Rampant Police Brutality and Media censorship in Ferguson Missouri

[El Comandante]

I have nothing to say about the shooting, that is certainly something for a court! But man, officers in military outfit and big guns, aimed at protesters?!
You have some big issues Land of the Free! This behavior of your police and NG should have you really worried!
Sleep tight

 

[shirkbot]

I have nothing to say about the shooting, that is certainly something for a court! But man, officers in military outfit and big guns, aimed at protesters?!
You have some big issues Land of the Free! This behavior of your police and NG should have you really worried!
Sleep tight

That is the correct attitude. Everyone can argue the specifics of the case all day long, but it's in the hands of the courts at this point.

The much bigger concerns are how the aftermath of the shooting itself has been handled, the spillover of military equipment into civilian law enforcement, the frequent inhibition of news coverage, the behavior of protesters and that's not even getting in to issues of race and law enforcement...

It's a mess, and it's been a mess for a long time, but everybody is perfectly happy to let the system run on autopilot, held together with chewing gum and paper clips, rather than try to actually do anything about it.

By the way, I actually have a lot of skin in this game, so please take my commentaries with a grain of salt.

 

[Ratty]

Obviously some people will agree on the morality, otherwise we wouldn't have schools of thought on the subject.

Now which of us is the pedantic one, again? I'll go ahead and rephrase it:

Legality is what matters in a court of law, because there will never be a consensus on the morality of the case.

But no the troubling thing here is that the case is largely symbolic, and it appears that however the court rules the two broad sides will still be arguing over it for years. There are high profile cases and then there are high profile symbolic cases, public opinion matters more in the aftermath of the latter.

Public opinion matters not at all, honestly, as far as the proceedings of a case. The moment you allow an angry mob to dictate the proceedings, you've destroyed any chance of a fair trial.

And for the 3rd or 4th time, that's not what I'm saying should happen. Stop trying to smear me and misrepresent my statements.

It is a different thing to say that the actions of a small Police department reflect badly on its individual members, something which even you admitted via example, than it is to say that the actions of some people who are black reflect badly on all black people everywhere. Again, you're making a false equivalence argument. This is not difficult, a child could understand it.

It is not a false equivalency, it is literally the exact same thing. In both cases, you have zero evidence of the individual's own personality and are judging them purely on the basis of their peers. It's wrong when it's racist, it's wrong when it's sexist, and it's wrong here.

You can say it's not false equivalence until you're blue in the face, it's still false equivalence.

What I said was that it's difficult not to have a bias against him based on the actions of his 50-something peers in the PD. But that I was trying not to have a bias against him.

Which, as I've already said, is no different than saying "I want to believe that this black man didn't steal my wallet, but I know black people like to steal."

It's wrong and nonsensical. You have no evidence to suggest his guilt, but are claiming that it's hard not to presume guilt because his peers committed alleged crimes. It's a good thing you don't work in the legal profession, because if you can't even manage to presume innocence until the evidence shows otherwise, that would be a significant hindrance to your ability to do your job.

There's a reason that innocence is always assumed regardless of scenario in a court of law: because by assuming innocence, you are helping to strip the case of its natural subjectivity and group-association biases.

You're the one who said: "Neither do I, but I also don't presume an alleged criminal to be innocent simply because his family and the media insists that he is." implying YOU believe an alleged criminal is guilty until proven innocent.

I said: "I presume an alleged criminal is innocent until he is proven guilty in a court of law, or I try to. I even try to do so with Wilson, but the actions and history of his colleagues have made it damned hard not to assume the worst of anyone associated with them."

Could you be any more wormy and fucking hypocritical here?

Again, this is different from saying it would be difficult to not think the worst of an entire race, who are millions of times larger/diverse/geographically spread. An organization like a small Police DP is nothing like an entire race. Now if I had made a statement about it being difficult to trust say a particular religious group, THAT would be closer to the equivalence you're suggesting. But I did not. I made a statement about a group of 50-something people who work with each other every day for years being likely to effect each other. And the bad actions of the whole making individuals within the group look bad.

Then allow me to demonstrate the flaw in your argument: gangs. A gang is a smaller group of people that still tends to follow along racial divides. If I replaced every use of "black men" with the word "gang", your entire argument that "it's a smaller group of people so it's different" would totally fall apart. And it'd still be a racially charged statement. And you'd still be wrong and racist in saying it.

No it wouldn't fall apart, because I would assume a gang member would be more likely to be influenced by gang violence, and I never suggested otherwise. It sounds like you're suggesting "Black men" is the same thing as saying "gang member".

So stop pretending that it's a false equivalency. It's not. It's the same damn thing, whether you'll admit to it or not. If you can't leave your personal biases at the door, then you really shouldn't get involved with discussing a case in the first place.

See above.

We have evidence of possibly racially motivated antagonism by this PD against the citizens. You just declared "Nope, that's irrelevant" and expect everyone else to fall in line. No man exists in a vacuum. We don't know how or to what degree Wilson may have been effected by this bias in the PD if it exists. But to say that it's wildly speculating to say that it may exist based on the PD and town's history and recent actions is dishonest.

See previous argument about why it's wrong and dumb to judge people on the basis of their associations rather than their own actions and behavior.

Again, YOU SAID

"Certainly, their membership in such a group doesn't reflect well on them as an individual. And certainly, being a member of one of those groups in particular makes it VERY likely that you probably are as bad as initial presumptions would suggest."

You, sir, are being a hypocrite.

And to say that Wilson was an island unaffected by the attitudes and actions of the men who basically helped complete his training and who worked with him for 6 years is absurd.

No, what's absurd is to present a case that a man is racist because his friends are, and to think that your argument is air-tight and unbreakable.

Again, leave your personal bias at the door, or don't bother discussing a case like this.

And again you misrepresent my argument. I said "Again we don't know the effect- it could have made him strongly anti-racist if his co-workers were racist, we don't know. But if bias was there it doubtless had some effect on him."

It's become pretty clear you're not interested in debating. Only in twisting the words of those who disagree with you and pretending to be unable to understand simple concepts and turns of phrase.

 

[shirkbot]

Hello there.

And you too.

I'm likely going to regret intervening, but the two of you are having largely different conversations, so at the very least maybe I can get you both yelling at me rather than one another. Ratty is arguing the public nature of the events and its possible repercussions while CK is arguing strict law. Both are valid. Here's the breakdown:

Yes, in the eyes of the court the law is all that matters, and that is as it should be. The case itself will be taken to court and will run its course therein. However, Outside the court, in the rest of the world that is not occupied by legal experts, people will still be fighting about this because the case is acting as a catalyst for a broader discussion on a multitude of both racial and non-racial issues. These are social and moral issues, so whatever the legal outcome is, the moral imperative and the policy changes it can drive are not inherently related.

Beyond that, I want to point out that CK's example of comparing racial groups to an organization like the police is flawed, if well meaning. Race is not a choice, and we should not discriminate based upon it, but occupation (largely) is. The gang comparison comes closer, but even that is usually not 100% voluntary. That said, the police are a large group with diverse opinions and attitudes, so even in a group of 50 there are going to be good and bad actors. If you want a clear example there was an officer yesterday trying to incite protesters to violence. They were told to shut up by an officer next to them who then said "We're trying to stop a riot, not start one."

 

[Ratty]

Hello there.

And you too.

I'm likely going to regret intervening, but the two of you are having largely different conversations, so at the very least maybe I can get you both yelling at me rather than one another. Ratty is arguing the public nature of the events and its possible repercussions while CK is arguing strict law. Both are valid. Here's the breakdown:

Yes, in the eyes of the court the law is all that matters, and that is as it should be. The case itself will be taken to court and will run its course therein. However, Outside the court, in the rest of the world that is not occupied by legal experts, people will still be fighting about this because the case is acting as a catalyst for a broader discussion on a multitude of both racial and non-racial issues. These are social and moral issues, so whatever the legal outcome is, the moral imperative and the policy changes it can drive are not inherently related.

Beyond that, I want to point out that CK's example of comparing racial groups to an organization like the police is flawed, if well meaning. Race is not a choice, and we should not discriminate based upon it, but occupation (largely) is. The gang comparison comes closer, but even that is usually not 100% voluntary. That said, the police are a large group with diverse opinions and attitudes, so even in a group of 50 there are going to be good and bad actors. If you want a clear example there was an officer yesterday trying to incite protesters to violence. They were told to shut up by an officer next to them who then said "We're trying to stop a riot, not start one."

Thank you. Simple clear and to the point.
I'd like to end my participation in this sub-discussion because it feels like I just keep getting hit with strawmen and/or misunderstandings. Besides I've got a lot to do over the next couple days and *checks watch* less time to do it in!

 

[Ratty]

snip

Again, as I said above, I'm through wrestling with all of your gross mischaracterizations of my arguments which you then "disprove". (Which is what a Strawman is, in case you don't know.) Because it's clear you're just going to keep doing that anyway. And like I said, I'm busy. I'm in the middle of moving and the phone/internet where I am now is going to be turned off tonight or tomorrow. So you're going to just keep swooping in to get "the last word" anyway, but anyone who cares to read over the conversation will easily be able to see how full of shit, poor logic and poorly concealed biases you are. Good day.

 

[shirkbot]

Well I guess that kind of half-worked...

A person's chosen profession by default limits where they can go and what they can do. It sets a career path for them. Certainly, there are multiple options in a free-flowing economy with low unemployment, but that's not what we have now. We live in a society right now where any job is superior to none, meaning you may not have a choice in where you go. My undesirable job at the high school I spoke of earlier was because I didn't find jobs in my original profession and had to go back to school to get a teaching licensure, and the school job I landed was definitely not my first choice.

The fact that you have any choice in the matter at all means it's not really very comparable to race. You are born and whatever ethnicity a person has is, with rare exceptions, the one they will keep until they die. A job, any job, is something that a person makes a conscious decision to have, and some people decide not to work at all either temporarily or permanently. Even in your example you chose to get the teaching license and be a teacher in your country rather than working at McDonald's, joining the Peace Corp or, incidentally, joining the police force. Bias is bias, but there is a difference between bias against an occupation, where there is some degree of freedom of association, and bias against a state of being.

Gang membership is absolutely voluntary.

It can be voluntary or it can be coerced, or even accidental. There were neo-Nazis dressing up as hipsters to trick people into affiliating with them for a little while, and by all accounts they actually managed to get some new recruits that way, but gangs are not exactly renown for their scruples when it comes to recruiting practices. Again, the central point is that this is not a trait that a person is stuck with forever whether they like it or not. This is something that people have some degree of control over. We can argue about how much, but more than 0 means it is not directly analogous to race.

Which is sort of my point exactly. He's rendering a judgment on the individual based on his peers, which is an invalid way to go about it. When we know for sure what he thinks and how he acts, then you can judge him accordingly.

I understand that was your point, I was giving you a concession because it was valid, but I don't even think Ratty disagreed with it. I was just providing an example so that we'd all have something concrete to think about. Personally, the only judgment I care about is that of the court, and even then my, or anyone's, opinion on the man is irrelevant.

 

[Ratty]

snip

My advice is don't get sucked into the vortex man. Also I know I said I was going, and I'm no longer reading his posts but wow.

I'm glad we're keeping this discussion about the killing of an 18 year old on such a mature level. I feel ashamed to have let myself get distracted from the broader issues into this farce. In a sense to become a party to this distraction. Jesus, nobody died for us to have an internet pissing contest. But somebody did die.

 

[El Comandante]

These nice man kindly request you two, to move along and leav the forum . Pleas limit your freedom of speech to the livingroom where the TV is!

 

[shirkbot]

-snip-

I'm keeping this short for simplicity and clarity for clarity: I think your racial analogy is deeply flawed because, while no group is a monolith, you can indeed tell more about a person by who they associate with than by their ethnicity. It does not mean judgments made this way are 100% accurate, just that they are based on less arbitrary factors and therefore are more likely to be more accurate. Just more.

Both sides do have negative actors, but the police are primarily responsible for exercising restraint because they are unquestionably the superior force in this situation. This is partially a problem of not being properly equipped for anything less than full-crowd control. The militarization of the police, or at least their equipment, is an issue that impacts virtually all communities, not just Furgeson.

Spoiler

These nice man kindly request you two, to move along and leav the forum . Pleas limit your freedom of speech to the livingroom where the TV is!

... But I don't own a TV... Why do you mock me so?

 

[El Comandante]

Well this was for the rat and the kitten under the table,

... But I don't own a TV... Why do you mock me so?

... but while you already have confessed to be a rather suspect citizen, I advise you to buy a TV and watch 10 hours Fox a day for a week. You have a lot to learn about promi babies, terrorist and the super devil!
You can however also watch CNN, but then it will take you two weeks to catch up.
Carry on!

 

[Erttheking]

The owner of the stores where the cigars were purchased said that he never saw Mike Brown according to his lawyer.

<youtube=hwXwEWmAqvE&feature=youtu.be>

 

[thebobmaster_v1legacy]

To people arguing over the specifics of whether they "know" the cop is guilty or not...you do realize the investigation is still ongoing, right? So, if you already know for sure what happened, you should move to Missouri and offer your services on loan. Clearly, you are a better investigator than the current investigators.

 

[Plunkies]

Are you serious? No really, I see other people trying to communicate this same point to you over and over. Wilson opened fire on Brown while he was running away. He opened fire on a fleeing, unarmed man who was at that point not a threat to him. This was an unjustified use of deadly force against someone who was at that moment not threatening Wilson, because the minute you start shooting at someone it's deadly force.

It's shocking that people are still this misinformed. The events seem very clear based on the evidence released so far. Between the officer's injuries, the video evidence combined with the clothing of Brown dead at the scene, the police report and the eye witness report caught on video immediately after the shooting, we know....

Brown commits strong arm robbery at a local store. At some point after leaving the crime scene, Officer Wilson arrives, Brown attacks the door and strikes the Officer multiple times through the window. During this fight a shot goes off in the struggle. Brown runs and the officer yells at him to stop, Brown then turns around and charges. Wilson puts several shots into him but he fails to stop Brown, then puts at least one in his head and he goes down. That series of events was in the police report and independently verified by an eye witness account caught on video minutes after the shooting. His body at the scene shows forward momentum. Autopsies show he was shot in the front. Injury reports show the Officer was attacked.

The story of Michael Brown being an innocent young boy who was doing nothing wrong and surrendering to police when he was brutally executed based purely on his race is an agenda driven narrative fabricated by race baiters and sensationalist media outlets.

 

[Ratty]

Are you serious? No really, I see other people trying to communicate this same point to you over and over. Wilson opened fire on Brown while he was running away. He opened fire on a fleeing, unarmed man who was at that point not a threat to him. This was an unjustified use of deadly force against someone who was at that moment not threatening Wilson, because the minute you start shooting at someone it's deadly force.

It's shocking that people are still this misinformed. The events seem very clear based on the evidence released so far. Between the officer's injuries, the video evidence combined with the clothing of Brown dead at the scene, the police report and the eye witness report caught on video immediately after the shooting, we know....

Brown commits strong arm robbery at a local store. At some point after leaving the crime scene, Officer Wilson arrives, Brown attacks the door and strikes the Officer multiple times through the window. During this fight a shot goes off in the struggle. Brown runs and the officer yells at him to stop, Brown then turns around and charges. Wilson puts several shots into him but he fails to stop Brown, then puts at least one in his head and he goes down. That series of events was in the police report and independently verified by an eye witness account caught on video minutes after the shooting. His body at the scene shows forward momentum. Autopsies show he was shot in the front. Injury reports show the Officer was attacked.

The story of Michael Brown being an innocent young boy who was doing nothing wrong and surrendering to police when he was brutally executed based purely on his race is an agenda driven narrative fabricated by race baiters and sensationalist media outlets.

If that is what happened then Wilson was 100% justified in the shooting and should be exonerated of all charges. It's looking like all of the evidence won't reliably come together until the trial though.

But if that is what happened (which would hopefully be shown by the evidence as you say) then Wilson did nothing wrong and he should go free. I want justice for Wilson just as much as I want it for Brown. And you literally could not have one without the other.

Whatever happens at the trail though I'm afraid the court of public opinion will be split. Whatever the evidence shows, if Wilson goes free some people will think "There's just another cop getting away with a killing." and if he is found guilty some people will say "He did nothing wrong and Obama/whoever forced him to take the fall." I don't think these protests were ever completely just about Brown and Wilson, certainly not after they turned violent.

 

[AgDr_ODST]

Saw a Vice News live feed on youtube that suggested atleast in one instance the complete opposite of what 'Ratty' says is happening. The reporter and his crew along with many others of both the press and curious bystander variety were on the sidelines watching both the cops and some protestors who were gathered at a gas station. The protestors mostly were civil about it all the occasional chant of 'no justice no peace' rang out and the cops having to were telling protestors to stop blocking traffic and to put back signs that they had ripped out of the ground(among other things). Then the 'shit' kicked off: a few bottles got thrown and the police launched tear gas and smoke toward the assembled protestors within minutes of that shots were fired from the direction of the assembled protestors toward the police and the reporters. Then the police started shooting crowd control ammmo (beanbag rounds, rubber bullets) and shooing the Vice reporter and his crew(who had hunkered down behind cover)and the other media away for their safety. The cameras went off temporarily because the reporter got caught in a tear gas cloud, when they went live again some locals were helping them and telling the Vice crew abit of their side of the story. After that they went back to the same spot and got confirmation that the lethal ammo round had come from the protestors not the police. The vice reporter did get mildly harassed at one point though, he was at a McDonalds trying to regroup and a cop who was asking for his press credentials got abit pissed off because he lost them after things went south at the protest site. The cop tore the "PRESS" logo off of his vest and told him to beat it even though his camera man had his 'press pass'