like this, that when we escalate the situation by arming the police, we create the very problem we use as justification for the escalation. Like when people say drugs should be illegal because of gang violence and such, even though there's gang violence because it's illegal.

Eh, I understand you now, but that is apples and oranges.   You are not dealing with a closed system in the latter case, and you have a TON of money involved which skews things dramatically.   And don't confuse a "militarized police response" with a general disarming.

Well its not as if I said no guns anywhere, just that there has to be a protocol followed in order to access them. Bank robbery happens? Armed robbery happens? Response can show up with guns. Police officer patrolling the streets, or responding to a sick child call (as in this case), no gun. If we look at this case specifically, a stun gun or tazer would've sufficed as protection.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Scheavo on August 18, 2014, 11:30:39 AM
Gary, that is sad, but true.  No matter what the truth ends up being, there will be people who will never believe it.   

Chino, Dorian Johnson appears to have given a false statement, and given that he was once charged with that, it makes sense now why he was avoiding talking to the police and going to the media with his fabricated story; he didn't want to get charged again with lying to the police.  In that regard, he is a real piece of shit, as he basically fanned the flames and then poured gasoline on them with his fake story.  Pretty disgusting.

1) If you just saw your friend shot by the police for doing nothing, you wouldn't feel too safe or secure giong to them to tell them your story

2) He talked to the DOJ and FBI, whilst not "the police," are certainly authority figures with police powers, and who can charge him with lying to them.

3) From the reporting I've heard, the police failed to contact him.

4) I like how it's apparently acceptable to call Johnson a "piece of shit" because of media reportings and incomplete truths and specific interpretations, but it's a "kangaroo court" for anyone to say the police officer should be held responsible because of media reporting, incomplete truths and specific interpretations.

Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: KevShmev on August 18, 2014, 11:37:25 AM
1) I am sure deep down he knows his friend wasn't shot for "doing nothing."

2) Fair enough.

3) you heard wrong.  I posted a link in this thread where the police said they wanted to talk to him and couldn't get a hold of him.

4) If he is found to have done enough in the wrong to warrant changes, absolutely, the officer should be held responsible and charges filed.  It remains to be seen. 

On the flip side, Johnson fanned the racial flames with what appears to be outright lies.  And he has a history of lying to the authorities, so he doesn't get the benefit of the doubt.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Scheavo on August 18, 2014, 11:38:08 AM
"He doubled back" and "But he kept coming towards him"doesn't mean Brown was running at him in a threatening manner. It could be slowly walking. It could be a shocked look at his face because he was just shot. It could be running at him in a threatening manner. Hell, it could be a verbal slip, and refer to the police offier. And the, "he like - be like-" could be Brown raising his hands in the air, it could be a lot of things. It's certainly not proof against the contentions of numerous other eyewitnesses, which corroborates each other. It's pretty hard for me to just throw away numerous eyewitnesses, who have been interviewed, including going on television, being public, talking to the DOJ and FBI and other numerous organizations - who most certainly will notice any inconsistency in Johnson story, if he is indeed lying as you imply, that's the great thing about a large record.

Look, I'm not saying the Police version isn't correct. I'll wait for a complete investigation on that matter. I'm arguing against the counter-argument being given. IJReview didn't interview the people being heard, they didn't get their story. They noticed some ambiguous dialogue, which would serve as a good place to start an investigation. I imagine in court, it wouldn't be allowed because it's hearsay.

It could be all those things; but those things are SPECULATION.  ANY counter-argument at this point is specious and meaningless.   Not one of those facts should be taken on their own and out of the context of the conversation.   As for the throwing away of "numerous eyewitnesses" while I don't think it is the likeliest outcome, the notion that "buzz" went through the crowd saying "he was executed" and that there are people testifying to things they didn't actually see, but just heard about, is not totally out of the question (how many people CLAIM to have been at Woodstock?) 

Um, it's speculation as to what the conversation was saying, either way. That was my point, and that's why it's hearsay.

A lot of people claiming to be at Woodstock, and not being at Woodstock, does not prove no one was at Woodstock. Just the same, a lot of people claiming to have seen the events, and not, does not prove those events did not happen. Completely fallacious logic.

Quote
And I'm not sure what you mean by "hearsay"; if that person takes the stand, if they testify to the "consensus" version, then the prosecution can introduce the background tape - to the extent that they can prove it is the same person speaking of the same events - and use it to impeach the initial testimony.   It just can't be used in lieu of the real witness.

You did a good job of changing the premise before hand. We are talking about the video, and only the video, at this point. Using just the video as proof of anything is hearsay, per what I said. If the person who was talking comes forward, gives his version of the story, AND it agrees with your interpretation, then it is evidence.

But the problem is that the actualy content of what was said is up for question. It is ambiguous, and it doesn't make a definitive statement about what happened. As I pointed out, you can interpret it in another fashion, and as such, if the guy were to take the stand, and disagreed with your interpretation of what was said, this does not amount to proof that he was telling the truth then and is lying now. It more reasonably means that the original video and overheard conversation wasn't saying what you thought it meant, because you lacked the complete information.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: El Barto on August 18, 2014, 11:40:29 AM
The autopsy sketch was interesting. Of the six shots, 5 were at worst superficial. The sixth shot was certainly fatal, but I'm not even sure that would have shut him off. People keep using the number of rounds as an indictment, and really it doesn't mean much. Either the shooting was justified or not, and the number of shots doesn't factor in.

Also, the way the private autopsy is being reported is a bit questionable. The lawyer made a point of saying that the final headshot looked like the cop was standing over him. They're in no position to determine that yet, and it's just more incitement as far as I'm concerned.


Scheavo: If I'm wrong then so be it, but you seem awfully keen to believe Johnson's story. Hell, I've stated numerous times in this thread that I think cops are professional liars, but even I tend to find Johnny's account to be a bit more credible than Johnson's. Why is his word more valid than anybody else's?
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Scheavo on August 18, 2014, 11:44:04 AM
1) I am sure deep down he knows his friend wasn't shot for "doing nothing."

Based upon what? I already pointed out how the autopsy results released thus far doesn't say anything definitive. The corronor I saw went out of his way to make this point clear. At this point, the results don't back up either story, disprove either story, and definitly doesn't make Johnson a liar. You're making a huge assumption here.

Quote
3) you heard wrong.  I posted a link in this thread where the police said they wanted to talk to him and couldn't get a hold of him.

Was he already talking to the DOJ and FBI at this point?

Quote
4) If he is found to have done enough in the wrong to warrant changes, absolutely, the officer should be held responsible and charges filed.  It remains to be seen. 

The officer claims a struggle occured. From what I heard, there is no indication on Brown that a struggle occurred. Does this make the Officer a liar?

Quote
On the flip side, Johnson fanned the racial flames with what appears to be outright lies.  And he has a history of lying to the authorities, so he doesn't get the benefit of the doubt.

Only if you want to make a rash judgement. You are now assuming he is lying, instead of just being wrong, without proof or any real good reason.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: KevShmev on August 18, 2014, 11:44:54 AM
The final headshot appears to be a classic case of the victim keeling over from the shots he had already taken, hence him being slumped over and the top of his head facing the cop, and the final shot then being delivered.  It's easy to say, "Why did he have to shoot him one more time and kill him?", but keep in mind that as we pointed out, in those cases, you are basically spraying the threat with a series of bullets to stop the threat and just because someone is slowed down and keeling over while reeling from the shots they have already taken doesn't mean they are not still a threat.  It seems awful to put it that way, and it's still utterly tragic that it happened, but that sounds like what probably happened. 
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: kirksnosehair on August 18, 2014, 11:47:57 AM
Chino, Dorian Johnson appears to have given a false statement, and given that he was once charged with that, it makes sense now why he was avoiding talking to the police and going to the media with his fabricated story; he didn't want to get charged again with lying to the police.  In that regard, he is a real piece of shit, as he basically fanned the flames and then poured gasoline on them with his fake story.  Pretty disgusting.

That says a lot about the guy's intelligence. "I've got an idea. I am going to go on national TV and lie through my teeth about the biggest story in country. No one is ever going to find out".

Actually Johnson admitted to and was convicted of giving a false identity. Anyway, as the facts of the case make their way out.....the only version of the account that is supported by the facts is the account provided by the police officers.


Except, that's not true. (http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/18/us/missouri-teen-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t1)
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: kirksnosehair on August 18, 2014, 11:52:05 AM
Quote

One wound to his arm was consistent with a witness statement that Brown was walking away and appeared to jerk, as if shot, Parcells said. The wounds to his arm could have also have occurred while he had his hands up, possibly in a defensive posture, Parcells said.


One of the bullets entered the back of his head and came out through his eye, another -- likely the fatal wound, Baden said -- struck Brown on the top of his head and caused irreparable damage to his brain.


Family attorney Benjamin Crump said Brown probably would have been either kneeling or bending forward when he was struck with those bullets.
Brown had abrasions on his face consistent with falling onto the ground, Baden said.


He cautioned that he needs access to autopsy results, including tests on Brown's clothes and X-rays, before making some conclusions.
But Crump said what it already revealed offered more than "ample" evidence to support Wilson's arrest.


"What does this autopsy say? That the witness accounts were true, that he was shot multiple times," Crump told reporters.



Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Scheavo on August 18, 2014, 11:56:18 AM
Also, the way the private autopsy is being reported is a bit questionable. The lawyer made a point of saying that the final headshot looked like the cop was standing over him. They're in no position to determine that yet, and it's just more incitement as far as I'm concerned.

While I agree the lawyers response is pretty bad, I do think that the bullet trajectory through his skull does demand some explanation. He was a tall man (who tall was the officer? I haven't seen that information), so that trajectory requires some explanation. As you point out, the shots prior to that were survivable and probably nothing to really stop him, so then why was his head lowered? A lowered head is a submissive response. It's reasonable to think that it's part of that raising his hands in the air per eyewitness accounts. It's also reasonable to think Brown was falling to the ground out of shock and got hit when the cop was unloading his round. Or, I'd say much less likely, if Brown had his head lowered and was bull-rushing the officer. But that's just becuase I don't see why you would lower your head that far away.

Quote
Scheavo: If I'm wrong then so be it, but you seem awfully keen to believe Johnson's story. Hell, I've stated numerous times in this thread that I think cops are professional liars, but even I tend to find Johnny's account to be a bit more credible than Johnson's. Why is his word more valid than anybody else's?

It's not. I just don't see any reason to discount it given the evidence presented. I think the only reason I seem awfully keen to believe his story is becuase I'm arguing against people who are awfully keen on discounting his story, and didn't believe it prior to any "evidence" to discount it.

I'm taking a pretty damn neutral stance on the actual shooting. Johnson having some inaccuracies in his story doesn't make him a liar, it makes him human.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Scheavo on August 18, 2014, 12:01:35 PM
The final headshot appears to be a classic case of the victim keeling over from the shots he had already taken, hence him being slumped over and the top of his head facing the cop, and the final shot then being delivered.  It's easy to say, "Why did he have to shoot him one more time and kill him?", but keep in mind that as we pointed out, in those cases, you are basically spraying the threat with a series of bullets to stop the threat and just because someone is slowed down and keeling over while reeling from the shots they have already taken doesn't mean they are not still a threat.  It seems awful to put it that way, and it's still utterly tragic that it happened, but that sounds like what probably happened.

I'm not sure if that is a response to me, but I point out that there isn't a solid reaosn to think that Brown would be keeling over. I admit it's possible (as I did in my above post), but it's certainly not proven or given at this point. Like I said, imagine the opposite side is true, Brown has been a good kid, hasn't gotten in trouble. He does this strong armed robbery, then a police officer comes after him, and Brown thinks maybe he's had. He freaks, cause he's a black guy in Fergusson with a history of racism and problems (as already presented in this forum), and starts to run. He get's shot at, decides he should give up, turns around, raises his hands, and lowers his head submissively because he's devastated and remorseful for what he's just done.

Look, all I'm asking and trying to do is for you to use your imagination to see how the other side could be telling the truth, and for that reason, to take a neutral stance on this until more actual information comes out.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Stadler on August 18, 2014, 12:06:11 PM
What changed on that Tuesday? What Tuesday was it? Was it the same day as the Presidential election, or was it a Tuesday in June in 2009? It is harder for black people to vote. We could argue the reasons for this, but survey and study after study shows that it IS harder for black people to vote. Given that, they could make the EXTRA effort to vote during the Presidential election, in '08 and '12, and it doesn't prove apathy for them to not be able to put in that extra effort into every other election.

On top of that, if it is a Presidential, more employers would probably be more leniant and letting of people voting. So during those elections, it's easier for them to vote. But for a local election, on a Tuesday in June, maybe they can't get the time off to go vote - or maybe just can't fenangle a busy schedule again to get the chance to go vote.

I'm sorry, you're not making sense.  Or perhaps I am just not understanding.   I don't know what a "Tuesday in June" refers to.   All I know, is the PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION in NOVEMBER OF 2008 and the PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION in NOVEMBER OF 2012, more blacks than whites found the initiative to get out and vote. 

I can't for the life of me understand why somehow the planets aligned in that election, but not others.   I don't understand how the planets aligned in - I think it was NOVEMBER of 1998 - when virtually 100% of blacks in Atlanta voted for Bill Campbell for Mayor.   What makes those anomalies?   I sometimes find it inconvenient or downright hard to get out and vote, too, and I make my choice:  do I want to put in the effort or not?   Usually I do, because I believe in the system.   But whether I do or not IS MY CHOICE, and certainly, under the strict definition of the word, if I opt to NOT go to the polls it is a form of apathy.   The relative threshold is irrelevant. 


Quote
Except there isn't as much of a correlation with class as there is with race. Correlation does not prove causation, but non-correlation does prove non-causation. Poor whites are more likely to be in jail than rich whites, but poor whites are less likely to be in jail than poor blacks (there are more poor whites in America, but make up a minority of the Prison population). Our system is unfair to poor people, yes, but that does not invalidate or really overlap with the system also being unfair to minorities.

https://www.amacad.org/content/publications/pubContent.aspx?d=808

If it were a matter of education, why are whites who drop out of high school less likely to be in Prison? Why are Blacks who complete College more likely to be arrested? You see, you're making a hypothesis, that it's class, not race, but when examined, even by class and educational opportunities, we see race being far more important.

But you're not answering the question, and I mean that nicely.  Put it another way:  is all "poor" equal?  In other words, are the "black poor" the same as the "white poor"?   I do know that unemployment rates for blacks is higher than whites (almost double) which suggests a racial component, until you look at the fact that blacks are the second LOWEST participants in the labor pool.   Meaning, they aren't even putting themselves out there as candidates for the positions!   Even if you have little hope of success, at what point does one have to take ownership of the idea that they have made a conscious decision to stop trying?

I'm not saying you are necessarily wrong, I am saying that there are a whole lot of other questions that have to be answered - some of them hard questions, and some of them unpopular questions - before either one of us can be deemed "right". 

Quote
I'll just reference my above link. If this were as true as yo usay, then blacks who complete College wouldn't be more likely to be in prison, and whites who drop out of high school wouldn't be less likely to be in prison.

I'm not following?  More or less likely than who?

Quote
Citing under performing schools that are over funded doesn't prove that underfunding schools doesn't effect performance. Fallacious logic there.

That wasn't the statement.  It's back to "correlation" versus "cause and effect".  The only conclusion that one could draw (and I didn't even do that) is that "funding" doesn't directly improve performance.  Everything else is up for further analysis.

Quote
I would have more questions for this "educationally focused" aspect, and availability of programs for poor blacks vs poor whites. Not saying it's because of race here, because I'd be willing to guess that a lot of poor whites live in rural communities, as opposed to urban communities, and that has a big effect. In fact, if you were to try and make this more geosocioeconomic argument, I'd be more amendable. But you're making an argument that it's about class and poverty, which just doesn't seem to play itself out in anything I've ever seen.

Where do you live, if I may ask?    I try very hard not to use anecdotal or empirical information in these posts, except as color or as sidebar.  But where I am now (in Connecticut, where I was born and raised), where I was in Charlotte, and in Atlanta, the reality supports what I am saying.  The only place I've lived which doesn't fit nicely in this is Philadelphia, and I'm still trying to figure out why.   There is a LOT of racism in Philly, of the most insidious kind, but having said that, many prominent civic leaders are black and there is a small black subcommunity that is economically prosperous. 

Quote
And I don't see where yo uaddressed the laws of scarcity. How does more black people graduating high school create more and higher paying jobs for them to get hired doing? Show me the job openings which can't be filled because of a lack of education, and specifically how blacks graduating high school would fill those job openings. Job creation is a different issue than education, and education does not create jobs. Jobs are created by factors outside of education. Which is proven by the education gap we DO have in America in regards to tradeskills and manual labor. If you can weld well, you can probably get yourself a six figure salary. Those job openings exist now, despite the fact that we don't have enough training for welding.


Those are all fair points, but if I am understanding you correctly, they assume the conclusion.   Meaning, I can't answer what would happen if there were 100 candidates, exactly equal in training and qualifications, going for one job.  Presumably, that would include 13 black candidates and 63 white ones.  Clearly, if the white wins that job more than 63% of the time, there is a problem.    But we don't know that.  What we do know is that based on education - which is at least SOMEWHAT tied to choice.  SOMEWHAT - the 100-person candidate pool is more like 70 (or more) white and 6 (or less) black.   So no wonder the outcomes are skewed.
 
Quote
Unless you experience the reality first hand,, live in a community of depression, and face systemic poverty. To lay it down to apathy is to show a complete lack of empathy. There have been psychological studies of poverty, and they show the negative effects of just being poor, caused by the stresses of being poor. If you're constantly worrying about where that next meal will come from, it draws a lot of your energy away from what could be time thinking about improving your lot.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/am-i-right/201210/the-effects-poverty-the-brain


First, don't play that card.    We're talking concepts here; my "empathy" has nothing to do with it, and you have no idea who's shoes I've walked in.  I purposefully leave out "empathy" in these discussions, because "empathy" more often than not leads to bad decisions.   The right answer is the answer that leads to the best outcome; not the most emotionally satisfying outcome.    I would argue - strongly - that many of things we have to fix here are in place BECAUSE of empathy.   I think someone like El Barto will disagree with me, but I strongly believe that the current drugs laws are largely what they are because of empathetic reasons (most people don't know or give a shit about the monetization aspect of the war on drugs; they don't want it legal because they fear losing a subset of a generation to abuse).   

If anything, my argument is based strongly in empathy, because I am seeking to dig as deep as possible to get the right answer.    Don't mistake my position here to be "let them eat cake"; just the opposite.  I say let's do the things that are necessary to reward those that DO break the cycle, let's remove some of the obstacles where we can to allow more people (of all races) to break the cycle, and make all of us better.   I don't mean this in the clichéd "trickle down economics" way, but in terms of engaging all people in our society, a rising tide raises all boats. 

Quote
Well its not as if I said no guns anywhere, just that there has to be a protocol followed in order to access them. Bank robbery happens? Armed robbery happens? Response can show up with guns. Police officer patrolling the streets, or responding to a sick child call (as in this case), no gun. If we look at this case specifically, a stun gun or tazer would've sufficed as protection.

Not a concept I've heard before.  Interesting thought.   
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: kirksnosehair on August 18, 2014, 12:06:41 PM
I think you're trying too hard and it's starting to become pretty obvious.   Now the family of the guy who was shot dead are at fault for the rioting that has taken place? 


More victim blaming.


Just stop.  You keep ascribing things to me that are not true.  It's not "victim blaming".   But it is saying that we are ALL accountable and we all have inputs and abilities to drive change.  NO ONE, not the police, not the victim's family, not the government, not the media, not the citizens, are either totally BLAMELESS or totally AT FAULT.   I'm just recognizing that fact.


No, actually, that's NOT what you're doing.  At least, that's now how it reads to me.


I'm not going to stop posting my opinion of what I'm reading here.  This is the impression you are giving me.  You start a post with "I know this won't be popular, but..." and then you unload some junk like you just did - blaming a grieving family who just lost their kid - because they're pissed off and sick and tired of being treated like second class citizens and now the very system that treats them that way has just put their kid in this grave, probably completely unnecessarily.  I'm sorry, but you're going to have to excuse my outrage at what is looking more and more like a straight up fucking execution.  And I see a few people doing some pretty incredible rhetorical gesticulation here trying to rationalize why it's probably OK that this cop just fucking waxed this kids ass right there on the street in broad daylight.  Yeah, I'm outraged by it.  And I'm kinda disgusted, frankly, with all of the verbal gymnastics going on all over the place looking for a way to excuse what this cop did.


 

Edit: corrected some spelling mistakes
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Stadler on August 18, 2014, 12:07:35 PM


4) I like how it's apparently acceptable to call Johnson a "piece of shit" because of media reportings and incomplete truths and specific interpretations, but it's a "kangaroo court" for anyone to say the police officer should be held responsible because of media reporting, incomplete truths and specific interpretations.

Can you at least see how BOTH are not helping, and how BOTH feed the inevitable downward spiral?
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Stadler on August 18, 2014, 12:21:38 PM

Um, it's speculation as to what the conversation was saying, either way. That was my point, and that's why it's hearsay.

No, that's not what makes it 'hearsay'.  It's hearsay when it is an out-of-court statement being used (whether it is good proof or not) to prove the issue at hand.   If a prosecutor introduced that to PROVE that Brown was not running away, it would be excluded as "hearsay", unless an exception could be found (i.e. that the witness was not available).
Quote
A lot of people claiming to be at Woodstock, and not being at Woodstock, does not prove no one was at Woodstock. Just the same, a lot of people claiming to have seen the events, and not, does not prove those events did not happen. Completely fallacious logic.

Ugh.  You're killing me.  I'm not saying that Woodstock - or the events - didn't happen.  I'm saying that we have to evaluate each person individually, and that there are 10 people saying the same thing DOESN"T IN AND OF ITSELF mean that the event happened.  You have to evaluate the veracity of each and every one of the 10. 

Quote
You did a good job of changing the premise before hand. We are talking about the video, and only the video, at this point. Using just the video as proof of anything is hearsay, per what I said. If the person who was talking comes forward, gives his version of the story, AND it agrees with your interpretation, then it is evidence.

NOT of anything; it CAN be used to impeach a witness without being hearsay.  it can also be used as evidence that there are other interpretations of what went down.  What it CAN'T be used for is to prove that Brown was or was not running away when shot.

Quote
But the problem is that the actualy content of what was said is up for question. It is ambiguous, and it doesn't make a definitive statement about what happened. As I pointed out, you can interpret it in another fashion, and as such, if the guy were to take the stand, and disagreed with your interpretation of what was said, this does not amount to proof that he was telling the truth then and is lying now. It more reasonably means that the original video and overheard conversation wasn't saying what you thought it meant, because you lacked the complete information.

The ambiguity of the statement does not matter in the context of "hearsay".  If it gets admitted, whether it is ambiguous or not, or whether it proves what it is intended to prove is a matter of fact for the jury.    Your last statement is not accurate; not because it isn't reasonable (a juror could come up with that interpretation) but because it isn't a matter of law.  It is subject to the jury's interpretation.  I as a juror am free to draw whatever conclusion I want to the evidence once it is admitted.

Do you see the difference? 
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Stadler on August 18, 2014, 12:23:41 PM
The autopsy sketch was interesting. Of the six shots, 5 were at worst superficial. The sixth shot was certainly fatal, but I'm not even sure that would have shut him off. People keep using the number of rounds as an indictment, and really it doesn't mean much. Either the shooting was justified or not, and the number of shots doesn't factor in.

Also, the way the private autopsy is being reported is a bit questionable. The lawyer made a point of saying that the final headshot looked like the cop was standing over him. They're in no position to determine that yet, and it's just more incitement as far as I'm concerned.


Scheavo: If I'm wrong then so be it, but you seem awfully keen to believe Johnson's story. Hell, I've stated numerous times in this thread that I think cops are professional liars, but even I tend to find Johnny's account to be a bit more credible than Johnson's. Why is his word more valid than anybody else's?

Um, that attorney is way out of line; Dr. Michael Baden, who performed the autopsy (and is about as highly regarded a coroner as you can find) said the headshot showed his head was bowed, BUT he took great pains to indicate that it was INCONCLUSIVE as to why the head was bowed, and could have easily been either because he was charging or he was submitting.   

Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Stadler on August 18, 2014, 12:30:04 PM
While I agree the lawyers response is pretty bad, I do think that the bullet trajectory through his skull does demand some explanation. He was a tall man (who tall was the officer? I haven't seen that information), so that trajectory requires some explanation. As you point out, the shots prior to that were survivable and probably nothing to really stop him, so then why was his head lowered? A lowered head is a submissive response. It's reasonable to think that it's part of that raising his hands in the air per eyewitness accounts. It's also reasonable to think Brown was falling to the ground out of shock and got hit when the cop was unloading his round. Or, I'd say much less likely, if Brown had his head lowered and was bull-rushing the officer. But that's just becuase I don't see why you would lower your head that far away.

See, here's where you lose me.  You say something that is completely factual and sustainable  - "the bullet trajectory through his skull does demand some explanation", then ruin it with something subjective, opinionated, and supportive of what appears to be a pre-determined conclusion - "a lowered head is a submissive response".    Ever see a defensive back in football lower his head to annihilate a receiver crossing the flat?   

You're not Michael Brown.  You don't know whether he was enraged, on steroids, on other mind-altering drugs or cold sober.   You don't know if he got the bright idea to lower his head to reduce his profile.  You don't know if he was off balance from taking a prior gunshot.   

Why do we even have to speculate at this point?    Let the professionals do their job.  Michael Baden, while often being an expert for hire, is about as credible an investigator as they come.  HE refused to speculate, so why should we? 
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Dark Castle on August 18, 2014, 12:31:32 PM
Uh, you kind of pretty much ignored where Scheavo said that it was possible that maybe he did lower his head in an attempt to bull rush the officer, although evidence points away from that, so uh Scheavo's pretty level headed.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Stadler on August 18, 2014, 12:38:54 PM
I think you're trying too hard and it's starting to become pretty obvious.   Now the family of the guy who was shot dead are at fault for the rioting that has taken place? 


More victim blaming.


Just stop.  You keep ascribing things to me that are not true.  It's not "victim blaming".   But it is saying that we are ALL accountable and we all have inputs and abilities to drive change.  NO ONE, not the police, not the victim's family, not the government, not the media, not the citizens, are either totally BLAMELESS or totally AT FAULT.   I'm just recognizing that fact.


No, actually, that's NOT what you're doing.  At least, that's now how it reads to me.


I'm not going to stop posting my opinion of what I'm reading here.  This is the impression you are giving me.  You start a post with "I know this won't be popular, but..." and then you unload some junk like you just did - blaming a grieving family who just lost their kid - because they're pissed off and sick and tired of being treated like second class citizens and now the very system that treats them that way has just put their kid in this grave, probably completely necessarily.  I'm sorry, but you're going to have to excuse my outrage at what is looking more and more like a straight up fucking execution.  And I see a few people doing some pretty incredible rhetorical gesticulation here trying to rationalize why it's probably OK that this cop just fucking waxed this kids ass right there on the street in broad daylight.  Yeah, I'm outraged by it.  And I'm kinda disgusted, frankly, with all of the verbal gymnastics going on all over the place looking for a way to excuse what this cop did.

Nice of you to offer your opinion on what I am thinking.   I don't share your outrage and disgust, but I understand it.   What I don't understand is how that justifies you wrongly interpreting what I wrote.    There are far more biased opinions in this thread than mine - which simply put is "let's let the facts speak for themselves".   If the cop was wrong, he was wrong.  He should face punishment for what he did, and no argument from me.  That doesn't justify forming an opinion and picking the facts that fit and castigating the facts that don't.  It also doesn't justify lying to the press and instigating racial unrest.   Even if you can excuse the family because of their grief (I don't, but I see your point) it is up to the attorney to provide a cool, unemotional head and help in decisions like this.  That's what attorney's are for.   Rather than doing that, he's doing his own Al Sharpton imitation and fanning the fires himself.  Whatever it is that the family is going through, it doesn't justify lying to and manipulating the press.   

Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Stadler on August 18, 2014, 12:43:05 PM
Uh, you kind of pretty much ignored where Scheavo said that it was possible that maybe he did lower his head in an attempt to bull rush the officer, although evidence points away from that, so uh Scheavo's pretty level headed.

Haha, pun intended?

In the post I read, he discounted that almost immediately (in the next sentence).  But having said that in the following post (which I hadn't read when I posted my reply) you're right he did sort of back off on that.

And in fairness, in that last post, he is saying exactly what I am saying:  let's wait until the evidence speaks.   I frankly think there will be bits of truth in both sides.  These things are usually not that cut and dry. 
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: KevShmev on August 18, 2014, 12:56:13 PM
The final headshot appears to be a classic case of the victim keeling over from the shots he had already taken, hence him being slumped over and the top of his head facing the cop, and the final shot then being delivered.  It's easy to say, "Why did he have to shoot him one more time and kill him?", but keep in mind that as we pointed out, in those cases, you are basically spraying the threat with a series of bullets to stop the threat and just because someone is slowed down and keeling over while reeling from the shots they have already taken doesn't mean they are not still a threat.  It seems awful to put it that way, and it's still utterly tragic that it happened, but that sounds like what probably happened.

I'm not sure if that is a response to me,

It was to Barto.  You replied right before I did, so my post was two after his (and I often don't use the quote system if my post follows the one I am replying to).

   And I'm kinda disgusted, frankly, with all of the verbal gymnastics going on all over the place looking for a way to excuse what this cop did.

We still don't know what exactly occurred, but it sure sounds like you are ready to convict him based on speculation and assumptions.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Chino on August 18, 2014, 12:58:07 PM
I blame the police department by default for not have vest and/or dash cams. There are several towns in CT where the police have cams in their vests that run the duration of their shift. If we can mandate that ever vehicle on American roads must have a back up camera, I think it'd be rather easy to make happen with law enforcement.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: gmillerdrake on August 18, 2014, 01:16:34 PM

   And I'm kinda disgusted, frankly, with all of the verbal gymnastics going on all over the place looking for a way to excuse what this cop did.

Until proven otherwise all the police officer did was his job. I'm probably just as disgusted at the fact that social and news media have cannonized one side of the account as 'fact' and made sure that side of the story is the only one that 'counts'. So, when and if this all flushes out in the end and it's proven that this officers account of the incident is indeed what went down and he is not charged with anything I think the ensuing rioting will make the Rodney King riots look like kindergarten recess. And that will be the fault of many institutions....first and foremost the manner in which the reportage of information of this tradjedy.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: El Barto on August 18, 2014, 01:34:31 PM
Until proven otherwise all the police officer did was his job. I'm probably just as disgusted at the fact that social and news media have cannonized one side of the account as 'fact' and made sure that side of the story is the only one that 'counts'. So, when and if this all flushes out in the end and it's proven that this officers account of the incident is indeed what went down and he is not charged with anything I think the ensuing rioting will make the Rodney King riots look like kindergarten recess. And that will be the fault of many institutions....first and foremost the manner in which the reportage of information of this tradjedy.
Nah, this kind of needs to work the other way. Like I posted some pages ago, cop gets held to a higher standard. Whether or not the dead guy was a scumbag, he was at the time of the encounter a citizen of this country which makes him both innocent and Johnny's responsibility to protect. I sort of think that the facts will favor the cop in this, and I certainly agree with you that the media, the parents, the buddy, the attorney, and the City of Ferguson have all combined to make this an epic clusterfuck which will likely boil over far worse than it already has, but at the point the benefit of the doubt goes to the stiff.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: gmillerdrake on August 18, 2014, 01:54:16 PM
Until proven otherwise all the police officer did was his job. I'm probably just as disgusted at the fact that social and news media have cannonized one side of the account as 'fact' and made sure that side of the story is the only one that 'counts'. So, when and if this all flushes out in the end and it's proven that this officers account of the incident is indeed what went down and he is not charged with anything I think the ensuing rioting will make the Rodney King riots look like kindergarten recess. And that will be the fault of many institutions....first and foremost the manner in which the reportage of information of this tradjedy.
Nah, this kind of needs to work the other way. Like I posted some pages ago, cop gets held to a higher standard. Whether or not the dead guy was a scumbag, he was at the time of the encounter a citizen of this country which makes him both innocent and Johnny's responsibility to protect. I sort of think that the facts will favor the cop in this, and I certainly agree with you that the media, the parents, the buddy, the attorney, and the City of Ferguson have all combined to make this an epic clusterfuck which will likely boil over far worse than it already has, but at the point the benefit of the doubt goes to the stiff.

I understand your point here....and the officer should be held at a higher standard. One thing that is not discussed is the complete lack of respect for authority when it came to the initial stop/arrest. We can debate for countless pages on 'why' the black community should have the right to be suspicious of the police....but the fact remains that Brown after being detained by the officer Brown and Johnson chose to run off from custody after what the officer says there was a scuffle and wrangling for his weapon. They ran off....then Brown turns back at him at which that point he's fired upon. Why take off running if you've nothing to hide or be worried about? But we know that Brown did have something to hide being that he and Johson robbed a store 10 minutes earlier.

That officer was out there protecting the community when he stopped these guys to question them. He was doing his job. Unless this officer is just some cold blooded killer who felt like shooting a man that day I don't see how anyone can 'prove' he did what he did out of nothing other than protecting himself from a man who had been hit multiple times with bullets and continued to come towards him, of which that guy is a pretty big fella and the officer has no idea 'why' the bullets aren't affecting him...oh and, he has maybe 5 seconds to figure out what to do. I've read in an article that the distance was an estimated 35 foot....that isn't really that far considering an average person can cover 10 foot (when running) in less than 2 seconds. Yes this shooting is a horrific tradjedy but it's far from the 'assasination' that it's been made out to be.

Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: gmillerdrake on August 18, 2014, 02:21:35 PM
The radio personality who 'live tweeted' from Ferguson last night just tweeted this:

"Asked protestors in #ferguson what needs 2 happen for peace, they almost all said, not until the officer suffers the same fate as Mike Brown"


Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: El Barto on August 18, 2014, 02:26:51 PM
I understand your point here....and the officer should be held at a higher standard. One thing that is not discussed is the complete lack of respect for authority when it came to the initial stop/arrest. We can debate for countless pages on 'why' the black community should have the right to be suspicious of the police....but the fact remains that Brown after being detained by the officer Brown and Johnson chose to run off from custody after what the officer says there was a scuffle and wrangling for his weapon. They ran off....then Brown turns back at him at which that point he's fired upon. Why take off running if you've nothing to hide or be worried about? But we know that Brown did have something to hide being that he and Johson robbed a store 10 minutes earlier.
I've got no problem whatsoever with a solid disrespect for authority. Hell, it's a cornerstone of my life. I also don't see running from cops as proof of guilt. Aside from the myriad reasons for black folk to distrust the poh-lice, there are practical ones as well. As a white teenager in a middle class neighborhood I was seconds away from kicking a [genuine asshole of a] cop squarely in the nuts and bolting for a nearby creek. The man was threatening to endanger my safety in a serious manner and even looking back with nearly 30 years of life experience it still would have been the right move. Two pissed off cops would have still been safer then than what he was proposing (and barring gunplay I would have gotten away from them quite easily).

As for your second paragraph, it relies way too heavily on facts that are as yet unknown. Including, you're saying 35', and I'm pretty sure I read 1-2. I've been busy and haven't looked too heavily into today's details, but it's safe to say that we're still in a stage where nobody knows WTF went down.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: gmillerdrake on August 18, 2014, 02:32:22 PM
As for your second paragraph, it relies way too heavily on facts that are as yet unknown. Including, you're saying 35', and I'm pretty sure I read 1-2. I've been busy and haven't looked too heavily into today's details, but it's safe to say that we're still in a stage where nobody knows WTF went down.

Last week they said it'd be two weeks before the investigation would be concluded. I'm curious as to if that is still on track....if they can figure this all out that quickly? I'm sure the scrutiny that this case will have is forcing them to dot all the "I" 's and cross the "t" 's mulitple times over. The last thing they need is an OJ type of investigation.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: KevShmev on August 18, 2014, 02:38:08 PM
The radio personality who 'live tweeted' from Ferguson last night just tweeted this:

"Asked protestors in #ferguson what needs 2 happen for peace, they almost all said, not until the officer suffers the same fate as Mike Brown"

Not touching this one...

I've got no problem whatsoever with a solid disrespect for authority.

Same here.

My problem is that many seem to have a total disregard for authority, and that is a problem. 
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Scheavo on August 18, 2014, 03:08:39 PM
What changed on that Tuesday? What Tuesday was it? Was it the same day as the Presidential election, or was it a Tuesday in June in 2009? It is harder for black people to vote. We could argue the reasons for this, but survey and study after study shows that it IS harder for black people to vote. Given that, they could make the EXTRA effort to vote during the Presidential election, in '08 and '12, and it doesn't prove apathy for them to not be able to put in that extra effort into every other election.

On top of that, if it is a Presidential, more employers would probably be more leniant and letting of people voting. So during those elections, it's easier for them to vote. But for a local election, on a Tuesday in June, maybe they can't get the time off to go vote - or maybe just can't fenangle a busy schedule again to get the chance to go vote.

I'm sorry, you're not making sense.  Or perhaps I am just not understanding.   I don't know what a "Tuesday in June" refers to.   All I know, is the PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION in NOVEMBER OF 2008 and the PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION in NOVEMBER OF 2012, more blacks than whites found the initiative to get out and vote. 

I can't for the life of me understand why somehow the planets aligned in that election, but not others.   I don't understand how the planets aligned in - I think it was NOVEMBER of 1998 - when virtually 100% of blacks in Atlanta voted for Bill Campbell for Mayor.   What makes those anomalies?   I sometimes find it inconvenient or downright hard to get out and vote, too, and I make my choice:  do I want to put in the effort or not?   Usually I do, because I believe in the system.   But whether I do or not IS MY CHOICE, and certainly, under the strict definition of the word, if I opt to NOT go to the polls it is a form of apathy.   The relative threshold is irrelevant. 

I don't know about you, but I have a busy life. I have work, school, a girlfriend, and I have to take care of myself. There's been times when I hear about a local election for some minor offices that just occured, without even knowing they were going on. It wasn't because of apathy, but because other things were more demanding at the current moment which required my attention. The same cannot be said for the major elections which occur every two years on the 2nd Tuesday of of November. That's institutionized and consistent, and there is much less ability to say you didn't know about it.

Apathy is the lack of care. But you can't take no voting as not caring. That's a fallacy. "If you vote, you care" is a pretty strong statement. "If you don't vote, you don't care" is denying the antecedent. Not voting could be for a variety of reasons, and does not indicate, in any shape or form, that someone doesn't care. It could just as well mean they care about other things more, which could be so diverse that it's not even worth listing all the possibilities.

As an analogy, let's imagine climbing a mountain. On one side of the mountain, we have a nice gradual slope, which is easy to climb to the peak. The other side has a sheer cliff face, which would require expert climbing skills to get up. To say someone with no climbing experience who is at the base of the cliff is choosing to not climb the cliff is absurd. Their choice was informed and made for them by the realities and facts on the ground. It is not apathy. They could want to get to that peak more than anything else in the world, more than the person who climbs up the mountain from the back side in a leisurely stroll. Your account of "choice" and what "choice" is wants to completely ignore reality and how reality helps determine our "choosing." And this, I find, is exactly why I always, and will always, disagree with libertarians.

Quote
But you're not answering the question, and I mean that nicely.  Put it another way:  is all "poor" equal?  In other words, are the "black poor" the same as the "white poor"?   I do know that unemployment rates for blacks is higher than whites (almost double) which suggests a racial component, until you look at the fact that blacks are the second LOWEST participants in the labor pool.   Meaning, they aren't even putting themselves out there as candidates for the positions!   Even if you have little hope of success, at what point does one have to take ownership of the idea that they have made a conscious decision to stop trying?

In the given context, they are close enough so as to not matter. Blacks and whites are equally likely to use and sell drugs, amongst all classes. You also brought in educational levels, so I went ahead and normalized for educational levels for you. When talking about incarceration rates for drugs and drug related crimes, they are equal. But what we see in actual incarceration rates is that blacks are more likely than whites to be in prison, regardless of class. You can't use poverty and economics as the reason for why blacks are imprisoned more than whites - which is what you're arguing -  because when you look at the question economically, you still see race being a dominating factor. Which does not mean that economics don't play into incarceration in general, because our system is clearly set up against poor people as well. But that's a different argument, and not the one being presented. It can be true that BOTH you are more likely to be in prison if your poor AND you're more likely to be in prison if your black. One does not disprove the other, and one does not exclude the other. Which is what would need to be the case for your contentions to have any relevance to this discussion.

My mountain analogy above as far as "stop trying." Plus, for a large many people, you're begging the question becuase one reason they may not be applying for jobs is because they have felonies which would preclude them from getting the job. Felonies both of us agree they shouldn't have, even if they performed what was necessary to qualify for those felonies.



Quote
Quote
I'll just reference my above link. If this were as true as yo usay, then blacks who complete College wouldn't be more likely to be in prison, and whites who drop out of high school wouldn't be less likely to be in prison.

I'm not following?  More or less likely than who?

Come now. Not well worded, but it's pretty obvious what I"m talking about, especially if you read through the link.

If you're black and a high school dropout, you have a 37%ish chance of being in jail. If you're white and a high school drop out, you have a 12%ish chance of being in jail. If educational levels and economic opportunity were the major driving force behind the incarceration rates, then there would not be a nearly 300% disparity between the same class of people and incarceration rates.


Quote
Quote
Citing under performing schools that are over funded doesn't prove that underfunding schools doesn't effect performance. Fallacious logic there.

That wasn't the statement.  It's back to "correlation" versus "cause and effect".  The only conclusion that one could draw (and I didn't even do that) is that "funding" doesn't directly improve performance.  Everything else is up for further analysis.

But underfunding can still hinder performance, which was my initial comment. It was never argued that there aren't a lot of factors in why a school may be poor, only that underfunding is a reason why schools wouldn't succeed.

Quote
Where do you live, if I may ask?    I try very hard not to use anecdotal or empirical information in these posts, except as color or as sidebar.  But where I am now (in Connecticut, where I was born and raised), where I was in Charlotte, and in Atlanta, the reality supports what I am saying.  The only place I've lived which doesn't fit nicely in this is Philadelphia, and I'm still trying to figure out why.   There is a LOT of racism in Philly, of the most insidious kind, but having said that, many prominent civic leaders are black and there is a small black subcommunity that is economically prosperous. 

Montana. My experience with these issues are purely from academia, and not tainted with personal experience or bias. Personal experience should never really be used in these cases, which is why data is so important. I'm just not sure what you mean when you say your experiences back up your claims, but there's many reasons why that shouldn't be relevant anyways.


Quote

Those are all fair points, but if I am understanding you correctly, they assume the conclusion.   Meaning, I can't answer what would happen if there were 100 candidates, exactly equal in training and qualifications, going for one job.  Presumably, that would include 13 black candidates and 63 white ones.  Clearly, if the white wins that job more than 63% of the time, there is a problem.    But we don't know that.  What we do know is that based on education - which is at least SOMEWHAT tied to choice.  SOMEWHAT - the 100-person candidate pool is more like 70 (or more) white and 6 (or less) black.   So no wonder the outcomes are skewed.

But more black people competing for the same number of jobs wouldn't increase the number of jobs available. That's all my point is. I will concede that a few more black people might hedge out a few more white people, but in general, those new black graduates would just compete with other black graduates for the local jobs and opportunities, and the overall economics of the system wouldn't change all that much without exterior changes.
 

Quote
First, don't play that card.    We're talking concepts here; my "empathy" has nothing to do with it, and you have no idea who's shoes I've walked in.  I purposefully leave out "empathy" in these discussions, because "empathy" more often than not leads to bad decisions.   The right answer is the answer that leads to the best outcome; not the most emotionally satisfying outcome.    I would argue - strongly - that many of things we have to fix here are in place BECAUSE of empathy.   I think someone like El Barto will disagree with me, but I strongly believe that the current drugs laws are largely what they are because of empathetic reasons (most people don't know or give a shit about the monetization aspect of the war on drugs; they don't want it legal because they fear losing a subset of a generation to abuse).   

I didn't mean to imply you were being unempathetic, and according to my reading of it shouldn't have been implied. I was saying that to call blacks lazy, or apathetic, is to display a lack of empathy. I agree with you that emotions should be kept out of the discussion on what to do about a problem, but what we're talking about in this case is dealing with judging people, where empathy is more needed.

Fearing losing a subset of a generation to abuse isn't empathy (I won't get into how it's also misguided). It could be sympathy, and other admirable traits, but not empathy. Empathy isn't feeling for other people, or caring for other people. You could care a lot about other people, and be totally unempathetic. Likewise, you could be totally empathetic and not care one bit about other people.

Can you at least see how BOTH are not helping, and how BOTH feed the inevitable downward spiral?

Yep. But I fail to see why I'm supposed to defend this or somehow say otherwise. I've never once taken the opposing position you seem to think I'm taking. You're pigeonholing me into something and asking me to defend the actions of other people.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Scheavo on August 18, 2014, 03:08:54 PM


Um, it's speculation as to what the conversation was saying, either way. That was my point, and that's why it's hearsay.

No, that's not what makes it 'hearsay'.  It's hearsay when it is an out-of-court statement being used (whether it is good proof or not) to prove the issue at hand.   If a prosecutor introduced that to PROVE that Brown was not running away, it would be excluded as "hearsay", unless an exception could be found (i.e. that the witness was not available).

Sorry, I did speak poorly. It's hearsay because it's out of court. It shouldn't be allowed in court to demonstrate the cops side of the story as true because it's speculation that the the conversation was backing up the Cops story. For the same reasons, it shouldn't be allowed to contest a testimony because the video is hearsay that can't be verified. Luckily, I don't know any story out there that contests Brown was running away when he got killed.

Quote
Quote
A lot of people claiming to be at Woodstock, and not being at Woodstock, does not prove no one was at Woodstock. Just the same, a lot of people claiming to have seen the events, and not, does not prove those events did not happen. Completely fallacious logic.

Ugh.  You're killing me.  I'm not saying that Woodstock - or the events - didn't happen.  I'm saying that we have to evaluate each person individually, and that there are 10 people saying the same thing DOESN"T IN AND OF ITSELF mean that the event happened.  You have to evaluate the veracity of each and every one of the 10. 

Sorry, I assumed you were trying to make a point. If your point is that the 'numerous eyewitnesses" could be 8 or 2 depending upon investigation of the eyewitness accounts, then my original statement is still true. There are numerous eyewitnesses, first hand eyewitnesses which have performed a more rigorous accounting than this video and a 2nd hand accounting from a party to the events. For the sake of an investigation, I'm not going to throw away those numerous eyewitness accounts in favor of unreliable and non-verifiable information.


Quote
NOT of anything; it CAN be used to impeach a witness without being hearsay.  it can also be used as evidence that there are other interpretations of what went down.  What it CAN'T be used for is to prove that Brown was or was not running away when shot.

No, it is hearsay. Whether it's hearsay that meets criteria for being allowed in court is a different matter.

And the thing is, it's not a clear cut interpretation of what went down! That's what you keep ignoring and avoiding. If the guy was overheard saying, "The police shot in self defense" THEN you would have a point. But you don't. You have ambiguous, unclear and unverifiable information. You don't know if it says what you think it says, or maybe I should say we don't know if it says what people think it says. You need to clear away the ambiguity of what that person was saying, and actually VERIFY that the person was saying what you think he was saying. And that is why it's hearsay that should not be admissible in court (unless the person was found, testified, and obviously lied about what he said he said in the video, but that's a ridiculous proposition).


Quote
The ambiguity of the statement does not matter in the context of "hearsay".  If it gets admitted, whether it is ambiguous or not, or whether it proves what it is intended to prove is a matter of fact for the jury.    Your last statement is not accurate; not because it isn't reasonable (a juror could come up with that interpretation) but because it isn't a matter of law.  It is subject to the jury's interpretation.  I as a juror am free to draw whatever conclusion I want to the evidence once it is admitted.

Do you see the difference? 

I see the difference, it just has no import on what I'm saying.

But the purported evidence isn't evidence, and that's the difference. It's total hearsay! And the reasons why we have hearsay are for the exact reasons I'm giving, so this is a matter of the law. The reason we have hearsay rules is partly becuase you don't know the context in which a statement was given. We want the testimony to be in person because that allows us to read the person making the statements, and to allow follow up questions to affirm what we think is being said. And in this video, you can't see the gestures the speaker made when he said "he like - be like" and without that you simply do NOT know what was being said.


See, here's where you lose me.  You say something that is completely factual and sustainable  - "the bullet trajectory through his skull does demand some explanation", then ruin it with something subjective, opinionated, and supportive of what appears to be a pre-determined conclusion - "a lowered head is a submissive response".    Ever see a defensive back in football lower his head to annihilate a receiver crossing the flat?   

You're not Michael Brown.  You don't know whether he was enraged, on steroids, on other mind-altering drugs or cold sober.   You don't know if he got the bright idea to lower his head to reduce his profile.  You don't know if he was off balance from taking a prior gunshot.   

Why do we even have to speculate at this point?    Let the professionals do their job.  Michael Baden, while often being an expert for hire, is about as credible an investigator as they come.  HE refused to speculate, so why should we? 


*sigh*

I do hate it when I have to quote my fucking self.


Again, not saying you're wrong, just that there isn't any good reason to support what you're saying is true.


the autopsy results released thus far doesn't say anything definitive. The corronor I saw went out of his way to make this point clear. At this point, the results don't back up either story, disprove either story, and definitly doesn't make Johnson a liar. You're making a huge assumption here.


While I agree the lawyers response is pretty bad, I do think that the bullet trajectory through his skull does demand some explanation. He was a tall man (who tall was the officer? I haven't seen that information), so that trajectory requires some explanation. As you point out, the shots prior to that were survivable and probably nothing to really stop him, so then why was his head lowered? A lowered head is a submissive response. It's reasonable to think that it's part of that raising his hands in the air per eyewitness accounts. It's also reasonable to think Brown was falling to the ground out of shock and got hit when the cop was unloading his round. Or, I'd say much less likely, if Brown had his head lowered and was bull-rushing the officer. But that's just becuase I don't see why you would lower your head that far away.

Quote
It's not. I just don't see any reason to discount it given the evidence presented. I think the only reason I seem awfully keen to believe his story is becuase I'm arguing against people who are awfully keen on discounting his story, and didn't believe it prior to any "evidence" to discount it.

I'm taking a pretty damn neutral stance on the actual shooting. Johnson having some inaccuracies in his story doesn't make him a liar, it makes him human.

When a defensive back lowers his head for a tackle, he doesn't do so 35 feet away. That's why I find it less likely, but I never said it wasn't plausible.

You made a lot of assumptions to get to the point of where I'm only defending Brown. You've been making them against me this entire thread, despite my rather clear neutral position. I'm sure that if the conversation in this thread was focused at all around how the cop story is inaccurate, I'd be refuting more than a few of those contentions.

Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Scheavo on August 18, 2014, 03:17:25 PM
If the American Revolution were to go down today, the Founding Fathers would all be declared radicals with no respect for authority, who are criminals and dangerous to society. They rioted, they looted, they did a whole bunch of things we would like to think they didn't. But they did. I think it's terribly ironic that the more "conservative" people tend to be more upset with the recent events.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: El Barto on August 18, 2014, 03:30:58 PM
If the American Revolution were to go down today, the Founding Fathers would all be declared radicals with no respect for authority, who are criminals and dangerous to society. They rioted, they looted, they did a whole bunch of things we would like to think they didn't. But they did. I think it's terribly ironic that the more "conservative" people tend to be more upset with the recent events.
Yeah, so few people are willing to actually emulate the people they revere. Jesus is the best example of that. Easier just to reinterpret them to suit your own ideals.

However, I haven't seen the conservatives be any more upset than the liberals. They've just reversed sides. The conservatives are assuming the British role, while the liberals are outraged by the Boston massacre.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: KevShmev on August 18, 2014, 05:32:32 PM
I don't see this as being down party lines.  Not at all.  Especially given that Gary posted this earlier:

Quote
The radio personality who 'live tweeted' from Ferguson last night just tweeted this:

"Asked protestors in #ferguson what needs 2 happen for peace, they almost all said, not until the officer suffers the same fate as Mike Brown"

That kind of "we want him dead" attitude is most certainly not a liberal one.  Hell, it's not even a conservative one, a Libertarian one, an independent one, etc.

Granted, you are gonna have a portion of "white guilt" folks on the far left who will automatically take the side of the black over the white, just like you are gonna have a portion of far righties who will always take the side of anybody over a black, but, by and large, this shouldn't be a partisan issue.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Dark Castle on August 18, 2014, 08:23:35 PM
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/08/18/ferguson-pd-busted/
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: El Barto on August 18, 2014, 09:39:58 PM
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/08/18/ferguson-pd-busted/
The video shows nothing interesting regarding MB (although his buddy might have been shoplifting while he distracted the clerk). We don't know what they were saying and we don't know what happened when they left frame. Plus, if you're some little Asian guy running a Kwik-E-Mart, after recent events your story would be that he was the nicest guy you'd ever met and the altercation was him refusing to accept the cigs for free.

Also, horrible article. Seizing the surveillance video of a man who was just shot and killed is a gross abuse of police authority?
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Scheavo on August 18, 2014, 10:07:40 PM
I watched that video a few times, and honestly can't make out what happened, and don't think that helps shed any new light. But are you refuting the claim that the owners didn't call the police or file a theft report? I didn't take much else away from that article other than backed-up claim that the store owners aren't claiming to have called the police or filed a report. Given that, you could say they're just scared to say it was theft, or you could say there is no evidence to support the claim that Brown stole anything. **

It just makes the police department look even worse, and makes their response all that much more questionable and despicable.

Edit**

Scratch that, I remember now Johnsons attorney admitting the theft.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Scheavo on August 18, 2014, 10:57:28 PM
3) you heard wrong.  I posted a link in this thread where the police said they wanted to talk to him and couldn't get a hold of him.

Just ran across this again

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/12/michael-brown-shooting-witness_n_5671156.html

Quote
Freeman Bosley, Johnson’s attorney, told msnbc that the police have yet to interview Johnson. Bosley said that he offered the police an opportunity to speak with Johnson, but they declined.

“They didn’t even want to talk to him,” said Bosley, a former mayor of St. Louis. “They don’t want the facts. What they want is to justify what happened … what they are trying to do now is justify what happened instead of trying to point out the wrong. Something is wrong here and that’s what it is.”

Unless he's been proven to be lying, I'm going with this.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: KevShmev on August 18, 2014, 11:03:43 PM
The lawyer says one thing; the police say another.  Why am I not surprised that you are taking the side you are?  It's astonishing how much benefit of the doubt you are willing to give to one side, while giving almost none to the other.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Scheavo on August 19, 2014, 12:03:25 AM
What are your reasons for thinking the lawyer is lying versus the police? Honest question.

I trust the person who has little or less to gain over the person who has a lot to gain. What does the lawyer have to gain by lying? And lying so publicly? This would be very easy to refute, and it would immediate cast everything he says into doubt. Meanwhile, the police have a lot to gain by lying. And considering their track record and the professionalism and quality of the response to the shooting, I don't see why they should be given the benefit of the doubt. The entire police response to the shooting by the Ferguson police has been quintessential incompetence.

Why am I not surprised that you are taking the side you are? It's astonishing how much benefit of the doubt you are willing to give to one side, while giving almost none to the other.

No quotes around that. I just find it hypocritical that you would try to level this against me while it applies to you much more so than me. You're willing to call Dorian Johnson a "piece of shit liar" based upon flimsy and incomplete information. I haven't once actually called the cop in question a liar, or said he executed Brown, or anything at all about that. I've in fact, on several occasions, said he could be telling the 100% truth. I DON'T KNOW and NEITHER DO YOU. I have only defended Johnson and others against outrageous attacks on their character based upon little or nothing.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Stadler on August 19, 2014, 04:01:54 AM
Nah, this kind of needs to work the other way. Like I posted some pages ago, cop gets held to a higher standard. Whether or not the dead guy was a scumbag, he was at the time of the encounter a citizen of this country which makes him both innocent and Johnny's responsibility to protect. I sort of think that the facts will favor the cop in this, and I certainly agree with you that the media, the parents, the buddy, the attorney, and the City of Ferguson have all combined to make this an epic clusterfuck which will likely boil over far worse than it already has, but at the point the benefit of the doubt goes to the stiff.

Interestingly, whether there is a higher standard or not (and we can debate that), even that won't trump the general standard applicable to both:  "innocent until proven guilty".   These are, technically in that sense, two different crimes.  Brown is IUPG with respect to the cop stopping him, and once the shooting incident went down, the cop is IUPG with respect to that.  I know it's hard sometimes but that is the way it has to work for justice to ultimately out. 

This is not a new concept; doctors have a higher standard of care than laymen, but if a patient dies on the table, IUPG.   
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Stadler on August 19, 2014, 04:06:22 AM

I've got no problem whatsoever with a solid disrespect for authority.

Same here.

My problem is that many seem to have a total disregard for authority, and that is a problem.

But that's the rub, isn't it?   And while I don't share the "solid disrespect for authority", I get it and would admit to a healthy distrust of some authority.  But isn't it all how you manifest it?   "Solid disrespect" shouldn't translate into free-for-all violence.   Isn't that just street justice?   There's got to be limits, and regardless of what side of the badge you're on, there has to be SOME self-awareness of what reactions your actions might engender (and no, I am not "victim blaming" or implying that Brown "asked" for what happened to him). 
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Stadler on August 19, 2014, 05:09:21 AM
I don't know about you, but I have a busy life. I have work, school, a girlfriend, and I have to take care of myself. There's been times when I hear about a local election for some minor offices that just occured, without even knowing they were going on. It wasn't because of apathy, but because other things were more demanding at the current moment which required my attention. The same cannot be said for the major elections which occur every two years on the 2nd Tuesday of of November. That's institutionized and consistent, and there is much less ability to say you didn't know about it.

But those are, at the end of the day, choices.   They just are, even if they seem like sometimes they are being made for you.  We're talking about voting here, but isn't it just one of a line of things that either get done on a given day or don't?   How do you prioritize work, school, and the girl?  Don't you have conflicts where you have to make a decision (sometimes hard, sometimes easy)?    I am a single dad, who works full time.  I sometimes have conflicts and while I generally put my kid first, it can't ALWAYS be that way, and I rationalize it by saying "I had to work", but at the end of the day, when I'm lying in bed in the dark contemplating yesterday and planning tomorrow, it was all a choice. 

Quote
Apathy is the lack of care. But you can't take no voting as not caring. That's a fallacy. "If you vote, you care" is a pretty strong statement. "If you don't vote, you don't care" is denying the antecedent. Not voting could be for a variety of reasons, and does not indicate, in any shape or form, that someone doesn't care. It could just as well mean they care about other things more, which could be so diverse that it's not even worth listing all the possibilities.

Of course you can, and I do.   Perhaps it's more correct to say "If you don't vote, you don't care as much about it as the other things in your life that prevented you from voting", but it is exactly that.   As I noted I'm a single dad.  My kid is old enough now to stay by herself unattended for a couple hours (though not overnight, yet).   But back in the day, obviously, I couldn't leave her for any period of time.   So many things didn't get done because I had to stay with her.   But again, that was a choice.   I COULD have left her, if I was willing to accept the consequences (jail for endangering a minor, any injuries she might have sustained while I was not there, perhaps death or kidnapping).   It sounds obvious, and not like much of a choice, but in reality, it was. 

Quote
As an analogy, let's imagine climbing a mountain. On one side of the mountain, we have a nice gradual slope, which is easy to climb to the peak. The other side has a sheer cliff face, which would require expert climbing skills to get up. To say someone with no climbing experience who is at the base of the cliff is choosing to not climb the cliff is absurd. Their choice was informed and made for them by the realities and facts on the ground. It is not apathy. They could want to get to that peak more than anything else in the world, more than the person who climbs up the mountain from the back side in a leisurely stroll. Your account of "choice" and what "choice" is wants to completely ignore reality and how reality helps determine our "choosing." And this, I find, is exactly why I always, and will always, disagree with libertarians.

The notion of it being "choice" is not absurd at all, even if the choices themselves are.  They COULD try to climb it if they wanted.   They might not be successful, they might sustain injuries or even death, but it IS a choice, and if for whatever reason the priorities were such that it was more important to try that steep face than any of the other alternatives, they COULD do it if they wanted to.

Maybe "apathy" is a strong word in the absolute sense - they might care about voting as a general proposition - but the prioritization is always a matter of choice.   Look, I'm not denying the notion of "reality" and how facts influence our choosing, it happens to me as well.   I was out of work for a while, and things were (financially) bleak.   I finally got a job offer, but it was 300 miles away, and would have taken me away from my family for the entire week (I'd be back on weekends).  Doesn't seem like much of a choice, does it?  And I know plenty of people that would have turned it down, and rationalized it as "not a viable offer".  But it was still, ultimately, my choice to make.   I DID take that job, and it effectively ruined my marriage.  I'm not proud of that, but in the end?  Yeah, I made the choice that that job was worth risking my marriage for, and I own that choice and the ramifications (she had an affair while I was gone, and we were divorced about two years later).  I made that prioritization, no one else, and no one forced me to do it.

Quote
You also brought in educational levels, so I went ahead and normalized for educational levels for you. When talking about incarceration rates for drugs and drug related crimes, they are equal. But what we see in actual incarceration rates is that blacks are more likely than whites to be in prison, regardless of class. You can't use poverty and economics as the reason for why blacks are imprisoned more than whites - which is what you're arguing -  because when you look at the question economically, you still see race being a dominating factor. Which does not mean that economics don't play into incarceration in general, because our system is clearly set up against poor people as well. But that's a different argument, and not the one being presented. It can be true that BOTH you are more likely to be in prison if your poor AND you're more likely to be in prison if your black. One does not disprove the other, and one does not exclude the other. Which is what would need to be the case for your contentions to have any relevance to this discussion.

Look, we're going to have to table this.  I can't get any deeper into this discussion without using generalizations that don't help anyone.   The fact is, it IS economic.  That there are more blacks in jail on a percentage basis (and an absolute basis) doesn't mean they are there BECAUSE they are black.  "Black" is not a crime; there had to be SOMETHING to get them in the system.  SOMETHING is getting more blacks in the system than whites.  I'm sure you will argue that cops and judges and prosecutors are simply targeting blacks (which might have been true 100 years ago in certain jurisdictions) but it isn't the case today.  It's just not; in fact, more blacks are being released from jail (on a percentage basis and even accounting for the higher incarceration rates) so it isn't that the "system" just wants blacks to be incarcerated.  So why do poor blacks turn to crime at higher rates than whites?  And I'm saying it's economics, and I'm also saying - and here is specifically why I would not want to go too much further - that being poor and white is not the same as being poor and black.  Not better or worse, but different.

Quote
My mountain analogy above as far as "stop trying." Plus, for a large many people, you're begging the question becuase one reason they may not be applying for jobs is because they have felonies which would preclude them from getting the job. Felonies both of us agree they shouldn't have, even if they performed what was necessary to qualify for those felonies.

Why would I agree with that?  If they performed what was necessary to qualify for those felonies, why shouldn't they have them?  White or black?

Quote
Come now. Not well worded, but it's pretty obvious what I"m talking about, especially if you read through the link.

If you're black and a high school dropout, you have a 37%ish chance of being in jail. If you're white and a high school drop out, you have a 12%ish chance of being in jail. If educational levels and economic opportunity were the major driving force behind the incarceration rates, then there would not be a nearly 300% disparity between the same class of people and incarceration rates.

Sorry, I honestly didn't follow, and didn't want to do your point a disservice; I wasn't being cute or disingenuous.  call it a brain fart if you must. 

Why not?  I'm not conceding that they are the same class, at least in the sense of economic opportunity.  Are you accounting for unemployment rates?  Are you accounting for those that simply removed themselves from the working pool entirely?  Are you accounting for the working poor rates?  Are you accounting for public assistance numbers (which, incidentially, doesn't factor in to calculating poverty levels)?   

Look, we're going around and around a little bit here, so let me make it more clear:  I'm not saying race doesn't play in.  I have no doubt that there are circumstances where all things being equal, a black person is not going to get the benefit of the doubt, whether it is a job offer, the attention of a beat cop, or whatever.  But it CERTAINLY is not THE factor, or the most important factor. That is, and always will be, economics.   These things are complicated; we've been lulled into a sense of simplicity that just isn't there.

Quote
Montana. My experience with these issues are purely from academia, and not tainted with personal experience or bias. Personal experience should never really be used in these cases, which is why data is so important. I'm just not sure what you mean when you say your experiences back up your claims, but there's many reasons why that shouldn't be relevant anyways.

Are you in the dental floss business?  ;)

"Tainted".  Haha.  Listen, I agree with you in terms of using personal experience (I said as much in the caveat to my question).  But "academia" can't exist in a vacuum.    I've got the academic bona fides too (MBA from Emory University) but it is useless without some application to the real world, even if it is just to ground-truth the assumptions that you use to formulate your "models".   For example, most economics models assume 'rational actors', even though most economists would tell you that humans are anything but. 

Again, don't lose my underlying point:  I am not saying you are "wrong" in the absolute sense, I am saying that you are incomplete and it goes deeper - much deeper - than any one factor.

Quote

But more black people competing for the same number of jobs wouldn't increase the number of jobs available. That's all my point is. I will concede that a few more black people might hedge out a few more white people, but in general, those new black graduates would just compete with other black graduates for the local jobs and opportunities, and the overall economics of the system wouldn't change all that much without exterior changes.

Why would they compete with "other black graduates" and not "other graduates"?

Certainly the jobs question is a stand-alone issue that I'm not sure we're close to solving here.   But as a general proposition (and I know some here would dispute this, since I've had the conversation with them in the past on other forums) higher education levels mean more opportunities in terms of more potential jobs for which the candidate is qualified.   

Quote
I didn't mean to imply you were being unempathetic, and according to my reading of it shouldn't have been implied. I was saying that to call blacks lazy, or apathetic, is to display a lack of empathy. I agree with you that emotions should be kept out of the discussion on what to do about a problem, but what we're talking about in this case is dealing with judging people, where empathy is more needed.

Well, I did at least imply that some blacks ARE apathetic, so that IS a display of a lack of empathy.  And I stand by what I said:  "empathy" in terms of analysis and decision-making leads to bad decisions.    We can be empathetic as human beings (and I'd like to think I am, though it's not for me to judge) but the idea of "let's do something, ANYTHING, for this particular group" is both condescending and short-sighted; we should be embracing the idea of "let's do the RIGHT thing for EVERYONE". 

Quote
Fearing losing a subset of a generation to abuse isn't empathy (I won't get into how it's also misguided). It could be sympathy, and other admirable traits, but not empathy. Empathy isn't feeling for other people, or caring for other people. You could care a lot about other people, and be totally unempathetic. Likewise, you could be totally empathetic and not care one bit about other people.

You don't give me a lot of credit, do you?  Perhaps that is fair, in that perhaps I haven't earned it, but I know the difference between "sympathy" and "empathy" and I meant what said.   I don't think the drug war is borne of "sympathy"; in fact just the opposite.  I don't think generally there is a lot of sympathy in that regard.  I think our society is an extremely selfish one, and I think we have confused what is good for us as individuals with what is good for us as the collective.   The "tragedy of the commons" run amok, if you will.  If you still think it is not a case of "empathy" I would be interested in your ideas, though. 
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Stadler on August 19, 2014, 05:42:15 AM
Sorry, I did speak poorly. It's hearsay because it's out of court. It shouldn't be allowed in court to demonstrate the cops side of the story as true because it's speculation that the the conversation was backing up the Cops story. For the same reasons, it shouldn't be allowed to contest a testimony because the video is hearsay that can't be verified. Luckily, I don't know any story out there that contests Brown was running away when he got killed.

I say this respectfully, but you should stay away from using terms that have a specific meaning unless you know what that meaning is.   I'm sorry to hammer this point, but it is important.  It is NOT hearsay because it is speculative.  It is hearsay because it is essentially "testimony of a witness that can't be cross-examined".   In other words, if a witness came in and took the stand and said EXACTLY what was on the video, word for word, it would still be speculative, but it would be totally admissible, because, of course, then the other attorney could cross-examine. 

Whether you feel it should or should not be allowed for impeachment is irrelevant.  The law is clear on this point:  the video WOULD be admissible to contest the testimony of the witness and would NOT be considered hearsay in that case.  Whether it is "verifiable" or not is a question of fact for the jury. 

Quote
For the sake of an investigation, I'm not going to throw away those numerous eyewitness accounts in favor of unreliable and non-verifiable information.

Well, "eyewitness accounts" are singularly "unreliable" and often "non-verifiable".   Anyone involved in crime investigation in almost any capacity would tell you there is no single point at which the dichotomy between the "weight placed on the evidence" and the "reliability of that evidence" is greater than with eyewitness testimony.  It is sacred in the eyes of most jurors, but it is fraught with peril. 

Quote
No, it is hearsay. Whether it's hearsay that meets criteria for being allowed in court is a different matter.

I don't know why you are arguing this point with me; I have been a licensed attorney for over 15 years, passed the bar in three jurisdictions.  The video - if used to impeach a witness - is NOT hearsay.   I've already defined that for you:  "Hearsay" is an out-of-court statement used to prove the matter at hand.   That's it.   

Quote
And the thing is, it's not a clear cut interpretation of what went down! That's what you keep ignoring and avoiding. If the guy was overheard saying, "The police shot in self defense" THEN you would have a point. But you don't. You have ambiguous, unclear and unverifiable information. You don't know if it says what you think it says, or maybe I should say we don't know if it says what people think it says. You need to clear away the ambiguity of what that person was saying, and actually VERIFY that the person was saying what you think he was saying. And that is why it's hearsay that should not be admissible in court (unless the person was found, testified, and obviously lied about what he said he said in the video, but that's a ridiculous proposition).

I'm not ignoring it or avoiding it.  You are misunderstanding the notion of hearsay.   I'm telling you the ambiguity is irrelevant in the context of "hearsay".  There is no requirement that information be "unambiguous" for it not to be hearsay.   The ambiguity of the statement is not for you to decide, it is for a jury to decide.  Assuming that it could be admitted as evidence (there are something like 30 exceptions to the hearsay rule) the judge would instruct the jury that it is their job to assess the veracity of the facts presented as evidence, and to determine if those facts support a finding of "guilty" or "not guilty" based on the law (which would be explained by the judge). 

Put a different way, if that person could be identified, and was called to the stand, placed under oath, and did nothing more than recite verbatim what he said in that video, it would be absolutely admissible in court and it would be a question for the jury to figure out what he meant and why.   This isn't a complicated question at all.   

Quote
But the purported evidence isn't evidence, and that's the difference. It's total hearsay! And the reasons why we have hearsay are for the exact reasons I'm giving, so this is a matter of the law. The reason we have hearsay rules is partly becuase you don't know the context in which a statement was given. We want the testimony to be in person because that allows us to read the person making the statements, and to allow follow up questions to affirm what we think is being said. And in this video, you can't see the gestures the speaker made when he said "he like - be like" and without that you simply do NOT know what was being said.

STOP!   You are getting the pieces right (it is hearsay, we do want testimony in person) but you are putting it together wrongly.  It's not based on the INFORMATION ITSELF.  It's not hearsay because "the purported evidence isn't evidence".  The rule of hearsay is silent as to the truthfulness of the statement.  If the video had the guy saying "I live on planet Earth" or "I am speaking out loud right now" - two things that are unequivocally true - it would still be inadmissible (unless it qualified for an exception) and if the guy came into court and testified that "My penis is made of fiberglass and American cheese" it would be admissible, even though it is highly likely that it isn't truthful.   The evidence is not in or out based on it's truthfulness. 

Quote
You made a lot of assumptions to get to the point of where I'm only defending Brown. You've been making them against me this entire thread, despite my rather clear neutral position. I'm sure that if the conversation in this thread was focused at all around how the cop story is inaccurate, I'd be refuting more than a few of those contentions.

I'm sorry, I mean this respectfully, but I don't see "neutral position".   Positing arguments - for either side - is not "neutral".   Positing what is "more likely" or "less likely" is not a "neutral position".   What happened, happened, and is independent of what is "more likely" or "less likely". 
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Stadler on August 19, 2014, 05:50:17 AM
What are your reasons for thinking the lawyer is lying versus the police? Honest question.

I trust the person who has little or less to gain over the person who has a lot to gain. What does the lawyer have to gain by lying? And lying so publicly? This would be very easy to refute, and it would immediate cast everything he says into doubt. Meanwhile, the police have a lot to gain by lying. And considering their track record and the professionalism and quality of the response to the shooting, I don't see why they should be given the benefit of the doubt. The entire police response to the shooting by the Ferguson police has been quintessential incompetence.


Well, we disagree about what "quintessential incompetence" means, then.   As for the reasons, I definitely agree with your assessment of "who has more to gain by lying" but totally disagree with your analysis.    That attorney is a paid mouthpiece, who by the very nature of releasing a statement is attempting to sway public opinion and ride the wave of what has essentially become "bullying by public opinion", and setting the stage for a potentially very big payday in civil court if things go down a certain way.   If he really had nothing to gain, his statement would be something along the lines of "My client is willing to cooperate with the police 100%.  No further comment."    He wouldn't be going out of his way to point fingers, or make anyone else look bad with accusations that don't serve anyone but his client. 
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: El Barto on August 19, 2014, 08:36:41 AM
Nah, this kind of needs to work the other way. Like I posted some pages ago, cop gets held to a higher standard. Whether or not the dead guy was a scumbag, he was at the time of the encounter a citizen of this country which makes him both innocent and Johnny's responsibility to protect. I sort of think that the facts will favor the cop in this, and I certainly agree with you that the media, the parents, the buddy, the attorney, and the City of Ferguson have all combined to make this an epic clusterfuck which will likely boil over far worse than it already has, but at the point the benefit of the doubt goes to the stiff.

Interestingly, whether there is a higher standard or not (and we can debate that), even that won't trump the general standard applicable to both:  "innocent until proven guilty".   These are, technically in that sense, two different crimes.  Brown is IUPG with respect to the cop stopping him, and once the shooting incident went down, the cop is IUPG with respect to that.  I know it's hard sometimes but that is the way it has to work for justice to ultimately out. 

This is not a new concept; doctors have a higher standard of care than laymen, but if a patient dies on the table, IUPG.
Again, you make a very good point which confounded me quite a bit last week. However, as it did then, it falls short now in my book. We're not talking about a cop accused of a criminal act (although he might soon be). We're evaluating the actions of a cop in the performance of his job. If they decide he acted criminally refer him to a grand jury, then I'll be happy to extend the benefit of the doubt to him, but as it stands now he has no IUPG guilty protection.

And an honest question for you: Do you think that the cops investigating him should be starting from the standpoint that he acted lawfully and within the rules of his training and profession?
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: KevShmev on August 19, 2014, 08:45:23 AM
What are your reasons for thinking the lawyer is lying versus the police? Honest question.

I trust the person who has little or less to gain over the person who has a lot to gain. What does the lawyer have to gain by lying? And lying so publicly? This would be very easy to refute, and it would immediate cast everything he says into doubt. Meanwhile, the police have a lot to gain by lying. And considering their track record and the professionalism and quality of the response to the shooting, I don't see why they should be given the benefit of the doubt. The entire police response to the shooting by the Ferguson police has been quintessential incompetence.

Why am I not surprised that you are taking the side you are? It's astonishing how much benefit of the doubt you are willing to give to one side, while giving almost none to the other.

No quotes around that. I just find it hypocritical that you would try to level this against me while it applies to you much more so than me. You're willing to call Dorian Johnson a "piece of shit liar" based upon flimsy and incomplete information. I haven't once actually called the cop in question a liar, or said he executed Brown, or anything at all about that. I've in fact, on several occasions, said he could be telling the 100% truth. I DON'T KNOW and NEITHER DO YOU. I have only defended Johnson and others against outrageous attacks on their character based upon little or nothing.

Regarding the first part of that, Stadler's reply said it better than I would have.  You can't really believe the lawyer has nothing to gain from this...

As for the second part, I will concede that calling Johnson a POS was a bit over the top, and I probably should have found a way to word it better, but telling what appears to be a story with major holes, while stirring up racial acrimony, is a dangerous thing, especially since the situation in Ferguson had already escalated, so it was tantamount to pouring more gasoline on an already-raging inferno.  Granted, he might still be reeling from his buddy being killed, so perhaps he should get more benefit of the doubt that I have been giving him, but then again, given his history of lying to authorities, it's just not easy for me to do so.  Plus, this is all happening 40 minutes from my home, and I'd be lying if I said that fact alone wasn't a bit scary. 
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: kirksnosehair on August 19, 2014, 09:00:44 AM

I'll just leave this here and let's see how this gets rationalized.



http://ago.mo.gov/VehicleStops/2013/reports/161.pdf



Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: El Barto on August 19, 2014, 09:44:14 AM
Uh, what is it you want to see rationalized? Black folk get stopped disproportionately to whitey. We all know it happens. Are you wanting somebody to defend that?

More to the point, why does it make any difference with regards to the shooting?


edit: somebody needs to teach black people in that town to stop consenting to searches of their vehicle.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Dark Castle on August 19, 2014, 09:49:42 AM
Uh, what is it you want to see rationalized? Black folk get stopped disproportionately to whitey. We all know it happens. Are you wanting somebody to defend that?

More to the point, why does it make any difference with regards to the shooting?


edit: somebody needs to teach black people in that town to stop consenting to searches of their vehicle.
On the way to Bonnaroo, we got pulled over for a pretty bullshit reason and didn't consent to a search when they asked if they could search our vehicle with no reason as to why. Cops just brought in a dog and another few cops saying we seemed to nervous saying no and pulled a bullshit "Our dog sensed narcotics so we get to search your car now" even though we had nothing.  Proceeded to tear our van apart, friend's sister had the most minuscule amount of weed, they arrested her, cops looked up at me like I was a drug lord when they pulled out my pair of palm tree pants, fuckers were dumb enough to think they looked like marijuana leaves 2 inches from their stupid faces.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Chino on August 19, 2014, 09:59:49 AM
Uh, what is it you want to see rationalized? Black folk get stopped disproportionately to whitey. We all know it happens. Are you wanting somebody to defend that?

More to the point, why does it make any difference with regards to the shooting?


edit: somebody needs to teach black people in that town to stop consenting to searches of their vehicle.
On the way to Bonnaroo, we got pulled over for a pretty bullshit reason and didn't consent to a search when they asked if they could search our vehicle with no reason as to why. Cops just brought in a dog and another few cops saying we seemed to nervous saying no and pulled a bullshit "Our dog sensed narcotics so we get to search your car now" even though we had nothing.  Proceeded to tear our van apart, friend's sister had the most minuscule amount of weed, they arrested her, cops looked up at me like I was a drug lord when they pulled out my pair of palm tree pants, fuckers were dumb enough to think they looked like marijuana leaves 2 inches from their stupid faces.

Police train the dogs to give a false positive on command. There will never be an instance of a cop bringing in a dog that doesn't end with the vehicle being torn apart.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Dark Castle on August 19, 2014, 10:06:43 AM
Yeah, it was painfully obvious too how obviously they were commanding the dog to "find" something.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Scheavo on August 19, 2014, 10:09:29 AM
Stadler:

I fundamentally disagree with your conception of choice, on a philosophical level. We're not going to solve that here. Doubt we'll ever solve it. It's why you're a libertarian, and why I'm a "liberal" (though I'd be willing to bet that on some political tests, I'd be more libertarian than you).

Quote
Look, we're going to have to table this.  I can't get any deeper into this discussion without using generalizations that don't help anyone.   The fact is, it IS economic.  That there are more blacks in jail on a percentage basis (and an absolute basis) doesn't mean they are there BECAUSE they are black.  "Black" is not a crime; there had to be SOMETHING to get them in the system.  SOMETHING is getting more blacks in the system than whites.  I'm sure you will argue that cops and judges and prosecutors are simply targeting blacks (which might have been true 100 years ago in certain jurisdictions) but it isn't the case today.  It's just not; in fact, more blacks are being released from jail (on a percentage basis and even accounting for the higher incarceration rates) so it isn't that the "system" just wants blacks to be incarcerated.  So why do poor blacks turn to crime at higher rates than whites?  And I'm saying it's economics, and I'm also saying - and here is specifically why I would not want to go too much further - that being poor and white is not the same as being poor and black.  Not better or worse, but different.

This just read to me: I don't have any proof, so I'm gonna have to just make up things. I have no idea how you say that prosecutors or police don't target blacks, especially considering the evidence to suggest otherwise. The whole problem with your entire argumenet is that at no point has anything been presented ANYWHERE in the statistics to back up your claims. They, in fact, back up mine.

Poor blacks do not turn to crime at a higher rate than poor whites, where they still face higher incarceration rates. If you want to compare them to whites in general, than economics does start to play into this, but it also starts to beg the question.

Get back to me when you have evidence and not generalization you aren't willing to share, as well as unfounded assumptions. Either make your case, or don't, but don't not make your case then claim you're right without any evidence.

Quote
Why would I agree with that?  If they performed what was necessary to qualify for those felonies, why shouldn't they have them?  White or black?

Because you already said you don't think the War on Drugs should exist... if the war on drugs didn't exist, those people wouldn't have felonies for the same "crime." White or black (though because of targetting, more likely if you're black).

Quote
Look, we're going around and around a little bit here, so let me make it more clear:  I'm not saying race doesn't play in.  I have no doubt that there are circumstances where all things being equal, a black person is not going to get the benefit of the doubt, whether it is a job offer, the attention of a beat cop, or whatever.  But it CERTAINLY is not THE factor, or the most important factor. That is, and always will be, economics.   These things are complicated; we've been lulled into a sense of simplicity that just isn't there.

I notice you've conveniently shifted the goal posts. You originally contested the claims that blacks face an unfair system, and that race is the reason why blacks make up the majority of incarcerated individuals. Now, you're trying to say that economics is a stronger determining factor for someone being in prison. That's entirely different.

You have this habit of trying to have your cake and eat it to. You say, ya, don't use personal experience, it's bad, and emotions can blind. But then go on to say that without personal experience, it's all blind. Whomever said I don't have experiences that would matter when thinking about delving through statistics and how they can mislead?

Quote
Why would they compete with "other black graduates" and not "other graduates"?

Because of population density and de factor segregation? People generally get jobs near where they're at, especially low paying, low trained high school jobs.

Quote
Well, I did at least imply that some blacks ARE apathetic, so that IS a display of a lack of empathy.  And I stand by what I said:  "empathy" in terms of analysis and decision-making leads to bad decisions.    We can be empathetic as human beings (and I'd like to think I am, though it's not for me to judge) but the idea of "let's do something, ANYTHING, for this particular group" is both condescending and short-sighted; we should be embracing the idea of "let's do the RIGHT thing for EVERYONE". 

Saying some blacks are apathetic is not a blanket statment that all blacks are apathetic. One is almost certainly true, the other is a giant assumption.

And once again, I just have to ask, did you read what I said, or do I just write in a very unclear manner? I never said we should use empathy to come to decisions about policy. I said we should use empathy to JUDGE other people - such as calling them apathetic or lazy. Empathy won't tell us what to do, but it will make the debate about what to do more conductive to actual change and progress.

Quote
You don't give me a lot of credit, do you?  Perhaps that is fair, in that perhaps I haven't earned it, but I know the difference between "sympathy" and "empathy" and I meant what said.   I don't think the drug war is borne of "sympathy"; in fact just the opposite.  I don't think generally there is a lot of sympathy in that regard.  I think our society is an extremely selfish one, and I think we have confused what is good for us as individuals with what is good for us as the collective.   The "tragedy of the commons" run amok, if you will.  If you still think it is not a case of "empathy" I would be interested in your ideas, though.

Well, when you misuse a concept and a term, I'm not going to give you credit for knowing what that concept and term means, no. Empathy is the ability to feel as other's are feeling. Not wanting other people to become addicts isn't feeling or seeing through other peoples eyes. It's using one's OWN fears as a basis for something.

Quote
I say this respectfully, but you should stay away from using terms that have a specific meaning unless you know what that meaning is.   I'm sorry to hammer this point, but it is important.  It is NOT hearsay because it is speculative.  It is hearsay because it is essentially "testimony of a witness that can't be cross-examined".   In other words, if a witness came in and took the stand and said EXACTLY what was on the video, word for word, it would still be speculative, but it would be totally admissible, because, of course, then the other attorney could cross-examine.

Whether you feel it should or should not be allowed for impeachment is irrelevant.  The law is clear on this point:  the video WOULD be admissible to contest the testimony of the witness and would NOT be considered hearsay in that case.  Whether it is "verifiable" or not is a question of fact for the jury

Why is it that you read what I say, then repeat back to me what I say in a condescending manner as if I'm wrong? I'm honestly about to stop responding to you becuase of this. I didn't say it was hearsay because it's speculative. I said it was hearsay because it was spoken out of court. I said it shouldn't be allowed in court because it's speculative and you don't knwo what is being said. I then went on to say that if the person found in the video was to testify, and he denied saying something he could be overheard saying, it would be admissable.

Quote
I don't know why you are arguing this point with me; I have been a licensed attorney for over 15 years, passed the bar in three jurisdictions.  The video - if used to impeach a witness - is NOT hearsay.   I've already defined that for you:  "Hearsay" is an out-of-court statement used to prove the matter at hand.   That's it.   

I forgot, you can do no wrong and everything you do is always correct. It's is not possible for you to make mistakes or take on a false conception. I also forgot that lawyers NEVER disagree about anything, that's impossible!

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/hearsay

Quote
Broadly, an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of whatever it asserts.  Hearsay evidence is often inadmissible at trial.  However, many exclusions and exceptions exist.  Evidence meeting the broad definition may not actually be hearsay under the court's evidence rules.  Even hearsay may be admitted if exceptions are met.

The video, used in the context of the article and to prove the cops story, is hearsay. More importantly, it is hearsay, becuase it is information from other people that cannot be verified. That fits the definition of the word "hearsay." A court may allow it in circumstances or under certain exceptions, and you couldn't "objection, hearsay," but that doesn't change it from being hearsay.

We're probably just getting stuck up on words, here, to be honest. And at this point, you've proven yourself to just want to disagree with me for the sake of disagreeing with me. Maybe I just articulate it in a way that get's lost in translation between us, but I've basically just said exactly what you "countered" with.

Quote
Put a different way, if that person could be identified, and was called to the stand, placed under oath, and did nothing more than recite verbatim what he said in that video, it would be absolutely admissible in court and it would be a question for the jury to figure out what he meant and why.   This isn't a complicated question at all

Put a different way, you just changed the context of the argument to such a point that it no longer applies to what I said. I in fact said ALREADY that if he was found, took the stand, and testified, it wouldn't be hearsay. And that the video could be used against him if he lied. I mean shit, we were talking about using the VIDEO as evidence. You now have changed it to an eyewitness taking the stand, and you're slipping that in hoping I don't notice.

I'm also sure that if he were to take hte stand, he would be asked to act out what he did with the "he like - be like," which of course can't be refuted by the video because it is not in the video. And those gestures are paramount in knowing what was said, or done.

The video used to prove the cops story as true is hearsay, which is what I've been saying. You've concocted a situation where it could be used, and are trying touse this other situation to say that it's not hearsay in the context of what I said. The police know this, it's why they're trying to track down who said the message, so they can actually get evidence that would be usable in court to back up the cops story.

Quote
STOP!   You are getting the pieces right (it is hearsay, we do want testimony in person) but you are putting it together wrongly.  It's not based on the INFORMATION ITSELF.  It's not hearsay because "the purported evidence isn't evidence".  The rule of hearsay is silent as to the truthfulness of the statement.  If the video had the guy saying "I live on planet Earth" or "I am speaking out loud right now" - two things that are unequivocally true - it would still be inadmissible (unless it qualified for an exception) and if the guy came into court and testified that "My penis is made of fiberglass and American cheese" it would be admissible, even though it is highly likely that it isn't truthful.   The evidence is not in or out based on it's truthfulness.

Evidence supports a claim. This video doesn't support either claim. It is not evidence that the Cop told the truth. It is not evidence that Johnson lied. It is not evidence that Brown had it hands in the air. It is not evidence of anything becuase you don't know what was being said! Fortunately, I doubt any lawyer would try to use this video as evidence to support either side story (emphasis on THIS VIDEO and not a testimony given by the same person in the video). I've noticed that the only context in which you say it's not hearsay is in the caes if the person took the stand, in which it could be used to impeach him, and only him. It could not be used as proof that Brown charged the Officer. It oculd not  be used as proof that Johnson is a liar. In those cases, it is hearsay - and I have yet to hear you say otherwise!

(hehe, hear you say when talking about hearsay)

Quote
I'm sorry, I mean this respectfully, but I don't see "neutral position".   Positing arguments - for either side - is not "neutral".   Positing what is "more likely" or "less likely" is not a "neutral position".   What happened, happened, and is independent of what is "more likely" or "less likely". 

Refuting a claim does not make me support the opposite claim. It doesn't even mean I disagree with the general assessment. If I say, "Your reasons are faulty," all it means is that your reasons are faulty! It doesn't mean your conclusion is wrong. It doesn't mean that I support the opposite of your conclusion. To even suggest this is totally irrational. If someone were to say that evolution occurs becuase of tiny gnomes, if I tell them they're wrong, I"m not saying evolution does not occur. And that's essentially what you're doing when you say I don't take a neutral stance because I refute other peoples claims. There is also a difference between purely positing an argument, and refuting other peoples arguments.

When I say it's "less likely" that he would have had his head lowered 35 feet away, that still doesn't say that I think it's less likely that the cop is telling the truth. Once again, an assumption on your part. I highlighed that previous sentence for a reason. He could have been shot at that angle while falling forward from other gunshot wounds, while running at the cop originally with his head up.

You also seem to be conflating several things. I have no position on the actual merits of the shooting. I do have a position on the response given by the police and protestors. Those two things are almost entirely seperate things. Even saying that this one shooting caused the protests and riots is erroneous (it took a long history AND this shooting to cause the protests and riots).
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: bosk1 on August 19, 2014, 10:28:39 AM
And the personal attacks continue, I see.  Scheavo, you have been warned already.  And in reading the last several pages of posts, I see a continuing pattern of Stadler posting in a very rational, cool manner, and you responding with streams of personal attacks.  Just a few examples from your most recent post:

Quote
This just read to me: I don't have any proof, so I'm gonna have to just make up things.

Quote
Get back to me when you have evidence and not generalization you aren't willing to share, as well as unfounded assumptions.

Quote
I notice you've conveniently shifted the goal posts. . . .  You have this habit of trying to have your cake and eat it to.

Quote
I forgot, you can do no wrong and everything you do is always correct. It's is not possible for you to make mistakes or take on a false conception.

As I have said many times in this forum (and have said directly to you on occasion), attack the argument, not the person.  I certainly do not agree with everything Stadler posts, and I do not expect others to either.  But, again, handling disagreement needs to be done in a mature, civil way.  You seemingly cannot seem to resist attacking the person, and as expressed in your prior PM to me, you seemingly do not seem to care.  For that, you are getting a week off and final warning.  Even though I most often disagree with you or fail to see your logic, you also often raise good points for debate, so I am hopeful that there will be a change in attitude.  But if not, I am not going to let threads continue to go down this road whenever you happen to disagree with someone.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Stadler on August 19, 2014, 10:41:38 AM
Again, you make a very good point which confounded me quite a bit last week. However, as it did then, it falls short now in my book. We're not talking about a cop accused of a criminal act (although he might soon be). We're evaluating the actions of a cop in the performance of his job. If they decide he acted criminally refer him to a grand jury, then I'll be happy to extend the benefit of the doubt to him, but as it stands now he has no IUPG guilty protection.

Hmm.  I have to think about this a little bit.  I don't know if the IUPG is necessarily the right terminology with respect to the performance of a person in their job (regardless of the standard).  Again these are two different discussions:   one (the standard) is the point at which behavior turns from acceptable to unacceptable, and the other (IUPG or whatever we call it) is where on the continuum we start when evaluating that performance. 

Quote
And an honest question for you: Do you think that the cops investigating him should be starting from the standpoint that he acted lawfully and within the rules of his training and profession?

Hmm, also something I'd like to think more about, but initial thoughts are there should be NO presumption.  Just look at the behavior and it should speak for itself.  If that doesn't work I would tend to start with the protocols assuming that we are compliant with them, and one-by-one, see if there is evidence to the contrary. 
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: El Barto on August 19, 2014, 11:10:34 AM
Again, you make a very good point which confounded me quite a bit last week. However, as it did then, it falls short now in my book. We're not talking about a cop accused of a criminal act (although he might soon be). We're evaluating the actions of a cop in the performance of his job. If they decide he acted criminally refer him to a grand jury, then I'll be happy to extend the benefit of the doubt to him, but as it stands now he has no IUPG guilty protection.

Hmm.  I have to think about this a little bit.  I don't know if the IUPG is necessarily the right terminology with respect to the performance of a person in their job (regardless of the standard).  Again these are two different discussions:   one (the standard) is the point at which behavior turns from acceptable to unacceptable, and the other (IUPG or whatever we call it) is where on the continuum we start when evaluating that performance. 
The distinction is well put. I can get on board with that. However, I think there's a very compelling argument for the starting point to be in different spots on the continuum for the citizen and the cop. The law of the land (at least ostensibly at this point) affords us a great deal of liberty. The cop's job gives him the obligation to seize that liberty in certain cases. I would say that in those cases the burden of proof should fall to the cop to affirmatively justify that seizure. I don't think that's the way things work on a practical level right now.

Hmm, also something I'd like to think more about, but initial thoughts are there should be NO presumption.  Just look at the behavior and it should speak for itself.  If that doesn't work I would tend to start with the protocols assuming that we are compliant with them, and one-by-one, see if there is evidence to the contrary. 
Starting from a neutral position is certainly the logical approach. However, like I said above, I see a compelling reason to start on the assumption that he's guilty, just for the purpose of safety of the people and oversight. I get that's dicey, and perhaps I'm wrong, but we're treading on fairly serious ground here and it's an instance where you definitely need to err on the side of the citizen. Your "if that doesn't work" statement actually implies the opposite, which is that Johnny is indeed innocent until proven guilty. That benefit of the doubt obviously concerns me.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: kirksnosehair on August 19, 2014, 11:24:30 AM
Uh, what is it you want to see rationalized? Black folk get stopped disproportionately to whitey. We all know it happens. Are you wanting somebody to defend that?

More to the point, why does it make any difference with regards to the shooting?


edit: somebody needs to teach black people in that town to stop consenting to searches of their vehicle.


Maybe if they weren't twice as likely to be pulled over versus white people this wouldn't be such a big problem. 
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: El Barto on August 19, 2014, 11:43:03 AM
Police train the dogs to give a false positive on command. There will never be an instance of a cop bringing in a dog that doesn't end with the vehicle being torn apart.
That's kind of a dicey point. The problem is that if you train a dog to trigger on command, then he becomes completely useless as an actual drug dog. Dogs are [comparatively] dumb animals. Training them to trigger on a scent or to trigger on a command is perfectly simple. Training them to do both won't happen. What's far more likely is that if after a couple of walkarounds he doesn't catch anything he'll alert anyway, since he knows that's when he'll get praise. Somehow I doubt there are many attaboys for a dog who rightly doesn't alert to a innocent car. As it stands now, you could probably get your dog to give a proper assessment by giving him 10 seconds or so and then putting him back, or if you wanted to drum up a bogus PC (but cops would never do that!) then you just wait until he gets bored and alerts anyway.

There's a simple solution to his, which is to have the dog testify as to his ability to not alert on a clean car. Alas, spooky men in black robes have since decided (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_v._Harris) that Johnny's assertion that the dog is cool is unchallengeable.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Chino on August 19, 2014, 11:43:34 AM
Uh, what is it you want to see rationalized? Black folk get stopped disproportionately to whitey. We all know it happens. Are you wanting somebody to defend that?

More to the point, why does it make any difference with regards to the shooting?


edit: somebody needs to teach black people in that town to stop consenting to searches of their vehicle.


Maybe if they weren't twice as likely to be pulled over versus white people this wouldn't be such a big problem.

I didn't look at the stats, but isn't Ferguson  66% black?
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: kirksnosehair on August 19, 2014, 11:45:21 AM
Stadler:

I fundamentally disagree with


*post*



He let his frustration get the best of him and apparently let a little too much sarcasm enter into his articulation of his points, but that does not -in any way- negate the validity of the points he was making, which from my perspective hit the bulls-eye. 


Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Stadler on August 19, 2014, 11:48:23 AM
Stadler:

I fundamentally disagree with your conception of choice, on a philosophical level. We're not going to solve that here. Doubt we'll ever solve it. It's why you're a libertarian, and why I'm a "liberal" (though I'd be willing to bet that on some political tests, I'd be more libertarian than you).

For what it's worth, I don't conform to the general labels bandied about today, though "libertarian" is about as close as one word gets to me.   As a general proposition, I believe self responsibility.  We can talk about "systemic" this and "systemic" that, but I've long said, there are two types of people:   Those that, if the national language changed to Spanish tomorrow, would be hablo-ing Espanol like a mofo by the weekend, and those that would whine about the disadvantage.  That runs across color, across gender, across most demographics.  I have no proof, but I would venture it would not run across economic classifications. 

Quote
This just read to me: I don't have any proof, so I'm gonna have to just make up things. I have no idea how you say that prosecutors or police don't target blacks, especially considering the evidence to suggest otherwise. The whole problem with your entire argumenet is that at no point has anything been presented ANYWHERE in the statistics to back up your claims. They, in fact, back up mine.

Poor blacks do not turn to crime at a higher rate than poor whites, where they still face higher incarceration rates. If you want to compare them to whites in general, than economics does start to play into this, but it also starts to beg the question.

Get back to me when you have evidence and not generalization you aren't willing to share, as well as unfounded assumptions. Either make your case, or don't, but don't not make your case then claim you're right without any evidence.

I'm not making up things.   I don't believe your evidence says what you says it does.  They are numbers.   I've never argued once that there isn't a CORRELATION.  "Suggests" doesn't mean "causes".  I don't believe the data is as "simple" as it is being made out to be. 

I'll send you a PM, but I'd like to leave it at that.   Criticize me all you want I can take it, I'm a Yorkshireman.  ;) 



Quote
Because you already said you don't think the War on Drugs should exist... if the war on drugs didn't exist, those people wouldn't have felonies for the same "crime." White or black (though because of targetting, more likely if you're black).

Ah.  But it does, so we live under those guidelines.   

Quote
I notice you've conveniently shifted the goal posts. You originally contested the claims that blacks face an unfair system, and that race is the reason why blacks make up the majority of incarcerated individuals. Now, you're trying to say that economics is a stronger determining factor for someone being in prison. That's entirely different.

You have this habit of trying to have your cake and eat it to. You say, ya, don't use personal experience, it's bad, and emotions can blind. But then go on to say that without personal experience, it's all blind. Whomever said I don't have experiences that would matter when thinking about delving through statistics and how they can mislead?

Please don't.  If "making concessions to find common ground" means "shifting the goal posts" then I'm done.  We're conversing, this isn't debate class where there are points awarded.    You want me to say "you win!" sure, you win.    I DO contest the notion that blacks face an unfair system as a general proposition, and I do think economics is a stronger determinant.   Nothing new there.   I brought in personal experience only because we beat the other topics to death.   If you like I'll pull those right off the table, and end with this:

I do not believe race accounts for all the differences you cite.
I believe economics accounts for at least as much if not more of the differences you cite.
I believe the statistics you cite are accurate, but do not prove the causation you are seeking to prove.  They show correlation only (which I don't argue). 

Quote
Why wWell, when you misuse a concept and a term, I'm not going to give you credit for knowing what that concept and term means, no. Empathy is the ability to feel as other's are feeling. Not wanting other people to become addicts isn't feeling or seeing through other peoples eyes. It's using one's OWN fears as a basis for something.

I didn't misuse it; I didn't say that we keep the war on drugs because don't want others to become addicts (frankly, I think most people could give a shit).   I absolutely meant empathy, in the sense that I think many people like the security that laws bring, and while they may not consciously make the connection, they understand (or at least perceive) that to remove those laws is in a real way to remove the safety net.  "Life's fantasy... to be locked away and still to think you're free, you're free, you're free!" (RJ Dio, "Die Young"). 


Quote
Why is it that you read what I say, then repeat back to me what I say in a condescending manner as if I'm wrong? I'm honestly about to stop responding to you becuase of this. I didn't say it was hearsay because it's speculative. I said it was hearsay because it was spoken out of court.

You said:
"It shouldn't be allowed in court to demonstrate the cops side of the story as true because it's speculation that the the conversation was backing up the Cops story."  That is not why it is not allowed in court.
You also said:
"For the same reasons, it shouldn't be allowed to contest a testimony because the video is hearsay that can't be verified."   That is also wrong; it IS allowed to contest testimony, and in that case it is NOT hearsay (even though it is said outside of court) because it is NOT going to the truth of what was said, only that something contrary was said. 
You also said (right here):
"I said it shouldn't be allowed in court because it's speculative and you don't knwo what is being said."  And that is wrong as well; whether it is "speculative" or not is a matter for the jury.  That would not (necessarily) be reason for it being allowed or not in court.


Quote
I forgot, you can do no wrong and everything you do is always correct. It's is not possible for you to make mistakes or take on a false conception. I also forgot that lawyers NEVER disagree about anything, that's impossible!

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/hearsay

Quote
Broadly, an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of whatever it asserts.  Hearsay evidence is often inadmissible at trial.  However, many exclusions and exceptions exist.  Evidence meeting the broad definition may not actually be hearsay under the court's evidence rules.  Even hearsay may be admitted if exceptions are met.

The video, used in the context of the article and to prove the cops story, is hearsay. More importantly, it is hearsay, becuase it is information from other people that cannot be verified. That fits the definition of the word "hearsay." A court may allow it in circumstances or under certain exceptions, and you couldn't "objection, hearsay," but that doesn't change it from being hearsay.

Haha, I make many mistakes and am more than willing to admit them.  This, however, is not one of those times.  And while what you write immediately above IS true and accurate, I have also pointed out where you made inaccurate statements.  Own them. 

Quote
We're probably just getting stuck up on words, here, to be honest. And at this point, you've proven yourself to just want to disagree with me for the sake of disagreeing with me. Maybe I just articulate it in a way that get's lost in translation between us, but I've basically just said exactly what you "countered" with.

Except when I tried to agree with you I was what?  "Wanting to have my cake and eat it too"?   

By the way, how old are you?

Quote
Put a different way, you just changed the context of the argument to such a point that it no longer applies to what I said. I in fact said ALREADY that if he was found, took the stand, and testified, it wouldn't be hearsay. And that the video could be used against him if he lied. I mean shit, we were talking about using the VIDEO as evidence. You now have changed it to an eyewitness taking the stand, and you're slipping that in hoping I don't notice.

I'm also sure that if he were to take hte stand, he would be asked to act out what he did with the "he like - be like," which of course can't be refuted by the video because it is not in the video. And those gestures are paramount in knowing what was said, or done.

The video used to prove the cops story as true is hearsay, which is what I've been saying. You've concocted a situation where it could be used, and are trying touse this other situation to say that it's not hearsay in the context of what I said. The police know this, it's why they're trying to track down who said the message, so they can actually get evidence that would be usable in court to back up the cops story.

If I missed you saying that, then I apologize.  I was referring to the several times you said (and I provided those quotes above for you) that "it wasn't admissible because it was speculative".  I didn't concoct anything; I was highlighting differences.   I don't "slip anything in thinking you won't notice".  I trust that you are reading this and I assume you understand it. 


Quote
Evidence supports a claim. This video doesn't support either claim. It is not evidence that the Cop told the truth. It is not evidence that Johnson lied. It is not evidence that Brown had it hands in the air. It is not evidence of anything becuase you don't know what was being said! Fortunately, I doubt any lawyer would try to use this video as evidence to support either side story (emphasis on THIS VIDEO and not a testimony given by the same person in the video). I've noticed that the only context in which you say it's not hearsay is in the caes if the person took the stand, in which it could be used to impeach him, and only him. It could not be used as proof that Brown charged the Officer. It oculd not  be used as proof that Johnson is a liar. In those cases, it is hearsay - and I have yet to hear you say otherwise!

(hehe, hear you say when talking about hearsay)

And now you are back to being half right again; it is NOT evidence that the cop told the truth; it is NOT evidence that Johnson lied (as long as that ISN'T Johnson in the video).   On that you are correct.   It IS (or it can be, more correctly) evidence that the speaker in the video lied IF there is a conflicting statement on the record.  We may have been talking past each other with the notion of impeaching a witness; I did not mean impeaching a witness that was NOT the speaker of the video.   Which is why I used the example of the speaker testifying in court.   Having said that, if the video can pass muster on one of the exceptions, it would still be hearsay BUT it can be admitted to prove the truth of the matter asserted.  If, for example, the speaker can't be found, or if, for example, it can be shown that the speaker was engaged in a statement against interest. 

But again, in NONE of those cases is the "speculative" nature of the statement the reason why it isn't evidence.   


Quote
Refuting a claim does not make me support the opposite claim. It doesn't even mean I disagree with the general assessment. If I say, "Your reasons are faulty," all it means is that your reasons are faulty! It doesn't mean your conclusion is wrong. It doesn't mean that I support the opposite of your conclusion. To even suggest this is totally irrational. If someone were to say that evolution occurs becuase of tiny gnomes, if I tell them they're wrong, I"m not saying evolution does not occur. And that's essentially what you're doing when you say I don't take a neutral stance because I refute other peoples claims. There is also a difference between purely positing an argument, and refuting other peoples arguments.

No, that is all true in terms of refuting claims; but there can be bias in the assumptions that are implicit in the refutation.

I don't know; I may be wrong, and if so you have my apologies, but I don't believe for a second that you think this is a clean shooting.

Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: kirksnosehair on August 19, 2014, 11:48:50 AM
Uh, what is it you want to see rationalized? Black folk get stopped disproportionately to whitey. We all know it happens. Are you wanting somebody to defend that?

More to the point, why does it make any difference with regards to the shooting?


edit: somebody needs to teach black people in that town to stop consenting to searches of their vehicle.


Maybe if they weren't twice as likely to be pulled over versus white people this wouldn't be such a big problem.

I didn't look at the stats, but isn't Ferguson  66% black?


63% black


33.65% white


Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: El Barto on August 19, 2014, 11:52:19 AM
Uh, what is it you want to see rationalized? Black folk get stopped disproportionately to whitey. We all know it happens. Are you wanting somebody to defend that?

More to the point, why does it make any difference with regards to the shooting?


edit: somebody needs to teach black people in that town to stop consenting to searches of their vehicle.


Maybe if they weren't twice as likely to be pulled over versus white people this wouldn't be such a big problem.

I didn't look at the stats, but isn't Ferguson  66% black?
Yes, but that would result in twice as many stops, when the number is actually 4.2x higher. Black people are always more likely to be pulled over. The why part is the interesting bit, since they're more likely to be convicted of doing something naughty it makes sense, but then that might or might not be a legitimate concern based on the realities of society, which Stadler and Sceavo had been discussing.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Stadler on August 19, 2014, 11:54:48 AM
The distinction is well put. I can get on board with that. However, I think there's a very compelling argument for the starting point to be in different spots on the continuum for the citizen and the cop. The law of the land (at least ostensibly at this point) affords us a great deal of liberty. The cop's job gives him the obligation to seize that liberty in certain cases. I would say that in those cases the burden of proof should fall to the cop to affirmatively justify that seizure. I don't think that's the way things work on a practical level right now.

Not to make this all "Kumbaya", but in turn I agree with you: if there is ANY infringement of a citizens liberty, the onus SHOULD be on that cop to justify why.  I don't even see that as negotiable.  I have no issue with that.   I was thinking more along the lines of "did I follow protocol" like "tuning up my radar gun" or something like that. 



Quote
Starting from a neutral position is certainly the logical approach. However, like I said above, I see a compelling reason to start on the assumption that he's guilty, just for the purpose of safety of the people and oversight. I get that's dicey, and perhaps I'm wrong, but we're treading on fairly serious ground here and it's an instance where you definitely need to err on the side of the citizen. Your "if that doesn't work" statement actually implies the opposite, which is that Johnny is indeed innocent until proven guilty. That benefit of the doubt obviously concerns me.

Well, even if we can't agree on where the line is, I think we at least agree that different aspects of the officer's conduct may be judged differently.   I'm with you 100% on the usurping of people's fundamental rights.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: El Barto on August 19, 2014, 11:59:14 AM
Not to make this all "Kumbaya", but in turn I agree with you: if there is ANY infringement of a citizens liberty, the onus SHOULD be on that cop to justify why.  I don't even see that as negotiable.  I have no issue with that.   I was thinking more along the lines of "did I follow protocol" like "tuning up my radar gun" or something like that. 
Because we all know cops always do that after every single stop, right?  :rollin
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Stadler on August 19, 2014, 12:08:04 PM
I didn't look at the stats, but isn't Ferguson  66% black?
Yes, but that would result in twice as many stops, when the number is actually 4.2x higher. Black people are always more likely to be pulled over. The why part is the interesting bit, since they're more likely to be convicted of doing something naughty it makes sense, but then that might or might not be a legitimate concern based on the realities of society, which Stadler and Sceavo had been discussing.

Interestingly enough, the only number that approaches the expected split is white arrests from DWI.   Fully a third of the DWI arrests are white folk.   Also interesting is that almost 97% of the arrests on outstanding warrants are black.   I'd love to see if there is a stat that shows the number of folks with outstanding warrants that WEREN'T arrested (if any).   

Before anyone gets their panties in a wad about "rationalizing the data", I don't offer this to refute the implied statement that something is rotten in the state of Denmark, but rather because I find the information interesting.   In any event, this is a multifaceted discussion that is long over due.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Stadler on August 19, 2014, 12:09:48 PM
Not to make this all "Kumbaya", but in turn I agree with you: if there is ANY infringement of a citizens liberty, the onus SHOULD be on that cop to justify why.  I don't even see that as negotiable.  I have no issue with that.   I was thinking more along the lines of "did I follow protocol" like "tuning up my radar gun" or something like that. 
Because we all know cops always do that after every single stop, right?  :rollin

There's a joke in there somewhere...  ;)

I confess to actually beating a ticket that way once.  Once. 
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: El Barto on August 19, 2014, 12:13:22 PM
I didn't look at the stats, but isn't Ferguson  66% black?
Yes, but that would result in twice as many stops, when the number is actually 4.2x higher. Black people are always more likely to be pulled over. The why part is the interesting bit, since they're more likely to be convicted of doing something naughty it makes sense, but then that might or might not be a legitimate concern based on the realities of society, which Stadler and Sceavo had been discussing.

Interestingly enough, the only number that approaches the expected split is white arrests from DWI.   Fully a third of the DWI arrests are white folk.   Also interesting is that almost 97% of the arrests on outstanding warrants are black.   I'd love to see if there is a stat that shows the number of folks with outstanding warrants that WEREN'T arrested (if any).   

Before anyone gets their panties in a wad about "rationalizing the data", I don't offer this to refute the implied statement that something is rotten in the state of Denmark, but rather because I find the information interesting.   In any event, this is a multifaceted discussion that is long over due.
Depends on the warrant. Nowadays it's actually rare to go to jail for warrants, since 9 times out of 10 they're for failure to appear. Felony warrants will certainly get you rung up, and that might be part of the discrepancy between black and white in the numbers.

I suppose it's possible that Johnny busts more black people for failure to appear warrants than white people, since that's fairly discretionary. At the same time it's also a business decision, and I suspect that after a while you'd get yelled at for wasting taxpayer money.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: bosk1 on August 19, 2014, 12:45:39 PM
Alas, spooky men in black robes have since decided (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_v._Harris) that Johnny's assertion that the dog is cool is unchallengeable.

Nazgul?  ???
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: kirksnosehair on August 19, 2014, 01:47:18 PM
I didn't look at the stats, but isn't Ferguson  66% black?
Yes, but that would result in twice as many stops, when the number is actually 4.2x higher. Black people are always more likely to be pulled over. The why part is the interesting bit, since they're more likely to be convicted of doing something naughty it makes sense, but then that might or might not be a legitimate concern based on the realities of society, which Stadler and Sceavo had been discussing.

Interestingly enough, the only number that approaches the expected split is white arrests from DWI.   Fully a third of the DWI arrests are white folk.   Also interesting is that almost 97% of the arrests on outstanding warrants are black.   I'd love to see if there is a stat that shows the number of folks with outstanding warrants that WEREN'T arrested (if any).   

Before anyone gets their panties in a wad about "rationalizing the data", I don't offer this to refute the implied statement that something is rotten in the state of Denmark, but rather because I find the information interesting.   In any event, this is a multifaceted discussion that is long over due.


I'd really like to know what those outstanding warrants are.  I'm guessing drug-related in some way for most of them. 
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Stadler on August 19, 2014, 02:02:58 PM
Well, I brought up the warrants for a different reason:   search incident to an arrest is often a nice, easy way of getting in the door - pun very much intended - of the person as well as the vehicle.   You'll note that there are separate line items for searchs of "Driver", "Car/property" and "Driver + property". 
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: kirksnosehair on August 19, 2014, 02:21:36 PM
I don't know what your point is?
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: El Barto on August 19, 2014, 03:04:31 PM
Well, I brought up the warrants for a different reason:   search incident to an arrest is often a nice, easy way of getting in the door - pun very much intended - of the person as well as the vehicle.   You'll note that there are separate line items for searchs of "Driver", "Car/property" and "Driver + property".
There's also a separate line item for inventory and incident to arrest. I'm guessing those are people who got their car hooked up but couldn't be charged with anything. During the subsequent "inventory" (another easy foot in the door) they might find something to bust the driver for.

Those warrants are huge. Black people are pulled over twice as often, searched twice as often and arrested twice as often, despite the fact that white people are found DUI or in possession of contraband at a much greater rate. There really are some issues there.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: gmillerdrake on August 20, 2014, 10:20:45 AM
Officer Wilson suffered orbital fracture from altercation with Brown......multiple witnesses confirm his account of the story as well....


http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/08/breaking-report-po-darren-wilson-suffered-orbital-blowout-fracture-to-eye-socket-during-encounter-with-mike-brown/



There is going to be a $hit storm when this officer is Rightfully cleared of this shooting thanks to the way this whole deal has been reported.







Oh and on a side note.......Missouri Governor Jay Nixon is a piece of smelly poo. His actions and comments throughout this have been nothing but gasoline being dumped on an already stoked fire. His statment last night is inexcusable and it's pretty clear he's not interested in 'the truth' as he says he is....but he's just politicing as usual.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: KevShmev on August 20, 2014, 10:25:16 AM
Regarding Wilson's facial injuries, they were mentioned last week, but where are the pictures?  They are doing him a disservice by not releasing photos of his face supposedly all messed up.  Saying, "he had his face messed up," is not the same as seeing a picture of his face messed up.

I agree that Nixon's comments were dangerous, but he is pandering to his core democratic base, much of which was critical of him for his initial handling of this whole situation.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: hefdaddy42 on August 20, 2014, 10:53:00 AM
My fear is that, even if it comes out that the officer was well within procedures for doing what he did, there will still be a huge problem with the public, rioting, and looting.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: El Barto on August 20, 2014, 11:07:10 AM
My fear is that, even especially if it comes out that the officer was well within procedures for doing what he did, there will still be a huge problem with the public, rioting, and looting.
My problem is that for a day or two there was valid discussion about the militarization of police, and the stifling of a variety of constitutional rights. If it comes back that Johnny was justified in the shooting, then cops will go back to being the good guys.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: hefdaddy42 on August 20, 2014, 12:21:16 PM
Well, darn.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Stadler on August 20, 2014, 12:39:11 PM
My fear is that, even especially if it comes out that the officer was well within procedures for doing what he did, there will still be a huge problem with the public, rioting, and looting.
My problem is that for a day or two there was valid discussion about the militarization of police, and the stifling of a variety of constitutional rights. If it comes back that Johnny was justified in the shooting, then cops will go back to being the good guys.

You almost sound... disappointed.   
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Chino on August 20, 2014, 12:43:52 PM
My fear is that, even especially if it comes out that the officer was well within procedures for doing what he did, there will still be a huge problem with the public, rioting, and looting.
My problem is that for a day or two there was valid discussion about the militarization of police, and the stifling of a variety of constitutional rights. If it comes back that Johnny was justified in the shooting, then cops will go back to being the good guys.

You almost sound... disappointed.

I will be a little bit.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: El Barto on August 20, 2014, 12:46:29 PM
My fear is that, even especially if it comes out that the officer was well within procedures for doing what he did, there will still be a huge problem with the public, rioting, and looting.
My problem is that for a day or two there was valid discussion about the militarization of police, and the stifling of a variety of constitutional rights. If it comes back that Johnny was justified in the shooting, then cops will go back to being the good guys.

You almost sound... disappointed.
I would love for cops to actually be the good guys. My problem is that often times they're not, and people still treat them as such even when they're doing bad guy stuff. At least for a few days people recognized that cops lobbing tear gas at peaceful protesters on their own private property, and cops mugging cameramen aren't acting like good guys. In another week or so most will have forgotten about it and the only ones who'll bring it up are the Alex Jones minions.

Honestly, even you have to be concerned about the militarization of police in this country, right?
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Dark Castle on August 20, 2014, 12:49:06 PM
I don't see any news site I'd call reputable reporting on this officer's "injury", only see the above link and a few other really sketchy sites, which I've never seen before, that has a pretty clear bias for the police department in Ferguson(and against liberals in general from what I've noticed) if you read into the website further and is full of click bait.
Seems kind of fishy that they're claiming injuries but won't show any photos of them, and even if it turns out to be true, I'll wait until a more reputable, less biased source reports on this, until then eh.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: El Barto on August 20, 2014, 12:52:53 PM
I don't see any news site I'd call reputable reporting on this officer's "injury", only see the above link and a few other really sketchy sites, which I've never seen before, that has a pretty clear bias for the police department in Ferguson(and liberals in general from what I've noticed) if you read into the website further and is full of click bait.
Seems kind of fishy that they're claiming injuries but won't show any photos of them, and even if it turns out to be true, I'll wait until a more reputable, less biased source reports on this, until then eh.
Agreed, particularly when they're talking about all of the witnesses that support Johnny's version. Their might well be plenty, but without hearing from them (and I seriously doubt they're in any hurry to go public at this point) then tweets by departments officials don't really mean much to me.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: KevShmev on August 20, 2014, 12:56:09 PM
At this point, I'll believe the statement of any witness if/when this goes to trial and they get on the stand and testify to it.  Not like I don't think there aren't a lot of people who wouldn't perjure themselves, but right now, it's like a pissing game of he said, she said.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: bosk1 on August 20, 2014, 02:00:13 PM
I don't see any news site I'd call reputable reporting on this officer's "injury", only see the above link and a few other really sketchy sites, which I've never seen before, that has a pretty clear bias . . . against liberals in general from what I've noticed

And despite that, you think they are bad?  ???
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Dark Castle on August 20, 2014, 02:07:50 PM
Not sure what you're getting at other than knocking liberals?
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: gmillerdrake on August 20, 2014, 02:33:05 PM
I don't see any news site I'd call reputable reporting on this officer's "injury", only see the above link and a few other really sketchy sites, which I've never seen before, that has a pretty clear bias for the police department in Ferguson(and against liberals in general from what I've noticed) if you read into the website further and is full of click bait.
Seems kind of fishy that they're claiming injuries but won't show any photos of them, and even if it turns out to be true, I'll wait until a more reputable, less biased source reports on this, until then eh.

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess you don't think FOX news is reputable....but nonetheless....it seems that it will indeed come out in the end that Brown beat the officer. I think the only reason you're not going to find the majority of the news outlets reporting this is because it doesn't jive with what they've been trying desperately to sell since the shooting happened.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/08/20/missouri-cop-was-badly-beaten-before-shooting-michael-brown-says-source/
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: El Barto on August 20, 2014, 02:42:24 PM
I don't see any news site I'd call reputable reporting on this officer's "injury", only see the above link and a few other really sketchy sites, which I've never seen before, that has a pretty clear bias for the police department in Ferguson(and against liberals in general from what I've noticed) if you read into the website further and is full of click bait.
Seems kind of fishy that they're claiming injuries but won't show any photos of them, and even if it turns out to be true, I'll wait until a more reputable, less biased source reports on this, until then eh.

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess you don't think FOX news is reputable....but nonetheless....it seems that it will indeed come out in the end that Brown beat the officer. I think the only reason you're not going to find the majority of the news outlets reporting this is because it doesn't jive with what they've been trying desperately to sell since the shooting happened.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/08/20/missouri-cop-was-badly-beaten-before-shooting-michael-brown-says-source/
I'd report your post to Boks for using Jive improperly, but then I object to the report button on general principle, so I'll let him deal with it on his own.

And to be honest, I haven't seen any of the major media outlets being particularly biased on either side. Don't recall if I've read any FOX stories on this or not, but for the most part it's either been even handed or opinion pieces from sites like the one above.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Dark Castle on August 20, 2014, 02:53:06 PM
I don't see any news site I'd call reputable reporting on this officer's "injury", only see the above link and a few other really sketchy sites, which I've never seen before, that has a pretty clear bias for the police department in Ferguson(and against liberals in general from what I've noticed) if you read into the website further and is full of click bait.
Seems kind of fishy that they're claiming injuries but won't show any photos of them, and even if it turns out to be true, I'll wait until a more reputable, less biased source reports on this, until then eh.

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess you don't think FOX news is reputable....but nonetheless....it seems that it will indeed come out in the end that Brown beat the officer. I think the only reason you're not going to find the majority of the news outlets reporting this is because it doesn't jive with what they've been trying desperately to sell since the shooting happened.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/08/20/missouri-cop-was-badly-beaten-before-shooting-michael-brown-says-source/
Quite honestly I don't. My parents watch Fox News and growing up having to watch it, it's one of the most biased major news networks I've ever seen. I've seen some pretty shitty stuff pretty often on Fox News.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: gmillerdrake on August 20, 2014, 02:55:07 PM
Quite honestly I don't. ........ Fox News ...... it's one of the most biased major news networks I've ever seen. I've seen some pretty shitty stuff pretty often on Fox News.

Funny....you replace Fox News with NBC(msnbc) and that would be me talking...... :lol
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Dark Castle on August 20, 2014, 02:56:30 PM
I think Msnbc is extremely biased as well and try avoid both.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Implode on August 20, 2014, 07:15:48 PM
I find it fascinating that this long after the incident, the public is still divided in believe one of two completely different stories on what happened. Can anyone provide information on the known facts? Everything I can find is speculation and interpretation of those facts.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Chino on August 20, 2014, 07:26:07 PM
1:30

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-P54MZVxMU&bpctr=1408586117

Nine. Fucking. Shots.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: El Barto on August 20, 2014, 07:34:41 PM
1:30

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-P54MZVxMU&bpctr=1408586117

Nine. Fucking. Shots.
Don't know if the shooting was justified or not, but the last couple of shots were excessive. I get that cops are bad shots and tend to unload when they have to fire, but once the guy's shot and on the ground you're done.


edit: Oh, and hats off to the guy with the phone for getting out of their before it was seized. Probably wouldn't have gotten out otherwise, and hopefully he had the wherewithal to wait a couple of days before uploading to wherever he did so the official account is already on record.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: gmillerdrake on August 20, 2014, 09:00:40 PM
1:30

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-P54MZVxMU&bpctr=1408586117

Nine. Fucking. Shots.
Don't know if the shooting was justified or not, but the last couple of shots were excessive. I get that cops are bad shots and tend to unload when they have to fire, but once the guy's shot and on the ground you're done.


edit: Oh, and hats off to the guy with the phone for getting out of their before it was seized. Probably wouldn't have gotten out otherwise, and hopefully he had the wherewithal to wait a couple of days before uploading to wherever he did so the official account is already on record.

We watched the same video right? What part of that isn't justified? From the linked article:

Dotson said Tasers would not have been an option because they are not always accurate, and Powell was wearing a jacket that could have deflected the probes. He said that by policy, St. Louis police may use deadly force if an attacker with a knife is within 21 feet.

The 21 foot I'm guessing is St. Louis Police determination when a suspect or person is within range of being able to attack you within seconds. 15 foot is the range taught in conceal carry classes in Missouri and the range at which you have to qualify with both single and double action hand guns at accurately hitting a target center mass.

The dude had a knife....never once stopped moving towards the officers after they arrived and repeatedly told him to 'stop' with their guns drawn....and he kept moving forward. What were they supposed to do? You can't 'shoot to maim'....you have to shoot to stop the threat in that situation. The amount of shots fired on the surface seems high but there are two officers there shooting....it's not exactly like one knew if the other was going to shoot or not. They both were threatened and fired on the threat. Bottom line....listen to the police when you're coming at them with a weapon....stop and put your hands up or you're going to get shot.


http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/st-louis-police-release-video-audio-of-deadly-police-shooting/article_9326e02a-2a60-5baa-b63a-9c77b8b81bab.html
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: The King in Crimson on August 20, 2014, 10:36:27 PM
I don't see any news site I'd call reputable reporting on this officer's "injury", only see the above link and a few other really sketchy sites, which I've never seen before, that has a pretty clear bias for the police department in Ferguson(and against liberals in general from what I've noticed) if you read into the website further and is full of click bait.
Seems kind of fishy that they're claiming injuries but won't show any photos of them, and even if it turns out to be true, I'll wait until a more reputable, less biased source reports on this, until then eh.

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess you don't think FOX news is reputable....but nonetheless....it seems that it will indeed come out in the end that Brown beat the officer. I think the only reason you're not going to find the majority of the news outlets reporting this is because it doesn't jive with what they've been trying desperately to sell since the shooting happened.
Correction: I know FOX News isn't reputable. And no, saying other sites are also not reputable does not suddenly absolve FOX News for their complete lack of journalistic integrity.

Quote
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/08/20/missouri-cop-was-badly-beaten-before-shooting-michael-brown-says-source/
This looks to be debunked already.
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/43751_Jim_Hofts_Unsourced_Claim_That_Officer_Darren_Wilson_Had_an_Orbital_Blowout_Fracture_of_the_Eye_Socket
Granted, that's just as much supposition as the FOX News article but at this point, it's all we have to go on aside from the 'he saw, she saw' proliferating on the internet. But, the onus is on the Wilson and department to prove that he was, indeed, attacked and harmed. If he was, why are they waiting until now to release this information? Wouldn't have been better to say, lead with the information that a cop was beat rather badly during an altercation that left someone dead? Either these cops are the dumbest people on the planet or it's just a bullshit story.

Maybe a bit of both considering how things have gone down so far.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: El Barto on August 20, 2014, 11:12:35 PM
1:30

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-P54MZVxMU&bpctr=1408586117

Nine. Fucking. Shots.
Don't know if the shooting was justified or not, but the last couple of shots were excessive. I get that cops are bad shots and tend to unload when they have to fire, but once the guy's shot and on the ground you're done.


edit: Oh, and hats off to the guy with the phone for getting out of their before it was seized. Probably wouldn't have gotten out otherwise, and hopefully he had the wherewithal to wait a couple of days before uploading to wherever he did so the official account is already on record.

We watched the same video right? What part of that isn't justified? From the linked article:

Dotson said Tasers would not have been an option because they are not always accurate, and Powell was wearing a jacket that could have deflected the probes. He said that by policy, St. Louis police may use deadly force if an attacker with a knife is within 21 feet.

The 21 foot I'm guessing is St. Louis Police determination when a suspect or person is within range of being able to attack you within seconds. 15 foot is the range taught in conceal carry classes in Missouri and the range at which you have to qualify with both single and double action hand guns at accurately hitting a target center mass.

The dude had a knife....never once stopped moving towards the officers after they arrived and repeatedly told him to 'stop' with their guns drawn....and he kept moving forward. What were they supposed to do? You can't 'shoot to maim'....you have to shoot to stop the threat in that situation. The amount of shots fired on the surface seems high but there are two officers there shooting....it's not exactly like one knew if the other was going to shoot or not. They both were threatened and fired on the threat. Bottom line....listen to the police when you're coming at them with a weapon....stop and put your hands up or you're going to get shot.


http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/st-louis-police-release-video-audio-of-deadly-police-shooting/article_9326e02a-2a60-5baa-b63a-9c77b8b81bab.html
I'm getting all of these police shootings confused. I thought this was they guy in California who was unarmed. If this knucklehead had a knife then I'm not bothered by their shooting him (the first 12 times). My other concern with the cops in this instance was jumping out of their truck with their weapons drawn. Seemed like a situation where "come over here, let's talk for a minute" would have been a better approach. However, if they were informed ahead of time that he had a knife on him then I've got no problem there, either.

Curiously, weren't the cops yelling "drop the gun" the whole time?

And just as a reminder, since I'm pretty sure you already get this, I'm one of the people on this board that actually gets use of force. I'm not going to say that the cops should have tazed him or shot in the knee or something. I'm not going to question how many shots it takes to stop someone. I'm not going to question safe distances when somebody's closing with a knife.

As for the overkill in this instance, I have no problem with however many shots came before the final 2. My problem with those was that there was a noticeable pause, and the guy was fully incapacitated. I'm guessing the last two were because he was still moving (in a very limited capacity) but he was far from a threat and in my opinion that was just finishing him off. Not cool.

Lastly, it seems that the phone-holder might have let the phone get seized after all, and the cops released the video despite it contradicting Johnny's testimony (albeit slightly). So, I'll shit the hat tip from the narrator to whatever department it was that released the video. Definitely not what we'd see down here.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Chino on August 21, 2014, 04:38:20 AM
1:30

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-P54MZVxMU&bpctr=1408586117

Nine. Fucking. Shots.
Don't know if the shooting was justified or not, but the last couple of shots were excessive. I get that cops are bad shots and tend to unload when they have to fire, but once the guy's shot and on the ground you're done.


edit: Oh, and hats off to the guy with the phone for getting out of their before it was seized. Probably wouldn't have gotten out otherwise, and hopefully he had the wherewithal to wait a couple of days before uploading to wherever he did so the official account is already on record.

We watched the same video right? What part of that isn't justified? From the linked article:

Dotson said Tasers would not have been an option because they are not always accurate, and Powell was wearing a jacket that could have deflected the probes. He said that by policy, St. Louis police may use deadly force if an attacker with a knife is within 21 feet.

The 21 foot I'm guessing is St. Louis Police determination when a suspect or person is within range of being able to attack you within seconds. 15 foot is the range taught in conceal carry classes in Missouri and the range at which you have to qualify with both single and double action hand guns at accurately hitting a target center mass.

The dude had a knife....never once stopped moving towards the officers after they arrived and repeatedly told him to 'stop' with their guns drawn....and he kept moving forward. What were they supposed to do? You can't 'shoot to maim'....you have to shoot to stop the threat in that situation. The amount of shots fired on the surface seems high but there are two officers there shooting....it's not exactly like one knew if the other was going to shoot or not. They both were threatened and fired on the threat. Bottom line....listen to the police when you're coming at them with a weapon....stop and put your hands up or you're going to get shot.


http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/st-louis-police-release-video-audio-of-deadly-police-shooting/article_9326e02a-2a60-5baa-b63a-9c77b8b81bab.html
I'm getting all of these police shootings confused. I thought this was they guy in California who was unarmed. If this knucklehead had a knife then I'm not bothered by their shooting him (the first 12 times). My other concern with the cops in this instance was jumping out of their truck with their weapons drawn. Seemed like a situation where "come over here, let's talk for a minute" would have been a better approach. However, if they were informed ahead of time that he had a knife on him then I've got no problem there, either.

Curiously, weren't the cops yelling "drop the gun" the whole time?

And just as a reminder, since I'm pretty sure you already get this, I'm one of the people on this board that actually gets use of force. I'm not going to say that the cops should have tazed him or shot in the knee or something. I'm not going to question how many shots it takes to stop someone. I'm not going to question safe distances when somebody's closing with a knife.

As for the overkill in this instance, I have no problem with however many shots came before the final 2. My problem with those was that there was a noticeable pause, and the guy was fully incapacitated. I'm guessing the last two were because he was still moving (in a very limited capacity) but he was far from a threat and in my opinion that was just finishing him off. Not cool.

Lastly, it seems that the phone-holder might have let the phone get seized after all, and the cops released the video despite it contradicting Johnny's testimony (albeit slightly). So, I'll shit the hat tip from the narrator to whatever department it was that released the video. Definitely not what we'd see down here.

That's where I have the problem as well. That guy was down and not getting up. Threat contained. The last two shots were strictly to execute.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Chino on August 21, 2014, 06:32:45 AM
And then there's crap like this.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/20/county-wont-pay-toddler-grenade_n_5695271.html

Quote
WSBTV reports that Habersham County, Georgia will not pick up the tab for the more than $500,000 worth of medical treatment Bounkham Phonesavanh received after he was injured during a botched drug raid in May.

A SWAT officer threw a flash grenade that landed in the toddler's crib, badly burning him. The blast left holes in Phonesavanh's face and tore away at his chest, exposing his ribs.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Stadler on August 21, 2014, 08:13:02 AM
I don't see any news site I'd call reputable reporting on this officer's "injury", only see the above link and a few other really sketchy sites, which I've never seen before, that has a pretty clear bias for the police department in Ferguson(and liberals in general from what I've noticed) if you read into the website further and is full of click bait.
Seems kind of fishy that they're claiming injuries but won't show any photos of them, and even if it turns out to be true, I'll wait until a more reputable, less biased source reports on this, until then eh.
Agreed, particularly when they're talking about all of the witnesses that support Johnny's version. Their might well be plenty, but without hearing from them (and I seriously doubt they're in any hurry to go public at this point) then tweets by departments officials don't really mean much to me.


I hear you, I think I understand what you are saying, but be VERY careful here, because that is almost condoning the public trial by media here.  I think we (you and me and others here) have talked enough about reserving judgment until a more appropriate time, but as a general proposition, we should wait for evidence THAT HAS PASSED THE REQUIREMENTS OF A COURT OF LAW, not evidence that has satisfied the bloodlust of a media that will report anything that will increase eyeballs. 

We can mock it for various reasons (some legitimate, most not) but the rules of evidence are there for a reason, and have a rationale to them.   For the most part (with a very few exceptions, I'll grant you) they work, and they serve the interest of BOTH parties fairly and equally.   The media is under no such limitations, and have no such requirements to a) worry about the truthfulness of any statements made, and b) more importantly, to give the "accused" the right to face their "accuser" (that means a lot of things, not just the opportunity to say "you're wrong, and here's why").

Trust me on this - and if you don't I'd be happy to provide examples - the general population has the idea that investigations work like they do on CSI and trials work like they do on Law and Order, and they do not.   
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: gmillerdrake on August 21, 2014, 08:13:40 AM
If this knucklehead had a knife then I'm not bothered by their shooting him (the first 12 times). My other concern with the cops in this instance was jumping out of their truck with their weapons drawn. Seemed like a situation where "come over here, let's talk for a minute" would have been a better approach. However, if they were informed ahead of time that he had a knife on him then I've got no problem there, either.

Curiously, weren't the cops yelling "drop the gun" the whole time?


They were informed...the evening news played the 911 calls from both the store owner who he was stealing from and an Alderwoman who's office was in the same plaza. She let them know he was walking around with a knife walking in and out of businesses talking to himself and yelling as passer's by....that she had locked the doors to her office because she didn't know what he was going to do.

That's where I have the problem as well. That guy was down and not getting up. Threat contained. The last two shots were strictly to execute.

I can see where you'd think that....but I don't know that if in the moment that they were specifically thinking 'execute'. I'd be interested in knowing how many of thier shots actually hit him, although from that distance I can't see them missing many of them.

And then there's crap like this.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/20/county-wont-pay-toddler-grenade_n_5695271.html

Quote
WSBTV reports that Habersham County, Georgia will not pick up the tab for the more than $500,000 worth of medical treatment Bounkham Phonesavanh received after he was injured during a botched drug raid in May.

A SWAT officer threw a flash grenade that landed in the toddler's crib, badly burning him. The blast left holes in Phonesavanh's face and tore away at his chest, exposing his ribs.

That's a horrible story....
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: El Barto on August 21, 2014, 08:21:49 AM
And then there's crap like this.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/20/county-wont-pay-toddler-grenade_n_5695271.html

Quote
WSBTV reports that Habersham County, Georgia will not pick up the tab for the more than $500,000 worth of medical treatment Bounkham Phonesavanh received after he was injured during a botched drug raid in May.

A SWAT officer threw a flash grenade that landed in the toddler's crib, badly burning him. The blast left holes in Phonesavanh's face and tore away at his chest, exposing his ribs.
WSBTV reports wrong. The county is not allowed to pick up the tab; big difference. In fact, I suspect the county realizes that it'd be far better off writing a check now than writing one after a jury murders it in an ugly trial and would much rather get this over with.

Besides which, the bigger issue isn't that the family will have to sue to get reimbursed for the medical expenses. It's that the cops use a damn SWAT teams to bust low level dopers and everybody thinks this is just dandy. 
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: El Barto on August 21, 2014, 08:26:50 AM
I don't see any news site I'd call reputable reporting on this officer's "injury", only see the above link and a few other really sketchy sites, which I've never seen before, that has a pretty clear bias for the police department in Ferguson(and liberals in general from what I've noticed) if you read into the website further and is full of click bait.
Seems kind of fishy that they're claiming injuries but won't show any photos of them, and even if it turns out to be true, I'll wait until a more reputable, less biased source reports on this, until then eh.
Agreed, particularly when they're talking about all of the witnesses that support Johnny's version. Their might well be plenty, but without hearing from them (and I seriously doubt they're in any hurry to go public at this point) then tweets by departments officials don't really mean much to me.


I hear you, I think I understand what you are saying, but be VERY careful here, because that is almost condoning the public trial by media here.  I think we (you and me and others here) have talked enough about reserving judgment until a more appropriate time, but as a general proposition, we should wait for evidence THAT HAS PASSED THE REQUIREMENTS OF A COURT OF LAW, not evidence that has satisfied the bloodlust of a media that will report anything that will increase eyeballs. 

We can mock it for various reasons (some legitimate, most not) but the rules of evidence are there for a reason, and have a rationale to them.   For the most part (with a very few exceptions, I'll grant you) they work, and they serve the interest of BOTH parties fairly and equally.   The media is under no such limitations, and have no such requirements to a) worry about the truthfulness of any statements made, and b) more importantly, to give the "accused" the right to face their "accuser" (that means a lot of things, not just the opportunity to say "you're wrong, and here's why").

Trust me on this - and if you don't I'd be happy to provide examples - the general population has the idea that investigations work like they do on CSI and trials work like they do on Law and Order, and they do not.   
Not sure where the disconnect is. I agree and nothing in my post suggested anything to the contrary. Aside from bungling "there" once I'm not seeing anything wrong.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: gmillerdrake on August 21, 2014, 08:27:53 AM
I don't see any news site I'd call reputable reporting on this officer's "injury", only see the above link and a few other really sketchy sites, which I've never seen before, that has a pretty clear bias for the police department in Ferguson(and against liberals in general from what I've noticed) if you read into the website further and is full of click bait.
Seems kind of fishy that they're claiming injuries but won't show any photos of them, and even if it turns out to be true, I'll wait until a more reputable, less biased source reports on this, until then eh.

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess you don't think FOX news is reputable....but nonetheless....it seems that it will indeed come out in the end that Brown beat the officer. I think the only reason you're not going to find the majority of the news outlets reporting this is because it doesn't jive with what they've been trying desperately to sell since the shooting happened.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/08/20/missouri-cop-was-badly-beaten-before-shooting-michael-brown-says-source/


This looks to be debunked already.



http://abcnews.go.com/US/ferguson-shooting-grand-jury-decide-october-charge-cop/story?id=25047905

Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Stadler on August 21, 2014, 09:09:59 AM
Quite honestly I don't. My parents watch Fox News and growing up having to watch it, it's one of the most biased major news networks I've ever seen. I've seen some pretty shitty stuff pretty often on Fox News.

Interestingly enough, in almost EVERY survey of "bias in the media" (including the studies on the so-called "liberal bias") Fox News - the NEWS, not the OP ED segments - comes out rather well, and certainly as well as CNN and far better than the network typically flagged as the most biased on the air, MSNBC.    http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/12/is-msnbc-worse-than-fox-news-179175.html   

Here is another look at bias, though it requires some explanation, because some lines are the entire entity, some are one specific program on a larger network.    But still, Fox is only one of two that is right of "centric" (50.4 on the scale) and not by anywhere near as much magnitude as some of the other entities are to the left.    http://freakonomics.com/2012/02/16/how-biased-is-your-media/
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: The King in Crimson on August 21, 2014, 09:14:13 AM
I don't see any news site I'd call reputable reporting on this officer's "injury", only see the above link and a few other really sketchy sites, which I've never seen before, that has a pretty clear bias for the police department in Ferguson(and against liberals in general from what I've noticed) if you read into the website further and is full of click bait.
Seems kind of fishy that they're claiming injuries but won't show any photos of them, and even if it turns out to be true, I'll wait until a more reputable, less biased source reports on this, until then eh.

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess you don't think FOX news is reputable....but nonetheless....it seems that it will indeed come out in the end that Brown beat the officer. I think the only reason you're not going to find the majority of the news outlets reporting this is because it doesn't jive with what they've been trying desperately to sell since the shooting happened.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/08/20/missouri-cop-was-badly-beaten-before-shooting-michael-brown-says-source/


This looks to be debunked already.



http://abcnews.go.com/US/ferguson-shooting-grand-jury-decide-october-charge-cop/story?id=25047905
Still no pictures. We'll just have to wait and see how this pans out in court if it is true that the department has evidence but is reluctant or doesn't want to release it to the general public... for whatever reason.

That said, even if it does turn out that Wilson was seriously injured that still doesn't prove who is responsible. Maybe Brown attacked him, unprovoked, or maybe Wilson was being a belligerant dick and bit off more than he could chew and got beat up in the process.

I'm not sure what I believe at the moment other than having a healthy bit of skepticism when it comes to the police's statements and that they've largely bungled things since the shooting.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: KevShmev on August 21, 2014, 09:17:14 AM
Well, I don't want to get into a pissing contest over which network is the most biased, but I will say that having watched quite a bit of all three in the last week or so, it seems like CNN and Fox, more often than not, do a good job of having people from all over the political spectrum there to discuss what is going on in Ferguson.  For example, last night after his talking points, O'Reilly's first two guests were two liberals: Bob Beckel and James Carville.  And the host on CNN last night around 9:30 St. Louis time was pretty neutral and had guests who had opinions all over the map. Meanwhile, every time I turn on MSNBC, it's nothing but the ultra-liberal brigade - the Morning Joe show notwithstanding, which is on too early for me anyway :lol - where the cops are wrong about everything no matter what and the deck is stacked with race card after race card.

If nothing else, I will give CNN props for not giving an hour in prime time to anybody as awful as Sean Hannity or Al Sharpton...well, now that Piers Morgan is gone. :lol
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Stadler on August 21, 2014, 09:18:31 AM
I don't see any news site I'd call reputable reporting on this officer's "injury", only see the above link and a few other really sketchy sites, which I've never seen before, that has a pretty clear bias for the police department in Ferguson(and liberals in general from what I've noticed) if you read into the website further and is full of click bait.
Seems kind of fishy that they're claiming injuries but won't show any photos of them, and even if it turns out to be true, I'll wait until a more reputable, less biased source reports on this, until then eh.
Agreed, particularly when they're talking about all of the witnesses that support Johnny's version. Their might well be plenty, but without hearing from them (and I seriously doubt they're in any hurry to go public at this point) then tweets by departments officials don't really mean much to me.


I hear you, I think I understand what you are saying, but be VERY careful here, because that is almost condoning the public trial by media here.  I think we (you and me and others here) have talked enough about reserving judgment until a more appropriate time, but as a general proposition, we should wait for evidence THAT HAS PASSED THE REQUIREMENTS OF A COURT OF LAW, not evidence that has satisfied the bloodlust of a media that will report anything that will increase eyeballs. 

We can mock it for various reasons (some legitimate, most not) but the rules of evidence are there for a reason, and have a rationale to them.   For the most part (with a very few exceptions, I'll grant you) they work, and they serve the interest of BOTH parties fairly and equally.   The media is under no such limitations, and have no such requirements to a) worry about the truthfulness of any statements made, and b) more importantly, to give the "accused" the right to face their "accuser" (that means a lot of things, not just the opportunity to say "you're wrong, and here's why").

Trust me on this - and if you don't I'd be happy to provide examples - the general population has the idea that investigations work like they do on CSI and trials work like they do on Law and Order, and they do not.   
Not sure where the disconnect is. I agree and nothing in my post suggested anything to the contrary. Aside from bungling "there" once I'm not seeing anything wrong.

I'm responding to the general notion that somehow the department has to compete in the media war to get the competing stories out there, and specifically that we need photos to document the police officer's injuries.   I get the notion that it might be ultimately a public safety issue, and it is certainly a public relations issue, but justice DOES NOT require that the media have two, well-composed, structured, documented-by-evidence arguments to debate.    What matters - and ONLY what matters - is the outcome of the investigation, the veracity of the investigation, and the courtroom proceedings, if there are any.  Everything else is noise.   
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Stadler on August 21, 2014, 09:29:10 AM
Still no pictures. We'll just have to wait and see how this pans out in court if it is true that the department has evidence but is reluctant or doesn't want to release it to the general public... for whatever reason.

That said, even if it does turn out that Wilson was seriously injured that still doesn't prove who is responsible. Maybe Brown attacked him, unprovoked, or maybe Wilson was being a belligerant dick and bit off more than he could chew and got beat up in the process.

I'm not sure what I believe at the moment other than having a healthy bit of skepticism when it comes to the police's statements and that they've largely bungled things since the shooting.

You won't likely see pictures, and for good reason.  What will it do? 

As for "Wilson being a belligerent dick", guess what?  Doesn't matter.   Physical violence can justify physical violence as a response, but unless the words move to the level of "fighting words", which are designed to specifically and directly provoke a physical response, words DON'T justify - legally - a physical response.

Why would you have "healthy skepticism" when it comes to police statements, but not to the media reports of "witnesses" (that have not been vetted to actually have BEEN witnesses, as opposed to parroting the party line)?    I have HUGE issue with this statement from one of the Alderman, and it sort of mirrors some of the things that are being said here:

"[St. Louis County Prosecutor] could have used his own authority to press charges," French said. "I mean given the evidence, at least from the witnesses that have come forward and talked to the media, I think there’s enough at least for an arrest and an indictment, and then let the jury decide by trial."   

That statement is irresponsible at best and negligent at worst.  Some member of a mob pseudo-anonymously spewing unsubstantiated (as of yet) allegations - at least some of which are contradicted directly by other pseudo-anonymous allegations - does not constitute evidence or probable cause for an arrest.     
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Stadler on August 21, 2014, 09:32:21 AM
Well, I don't want to get into a pissing contest over which network is the most biased, but I will say that having watched quite a bit of all three in the last week or so, it seems like CNN and Fox, more often than not, do a good job of having people from all over the political spectrum there to discuss what is going on in Ferguson.  For example, last night after his talking points, O'Reilly's first two guests were two liberals: Bob Beckel and James Carville.  And the host on CNN last night around 9:30 St. Louis time was pretty neutral and had guests who had opinions all over the map. Meanwhile, every time I turn on MSNBC, it's nothing but the ultra-liberal brigade - the Morning Joe show notwithstanding, which is on too early for me anyway :lol - where the cops are wrong about everything no matter what and the deck is stacked with race card after race card.

If nothing else, I will give CNN props for not giving an hour in prime time to anybody as awful as Sean Hannity or Al Sharpton...well, now that Piers Morgan is gone. :lol

And if you're asking me that is part of Fox's "problem".   That many see Hannity (who is an obnoxious tool even when he is ideologically neutral and/or factually correct) as a mouthpiece for the network is misleading. 
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: The King in Crimson on August 21, 2014, 10:05:53 AM
I'm on my phone so I'm not going to go through the effort of meticulously quoting everything.

Stadler: Pictures will prove that he's actually injured. And no, saying 'he's injured' is just not enough at this point. That's not proof or evidence considering how many conflicting stories exist from multiple media or eyewitness points of view.

And Wilson being a belligerant dick DOES matter. If he started and caused the altercation then I think that should weigh on who is ultimately at fault here. Or would you seriously absolve Brown if, say, he attacked and killed Wilson in the process?

And I have a healthy skepticism when it comes to ANYONE. Words are just words and aren't worth crap if they can be proven either with evidence or other verifying sources.

I'm not passing judgement on anyone at this point at least until there are pictures or medical reports or any forms of evidence that will backup such a statement. And merely saying he's injured isn't worth anything at this point. Otherwise, no, the NSA is not spying on you because, um, they said they aren't or there were totally WMD's in Iraq because Bush and co said so.

Just saying something does not make it true regardless of the source.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: KevShmev on August 21, 2014, 10:15:02 AM


And if you're asking me that is part of Fox's "problem".   That many see Hannity (who is an obnoxious tool even when he is ideologically neutral and/or factually correct) as a mouthpiece for the network is misleading.

Well, he is one of their main guys in prime time, so that says a lot.  Granted, he was kicked back an hour last year, but he is still ONE of the mouthpieces for the network (even though he is way behind O'Reilly and Megyn Kelly on the totem pole).  I'd rather have food poisoning again than watch five minutes of Sean Hannity.  Tools as blatantly partisan as him are what's wrong with the political talking climate in this country.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: gmillerdrake on August 21, 2014, 10:25:27 AM
I'd rather have food poisoning again than watch five minutes of Sean Hannity.  Tools as blatantly partisan as him are what's wrong with the political talking climate in this country.

 :lol He is intolerable......I honestly couldnt' tell you when the last time I watched his program was.....but on occasion I'll here his voice on the radio in my car and it's all I can do not to swerve off the road because my eardrums have exploded and I get instant vertigo.....he's a tool bag.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: El Barto on August 21, 2014, 10:44:23 AM
I go out of my way to avoid watching news programs, so I can't really speak to the major network stations. I do keep FOX's RSS feed on my desktop, and on a daily basis I see both specific and general instances of why I wouldn't even consider FOX news, as much as entertainment. They will often have very well written and neutral articles to read, hence me keeping the feed. How and what they choose to present is a completely different story. Christ, they're using tactics that I would have learned to avoid in my 7th grade journalism class (had I bothered to pay attention).

I suppose it's possible that their RSS feed is not supposed to be considered news per se, but rather jerk-off material for the seriously warped. But then is that what a legitimate news service is supposed to do?

And I honestly don't care if MSNBC or whatever is worse. If the discussion is that FOX isn't biased I call bullshit; relative comparisons don't matter in that discussion.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Sir GuitarCozmo on August 21, 2014, 11:45:51 AM
I don't really know what to believe on the orbital fracture story, but I'm just offering this up.  Take it for what you will.

Link (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/43751_Jim_Hofts_Unsourced_Claim_That_Officer_Darren_Wilson_Had_an_Orbital_Blowout_Fracture_of_the_Eye_Socket)

Quote
Here are the symptoms of an orbital blowout fracture:

The most common symptoms are bruising, tenderness and swelling around the eye; redness of the eye; double vision, ordiplopia (seeing two images at the same time); numbness of the cheek, nose or teeth; nose bleeds (epistaxis).

Symptoms that typically indicate a more serious injury are pain on eye movement, double vision, air under the skin around the eye, and numbness of the cheek/mouth/nose on the side of the injury. Severe trauma may cause facial bone fractures, injury to the eye itself, and injuries to the skull/brain.

In the video taken by an eyewitness immediately after the shooting, officer Darren Wilson is seen walking calmly around the body with no signs of discomfort or injury, even though by this time he would have been in very serious pain.

Also, no ambulance was called for Wilson, and no first aid was administered by other officers, which seems odd if he had indeed suffered this type of serious injury — or any injury at all.

It goes on to mention that the source reporting this injury appears to have tampered with a photo that was passed off as being an x-ray of the officer's purported injury.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Stadler on August 21, 2014, 01:00:55 PM
I'm on my phone so I'm not going to go through the effort of meticulously quoting everything.

Stadler: Pictures will prove that he's actually injured. And no, saying 'he's injured' is just not enough at this point. That's not proof or evidence considering how many conflicting stories exist from multiple media or eyewitness points of view.

That's a fair point, and I can't argue with it.  Just has to go both ways.  At this point, if Wilson being hurt is "not admissible in the court of public opinion" - my words - because there are no pictures, then most of the claims supporting Brown need to be "excluded" under the same premise.   I'm fine with that, 100%.

Quote
And Wilson being a belligerant dick DOES matter. If he started and caused the altercation then I think that should weigh on who is ultimately at fault here. Or would you seriously absolve Brown if, say, he attacked and killed Wilson in the process?

But "started the altercation" can never begin with "was a belligerent dick".   There are no standards under the law that "belligerent dick" is an acceptable justification for what follows.  And I don't mean that to be cute or funny or specious.   I'm just trying not to get too technical with things, and am assuming you will follow the point.  Put simply, there are only a few exceptions to the rule that there is nothing I can say that justifies you punching me in the face. 


Quote
Just saying something does not make it true regardless of the source.

I would support that assertion 1000%.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Stadler on August 21, 2014, 01:17:52 PM


And if you're asking me that is part of Fox's "problem".   That many see Hannity (who is an obnoxious tool even when he is ideologically neutral and/or factually correct) as a mouthpiece for the network is misleading.

Well, he is one of their main guys in prime time, so that says a lot.  Granted, he was kicked back an hour last year, but he is still ONE of the mouthpieces for the network (even though he is way behind O'Reilly and Megyn Kelly on the totem pole).  I'd rather have food poisoning again than watch five minutes of Sean Hannity.  Tools as blatantly partisan as him are what's wrong with the political talking climate in this country.

I don't argue that one bit (I am not a fan, mostly of his tactics).   But his opinions, biased though they may be, don't go to the veracity of any other facts that might be presented as "hard news" on that network.   Fox is no different than CNN in this regard:  general news perhaps 50% of the time, then "celebrity talking heads" hired specifically to expound on opinions and viewpoints for the remainder of the time. 
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Stadler on August 21, 2014, 01:23:29 PM


And I honestly don't care if MSNBC or whatever is worse. If the discussion is that FOX isn't biased I call bullshit; relative comparisons don't matter in that discussion.

It doesn't?   There isn't a news source on the planet that ISN'T biased in SOME way.   So the best we can do is minimize the biases, and hope to understand those biases.   

Fox isn't being singled out because of its bias; it is being singled out because of the TYPE of bias.    To say that you are AGAINST BIAS!!!!! and call out Fox for it is like saying I AM AGAINST LIBERAL POLITICIANS! and calling out Joe Lieberman.   You could have picked a far better example if that was really your hang-up.   
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Chino on August 21, 2014, 01:35:23 PM


And I honestly don't care if MSNBC or whatever is worse. If the discussion is that FOX isn't biased I call bullshit; relative comparisons don't matter in that discussion.

It doesn't?   There isn't a news source on the planet that ISN'T biased in SOME way.   So the best we can do is minimize the biases, and hope to understand those biases.   



False: Alex Jones
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: hefdaddy42 on August 21, 2014, 01:44:50 PM
lol
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: The King in Crimson on August 21, 2014, 02:00:26 PM


And I honestly don't care if MSNBC or whatever is worse. If the discussion is that FOX isn't biased I call bullshit; relative comparisons don't matter in that discussion.

It doesn't?   There isn't a news source on the planet that ISN'T biased in SOME way.   So the best we can do is minimize the biases, and hope to understand those biases.   

Fox isn't being singled out because of its bias; it is being singled out because of the TYPE of bias.    To say that you are AGAINST BIAS!!!!! and call out Fox for it is like saying I AM AGAINST LIBERAL POLITICIANS! and calling out Joe Lieberman.   You could have picked a far better example if that was really your hang-up.
Except it was in direct reference to an article cited in this thread so it's fairly relevant. Especially when there are two competing narratives swimming in the media-sphere.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: El Barto on August 21, 2014, 02:36:28 PM


And I honestly don't care if MSNBC or whatever is worse. If the discussion is that FOX isn't biased I call bullshit; relative comparisons don't matter in that discussion.

It doesn't?   There isn't a news source on the planet that ISN'T biased in SOME way.   So the best we can do is minimize the biases, and hope to understand those biases.   

Fox isn't being singled out because of its bias; it is being singled out because of the TYPE of bias.    To say that you are AGAINST BIAS!!!!! and call out Fox for it is like saying I AM AGAINST LIBERAL POLITICIANS! and calling out Joe Lieberman.   You could have picked a far better example if that was really your hang-up.
No, it doesn't.

And I don't single FOX out for the type of bias. I single them out (fairly infrequently, BTW, I tend to stay out of this somewhat common spat) because they're so overt and consistent about it, and only then when people try to defend them as being fair and balanced. If you didn't mean to suggest that then I apologize. 

BTW, I just added a CNN feed to my desktop, right above FOX. I'd certainly like to know if I'm being unfair. I'm actually real curious which will run an article critical of it's own side first. In this case FOX has a several year head start. I'm always on the look out for first times.

Interestingly, it appears that "Bubba" smokes $600 cigars. I guess this is important for some reason, particularly as it's listed under the "White House" section of FOX's political news. Also of note, the article is misleading as all fuck.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: gmillerdrake on August 21, 2014, 07:53:42 PM
Just watched Dorian Johnson's initial 'interview' where he flat out lied about what happened (it's been disproven even in the preliminary autopsy reports from the families own ME's) about how Brown was on his knees with his back to the officer and the officer opened fire on him....and, if not for that outright lie....this entire ordeal would be no where near what it is.

Sure there should have been an investigation into whether the shooting was justified as any officer involved shooting always goes through....but the fact of the matter is that had Johnson not made that outrageous statement about Brown being "executed" I don't think there'd have been rioting, at least not at the level we've seen.
 
When/if...this officer is vindicated and when/if the facts of this case come to light and they are indeed the version of the incident that Wilson said they were......is there anyway to prosecute Johnson for at minimum giving a false statement.....but can the businesses prosecute/sue him because his false statement was the fuel and the flame for the rioting?
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: El Barto on August 21, 2014, 08:27:42 PM
I'm going to go with probably not and definitely not. From the criminal side, "well, I guess I was mistaken. Sorry." oughta cover it. Furthermore, I'm not sure it'd be possible to actually disprove his testimony. Establishing what happened well enough to clear Johnny is not going to be the same as establishing what happened well enough to convict somebody for providing testimony to the contrary. As for the civil side, you're never going to establish him as the proximate cause.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: The King in Crimson on August 21, 2014, 09:07:15 PM
I'm on my phone so I'm not going to go through the effort of meticulously quoting everything.

Stadler: Pictures will prove that he's actually injured. And no, saying 'he's injured' is just not enough at this point. That's not proof or evidence considering how many conflicting stories exist from multiple media or eyewitness points of view.

That's a fair point, and I can't argue with it.  Just has to go both ways.  At this point, if Wilson being hurt is "not admissible in the court of public opinion" - my words - because there are no pictures, then most of the claims supporting Brown need to be "excluded" under the same premise.   I'm fine with that, 100%.
Considering both parties (Wilson and Johnson) are likely biased in their own favors, I can't really disagree with that.

Quote
Quote
And Wilson being a belligerant dick DOES matter. If he started and caused the altercation then I think that should weigh on who is ultimately at fault here. Or would you seriously absolve Brown if, say, he attacked and killed Wilson in the process?

But "started the altercation" can never begin with "was a belligerent dick".   There are no standards under the law that "belligerent dick" is an acceptable justification for what follows.  And I don't mean that to be cute or funny or specious.   I'm just trying not to get too technical with things, and am assuming you will follow the point.  Put simply, there are only a few exceptions to the rule that there is nothing I can say that justifies you punching me in the face.
If Wilson physically assaulted Brown, then yes it can. That's what I meant by 'belligerent dick.' Sorry if that wasn't clear.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Stadler on August 22, 2014, 07:18:07 AM
No, it doesn't.

And I don't single FOX out for the type of bias. I single them out (fairly infrequently, BTW, I tend to stay out of this somewhat common spat) because they're so overt and consistent about it, and only then when people try to defend them as being fair and balanced. If you didn't mean to suggest that then I apologize. 

BTW, I just added a CNN feed to my desktop, right above FOX. I'd certainly like to know if I'm being unfair. I'm actually real curious which will run an article critical of it's own side first. In this case FOX has a several year head start. I'm always on the look out for first times.

I don't think ANY news outlet is fair and balanced.  Except, of course, the aforementioned "Alex Jones".  ;)   

My point is only that for one (not necessarily you personally) to single out Fox is to show that person's own biases as much as it supposedly illustrates Fox's.   

I actually don't think bias is bad, necessarily.  EVERY story has nuances, and depending on the bias you get to see more of those nuances.  It does require some 'work' on the part of the listener to understand the biases, not rely on any one source, and to piece the various pieces together, but so what?  Who said it had to be easy?

Honestly, and not to change the subject, I am FAR more disturbed by the people that say "I refuse to watch [XXX] Network" or "I refuse to listen to [insert supposedly bloviating talking head]".   Willful ignorance is worse than implicit bias, in my book. 

Quote
Interestingly, it appears that "Bubba" smokes $600 cigars. I guess this is important for some reason, particularly as it's listed under the "White House" section of FOX's political news. Also of note, the article is misleading as all fuck.

Is this Clinton?  And does he really "smoke" them?
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Stadler on August 22, 2014, 07:22:38 AM

If Wilson physically assaulted Brown, then yes it can. That's what I meant by 'belligerent dick.' Sorry if that wasn't clear.

Gotcha.  I was purposefully separating verbal acts from physical acts.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: hefdaddy42 on August 22, 2014, 08:24:33 AM
If he's paying $600.00 for one cigar, he's getting screwed.  Not even black market Cubans cost that much.  Hell, not even archived Cubans dating back before the embargo cost that much.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: El Barto on August 22, 2014, 08:46:55 AM
If he's paying $600.00 for one cigar, he's getting screwed.  Not even black market Cubans cost that much.  Hell, not even archived Cubans dating back before the embargo cost that much.
They're a limited edition from some exclusive manufacturer that celebs go to. Sorta sounds like people paying a million for a car they'll never drive because it's exclusive, or from the other side the Chivas Regal effect. FOX made sure to point out that the Limited Edition Reserves run 25k per box (although it's unknown if the former president actually smokes the LERs).
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: hefdaddy42 on August 22, 2014, 08:54:58 AM
If he's paying $600.00 for one cigar, he's getting screwed.  Not even black market Cubans cost that much.  Hell, not even archived Cubans dating back before the embargo cost that much.
They're a limited edition from some exclusive manufacturer that celebs go to. Sorta sounds like people paying a million for a car they'll never drive because it's exclusive, or from the other side the Chivas Regal effect. FOX made sure to point out that the Limited Edition Reserves run 25k per box (although it's unknown if the former president actually smokes the LERs).
Oh, some private reserve boutique label.

Well, it's his money.  But that's batshit crazy.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: kirksnosehair on August 26, 2014, 01:37:19 PM
So, anyway, I saw a report on that bastion of liberal bias, CNN.com - so take it with a grain of salt - that someone caught the gunshots on an audio recording.  6 shots....pause....4 shots.



Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: El Barto on August 26, 2014, 02:21:15 PM
So, anyway, I saw a report on that bastion of liberal bias, CNN.com - so take it with a grain of salt - that someone caught the gunshots on an audio recording.  6 shots....pause....4 shots.
Doesn't make much difference to me unless we know what the situation was during the pause. In the second shooting, the video of which was posted earlier, the guy was incap. That's what made the pause problematic for me. If this giant from the first video were still standing then the pause actually reflects some consideration.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: bosk1 on August 26, 2014, 03:30:11 PM
I think the pause likely reflects some consideration either way.  It is just a question of what is being considered.  If he still looks like a threat, I think the pause reflects well on the officers.  If he is incapacitated, it obviously reflects very poorly. 
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: gmillerdrake on August 26, 2014, 07:33:07 PM
I think the pause likely reflects some consideration either way.  It is just a question of what is being considered.  If he still looks like a threat, I think the pause reflects well on the officers.  If he is incapacitated, it obviously reflects very poorly.

Doesn't make much difference to me unless we know what the situation was during the pause. 

Pretty much these. I heard the sound and it's not as if it's a 5 second pause...it's maybe a second. If anything the sound verifies Wilson's account and the cell phone video that surfaced last week of the eye witness recounting to the person filming the video what he saw.....Brown continued to move toward Wilson as he was firing....the eye witness even said he thought the police were missing the shots.


I don't think it matters anyway as far as if he is indicted or not.....he's going to be indicted. You have the Brown family lawyer when asked how they'd react to no indictment and all he does is pause, stare and say "They better indict"...you have a Missouri state Rep. say in a letter to Jay Nixon that failure to indict would make the LA riots look like kindergarten. This officer has been convicted already in the media and I happen to agree with the State Rep.....if he is not indicted there will be massive riots merely based on the fact that the narrative that was painted by the media of this entire case was highly irresponsible.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: kirksnosehair on August 27, 2014, 02:54:34 PM
Absolutely the media's fault all the way.  No blacks have ever been discriminated against by the police in the south.  It's ridiculous that they'd even question why a black cop emptied his gun into an unarmed teenager.


"well, he shoulda armed himself" --William Munny
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: gmillerdrake on August 27, 2014, 04:46:30 PM
Absolutely the media's fault all the way.  No blacks have ever been discriminated against by the police in the south.  It's ridiculous that they'd even question why a black cop emptied his gun into an unarmed teenager.


"well, he shoulda armed himself" --William Munny

Not really sure where you're going here mocking me like that. I'm sure one aspect of it is to draw attention away from the fact that the audio that is allegedly of the shots being fired really only supports the officers story. And If you want to pretend that the media would have given this story the same amount of attention if it had been a black cop shooting a black unarmed teenager then go right ahead. The media has shown it could care less about whether Brown was unarmed or not....since day one it's been WHITE cop shoots unarmed BLACK teenager. 

This story has been about race from the start and the 'unarmed' aspect of the story has been second fiddle and honestly it really depends on Browns actions as to whether him being unarmed really mattered. If he truly was 'surrendering' then yes this cop should fry.....if he was bull rushing the officer moments after beating him in the squad truck....then its an open and shut justified police shooting case. I find it hard to believe that the facts won't support whichever story it is unequivocally with this case....the crime scene isn't elaborate and despite popular opinion there are two batches of witnesses out there and I have it on good word that there are just as many if not more witnesses that support the officers account of what happened as well.

 The media flamed the fire of racism and hate crime from get go because they are fully aware of the draw racism brings. Sharpton, Jackson and Spike Lee aren't showing up for the white kid in Colorado who was shot by a black police officer are they? Nope.

It's always been about race here.....big bad white man shoots a poor oppressed black kid.....that's what they've been pushing. So feel free to respond in green text all you want but your living in la la land if you don't think race isn't what's driving this story.
 

In the end when the facts support whichever side they end up supporting......the media will still manage to make it all about race.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Implode on August 27, 2014, 05:09:50 PM
I don't think he disagrees that the media made it all about race. He, and many other people, just think that the media was absolutely right in doing so. 
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: El Barto on August 27, 2014, 06:00:11 PM
Absolutely the media's fault all the way.  No blacks have ever been discriminated against by the police in the south.  It's ridiculous that they'd even question why a black cop emptied his gun into an unarmed teenager.


"well, he shoulda armed himself" --William Munny

Not really sure where you're going here mocking me like that. I'm sure one aspect of it is to draw attention away from the fact that the audio that is allegedly of the shots being fired really only supports the officers story. And If you want to pretend that the media would have given this story the same amount of attention if it had been a black cop shooting a black unarmed teenager then go right ahead. The media has shown it could care less about whether Brown was unarmed or not....since day one it's been WHITE cop shoots unarmed BLACK teenager. 

This story has been about race from the start and the 'unarmed' aspect of the story has been second fiddle and honestly it really depends on Browns actions as to whether him being unarmed really mattered. If he truly was 'surrendering' then yes this cop should fry.....if he was bull rushing the officer moments after beating him in the squad truck....then its an open and shut justified police shooting case. I find it hard to believe that the facts won't support whichever story it is unequivocally with this case....the crime scene isn't elaborate and despite popular opinion there are two batches of witnesses out there and I have it on good word that there are just as many if not more witnesses that support the officers account of what happened as well.

 The media flamed the fire of racism and hate crime from get go because they are fully aware of the draw racism brings. Sharpton, Jackson and Spike Lee aren't showing up for the white kid in Colorado who was shot by a black police officer are they? Nope.

It's always been about race here.....big bad white man shoots a poor oppressed black kid.....that's what they've been pushing. So feel free to respond in green text all you want but your living in la la land if you don't think race isn't what's driving this story.
 

In the end when the facts support whichever side they end up supporting......the media will still manage to make it all about race.
You and I tend to agree on these sorts of things, and when the dust finally settles I suspect we will here, as well. I think you're wrong about the media involvement, though. The race of the cop wasn't known for a week or so after the shooting. There was obviously a suspicion amongst most people, but I think the media did an alright job of not fueling that. Also, I don't think the media actually gave a damn about this until the riots. It got some coverage, but not enough to really bring national attention to it until the unrest and crackdown. Al Sharpton certainly factors into it, but then that's his job and honestly I don't think the media pays any more attention to him than you or I do. Hiring the same Flava Flav sounding lawyer as Trayvon Martin's family was probably the biggest contributor to where we're at now. 
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: gmillerdrake on August 27, 2014, 08:34:27 PM

You and I tend to agree on these sorts of things, and when the dust finally settles I suspect we will here, as well. I think you're wrong about the media involvement, though. The race of the cop wasn't known for a week or so after the shooting. There was obviously a suspicion amongst most people, but I think the media did an alright job of not fueling that. Also, I don't think the media actually gave a damn about this until the riots. It got some coverage, but not enough to really bring national attention to it until the unrest and crackdown. Al Sharpton certainly factors into it, but then that's his job and honestly I don't think the media pays any more attention to him than you or I do. Hiring the same Flava Flav sounding lawyer as Trayvon Martin's family was probably the biggest contributor to where we're at now.

To be honest...from day one in St. Louis media coverage it was known it was a white cop that shot a young black man. And they were pimping the 'hands up don't shoot' story from the get go and the local NBC news station pre-empted all programming and carried the NAACP rally live that took place a few days after it. I agree that the rioting certainly put this story in the national headlines....which I understand....but the initial shooting itself is far from a national story IMO....certainly not one that needs the attention of the Attorney General of the United States to visit.



My biggest issue with this entire story is the manner in which one side or one version of this shooting is being pushed as 'fact'  I'm just as guilty...probably more guilty than most....of saying things and stating them as fact in cases like this. I realize that's an issue I need to work on. My 'default' position on scenario's like this tend to side with Law Enforcement or Law abiding citizens and not those who initially appear to be the 'criminal' in the case. Again, major character flaw on my part.

I was raised on and grew up to respect Police Officers and officials in power like that and just as I don't worry about my kids playing outside without me hovering above them....not that I don't believe kidnappings don't happen, I just believe that when they do happen they are hyped so much to strike fear because fear sells I also believe that 95% of Law Enforcement are good...honorable people and that the 'bad' ones get the press and publicity. So, until it is proven otherwise....in my eyes....the officers version is the version that happened.

When I think about this situation in particular it is far more likely to me that Johnson had a greater motive to lie about what happened than Wilson does/did. He and Brown just robbed a store and then physically assaulted a police officer. Of course he's going to say the cop executed Brown. Or, you have an white officer who pulls up next to a much larger  6'-5", 300lb young black man and tries to pull him through the window of his vehicle....then as they flee running with their hands up screaming don't shoot me in the middle of the day in the middle of the street of an all black neighborhood and just gets out and unleashes 10 rounds?? But, as I mentioned earlier I don't thing there's anyway the evidence can tell anything other than the truth in this situation....so, it's a waiting game at the moment.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: El Barto on August 27, 2014, 08:58:07 PM
I'm not really disputing any facts, as I have none to go on, really. I'm just saying that outside of that area (and you're from somewhere around there, aren't you?) it'd be disingenuous to dump the aftermath on the media. If this had happened in Dallas it would have been all over the local news, as it should have been, but it wouldn't have become the national fiasco without a lot of other factors, and factors that quite frankly the media did need to harp on a bit.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: hefdaddy42 on August 28, 2014, 06:20:02 AM
One thing to remember is that the riots and protests aren't necessarily over this incident.  They are fueled by years of perceived treatment and systemic problems that the minority communities there feel they have to deal with on a day-to-day basis.  This incident was basically just the straw that broke the camel's back.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: kirksnosehair on August 28, 2014, 12:31:35 PM
I don't think he disagrees that the media made it all about race. He, and many other people, just think that the media was absolutely right in doing so.


(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/55966936/pics/hammer.jpg)
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: kirksnosehair on August 28, 2014, 12:32:04 PM
One thing to remember is that the riots and protests aren't necessarily over this incident.  They are fueled by years of perceived treatment and systemic problems that the minority communities there feel they have to deal with on a day-to-day basis.  This incident was basically just the straw that broke the camel's back.


Yep.  Exactly.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: hefdaddy42 on August 28, 2014, 12:54:04 PM
Tragically, for that very same reason, it won't matter one bit whether or not the cop is found to have acted within procedure - because the outrage isn't just over this incident.

Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: kirksnosehair on August 28, 2014, 01:53:27 PM
I know, and that's a pretty murky issue to say the least.  It's almost impossible to detach the two issues because institutionalized racism runs rampant among law enforcement in almost every big city (and the surrounding suburbs).


If there were ever a case to highlight the need for on-body video cameras for cops, this is the one.   All police should have these cameras and all vehicles being used for law enforcement should also be equipped with cameras. 


I think it would eliminate a lot of the instant outrage that seems to happen "in da 'hood" when an arrest goes awry and white (cop) on black (citizen) violence is the result.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: hefdaddy42 on August 28, 2014, 02:00:24 PM
Yeah, I agree, that should be "must" tech for cops nowadays.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: kirksnosehair on August 28, 2014, 02:18:27 PM
I hate to be so cynical but a lot of jurisdictions will resist this, mostly due to pressure from police officer unions who don't want it. 


Putting myself in the place of an average police officer, I'm not sure how I'd feel about it.  I suppose the minute you put on that uniform, though, you are agreeing to a certain code of conduct that is expected of you and the cameras will help keep people honest.   


It sucks that we need something like this, but we don't live in the "post-racial society" that many of my more liberal friends seem to think we live in.



Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: KevShmev on August 28, 2014, 02:22:01 PM
They should definitely wear those cameras, to protect both themselves and the public.  Given the power they have, and the difficult circumstances that they often have to deal with, if the technology is there, why not use it?  For everything, including routine stops for something as simple as speeding or running a red light.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: El Barto on August 28, 2014, 02:41:06 PM
Cops have a variety of reasons to resist the cameras, but filming encounters such as this really isn't one of them. Keep in mind that cops view themselves as the good guys and in the right. As far as they're concerned filming all of their encounters will only be a benefit. Hell, I bet all 3 cops in Ferguson involved in recent shootings probably wish they had body cameras.

The two complaints I've read about are that they think it'll lessen the authority they possess on the stand when testifying, which I think I've brought up before, and that they'll record everything, not just encounters. Cops spend quite a bit of time chit-chatting and whatnot, and if they have the ability to turn the cameras off then they really defeat the purpose.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: kirksnosehair on August 29, 2014, 11:50:42 AM
Cops have a variety of reasons to resist the cameras, but filming encounters such as this really isn't one of them. Keep in mind that cops view themselves as the good guys and in the right. As far as they're concerned filming all of their encounters will only be a benefit. Hell, I bet all 3 cops in Ferguson involved in recent shootings probably wish they had body cameras.

The two complaints I've read about are that they think it'll lessen the authority they possess on the stand when testifying, which I think I've brought up before, and that they'll record everything, not just encounters. Cops spend quite a bit of time chit-chatting and whatnot, and if they have the ability to turn the cameras off then they really defeat the purpose.


Hadn't really considered the testimony angle.  I have to think about that for a bit.



Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: El Barto on August 29, 2014, 12:26:52 PM
Cops have a variety of reasons to resist the cameras, but filming encounters such as this really isn't one of them. Keep in mind that cops view themselves as the good guys and in the right. As far as they're concerned filming all of their encounters will only be a benefit. Hell, I bet all 3 cops in Ferguson involved in recent shootings probably wish they had body cameras.

The two complaints I've read about are that they think it'll lessen the authority they possess on the stand when testifying, which I think I've brought up before, and that they'll record everything, not just encounters. Cops spend quite a bit of time chit-chatting and whatnot, and if they have the ability to turn the cameras off then they really defeat the purpose.


Hadn't really considered the testimony angle.  I have to think about that for a bit.
Yeah, Stadler and I were discussing that a few pages ago. A cop's uniform and professional testimonial demeanor make him honest and reliable to juries. If that's supplanted by ubiquitous video it'll lessen their professional credibility. Naturally I think their professional credibility should count for jack shit, so this is a fine thing.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: kirksnosehair on August 29, 2014, 12:36:25 PM
I agree.  Cameras have no bias and they can't lie.  On the other hand, a police officer's court testimony is generally taken at face value by most juries, when it really shouldn't be.



Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: KevShmev on August 29, 2014, 12:50:33 PM
One big drawback to law-abiding citizens like us would be cops always having those cameras on means they'd probably be a lot less likely to not give out tickets for routine traffic stops.  I once had a cop not give me any ticket cause I rolled through a stop sign at like 4 in the morning 20 years ago (I had not been drinking), and about 5-6 years, a cop gave me a seat belt ticket (even though I was wearing it, as I always do) instead of a speeding ticket for 46 in a 35 cause I told him I was coming back from taking a friend to her car since she had been drunk the night before and had to be driven home (which was true).  Fearing their superiors giving them grief for not giving tickets, they might not be as cool about little stuff like that.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: kirksnosehair on August 29, 2014, 01:01:42 PM
Well, that's how rules work, I guess.  They have consequences.  Protecting innocents (or even guilty criminals) from unnecessary police brutality trumps traffic tickets.  Besides, it's well known that police have total discretion when it comes to the type of citation they issue.  Here in MA they can verbally warn you, give you a written warning, ticket you for a moving violation or even serve you with a court summons right on the spot. 
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: El Barto on August 29, 2014, 01:47:30 PM
I suspect that to win the approval of cop unions most jurisdictions are going to institute policies much like the NTSB with CVR's. The only time those are accessed is if there's an accident, and then they're only listened to by select, unbiased people. They were very cautious to make sure that the airlines didn't get to go through and listen to what their pilots were bitching about during the 80% of the flight that's spent bullshitting. Cops aren't going to sign off on the things unless there are procedures in place to protect them from workplace bullshit. The fact that they'll contain evidence that both sides are wanting to use will be a tricky bit in that, I suspect they can find a way. I'd suggest outsourcing it to a non-biased entity that can edit out only the bit relevant to the interaction in question.

As for Johnny using discretion when writing tickets, I'm not sure how this would be any different than the dashcams.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: bosk1 on August 29, 2014, 03:30:17 PM
I suspect that to win the approval of cop unions most jurisdictions are going to institute policies much like the NTSB with CVR's. The only time those are accessed is if there's an accident, and then they're only listened to by select, unbiased people. They were very cautious to make sure that the airlines didn't get to go through and listen to what their pilots were bitching about during the 80% of the flight that's spent bullshitting. Cops aren't going to sign off on the things unless there are procedures in place to protect them from workplace bullshit. The fact that they'll contain evidence that both sides are wanting to use will be a tricky bit in that, I suspect they can find a way. I'd suggest outsourcing it to a non-biased entity that can edit out only the bit relevant to the interaction in question.

I did not know that about NTSB, but that is a common sense approach, and a pretty good idea at that.  Yeah, something like that could absolutely work if they were forced to wear cameras.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: El Barto on August 29, 2014, 03:39:40 PM
Well the pilots have two advantages. Their yacking isn't usually considered evidence that both sides will be subpoenaing, and the CVRs are a physical part of the AC that don't get removed. CVRs only record the last 30 or 90 minutes before overwriting. Johnny is going to have to keep his videos for a very long time. Solid state memory will make that relatively easy, but from a privacy standpoint I can certainly see why they might not care for it much (not that I give a rat's ass). 
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: gmillerdrake on September 01, 2014, 07:32:00 PM
Spoke with my neighbor for a moment outside tonight... and in case you didn't see the post I posted somewhere in this thread.....he works on a cyber intelligence team directly for the Chief of the St. Louis Police department. He mentioned to me when this all went down that there wouldn't be anything 'tricky' to this case as far as physical evidence at the scene and being able to determine what and how 'it' all happened. That the forensics wouldn't lie and that he hoped in his hear of hearts that Wilson just didn't shoot this guy in cold blood...but that it'd be clear one way or the other if he was justified or not.

  Well....I mentioned to him that I hadn't seen him the past couple weeks and he told me that he'd just been working his tail off that it's really all hands on deck....and then he said it's not going to get any better anytime soon being that from what he's hearing that they aren't going to indict Wilson and that they are expecting and planning for a $hitstorm for the aftermath of that announcement.

 Now, he's not directly involved in the investigation but he does work intelligence in the office of the Chief of the St. Louis Police department so I'd imagine he's hearing things that the public isn't....so....I am anxiously awaiting what will actually happen here.


If there is no indictment does anyone else have the same suspicion that I have which is the rioting that will take place will trump the LA riots? This story may be out of the national spotlight for the moment but here in StL it's still getting a ton of local press and that atmosphere hasn't settled at all.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: El Barto on September 01, 2014, 10:02:07 PM
I don't see more Ferguson riots. Other parts St Louis might be in some trouble, though.

The announcement itself isn't going to cause people to riot. They'll know it's coming and they'll be prepared for it. What I'd worry about it is a demonstration or protest a day or two later.  It's when there's already a large group of people present that things can get out of hand.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: gmillerdrake on September 01, 2014, 10:38:18 PM
The announcement itself isn't going to cause people to riot. They'll know it's coming and they'll be prepared for it.

I don't know EB. Just the other day on a very popular drive home radio show they had (3) citizens from Ferguson on the show to talk about the whole ordeal. The host asked them....if they come out and do not indict Wilson, show every bit of evidence of why they didn't....and there is 100% full evidence that he was justified....would you be satisfied?

All three said 'no'...that they'd better indict because of what the black community has been through and that the evidence would mean nothing because they flat out don't trust 'the white people' running the investigation.

I absolutely think that if/when they announce that it was a justified shooting there will be rioting within minutes of that announcement. I hope I'm wrong and reading too much into the comments that are making the local media/press.


Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Stadler on September 02, 2014, 02:28:27 PM
I agree.  Cameras have no bias and they can't lie.  On the other hand, a police officer's court testimony is generally taken at face value by most juries, when it really shouldn't be.

That's not entirely true; unless and until cameras can capture every sound and every image, in real time, and in a way that can be synchronized to all the other sounds and images, then they will have bias.  If there is one camera at the scene, basic details can be confirmed.  I don't know what the standard field of view is on a video camera (obviously something less than 180 degrees) leaving at least 180 degrees of the relevant space undocumented.   Not "bias" in the sense of the word I think is meant here, but I think the testimony angle has merit, because what will happen is that the camera will become the be all and end all WITHOUT the necessary scrutiny to see if it merits that position based on ALL the events of the "crime scene".

I think by dismissing or downplaying the testimony strength of police officers we are potentially encroaching on areas that we don't intend to in terms of general witness credibility, and the administrative process of a court proceeding.     
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: El Barto on September 02, 2014, 06:45:47 PM

I think by dismissing or downplaying the testimony strength of police officers we are potentially encroaching on areas that we don't intend to in terms of general witness credibility, and the administrative process of a court proceeding.   
Honestly, witness credibility is already one of the weakest links in that administrative process. The fact that cops have "testimonial strength" is just one of the faults in a pretty sketchy system.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Chino on September 03, 2014, 09:39:51 AM

I think by dismissing or downplaying the testimony strength of police officers we are potentially encroaching on areas that we don't intend to in terms of general witness credibility, and the administrative process of a court proceeding.   
Honestly, witness credibility is already one of the weakest links in that administrative process. The fact that cops have "testimonial strength" is just one of the faults in a pretty sketchy system.

I watched a documentary on The Science Channel years ago related to eyewitness testimony being the worst method of obtaining evidence. I remember a college class being used as the test subjects. They were all given helmet cams and went on a field trip/hike. They were told the camera footage was going to be used for a project they needed to do for the class. While on the hike up some mountains, there was a staged incident. There was fake smoke everywhere, security guards, tape sectioning something off, etc... They were all told to move along.

The following week, they had fake police come to the school and pull aside all the students that went on the hike that day. They got interviewed as if they were witnesses to a real plane/alien craft crash (keep in mind that the students still believe all of this was real). It was amazing how varied and imaginative the testimonies were. Some students saw a crashed plane, some saw a crashed disk. Others reported seeing strange looking metal that didn't look earthly and one claimed they saw Chinese writing on some debris. The thing was, there was no crash or debris of any kind, or even a faked crash. It was just smoke machines everywhere. The thing that really stood out to me was many of the students noted seeing the security guards holding large rifles, two of them even claimed that they had a gun pointed at them. Looking over the video later on showed that none of the guards were holding a weapon of any kind.

Eyewitness testimony is beyond weak. Humans create false memories all the time, and while under scrutiny and pressure from peers, juries, or authorities, one is far more likely to recall a memory incorrectly, even if it is unintentional.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: gmillerdrake on September 03, 2014, 09:44:24 AM
Eyewitness testimony is beyond weak. Humans create false memories all the time, and while under scrutiny and pressure from peers, juries, or authorities, one is far more likely to recall a memory incorrectly, even if it is unintentional.

I'll try to dig up the article I read a couple weeks ago....but essentially it surmised that when we recall our "memories" that we are actually recalling the last time we recalled that memory......not the actual event that created that memory.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Stadler on September 03, 2014, 10:24:04 AM


I watched a documentary on The Science Channel years ago related to eyewitness testimony being the worst method of obtaining evidence. I remember a college class being used as the test subjects. They were all given helmet cams and went on a field trip/hike. They were told the camera footage was going to be used for a project they needed to do for the class. While on the hike up some mountains, there was a staged incident. There was fake smoke everywhere, security guards, tape sectioning something off, etc... They were all told to move along.

The following week, they had fake police come to the school and pull aside all the students that went on the hike that day. They got interviewed as if they were witnesses to a real plane/alien craft crash (keep in mind that the students still believe all of this was real). It was amazing how varied and imaginative the testimonies were. Some students saw a crashed plane, some saw a crashed disk. Others reported seeing strange looking metal that didn't look earthly and one claimed they saw Chinese writing on some debris. The thing was, there was no crash or debris of any kind, or even a faked crash. It was just smoke machines everywhere. The thing that really stood out to me was many of the students noted seeing the security guards holding large rifles, two of them even claimed that they had a gun pointed at them. Looking over the video later on showed that none of the guards were holding a weapon of any kind.

Eyewitness testimony is beyond weak. Humans create false memories all the time, and while under scrutiny and pressure from peers, juries, or authorities, one is far more likely to recall a memory incorrectly, even if it is unintentional.


It is weak, and it is subject to "human nature".   Who wants to admit that they are wrong or that their memories are fallible?   Plus it is in our nature to take what facts we have and interpolate the facts that fit in between.   We do that from our experience and our "knowledge" (such that it is) and so we take things like TV and books and movies and fill in the blanks.  I wonder how many of those students saw a movie like "Close Encounters" where the facility was surrounded with Army soldiers holding weapons and therefore "filled in the blanks"?  Add to that our own personal bias (when a cop gets out of a car, before any interaction happens, do you assume "good intent" or "bad intent"?  When you see a uniform of any kind, do you think "good guy" or "bad guy"?) and you have a fertile ground for embellished recall.

The thing that most people forget though, is that in a court room, there are often multiple witnesses, multiple pieces of evidence, and at least two sides of the story being pitched.   That "witness recall" above is flawed, but in court, the pictures could be presented, the uniformed guards could testify ("Corporal, please tell the court what weapon, if any, you were holding while directing the pedestrian traffic in the area") and the opposing counsel could "impeach" the witness with whatever evidence it has.   I know from my jury experience (in a trial that was moderately based on witness testimony), when a witness statement is directly and conclusively refuted by hard evidence, much of their testimony (even that which is not in question) becomes suspect. 
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: bosk1 on September 03, 2014, 10:43:40 AM
I watched a documentary on The Science Channel years ago related to eyewitness testimony being the worst method of obtaining evidence.

If that was truly the point the documentary was making, then it WAY overstated its case to the point of absurdity.  Eyewitness testimony can be incredibly flawed and inaccurate.  It can also be the some of the absolute best evidence.  It simply depends on a lot of factors.  Our system for how evidence gets admitted and evaluated in a court case is flawed, but it has numerous systems of checks and balances in place that are designed to allow as fair and inbiased a presentation of evidence as possible.  Stadler pointed out a few of those above.  And in addition to all of that, there is also simply the act of cross examining the witness.  No, it isn't like on TV.  But the point is, any witness can be asked very specific, very pointed, and sometimes very difficult questions to test the witnesses' credibility, recall ability, bias, and other aspects of his or her testimony.  Through that process, a judge or jury can often arrive at logical conclusions about how much an eyewitness' testimony can be taken as credible.  If cross examation and use of other evidence establishes that the witness appears to be truthful and relatively unbiased, and has a clear recall of events, the eyewitness testimony can be some of the best evidence.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Chino on September 03, 2014, 10:47:30 AM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/28/cops-kill-woman-maria-godinez_n_5732032.html

Quote
"In order to prevent an armed individual from causing harm to any members of the public or to any of the surrounding officers, Ofc. Sanguino discharges his firearm nine times striking Roach at least five times," the report said.

Police said Roach had an unloaded handgun when he was fired upon. He was taken to a hospital and survived his injuries.

Amid the exchange of gunfire, one of the bullets fired by Orlando police officer Eduardo Sanguino hit and killed 22-year-old Fernanda Godinez, WESH reports.

Sanguino has been placed on paid leave pending an investigation of the shooting.

Now, police say Roach is responsible for Godinez's death, and they've charged him with first-degree felony murder.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: El Barto on September 03, 2014, 10:50:58 AM
I watched a documentary on The Science Channel years ago related to eyewitness testimony being the worst method of obtaining evidence.

If that was truly the point the documentary was making, then it WAY overstated its case to the point of absurdity.  Eyewitness testimony can be incredibly flawed and inaccurate.  It can also be the some of the absolute best evidence.  It simply depends on a lot of factors.  Our system for how evidence gets admitted and evaluated in a court case is flawed, but it has numerous systems of checks and balances in place that are designed to allow as fair and inbiased a presentation of evidence as possible.  Stadler pointed out a few of those above.  And in addition to all of that, there is also simply the act of cross examining the witness.  No, it isn't like on TV.  But the point is, any witness can be asked very specific, very pointed, and sometimes very difficult questions to test the witnesses' credibility, recall ability, bias, and other aspects of his or her testimony.  Through that process, a judge or jury can often arrive at logical conclusions about how much an eyewitness' testimony can be taken as credible.  If cross examation and use of other evidence establishes that the witness appears to be truthful and relatively unbiased, and has a clear recall of events, the eyewitness testimony can be some of the best evidence.
I thought you were going to ask why we should give any value to his recollection of a show from years ago that demonstrated exactly why we shouldn't.  Boskfail.

I agree with the point though. The system itself does help to sort some of that out. My concern is with the "testimonial strength" of cops on the stand.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: El Barto on September 03, 2014, 10:54:51 AM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/13/colorado-marijuana-black-market_n_5669302.html

Quote
"In order to prevent an armed individual from causing harm to any members of the public or to any of the surrounding officers, Ofc. Sanguino discharges his firearm nine times striking Roach at least five times," the report said.

Police said Roach had an unloaded handgun when he was fired upon. He was taken to a hospital and survived his injuries.

Amid the exchange of gunfire, one of the bullets fired by Orlando police officer Eduardo Sanguino hit and killed 22-year-old Fernanda Godinez, WESH reports.

Sanguino has been placed on paid leave pending an investigation of the shooting.

Now, police say Roach is responsible for Godinez's death, and they've charged him with first-degree felony murder.
I think felony murder statutes are pretty shaky and often times used for utter bullshit. I don't really have much of a problem with this, though. From a prosecutorial standpoint you charge Roach for felony murder. From an administrative standpoint you discipline the officer for shooting a civilian. And on the civil side Sanguino's family sues Roach, the cop, the department, the state and probably Obama because why the hell not.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Stadler on September 03, 2014, 11:35:46 AM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/13/colorado-marijuana-black-market_n_5669302.html

Quote
"In order to prevent an armed individual from causing harm to any members of the public or to any of the surrounding officers, Ofc. Sanguino discharges his firearm nine times striking Roach at least five times," the report said.

Police said Roach had an unloaded handgun when he was fired upon. He was taken to a hospital and survived his injuries.

Amid the exchange of gunfire, one of the bullets fired by Orlando police officer Eduardo Sanguino hit and killed 22-year-old Fernanda Godinez, WESH reports.

Sanguino has been placed on paid leave pending an investigation of the shooting.

Now, police say Roach is responsible for Godinez's death, and they've charged him with first-degree felony murder.
I think felony murder statutes are pretty shaky and often times used for utter bullshit. I don't really have much of a problem with this, though. From a prosecutorial standpoint you charge Roach for felony murder. From an administrative standpoint you discipline the officer for shooting a civilian. And on the civil side Sanguino's family sues Roach, the cop, the department, the state and probably Obama because why the hell not.

Curious why (or in what way) you consider them "shaky"?  In many ways they aren't intended in the same way as the base criminal laws. 
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: hefdaddy42 on September 03, 2014, 11:53:27 AM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/13/colorado-marijuana-black-market_n_5669302.html

Quote
"In order to prevent an armed individual from causing harm to any members of the public or to any of the surrounding officers, Ofc. Sanguino discharges his firearm nine times striking Roach at least five times," the report said.

Police said Roach had an unloaded handgun when he was fired upon. He was taken to a hospital and survived his injuries.

Amid the exchange of gunfire, one of the bullets fired by Orlando police officer Eduardo Sanguino hit and killed 22-year-old Fernanda Godinez, WESH reports.

Sanguino has been placed on paid leave pending an investigation of the shooting.

Now, police say Roach is responsible for Godinez's death, and they've charged him with first-degree felony murder.
The story you posted has nothing to do with your link (which belongs in a different thread).
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: bosk1 on September 03, 2014, 12:04:00 PM
I thought you were going to ask why we should give any value to his recollection of a show from years ago that demonstrated exactly why we shouldn't.  Boskfail.

:lol

I agree with the point though. The system itself does help to sort some of that out. My concern is with the "testimonial strength" of cops on the stand.

Yeah, and that's a fair point that I am completely ignoring because I have no idea how to address it.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Chino on September 03, 2014, 12:13:00 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/13/colorado-marijuana-black-market_n_5669302.html

Quote
*snip*
The story you posted has nothing to do with your link (which belongs in a different thread).

Whoops. Fix'd.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: El Barto on September 03, 2014, 12:27:02 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/13/colorado-marijuana-black-market_n_5669302.html

Quote
"In order to prevent an armed individual from causing harm to any members of the public or to any of the surrounding officers, Ofc. Sanguino discharges his firearm nine times striking Roach at least five times," the report said.

Police said Roach had an unloaded handgun when he was fired upon. He was taken to a hospital and survived his injuries.

Amid the exchange of gunfire, one of the bullets fired by Orlando police officer Eduardo Sanguino hit and killed 22-year-old Fernanda Godinez, WESH reports.

Sanguino has been placed on paid leave pending an investigation of the shooting.

Now, police say Roach is responsible for Godinez's death, and they've charged him with first-degree felony murder.
I think felony murder statutes are pretty shaky and often times used for utter bullshit. I don't really have much of a problem with this, though. From a prosecutorial standpoint you charge Roach for felony murder. From an administrative standpoint you discipline the officer for shooting a civilian. And on the civil side Sanguino's family sues Roach, the cop, the department, the state and probably Obama because why the hell not.

Curious why (or in what way) you consider them "shaky"?  In many ways they aren't intended in the same way as the base criminal laws.
It's a little too discretionary. This is a fair use of it, but at other times it seems to be nothing more than an excuse to bust somebody when there aren't any other charges that'll work. Sticking with the Colorado theme we have working, Lisl Auman was a fine example of that. She was sentenced to life in prison for the shooting of a cop which happened while she was a half mile away, in handcuffs, in the back of an unrelated squad car.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: kirksnosehair on September 03, 2014, 01:21:38 PM
The felony murder statutes are too rigid when they leave judges no discretion in cases where there is clearly no intent.


Same goes for 3 strike laws.  Those are even worse, in fact. 


I know some dudes doing life for shit as mundane as stealing a bottle of whiskey from a package store to drug possession.  That's just stupid.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: kirksnosehair on September 03, 2014, 01:24:48 PM
I agree.  Cameras have no bias and they can't lie.  On the other hand, a police officer's court testimony is generally taken at face value by most juries, when it really shouldn't be.

That's not entirely true; unless and until cameras can capture every sound and every image, in real time, and in a way that can be synchronized to all the other sounds and images, then they will have bias.   


inanimate objects are not capable of bias
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Dark Castle on September 03, 2014, 01:27:34 PM
I agree.  Cameras have no bias and they can't lie.  On the other hand, a police officer's court testimony is generally taken at face value by most juries, when it really shouldn't be.

That's not entirely true; unless and until cameras can capture every sound and every image, in real time, and in a way that can be synchronized to all the other sounds and images, then they will have bias.   

inanimate objects are not capable of bias
Yeah, the people interpreting what's captured may be biased, but that doesn't make cameras biased.
inanimate objects are not capable of bias
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Stadler on September 04, 2014, 08:25:47 AM
I agree.  Cameras have no bias and they can't lie.  On the other hand, a police officer's court testimony is generally taken at face value by most juries, when it really shouldn't be.

That's not entirely true; unless and until cameras can capture every sound and every image, in real time, and in a way that can be synchronized to all the other sounds and images, then they will have bias.   


inanimate objects are not capable of bias

In one sense, yes, you are right.  In terms of actively and in real time making distinctions - value judgments - between competing bits of information and/or evaluating that information in the context of experience and belief system, yes, you are right.   

In another, no, and that's the problem.   Anytime there is less than 100% information collected - for whatever reason - there is bias.   Anytime multiple and/or false conclusions can be drawn from the data, there is bias.    The bias may actually be in the human that selects the settings for the camera, thus impacting what information is collected, I will give you that, but every time there is information 'left on the table', it is bias.    Cameras cannot pick up anything other than light waves and sound waves, and only those that are detectable by the receptors in the camera.   If the camera is pointed away from one aspect of the scene and towards another, that is bias (which may be totally unintentional, or based on the police officers evaluation of relative danger). 

We may not want to call this "bias" and that's a fair point, but to say that 'cameras have no bias and cannot lie" is true to the letter, but false to the spirit.  The data from the camera can be just as misleading as court testimony, and without understanding that there is a "form of" bias in that data collection, we can't hope to overcome that misinformation.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Scheavo on September 04, 2014, 02:50:28 PM
Stadler:

I'm not gonna redredge everything, but I feel like there's just two things I'd like to bring back up:

You're right to say that correlatoin does not equal causation. But I think this is a shallow way to look at the argument that racism is causing disparities with incarceration. The real argument is that racism exists, and a consequence of this is that black people are more likely to find themselves in prison for the same offenses. And that's really where I think your argument just falls to pieces. You claim that black people aren't targetted by anyone, but I see no proof to back this up - and furthermore, I see no reason at all to think this is true. Racism is a very deep rooted part of being human, and it has a very deep root in American history and politics. To say that racism has disappeared is an extraordinary claim, and as such extraordinary evidence is required. Extraordinary evidence is not saying that correlatoni does not equal causation when looking at incarceration rates. And even so, saying so doesn't even come close to disproving racism, which is the real underlying contention.

Back in the '50s, I'm sure it would be possible to say that poll tests weren't racially motivated. "Sure, black people failed them more often, but that's not becuase they're black, it's becuase they're not as well educated!" But this ignores the questions being put towards them, and the conditions of those failures. Likewise, yes, it is not illegal to be black, and you do not end up in prison "becuase you are black." You end up there becuase you did someting illegal. But this ignores the conditions of how and why you were caught. Someone gets pulled over because the police officer thought they were suspicious looking, and then smells and finds marijuana, leading to a felony conviction, and them ending up in jail, a cause and reason for that person being in jail is that initial action by the police officer. And so all it takes are some racist cops who pull black people over cause they find them suspicious. Hell, they might not even realize they're doing it!


And then, I have absolutely no belief as far as the shooting of Michael Brown is concerned. I was not there. I have only seen media reports on the matter. I have no clue. I'd ask you to respect me when I say that, and not question me when I say it. All you have seen in this thread is me objecting to people who want to make an opinion on it, especially when they want to make character judgements on a young man who was just shot in killed. I have no trouble if you want to say that this is a bias. But I would just point out that it's very much possible to have some leanings, while still being on the fence. At this point, I probably have leanings towards wanting the media story to be true, as the story brings up real important issues that don't get addressed by our society. And if the shooting is justified, people might forget that there are real police tactics and practices that need to be examined. I would never say that this means Wilson should be convicted, I'm on the fence, remember, but it doesn't mean I can't wish one side to be more likely true than the other. I'm aware of my leanings, meaning I can take that into account when there is actual and substantiated evidence for the public to examine.


---


As far as the police camera's go, I heard one point that I thought El Barto might like, or at least have an interesting response to. The cameras might capture bystanders to a crime, whom are doing nothing illegal, but which might prove of interest or value to people. You might be able to blur the face out, but that doesn't mean identification is impossible. I think this is mostly not much of an issue, but it doesn't mean a situation won't come up where it's entirely relevant and an unintended consequence. I don't think it holds much water, in the end, but it was a different twist on the matter.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Stadler on September 04, 2014, 03:30:49 PM
Stadler:

I'm not gonna redredge everything, but I feel like there's just two things I'd like to bring back up:

You're right to say that correlatoin does not equal causation. But I think this is a shallow way to look at the argument that racism is causing disparities with incarceration. The real argument is that racism exists, and a consequence of this is that black people are more likely to find themselves in prison for the same offenses. And that's really where I think your argument just falls to pieces. You claim that black people aren't targetted by anyone, but I see no proof to back this up - and furthermore, I see no reason at all to think this is true. Racism is a very deep rooted part of being human, and it has a very deep root in American history and politics. To say that racism has disappeared is an extraordinary claim, and as such extraordinary evidence is required. Extraordinary evidence is not saying that correlatoni does not equal causation when looking at incarceration rates. And even so, saying so doesn't even come close to disproving racism, which is the real underlying contention.

But isn't the converse just as true?  Where's the data that says those black people are in prison BECAUSE and ONLY BECAUSE they are black?

I don't for a second claim that "racism has disappeared"; what I am saying is the equivalent of "to a hammer, everything is a nail".  This isn't "black and white" (no pun intended) and it isn't a zero sum game.   I think in today's society, economics is a far better indicator and predictor of behavior than any other factor, race included.   Doesn't mean that race isn't a factor, but at some point we have to accept that life isn't a single variable equation.   And your premise that "racism is a very deep rooted part of being human" is absurd, and both arrogant and condescending (with its implicit presumption that only the enlightened and superior have been able to "overcome" their baser instincts).   We have very differing views of racism, my friend.   I think many of the people constantly pointing out all the racism around us are the real racists in that they HAVE to be seeing color differences to be able to analyze in that way and ascertain that kind of situation.   I don't think it helps ANYONE - black or white - for me to have to walk into a room and quickly account for the skin color of everyone in the room in order to make sure I don't offend, ostracize, or otherwise single out anyone in the room inadvertently, on the off chance that the race police will call me a "racist". 

Quote
Back in the '50s, I'm sure it would be possible to say that poll tests weren't racially motivated. "Sure, black people failed them more often, but that's not becuase they're black, it's becuase they're not as well educated!" But this ignores the questions being put towards them, and the conditions of those failures. Likewise, yes, it is not illegal to be black, and you do not end up in prison "becuase you are black." You end up there becuase you did someting illegal. But this ignores the conditions of how and why you were caught. Someone gets pulled over because the police officer thought they were suspicious looking, and then smells and finds marijuana, leading to a felony conviction, and them ending up in jail, a cause and reason for that person being in jail is that initial action by the police officer. And so all it takes are some racist cops who pull black people over cause they find them suspicious. Hell, they might not even realize they're doing it!

So your entire premise is based on the idea that all cops are inadvertent racists???  Pardon if I don't accept that.  (Though, in the interest of fairness, there are plenty of studies that show that some racism IS unconscious).  How any person gets into the system is, in my view, irrelevant.   There are plenty of checks and balances that are in place to ensure that innocent people don't get sent to jail and guilty people don't get set free.  Regardless of what happens in the intervening steps, the best way to stay out of jail?  Don't commit a crime that has jail time as a penalty. 

Quote
And then, I have absolutely no belief as far as the shooting of Michael Brown is concerned. I was not there. I have only seen media reports on the matter. I have no clue. I'd ask you to respect me when I say that, and not question me when I say it. All you have seen in this thread is me objecting to people who want to make an opinion on it, especially when they want to make character judgements on a young man who was just shot in killed. I have no trouble if you want to say that this is a bias. But I would just point out that it's very much possible to have some leanings, while still being on the fence. At this point, I probably have leanings towards wanting the media story to be true, as the story brings up real important issues that don't get addressed by our society. And if the shooting is justified, people might forget that there are real police tactics and practices that need to be examined. I would never say that this means Wilson should be convicted, I'm on the fence, remember, but it doesn't mean I can't wish one side to be more likely true than the other. I'm aware of my leanings, meaning I can take that into account when there is actual and substantiated evidence for the public to examine.

I understand what you are saying - the words coming out of your mouth - but I don't understand that point of view one bit, and I respectfully and peaceably say that I cannot accept the premise that wanting one side to be right frees you from scrutiny.  You might be on the fence in terms of what the actual outcome is, but that doesn't in and of itself absolve you of acknowledging not just your bias but what any bias does to the analysis of the information collected.   I'm going to torture the analogy, but leaning one way on the fence by definition means your view of the one side of the fence is clearer and more unobstructed than the other, and that in turn, by definition, makes the chances that you find in favor of "your" side of the fence a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy.

And I can't for the life of me see why you would "prefer" one outcome over the other in what is by any standard a horrible tragedy on all sides. 

Quote
As far as the police camera's go, I heard one point that I thought El Barto might like, or at least have an interesting response to. The cameras might capture bystanders to a crime, whom are doing nothing illegal, but which might prove of interest or value to people. You might be able to blur the face out, but that doesn't mean identification is impossible. I think this is mostly not much of an issue, but it doesn't mean a situation won't come up where it's entirely relevant and an unintended consequence. I don't think it holds much water, in the end, but it was a different twist on the matter.

Don't let my comments fool you; I am all for cameras where possible.  More data points are almost always a good thing, and can only lead to better outcomes from investigative efforts.   I just don't want the swing to be too far in any one direction.  Cameras are not infallible, and we cannot supplant any one data gathering source for another without understanding the upsides and downsides of doing so. 
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Scheavo on September 04, 2014, 04:28:31 PM
Quote
I don't for a second claim that "racism has disappeared";

Quote
I'm sure you will argue that cops and judges and prosecutors are simply targeting blacks (which might have been true 100 years ago in certain jurisdictions) but it isn't the case today.

I read the context of those statements again, and I'm not sure how to read the second and not read that you think, at least in this context, that racism has disappeared.

Quote
I think many of the people constantly pointing out all the racism around us are the real racists in that they HAVE to be seeing color differences to be able to analyze in that way and ascertain that kind of situation.

It's psychology, so I'm not sure why it should be controversial. We are visual creatures, and we make prejudices based upon visual clues. It's something we all constantly do. And I'm using prejudice in the very etymological sense: a judgement made a priori. It's why we have fashion. It doesn't mean they're bad prejudices, or racist prejudices, or even due to some personal flaw or fault in the person judging. The color of one's skin is one single factor in all of that, but it is there, and it is and can be a factor. It's done subconsciously, it's not something you take into account. In a racist society and environment, we just help make those subconscious tendency conscious behavior. Society changing doesn't change the underlying basic human psychology.


Quote
So your entire premise is based on the idea that all cops are inadvertent racists???

Nope. Never said or implied that. I did, however, say just the opposite:

Quote
And so all it takes are some racist cops who pull black people over cause they find them suspicious. Hell, they might not even realize they're doing it!

After that, you basically ignored my point. If a black guy get's pulled over because he's black, and then goes to jail for {insert crime here}, his jail sentence is not technically because he's black - but it ignores the series of events, and the chronological fact that without getting pulled over for being black, he wouldn't be in prison. I don't even see how that's a debatable point. It's a causal event that kick starts the entire process you want to talk about. And that's why I honestly don't think you're talking about the same thing as me. The thing you want to talk about, I would more or less agree with.

Quote
Where's the data that says those black people are in prison BECAUSE and ONLY BECAUSE they are black?

Kirknosehairs gave one earlier, as have other studies which show black people getting pulled over or stopped and frisked disproportionally from the rest of the population.

Quote
I understand what you are saying - the words coming out of your mouth - but I don't understand that point of view one bit, and I respectfully and peaceably say that I cannot accept the premise that wanting one side to be right frees you from scrutiny.

In one of your first post one the forums, you said something to the effect that intelligence is being able to realize what one's biases were and accounting for them. I think the context was the Supreme Court, and being able to differentiate between what one wanted to be the law and interpretted within the law, and what was actually written in the law.

I happen to agree, and don't see why it should be a problem for you think I'm capable of it. And your point about not being able to see all areas is true, I just don't see why it's relevant to what's going on. I have never made a claim about the case, directly. I have only countered claims by other people. Meaning, what I'm doing would be saying, "hey, no, I can see this part of the lawn right here, and that's not true" or "hey, from where you're at, neither of us can see that spot" to someone who is leaning the other way (if at all on the fence). What I can't see doesn't prevent me from being able to talk about what I do see.


Quote
And I can't for the life of me see why you would "prefer" one outcome over the other in what is by any standard a horrible tragedy on all sides.

Because that by all means horrible tragedy has already occured. Now I want to prevent more horrible tragedies, and because of the media response, whether or not meaningful change happens depends upon the aforementioned events.

Quote
I just don't want the swing to be too far in any one direction.  Cameras are not infallible, and we cannot supplant any one data gathering source for another without understanding the upsides and downsides of doing so. 

Which is also true for cops. Which as I've read it, is what you've been arguing against El Barto so much.


Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: The King in Crimson on September 04, 2014, 06:49:23 PM
I agree.  Cameras have no bias and they can't lie.  On the other hand, a police officer's court testimony is generally taken at face value by most juries, when it really shouldn't be.

That's not entirely true; unless and until cameras can capture every sound and every image, in real time, and in a way that can be synchronized to all the other sounds and images, then they will have bias.   


inanimate objects are not capable of bias

In one sense, yes, you are right.  In terms of actively and in real time making distinctions - value judgments - between competing bits of information and/or evaluating that information in the context of experience and belief system, yes, you are right.   

In another, no, and that's the problem.   Anytime there is less than 100% information collected - for whatever reason - there is bias.   Anytime multiple and/or false conclusions can be drawn from the data, there is bias.    The bias may actually be in the human that selects the settings for the camera, thus impacting what information is collected, I will give you that, but every time there is information 'left on the table', it is bias.    Cameras cannot pick up anything other than light waves and sound waves, and only those that are detectable by the receptors in the camera.   If the camera is pointed away from one aspect of the scene and towards another, that is bias (which may be totally unintentional, or based on the police officers evaluation of relative danger). 

We may not want to call this "bias" and that's a fair point, but to say that 'cameras have no bias and cannot lie" is true to the letter, but false to the spirit.  The data from the camera can be just as misleading as court testimony, and without understanding that there is a "form of" bias in that data collection, we can't hope to overcome that misinformation.
You're right, "bias (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bias?s=t)" is the completely wrong word to use in this instance.  Cameras may not catch ALL of the information but they cannot be biased. A human being is biased. A human being can have certain preconceptions about situations or events (as we've seen from this thread) but a camera cannot. It is a thing without preconceived notions or inherent tendencies to subjectify the truth.  Cameras also cannot lie (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lie?s=t). Lying implies a deliberate and concerted effort to mislead or hide the truth. Now, cameras are not always 100% accurate, they will not and cannot see everything and they will not remove all doubt from situations. They are tools and they are only as good as their users (who can lie or be biased as we've seen when cops turn off or mess with the cameras so they can beat on suspects (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/15/the-day-ferguson-cops-were-caught-in-a-bloody-lie.html)). I think you'd be hard-pressed to find someone that would disagree with those statements. But biased? No. Cameras are as much biased as guns are murderers.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Implode on September 04, 2014, 08:38:31 PM
correlatoni

Sounds like an Italian pasta. :lol

I think many of the people constantly pointing out all the racism around us are the real racists in that they HAVE to be seeing color differences to be able to analyze in that way and ascertain that kind of situation.   I don't think it helps ANYONE - black or white - for me to have to walk into a room and quickly account for the skin color of everyone in the room in order to make sure I don't offend, ostracize, or otherwise single out anyone in the room inadvertently, on the off chance that the race police will call me a "racist".

People speaking out against racism are the real racists? I don't understand that at all. Seeing color does not make you racist. People have different color skin; in the past and present, it has caused people with darker skin to have a harder time in life (to put way more lightly than it deserves). That's just a fact of reality. Knowing and acknowledging that will help everyone move forward. Pretending color doesn't exist and everything is fine and dandy now won't fix the problems that still exist. And then you make it sound like it's inconvenient to make sure you don't say anything racist in a room of diverse people. It shouldn't be that hard.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Jaffa on September 04, 2014, 09:29:40 PM
And then you make it sound like it's inconvenient to make sure you don't say anything racist in a room of diverse people. It shouldn't be that hard.

No, it shouldn't.  But sometimes it is.  Like it or not, some people are very quick to take offense to things, and that can make it very difficult to tell where the line is. 

To put it another way, it's easy to not be racist, but it's difficult to avoid ever saying anything that anyone might interpret as being racist.  Because sometimes it really feels like just about anything can be interpreted as being racist. 
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Lucien on September 04, 2014, 09:57:07 PM
I don't know law too well, but if an officer kills a civilian while trying to shoot a threat, the person the officer was actually trying to shoot at is charged with murder?  :huh:

This genuinely confuses me.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: El Barto on September 04, 2014, 11:15:30 PM
I don't know law too well, but if an officer kills a civilian while trying to shoot a threat, the person the officer was actually trying to shoot at is charged with murder?  :huh:

This genuinely confuses me.
The logic in that if you're committing a dangerous felony and somebody dies in the process then you're on the hook for it since the death was a natural consequence of the felony. The textbook example is that you decide to jack up a local cum-and-go and when making your escape run over some poor sod pumping gas. Even though it wasn't your intent for the guy to be killed, you're guilty of his murder.

Where things get dicey is that it's often applied to accomplices who aren't entirely related to the crime. A passenger in that care would also be guilty of the felony murder since he was a part of the original robbery. That Lisl girl I mentioned earlier was a part of an initial burglary, but thirty minutes after her capture, when she was cuffed and well away from the action one of her co-conspirators killed some cop and she was convicted of the murder (a real reach, IMO). I've also seen it used against people for the deaths of their accomplices. Recently two shitbags took a girl hostage and commenced to home-invading her family. Dad killed the guy holding his daughter and winged the other bad guy who at that point hadn't actually done anything serious. The surviving shitbag was actually charged with the felony murder of his hostage-taking homey. Also a bit of a reach, but one that nobody's going to complain about because he needed to be charged with something and that's what they had.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Stadler on September 05, 2014, 09:34:16 AM
Quote
I don't for a second claim that "racism has disappeared";

Quote
I'm sure you will argue that cops and judges and prosecutors are simply targeting blacks (which might have been true 100 years ago in certain jurisdictions) but it isn't the case today.

I read the context of those statements again, and I'm not sure how to read the second and not read that you think, at least in this context, that racism has disappeared.

"SIMPLY" as if it is the sole factor and sole motivator.   I don't say it has disappeared or that it isn't a factor, I just don't think it is the first or biggest factor we should jump to.   I don't live in, or accept analyses that assume, a black-and-white, single-variable world.  It is simplistic, and reduces important factors to irrelevancy.   The current buzzwords are "blowback" and "unintended consequences", and in almost every case I can think of, those come from over-simplifying situations that don't warrant the oversimplification.

Quote

It's psychology, so I'm not sure why it should be controversial. We are visual creatures, and we make prejudices based upon visual clues. It's something we all constantly do. And I'm using prejudice in the very etymological sense: a judgement made a priori. It's why we have fashion. It doesn't mean they're bad prejudices, or racist prejudices, or even due to some personal flaw or fault in the person judging. The color of one's skin is one single factor in all of that, but it is there, and it is and can be a factor. It's done subconsciously, it's not something you take into account. In a racist society and environment, we just help make those subconscious tendency conscious behavior. Society changing doesn't change the underlying basic human psychology.

But here's the thing that is missed:  in the context of "visual creatures" that "make prejudices based on visual clues", the word prejudice is neutral.  It does not carry the baggage that the word has in the context of social and racial relationships.   We are, for example, "prejudicial" towards moving objects (think of the forest, where you can't tell a deer standing still, but you see it's movement after it is spooked).  That is not "bad" or better yet, "detrimental to society", but it IS a prejudice.  Don't confuse the two. Even though you said almost the same thing I did about the a priori collection of information, once you ask that the "subconscious behavior" becomes "conscious", you're now judging it, and deeming it bad.    Why would we need it "conscious" if it wasn't something we had to "fix"?  You are also giving short-shrift to basic human psychology by prescribing meaning where none exists.   There ARE people that register "skin color" as a matter of information, like they would "wall color", but dismiss it as irrelevant almost immediately.

Quote
Quote
So your entire premise is based on the idea that all cops are inadvertent racists???

Nope. Never said or implied that. I did, however, say just the opposite:

Quote
And so all it takes are some racist cops who pull black people over cause they find them suspicious. Hell, they might not even realize they're doing it!

After that, you basically ignored my point. If a black guy get's pulled over because he's black, and then goes to jail for {insert crime here}, his jail sentence is not technically because he's black - but it ignores the series of events, and the chronological fact that without getting pulled over for being black, he wouldn't be in prison. I don't even see how that's a debatable point. It's a causal event that kick starts the entire process you want to talk about. And that's why I honestly don't think you're talking about the same thing as me. The thing you want to talk about, I would more or less agree with.

Whether you intend to or not, you are clouding the issue here.  If racism is a problem in our prisons, and the person is pulled over BECAUSE they are black, and the cops are the gateway to that scenario, how can you NOT be saying the cops aren't the problem, even if it isn't all 100% of them?   Because how else would the guy be pulled over BECAUSE he's black?

And frankly, without further experimentation, I am reluctant to assume that a car operated by a black driver being pulled over is BECAUSE they are black.   Do two experiments for me:   for the next, say, five days, while you are driving, pick a car, any car at random, and within 30 seconds, note whether you can tell the race of the driver.    You should be in the 85% to 90% range IF it is a valid assumption that cars get pulled over for the race of the driver as opposed to the behavior of the vehicle.   Then, for the next five days after that, pick a car that stands out to you in some way, BUT one you CANNOT see the driver in anything other than sillouette.   Again guess what the race of the driver might be, and then confirm.  I'd be curious how you come out on that.   If you are anything other than 65% white or 15% black (or whatever the breakdown is in your area if it is skewed out of the national average) for the second experiment, what does that tell you?  Are you a racist (remember, you CANNOT see the driver before your "pick")?   The point here is, you are trying to fill in the blanks as to why things are happening and you do not have complete information with which to do so.


Quote
Quote
Where's the data that says those black people are in prison BECAUSE and ONLY BECAUSE they are black?

Kirknosehairs gave one earlier, as have other studies which show black people getting pulled over or stopped and frisked disproportionally from the rest of the population.

See above; I can't argue with the frisking without knowing more about the typical scenarios, but I would be VERY curious to know how often the cop knows the race of the driver BEFORE the stop is effected.    In some urban cases, I imagine it is quite high.  Here in Connecticut, where I live?  I'd be surprised if it was more than 25% of the time.  And I don't need to spell it out for you; if the cop doesn't know the race of the driver before the stop, how can that be the cause?    Yet, that doesn't automatically prevent there being a disproportionate number of one class being stopped. 

Interestingly enough, in one study I read, male drivers are almost SEVEN times more likely to be stopped than female drivers, even though the split should be close to 50-50...  are all cops sexist too?   If you use insurance data, that difference is easily explained by driving patterns as opposed to gender bias; why can't the stoppages that are supposedly by race attributable to that?  I know it is not PC, and not in keeping with the  "we're all equal and equally capable" nonsense that is so prevalent these days, but is it so outrageous to think there may be a difference in driving patterns between blacks and whites?


Quote
I happen to agree, and don't see why it should be a problem for you think I'm capable of it. And your point about not being able to see all areas is true, I just don't see why it's relevant to what's going on. I have never made a claim about the case, directly. I have only countered claims by other people. Meaning, what I'm doing would be saying, "hey, no, I can see this part of the lawn right here, and that's not true" or "hey, from where you're at, neither of us can see that spot" to someone who is leaning the other way (if at all on the fence). What I can't see doesn't prevent me from being able to talk about what I do see.


Haha, I mean this nicely, but it won't come out that way, but I think you are CAPABLE of it, I just don't think you are ACTUALLY doing it.  There are far too many faulty assumptions in your model to say that you are starting from the same platform.  it's not a knock, please don't take it personally, it's just my observation.  That and $0.50 will get me today's Hartford Courant.  ;)

Quote
Because that by all means horrible tragedy has already occured. Now I want to prevent more horrible tragedies, and because of the media response, whether or not meaningful change happens depends upon the aforementioned events.

So am I to understand that you believe that the best way for meaningful change is that this be a bad shooting and/or a racially motivated shooting?    I don't think I disagree that it would lead to "meaningful" in the sense of "significant" change, but I do not have even one iota of your faith that it would lead to "meaningful" in the sense of "positive for all of society and productive in the fight against institutional racism" change.  Not one iota.   
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Stadler on September 05, 2014, 09:38:42 AM

You're right, "bias (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bias?s=t)" is the completely wrong word to use in this instance.  Cameras may not catch ALL of the information but they cannot be biased. A human being is biased. A human being can have certain preconceptions about situations or events (as we've seen from this thread) but a camera cannot. It is a thing without preconceived notions or inherent tendencies to subjectify the truth.  Cameras also cannot lie (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lie?s=t). Lying implies a deliberate and concerted effort to mislead or hide the truth. Now, cameras are not always 100% accurate, they will not and cannot see everything and they will not remove all doubt from situations. They are tools and they are only as good as their users (who can lie or be biased as we've seen when cops turn off or mess with the cameras so they can beat on suspects (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/15/the-day-ferguson-cops-were-caught-in-a-bloody-lie.html)). I think you'd be hard-pressed to find someone that would disagree with those statements. But biased? No. Cameras are as much biased as guns are murderers.

You're right, and it isn't worth arguing the semantics of it, but "bias" isn't the right word.   Having said that, the premise underneath it IS right, and it doesn't JUST take the bias of the user or malicious intent on the part of the user (i.e., turning the camera off) to have the results skewed.   The camera can be used with the best of intent and in the perfectly acceptable way it was supposed to be used and STILL present a situation that is prone to be interpreted in an incorrect way.  Hell, ALL movies ever made do exactly that.  It HAS to be limited to one other data point, no more or less reliable (or at least no more or less immune to scrutiny or impeachment) than any other data point.   That's the point I'm trying to make. 
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Stadler on September 05, 2014, 10:02:21 AM

People speaking out against racism are the real racists? I don't understand that at all. Seeing color does not make you racist. People have different color skin; in the past and present, it has caused people with darker skin to have a harder time in life (to put way more lightly than it deserves). That's just a fact of reality. Knowing and acknowledging that will help everyone move forward. Pretending color doesn't exist and everything is fine and dandy now won't fix the problems that still exist. And then you make it sound like it's inconvenient to make sure you don't say anything racist in a room of diverse people. It shouldn't be that hard.

I didn't articulate that well at all.  No, people speaking out against racism are NOT racists, and I regret if that was the meaning taken.  What I am trying to say is that there are a significant number of people that would walk into that room and not care one bit about the color of any of the people that are in there, and would not say anything that is INTENDED as racist, without being reminded that they shouldn't.  We don't care about those people, because isn't that what we want?   Not to think things are "fine and dandy" or ignore history, but don't we want people to make judgements on facts that are relevant and meaningful in the environment we're in?   By forcing the issue like that, we are making certain facts MORE relevant and meaningful - and not in a positive way - than they need to be.

This is a true story that I have carried with me now for about 15 years, that makes my point.  My wedding; small, only family and a handful of friends from college.   We had two waiters walking around with hors d'oeuvres bars in a reception area and I'm talking to my friend (we'll call him Mick - who is black) and the husband of the maid of honor (we'll call him Keith - who is white) walks up with one of the hors d'oeuvres.  Mick asks which waiter he got that particular food from, and Keith is trying to answer with the tall one, the one over there, the one with... and finally Mick says "the white one or the black one?".    Keith's face turns red and he says "the black one".   I do't know if Keith is racist or not in a general sense, but in that instance it is the forced emphasis and the forced consciousness that I am referring to. 

Fight back when someone says "I won't take an hors d'oeuvres from a black waiter"; don't make everyone else hyper-sensitive about what are factual differences with no discernible substance or meaning. 
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: hefdaddy42 on September 05, 2014, 10:35:02 AM
And frankly, without further experimentation, I am reluctant to assume that a car operated by a black driver being pulled over is BECAUSE they are black.
Really?

This happens all day, every day, everywhere.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Scheavo on September 05, 2014, 11:18:18 AM
Quote
I don't for a second claim that "racism has disappeared";

Quote
I'm sure you will argue that cops and judges and prosecutors are simply targeting blacks (which might have been true 100 years ago in certain jurisdictions) but it isn't the case today.

I read the context of those statements again, and I'm not sure how to read the second and not read that you think, at least in this context, that racism has disappeared.

"SIMPLY" as if it is the sole factor and sole motivator.   I don't say it has disappeared or that it isn't a factor, I just don't think it is the first or biggest factor we should jump to.   I don't live in, or accept analyses that assume, a black-and-white, single-variable world.  It is simplistic, and reduces important factors to irrelevancy.   The current buzzwords are "blowback" and "unintended consequences", and in almost every case I can think of, those come from over-simplifying situations that don't warrant the oversimplification.

And I don't know why you insist on pigeon-holing me into saying that things are so simplistic and single-variable. I have never once said that, and I have in fact said it's not so simplistic. I've even, on several occaisions, said that economics is a factor. I've just qualified that by saying you can't get into the economics of it and not get race involved in that as well. My point is that racism is pervasive.

Quote
But here's the thing that is missed:  in the context of "visual creatures" that "make prejudices based on visual clues", the word prejudice is neutral.  It does not carry the baggage that the word has in the context of social and racial relationships.   We are, for example, "prejudicial" towards moving objects (think of the forest, where you can't tell a deer standing still, but you see it's movement after it is spooked).  That is not "bad" or better yet, "detrimental to society", but it IS a prejudice.  Don't confuse the two. Even though you said almost the same thing I did about the a priori collection of information, once you ask that the "subconscious behavior" becomes "conscious", you're now judging it, and deeming it bad.    Why would we need it "conscious" if it wasn't something we had to "fix"?  You are also giving short-shrift to basic human psychology by prescribing meaning where none exists.   There ARE people that register "skin color" as a matter of information, like they would "wall color", but dismiss it as irrelevant almost immediately.

I don't know why you insist on lecturing back to me the exact same thing I just said. This isn't the first time you've done it.

Quote
Whether you intend to or not, you are clouding the issue here.  If racism is a problem in our prisons, and the person is pulled over BECAUSE they are black, and the cops are the gateway to that scenario, how can you NOT be saying the cops aren't the problem, even if it isn't all 100% of them?   Because how else would the guy be pulled over BECAUSE he's black?

You're equivocating some  cops with all cops. I'm not the one clouding the issue here. Remember, we're talking about why there is a disparity between general population statistics and prison statistics. There is a zero sum game in terms of what an officer can do. They have so much time in a day to do so much work. If some cops spend more time targeting black people because they're a racist, it means it leads to more (valid) prosecution of blacks and less for white people. This leads to a disparity in the prison population. It doesn't have to always be the case, only that it more often be the case.

Quote
And frankly, without further experimentation, I am reluctant to assume that a car operated by a black driver being pulled over is BECAUSE they are black.   Do two experiments for me:   for the next, say, five days, while you are driving, pick a car, any car at random, and within 30 seconds, note whether you can tell the race of the driver.    You should be in the 85% to 90% range IF it is a valid assumption that cars get pulled over for the race of the driver as opposed to the behavior of the vehicle.   Then, for the next five days after that, pick a car that stands out to you in some way, BUT one you CANNOT see the driver in anything other than sillouette.   Again guess what the race of the driver might be, and then confirm.  I'd be curious how you come out on that.   If you are anything other than 65% white or 15% black (or whatever the breakdown is in your area if it is skewed out of the national average) for the second experiment, what does that tell you?  Are you a racist (remember, you CANNOT see the driver before your "pick")?   The point here is, you are trying to fill in the blanks as to why things are happening and you do not have complete information with which to do so.

Would you mind not patronizing me so much?

You don't need to always be able to see the driver, all that matters is when you CAN see the driver and what happens when you CAN do so. I'm having a hard time formalizing your logic here, but I'm positive it's a formal fallacy due to the obviously false results. Even a racist cop will sometimes pull over a black person because their taillight is out and he's just doing a standard procedure. That doesn't preclude him from pulling over other drivers because they're black in other instances.

As a last note, this still doesn't preclude racism. A point I'd like to add is that a police officer could pull over a black guy for legitimate reasons, and then once they're doing the interview, they obviously notice the race of the driver. They could now become more aggressive and pursue a car search in a disproportionate rate. Data shows blacks get their vehicles searched more often than whites. A variety of factors  can play into this, but once again, it's the pervasiveness of race that is most concerning to me.

You're pigeon-holing me into say whenever a black guy gets pulled over, it's because he's black. I never said anything close to that, and it's such a gross unfair interpretation that I'm very close to not even bothering trying to hold a discussion with you. There's just so many strawmen that I'm overwhelmed by having to pull each of them down that nothing productive is even happening.

Quote
Haha, I mean this nicely, but it won't come out that way, but I think you are CAPABLE of it, I just don't think you are ACTUALLY doing it.  There are far too many faulty assumptions in your model to say that you are starting from the same platform.  it's not a knock, please don't take it personally, it's just my observation.  That and $0.50 will get me today's Hartford Courant.  ;)

Oh right, no matter what I say, you'll just stick to your preconception and ignore anyting else. Seriously, please respect me when I tell you I HAVE NO STANDING ON IF THE SHOOTING OF MICHAEL BROWN WAS JUSTIFIED OR NOT. I have been consistent with that, and have never ventured to say anything other than that. You're  conflating my position on the response to the shooting, and on the response to the response of the shooting. They're seperate things.

Quote
Quote
Because that by all means horrible tragedy has already occured. Now I want to prevent more horrible tragedies, and because of the media response, whether or not meaningful change happens depends upon the aforementioned events.

So am I to understand that you believe that the best way for meaningful change is that this be a bad shooting and/or a racially motivated shooting?    I don't think I disagree that it would lead to "meaningful" in the sense of "significant" change, but I do not have even one iota of your faith that it would lead to "meaningful" in the sense of "positive for all of society and productive in the fight against institutional racism" change.  Not one iota.

Because of the attention this case has gotten from the media, yes. If this shooting is unjustified, then it can bring about meaingfull change (and before you lecture me on this, CAN is not WILL). If it's unjustified, a great many people will take the fact that this case was justified to say that alll or most of such cases are justified, making meaningfull change harder to occur. Notice, I'm blaming the media for this, not the events, the shooting, or any opinion on what the events of that day actually were.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: El Barto on September 05, 2014, 11:47:26 AM
And frankly, without further experimentation, I am reluctant to assume that a car operated by a black driver being pulled over is BECAUSE they are black.   Do two experiments for me:   for the next, say, five days, while you are driving, pick a car, any car at random, and within 30 seconds, note whether you can tell the race of the driver.    You should be in the 85% to 90% range IF it is a valid assumption that cars get pulled over for the race of the driver as opposed to the behavior of the vehicle.   Then, for the next five days after that, pick a car that stands out to you in some way, BUT one you CANNOT see the driver in anything other than sillouette.   Again guess what the race of the driver might be, and then confirm.  I'd be curious how you come out on that.   If you are anything other than 65% white or 15% black (or whatever the breakdown is in your area if it is skewed out of the national average) for the second experiment, what does that tell you?  Are you a racist (remember, you CANNOT see the driver before your "pick")?   The point here is, you are trying to fill in the blanks as to why things are happening and you do not have complete information with which to do so.
A lot of stops occur after passing a cop head on and he circles back to light you up. Also, a lot of stops happen because the people "don't look like they belong." I've been hassled numerous times for looking out of place. The overwhelming majority of stops happen because they're running radar to fleece the citizenry, but once you get past traffic cops and into real cops, you're passing out of the for cause area and well into the suspicion realm.

And on a different tack, based on something you said earlier, do you think that cops should be looking for reasons to pull people over? I haven't really given it much thought, but it seems to me that the role of the police is to protect all of us sheep, and is that best served by finding reasons to see if the sheep might be up to no good?
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: KevShmev on September 05, 2014, 12:01:39 PM
And frankly, without further experimentation, I am reluctant to assume that a car operated by a black driver being pulled over is BECAUSE they are black.
Really?

This happens all day, every day, everywhere.

Very true, but I think the problem some have is that some play the "they only got pulled over because they are black" card every single time a black person gets pulled over. 
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Stadler on September 05, 2014, 12:40:42 PM
And frankly, without further experimentation, I am reluctant to assume that a car operated by a black driver being pulled over is BECAUSE they are black.
Really?

This happens all day, every day, everywhere.

I'm sure it does.  But we have no idea if it is 1%, 50% or 100% of the time, do we?
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Stadler on September 05, 2014, 01:25:25 PM

And I don't know why you insist on pigeon-holing me into saying that things are so simplistic and single-variable. I have never once said that, and I have in fact said it's not so simplistic. I've even, on several occaisions, said that economics is a factor. I've just qualified that by saying you can't get into the economics of it and not get race involved in that as well. My point is that racism is pervasive.

I "insist" (your word) because that is what it sounds like.   I know you SAY it's not so simplistic, but every comment is relying on some very broad, very simplistic assumptions.    I don't see you ACTUALLY incorporating any of the other factors in, and I don't see any statement anywhere that even implies that "race" isn't the number one, overriding factor in all of this.

Quote
I don't know why you insist on lecturing back to me the exact same thing I just said. This isn't the first time you've done it.

Just stop.   No lecture; if you don't like the tone, I can't help you.  But I am telling you that I am not "lecturing you".  I would be doing this over a beer and a smile if I could.  You are taking it way too personally.    I was clear that the first part was what you said, but you veered off wildly after that, and drew a conclusion I do not think is the likely one.

Quote
You're equivocating some  cops with all cops. I'm not the one clouding the issue here. Remember, we're talking about why there is a disparity between general population statistics and prison statistics. There is a zero sum game in terms of what an officer can do. They have so much time in a day to do so much work. If some cops spend more time targeting black people because they're a racist, it means it leads to more (valid) prosecution of blacks and less for white people. This leads to a disparity in the prison population. It doesn't have to always be the case, only that it more often be the case.

And I am saying you have no basis for that other that the general statistical likelihood that there is at least one cop somewhere that does that.  And back to your other "complaint" about my tone, I fully acknowledge that there is a disparity of statistics, I am just in a very different place in terms of why that disparity exists.  Frankly, I think it is the simple, easy answer - and the one that diverts responsibility - to simply say "it's all or even for the most part, race".   The simple easy answer, however, isn't always or even often the right answer.


Quote
Would you mind not patronizing me so much?


Nothing intentionally patronizing in that post.  You need to put your big girl panties on here.  I am talking philosophically; nothing here is personal or specific to you.

Quote
You don't need to always be able to see the driver, all that matters is when you CAN see the driver and what happens when you CAN do so. I'm having a hard time formalizing your logic here, but I'm positive it's a formal fallacy due to the obviously false results. Even a racist cop will sometimes pull over a black person because their taillight is out and he's just doing a standard procedure. That doesn't preclude him from pulling over other drivers because they're black in other instances.

As a last note, this still doesn't preclude racism. A point I'd like to add is that a police officer could pull over a black guy for legitimate reasons, and then once they're doing the interview, they obviously notice the race of the driver. They could now become more aggressive and pursue a car search in a disproportionate rate. Data shows blacks get their vehicles searched more often than whites. A variety of factors  can play into this, but once again, it's the pervasiveness of race that is most concerning to me.

You're pigeon-holing me into say whenever a black guy gets pulled over, it's because he's black. I never said anything close to that, and it's such a gross unfair interpretation that I'm very close to not even bothering trying to hold a discussion with you. There's just so many strawmen that I'm overwhelmed by having to pull each of them down that nothing productive is even happening.
   
Then tell me what you are saying, because it seems crystal clear to me.    Those three paragraphs tell me one thing and one thing only:  you are only interested in seeing racism, whether it ACTUALLY exists or not, and if it does exist, to what degree.   Of COURSE seeing the driver is important, and you have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA WHATSOEVER whether the times the cops can see the driver accounts for the difference in prison statistics.  There is NO CAUSAL CONNECTION WHATSOEVER between the two statistics you cite unless and until you make it, and "correlation" doesn't do that.  It just doesn't. 

Quote
Oh right, no matter what I say, you'll just stick to your preconception and ignore anyting else. Seriously, please respect me when I tell you I HAVE NO STANDING ON IF THE SHOOTING OF MICHAEL BROWN WAS JUSTIFIED OR NOT. I have been consistent with that, and have never ventured to say anything other than that. You're  conflating my position on the response to the shooting, and on the response to the response of the shooting. They're seperate things.

Not talking about Michael Brown.  I believe you when you say you have no standing on the shooting of Michael Brown, no question and no argument.   I can't prove it either way, but I believe you.   I believe you THINK you have no standing on whether race was involved in the shooting, and on that I respectfully disagree.   You wouldn't have written three quarters of what you wrote if you didn't think race was involved.  And I am saying that because there are two races involved doesn't mean it was race-related.   

Quote
Because of the attention this case has gotten from the media, yes. If this shooting is unjustified, then it can bring about meaingfull change (and before you lecture me on this, CAN is not WILL). If it's unjustified, a great many people will take the fact that this case was justified to say that alll or most of such cases are justified, making meaningfull change harder to occur. Notice, I'm blaming the media for this, not the events, the shooting, or any opinion on what the events of that day actually were.

Bro, see above comment about "lecturing".    I do not understand what you mean by "if it's unjustified, a great many people will take the fact that this case was justified...".  Was it or wasn't it?

Frankly, you have more faith in the power of the media than I do.   Either way, this will be forgotten six months after the final note is sounded, whatever that note may be. 
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Stadler on September 05, 2014, 01:36:26 PM
A lot of stops occur after passing a cop head on and he circles back to light you up. Also, a lot of stops happen because the people "don't look like they belong." I've been hassled numerous times for looking out of place. The overwhelming majority of stops happen because they're running radar to fleece the citizenry, but once you get past traffic cops and into real cops, you're passing out of the for cause area and well into the suspicion realm.

Well, of course the devil is in the details, innit?   One, and I alluded to this in my response to Scheavo, undoubtedly there are cases that fit BOTH of our scenarios.   So both possibilities not only exist, but co-exist.   But aren't the numbers important?  Do we know what the breakdowns are?  Do we know whether the breakdowns in any given jurisdiction overlap with the prison numbers?   There are THOUSANDS of statistics that IMPLY causal effect but are simply correlations, and not even proximate correlations, meaning they are simply coexistant variables that HAVE to occur in nature, and therefore often occur together. 

Don't these numbers matter?   If 90% of the stops are from "radar", where the cop can't see the driver (and I can honestly tell you, in all the times I've ever been stopped, I can only name one time I was stopped and I could say unequivocally that there is no way the cop could NOT have seen I was white). 

Again, I am repeating myself, I have no doubt that the scenarios that you and Scheavo point to exist.  My problem is the going to the next step.  To me unless you are actively trying to formulate a hypothesis, there is no reason or justification to jump to the next step. 

Quote
And on a different tack, based on something you said earlier, do you think that cops should be looking for reasons to pull people over? I haven't really given it much thought, but it seems to me that the role of the police is to protect all of us sheep, and is that best served by finding reasons to see if the sheep might be up to no good?

isn't that a matter of perspective?  If you're the guy that doesn't look like he fits in, then it probably does look like they are seeing if the sheep are up to no good.   If you're the guy that DOES look like he fits in, then perhaps it's easier to think of it as the cop doing his job protecting all of us.  I guess that is where we differ; right now I probably don't fit the profile of someone being profiled, but that wasn't always the case, and I never thought of it as an us versus them issue.  I've toned it down since I had my kid, but I used to get pulled over a LOT (you certainly didn't want to have weed or blow on you when driving with ME, I'll tell you that) but I never thought of it as persecution or hassling.  It was what it was. 
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Scheavo on September 05, 2014, 01:51:51 PM
  You need to put your big girl panties on here. 

Ya know, I was reading your responses to my comments, and writing my response. Then I got to this.

I'm done. I've tried to hold a rational discussion, but you just continue to go in circles, commit fallacies, patronize me, and then insult me when I say you're patronizing me.

Reported.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: El Barto on September 05, 2014, 02:21:36 PM
isn't that a matter of perspective?  If you're the guy that doesn't look like he fits in, then it probably does look like they are seeing if the sheep are up to no good.   If you're the guy that DOES look like he fits in, then perhaps it's easier to think of it as the cop doing his job protecting all of us.  I guess that is where we differ; right now I probably don't fit the profile of someone being profiled, but that wasn't always the case, and I never thought of it as an us versus them issue.  I've toned it down since I had my kid, but I used to get pulled over a LOT (you certainly didn't want to have weed or blow on you when driving with ME, I'll tell you that) but I never thought of it as persecution or hassling.  It was what it was.
I get the perspective component, but is it right? I've actually been in different situations where that's come up, including once for being a white guy in a predominantly Mexican neighborhood; obviously I must have been there to score a bag (rather than leaving a popular Tex-Mex restaurant). There's also the added problem of effectiveness. In the long run profiling doesn't really work as well as you'd think. Most importantly there's the image that it continues to project, like what we're seeing now. From my perspective, no they're not protecting all of us sheep. They're doing an suspect job of it and alienating a helluva lot of people in the process, which actually undermines their efforts and our safety.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: yeshaberto on September 05, 2014, 02:39:10 PM
  You need to put your big girl panties on here. 

Ya know, I was reading your responses to my comments, and writing my response. Then I got to this.


Agreed.  Either both of you need to take a break from this thread or simply stop assuming the others motives and just discuss the facts.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Stadler on September 05, 2014, 03:45:06 PM
  You need to put your big girl panties on here. 

Ya know, I was reading your responses to my comments, and writing my response. Then I got to this.


Agreed.  Either both of you need to take a break from this thread or simply stop assuming the others motives and just discuss the facts.

I'm on board with that.  I'm comfortable with the general factual focus of my posts. 
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: El Barto on September 05, 2014, 03:49:22 PM
  You need to put your big girl panties on here. 

Ya know, I was reading your responses to my comments, and writing my response. Then I got to this.


Agreed.  Either both of you need to take a break from this thread or simply stop assuming the others motives and just discuss the facts.
The incongruity continues.  :lol It's like TAC getting riled up in the Joan rivers thread, or Mister Rodgers sitting in a bell tower putting .50's into Charlie's melon.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Stadler on September 05, 2014, 04:00:38 PM
isn't that a matter of perspective?  If you're the guy that doesn't look like he fits in, then it probably does look like they are seeing if the sheep are up to no good.   If you're the guy that DOES look like he fits in, then perhaps it's easier to think of it as the cop doing his job protecting all of us.  I guess that is where we differ; right now I probably don't fit the profile of someone being profiled, but that wasn't always the case, and I never thought of it as an us versus them issue.  I've toned it down since I had my kid, but I used to get pulled over a LOT (you certainly didn't want to have weed or blow on you when driving with ME, I'll tell you that) but I never thought of it as persecution or hassling.  It was what it was.
I get the perspective component, but is it right? I've actually been in different situations where that's come up, including once for being a white guy in a predominantly Mexican neighborhood; obviously I must have been there to score a bag (rather than leaving a popular Tex-Mex restaurant). There's also the added problem of effectiveness. In the long run profiling doesn't really work as well as you'd think. Most importantly there's the image that it continues to project, like what we're seeing now. From my perspective, no they're not protecting all of us sheep. They're doing an suspect job of it and alienating a helluva lot of people in the process, which actually undermines their efforts and our safety.

Well, profiling WHEN DONE THOROUGHLY AND WITHOUT BIAS works (see: El Al) but that isn't what we are talking about here.   I agree that just pulling over all the black males driving through the center of town is just fishing with a certain lure.   To the extent that is happening, yes, I agree it is suspect and alienating and undermining.   I'm not suggesting we support that, and I am not supportive of that.

As I have said many times before, my beef is with the connections being made.   Sure it seems like "logic" and "common sense" that if more blacks than the statistical percentage of the population are being stopped and are being incarcerated, that it MUST BE because they are black, but it's not "logic" and it's not "common sense".   Common sense is useless in a macro situation like this, and is the fallback of people that don't have the facts to support their position.   Common sense would say that when water freezes, it would take up less volume, but put a sealed glass container of water in your freezer and see what happens (Then again, don't.) 

For Scheavo's benefit, so he knows (or hopefully knows) I have no interest whatsoever in ticky tack barbs, here is my position in a nutshell:
- I agree with the data (that blacks are stopped disproportionately to whites, and that blacks occupy prison cells disproportionately to whites);
- I believe there are several factors that go into those statistics, and that they are not driven by any one variable.
- I agree that the percentage that race plays in that is some number greater than 0%. 
- I believe that the number is not 100%, and is not likely over 50%.
- I believe that the number for "race" is not likely the greatest number for the contributing factors.
- I agree that there needs to be steps taken to reduce that number to as close to 0% as is humanly possible, and socially and economically feasible.
- I do not agree that the majority of cops are racist, or that a majority of cops act on "race".
- I do not agree that even the majority of cops that are racist act regularly and consistently on that racism, at least to the point that it explains the numbers we are talking about.
- More importantly, acting as if the number IS 100%, and acting as if all cops ARE racist, does a disservice to our society, and leads to bandaid measures that do not solve the problem, but only serve to mollify some of the symptoms some of the time.  It drives what racism that is there underground, and makes it more insidious and harder to further eradicate.

Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: kirksnosehair on September 07, 2014, 06:32:16 AM
im pretty sure that as it applies to cops, the vast majority of racism they partake in is not overt


aka 'ln the closet'


This kind of institutionalized racism is very difficult to pin down, but it starts with there being some smoke.  Where there is smoke you'll almost always find some kind of fire.  Based on their history it would appear that the Furgeson police department deserves to be highly scrutinized, specifically for racist events in the past that may demonstrate a pattern.



Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: vtgrad on September 10, 2014, 12:09:05 PM
isn't that a matter of perspective?  If you're the guy that doesn't look like he fits in, then it probably does look like they are seeing if the sheep are up to no good.   If you're the guy that DOES look like he fits in, then perhaps it's easier to think of it as the cop doing his job protecting all of us.  I guess that is where we differ; right now I probably don't fit the profile of someone being profiled, but that wasn't always the case, and I never thought of it as an us versus them issue.  I've toned it down since I had my kid, but I used to get pulled over a LOT (you certainly didn't want to have weed or blow on you when driving with ME, I'll tell you that) but I never thought of it as persecution or hassling.  It was what it was.
I get the perspective component, but is it right? I've actually been in different situations where that's come up, including once for being a white guy in a predominantly Mexican neighborhood; obviously I must have been there to score a bag (rather than leaving a popular Tex-Mex restaurant). There's also the added problem of effectiveness. In the long run profiling doesn't really work as well as you'd think. Most importantly there's the image that it continues to project, like what we're seeing now. From my perspective, no they're not protecting all of us sheep. They're doing an suspect job of it and alienating a helluva lot of people in the process, which actually undermines their efforts and our safety.

Here's the way I view this type of action by persons in authority; if you're being profiled, regardless of why you're being profiled, and you have nothing to hide and have done nothing wrong, there is no harm in the profiling in my opinion.  If, because of the profiling, you are found to be committing a trespass of the law (regardless of what that trespass is or how bad it is), then (in my opinion) the profiling has served it's purpose to protect the common safety because the person that committed that trespass has been caught.

To use the analog that has been used numerous times on this page, if a person it pulled over because they are black, or Hispanic, or any other race, or because they don't fit in to the general area, AND THAT PERSON HAS DONE NOTHING AMISS, I assume that this person continues on their way having only been delayed; but if this person HAS DONE SOMETHING AMISS regarding the law, and the law is exercised on that person, why would it matter to our judicial system WHY that person was pulled over to begin with?  They were doing something that violates our laws (or in possession of something that violates our laws) and they were caught; why does it matter if the profiling (whether we consider it racism or not) is why this person was initially reviewed by the authorities.  Racism will always exist; whether intentional or unintentional; but I don't automatically connect racism with profiling.  I see them as two separate things.

Please allow me to give you my profiling example: Upon crossing the border between Jordan and Israel (from Jordan into Israel), I was detained by Israeli Border Patrol, told to remove the top layer of clothing (scarf, fleece, button down shirt, long sleeve under-shirt) on my upper body, and I was searched by hand, wiped down with some type of cloth (searching for residue I suspect), and held for a period of time (roughly 15-minutes) while my clothing was checked and all of the contents of my pockets were wiped down and checked.  During this time I was, of course, separated from my group (we had been in Israel for a week at that point and had crossed to Jordan to visit Petra); and while the Border Patrol was very respectful and spoke English directly to me, they did speak amongst themselves in Hebrew in an aggressive manner (I speak some Hebrew) and I was quite uncomfortable.  After everything checked out, I was given my clothing and I rejoined the group I was with.

I was absolutely profiled; I'm 6:3 175LBs, dark completion, full beard, with facial features that resemble a person of Middle Eastern decent... I was a little unnerved by being detained (come on, I'm from Southwest Virginia) but I knew that I had nothing to worry about.  It didn't bother me to be profiled, because I had done nothing amiss.

In my opinion, profiling is profiling; whether it's done on the border between two Middle Eastern nations or whether it's done by a Police Officer in the US.  I don't think the profiling itself is a bad thing; it's the aftermath of the profiling that can sometimes lead to these tragedies. 

Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Cool Chris on September 10, 2014, 01:15:51 PM
It didn't bother me to be profiled, because I had done nothing amiss.

Other than being a Hokie!

-UVa alum  :coolio
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: bosk1 on September 10, 2014, 01:16:19 PM
Yeah, he's got you there, actually.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: El Barto on September 10, 2014, 02:17:07 PM
VTGrad: You were made to feel uncomfortable for 15 minutes when you had done nothing wrong. That in and of itself is problematic, IMO. But there are other concerns. We can begin with the Constitution. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated is the baseline. That's where we start, and to go beyond that you have to work within what has been established as a reasonable exception, which to the best of my knowledge has never included "cuz he's black!" While I think it's a bit sketchy and overused, I'm willing to live with a Terry-stop under reasonable suspicion, but that's a narrow and well defined thing, and reasonable suspicion also doesn't include "cuz he's black!" The people who cite "if you have nothing to hide yada yada yada" are starting from the wrong assumption.

There are other concerns. You were detained for 15 minutes by professionals. Have you ever been detained 45 by a couple of genuine assholes, making threats towards your personal safety. Not to mention spending the entire time with your hands on a freezing cold trunk? During which time they remove all of the contents of your car and leave them strewn about the side of the road? Sucks, trust me. Even Stadler would agree that not all cops are particularly professional, and some are real dicks. Should you have to be exposed to them because they don't like the way you look? Remember, the constitution isn't there to protect us from great, professional cops with only our best interests in mind.

Add to that, there are different (and often valid) perspectives about police encounters. My father was pretty keen on cops being the good guys. I recall [I think it was] Bill Cosby talking about discussing with his son how to interact with cops if the situation came up and it involved a whole lot of sheer paranoia. (sadly the talk about dealing with Russian mobsters didn't come up) This became something of a topic because to white people this was a bizarre concept, teaching your kids to get on their knees and put their hands on their heads. A lot of black people had a similar surprise that white people weren't teaching their kids the same thing. I spent those 45 minutes mostly concerned that I might have to bolt or go to jail. Spending that time worried that I might get shot "resisting arrest" would be a whole different level of discomfort.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Stadler on September 10, 2014, 03:07:14 PM
VTGrad: You were made to feel uncomfortable for 15 minutes when you had done nothing wrong.

You have to unpack that.  Your ideas are generally well thought out and thought provoking even when I don't agree with them, but that one isn't up to snuff.   "Secure in their persons" doesn't mean "you have a right to never be uncomfortable".   The entire social contract is a compromise, and while we can debate where the line gets drawn, "being uncomfortable" isn't it.  I'm "uncomfortable" paying taxes; do I get to get out of that?  How about jury duty?

You talk about "Because you're black!" as an unreasonable basis.  Give you that absent anything else.  What about "black, in a car with no bumper and missing hubcaps, with four other people in the car, driving slowly through side streets with no outlet in Greenwich, CT"?   How is that any different than a white kid being pulled over in Father Panik Village in Bridgeport, CT (Google it)?   "Profiling" implies fitting a profile; I agree it can't be the one criteria, but it can be one among many. 


Quote

There are other concerns. You were detained for 15 minutes by professionals. Have you ever been detained 45 by a couple of genuine assholes, making threats towards your personal safety. Not to mention spending the entire time with your hands on a freezing cold trunk? During which time they remove all of the contents of your car and leave them strewn about the side of the road? Sucks, trust me. Even Stadler would agree that not all cops are particularly professional, and some are real dicks. Should you have to be exposed to them because they don't like the way you look? Remember, the constitution isn't there to protect us from great, professional cops with only our best interests in mind.

And all that would be wrong, no question.

Quote
Add to that, there are different (and often valid) perspectives about police encounters. My father was pretty keen on cops being the good guys. I recall [I think it was] Bill Cosby talking about discussing with his son how to interact with cops if the situation came up and it involved a whole lot of sheer paranoia. (sadly the talk about dealing with Russian mobsters didn't come up) This became something of a topic because to white people this was a bizarre concept, teaching your kids to get on their knees and put their hands on their heads. A lot of black people had a similar surprise that white people weren't teaching their kids the same thing. I spent those 45 minutes mostly concerned that I might have to bolt or go to jail. Spending that time worried that I might get shot "resisting arrest" would be a whole different level of discomfort.

To some degree this is philosophical, and to some degree it is not a black/white thing.  On your knees, hands on head is the right response to "Freeze" when the only other one is "Hey Pig, why not suck my pork?"   Why not somewhere in between, which is what I, as a middle aged white man, would do?   

Frankly, I think there are too many people - of all colors on both sides of the badge - with attitude problems.   Everything can't be a minor war of wills.   I think we have come to an age where people are so insecure and so lacking in self-confidence and self-esteem that it is causing problems. 
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: El Barto on September 10, 2014, 05:20:12 PM
VTGrad: You were made to feel uncomfortable for 15 minutes when you had done nothing wrong.

You have to unpack that.  Your ideas are generally well thought out and thought provoking even when I don't agree with them, but that one isn't up to snuff.   "Secure in their persons" doesn't mean "you have a right to never be uncomfortable".   The entire social contract is a compromise, and while we can debate where the line gets drawn, "being uncomfortable" isn't it.  I'm "uncomfortable" paying taxes; do I get to get out of that?  How about jury duty?
Well it was actually more the seizure part that I was stressing, but regardless, my premise was that being free to not be searched or seized is the starting point, not something that you work your way up to. I start out being a free citizen with the right to be left alone, and moving beyond that is the exception and needs to be justified.

Quote
You talk about "Because you're black!" as an unreasonable basis.  Give you that absent anything else.  What about "black, in a car with no bumper and missing hubcaps, with four other people in the car, driving slowly through side streets with no outlet in Greenwich, CT"?   How is that any different than a white kid being pulled over in Father Panik Village in Bridgeport, CT (Google it)?   "Profiling" implies fitting a profile; I agree it can't be the one criteria, but it can be one among many.
Isn't there a very real possibility that they were lost looking for a party, and more to the point, don't the odds of that change if the four guys are white? To be perfectly honest, I don't think I'd have much of a problem with that as articulated reasonable suspicion, although I'm not sure how the bumper and hub caps fit into it. The point VTGrad made was along the lines of "if you've got nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear," and I don't find that an acceptable way to look at this. He also pointed out that he was searched specifically because of his appearance. Some people have a genuine fear of police for understandable reasons, and being forced to interact with them because you don't look quite right is only going to further that problem.

Quote
Frankly, I think there are too many people - of all colors on both sides of the badge - with attitude problems.
I agree. But as I've suggested in the past, shouldn't the citizen who's presumed innocent have that right? Should the cop who is employed ostensibly to protect said citizen? And to be clear, I tend to be pretty damned polite to Johnny, partly because there are a lot of stories about really bad rides on the county jail elevator, but mostly because I'm not a dick. I also know that there are a couple of departments around here that have certainly never given me that courtesy.


As an aside, I actually have an acquaintance who was beat with his own tennis-shoe on the elevator ride for mouthing off, which really cracks me up for some reason.  :lol
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: vtgrad on September 11, 2014, 09:19:32 AM
It didn't bother me to be profiled, because I had done nothing amiss.

Other than being a Hokie!

-UVa alum  :coolio

Ah... leave it to a UVA grad to mention my Virginia Tech edumacation.  Profiled indeed!

@ El Barto: I've not ever experienced that type of interaction with the police; and I am genuinely sorry that you (or anyone else) have experienced it.  I know that things like you described (and much worse) happen on a regular basis; I was simply generalizing my view of those in an authority position.  By that I mean that in my base opinion, I hold the authority figure above reproach... meaning I'm making the extraordinary assumption that something like what you experienced, and what countless other individuals have experienced, is the exception rather than the rule.  My goal in using that generalization was to give an illustration of my point of view that profiling doesn't necessarily need to be mentioned in the same breath as racism.  I was basically viewing the profiling issue in a vacuum... a very powerful Dyson vacuum with cyclone technology.  I'm viewing profiling in an idealistic sense; of course I understand that no human being can be held above reproach... we are all capable of the same atrocities.

Outside of that vacuum and in the real world, I will openly admit that this statement "Some people have a genuine fear of police for understandable reasons, and being forced to interact with them because you don't look quite right is only going to further that problem" did not even occur to me; which is likely a function of my own personal experience (or lack of negative experience rather).

"Cuz he's Black" (insert any other race in that statement as well) is an unreasonable bias for a police officer to detain any person; please do not think that is the basis for my profiling view.  My original post did not make that clear.  I'm assuming that there is some legitimate reason for the person to be detained in the first place (brake light out, speeding, neighborhood complaint about the movements of the auto, etc.)... profiling would be assumed to take place after the initial stop.  I said "if a person is pulled over because they are black etc."; I should have been more clear regarding my perspective of why they are pulled over in the first place.

To use my own experience at the Israeli Border crossing... we were all asked to declare any items that we had purchased in Jordan; almost all of us had purchased something.  I had purchased a scarf (Petra was quite cold).  Any items purchased had to be viewed by Border Patrol before re-entry to Israel so the entire party that I was traveling with had something that was being viewed by agents of Border Patrol.  When I stepped through the door, I was asked if I had anything to declare; when I said yes, THAT is when I assume that the profiling began.  They held me while the rest of my group was moved through the line and once the room was empty (except for myself and the five agents), my review began.  I will also make the assumption that if I had not purchased an item in Jordan, I would not have been detained in the manner in which I was detained.  Of course, we'll never know if that was the case.

I hope the acquaintance that you mention was glad that he wore sneakers instead of boots.


Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: El Barto on September 11, 2014, 09:59:41 AM
You should post here more often. And you'd also have at least one VT ally.

Aside from your unfortunate tendency to respect authority, something you might give some thought to is the order in which things occur. Any cop with more than 3 days experience can come up with RS to pull somebody over and to further investigate. Cops are after all human and will behave as such. Therefore, the reason they might want to stop somebody could easily be black guy in white neighborhood, or driving a beater in a rich neighborhood, at which point he can find 7 different reasons to pull him over. Dirty license plate light is a very popular one down here; everybody has been pulled over down here for that. And if that light is bright and shiny, then there's always "he crossed the yellow line once," which is irrefutable at this point. Once pulled over it's pretty easy to come up with reasons to further investigate. "In my training as a police officer I learned to detect signs of subterfuge, and the passenger looked nervous and fidgety." How are you going to refute that? My point here is that the legitimate reason to pull somebody over that you're looking for might well come after the initial profiling, even as late as when he's filling out his encounter report.

And while that acquaintance did say that it hurt like bloody hell, he found it as comical as the rest of us. He said he really was pressing her buttons.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Stadler on September 11, 2014, 10:21:44 AM
Isn't there a very real possibility that they were lost looking for a party, and more to the point, don't the odds of that change if the four guys are white? To be perfectly honest, I don't think I'd have much of a problem with that as articulated reasonable suspicion, although I'm not sure how the bumper and hub caps fit into it. The point VTGrad made was along the lines of "if you've got nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear," and I don't find that an acceptable way to look at this. He also pointed out that he was searched specifically because of his appearance. Some people have a genuine fear of police for understandable reasons, and being forced to interact with them because you don't look quite right is only going to further that problem.

Premise was EXCEEDINGLY rich community; hubcaps and bumper meaning the car is CLEARLY not a local car, regardless of the color of the occupants.  That it is "possible" that they were looking for a party doesn't mean that it is the only or most likely scenario.  "Probable cause" doesn't require proof beyond reasonable doubt; that is a standard for the court room.

Second, not to minimize VTGrad's experience, but it is apples and oranges on about seven different levels (not least of which is that he is not privy to the same rights and expectations when crossing an international border that is not shared with the United States).  And the Israeli government has 'profiling' down to a science to the point that I can almost unequivocally guarantee you that it was not his appearance alone that did it.  There was SOMETHING else; be it the nature of his travels, his time out of the country, the baggage/luggage he was carrying, etc.   SOMETHING.  I promise you, if the Israeli government stopped and frisked and patted down every 6'0" male with a dark beard crossing it's border, the line AT the border would extend to San Antonio.
 
Quote
I agree. But as I've suggested in the past, shouldn't the citizen who's presumed innocent have that right? Should the cop who is employed ostensibly to protect said citizen? And to be clear, I tend to be pretty damned polite to Johnny, partly because there are a lot of stories about really bad rides on the county jail elevator, but mostly because I'm not a dick. I also know that there are a couple of departments around here that have certainly never given me that courtesy.

Of course, but "presumed innocent" doesn't mean that they are never to be suspected of any crime ever.   "Presumed innocent" has more nuance and more meaning than you are ascribing to it here.  It doesn't mean that you can do whatever you want unless and until you make an egregious mistake and let the law on to you.   

Also, and this is an honest question:   why have I never not once ever been hassled by a cop?   I'm a lead foot (taken the "mandatory safety course" I think three times) and I've done the "sobriety Olympics at least twice, so it isn't as if I am a model citizen.  And contrary to what you might think, I DON'T lead with "My bro is on the job, Johnny!" and I have no "badging" or symbolism whatsoever on my vehicle.   However, I am, like you, exceedingly polite just because (I'd be like that to you if we were to meet at a show). 
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Stadler on September 11, 2014, 10:29:04 AM
Aside from your unfortunate tendency to respect authority, something you might give some thought to is the order in which things occur. Any cop with more than 3 days experience can come up with RS to pull somebody over and to further investigate. Cops are after all human and will behave as such. Therefore, the reason they might want to stop somebody could easily be black guy in white neighborhood, or driving a beater in a rich neighborhood, at which point he can find 7 different reasons to pull him over. Dirty license plate light is a very popular one down here; everybody has been pulled over down here for that. And if that light is bright and shiny, then there's always "he crossed the yellow line once," which is irrefutable at this point. Once pulled over it's pretty easy to come up with reasons to further investigate. "In my training as a police officer I learned to detect signs of subterfuge, and the passenger looked nervous and fidgety." How are you going to refute that? My point here is that the legitimate reason to pull somebody over that you're looking for might well come after the initial profiling, even as late as when he's filling out his encounter report.

And all that being true, and happening at some point in recorded history doesn't make it the norm, doesn't make it the probable chain of events, and doesn't mean we have a systemic racism problem that is miraculously concentrated in law enforcement to the exclusion of the rest of the world. 

I'm not being critical of you or snarky, as you bring up good points; I'm trying to be a little light-hearted.   I don't argue with you at all that this might happen.   And if it does, I would suggest there be repurcussions, because one bad apple spoils the lot.    But I'm not sure any of that is a solid basis to form lasting and more importantly, actionable, opinions on how the interaction between law enforcement and civilians ought to operate. 

Quote
And while that acquaintance did say that it hurt like bloody hell, he found it as comical as the rest of us. He said he really was pressing her buttons.

Umm.......
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: El Barto on September 11, 2014, 11:02:59 AM
I think we can both safely agree that these things happen both more than we thing and less than we think. However I have to ask, isn't that too often for either of us to like?

As for our respective experiences, that's a good question and I can come up with a couple of theories. For one, I've been wondering how many of your experiences were with large, urban departments as opposed to small ones. While it's hard to pin down a real pattern, as they're both prone to being professional or bastards for different reasons, the difference in attitudes will make a difference. Also, "(taken the "mandatory safety course" I think three times)" makes you a freaking lightweight. I suspect I've had far, far more encounters with Johnny than you have; certainly enough to bring the law of averages into play. Now having said that, most of my speeding encounters were pretty cool and professional. In fact, I don't think I've ever had one turn into a hassle (aside from one genuine sociopath who had major issues other than just his badge). Lastly, I suspect my appearance factors in quite a bit; I've had long hair since '83 or so. Something I will throw out there is that most of my hassling happened when I was quite a bit younger, so age likely has a pretty big bearing on it.

Interestingly, I've never once been asked to do a FST. Perhaps you look more like a drunkard and I a stoner.  :lol

Still, I'm a white guy from a middle class neighborhood and I've been hassled by asshole cops on 4 or 5 occasions. While that's definitely the minority of my encounters, it's more than enough for me to think the black folk might be onto something when they say they're treated unfairly by The Man.

And just out of curiosity, why would you agree to the FST? Are the laws different up there to make them mandatory? As an attorney you obviously know that the only side they can benefit is not your own. Besides which, it's counterproductive. Being able to politely explain to Johnny why you're not going to do all of that nonsense will prove your sobriety far better than standing on one leg while doing the macarena.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: vtgrad on September 11, 2014, 11:53:11 AM
You should post here more often. 

Thanks El... I post as much as I can though I wish it was more often.

You're points are well taken as an officer can always find something to make the stop legitimate; I suppose that my "unfortunate tendency to respect authority" (I spit water all over my desk when I first read that :biggrin:) is a force that usually leads me to give the person in authority the benefit of the doubt regarding their motives.  Again, that is likely shaped by my experiences.

And I would certainly hope (as my experiences would again lead me to believe) that as Stadler said, these types of motives are not the norm; though I'm also not naïve enough to think that geographical location doesn't influence in the application of the law and the motives used to enforce those laws.  Officers in your area are likely quite different from officers in my area; it shouldn't be that way... 

@ Stadler: your point regarding my experiences being apples to oranges is true in the finite application of profiling (our rights as US citizens on US soil v/s our rights everywhere else in the world for example); but I'm viewing profiling in a more indefinite way (boundless if you will).  What I mean is profiling in the true sense of the word; determining if something/someone fits within a certain profile.  And  as you said, ""Profiling" implies fitting a profile; I agree it can't be the one criteria, but it can be one among many", my own personal example is one among many regarding an indefinite definition of profiling.  I'm not attempting to apply an certain set of laws, I'm simply viewing profiling as categorization.  I was placed in a category because of my physical profile.

And you may be right; there may have been some reason for being detained other than the fact that I purchased an item in Jordan combined with my physical appearance.  El Barto's line of reasoning may also be right... Border Patrol may have fixed on me in No-man's land and regardless of my purchasing an item in Jordan, I would have been detained anyway.  But in either one of those scenarios, I was profiled and placed into a category.

I'm unsure of why you've not been hassled by police and El has; perhaps geographical location may play a part in that (I assume you both live in different areas of the country).  My opinion regarding geographical location and it's influence simply depends on the profile (see what I did there) of the location and the demographic of the population.

I wonder if the office that beat your friend with his own shoe was laughing when she did it?  I really don't see a situation where someone in that elevator wasn't laughing.  I know that's terrible; but lets be honest... 
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Stadler on September 11, 2014, 09:44:43 PM
I think we can both safely agree that these things happen both more than we thing and less than we think. However I have to ask, isn't that too often for either of us to like?

Well, it is.  Not to sound corny, but more than one is too many.  But wanting to fix A problem is very different than acting as if every incident is the problem.   Target the problems, and get them help or get them out.  I'm with you on that.

Quote
As for our respective experiences, that's a good question and I can come up with a couple of theories. For one, I've been wondering how many of your experiences were with large, urban departments as opposed to small ones. While it's hard to pin down a real pattern, as they're both prone to being professional or bastards for different reasons, the difference in attitudes will make a difference. Also, "(taken the "mandatory safety course" I think three times)" makes you a freaking lightweight. I suspect I've had far, far more encounters with Johnny than you have; certainly enough to bring the law of averages into play. Now having said that, most of my speeding encounters were pretty cool and professional. In fact, I don't think I've ever had one turn into a hassle (aside from one genuine sociopath who had major issues other than just his badge). Lastly, I suspect my appearance factors in quite a bit; I've had long hair since '83 or so. Something I will throw out there is that most of my hassling happened when I was quite a bit younger, so age likely has a pretty big bearing on it.

Interestingly, I've never once been asked to do a FST. Perhaps you look more like a drunkard and I a stoner.  :lol

Still, I'm a white guy from a middle class neighborhood and I've been hassled by asshole cops on 4 or 5 occasions. While that's definitely the minority of my encounters, it's more than enough for me to think the black folk might be onto something when they say they're treated unfairly by The Man.

I don't know; I don't look like a stoner, and there is a picture at MP's site where I look pretty corporate exec, though that isn't how I present most days.   But generally I'm a white guy from a middle class neighborhood as well, with most experience coming in suburban areas (though I lived in Center City Philly for four years).

Quote
And just out of curiosity, why would you agree to the FST? Are the laws different up there to make them mandatory? As an attorney you obviously know that the only side they can benefit is not your own. Besides which, it's counterproductive. Being able to politely explain to Johnny why you're not going to do all of that nonsense will prove your sobriety far better than standing on one leg while doing the macarena.

Yeah, you live and you learn.  Both were pre-law school.  One in college and one right after.   You are right; I would take my chances today (though I would hope to avoid the whole debacle to start with).
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: kirksnosehair on September 12, 2014, 09:15:09 AM
I guess I'll just leave this here. (http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/11/us/ferguson-michael-brown-shooting-witnesses/index.html?hpt=hp_t2)


It seems to me that the more information that comes to light, the worse it looks for the cop who did this shooting.



Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: El Barto on September 12, 2014, 09:45:52 AM
I can't hear the audio at work, so I can't tell how he sounds (which matters a great deal). One thing I am curious about is from that the subtitles it looks like he says Brown put his hands in the air and Johnny kept shooting. So the hands went up after the gunplay began? If so that doesn't address whether or not the cop was justified in using deadly force, it only suggests that he might have continued once it was no longer necessary. A much tougher call, IMO.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: gmillerdrake on September 13, 2014, 03:12:46 PM
I guess I'll just leave this here. (http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/11/us/ferguson-michael-brown-shooting-witnesses/index.html?hpt=hp_t2)


It seems to me that the more information that comes to light, the worse it looks for the cop who did this shooting.

The issue still remains what happened in the Police Car. These guys still say they heard a shot....then saw Brown running....and another shot and so on.......the same story the Officer has told. If Brown indeed assaulted Wilson in the vehicle and then wrestled for his gun...causing a shot to be fired then everything afterwards would have a thumb on the scale on the side of the officer due to Brown having just assaulted him and having every reason to believe he'd need to protect himself from a much larger Brown. This entire case will come down to the exchange in the vehicle.....if Brown assaulted Wilson....it's a justified shooting. Doesn't mean I personally think he should have shot him....but in the eyes of the law once Wilson was assaulted by Brown he had every right to defend himself.

And let's just get this out of the way.....despite Brown running away after he had just beat Wilson......Wilson would have had no way of knowing if Brown had a weapon...was going to run 30 foot away and then stop..tuirn and shoot at him. He'd just been assaulted and Brown had tried for his weapon....you forefit the 'innocent' right once your beating an officer and trying to grab his weapon.........IF....that is how it went down. We shall see....


But....There video 'testimony' is no more valuable or credible than the other video testimony of a witness describing how Brown continued to move towards the officer even as he was firing at him that was shot at nearly the exact same time after the shooting as this one was. All it proves is once again that the same event viewed by two different set of eyes and minds can be described in two different ways.   
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: kirksnosehair on September 15, 2014, 08:35:40 AM
Sorry, I don't agree.  What happened in the police car is irrelevant with respect to what happened AFTER THAT when the kid was 20 feet or more away from the police car and not only retreating but doing so while raising his hands.   It really doesn't matter what happened in the car.   In the video we see two people (who are not locals) reacting to the shooting and I'm pretty sure their reaction doesn't work in favor of the cops' story.   An unarmed kid standing 20" or more away from the police car and actually retreating with his hands up in the air and the cop just keeps right on shooting.


It's indefensible, imo.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: gmillerdrake on September 15, 2014, 10:47:12 AM
Sorry, I don't agree.  What happened in the police car is irrelevant with respect to what happened AFTER THAT when the kid was 20 feet or more away from the police car and not only retreating but doing so while raising his hands.   It really doesn't matter what happened in the car.   In the video we see two people (who are not locals) reacting to the shooting and I'm pretty sure their reaction doesn't work in favor of the cops' story.   An unarmed kid standing 20" or more away from the police car and actually retreating with his hands up in the air and the cop just keeps right on shooting.


It's indefensible, imo.

I disagree about what happening in the car not having any bearing on the shooting....it seems like it has everything to do with it. Had Wilson just pulled up next to Brown and Johnson and asked them to get out of the street and they took off running there's no way he hops out of his vehicle and starts firing....and if that's the case then he should hang immediately. Even stepping it back further....the strong arm robbery that Brown commited minutes before even has an effect on the outcome because despite Wilson not responding directly to that call....and just there to get them from blocking traffic in the street....that robbery was on Brown's mind for sure and it is a safe assumption that when he saw the police roll up he thought it was in response to him just robbing a store....which plays in to how he reacted to the situation and so on.

But if Brown beat him and went for his weapon Wilson has every right to believe he's threatened just for the fact I pointed out....he has no idea what Brown's intentions are. Should he have shot? In hindsight it's easy to say no. But by Missouri Law if Wilson felt his life was threatened he had a 'right' to do what he did....and there is no way for us to know what he was feeling nor can we dictate to him what he 'should' have been feeling in that situation.

But say he hadn't and Brown then stops...pulls out a gun and guns Wilson down? It's a 'no win' situation.....and as I've clarified my stance I tend to side with law enforcement in these instances by default because I see Wilson's version of what happened making more sense than the Johnson account of what happened.

As far as the video goes like I said....there is another video out there where that witness seems to tell a different story as well and you can't have one admissable in court and not allow the other so it'd seem they'd cancel each other out....or both sides would demonstrate how each video supported thier 'version' of the story.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: KevShmev on September 15, 2014, 10:58:27 AM
Of course what happened in the car matters, unless you think context doesn't matter.  I still don't know what to make of all of these different "eye witness" stories, and I'm not sure if we'll ever definitively know what happened.  And that is unfortunate, for all parties involved, especially Michael Brown's family.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: El Barto on September 15, 2014, 11:04:35 AM
It matters in that it provides some context into Johnny's frame of mind, but I agree with KNH that it doesn't really factor into whether or not the shooting was justified. I still have no idea if it was or wasn't, but if the suspect attempted to disengage then the preceding events don't legitimize deadly force (Garner aside, which doesn't seem to be applicable here).
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: kirksnosehair on September 15, 2014, 11:57:37 AM
It matters in that it provides some context into Johnny's frame of mind, but I agree with KNH that it doesn't really factor into whether or not the shooting was justified. I still have no idea if it was or wasn't, but if the suspect attempted to disengage then the preceding events don't legitimize deadly force (Garner aside, which doesn't seem to be applicable here).


Precisely.  This is where I think the police have a big problem.  There is NO justification for shooting and killing an unarmed person standing 20+ feet away from you with their hands in the air. 







Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: gmillerdrake on September 15, 2014, 12:18:40 PM
It matters in that it provides some context into Johnny's frame of mind, but I agree with KNH that it doesn't really factor into whether or not the shooting was justified. I still have no idea if it was or wasn't, but if the suspect attempted to disengage then the preceding events don't legitimize deadly force (Garner aside, which doesn't seem to be applicable here).


Precisely.  This is where I think the police have a big problem.  There is NO justification for shooting and killing an unarmed person standing 20+ feet away from you with their hands in the air.


Let me clarify something.....I don't think there is justification for shooting and killing an unarmed person standing 20+ feet away from you with their hands in the air either. The 'rub' of this whole deal is was Brown standing 20+ feet away surrendering or was he 'coming at' Wilson? There are eye witness reports that corroborate both Wilson's version....and a version that says Brown was surrendering. I don't know how you decide who's story is 'the' story......
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Stadler on September 15, 2014, 12:56:00 PM
It matters in that it provides some context into Johnny's frame of mind, but I agree with KNH that it doesn't really factor into whether or not the shooting was justified. I still have no idea if it was or wasn't, but if the suspect attempted to disengage then the preceding events don't legitimize deadly force (Garner aside, which doesn't seem to be applicable here).

But while you are right regarding disengagement, it doesn't make the events in the car IRRELEVANT, it just that they have to be taken - as they always were - in context.   There is nothing in any aspect of this case that can be either disregarded or taken in a vacuum.   In my opinion only, any time someone says "the only thing that matters is..." they are about to tell you why they are stuck on one side of this as opposed to the other.   It ALL matters, even if it is just to put boundaries around the frame of mind of each of the participants.  It may not bear on all aspects of the case - some of this may or may not bear on the legal aspect, for example - but it is all part of the puzzle.   
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Stadler on September 15, 2014, 12:56:45 PM
It matters in that it provides some context into Johnny's frame of mind, but I agree with KNH that it doesn't really factor into whether or not the shooting was justified. I still have no idea if it was or wasn't, but if the suspect attempted to disengage then the preceding events don't legitimize deadly force (Garner aside, which doesn't seem to be applicable here).


Precisely.  This is where I think the police have a big problem.  There is NO justification for shooting and killing an unarmed person standing 20+ feet away from you with their hands in the air.

Is that what happened?
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: kirksnosehair on September 15, 2014, 01:27:14 PM
According now to multiple eyewitnesses, including two non-residents who are not black, yeah, it appears that's exactly what happened.

Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Stadler on September 16, 2014, 07:26:01 AM
According now to multiple eyewitnesses, including two non-residents who are not black, yeah, it appears that's exactly what happened.

With no opportunity to cross examine them, no opportunity to see if any of them talked to each other (to get their story straight), no opportunity to check the credibility of ANY of the witness (including the so-called "non black, non residents"), no opportunity to check the veracity of the circumstances of the witnessing, no opportunity to compare and contrast those stories with the stories that do exist that refute those witness...  when David Blaine does his street magic, it "appears", to "multiple witnesses", that he levitates, yet, in fact, he doesn't. 

Forgive me if I wait until the trial to conclude that "this is what happened". 
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Implode on September 16, 2014, 11:26:03 AM
What's taking so long for that anyway? I can't help but feel like they are waiting for the American public to move on to the next thing before going anywhere with this.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: El Barto on September 16, 2014, 11:33:37 AM
What's taking so long for that anyway? I can't help but feel like they are waiting for the American public to move on to the next thing before going anywhere with this.
Wouldn't you? It's not like anything good can come of it now, regardless of what the decision is. Hell, if they're smart they'll wait until 2 AM, November 26.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Stadler on September 16, 2014, 11:54:00 AM
Well, this is where I guess I sort of fall in line:  if you're going to pursue this in a court of law, do it NOW.  While memories are fresh and people are available.   It's certainly a fine line (moving fast versus getting it right) and of course, "getting it right" trumps everything, but there's no long term upside to waiting.  Rip off the band aid.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: gmillerdrake on September 16, 2014, 12:06:32 PM
What's taking so long for that anyway? I can't help but feel like they are waiting for the American public to move on to the next thing before going anywhere with this.
Wouldn't you? It's not like anything good can come of it now, regardless of what the decision is. Hell, if they're smart they'll wait until 2 AM, November 26.

Grand Jury has been extended until January 7th.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/grand-jury-now-has-until-january-to-decide-whether-to/article_aa4111fc-2952-54c9-8316-76c4867dea48.html


I'm sure there's a lot of dotting the "I's" and crossing the "T's" going on.....I don't know which 'side' the delay favors. Either they are building one heck of an iron clad case agianst Wilson or they have nothing to charge him with.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: kirksnosehair on September 16, 2014, 12:21:03 PM
Totally agree they should deal with this immediately instead of waiting.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Implode on September 16, 2014, 02:59:48 PM
What's taking so long for that anyway? I can't help but feel like they are waiting for the American public to move on to the next thing before going anywhere with this.
Wouldn't you? It's not like anything good can come of it now, regardless of what the decision is. Hell, if they're smart they'll wait until 2 AM, November 26.

You're absolutely right. If their motive is to just get this done with as little amount of public outcry as possible, waiting is the best move. I was merely questioning if there are any other reasons as to why they'd wait other than wanting to avoid public viewers.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: El Barto on September 16, 2014, 09:46:45 PM
So, interesting case down here in Dallas which crosses paths with about three different things we've hit on in this thread. The cop union laid out a 10 point plan for improving police morale, and one of them was a clarification on the use of force policy. Seems they're unclear on when they're allowed to shoot somebody. The part they're having trouble with is the "reasonable fear" part, which is what tends to get them off of the hook when they do shoot somebody. As one (or both, I don't recall) of the two attorneys in this thread have pointed out, reasonable to community standards is a valid concept that generally works pretty well in a trial setting. The DPD currently has two guys facing criminal charges for improper use of force, and since this is unheard of in Dallas they're all a bit edgy (last time a cop faced charges for shooting somebody was the early 70's).

One of the two shootings is pretty much a he said/she said (or in this case shot) type of situation. Suspect was unarmed and seated in a car when she shot him in the gut. She'll get no-billed under that "reasonable fear" standard they're concerned about since there's no evidence to contradict her claim. The other one is a different matter and just chock full of intrigue. A woman called the police because her schizophrenic son had gone slightly off his nut. She made it abundantly clear to the operator that he was squirrelly and they needed officers trained for such a thing. The upshot is that two regular patrol cops showed up and shot him in the gut. The incident report stated that after being ordered to stand down he raised a knife and ran at them like Mr. Apricot.  One of them then fired four rounds hitting him once in the gut (which he survived). The suspect was then charged with felony assault on a police officer, because, well, why not. All of this was pretty cut and dry, standard fare and nobody thought much about it.

And then two days later this video came out: (sorry for the audio, it seems to be his mother watching it after the fact)  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YlGQX2wg8I

All of a sudden people have a problem with it, the idea that cops might falsify incident reports having apparently never occurred to them. Public outrage follows, particularly the felony assault on a police officer bit. Our police chief defends both the shooting and the charge, claiming that the word of his officer trumps the video. After enough outcry they finally drop the charge and eventually sack the officer for filing a false report (and strangely not his partner who corroborated it). Six months later a grand jury indicted him.

And then comes the best part of the story. A month later, the day before thanksgiving, the chief quietly institutes a new policy requiring his officers to wait 3 days before giving a formal statement after shootings. They'll have access to all available witness statements and videos before giving providing it, as well. According to the department this is because their recollection will be improved after waiting a few days. Slick, eh?

Lots of the points I've been making in this thread are quite nicely on display in this little event (which after 11 months is still ongoing). You've got false incident reports. You've got cops getting the benefit of the doubt until there's video proving them wrong. You've got cops bent out of shape because one of them was indicted for fucking up. Most annoying to me is that you've got cops everywhere defending this guy despite evidence that he was wrong. The last is the most troubling, because it's one component of the systemic problem. Police aren't capable of policing themselves because they're convinced that they're right, despite evidence to the contrary. If you're a cop, and you watch that video, does "you don't know what it's like out there" really prompt you to defend his actions? That annoying-ass blue line really is a very bad thing.

And by the way, the answer to their question about when they're allowed to shoot somebody really isn't all that complicated. You're legally justified in using force when whether or not you're legally justified in using force is the last fucking thing on your mind. If you're concerned enough about your safety to use deadly force, then you damn sure don't have room for concern about the legal ramifications.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: gmillerdrake on September 17, 2014, 08:34:29 AM
The county prosecutor came out today and said that if the grand jury decides not to bring charges against Wilson that every video/audio tape of the proceedings will be made public for anyone to review/listen to. He said if they do bring charges against him that the evidence will then be presented in court. I don't know how much more transparent that can get?
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Stadler on September 17, 2014, 08:46:44 AM
The other one is a different matter and just chock full of intrigue.

Hmm, let's play devil's advocate for a second.  We KNOW the cops know he's not of right mind.   We have video, but we STILL DON'T know:
- what was said BEFORE he stood up
- what was said AFTER he stood up
- where the knife was and what the stated intentions of the knife were

I get that it casts a different light on the circumstances, but to jump from "perfectly legit, file-it-in-the-books, 'good shooting'" to some of the insinuations in your anti-cop diatribe that followed is a little stretch.   
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: El Barto on September 17, 2014, 09:09:16 AM
Alright. So the guy's Harry Tasker. He calmly explains that after he stands up he's going to close the distance on them,stab one of them before breaking the other's neck. That means you can watch him stand up, wait five seconds, and then shoot him? As for the position of the knife (and it's actually unclear if he even had one as it hasn't been made public), it's obviously either at his side or in a pocket. I'm assuming it's a knife that was kicked away, but it was still not threatening when the shots were fired.

Honestly, I'm assuming you're really being devil's advocate and don't actually think this was a valid use of force, but even if you do, there are too many other factors at work here. It doesn't justify falsifying police reports. It doesn't justify charging the guy with assaulting a police officer. It doesn't justify changing departmental policy to prevent "mistakes" on police reports but not shooting people for standing up. It certainly shouldn't preclude other cops from considering that maybe this one fucked up.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Stadler on September 17, 2014, 01:20:30 PM
Haha, had to Google the Harry Tasker reference.  Good one.  :)

Look, I am in part being a devil's advocate, but not totally.   SOMETHING was kicked away, we think it MIGHT have been a knife, but only the guy and the two cops know.  So there's that. 

And certainly none of the things in your second paragraph (with one exception) are justified, either with the video or without it.   I would never take a position that advocates or ever tolerates falsifying a police report, so we're in alignment on that.  I guess I'm just parked in a little less reactionary (and I don't mean that in a bad way) position.  That these two cops did so doesn't justify revamping the entire presumption of police veracity, and it certainly doesn't elevate the notion of "video" to the pantheon of gospel truth.   I say this with respect (because I well and truly respect your points of view on matters like this and I often learn something from them) but your post had the ever so slight whiff of "Ha, gotcha, Crapper!" like they were busted unequivocally with their hand in the candy jar.  And certainly with respect to what might have been said in the police report there are more questions than answers now.  But just looking at that video, I do not think it is an automatic, 100%, slam-dunk that that is an unjustified police shooting.  Read me literally now; I am not saying it clears anyone, or that there is a preponderance of evidence either way.  I am just saying it isn't the magic bullet (no pun intended) that some people think it is.

By the way, the one exception I mentioned is the department policy aspect.  I need to know more, and certainly one could look at it as if it was a three-day window before lying will be acceptable, but if done right, that can be a positive change.  Perhaps make the officer file an internal draft in whatever the current timeframe is (probably 24 hours) but don't officially make it part of the document file until three days later to see if it can be supplemented by additional evidence.  That way, the officer is commited (he doesn't know if there is corroborating evidence, so he can't lie) but the record will be as complete as possible by accounting for information that let's be honest, probably wasn't a big factor before the age of smart phones and hi-tech web-based security systems. 



If anything it is events like this that make everyone else better in that now any cop HAS to assume they are on video, 24-7 (well, "24-7" being a euphemism for "on duty").  In 2014, if a cop gets in trouble because a video materially and clearly disputes their account, well, they get what's coming to them.   
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: kirksnosehair on September 17, 2014, 01:28:42 PM
Alright. So the guy's Harry Tasker. He calmly explains that after he stands up he's going to close the distance on them,stab one of them before breaking the other's neck. That means you can watch him stand up, wait five seconds, and then shoot him? As for the position of the knife (and it's actually unclear if he even had one as it hasn't been made public), it's obviously either at his side or in a pocket. I'm assuming it's a knife that was kicked away, but it was still not threatening when the shots were fired.

Honestly, I'm assuming you're really being devil's advocate and don't actually think this was a valid use of force, but even if you do, there are too many other factors at work here. It doesn't justify falsifying police reports. It doesn't justify charging the guy with assaulting a police officer. It doesn't justify changing departmental policy to prevent "mistakes" on police reports but not shooting people for standing up. It certainly shouldn't preclude other cops from considering that maybe this one fucked up.


But the police are never wrong




Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: El Barto on September 17, 2014, 01:44:09 PM
Assuming it was a knife, and even if we assume that he was calmly explaining his intention to run over and stab them, do you see anything life threatening happening at the time of the shot? Honestly? I get that there's nothing 100% about this, and truthfully I don't think there really ever is, but this is a damned difficult one to give them the benefit of the doubt on. From my perspective, the only point differentiating them from 100% busted is a dubious claim that they weren't taking a cookie, but rather cleaning off the inside of the jar.

I've got kind of a weird stance on this one. On the one hand everybody knows how I feel about cops. At the same time I'm usually one of the ones defending their use of deadly force. Believe it or not my Speech 101 final presentation, you know the always entertaining persuasive argument, was actually that the only victims in the Rodney King affair were the cops who went to prison for beating his dumb ass. I find most of the criticisms in cases like this unfounded and tend to come from people with no understanding of deadly force. Yet I also know that cops will protect themselves and protect each other at all costs, and that includes a "favorable explanation of events," which means that their stories shouldn't be taken as so well regarded as they tend to be.

This is one isolated event that seems to show pretty conclusively, albeit not positively, that a cop was unjustified in his actions and they were subsequently covered up. How many beatings and shootings take place each year? More than once a day somebody is killed by the police in this country (400/year). We know that at least some of them are questionable. Shouldn't we assume that more are than just the ones we have video of? Then consider how many people get the baton treatment. Should we assume that all of these people really were resisting arrest? Even if most actually are (and in the case of the beatings I find that unlikely), shouldn't we be casting more doubt on their actions than we are?
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Stadler on September 18, 2014, 07:11:03 AM
Assuming it was a knife, and even if we assume that he was calmly explaining his intention to run over and stab them, do you see anything life threatening happening at the time of the shot? Honestly? I get that there's nothing 100% about this, and truthfully I don't think there really ever is, but this is a damned difficult one to give them the benefit of the doubt on. From my perspective, the only point differentiating them from 100% busted is a dubious claim that they weren't taking a cookie, but rather cleaning off the inside of the jar.

I've got kind of a weird stance on this one. On the one hand everybody knows how I feel about cops. At the same time I'm usually one of the ones defending their use of deadly force. Believe it or not my Speech 101 final presentation, you know the always entertaining persuasive argument, was actually that the only victims in the Rodney King affair were the cops who went to prison for beating his dumb ass. I find most of the criticisms in cases like this unfounded and tend to come from people with no understanding of deadly force. Yet I also know that cops will protect themselves and protect each other at all costs, and that includes a "favorable explanation of events," which means that their stories shouldn't be taken as so well regarded as they tend to be.

This is one isolated event that seems to show pretty conclusively, albeit not positively, that a cop was unjustified in his actions and they were subsequently covered up. How many beatings and shootings take place each year? More than once a day somebody is killed by the police in this country (400/year). We know that at least some of them are questionable. Shouldn't we assume that more are than just the ones we have video of? Then consider how many people get the baton treatment. Should we assume that all of these people really were resisting arrest? Even if most actually are (and in the case of the beatings I find that unlikely), shouldn't we be casting more doubt on their actions than we are?

I'm not sure where you're going with the first paragraph there; I don't argue with ANYTHING you wrote there.  If your assumptions are right, there IS nothing life threatening there.  But you're using assumptions.  I know, we all do, and that's how we get through life, but why are your assumptions any more or less valid than the assumption that the guy WASN'T calmly explaining his intention, but rather was more... threatening?  Maybe this is a bad example, because I am not privy to the police report, so there may be things in there that justify your assumptions, so take this in that light.    I'm really just making two points, and nothing further:  video isn't the "be all and end all" of evidence, especially when it is taken with no sound and from a set, often unflattering angle, and two, when you have competing assumptions on both sides, I can see why you might not want to give MORE weight to the cops' assumptions, but you certainly should not give LESS weight.   Yes, I know, "higher standard" and all that (which I only agree with in context) but that doesn't bear here. 

As for the last paragraph, I don't know.   I think there is a line, and it is probably somewhere between your point and where it is now.  Is there likely ONE non-video case that is suspect?   Of course.  But like all priests aren't child molesters (the numbers of priests who are are slightly LESS than that of the general population) I don't think you automatically swing the other way.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: El Barto on September 18, 2014, 08:43:19 AM
Sorry if you've hit at something already, but can you provide any hypothetical scenario that justifies shooting the guy when he's standing still with his hands at his side? Even invoking the rather cop-sided benefit of "reasonable fear?" Facial tick, maybe?

And the priests thing is an interesting comparison. Catholic priests engage in naughty business at about the same rate as the average bloke (statistics are scarce and tend to be provided by The Church). Yet that demonstrates that they're basically just normal people, much like cops. If cops are just members of the general population with a job to do, doesn't it follow that they're subject to the same human failings as the rest of us? They get pissed off at people who disrespect them. They hate criminals. They're annoyed that the system seems so often to work against them. They have a high opinion of themselves and the work that they do. A lot of them will have a natural predisposition against minorities, and since statistically speaking they'll encounter more of them than white folk, they'll be prone to stereotyping them as bad guys. These are all perfectly understandable feelings, and in some cases they're even more applicable to Johnny. So when there's an allegation that a cop beats the shit out of somebody and his incident reports simply cites disorderly conduct and resisting arrest, shouldn't we be considering his actions from the normal human perspective instead of viewing them through some shroud of police professionalism?

BTW, you might consider spending a few minutes perusing the forums at Officer.com. There's no point in engaging them since they won't hear anything questionable about their roles, but it's interesting to see the perspective from a random sampling of one or two hundred cops in this country.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Stadler on September 18, 2014, 10:03:16 AM
Sorry if you've hit at something already, but can you provide any hypothetical scenario that justifies shooting the guy when he's standing still with his hands at his side? Even invoking the rather cop-sided benefit of "reasonable fear?" Facial tick, maybe?

I'm not sure I could, but I don't have to, in the sense that "reasonable fear" (and it need not just be for his OWN safety, it can be for the safety of others, though I think it unlikely it bears here) isn't based on any one thing.  It is a totality of the circumstances.  Without knowing what was said, who knows?   I don't argue with you that it doesn't look good for the cops, but my point is only that that's as far as we can go.  It didn't look good for the Yankees to win the division in '78, but they did.

Quote

And the priests thing is an interesting comparison. Catholic priests engage in naughty business at about the same rate as the average bloke (statistics are scarce and tend to be provided by The Church). Yet that demonstrates that they're basically just normal people, much like cops. If cops are just members of the general population with a job to do, doesn't it follow that they're subject to the same human failings as the rest of us? They get pissed off at people who disrespect them. They hate criminals. They're annoyed that the system seems so often to work against them. They have a high opinion of themselves and the work that they do. A lot of them will have a natural predisposition against minorities, and since statistically speaking they'll encounter more of them than white folk, they'll be prone to stereotyping them as bad guys. These are all perfectly understandable feelings, and in some cases they're even more applicable to Johnny. So when there's an allegation that a cop beats the shit out of somebody and his incident reports simply cites disorderly conduct and resisting arrest, shouldn't we be considering his actions from the normal human perspective instead of viewing them through some shroud of police professionalism?

I think you raise good points, but I think you do both.   You temper the police professionalism with the human perspective.  And sometimes they are both; I still think you are giving short shrift to the notion that in many many cases it is the perp that has everything (his freedom?) to lose and the cop has little; perhaps that is not totally accurate here because of the context we are talking about (police brutality essentially puts Johnny's skin in the game).   But I'm troubled with some of your language.   Not in the sense I am offended (I'm not) or even that I disagree (I do, slightly, on some points) but in the matter of fact way you state it.   "[Predisposed] against minorities"?   "[P]rone to stereotyping them as bad guys"?  I don't concede those things for a second, and whether you do or not, I'm not sure how you justify basing your entire premise on that concession?   I'm actually generally in favor of your approach; in general I am an advocate of putting the human aspect into the equation.  Many of our biggest (social) problems are based on exactly that: a lack of consideration of the human element of things (like politics). 

Quote
BTW, you might consider spending a few minutes perusing the forums at Officer.com. There's no point in engaging them since they won't hear anything questionable about their roles, but it's interesting to see the perspective from a random sampling of one or two hundred cops in this country.

I'll give that a visit...
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Chino on September 18, 2014, 11:10:54 AM
Nice little gem.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/NflwmOm81xs?feature=player_embedded
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: El Barto on September 18, 2014, 11:15:33 AM
Predisposed was a poor choice of words with regards to racism. I don't want to argue that with regards to humanity in general. However, you'd have to agree that to varying degrees it is very common amongst us. It would therefore have to be equally common amongst LEO. If you agree that bigotry to varying degrees is common in the average guy, then don't you also have to agree that it's common among cops; again to varying degrees? And I think we are prone to stereotyping. While we are occasionally rational enough to ignore it, this sort of generalization happens at a subconscious level and there's only so much you can disregard. None of us are perfect, and part of my concern is that cops tend to have a difficult time accepting that they're just as fallible as the rest of us.

Also, lets consider another aspect of humanity. You mention that cops might have something to gain in cases where they're accused of abuse because they have skin in the game. Just like ordinary people, don't they also have skin in the game with regards to taking scumbags off the street? David Dickflasher obviously has every reason to lie about his hobbies. Doesn't Johnny Law have a similar motivation to make sure pervs get punished? That's not simply crooked cop behavior, it's human nature. If you, Stadler the citizen, see some asshole waving his privates at cute secretaries on the green line, do you hope that he gets 10 hours of community service, or do you hope that somebody kicks the living shit out of him and he does 2 years? Now imagine that after 10 years of busting Davey up there you only see the former. Isn't it understandable that a cop might look for any possible hint of resistance so as to escalate the situation?

What you'll find at O.com is a whole lot of cops praying for the latter. None of them would even suggest that they'd do anything untoward, but to a man they'll hope like hell for resistance. It's just human nature.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: El Barto on September 18, 2014, 11:23:11 AM
Nice little gem.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/NflwmOm81xs?feature=player_embedded
Aside from the fact that I don't have audio here at work, the video provides no detail whatsoever of what led to the beatdown. I have no idea whether this was justified or not.

Also, in line with what I just wrote above about human nature, if he was one of those assholes waving around placards of aborted foeti, then I'm pretty happy Johnny kicked his ass. If Johnny was out of line then I hope they're punished, but I have no sympathy whatsoever for that POS and I'm sorry their weren't more and far more crooked cops on hand. Protest all you want, but don't be a dick about it.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Stadler on September 18, 2014, 11:54:36 AM
Predisposed was a poor choice of words with regards to racism. I don't want to argue that with regards to humanity in general. However, you'd have to agree that to varying degrees it is very common amongst us. It would therefore have to be equally common amongst LEO. If you agree that bigotry to varying degrees is common in the average guy, then don't you also have to agree that it's common among cops; again to varying degrees? And I think we are prone to stereotyping. While we are occasionally rational enough to ignore it, this sort of generalization happens at a subconscious level and there's only so much you can disregard. None of us are perfect, and part of my concern is that cops tend to have a difficult time accepting that they're just as fallible as the rest of us.

This is a whole can of whup ass you're opening up here.   Let's take this in pieces:  as a general proposition, I agree any racism/bigotry in the general population should be reflected in law enforcement (subject to geography, since that is a factor).   I think we have very different views of what that means, and I think we have very different views of the notion of "stereotyping" versus something more benign like "profiling".   I recognize that it puts me on the defensive with respect to issues like racism and bigotry, but in the philosophical (theoretical?) sense of the word I have no issue whatsoever with profiling.   Not to twist your words against you, but we do that every single day in the general population, so why shouldn't law enforcement be able to do so as well?  And not just in terms of "choices", like t-shirts and piercings and such.   We as humans, with no "prejudice" per se, make judgements within milliseconds sometimes, and in one sense, we ARE asking our police officers to operate under a higher standard, because we are by job description putting standards like "reasonable fear" in place, which are "of the moment" standards, but then scrutinizing in hindsight HOW those determinations are made.  We don't question - at all - whether an umpire calls out a runner at second base because they are black.  We don't at all question whether Queen B's album gets to number 1 or not is based on race.   I will cop to being rather surprised at how little race has played in the evaluation of our President's positions and performance (not to mention his ascension to the highest office in the land).   How do you standardize all that? 

I assume you are familiar with the study in which observers were able to ascertain if someone was homosexual or not almost 75% correctly, given only a still headshot in view for something like 5 milliseconds.  Said differently, when shown a still headshot for 5 milliseconds, random observers were able to ascertain if the subject was homosexual with an almost 75% accuracy. 

Quote
Also, lets consider another aspect of humanity. You mention that cops might have something to gain in cases where they're accused of abuse because they have skin in the game. Just like ordinary people, don't they also have skin in the game with regards to taking scumbags off the street? David Dickflasher obviously has every reason to lie about his hobbies. Doesn't Johnny Law have a similar motivation to make sure pervs get punished? That's not simply crooked cop behavior, it's human nature. If you, Stadler the citizen, see some asshole waving his privates at cute secretaries on the green line, do you hope that he gets 10 hours of community service, or do you hope that somebody kicks the living shit out of him and he does 2 years? Now imagine that after 10 years of busting Davey up there you only see the former. Isn't it understandable that a cop might look for any possible hint of resistance so as to escalate the situation?

I agree conceptually, but disagree in degree.   I can't really name any aspect of my job for which I would knowlingly and willfully lie or fabricate a story to avoid.  But if it was between me doing twenty-five to life or telling a fictionalized version of what went down, I don't know that I could look you in the eye and say unequivocally that I would not do that.   I may not lie, necessarily, but I would make damn sure that the picture I painted didn't involve all the elements of the crime for which I was being accused. Perhaps in the situation which started this conversation, my position is not applicable and yours is. I'll give you that. 

Quote
What you'll find at O.com is a whole lot of cops praying for the latter. None of them would even suggest that they'd do anything untoward, but to a man they'll hope like hell for resistance. It's just human nature.

Well, let me check out that site first, because that doesn't comport with what my experience is with police in general.  yeah, there are a couple, and I am sure as a couple beers get downed and the campfires get lit that the balls get bigger.   But just like in the comment section of YouTube where there are a lot of big-mouth talkers, I imagine O.com (isn't that Oprah??) isn't the best source for realistic evaluations of the issue.
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: Stadler on September 18, 2014, 11:56:07 AM
Aside from the fact that I don't have audio here at work, the video provides no detail whatsoever of what led to the beatdown. I have no idea whether this was justified or not.

Also, in line with what I just wrote above about human nature, if he was one of those assholes waving around placards of aborted foeti, then I'm pretty happy Johnny kicked his ass. If Johnny was out of line then I hope they're punished, but I have no sympathy whatsoever for that POS and I'm sorry their weren't more and far more crooked cops on hand. Protest all you want, but don't be a dick about it.

Haha, that's why I like you, El Barto.  We may not agree on everything, but no one can say you don't look at both sides of the coin.  ;)
Title: Re: Police brutality, looting and racism
Post by: El Barto on September 18, 2014, 12:22:03 PM
Yup, I was pretty