Ship of Fools: Ferguson's breakdown of law and order

Thread: Ferguson's breakdown of law and order Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028021

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

This is first for the thug in Ferguson who shot someone - and then left him in the road for hours.

It also goes out to the looters in gang colours stealing video equipment. To the military cosplayers looking for a fight. To the armed gangs that make the streets unsafe to walk down. To those of you better armed than real soldiers in Iraq and patroling the streets more threateningly. And especially the idiots sitting on top of a van, in plain sight, with a sniper rifle (there's more than one of those). It goes out to the people turning peaceful assemblies violent by attacking them with tear gas and rubber bullets. And terrorizing people in their own homes.

Congratulations you idiots. You've managed to destroy law and order badly enough Palestinians are tweeting advice on how to cope. Every last one of you deserves to lose your badge. Never mind that the neighborhood is 66% black and you guys are 6% black - and you have a history of kafkaesque charges including bleeding on an officer's uniform.

The icing on the cake? When the posers were pulled back and actual professionals took over any threat was over in 24 hours. And the person in charge of prosecuting the killing that sparked this was bitching about it on Twitter. (The police, of course, have yet to interview one of the key witnesses).

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Congratulations you idiots. You've managed to destroy law and order badly enough Palestinians are tweeting advice on how to cope. Every last one of you deserves to lose your badge. Never mind that the neighborhood is 66% black and you guys are 6% black - and you have a history of kafkaesque charges including bleeding on an officer's uniform.

From your mouth to God's ears. It takes a special mixture of racism and incompetence to think an unarmed 18 year old needs to be shot to be subdued, and then to suit up like you're being airlifted into Vietnam to patrol the streets of the town on whose behalf you are employed.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

Justinian, I suppose I have to congratulate you on getting those links correct, but SIXTEEN of the things? One or other of us has to check every one of these, and not just to ensure they all link correctly. It's contentious stuff so we have to bear C7 in mind.

At least there were no YouTube links. I should be grateful.

Sioni Sais
Hellhost

(btw, I'm with you on the story as you put it. Did these militarised cops think they were in Iraq?)

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Justinian, I suppose I have to congratulate you on getting those links correct, but SIXTEEN of the things? One or other of us has to check every one of these, and not just to ensure they all link correctly. It's contentious stuff so we have to bear C7 in mind.

At least there were no YouTube links. I should be grateful.

Sioni Sais
Hellhost

(btw, I'm with you on the story as you put it. Did these militarised cops think they were in Iraq?)

Sorry, didn't realise I was making trouble for you that way or I'd have gone with a few fewer.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Justinian, I suppose I have to congratulate you on getting those links correct, but SIXTEEN of the things? One or other of us has to check every one of these, and not just to ensure they all link correctly. It's contentious stuff so we have to bear C7 in mind.

At least there were no YouTube links. I should be grateful.

Sioni Sais
Hellhost

(btw, I'm with you on the story as you put it. Did these militarised cops think they were in Iraq?)
Sorry, didn't realise I was making trouble for you that way or I'd have gone with a few fewer.

No trouble, just work. I understand you're seething (anyone should be) and links are far better than great chunks of potentially copyright-breaking text.

Thanks, Sioni Sais

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

There's more to this story than is apparent at first blush. I won't burden you with links, but apparently the teenager in question was videotaped moments before in what appears to be a convenience-store robbery in which he appears to have grabbed, shoved and threatened the sales clerk when confronted with the act.

That is not to say that the penalty for stealing a package of cigars should be death by a barrage of police bullets while kneeling in the street with your hands in the air -- it certainly should not.

All I'm saying is that the initial wave of "Oh, look what the nasty horrible police do in our town to an innocent young boy who was the apple of his parents' eye and so looking forward to starting college tomorrow" may need a rewrite.

Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :

But the cop who killed him did not know about the robbery. As far as I can tell, Mike Brown was killed for walking down the middle of the road instead of the pavement. [Help]

BTW, many thanks for those links Justinian. The story about the guy charged with bleeding on police uniforms was awesome. [Ultra confused]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
But the cop who killed him did not know about the robbery. As far as I can tell, Mike Brown was killed for walking down the middle of the road instead of the pavement.

Ah, but while the cop didn't know, Mike Brown knew. And Mike Brown may well have thought, erroneously, that the cop knew.

Might that not have had an impact on the way that Mike Brown behaved when Mike Brown was faced by a cop?

EDIT: This is not to say that the police response, especially the police response after the shooting, is all just fine and dandy. It's not. But a kid walking down the middle of the street after committing a robbery doesn't behave the same way as a kid walking down the middle of the street with no guilt in his mind when confronted with a cop, even if the particular cop doesn't know about the robbery yet.

[ 16. August 2014, 11:11: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Ah, but while the cop didn't know, Mike Brown knew. And Mike Brown may well have thought, erroneously, that the cop knew.

Might that not have had an impact on the way that Mike Brown behaved when Mike Brown was faced by a cop?

Sure, this is possible.

It's also possible that the claim that Mike Brown was shot whilst trying to gain control of the police officer's weapon is correct (which is about the only scenario in which shooting an unarmed man is justifiable).

You can do this with any isolated case - you can ask whether this or that might have happened, and given that we armchair pontificators never see the whole evidence, there are often holes that can be picked at.

But the individual case isn't really the point. When you look at the number of unarmed young black men shot by police, and compare it to the lack of unarmed young white men shot in similar circumstances, this is evidence of a problem. You can probably explain away an individual case, but it's just not credible that shootings of young men like Mike Brown happen every day without their being an underlying problem.

And all the armour, the tear gas, the tanks and the snipers? That's not the result of Ferguson. That is the cause of these kinds of shootings. How can you possibly serve and protect a community when you are marching through it like an occupying army?

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

I didn't deny systemic issues. Far from it.

But you can't put a "system" on trial in a court of law. You can't put it in a jail cell. You can't demote it or fire it.

So long as people are going to talk about what the cop did - the single, individual cop - and talk about 'justice' in terms of that single, individual cop, then it is perfectly proper to talk about what might have affected the interaction between the single, individual cop and the single, individual person that he shot.

And the individual case might not be 'the point' to you, but I bet it sure is to the cop, and the cop's family, and the family of the person who's dead.

[ 16. August 2014, 13:17: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
There's more to this story than is apparent at first blush. I won't burden you with links, but apparently the teenager in question was videotaped moments before in what appears to be a convenience-store robbery in which he appears to have grabbed, shoved and threatened the sales clerk when confronted with the act.

That is not to say that the penalty for stealing a package of cigars should be death by a barrage of police bullets while kneeling in the street with your hands in the air -- it certainly should not.

All I'm saying is that the initial wave of "Oh, look what the nasty horrible police do in our town to an innocent young boy who was the apple of his parents' eye and so looking forward to starting college tomorrow" may need a rewrite.

The current police story only asks more questions about the police than it answers. Questions it asks include:
1: Why not release this information ASAP?
2: Given that the killer didn't know about it, how is it relevant to the situation? Michael Brown was killed for jaywalking, not for robbery.
3: Given that Dorian Johnson has been on national TV repeatedly and not been interviewed by the police about the shooting, why now claim he's a suspect?

Even if Brown was the person on that video this is nothing more than a blatant attempt at distraction while dragging through the mud the name of someone unable to defend themself. And this is the sort of thing #iftheygunnedmedown was about.

My opinion? Not only is the robbery irrelevant to the actual story of an out of control police department trampling all over the rule of law. I wouldn't trust the Ferguson police if they told me it was raining.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

The militarization of the police is a problem. SWAT teams are one thing. Putting regular police in tactical gear and armored personnel carriers is going overboard. Now, mark my words. Any chance that a demilitarization of the police likely ended last night.

Gov. Nixon removed the Ferguson police. He sent in state troopers. The state troopers marched with the protesters. Everybody praised the state police captain for how he handled the situation. What happened? Nightfall brought more rioting and looting in Ferguson. Police returned in riot gear and with armored personnel carriers.

For a large number of people and a majority of people in some places, what happened yesterday justified everything the police has done so far. Rioting and looting as a response to police overreacting? Nope. The police response now looks justified to contain the rioting and looting. Should have released the officers name earlier? Why? So, his home could be attacked the same way he liquor store Mike Brown allegedly robbed was looted while the supposedly fascist police sat and watched? Mike Brown was just an innocent black teenager walking down the street when a racist cop suddenly decided to stop, force in his car, and then shoot dead when he resisted? How likely is that story at the moment?

That said, I'm not saying that Wilson is blameless. Brown might have fought with Wilson over the gun, tried to get away, and then surrender. Wilson might have shot Brown while Brown was trying to surrender. If he did, Wilson is guilty of manslaughter. Personally, I'm waiting for the trial and jury verdict.

Why was there a rush to judgment over this? I suspected as soon as this story broke that there was something more to it than white police officer executes unarmed black teenager for walking down the street while black. Doesn't Wilson deserve due process. I know. I know. Mike Brown didn't get due process before he was executed in the street. Maybe, Mike Brown was executed in the street and Wilson will be convicted of a crime. My strong suspicion is Mike Brown didn't get due process because Mike Brown resisted arrest and attacked a police officer. Again, I may be wrong. I'm just going with what makes the most sense so far. We will see what the investigation reveals.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

So long as people are going to talk about what the cop did - the single, individual cop - and talk about 'justice' in terms of that single, individual cop, then it is perfectly proper to talk about what might have affected the interaction between the single, individual cop and the single, individual person that he shot.

Huge numbers of people didn't come out and protest over the killing of Trayvon Martin, or over Mike Brown, because of particular concerns over those individual cases.

When people trust the police and the justice system, you don't get mass protests - you just get an investigation, and if appropriate a trial.

People aren't protesting because they think Officer Wilson should be tried for killing Mike Brown - they are protesting because they think that and they think that the only chance of a fair trial rather than a coverup is keeping the public spotlight on this case.

The killing of Mike Brown is the trigger, but the causes of the protests are the systemic issues.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

So long as people are going to talk about what the cop did - the single, individual cop - and talk about 'justice' in terms of that single, individual cop, then it is perfectly proper to talk about what might have affected the interaction between the single, individual cop and the single, individual person that he shot.

Huge numbers of people didn't come out and protest over the killing of Trayvon Martin, or over Mike Brown, because of particular concerns over those individual cases.

When people trust the police and the justice system, you don't get mass protests - you just get an investigation, and if appropriate a trial.

People aren't protesting because they think Officer Wilson should be tried for killing Mike Brown - they are protesting because they think that and they think that the only chance of a fair trial rather than a coverup is keeping the public spotlight on this case.

The killing of Mike Brown is the trigger, but the causes of the protests are the systemic issues.

That is true.

HOWEVER, by the same token it is also distinctly not true that every time a black person is killed by a white person there is a protest. By your own logic, this can't possibly be the case - if there's a systemic problem, it means there are lots of such cases. And yet, only some of these cases generate protests. Why?

Let me suggest one reason that I suspect. I suspect the difference between the cases that generate protests and the cases that don't is that the protests arise when there's a perception that this time 'someone is getting away with something'.

So far so good. But what's the implication of that? The implication of that is that in the other cases, the perception is that perpetrators aren't getting away with it. That there's some due process.

There may well be a systemic issue in terms of violence against black youths happening too frequently, but the problem is it's hard to maintain that the cases that generate protests are emblematic of the precise systemic problem when they have a key difference from the 'systemic' cases - the very existence of the protest.

My suspicion is the difference is, as I've said, one of perception - that this time someone is 'getting away with it'. Here's the thing, though: maybe the reason they're 'getting away with it' on this occasion is because the perception of what they're supposed to have done isn't accurate.

Just because the perception is that this another case of a black kid wrongly killed, it doesn't mean that it was another case of a black kid wrongly killed. The black kid part is indisputable, as is the fact that he was killed, but not all killing is wrong. And maybe the reason that THIS is a protest-generating case is because the police haven't arrived at the same conclusion as the crowd over the facts. That certainly seems to be what happened with the Trayvon Martin shooting for example - and as more facts came to light, the police position started looking a lot more reasonable.

It can certainly happen that a crowd reaction is wrong. We don't have a lot of these kinds of riots in Australia, but we had
this one. Only problem being it was based on an outright lie. The aunt of the kid who killed his 2 friends persuaded him to blame it on the police. Only the police hadn't done it.

The fact that a bunch of people are angry doesn't mean their anger is directed correctly. If anything, if there is a perception of a 'systemic' problem, the odds are fairly good that the times they show their anger the most are precisely the times when their anger is misplaced.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

The store looting wasn't stopped by the police, according to this article it was stopped by other protesters who were keeping it peaceful.

Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
There's more to this story than is apparent at first blush. I won't burden you with links, but apparently the teenager in question was videotaped moments before in what appears to be a convenience-store robbery in which he appears to have grabbed, shoved and threatened the sales clerk when confronted with the act.

That is not to say that the penalty for stealing a package of cigars should be death by a barrage of police bullets while kneeling in the street with your hands in the air -- it certainly should not.

All I'm saying is that the initial wave of "Oh, look what the nasty horrible police do in our town to an innocent young boy who was the apple of his parents' eye and so looking forward to starting college tomorrow" may need a rewrite.

I have to agree with Leorning Cniht. The problem is that there is HUGE disparity in how black and white people, who commit the same crimes, are treated. A wealthy white kid can steal alcohol & kill a family of 4, wound his friends and get off because he’s affluent. (Truly! That was the reason for acquittal.)

Black people who commit crimes prove that Black people are scary and should be treated like potential criminals first and people second by law enforcement and society alike. White people (well, white men) who shoot up schools, universities, movie theatres and shopping malls, or blow up federal buildings with increasing frequency are sad victims of mental illness or extremist ideologies that the media seeks to provide context and understanding around. Black people are tossed in jail for relatively small drug violations yet rich white people who also deal or possess similar amounts of drugs are given community service or thrown into rehab with no criminal record.

The protests, rightfully so, are about this double standard. The response of the Fergueson Police Department hasn't helped things.

We continue to live in an extremely racist country that is in deep denial of our problem. The media is already painting Mike Brown as a violent thug who deserved his fate vs. a poor (white) police officer just doing his job. It's likely going to follow the Trayvon Martin case down the same road and the deeper issues of the disparities in law enforcement and justice are going to get swept under the rug.

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
The militarization of the police is a problem. SWAT teams are one thing. Putting regular police in tactical gear and armored personnel carriers is going overboard. Now, mark my words. Any chance that a demilitarization of the police likely ended last night.

Gov. Nixon removed the Ferguson police. He sent in state troopers. The state troopers marched with the protesters. Everybody praised the state police captain for how he handled the situation. What happened? Nightfall brought more rioting and looting in Ferguson. Police returned in riot gear and with armored personnel carriers.

For a large number of people and a majority of people in some places, what happened yesterday justified everything the police has done so far. Rioting and looting as a response to police overreacting? Nope. The police response now looks justified to contain the rioting and looting.

First, sorry in advance to the hosts - I've kept it down to four links this time.

The first point is that there is a need for a police force. Every community contains a few scumbags, willing to take advantage. The problem is that the police department in question has demonstrated that it can't and won't do this.

The second point is that the armed police returned early last night - before the looters cut lose; the first report of looting I've been able to find was about an hour after that.

Most of the protesters? Weren't looting - quite the reverse. Here's another photo of protesters protecting the store. (There are others, but I'll spare the hosts).

So to me after a little research the timeline of last night looks pretty simple.

1: Someone decides to suppress the non-violent protest.

2: The police re-militarise and line up and possibly surround the protest.

3: This draws the police in from the surrounding areas, and all to the centre of the protest.

4: Scumbag opportunists take advantage of the fact that the police are all busy trying to turn a non-violent protest into a riot by robbing where the police now aren't as they are all busy intimidating protesters. They can therefore do things with near-impunity.

5: A lot of the protesters try to protect stores. They know that this isn't doing them any good. But they can't be everywhere.

6: Because the police being somewhere they make things worse means they can't be where they are needed to stop scumbags "For a large number of people and a majority of people in some places, what happened yesterday justified everything the police has done so far." This despite the fact this appears to be exactly the opposite of what happened last night.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

The situation is part and parcel of the vicious cycle of racism. African Americans have been mistreated badly (understatement for slavery) since forever. Today those who "protect and serve" in Ferguson (mainly white) know that African Americans have excellent reasons for being very angry whether they express it or not, so the police fear them and oppress them further. It is the same reason for the Jim Crow culture IMO. Get them before they get us. And keep getting them. [Disappointed]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

But you can't put a "system" on trial in a court of law.

It is done all the time. Both in prosecution and defence. "Culture of violence" anyone?
ISTM, the incidents which draw protest are those in which the police conduct is more obviously egregious, combined with press coverage and initial response.

quote:
The fact that a bunch of people are angry doesn't mean their anger is directed correctly. If anything, if there is a perception of a 'systemic' problem, the odds are fairly good that the times they show their anger the most are precisely the times when their anger is misplaced.

What? Perhaps I am particularly slow today, or it is the migraine, but I do not follow. Can you explain?

BTW, regarding the Trayvon Martin case, few facts were established. It simply became muddy enough for no clear conclusion. Which, ISTM, people are already attempting to do here.

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
The protests, rightfully so, are about this double standard. The response of the Fergueson Police Department hasn't helped things.

I'm not sure the protests are about the double standard, or are primarily about race. I'm sure that's a huge factor, but I think there's been a growing awareness of the problems in the criminal injustice system in the USA for a while.

Before you can start fixing a problem, you generally have to have a large enough contingent of people who believe there is in fact a problem.

One of these days we're going to reach that point and start discussing solutions.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
People aren't protesting because they think Officer Wilson should be tried for killing Mike Brown - they are protesting because they think that and they think that the only chance of a fair trial rather than a coverup is keeping the public spotlight on this case.

Really? I haven't read anybody saying that. Do they think indictments are handed down within days after a crime taking place? They would be wrong. Do they think protests sometimes violent are a legitimate means of getting somebody indicted? It is no nor should it be.

quote:
originally posted by Curiosity killed:
The store looting wasn't stopped by the police, according to this article it was stopped by other protesters who were keeping it peaceful.

They tried to stop the looting.

quote:
originally posted by Justinian:
So to me after a little research the timeline of last night looks pretty simple.

Nobody tried to suppress a peaceful protest. Police were there to make sure a peaceful protest stayed peaceful. It did not. Police did nothing. Some of the protesters turned violent and started looting. Others tried to stop them.

The longer the protesters stay out there protesting the more they hurt their cause. It's that simple. Nothing good will come of them continuing to protest day and night. They should probably go home and let the justice system work. At minimum, they should confine their protests to daytime. Violence will continue. Looting will continue. The violence and looting will become the story. The militarized police will not be the story. Mike Brown won't be the story. Race relations won't be the story. People in the United States have only so much patience with protests like this before they turn on the protesters.

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

But meanwhile the ultra right-wing loonies are going to have a field day with this -- spurred on, of course, by a certain fat loudmouth blowhard windbag whose name I won't mention.

"The percentage of blacks arrested is out of proportion to the percentage of whites arrested? Of course it is -- could it just be, perhaps, that blacks commit more crimes than whites? Lookie here: this 'gentle giant', this 'good kid' who wants nothing more than to go to college and make something of his life, is in reality no such thing. He's a thug and a hooligan who robs convenience stores and manhandles the poor clerk who dares to confront him. No wonder the police shot him. I'd have shot him too if I had been there with my gun and witnessed the crime. And what do the people do? Do they show shame over the fact that they threw their support behind this supposed 'good kid'? No. They go back to the convenience store and say to the clerk, 'You have the nerve to confront one of us when we take something from your store? Well, we'll give you something to confront. We'll loot and plunder until there's nothing left in your store.'"

Not that I'm writing the script for the fat loudmouth blowhard windbag to use on his radio show. But I don't have to -- I think you get the point I'm trying to make.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Really? I haven't read anybody saying that. Do they think indictments are handed down within days after a crime taking place? They would be wrong. Do they think protests sometimes violent are a legitimate means of getting somebody indicted? It is no nor should it be.

Perhaps you remember some of the recent rape prosecutions of popular high school football players? Steubenville, for example, where local police and prosecutors weren't going to take any action until forced into it by public pressure?

I'll happily agree with you that justice should be impartial, and that public protests and outrage shouldn't affect either the conduct of the investigation or the likelihood of a charge or conviction.

Unfortunately, we don't live in that world, and given the history of past abuses, black people in particular are well aware that we don't live in that world. And in the face of a police department whose first resort is to bring the tanks out, is it any wonder that the black community in Ferguson is skeptical about whether justice will be done?

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

The shooting happened a week ago. Homicide investigations take more than a week. What if the state and US attorney investigate and decide they can't win a conviction based on the evidence? Is that sufficient or does an indictment have to happen because of the protests? Is an indictment enough or must a conviction happen based on the rush to judgment that happened hours after the shooting? If Wilson is acquitted by a jury will than only be more evidence of a racist system?

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
The shooting happened a week ago. Homicide investigations take more than a week. What if the state and US attorney investigate and decide they can't win a conviction based on the evidence? Is that sufficient or does an indictment have to happen because of the protests? Is an indictment enough or must a conviction happen based on the rush to judgment that happened hours after the shooting? If Wilson is acquitted by a jury will than only be more evidence of a racist system?

It doesn't take police investigations and state attorneys to investigate police impartiality. The death of Michael Brown is one issue, relations between the community and the police that is supposed to serve them another.

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Nobody tried to suppress a peaceful protest. Police were there to make sure a peaceful protest stayed peaceful. It did not.

It, so far as I can tell, stopped being a peaceful protest when the police attacked it. What should the protesters have done? And the single night the police practiced policing by consent rather than behaving like an occupying army the protest was peaceful.

quote:
Police did nothing. Some of the protesters turned violent and started looting. Others tried to stop them.

I ran through the timeline last night. The first report of looting I've been able to find was after the police decide the protest needed to be intimidated and suppressed.

In short Police did something. They moved all the police to intimidate and harrass a peaceful protest. The scumbags around the protest knew it and knew that because of the police being where they weren't needed there weren't any of them able to do their job and deal with crime.

I went through the timeline about this.

quote:
The longer the protesters stay out there protesting the more they hurt their cause. It's that simple. Nothing good will come of them continuing to protest day and night. They should probably go home and let the justice system work.

The local police department is literally one that has charged someone for bleeding on an officer's uniform after beating him up. When there aren't eyes on the town there effectively is no justice system that works.

The justice system can't work until it is freed from the people currently administering it.

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
The percentage of blacks arrested is out of proportion to the percentage of whites arrested? Of course it is -- could it just be, perhaps, that blacks commit more crimes than whites?

Ferguson has racial profiling on Stop-And-Search - and police are 50% more likely to find contraband on whites they stop and search than blacks.

quote:
Lookie here: this 'gentle giant', this 'good kid' who wants nothing more than to go to college and make something of his life, is in reality no such thing. He's a thug and a hooligan who robs convenience stores and manhandles the poor clerk who dares to confront him. No wonder the police shot him.

For some reason I'm more afraid of the policeman who gunned him down than I am of him. I wonder why that could be...

quote:
Not that I'm writing the script for the fat loudmouth blowhard windbag to use on his radio show. But I don't have to -- I think you get the point I'm trying to make.

That right wing blowhards will say what they want irrespective of the facts? And therefore should be ignored?

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
That right wing blowhards will say what they want irrespective of the facts? And therefore should be ignored?

Precisely. Facts never seem to bother them. If people, and especially the media, ignored the fat loudmouth blowhard windbag and his handmaidens in a certain Northern state and a certain chamber of Congress, the world would be a much better place.

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Do they think indictments are handed down within days after a crime taking place? They would be wrong. Do they think protests sometimes violent are a legitimate means of getting somebody indicted? It is no nor should it be.

No, but if he weren't a cop he would have been arrested immediately, the judge would have set a really high bail, and he would have waited out the rest of the process in jail. Even if there wasn't *any* evidence, much less enough evidence to convict him. That is the reality of how our injustice system works for the Mundanes. See, for example, this story about someone who was in prison when his alleged crime took place. That's not the first time I've heard that story (although I think it is the first time I've heard of the prosecutor starting to behave when the media threatened to expose their actions). For the most part, prosecutors know that even if you're innocent they can force you to take a plea deal.

Even the cops admit it. I won't link to the Flex Your Rights video where a defense attorney and a cop explain why you should never talk to the police because it's long and I don't want to force the hosts to watch it, but it's easy enough to find if you're interested.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
But you can't put a "system" on trial in a court of law.
It is done all the time. Both in prosecution and defence. "Culture of violence" anyone?

Oh, people can PRETEND to put a system on trial, and they do it all the time.

But you'll never find it listed as defendant. Funny that.

It's a wonderful distracting tactic - a distraction that the task of a trial is to either convict or acquit the person listed as defendant. Best used by a defence team trying to distract from the fact that their individual client is guilty, or by a prosecution team either trying to distract from the fact that they can't prove the defendant guilty or less interested in the individual defendant than in 'sending a message' - often before an election.

[ 16. August 2014, 23:45: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
originally posted by Justinian:
It, so far as I can tell, stopped being a peaceful protest when the police attacked it. What should the protesters have done? And the single night the police practiced policing by consent rather than behaving like an occupying army the protest was peaceful.

No, that's not what happened. How did the police attack the protest? They allowed the looting to happen. Nobody was arrested despite rocks being thrown at police.

quote:
originally posted by Justinian:
In short Police did something. They moved all the police to intimidate and harrass a peaceful protest. The scumbags around the protest knew it and knew that because of the police being where they weren't needed there weren't any of them able to do their job and deal with crime.

Not what happened. The police watched the looting take place. The armored personnel carriers only came back after some of the protesters turned violent. I'm going why what I read on Slate, USA Today, and the AP story.

quote:
originally posted by Justinian:
The justice system can't work until it is freed from the people currently administering it.

In the US we have elections every 2 to 4 years.

quote:
originally posted by saysay:
No, but if he weren't a cop he would have been arrested immediately, the judge would have set a really high bail, and he would have waited out the rest of the process in jail.

Not everybody who shoots another person is arrested immediately. Nowhere in this country are police arrested and held without bail every single time deadly force is used. No amount of protesting in Ferguson, Missouri will change that. Nor should it.

quote:
originally posted by saysay:
attorney and a cop explain why you should never talk to the police

Don't talk to the police. It's your right not to talk to the police. I avoid interactions with the police. Main way I do that is not to commit any crimes. On the occasions I have been stopped by police, I've been respectful and promptly followed every legal command I've been given. Sometimes they let me go with a warning. Sometimes I've gotten a ticket. On those occasions I've gotten a ticket, the chances are zero that arguing with the cop would have changed his mind.

Don't I know some police are jerks with power? Absolutely I do. Don't I know that some police will provoke people. Absolutely I do. Don't I know that police harass people based on the clothes they wear and the company they keep. Absolutely I do. As a result...well...see the above paragraph.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
No, but if he weren't a cop he would have been arrested immediately, the judge would have set a really high bail, and he would have waited out the rest of the process in jail. Even if there wasn't *any* evidence, much less enough evidence to convict him. That is the reality of how our injustice system works for the Mundanes. ... For the most part, prosecutors know that even if you're innocent they can force you to take a plea deal.

Even the cops admit it.

No, they wouldn't, and they don't--certainly not as a matter of routine. Full disclosure: I live in St. Louis, Missouri (that's right folks, Ferguson is a suburb of), and I've had my share of encounters with cops good, bad, and nasty. And we're ethnic, so it isn't white privilege.

We are currently working with a case where someone got drunk and shot up his relative. The man lived, but will likely be disabled. Did they arrest and jail the shooter immediately? No. They investigated (it's been three months now). He turned himself in on advice of lawyer a month ago and was let go on bail. He is not waiting out his time in jail.

Nor is the woman charged with murder whom we also have something to do with. She's at home, also on bail.

I have met some awesome St. Louis area cops. I have met some totally asshole St. Louis area cops. The awesome vs. asshole issue has no correlation to the color of their skins. We have had good from both, and damn nasty behavior from both.

It's not that easy.

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

quote:
originally posted by Justinian:
It, so far as I can tell, stopped being a peaceful protest when the police attacked it. What should the protesters have done? And the single night the police practiced policing by consent rather than behaving like an occupying army the protest was peaceful.

No, that's not what happened. How did the police attack the protest?

First they all turned up at the scene of a non-violent protest, with guns, and then tear gas.

quote:
They allowed the looting to happen.

Indeed. Had the cops been doing their jobs the way Ron Johnson demonstrated - about half a dozen of them there - they would have easily been able to prevent the looting which happened because they were too busy trying to hold a pissing contest with the looters.

quote:
Nobody was arrested despite rocks being thrown at police.

Good.

quote:
Not what happened. The police watched the looting take place. The armored personnel carriers only came back after some of the protesters turned violent. I'm going why what I read on Slate, USA Today, and the AP story.

And I'm going by actual eye witnesses with timestamps rather than press releases from the police. Primary sources rather than secondary.

Besides, that's not what the AP said. I've read a few of those feeds and they mention looting round midnight - they don't mention that the police were forming up en masse at the protest at 10pm at the latest (see previous links).

quote:

quote:
originally posted by Justinian:
The justice system can't work until it is freed from the people currently administering it.

In the US we have elections every 2 to 4 years.

You think that an election in a single town is all it takes? You're cute.

quote:
Main way I do that is not to commit any crimes.

And, I assume, if you are an American, by being white. I've already linked the fact that in Ferguson black people get stopped and searched disproportionately despite the fact that white people stopped and searched are more than 50% more likely to have contraband on them.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

The police were always there. The police are always armed. The police will always show up in force for demonstrations such as happened on Friday night.

The police couldn't stop the looting because they were having a pissing contest with the looters? That's just asinine. Hate to break it to you but Ron Johnson was in command of the police on Friday night.

If the protesters plan on protesting until whatever they think needs to be changed in the United States changes, they'll be there for a long time. They will accomplish nothing. Changing things in this country means changing the minds of those who disagree with you. Ignoring those who disagree with you as you suggest upthread will accomplish nothing.

Personally, I want looters and those who throw rocks and Molotov cocktails to be arrested. I'm not in the minority. So far, Gov. Nixon has handled this situation brilliantly (from a political standpoint). Couple more nights like Friday and Saturday and Gov. Nixon will find out that a majority of Missourians expect looters and rioters to be arrested as well.

I don't think Twitter is a very reliable source.

[ 17. August 2014, 17:02: Message edited by: Beeswax Altar ]

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I want looters and those who throw rocks and Molotov cocktails to be arrested. . . . Couple more nights like Friday and Saturday and Gov. Nixon will find out that a majority of Missourians expect looters and rioters to be arrested as well.

I don't think Twitter is a very reliable source.

Amen, amen, amen! The rise of social media has not done the public dialog a service.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

Personally, I want looters and those who throw rocks and Molotov cocktails to be arrested. I'm not in the minority.

And I want police who abuse their authority arrested and courts to treat each case as if they were colour-blind.
Which do you think has greater odds of occurring?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

orfeo,

You, of course, have no obligation, but I am still interested in hearing your answer.

quote:
Originally posted by lilbuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The fact that a bunch of people are angry doesn't mean their anger is directed correctly. If anything, if there is a perception of a 'systemic' problem, the odds are fairly good that the times they show their anger the most are precisely the times when their anger is misplaced.
What? Perhaps I am particularly slow today, or it is the migraine, but I do not follow. Can you explain?

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Not everybody who shoots another person is arrested immediately. Nowhere in this country are police arrested and held without bail every single time deadly force is used. No amount of protesting in Ferguson, Missouri will change that. Nor should it.

I agree with you that nowhere in this country are police arrested every single time deadly force is used. I agree that no amount of protesting in Ferguson, Missouri will change that. I agree that it shouldn't change that.

For the most part I agree with the policy that places a police officer on paid leave while their use of force is investigated. I know things are different in different parts of the country, so perhaps you already have this, but I would like to see more citizen and community involvement in determining whether or not the use of force was justified. I would also like to make it easier to remove a bad police officer from the force. This binary where either a police officer who has used deadly force is cleared of all charges and allowed to remain on the force or is subject to a civil criminal trial is not working. Let's try something different.

(I would also like to see the police treat citizens with the same respect in terms of investigating before arresting instead of arresting and charging on the basis of the fact that you fit the description of the suspect and happened to be somewhere near the scene of the crime).

quote:

quote:
originally posted by saysay:
attorney and a cop explain why you should never talk to the police
Don't talk to the police. It's your right not to talk to the police.

I wanted you to watch the video so you could hear a cop admit to the deceptive tactics and Hannity-like logic the police sometimes use on unsuspecting citizens. But perhaps you already know that.

quote:
I avoid interactions with the police. Main way I do that is not to commit any crimes.

Lucky you. You're a white man who is lucky enough to be able to afford to live in an area where there is very little crime and the police aren't in your neighborhood with some regularity.

I spoke with a police officer earlier this week. We've had a mysterious resurgence in shootings, and I heard the police helicopter and went outside to see if I could see anything useful. When I saw the cop turn down my court I tried to hurry back inside because my interactions with police have been such that while I know most of them are good, the nasty ones are so nasty that I'm scared of what type I'm going to get. But he waved me over and I tried to answer his questions honestly without getting too physically close (and into the danger zone if he was one of the bad ones). When I started to leave another neighbor came up to talk to him about what others in the neighborhood watch had witnessed.

I hate that. I hate that I am currently in a position where I'm so afraid of cops that I have to be the community asshole who won't talk to them no matter what crime they've witnessed.

quote:
On the occasions I have been stopped by police, I've been respectful and promptly followed every legal command I've been given.

And what do you do when they give you an illegal command?

quote:
Sometimes they let me go with a warning. Sometimes I've gotten a ticket. On those occasions I've gotten a ticket, the chances are zero that arguing with the cop would have changed his mind.

Sounds like your interactions with the police have been the result of traffic violations. I've had the same experiences when it comes to traffic violations.

However, I've also wound up with bruises all up and down my arms and on my breasts as the result of an encounter with a very angry cop who was patrolling a neighborhood that I happened to be in. I was visiting a friend, and when the friend started acting too angrily and like he might be on the verge of violence, I left. Only to encounter a cop who was acting the same way. He told me that I had to answer his questions (lie: I could have asked if I was being detained and walked away). I told him that I would answer his questions, but asked him to please stop talking to me the way he was. The situation went downhill from there.

quote:
Don't I know some police are jerks with power? Absolutely I do. Don't I know that some police will provoke people. Absolutely I do. Don't I know that police harass people based on the clothes they wear and the company they keep. Absolutely I do. As a result...well...see the above paragraph.

And how do you reconcile that with Matthew 25:35-40? Last time I checked, I thought you were called to some sort of service...

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
The police were always there.

Some police were always there. At 10pm dozens more police arrived and formed up into a battle line. If you don't see the difference between half a dozen police and three dozen police, that's your issue.

quote:
The police are always armed.

This is a problem the United States has.

quote:
The police will always show up in force for demonstrations such as happened on Friday night.

Some police will always show up.

quote:
The police couldn't stop the looting because they were having a pissing contest with the looters? That's just asinine.

Breaking News: Beeswax Altar thinks that individual cops can be in two places at once!

quote:
Hate to break it to you but Ron Johnson was in command of the police on Friday night.

Hate to break it to you, but Ron Johnson needs to sleep. And was asleep at the escalation point. "Standing alongside Nixon on Saturday, Johnson tried hard to explain that the teargas was set off by one officer acting independently."

And no prizes for working out whether that policeman was from Ferguson or the Highway Patrol.

Once an officer, acting independently, has attacked the crowd with tear gas, what do you expect to happen?

quote:
If the protesters plan on protesting until whatever they think needs to be changed in the United States changes, they'll be there for a long time. They will accomplish nothing. Changing things in this country means changing the minds of those who disagree with you. Ignoring those who disagree with you as you suggest upthread will accomplish nothing.

In short your advice to them is to sit down, shut up, and trust in the system that is manifestly failing.

quote:
Personally, I want looters and those who throw rocks and Molotov cocktails to be arrested.

I don't disagree. I also want the officer who acted independently and assaulted the entire crowd with tear gas to be arrested. I want the officer who gunned down a man to lose his badge. And I want the Ferguson PD, who are manifestly unable to keep order, to be replaced.

quote:
I don't think Twitter is a very reliable source.

I don't consider the AP reliable either. But Twitter with pictures can at least establish timestamps. This is why the twitter comments I'm linking normally have photographs or vine-video attached.

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
No, they wouldn't, and they don't--certainly not as a matter of routine. Full disclosure: I live in St. Louis, Missouri (that's right folks, Ferguson is a suburb of), and I've had my share of encounters with cops good, bad, and nasty. And we're ethnic, so it isn't white privilege.

We are currently working with a case where someone got drunk and shot up his relative. The man lived, but will likely be disabled. Did they arrest and jail the shooter immediately? No. They investigated (it's been three months now). He turned himself in on advice of lawyer a month ago and was let go on bail. He is not waiting out his time in jail.

Nor is the woman charged with murder whom we also have something to do with. She's at home, also on bail.

I'm willing to admit that there may be some regional and state variations when it comes to these sorts of things. I've already linked to it, but this is the sort of thing common where I live (the uncommon part is the part where they let him out of jail instead of forcing him to wait for a trial or accept a plea bargain).

I've met people who have spent ten days in prison because they told a police officer their name was (for example) Toya instead of Latoya. They consider themselves lucky because they actually got public defenders willing to go to bat for them. I know someone who spent several months in prison because she was on probation and her probation officer told her that he knew that every Friday she crossed the state line to pick up her kids and every Sunday she crossed the state line to drop off her kids so she didn't have to get his permission every week. Unfortunately, she didn't get it in writing and got pulled over in Maryland for a burnt-out tail-light. I could go on and on and on with stories like this.

Maybe things aren't that bad in MO. I've only ever driven through, so I couldn't say.

quote:
I have met some awesome St. Louis area cops. I have met some totally asshole St. Louis area cops. The awesome vs. asshole issue has no correlation to the color of their skins. We have had good from both, and damn nasty behavior from both.

It's not that easy.

I'm not the one arguing that the awesome vs. asshole issue is correlated to the color of anyone's skin.

I'm the one arguing that the biggest issue we should be dealing with is the militarization of the police and the fact that some police departments are being given military equipment contingent on that equipment being used within a certain time frame. (not that I've made that argument within this thread yet or anything, but everybody's always expecting me to be psychic and punishing me when I'm not, so, you know...)

I'm also arguing for more community mediation and community corrections before we start trapping people in systems they can never escape.

I'm also arguing for more prosecutorial transparency and oversight because most of the prosecutors I've known are most certainly not members of the communities they are supposed to serve. And, as one defense attorney helpfully informed me, they are under no obligation to tell the truth to a judge or in court documents. You have to take an oath under penalty of perjury, but they can say whatever the hell they want without worrying they will ever face any negative consequences.

I figure that'll do to start with.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Saysay, we're back to the plural of anecdote not being data. All I'm trying to do here is say that there are no hard-and-fast rules for how to make everything better in a case like Ferguson.

Has my family personally been abused by police? Yes. Has my family personally been helped by police? Yes. Do things need to get better? Hell yes.

But I don't see any way of doing it except the old, hard way--assess each situation individually, find the root problem that allowed it to happen, set in place safeguards against that happening again, and move on to the next hellhole. Where the basic problem may be somewhat different.

And that requires honest, hardworking people who are basically boots-on-the-ground and have the time and the funding to do things right. Regardless of what shitstorm the media might be blowing up. Regardless of what Twitter etc. are going to say about their actions, because there is no way in hell that the full truth of the situation is going to be posted on Facebook for everybody to see.

If you do this kind of work, you are going to be misunderstood. You are going to be vilified, even threatened. No matter what the fuck you do, you will be wrong. And that goes for Ferguson as well--for leaders on both sides, police and protesters.

It's so damned easy to say what ought to happen until you're there, in charge.

[Votive]

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :

I completely agree with that post (well, except for the plural of anecdote not being data seeing as how I am trying to humanize actual data with anecdotes, but whatever).

I just wish the feds would stop making doing that kind of work somewhere in between difficult and impossible.

And I do think that inasmuch as some of these problems are being caused by the federal government, there are enough similarities in the problems we're having that we may be able to find common solutions that at least help some of these problems in more than one hellhole.

But people are people. Nobody wants to stop playing the blame game long enough to discuss potential solutions.

So be it.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:

quote:
The police are always armed.
This is a problem the United States has.

And in the US context, there is rather a difference between a police officer wearing his sidearm and one carrying a rifle or grenade launcher.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
And in the US context, there is rather a difference between a police officer wearing his sidearm and one carrying a rifle or grenade launcher.

And for some weird reason the federal government is helping local police get access to these weapons. [Frown]

Moo

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
orfeo,

You, of course, have no obligation, but I am still interested in hearing your answer.

quote:
Originally posted by lilbuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The fact that a bunch of people are angry doesn't mean their anger is directed correctly. If anything, if there is a perception of a 'systemic' problem, the odds are fairly good that the times they show their anger the most are precisely the times when their anger is misplaced.
What? Perhaps I am particularly slow today, or it is the migraine, but I do not follow. Can you explain?

I'm not going to try a long answer again, as that didn't appear to work.

I'll try the short answer.

Cases that generate protests are, by the very fact of having generated a protest, atypical.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Damn. Whatever we have, we certainly have a couple of brain-removed idiots who just arrested some reporters in a McDonald's.

I take it back. I don't live here. I'm a Californian temporarily displaced.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
originally posted by Justinian:
Some police were always there. At 10pm dozens more police arrived and formed up into a battle line. If you don't see the difference between half a dozen police and three dozen police, that's your issue.

And if you can't see the difference in 10PM and the early hours of the morning especially when looting and rioting had happened previously, that's your issue.

quote:
originally posted by Justinian:
Breaking News: Beeswax Altar thinks that individual cops can be in two places

No...once again...the police literally watched as the looting happened. Watched the looters take stuff from the stores. Had nothing to do with them being somewhere else. I still have no clue what your getting at with that asinine nonsense about police not being able to stop the looting because they were having a pissing contest with the looters. Even The Guardian, that beloved rag of the British Left, notes in the link you provide above:

quote:
But the euphoria faded fast. Late on Friday, pockets of rioting brought back the armoured trucks, riot gear and teargas. Later still, after police retreated, small crowds began looting shops, most notably one where Brown allegedly shoplifted cigars before he died.

The rioting brought back the armored trucks, riot gear and tear gas. That's from your source.

quote:
originally posted by Justinian:
Once an officer, acting independently, has attacked the crowd with tear gas, what do you expect to happen?

The rioting and looting was already happening. The police pulled back and the looters loot and the rioters riot. The looters looted and the rioters rioted. The police let them riot again on Saturday. They started shooting one another.

quote:
originally posted by Justinian:
In short your advice to them is to sit down, shut up, and trust in the system that is manifestly failing.

Why because they haven't imprisoned the police officer for life in the week since the shooting occurred? Protests that lead to looting and rioting change nothing. The more it continues the more public opinion will turn on the protesters. The police can forcibly end the protests any time they desire In establishing a curfew, Gov. Nixon is trying to save the protesters from themselves. He is also trying to cover his ass politically. Eventually, Nixon will have to decide if he lets the riots and looting continue or orders the police to restore order and that's a lose-lose situation for a Democratic governor in Missouri. Republicans have loved riots ever since 1968.

quote:
originally posted by Justinian:
I don't consider the AP reliable either. But Twitter with pictures can at least establish timestamps. This is why the twitter comments I'm linking normally have photographs or vine-video attached.

What they and you then lack is the big picture.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Lamb Chopped: I have met some awesome St. Louis area cops. I have met some totally asshole St. Louis area cops.

I don't think it's just a case of good cops – bad cops here. From what I've seen, the police force seemed untrained or unprepared to handle a crowd situation. I'm not an expert, but I've seen them fuck up in some very basic things, spectacularly so. Added to this, I have the feeling that the possession of some ridiculously inapproptiate weaponry gave rise to some kind of macho culture within the police, which led to the situation we saw last week. Really, I don't think this is that hard.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
originally posted by saysay:
This binary where either a police officer who has used deadly force is cleared of all charges and allowed to remain on the force or is subject to a civil criminal trial is not working.

You mean like in New York where the police who killed Sean Bell were acquitted of all charges but were subsequently fired?

quote:
originally posted by saysay:
And how do you reconcile that with Matthew 25:35-40? Last time I checked, I thought you were called to some sort of service...

As long as police officers are human, the nature of the job will attract some jerks. Nothing I can do about that. If I were a brilliant engineer perhaps I could invent a law enforcement robot that was easy to mass produce. Doesn't matter if the jerk gets fired or not. The best way to avoid getting beaten or shot is to not commit a crime, do what they say, and not disrespect them. Talking back to them isn't going to stop them from harassing you. Violence isn't going to get you off. Will doing all that assure that no cop will harm you? Obviously not but it makes it less likely. You can assert your rights if the police officer oversteps his bounds. The officer may disagree and try to arrest you. Best thing to do is make that as easy as possible. The time to argue is when you have a lawyer. I know the legal system doesn't always work in every single situation. Fighting with the police in the street isn't going to fix that. On the contrary, fighting either verbally or physically will only add to the misery. After all, you are worried the prosecutor is going to force you into a plea bargain. Why risk giving him the ammunition?
Again, no amount of protesting in Ferguson, Missouri will change any of that. Rioting and looting will only reinforce it.

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
some kind of macho culture within the police

Watching the cable TV show COPS (which I can't bear to watch anymore), as well as an indelible memory from years ago of a New York City policeman harassing a poor homeless man in Penn Station who was old enough to be his father*, has led me to the conclusion that cops are bullies acting under protection of law. I want nothing to do with them.

* Had the cop spoken to his father the way he spoke to the homeless man, he would have been dragged behind the shed for a swift application of the belt across his backside.

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
And if you can't see the difference in 10PM and the early hours of the morning especially when looting and rioting had happened previously, that's your issue.

The first episode of looting recorded was at 11pm - while the police were still playing silly buggers trying to turn the protest violent.

quote:
No...once again...the police literally watched as the looting happened. Watched the looters take stuff from the stores.

Ah right. The police were being their corrupt selves, trying to turn non-violent protests violent and deliberately sitting on their arses during looting because it would make the protest worse. The police are even more corrupt and deserving of losing their jobs under this narrative.

And the protesters are the ones keeping order and preventing looting.

quote:
The rioting brought back the armored trucks, riot gear and tear gas. That's from your source.

That's the police line, certainly.

quote:
The rioting and looting was already happening. The police pulled back and the looters loot and the rioters riot. The looters looted and the rioters rioted. The police let them riot again on Saturday. They started shooting one another.

This is you being delusional. The protest was peaceful until the police made it a staredown. The police then pulled back to encourage the looters (who the protesters had been throwing out) and independently acting police threw tear gas.

quote:
Why because they haven't imprisoned the police officer for life in the week since the shooting occurred?

The first statements from the police were obvious lies. And the police are clearly trying to provoke riots and by your own narrative not doing their jobs when it comes to looting.

quote:
Protests that lead to looting and rioting change nothing.

The only alternative you've given them is to sit down, shut up, stop complaining, and continue doing what demonstrably doesn't work - the definition of insanity.

quote:

quote:
originally posted by Justinian:
I don't consider the AP reliable either. But Twitter with pictures can at least establish timestamps. This is why the twitter comments I'm linking normally have photographs or vine-video attached.

What they and you then lack is the big picture.

The big picture of what? A racist PD sitting on its asses and enabling looting? Of letting an obviously broken system go on? And of saying nothing?

Your "big picture" is the one assembled in PR departments that pays no attention to what actually happened - and does its best to suppress inconvenient things like facts.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

OK...you've now woven a conspiracy theory (full of contradictions) that in order to believe I must accept that The Guardian is the tool of a fascist police force in Ferguson, Missouri. [Killing me]

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
Lamb Chopped: I have met some awesome St. Louis area cops. I have met some totally asshole St. Louis area cops.
I don't think it's just a case of good cops – bad cops here. From what I've seen, the police force seemed untrained or unprepared to handle a crowd situation. I'm not an expert, but I've seen them fuck up in some very basic things, spectacularly so. Added to this, I have the feeling that the possession of some ridiculously inapproptiate weaponry gave rise to some kind of macho culture within the police, which led to the situation we saw last week. Really, I don't think this is that hard.

I agree. It's Ferguson, not NY, and the population is a tad over 20,000. St louis itself has an amateur, small town feel in many ways (quoth the Angelena): how much more the Ferguson police!

Seriously, my husband got arrested for driving while Vietnamese just over the river in Illinois; the police chief's sister-in-law had had an accident and needed a handy foreignef (read: scared nonEnglish speaker) to pin it on and get insurance info. Unfortunately for the pair of them they landed a double master's degree on his way to interpret for the court system, with a native English speaking wife who's a bitch on wheels when i get pissed off. It took us three months and 5000$ to get rid of him, but we won.

Bright? Well trained? Out here? Well, maybe in a few places...

[ 18. August 2014, 03:24: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
OK...you've now woven a conspiracy theory (full of contradictions) that in order to believe I must accept that The Guardian is the tool of a fascist police force in Ferguson, Missouri.

You are an idiot. Up to this point you were arguing one POV against another.
But Justinian said:

quote:
Your "big picture" is the one assembled in PR departments that pays no attention to what actually happened

Which is exactlyhow most newsrooms work.
Though this

quote:
- and does its best to suppress inconvenient things like facts.

is a little OTT if applied to all news outlets in all circumstances.
And really, no conspiracy theory is need for all or most outlets to have the same story because they typically use the same sources.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

Cases that generate protests are, by the very fact of having generated a protest, atypical.

Yes, with you there. But how do you get from that to this:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

the odds are fairly good that the times they show their anger the most are precisely the times when their anger is misplaced.

Italic mine, to highlight the part which I view as problematic.
Or was this too long a clarification?

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Sigh.

The point was to consider what's the difference between the cases that don't generate protests and the ones that do.

The hypothesis was that the cases that don't generate protest are the ones where something is seen to be done about the perpetrator, and the ones that do generate the protest are the ones where nothing is seen to be done about the perpetrator.

The suggestion was that maybe the reason nothing is seen to be done about the 'perpetrator' is because maybe nothing should be done. Maybe the crowd is wrong.

Sure, rampant police corruption and bias is one reason for not arresting a person immediately after they shoot a black kid. My point was that there's another reason too: that not all shootings are crimes, and that not all crowds who think someone needs to be punished are actually correct in law about that. Maybe the reason they get the satisfaction of punishment in lots of cases, but not the ones they protest about are because their opinion in the ones they protest about is flawed.

Our legal system doesn't rely on community opinion in that way. I bring up the TV show QI on here all the time, because while it is essentially humorous it is based on a fundamental point: that popular opinion is quite frequently wrong, demonstrably so, and sometimes spectacularly so.

I have little personal involvement, thankfully, in cases of one person being killed by another. But of the cases I've been anywhere near, 2 were of people who were acquitted of all charges. It was indisputable that they killed someone. But that doesn't mean there was a crime. One of them even pleaded guilty to manslaughter, and multiple judges ruled that the guilty plea must be rejected because what he admitted to doing was not a crime.

The mother of his 'victim' was tremendously upset by this, and was in the paper arguing about how unfair it was that nobody was going to pay for the death of her son. But there is no rule in our law that 'someone has to pay', or that the person who was at fault must be the one who survived.

I've no doubt, though, that the notion that 'someone has to pay' is in the minds of many people, consciously or otherwise. So be appalled at my attitude if you like, but any time I see a bunch of people angry over a death, I'm immediately sceptical about the assumption that a wrong must have been committed against the dead person. Maybe it was, but there's also the distinct possibility that no-one is in trouble over the death is that legally, no-one should in trouble.

[ 18. August 2014, 07:10: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by QLib (# 43) on :

Yes, but: a fundamental principle of justice is that it must be seen to be done. Apparent lack of appropriate follow-up following a police shooting has caused riots here too.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
Yes, but: a fundamental principle of justice is that it must be seen to be done.

However 'fundamental' that might be, it's not more fundamental than actually doing justice. Otherwise you end up punishing people because the public wants to see it happening, even when they haven't done anything wrong.

I entirely agree that the response after the death has been stuffed up, in terms of looking aggressive and military, but that's a different issue to whether there's anything wrong with not clapping the shooter in irons.

[ 18. August 2014, 07:13: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by QLib (# 43) on :

Yes, no doubt we agree that there has to be a happy medium between automatically clapping a police officer in irons every time someone is shot and blithely announcing that following a brief internal investigation it has been decided that there is no case to answer. (Not saying that's what happened in Ferguson because I don't know enough detail)

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
OK...you've now woven a conspiracy theory (full of contradictions) that in order to believe I must accept that The Guardian is the tool of a fascist police force in Ferguson, Missouri.
You are an idiot. Up to this point you were arguing one POV against another.
But Justinian said:

quote:
Your "big picture" is the one assembled in PR departments that pays no attention to what actually happened
Which is exactlyhow most newsrooms work.

Yup. Most newsrooms are simply understaffed and lazy with it. Which means that a lot of newspaper articles simply involve rewriting press releases (sometimes not even bothering to rewrite them, and there are known techniques for writing press releases that journalists will publish cold).

Sometimes the journalists actually do a good job - normally when they are on the ground. I certainly wouldn't expect the Grauniad to about unrest in an obscure American town.

quote:
Though this

quote:
- and does its best to suppress inconvenient things like facts.
is a little OTT if applied to all news outlets in all circumstances.
And really, no conspiracy theory is need for all or most outlets to have the same story because they typically use the same sources.

That's me being unclear, sorry. I was talking about Beeswax Altar's so-called big picture as being the thing that tried to suppress facts.

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

And in other news here's the Montreal police from a couple of years ago showing how you should respond to extreme provocation.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

Oh please...this is an international story being covered by everybody from the St. Louis Dispatch to The Guardian. It isn't the Apparently, even Sports Illustrated has a reporter in Ferguson. If all of those news outlets are reporting the same thing and what they are reporting contradicts what you have pieced together from reading Twitter, you are likely wrong.

But...let's go through step by step the complete bullshit of your next to last post...

quote:
originally posted by Justinian:
The first episode of looting recorded was at 11pm - while the police were still playing silly buggers trying to turn the protest violent.

Oh...the police were TRYING to turn the protest violent. Apparently, they were doing this by bringing out more people when the protests continued late into the night knowing that the protesters would have no choice but to start throwing rocks and Molotov cocktails in response? So, the conspiracy theory begins. Again, the police watched the looting take place. They didn't not stop it because they weren't at the scene.

quote:
originally posted by Justinian:
Ah right. The police were being their corrupt selves, trying to turn non-violent protests violent and deliberately sitting on their arses during looting because it would make the protest worse. The police are even more corrupt and deserving of losing their jobs under this narrative.

And the protesters are the ones keeping order and preventing looting.

This where your post really got crazy. Keep in mind when I pointed out that the police didn't arrest the people throwing rocks and Molotov cocktails or looting, your response was, "Good." Now you are upset that the police didn't make arrest. In a previous post, you lauded Ron Johnsons handling of the situation as opposed to the Ferguson police. Now, you accuse the police following Ron Johnson's orders to be sitting on their asses not doing their jobs. The protesters didn't prevent the looting or violence. Looting happened.

quote:
originally posted by Justinan:
This is you being delusional. The protest was peaceful until the police made it a staredown. The police then pulled back to encourage the looters (who the protesters had been throwing out) and independently acting police threw tear gas.

Ah...Ron Johnson is now part of the conspiracy...good to know.

quote:
originally posted by Justinian:
The only alternative you've given them is to sit down, shut up, stop complaining, and continue doing what demonstrably doesn't work - the definition of insanity.

How has it been demonstrated not to work? Because Wilson hasn't been sent to prison for life within a week? In all seriousness, tell me what you continued protests are going to accomplish? A Democratic governor who relies on the African-American vote is now sending in the National Guard to restore order. Hard to even use Ferguson as an indictment against the militarization of the police force when the actual military has to be called in to restore order.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I've no doubt, though, that the notion that 'someone has to pay' is in the minds of many people, consciously or otherwise. So be appalled at my attitude if you like, but any time I see a bunch of people angry over a death, I'm immediately sceptical about the assumption that a wrong must have been committed against the dead person. Maybe it was, but there's also the distinct possibility that no-one is in trouble over the death is that legally, no-one should in trouble.

The crowd's opinion is irrelevant.

Should police shoot to kill unarmed suspects? Most reasonable people would say no.

There is no death penalty for stealing cigars or punching someone, and yet we think it's OK for the police to end a person's life when that's all that they are guilty of.

Had the same thing happened in the UK, the outcomes would likely have been:

- police find alternative means of subduing the suspect

or

- suspect flees, police use CCTV to find and capture him later

Neither involves someone's death. Again, most reasonable people would say that justice had been served in other of these situations.

The racial component comes into play given that there is clear evidence that black suspects get more serious charges than white suspects guilty of the same offense do, and that a large number of black men on death row have been cleared using DNA after having been identified as the perpetrator by white witnesses.

Therefore when the police err on the side of trigger happiness, it is more likely to be a black man on the receiving end of it.

Something similar happened a few years back in New York - police shot and killed a man at his bachelor party the night before his wedding. Officers were cleared of all criminal charges but the fiancée sued and got $3.5m from the city in a civil case.

Sean Bell shooting

The Amadou Diallo cops also were acquitted.

How many times should people have to put up with this?

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

What Wilson is apparently claiming is that he shot Brown while Brown was charging towards him. Now I don't know if that is true or not. However, if it is the case, Wilson would have had little choice but to use deadly force to protect himself. Could he have tried to wound him? Given the location of the first four shots, Wilson could argue that he did try to wound him.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
What Wilson is apparently claiming is that he shot Brown while Brown was charging towards him. Now I don't know if that is true or not. However, if it is the case, Wilson would have had little choice but to use deadly force to protect himself.

Why? Why is deadly force the only way to protect oneself?

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

If the events unfolded the way Wilson is saying they did, how would he have defended himself? Mike Brown was a big man. Wilson had already been injured in a struggle with him.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
If the events unfolded the way Wilson is saying they did, how would he have defended himself? Mike Brown was a big man. Wilson had already been injured in a struggle with him.

Taser?

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
What Wilson is apparently claiming is that he shot Brown while Brown was charging towards him. Now I don't know if that is true or not. However, if it is the case, Wilson would have had little choice but to use deadly force to protect himself. Could he have tried to wound him? Given the location of the first four shots, Wilson could argue that he did try to wound him.

What's wrong with tasers? Pepper spray in the face?

Take a look at the diagram of Brown's injury's at the link.

Twitter - autopsy diagram

Think about how it's possible to shoot a man actively charging straight at you in the inner arm. Look down at your own body. You'd be hit on the front or outside of your arms, wouldn't you?

Then think about which parts of your arms are exposed if they were raised in surrender or in front of your face defensively.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

orfeo,

Had you stated that crowd reaction can be misplaced, I'd have little issue.
But your statement says crowd reaction will likely only occur when it is misplaced.
Protests occur when an injustice appears to have occured. Actually, as I stated up thread, there is a mix of causes and a bit of randomness.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
What Wilson is apparently claiming is that he shot Brown while Brown was charging towards him. Now I don't know if that is true or not. However, if it is the case, Wilson would have had little choice but to use deadly force to protect himself. Could he have tried to wound him? Given the location of the first four shots, Wilson could argue that he did try to wound him.
What's wrong with tasers? Pepper spray in the face?

Take a look at the diagram of Brown's injury's at the link.

Twitter - autopsy diagram

Think about how it's possible to shoot a man actively charging straight at you in the inner arm. Look down at your own body. You'd be hit on the front or outside of your arms, wouldn't you?

Then think about which parts of your arms are exposed if they were raised in surrender or in front of your face defensively.

Don't know if he had either. Can't say how effective pepper spray would have been. He sprays him in the eyes? Then what? Tasers have a limited range. Perhaps Wilson should have used a taser. Maybe, after getting beaten in the car, he felt the situation had escalated to the point that waiting for Brown to get in close range and trying to hit him with two darts wasn't the best option. At this point, any reason we could come up with for why he didn't use a taser

The gunshot wounds don't look to me like they were fired into the arms of somebody with their hands in the air. If Brown's hands were in the air, Wilson would have to be aiming high in order to hit him in the arms. Why would he aim for his arms? Then again, I have no problem admitting I'm not a pathologist and could be wrong.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Could he have tried to wound him? Given the location of the first four shots, Wilson could argue that he did try to wound him.

If he did, he should be fired. You do not shoot to wound. That's movie nonsense. If you have a justification for the use of deadly force, you shoot to stop. Generally speaking, this means multiple rounds to the centre of mass.

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
What's wrong with tasers? Pepper spray in the face?

I don't have all the details, and I'm not going to try and judge whether or not the officer in question was justified without them.

Hypothetically speaking, an officer who felt that his life was in immediate danger and did not have immediate armed backup would be foolish indeed to try to subdue his assailant with one of the less-than-lethal options. If there are two officers standing together, it is more reasonable for one to fire a taser whilst the other was available with lethal force as a backup.

(And if you don't think your life is in danger, you shouldn't be waving your gun around.)

quote:

Think about how it's possible to shoot a man actively charging straight at you in the inner arm. Look down at your own body. You'd be hit on the front or outside of your arms, wouldn't you?

If he's running with his arm extended (because he's pumping his arms while he runs, or has his arm raised ready to strike) then there are times when the inner arm would be exposed.

It is also, as you say, consistent with Mike Brown having his arms up in a pose of surrender.

I wonder whether is is possible to get more information about the angle of his arms form the trajectory of the bullets through his flesh - whilst running and surrendering both expose the inner arm, they don't put the arm in the same position. I suspect that that's not easy to do, though.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Don't know if he had either. Can't say how effective pepper spray would have been. He sprays him in the eyes? Then what? Tasers have a limited range. Perhaps Wilson should have used a taser. Maybe, after getting beaten in the car, he felt the situation had escalated to the point that waiting for Brown to get in close range and trying to hit him with two darts wasn't the best option. At this point, any reason we could come up with for why he didn't use a taser

It's not any particular indictment of this police officer. It's that police in general are trained to shoot first and ask later. Don't worry, your brother officers will cover you if you make a serious mistake.

Had this happened in London, the young man would have been tracked on CCTV and picked up later on and charged with theft of the cigars and assault of the shopkeeper. No deaths, justice served.

When you add guns you create massive confusion - the cops don't know who is armed, they assume (using their own biases) that a young black man is, and the kill him. Tragic end to a young life.

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
The gunshot wounds don't look to me like they were fired into the arms of somebody with their hands in the air. If Brown's hands were in the air, Wilson would have to be aiming high in order to hit him in the arms. Why would he aim for his arms? Then again, I have no problem admitting I'm not a pathologist and could be wrong.

They look like someone with their hands up in front of their body.

The results already show that the shot to the head was fired from above. How do you fire above the head of a 6'4" man? Only if he's lowering to the ground or has his head down already. He was also 30 feet away according to the early report, which means it is not possible the shooting cop was in immediate physical danger at that distance.

We'll see what comes out of this, I'm just armchair forensics analysing here, but I am more inclined to believe that the cop was nervous and trigger happy, than that an 18 year old with no weapon decided to run towards a police officer pointing a gun at him - unless we find out that Brown was high on PCP or cocaine.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Beeswax Altar: What Wilson is apparently claiming is that he shot Brown while Brown was charging towards him.

Police are supposedly trained to handle these situations without resorting to lethal violence. If Brown was charging towards Wilson (which I'm not convinced of) then if Wilson had to shoot him, what was it, 6 times? to subdue him, then Wilson is at the very least a grossly incompetent cop who shouldn't be wearing that uniform. And this reflects also on the police force that hired him.

Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:

The results already show that the shot to the head was fired from above. How do you fire above the head of a 6'4" man? Only if he's lowering to the ground or has his head down already. He was also 30 feet away according to the early report, which means it is not possible the shooting cop was in immediate physical danger at that distance.

The shot from "above" is relatively easy - it could happen if:

a) he was charging head-first;

b) that particular shot was the last fired, and struck him as he was going down - we're talking fractions of a second here, meaning all shots could easily have been fired with the subject in an upright position, but the last only reached him as he was falling.

As far as the distance between them, the Tueller Drill (link) shows us that if the assailant is within 21 feet, he can close and attack with a knife before the defender is able to draw and fire. 9 feet (the distance between the 21-foot Tueller range and the cited 30 feet) is a relatively small distance to be able to judge while being charged at by someone you have reason to believe means to attack you.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
The shot from "above" is relatively easy - it could happen if:

a) he was charging head-first;

Which brings me back to the question as to why someone without a gun would charge head first at an armed police officer, unless intoxicated. We'll have to wait for the results on that one, but it strikes me as incredibly strange behavior.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

Leoning Cniht...a police officer can legally use deadly force to arrest somebody they believe guilty of a felony. If Brown assaulted Wilson, Wilson was trying to arrest Brown for a felony. Some people don't think the police should be allowed to use deadly force under those circumstances but the Supreme Court has apparently upheld it.

LeRoc...the 9mm isn't known for it's stopping power. Wilson's weapon had at least a 15 round clip in it. If cities only hire people capable of quickly subduing very large men alone and without significant injury to themselves, police forces will be woefully understaffed.

Seekingsister...those just don't look like Brown was shot with his hands in the air. Why would he charge Wilson? Maybe, he didn't see the gun. Maybe it was impulsive. Maybe, he was under the influence. It's also possible that Brown wasn't charging and Wilson shot him when he turned around instead of freezing.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

And just also to add, that every racist comes out of the woodwork when there are news stories like this, to go onto newspaper websites and write disgusting things about black people.

Yes, we're all gangsters, we can't follow rules, we deserve to die. You know what? F*** you.

(not directed at anyone on the Ship!)

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Beeswax Altar: Leoning Cniht...a police officer can legally use deadly force to arrest somebody they believe guilty of a felony.

Glad I don't live in your country.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

PS Do I understand it well that Wilson was in the police car when he shot Brown? I know a very simple thing you can do when you're in a car and someone comes charging at you from 30 feet.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

Wilson was not in his car. He got out of the police car to pursue Brown and his friend after they attempted to flee. What Brown and friend were fleeing from in the first place depends on which story you believe.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
And just also to add, that every racist comes out of the woodwork when there are news stories like this, to go onto newspaper websites and write disgusting things about black people.

Yes, we're all gangsters, we can't follow rules, we deserve to die. You know what? F*** you.

(not directed at anyone on the Ship!)

Don't you just wish they'd go the way of the dinosaurs? [Mad]

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

If a police officer gets out of his car to pursue a suspect, then he should be prepared to handle a situation in which this suspect will turn around without having to shoot him 6 times, especially if this suspect is not visibly armed. Maybe in your country it's hard to find such police officers, in mine it isn't.

[ 18. August 2014, 16:49: Message edited by: LeRoc ]

Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:

quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
The shot from "above" is relatively easy - it could happen if:

a) he was charging head-first;

Which brings me back to the question as to why someone without a gun would charge head first at an armed police officer, unless intoxicated. We'll have to wait for the results on that one, but it strikes me as incredibly strange behavior.

Agreed.

As always, there's a whole lot more information than we (collectively, on the Ship) have. The toxicology report will definitely add some info. (But not nearly enough, I'm afraid.)

Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :

Actually, having looked at the diagram - the mark on the head could merely be indicating a shot that grazed the top of the head, not necessarily a "top-down" injury at all. Which is also fairly easily explained - recoil tends to bring the muzzle of a handgun up, such that the last shots tend to go higher than the first in rapid firing (assuming less than excellent recoil control on the part of the shooter, which would make sense if he indeed feared for his life).

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
Actually, having looked at the diagram - the mark on the head could merely be indicating a shot that grazed the top of the head, not necessarily a "top-down" injury at all.

Could be -- if only we had more than the diagram to go on. Oh wait, we do:

quote:
One of the bullets entered the top of Mr. Brown’s skull, suggesting his head was bent forward when it struck him and caused a fatal injury, according to Dr. Michael M. Baden, the former chief medical examiner for the City of New York, who flew to Missouri on Sunday at the family’s request to conduct the separate autopsy. It was likely the last of bullets to hit him, he said. -- New York Times

Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
Actually, having looked at the diagram - the mark on the head could merely be indicating a shot that grazed the top of the head, not necessarily a "top-down" injury at all.
Could be -- if only we had more than the diagram to go on. Oh wait, we do:

quote:
One of the bullets entered the top of Mr. Brown’s skull, suggesting his head was bent forward when it struck him and caused a fatal injury, according to Dr. Michael M. Baden, the former chief medical examiner for the City of New York, who flew to Missouri on Sunday at the family’s request to conduct the separate autopsy. It was likely the last of bullets to hit him, he said. -- New York Times

(italics mine)

Interesting. Hadn't seen that yet - thanks. That tends to go more toward the theory of the last shot(s) hitting him as he fell.

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

Apologies to the hosts. Here's 15 minutes of John Oliver absolutely nailing the problem.

(Most NSFW bits are bleeped, but…)

(nb. not necessarily available in all territories. Sioni Sais, HH)

[ 18. August 2014, 22:11: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:

quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
The shot from "above" is relatively easy - it could happen if:

a) he was charging head-first;

Which brings me back to the question as to why someone without a gun would charge head first at an armed police officer, unless intoxicated. We'll have to wait for the results on that one, but it strikes me as incredibly strange behavior.

It's been confirmed he had marijuana in his system. That's a start.

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

Pot makes you more likely to charge someone? Not normally.

And the part that makes no sense to me is why the official narrative said he charged at the cop and then ran away. Anyone knows that you can't outrun a bullet however fast you are. If you're in close against someone who tries to pull a gun on you you can not break away and run. It's surrender or fight twice as hard to prevent them shooting.

And if there was an attack and a shot inside the car there'll be blood in there and it's a crime scene.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
orfeo,

Had you stated that crowd reaction can be misplaced, I'd have little issue.
But your statement says crowd reaction will likely only occur when it is misplaced.
Protests occur when an injustice appears to have occured. Actually, as I stated up thread, there is a mix of causes and a bit of randomness.

No, I don't think my statement says that, unless trying to write to you in the middle of a million other things has caused my fingers to scramble.

My point essentially is that there's a basic logic problem with accusing the police of deliberate injustice in particular, protest-inducing cases. What's lacking is an explanation of why the police would behave so outrageously in certain cases and yet appear to keep their bias at more acceptable levels the rest of the time.

It's far more likely that in most of the cases where an injustice is perceived and a protest results, the legal authorities simply don't agree with the crowd as to the correct legal outcome. Or at least, they're not prepared to jump to the same conclusion about the correct legal outcome. It seems fairly likely to me, for example, that the reason that George Zimmerman wasn't immediately hauled over the coals was that the police had the factual evidence that supported Zimmerman's version of events, which later became publicly known, and which tended to support a finding of sheer idiocy rather than criminality.

I've got no issue with statements that systemic bias exists. That for various reasons, the overall results of the system is skewed. But fixing the system is about slow, steady campaigns that don't focus on individual cases (especially not individual cases like Zimmerman's, with a shooter who wouldn't be classified as 'white' in any other situation when people weren't trying to make him an emblem of the system). However much people want to tell me the current protests are about the system, not the particular event, they sure as hell look like they're about the particular event.

There might well be a legitimate question here about whether police officers unnecessarily stop and harass or arrest black people walking down the street, or 'driving while black', in situations where they wouldn't exhibit the same behaviour towards a white person. But that's true of EVERY case of stopping black people. It shouldn't suddenly become an issue because on this particular occasion the black person died. It shouldn't go back to being okay again because the next black person lived. If you make it about the fact that somebody died, then you draw the focus away from the systemic problem and toward the particular event - whereby you then might find that actually, the person who died in this particular incident contributed significantly to that outcome. If anything, you provide the opportunity for people to say "see, it was the black thug's fault". See Trayvon Martin.

As for the whole question of what would happen in another country, as raised by seekingsister - hey, if people want to make this about the USA's mad gun culture, I'm all for it.

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Damn. Whatever we have, we certainly have a couple of brain-removed idiots who just arrested some reporters in a McDonald's.

I take it back. I don't live here. I'm a Californian temporarily displaced.

You know, bragging isn't very nice. We had to call the feds about that particular problem.

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

quote:
originally posted by saysay:
This binary where either a police officer who has used deadly force is cleared of all charges and allowed to remain on the force or is subject to a civil criminal trial is not working.
You mean like in New York where the police who killed Sean Bell were acquitted of all charges but were subsequently fired?

So it happened once in New York in a case that had received a lot of media attention and that proves that all law enforcement agencies everywhere do this sort of thing regularly?

quote:
As long as police officers are human, the nature of the job will attract some jerks. Nothing I can do about that.

Really? Nothing? You can't, for example, help to create more community/civilian reviews of law enforcement use-of-force cases like this?

Must suck to be so powerless in the face of our Overlords. Tell me, how did you learn to accept that the world has to be this way?

quote:
If I were a brilliant engineer perhaps I could invent a law enforcement robot that was easy to mass produce. Doesn't matter if the jerk gets fired or not.

How can you possibly think that? How can it not matter whether or not someone with a demonstrated history of making bad judgement calls in the line of duty or using excessive force is allowed to continue to have institutional authority which they may use to continue to abuse citizens?

quote:
The best way to avoid getting beaten or shot is to not commit a crime, do what they say, and not disrespect them.

Pop quiz: is calling a police officer 'sir' a sign of respect or a sign of disrespect because they think you're mocking them? Is looking them in the eye a sign that you are honest and have nothing to hide or a challenge to their authority? Is standing up for your fourth amendment rights and refusing a search disrespectful? Does that give the officer just cause to suspect you of a felony?

Don't worry, you'll probably only wind up with some bruises that will heal given enough time (oh, and a criminal record) if you get it wrong.

quote:
Talking back to them isn't going to stop them from harassing you. Violence isn't going to get you off. Will doing all that assure that no cop will harm you? Obviously not but it makes it less likely. You can assert your rights if the police officer oversteps his bounds. The officer may disagree and try to arrest you. Best thing to do is make that as easy as possible. The time to argue is when you have a lawyer. I know the legal system doesn't always work in every single situation. Fighting with the police in the street isn't going to fix that. On the contrary, fighting either verbally or physically will only add to the misery.

Is it nice where you live, what with all the fluffy pink unicorns prancing around and the magical woodland creatures doing all the unpleasant tasks?

I've spent a bunch of years trying to work with the police and prosecutors in a state where the people who perform state-sponsored executions are allowed to remain on the force (not only did the police officer who performed that one have a history of complaints of abuse, but he's since been tased by a police officer from another agency for his out of control behavior). A state where they tried to rule that the state can't be held responsible for the actions of an officer while on duty.

Now, I'm guessing you're going to argue that it was her own damn fault for committing a crime in the first place, otherwise she wouldn't have had to talk to a police officer in the first place.

Did you have cops in the public schools that you were required by law to attend when you were growing up?

Again, what do you do when a cop tells you to suck his dick or he's going to arrest you for trespassing or loitering or soliciting or whatever the hell he feels like arresting you for?

Oh, that's right, that's not really a problem you have to worry about.

Or, you know, just get arrested and hire a lawyer. Because all of us have so much money that we can afford to do that every time we encounter an asshole cop.

quote:
After all, you are worried the prosecutor is going to force you into a plea bargain. Why risk giving him the ammunition?

Because they have demonstrated that they don't need any ammunition. They have consistently demonstrated that they are perfectly willing to simply make shit up because they don't like something about you.

quote:
Again, no amount of protesting in Ferguson, Missouri will change any of that. Rioting and looting will only reinforce it.

I take it you have never gotten so angry at prolonged mistreatment that you were no longer able to control that anger.

Lucky you.

Anyone who didn't know this riot was going to happen somewhere in the US simply hasn't been paying attention.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Pot makes you more likely to charge someone? Not normally.

Oh I see, I'm sorry, when someone says "unless he was intoxicated", I also have to make sure that he's intoxicated in the RIGHT way?

Can we just stop moving the bloody goalposts? I agree with Beeswax Altar that your reaction of "good" to the fact that the police didn't arrest anyone was completely at odds with your earlier statements. There are plenty of people on this thread putting points of view in good faith, but frankly I don't think you're one of them. I think, in your usual vein, that you'll argue black is white in order to prove a point.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
orfeo: Oh I see, I'm sorry, when someone says "unless he was intoxicated", I also have to make sure that he's intoxicated in the RIGHT way?

I can so imagine you doing this in front of a jury bench.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
A state where they tried to rule that the state can't be held responsible for the actions of an officer while on duty.

Oh how horrible. A judge tried to apply the general law that applies to all employers that says they're not responsible for the behaviour of an employee if it goes entirely outside the course of employment.

That's right, folks, if you go on a murderous killing spree while wearing your Burger King uniform, it turns out that Burger King might not be liable!

Where you see an evil conspiracy, I see a fairly generic ruling about which side of the line a particular case fell, and a higher court overturning it and allowing the lawsuit to proceed further so that whether or not it was inside the scope of his duties can be further tested.

It still might turn out, you know, that the factual finding will be that it WAS outside the scope of his duties. The higher court didn't rule on that question, they just said it should be left to the jury rather than definitively decided by the judge.

It's got absolutely NOTHING to do with saying something as broad as 'no responsibility for the actions of an officer on duty'. It's entirely based on what the particular action was.

[ 18. August 2014, 23:55: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by saysay:

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Damn. Whatever we have, we certainly have a couple of brain-removed idiots who just arrested some reporters in a McDonald's.

I take it back. I don't live here. I'm a Californian temporarily displaced.
You know, bragging isn't very nice. We had to call the feds about that particular problem.

WTF? I have no idea how what you just said relates to what I said. Mine was an expression of chagrin.

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Where you see an evil conspiracy, I see a fairly generic ruling about which side of the line a particular case fell, and a higher court overturning it and allowing the lawsuit to proceed further so that whether or not it was inside the scope of his duties can be further tested.

Jesus Christ on a cracker, orfeo. Is it possible for you to at least try to interact with me without putting words in my mouth? If it's not possible, couldn't you just fucking ignore me? Do you have some great familiarity with the way the courts tend to rule in Delaware? Is pointing out that objects tend to fall when you drop them seeing some kind of conspiracy?

quote:
It still might turn out, you know, that the factual finding will be that it WAS outside the scope of his duties.

I'm sure it will. People in Delaware call it the Delaware Way.

You can't fight the people in power in that state. They're ruthless and will do anything to preserve it.

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
WTF? I have no idea how what you just said relates to what I said. Mine was an expression of chagrin.

Sorry. I just meant that every area seems to have those cops. From the reports we're getting here, those higher up in the police hierarchy disapproved of those officers' actions in Ferguson.

We, on the other hand, prosecute people for it.

That's why there's a nation-wide 'Photography is Not a Crime' movement. And why we had to involve the federal government to try to protect our rights.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by saysay:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Where you see an evil conspiracy, I see a fairly generic ruling about which side of the line a particular case fell, and a higher court overturning it and allowing the lawsuit to proceed further so that whether or not it was inside the scope of his duties can be further tested.
Jesus Christ on a cracker, orfeo. Is it possible for you to at least try to interact with me without putting words in my mouth? If it's not possible, couldn't you just fucking ignore me? Do you have some great familiarity with the way the courts tend to rule in Delaware? Is pointing out that objects tend to fall when you drop them seeing some kind of conspiracy?

quote:
It still might turn out, you know, that the factual finding will be that it WAS outside the scope of his duties.
I'm sure it will. People in Delaware call it the Delaware Way.

You can't fight the people in power in that state. They're ruthless and will do anything to preserve it.

I read the news article. The news article makes it clear that the same general principle of employment applies in Delaware as it does in most of the rest of the English-speaking world.

The legal principle involved has got precisely nothing to do with him being a cop. If a Pizza Hut delivery guy pushed into a house and committed a sexual assault, exactly the same question would come up: is Pizza Hut liable for his actions? Was it in the course of his duties?

PS And no, I can't just ignore you. MY duties include reading this stuff and reading the links that you post.

[ 19. August 2014, 00:27: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :

So you admit that you are not even going to try to stop misrepresenting what I say because doing so gives you a sense of superiority?

I hope you don't spend a lot of time wondering why people hate lawyers.

I also hope you're not wondering why they're rioting in MO.

Do you have any idea how scary it is to have a police officer threaten to arrest you if you don't fuck him? Especially in a place where you can be prosecuted for recording cops? Do you know that that police officer was only charged because he got sloppy about leaving evidence because up until that point it was next to impossible to even get the police to open an investigation into potential misconduct? Do you know... oh fuck it. You obviously think you know all of the complexities of American culture and all the uses and abuses of the law that go on here.

You know the US version of the Golden Rule, no? The people who have the gold make the rules.

Now kindly take your racist, classist, imperialistic bullshit and fuck off with it.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
So you admit that you are not even going to try to stop misrepresenting what I say because doing so gives you a sense of superiority?

It seems to me that YOU are entirely misrepresenting what I'VE said.

I'm not saying that it isn't true that police abuse their power. I'm not saying that it isn't scary to encounter police that abuse their power. I'm not saying that the police don't look after their own.

I'm saying that the court case you linked to is a really poor choice of an example for what you're trying to prove. The legal principle in the case has nothing do with the fact that a cop is involved, and so it can't be used to demonstrate something specific to the cops. It's not evidence of a special rule or favour for State employees or the State as their employer. It's exactly the same rule that applies to private employees and private employers. How can you use it as an example of the power of the State when any private employer could run exactly the same argument? The problem isn't with your commentary, it's with the link you're trying to use as proof.

Also, telling a Hellhost to fuck off in Hell is pointless. I've already explained to you, it's my duty to be here.

[ 19. August 2014, 02:36: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
However much people want to tell me the current protests are about the system, not the particular event, they sure as hell look like they're about the particular event.

It is about both ISTM.

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

As for the whole question of what would happen in another country, as raised by seekingsister - hey, if people want to make this about the USA's mad gun culture, I'm all for it.

Then injustice happens in the UK, and Australia as well. One difference to the US is guns. Takes longer to beat someone to death and the cops cannot be bothered to go to all that trouble all the time.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

^ I agee entirely. Guns probably don't make a difference to the injustice as much as they make a difference to the outcome of the injustice (although there is an argument that having a gun encourages a person in the notion that they have the power to do what they want, outside the letter of the law).

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
I hope you don't spend a lot of time wondering why people hate lawyers.

I'd like to briefly return to this remark to comment on how ironic it is to be accused of racism and various other -isms while having all members of a wide and varied profession lumped together for hating.

Yeah, I don't spend a lot of time wondering. I already know it's mostly because people don't know any better and equate all lawyers with some shifty, amoral exploiter of technicalities they saw in a fictional TV drama.

Kind of like equating all black people with a criminal thug you saw on TV once, don't you think?

Okay, done. Carry on.

[ 19. August 2014, 09:03: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Pot makes you more likely to charge someone? Not normally.
Oh I see, I'm sorry, when someone says "unless he was intoxicated", I also have to make sure that he's intoxicated in the RIGHT way?

Can we just stop moving the bloody goalposts? I agree with Beeswax Altar that your reaction of "good" to the fact that the police didn't arrest anyone was completely at odds with your earlier statements. There are plenty of people on this thread putting points of view in good faith, but frankly I don't think you're one of them. I think, in your usual vein, that you'll argue black is white in order to prove a point.

Good grief! I don't think I have ever seen such a gratuitous ad hominem on the ship by a non-apprentice.

Of course if people are on substances it matters which ones when certain substances encourage certain behaviours. Tell me, was your ad hominem because you'd made a stupid statement or was it to cover for the fact you know we'll realise you are so deeply uncool that you don't know the difference between an alcoholic and a stoner?

As for my "Good", that was specifically about the protestors the police have been inciting to riot. The protestors and the looters are different people (and the rioters have been policing their own). The looters? Arrest the lot of them. The people throwing tear gas back at the cops? Not so much of an issue.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
We'll see what comes out of this, I'm just armchair forensics analysing here, but I am more inclined to believe that the cop was nervous and trigger happy, than that an 18 year old with no weapon decided to run towards a police officer pointing a gun at him - unless we find out that Brown was high on PCP or cocaine.

Reposting my original comment with emphasis.

It was qualified.

[ 19. August 2014, 09:47: Message edited by: seekingsister ]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

It also wasn't the comment I quoted. I missed the more specific content of the previous one.

My apologies to you. But not to Justinian.

[ 19. August 2014, 09:57: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

No problem. I have seen reports that people high on those two drugs become more impervious to pain, and saw a video of one man on PCP who simply pulled the taser threads out and kept charging towards the officers.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
originally posted by Justinian:
As for my "Good", that was specifically about the protestors the police have been inciting to riot. The protestors and the looters are different people (and the rioters have been policing their own). The looters? Arrest the lot of them. The people throwing tear gas back at the cops? Not so much of an issue.

...and the rocks, Molotov cocktails, and gunshots

The police aren't inciting the crowd to riot by showing up in force. The protesters aren't doing a very good job policing their own because it all keeps happening. So far, four people have been shot by protesters and one was in critical condition.

No, orfeo was right. You'll call black white to defend the position you originally took. Having to pull stuff out of your ass and hoping nobody recognizes you contradict yourself repeatedly is just part of the challenge.

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
...and the rocks, Molotov cocktails, and gunshots

Show me the pictures. Because unless there are images I don't trust anyone's accounts. Especially when pictures like this look to some like protesters throwing Molotov cocktails but are in fact protesters throwing tear gas back at the attackers. A google image search shows me only pictures of tear gas. It's unsurprising, given the source, that Breitbart is using the photo of someone throwing back tear gas as evidence of molotov cocktails.

(As an aside, this is what tear gas being fired by a cop looks like.)

Seriously, show me the pictures of protesters with guns. I've yet to see one single one. I've seen plenty of pictures of people with guns, violating the first rule of firearm safety ("Always point the muzzle in a safe direction; never point a firearm at anyone or anything you don't want to shoot."), but every single one of them has been a cop, often pointing their gun at a person.

So I'm taking the claims of gunfire and molotov cocktails with the same pinch of salt I'm taking the claims that the cops have brought tanks into Ferguson (I can't be bothered to link Facebook). If there were real molotov cocktails in Ferguson they'd make for excellent images - and you don't even have to catch them being thrown; they make an excellent fire afterwards.

Absence of evidence of something big and cinematic when there are many dozens of cameras around is evidence of absence.

And other than Breitbart mislabeling and Fox News being its normal "fair and balanced" self, what's the evidence that any of this is happening? The word of the cops.

Now, how far do I trust the Ferguson Police? Not very. I've already linked a kafkaesque case where they charged someone for bleeding on uniforms. And apparently they had three warrants per household in 2013 - an entirely ridiculous rate.

But let's look at the video they put out. According to the store the cops didn't request that video until the day they sent it out as an excuse - and no one from the store reported it as a theft. And it's certainly been savagely cut to remove the section of Mike Brown at the register - and remember the police chief admits that the shooter didn't know about the supposed robbery. Oh, and autopsy found no evidence of the marks of a struggle - messing up the first Police claim as to what happened.

(For the record there are also conspiracy theories about the tape being from the wrong month - I'm putting those in the same bucket as the tanks and the molotov cocktails).

As for arrests? We know the cops are arresting people. Including journalists. And another. And a photographer. And according to the journalists the police have been lying to them to keep them away from the protest. It's reached the point the "the ACLU filed a separate federal lawsuit against St. Louis County, Ferguson and Highway Patrol Superintendent Ronald Replogle, seeking to bar them from trying to prevent the news media and public from recording law enforcement actions". Here's to the Free Press.

Also Amnesty International were ordered out by police (apparently for "public safety").

For my final link, here's some symbolism

Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on :

Final link? On behalf of my browser, thank you for finally stopping. That's 16. Again. Each of which someone (probably three someones) is going to check not just for functionality, but libel, NSFW content, etc.

All of which you've heard before, of course. But please. Keep the linkage to what is necessary, if you would. Makes things easier for everyone reading.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
The protesters aren't doing a very good job policing their own because it all keeps happening. So far, four people have been shot by protesters and one was in critical condition.

Their own? The protesters are somehow responsible for the looters and rioters? According to the report I just heard on NPR this morning, the cops in Ferguson are finding that some of the rioters they arrested last night came from out of the area, from places as far away as New York and California.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
You'll call black white to defend the position you originally took.

Alanis Morissette, eat your heart out.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

I did have a chuckle at this:

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
(I can't be bothered to link Facebook).

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
originally posted by Justinian:
Show me the pictures. Because unless there are images I don't trust anyone's accounts.

Way to stay in character... [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
The protesters aren't doing a very good job policing their own because it all keeps happening. So far, four people have been shot by protesters and one was in critical condition.
Their own? The protesters are somehow responsible for the looters and rioters? According to the report I just heard on NPR this morning, the cops in Ferguson are finding that some of the rioters they arrested last night came from out of the area, from places as far away as New York and California.

Yeah actually they are. Protests almost always lead to looting and rioting. The looting and rioting always detract from the actual protest. The protesters always say but not all of us are doing it. No, you are just giving the looters and rioters cover for doing it. At minimum, the peaceful protesters could limit their protests to daylight hours. Doesn't matter if a majority of the protesters are peaceful. Once the protests lead to looting and rioting, you've likely lost the support of the people needed to bring change.

Ferguson is 98% African-American. Only 6% turn out for elections. If African-Americans want a more African-American police force, then the thing to do is get people elected and make the changes you want. Maybe, Mike Brown will encourage them to become more politically active. I doubt having an African-American local government and predominantly African-American police force will solve many of Ferguson's problems. Might not even solve the problem of the communities relationship with the police. Newark's police department is 36.2% African-American and 36.9% Latino and they were just recently placed under federal monitoring.

What will not change outside of a few blue states is the militarization of police. For that to happen, people need to be presented with examples of police overreach that don't involve Molotov cocktails. There are plenty of better examples for that.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Ferguson is 98% African-American. Only 6% turn out for elections. If African-Americans want a more African-American police force, then the thing to do is get people elected and make the changes you want.

You'd also have to look at the incarceration rates for that town, as convicted felons are barred from voting for life. It's possible many people can't vote even if they'd like to.

[ 19. August 2014, 16:34: Message edited by: seekingsister ]

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Protests almost always lead to looting and rioting.

This is not true, except perhaps in the USA? I have been in many demonstrations and protests, though we usually organize them as "marches" which gives the crowd something to do. Well organized protests liaise with the police who help keep the crowd safe from those who don't like the issue and from traffic issues etc. This of course is the other end of the spectrum from the very bad police-public relations that are evident in this case. My experience is that the police are required to assist and do so with good nature and good humour when people want to legitimately exercise rights. Not saying that this doesn't happen in the USA, nor that bad public-police incidents and difficulties haven't arisen in Canada - they have - there is something obviously very wrong in Ferguson, much deeper than simply the police-public relationship in Ferguson.

quote:
The looting and rioting always detract from the actual protest.

True

quote:
The protesters always say but not all of us are doing it. No, you are just giving the looters and rioters cover for doing it. At minimum, the peaceful protesters could limit their protests to daylight hours. Doesn't matter if a majority of the protesters are peaceful. Once the protests lead to looting and rioting, you've likely lost the support of the people needed to bring change.

You can't have it both ways. Protests come up because of legitimate problems. That some people misbehave mustn't label all protesters as problems. Sometimes rioting is the product of the the response of the people who need to change. In Ferguson, it appears that the muscular and military type response of the police was provocative and part of the cause. Riots generally occur as a dynamic outcome of a protest, and unless provoked by authority responses, don't sweep up the generic protester. I recall well the anti-war and civil rights riots of 40 years ago and thought something had been learned. Apparently not.

quote:

What will not change outside of a few blue states is the militarization of police. For that to happen, people need to be presented with examples of police overreach that don't involve Molotov cocktails. There are plenty of better examples for that.

Not sure what a blue state is. But the militarization of police appears to be a core of the problem. It provokes response.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

So, BA, you are saying the protestors should not have been wearing short skirts?

Posted by AmyBo (# 15040) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

What will not change outside of a few blue states is the militarization of police. For that to happen, people need to be presented with examples of police overreach that don't involve Molotov cocktails. There are plenty of better examples for that.
Not sure what a blue state is. But the militarization of police appears to be a core of the problem. It provokes response.

Blue state= votes democratic, usually more progressive (but not always). We're usually northern, usually wealthier than red states (GOP-voting) - but not always.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Protests almost always lead to looting and rioting. The looting and rioting always detract from the actual protest. The protesters always say but not all of us are doing it. No, you are just giving the looters and rioters cover for doing it.

Bullshit. I've been to plenty of protests and never, ever has there been looting or rioting at any of them.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Protests almost always lead to looting and rioting. The looting and rioting always detract from the actual protest. The protesters always say but not all of us are doing it. No, you are just giving the looters and rioters cover for doing it.
Bullshit. I've been to plenty of protests and never, ever has there been looting or rioting at any of them.

Maybe they are more likely to get reported if there's looting or rioting? That or BA thinks more than a hundred people in one place constitutes a riot.

OTOH I have known anarchists who reckon no protest is complete without a few bricks thrown at police. Keeping the spoilers out of protests is no mean feat.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

You can leave the blue state/ red state thing out of it IMHO. Missouri has a huge split between St. Louis area (Democrats) and the rest of the state (Republicans). I would be surprised if an inner suburb like Ferguson was not strongly in the Democrat (blue) camp.

Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Protests almost always lead to looting and rioting. The looting and rioting always detract from the actual protest. The protesters always say but not all of us are doing it. No, you are just giving the looters and rioters cover for doing it.
Bullshit. I've been to plenty of protests and never, ever has there been looting or rioting at any of them.
Maybe they are more likely to get reported if there's looting or rioting? That or BA thinks more than a hundred people in one place constitutes a riot.
OTOH I have known anarchists who reckon no protest is complete without a few bricks thrown at police. Keeping the spoilers out of protests is no mean feat.

Was going to say…I live near the Protest Capitol of the US—we had not one but two Occupy camps a few years back, and have even hosted protests of protests—and, other than the occasional IMF meeting that gets a few bricks thrown through windows by anarchists or plants from the American Spectator attacking the Air and Space Museum, things usually go off pretty smoothly, snarled traffic aside. Heck, I think there's been a lady camping out behind the White House for 40 odd years now, protesting nuclear weapons, and never once has she rioted. Maybe done some yoga, but not rioting. The last time a protest turned into actual, honest-to-God looting and burning was in '68, after MLK was assassinated.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Protests almost always lead to looting and rioting. The looting and rioting always detract from the actual protest. The protesters always say but not all of us are doing it. No, you are just giving the looters and rioters cover for doing it.
Bullshit. I've been to plenty of protests and never, ever has there been looting or rioting at any of them.
Maybe they are more likely to get reported if there's looting or rioting? That or BA thinks more than a hundred people in one place constitutes a riot.

OTOH I have known anarchists who reckon no protest is complete without a few bricks thrown at police. Keeping the spoilers out of protests is no mean feat.

No, I think rocks, guns, barricades, and Molotov cocktails along with looting and vandalism constitutes a riot. Large protests that continue more than a few hours are likely to lead to riots. Yes, a few hundred people can stage a planned demonstration about the issue de jour that makes the local news without causing riots. Protests that have rioting will get more coverage. Protests that get more coverage are more likely to have rioting.

Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
. Heck, I think there's been a lady camping out behind the White House for 40 odd years now, protesting nuclear weapons, and never once has she rioted. Maybe done some yoga, but not rioting.

Yes - her name is Concepcion Picciotto. A very nice lady. I met her on a high school trip to DC 20 years ago.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Large protests that continue more than a few hours are likely to lead to riots.

Evidence for this assertion?

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

Here's Britain's equivalent. Brian Haw set himself up on Parliament Square in 2001 and protested despite legal challenges, including a new act that included provisions to prevent exactly the kind of protest he was involved in, until just before his death in 2011.

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
Final link? On behalf of my browser, thank you for finally stopping. That's 16. Again. Each of which someone (probably three someones) is going to check not just for functionality, but libel, NSFW content, etc.

All of which you've heard before, of course. But please. Keep the linkage to what is necessary, if you would. Makes things easier for everyone reading.

Sorry to you and Sioni. I should have stopped after showing why it's very unlikely that the Molotov Cocktails Beeswax Altar is yammering about are real.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

[Killing me]

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Large protests that continue more than a few hours are likely to lead to riots.
Evidence for this assertion?

WI don't have statistics but I can't remember hearing about a large protest going into the night or lasting days that didn't lead to some rioting. Suppose it depends on how we define large, protest, and riot. It doesn't take many of the protesters to start throwing bricks and destroying property to have the effect I was talking about in the first place. For that matter, peaceful protests that disrupt traffic are likely to annoy more people than change their minds.

While Occupy was relatively peaceful (outside o in places outside of Oakland, the protest lasted so long that it attracted too many bad elements and conditions in the camps deteriorated until that became the story. Eventually public support turned against them. What's left of Occupy now?

The Tea Party had more of an impact with short and organized protests. Even those drew people nobody wants associated with their movement. No, I wasn't a fan of Tea Party protests either. Shouting people down at town hall meetings is a polarizing tactic as well.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

The "Stop the War" march in London back in 2003 got about 750,000 into the city. the procession was three miles long and there were c 20 arrests for public order offences (protestors sitting down in Piccadilly IIRC). Show me a city of 750,000 where you don't get that many arrests.

The same sort of thing happened elsewhere in the world and the protests were almost entirely peaceful.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

Even if it were true: so what? Are the organizers of a peaceful protest responsible if afterwards people start to riot? Should people forsake their right to protest?

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

Are we talking about two different kind of things here? Stop the War / Cuts / the Tories / Israel / the World-type marches tend to be organised by properly constituted bodies and planned in advance, often in consultation with the authorities. Sometimes, some rotten eggs infiltrate the crowd.

By contrast, Ferguson-type protests seem to be spontaneous or happen with minimal planning or organisation.

We might call both 'protests', but are they really comparable?

(If I've understood the Ferguson protests correctly, of course. I'm somewhat removed from the whole story.)

[ 19. August 2014, 20:23: Message edited by: Anglican't ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Originally posted by Beeswax Alter:

quote:
Even those drew people nobody wants associated with their movement.

Republicans?

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

Well organized march that lasted hours not days. Protesters had fun and felt good about themselves. Crowd size annoyed and inconvenienced others. War still happened.

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I'm saying that the court case you linked to is a really poor choice of an example for what you're trying to prove.

And why do you think I'm trying to prove anything? This isn't a court of law, it's a discussion board. Where people, you know, discuss things.

quote:
Also, telling a Hellhost to fuck off in Hell is pointless. I've already explained to you, it's my duty to be here.

Is it also your duty to insert your arrogant irrelevant comments and bizarre assumptions into every conversation?

Anyway, it makes me feel better so it's not pointless.

quote:
I'd like to briefly return to this remark to comment on how ironic it is to be accused of racism and various other -isms while having all members of a wide and varied profession lumped together for hating.

The difference being that you chose to become a lawyer, and you choose the way you act as a lawyer.

quote:
Yeah, I don't spend a lot of time wondering. I already know it's mostly because people don't know any better and equate all lawyers with some shifty, amoral exploiter of technicalities they saw in a fictional TV drama.

And yet my hatred is based on the fact that I work in a law firm that does business law and I've spent the last six years having my life made a living hell by some lying bitches and a severely broken criminal justice system. Which includes a bunch of lawyers who lie in court and court documents and others who tell me things like, "it doesn't matter if the state is violating it's own laws, there's nothing that can be done about that," and "it doesn't matter if you weren't even in the state when this crime was supposedly committed," etc. I don't think I'm ever going to stop having nightmares, and I don't think I'm ever going to stop being afraid of what they're going to do next because they just make shit up and can't be held accountable within their current legal system. I'm afraid to even talk about it because the last time I did that the cops showed up.

I also have a cousin who is a black man. He returned from England to find a warrant for his arrest. Fortunately, the state issuing the warrant accepted his documentation that he wasn't even in the country at the time of the alleged crime.

But that's the kind of fear we live in constantly.

And the problem has finally gotten so big that the affluent can't ignore it.

So you go ahead and carry on with your idiocy. Just don't expect me to not get pissed off every time you tell me what I think.

Does anyone with more experience of MO think that if the police agreed to comply with one of these types of civilian oversight committees, it might help calm things down?

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by saysay:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I'm saying that the court case you linked to is a really poor choice of an example for what you're trying to prove.
And why do you think I'm trying to prove anything? This isn't a court of law, it's a discussion board. Where people, you know, discuss things.

And where people provide links in an attempt to bolster their argument. Except you, of course. You just provide them as interesting conversation pieces over a cup of tea and some biscuits.

EDIT: As to all your experience of lawyers... do you, by any chance, have any recollection of what kind of lawyer I am? I've referenced it often enough. I spend large amounts of time telling 'the State' about things that it CAN'T do.

[ 19. August 2014, 23:58: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And where people provide links in an attempt to bolster their argument.

Not all discussions are arguments in the adversarial model where one person has to be proven right and the other wrong.

This is particularly true when discussing the running of a representative democracy.

[ 20. August 2014, 00:05: Message edited by: saysay ]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by saysay:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And where people provide links in an attempt to bolster their argument.
Not all discussions are arguments in the adversarial model where one person has to be proven right and the other wrong.

This is particularly true when discussing the running of a representative democracy.

No, I didn't propose a 2-sided contest. The notion that you're trying to prove something does not necessarily involve that you're trying to prove someone else is wrong.

What you're trying to convince us of is how impossible it is to take action against the police in Delaware. You're trying to convince us that the system is stacked in the police's favour.

That may well be true. But it isn't shown by demonstrating that the State can argue that a cop committing a sexual assault is acting outside the scope of his duties, because absolutely ANY employer could mount, and succeed in, the same kind of argument - that an employee committing a sexual assault is acting outside the scope of his duties.

And the fact that you characterised the case as 'not being responsible for a cop's actions', as if it had been a decision that the State wasn't responsible for anything that a cop did, is massive overreach. An employer (and let me emphasise, that means any employer, including the State but also private employers) is undoubtedly responsible for actions of an employee that they've authorised, even if those actions are badly or negligently performed. That simply isn't in question in the judge's ruling you were upset about.

The ruling was about a very specific action: whether or not there was any conceivable way to say that committing sexual assault has some connection with the cop's authorised duties and the scope of his duties. One judge said no. A higher panel of judges said it needed to be considered further, because of such factors as that the sexual assault occurred in a police car.

Taking that as some kind of evidence to support your view that cops get away with whatever they want is just sloppy thinking. For starters, the decision isn't about justifying the cop's actions. It's about the liability of his employer. It's not in question that the cop shouldn't have committed the sexual assault. What's in question is whether his employer, who has far deeper pockets, should be required to pay for his action if it wasn't something they asked him to do or approved of. No doubt the jury will be asked to consider whether or not his employer in some way facilitated his ability to commit sexual assault.

You should also notice that I didn't comment on the other link you provided. While your description of it as "state-sponsored execution" is the kind of dramatic label that puts me off a bit, THAT link is clearly about something that went very wrong and which is evidence that bolsters what you're saying, and which is clearly specific to the police and to police powers. It has to do with what you're talking about, in a way that the judgement about employer liability doesn't.

[ 20. August 2014, 02:04: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
What you're trying to convince us of is how impossible it is to take action against the police in Delaware. You're trying to convince us that the system is stacked in the police's favour.

STOP TELLING ME WHAT I AM TRYING TO DO.

I wasn't trying to convince y'all of how it is impossible to take action against the police in Delaware. I was trying to explain to Beezwax Altar where I was coming from. I've given up trying to convince y'all of shit. I'm considering going off-grid and becoming one of those loonies.

This isn't a discussion of Delaware politics, law, or police. Do you understand the US and the distinctions between town, county, state, and federal government?

I don't know if some of the things I learned about the limitations of the law in Delaware are applicable elsewhere (mostly what I know is that no one should live there). But you can't exactly find that out without talking about it.

quote:
That simply isn't in question in the judge's ruling you were upset about.

WHO THE FUCK SAID I WAS UPSET ABOUT THE RULING?

STOP. JUST STOP.

(frankly I'm far more upset about the fact that so many people blame me for the cop's death - but I was trying to... oh, fuck it, it's not like you're going to listen. But thanks for tonight's nightmare. I think I may have to withdraw from this discussion.)

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

...so you're fine with a judge ruling that the State wasn't responsible for a cop's actions?

If that's true, then why bring it up?

The proposition that you didn't think the ruling was a bad ruling makes absolutely no sense in the context in which you linked to it.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

seekingsister:

quote:
You'd also have to look at the incarceration rates for that town, as convicted felons are barred from voting for life. It's possible many people can't vote even if they'd like to.

Seriously?! Even after they've done their time and have been released from jail?

Good grief, and we've been in hot water with the European Court of Human Rights for refusing to give prisoners the vote! That's prisoners who are actually in jail - they regain their voting rights as soon as they've finished serving their sentence.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
seekingsister:
quote:
You'd also have to look at the incarceration rates for that town, as convicted felons are barred from voting for life. It's possible many people can't vote even if they'd like to.
Seriously?! Even after they've done their time and have been released from jail?

Good grief, and we've been in hot water with the European Court of Human Rights for refusing to give prisoners the vote! That's prisoners who are actually in jail - they regain their voting rights as soon as they've finished serving their sentence.

Yes it's absurd, given that ethnic minority and poor people are more likely to get convicted of felonies in the first place, it's a clear policy of disenfranchising a certain segment of the population.

The Sentencing Project

quote:
Nationally, an estimated 5.85 million Americans are denied the right to vote because of laws that prohibit voting by people with felony convictions. Felony disenfranchisement is an obstacle to participation in democratic life which is exacerbated by racial disparities in the criminal justice system, resulting in 1 of every 13 African Americans unable to vote.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
seekingsister:
quote:
You'd also have to look at the incarceration rates for that town, as convicted felons are barred from voting for life. It's possible many people can't vote even if they'd like to.
Seriously?! Even after they've done their time and have been released from jail?

Yes, people convicted of felonies in the US normally can't vote after being released. Kind of breaks 'no taxation, without representation', but hey ho.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

I'm shocked by this too.

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

Which adds an even darker side to the "An average of three arrest warrants per household per year" statistic I dug out earlier in the thread.

[ 20. August 2014, 11:46: Message edited by: Justinian ]

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:

quote:
resulting in 1 of every 13 African Americans unable to vote.

Which is a huge number, but doesn't really help to explain why 95% black Ferguson can't elect more black politicians if it wants to. Unless the city of Ferguson is entirely populated by felons (which seems unlikely, 3 arrest warrants per household or not), it must still be the case that the majority of the electorate are black.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

One explanation I've heard is that local elections are at a weird time in the year there, causing low turn-out.

Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on :

A lot of the black residents are too young to vote--the median age is 28, compared to 48 for white residents. And of course, young people of any race are less inclined to vote. My guess is that you have a population of aging white residents who have watched the town become increasingly black over the past couple of decades, and are alarmed by the trend--an attitude that politicians can readily pander to, even if they have to do it more subtly nowadays than when I was a kid.

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Which is a huge number, but doesn't really help to explain why 95% black Ferguson can't elect more black politicians if it wants to. Unless the city of Ferguson is entirely populated by felons (which seems unlikely, 3 arrest warrants per household or not), it must still be the case that the majority of the electorate are black.

I suspect a combination of a lack of viable black candidates (especially considering the money you have to have and/or raise in order to run for office) and learned helplessness.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

I just came across an interesting news item.

On an evening when forty-some people were arrested in Ferguson, only three lived in Ferguson. Many others lived in Missouri, perhaps close-by, but some were from places like New York and California.

I wonder how much of the bad stuff is being done by outsiders who enjoy rioting.

Moo

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
I just came across an interesting news item.

On an evening when forty-some people were arrested in Ferguson, only three lived in Ferguson. Many others lived in Missouri, perhaps close-by, but some were from places like New York and California.

I wonder how much of the bad stuff is being done by outsiders who enjoy rioting.

Moo

I wonder how many of those from more distant locations are press. The police forces in Ferguson seem to make it a point to detain members of the press.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
On an evening when forty-some people were arrested in Ferguson, only three lived in Ferguson. Many others lived in Missouri, perhaps close-by, but some were from places like New York and California.

I wonder how much of the bad stuff is being done by outsiders who enjoy rioting.

This was also the case in the so-called "Battle in Seattle" of 1999. The locals were almost entirely peaceful, and the rioting and looting was started and largely carried out by a handful of out-of-town nogoodniks. ETA: One huge difference between the two cases, however, is that in the Seattle riots, there was no hint that race played any part.

[ 21. August 2014, 16:47: Message edited by: mousethief ]

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
I just came across an interesting news item.

On an evening when forty-some people were arrested in Ferguson, only three lived in Ferguson. Many others lived in Missouri, perhaps close-by, but some were from places like New York and California.

I wonder how much of the bad stuff is being done by outsiders who enjoy rioting.

Moo
I wonder how many of those from more distant locations are press. The police forces in Ferguson seem to make it a point to detain members of the press.

Yes. My SIL was one of those out-of-town members of the press who had his press credentials ripped off him before being hit with tear gas canisters & rubber bullets prior to his "detention" overnight in Ferguson. He has since been named on several conservative websites as a "commie agitator" even though he came as an outside observer simply to document what was going on.

otoh, on the plane flying to Missouri, he met a couple of people who did self-identify as "anarchists" whose stated purpose was to "f**k things up" to expose the dangers of the American "police state". So there is a kernel of truth in the charges-- the problem is that then gets generalized to the locals, members of the press, ecumenical peacemaking teams etc. that are there for much different reasons.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

Of course, blaming trouble on "outside agitators" has a long history in American race relations. It was a useful position to promote for the various powers-that-be for a couple of reasons.

It allowed local authorities the leeway to deny there was any discontent in their communities. All the real problems were caused by "outside agitators".
The powers-that-be knew where local dissidents (and their families and friends) lived. Outsiders (e.g. Freedom Riders, the SCLC, etc.) from distant jurisdictions are not as subject to intimidation and retaliation as locals (which could explain why point #1 was at least superficially true).

I'm a little distressed at how widely this idea has spread in the present day, given its fairly well-known and odious past. If nothing else, the long-term failure of that media strategy should be a deterrent from its deployment, but apparently not.

[ 21. August 2014, 17:20: Message edited by: Crœsos ]

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

And speaking of "outside agitators" and throwbacks to the fifties:

quote:
Klan heading to Ferguson to ‘guard white businesses,’ back shooting of ‘n*gger criminal’

On Friday, the New Empire Knights announced that it would be holding a fundraiser on August 23-24 in Sullivan, about 60 miles from Ferguson.

“With the police state in Ferguson, we will be holding our fundraiser in Sullivan City, MO,” the announcement said. “Donations of $10 and up. All money will go to the cop who did his job against the negro criminal.”

New Empire Knights Imperial Wizard Charles Murray said in the comments section of the group’s website that the event was “being attended by 3 different Klan fractions.”

And to anyone thinking of trying to get in the way, Murray warned, “we have guns (and more).”

“We are raising money for a cop who shot a n*gger criminal,” he explained.

I'm sure this will help calm things right down!

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

I think it's probable that the overwhelming majority of peaceful protesters in Ferguson are locals. There is no reason why they should want local buildings burned down; that would mean they would have no place to buy groceries and other necessities. OTOH, outsiders have nothing to lose if buildings in Ferguson are destroyed.

Moo

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
I think it's probable that the overwhelming majority of peaceful protesters in Ferguson are locals. There is no reason why they should want local buildings burned down; that would mean they would have no place to buy groceries and other necessities. OTOH, outsiders have nothing to lose if buildings in Ferguson are destroyed.

Moo

True-- and a few (the anarchists my SIL spoke with) have a political agenda that will profit from the violence. However, his first-hand experience and the court records of the arrests/ "detentions" so far indicate that the vast majority of the out-of-towners detained were journalists. For some reason, the Ferguson police seem to get very testy about photographs/ videotaping...

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :

One might be able to make the argument that the police count as outside agitators.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

From what I've seen on the news, looting and arson are taking place. Are the police ignoring these criminals and arresting only journalists?

Moo

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Of course, blaming trouble on "outside agitators" has a long history in American race relations. It was a useful position to promote for the various powers-that-be for a couple of reasons.

It allowed local authorities the leeway to deny there was any discontent in their communities. All the real problems were caused by "outside agitators".
The powers-that-be knew where local dissidents (and their families and friends) lived. Outsiders (e.g. Freedom Riders, the SCLC, etc.) from distant jurisdictions are not as subject to intimidation and retaliation as locals (which could explain why point #1 was at least superficially true).

I'm a little distressed at how widely this idea has spread in the present day, given its fairly well-known and odious past. If nothing else, the long-term failure of that media strategy should be a deterrent from its deployment, but apparently not.

I'm struck by the fact that you don't seem similarly disappointed in the actions of the people that ARE, in fact, outsiders who decide to fly halfway across their country to cause trouble. As Moo has pointed out, these are exactly the people most likely to be troublesome because they have zero stake in the community. After the damage is caused, they just up and leave again, satisfied with the publicity they've generated for 'the cause'.

The one thing you haven't actually mentioned in your analysis of why the authorities might be inclined to refer to outside agitators is the possibility that it's factually true.

Except, of course, when it's the KKK. Then suddenly you're terribly happy with the 'agitator' label.

[ 21. August 2014, 23:27: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
From what I've seen on the news, looting and arson are taking place. Are the police ignoring these criminals and arresting only journalists?

Moo

fwiw, my SIL saw no looting and arson. Not saying it didn't happen, just that it's not the widespread problem it's being portrayed as. And yes, the police sweep the he was caught up in (3 hours before curfew) was of people-- both protestors and journalists-- who were on the front lines of a (previously approved by PD) march. They were, in fact, marching. Shouting probably. Not looting. Not burning. Not throwing anything. No weapons.

Posted by The5thMary (# 12953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
I just came across an interesting news item.

On an evening when forty-some people were arrested in Ferguson, only three lived in Ferguson. Many others lived in Missouri, perhaps close-by, but some were from places like New York and California.

I wonder how much of the bad stuff is being done by outsiders who enjoy rioting.

Moo

I remember all the hellishness that took place during the W.T.O. riots in Seattle. I was living there at the time and I remember watching a bunch of anarchists from Eugene, OR throwing newspaper boxes through storefront windows and setting fire to anything they could. I had the displeasure of coming face to face with one of these a-holes when I was attempting to go see my doctor in Pike Place Market. Anyway, I know that these anarchist-types travel around and demonstrate/riot whenever there's anything they think they should get up in arms about. They really make me mad.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
For some reason, the Ferguson police seem to get very testy about photographs/ videotaping...

If they aren't doing anything wrong, they don't have anything to worry about. Isn't that what they tell us about the police?

quote:
Originally posted by The5thMary:
I remember all the hellishness that took place during the W.T.O. riots in Seattle. I was living there at the time and I remember watching a bunch of anarchists from Eugene, OR throwing newspaper boxes through storefront windows and setting fire to anything they could. I had the displeasure of coming face to face with one of these a-holes when I was attempting to go see my doctor in Pike Place Market. Anyway, I know that these anarchist-types travel around and demonstrate/riot whenever there's anything they think they should get up in arms about. They really make me mad.

Gee, wish I'd mentioned that.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Hmmmm. Where's the cotton wool? Between the sharp, brittle geological specimens?

Where are the Christians?

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Where are the Christians?

Here they are!

quote:
Reverend R.B. Holmes and St. Louis Pastor Jimmy Brown are planning a 1000 pastor prayer and rally the day after Michael Brown's funeral.

And here!

quote:
A pastor peacefully protesting in Ferguson, Missouri was struck by a rubber bullet fired by police while chanting, "Jesus, Jesus, Jesus."

[ 22. August 2014, 08:09: Message edited by: seekingsister ]

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Is that facing both directions, between the sharps, as cotton wool?

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Is that facing both directions, between the sharps, as cotton wool?

So in English, are you asking if they are equally dealing with the rioters and the police?

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Isn't that clear?

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Of course, blaming trouble on "outside agitators" has a long history in American race relations.

I wasn't talking about "outside agitators"; I was talking about arsonists and looters who come from outside because a riot is a good cover for their activities.

quote:
I wonder how many of those from more distant locations are press. The police forces in Ferguson seem to make it a point to detain members of the press.

I saw a statistic (which I can't find at the moment) that more than 160 people were arrested, and only seven were residents of Ferguson. I refuse to believe that the majority of the outsiders were journalists.

Moo

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Moo, I think I saw the same statistic but it was the other way round--only a handful of out-of-towners arrested. Which doesn't prove much, of course.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Nice Erin ref Moo.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Of course, blaming trouble on "outside agitators" has a long history in American race relations. It was a useful position to promote for the various powers-that-be for a couple of reasons.

It allowed local authorities the leeway to deny there was any discontent in their communities. All the real problems were caused by "outside agitators".
The powers-that-be knew where local dissidents (and their families and friends) lived. Outsiders (e.g. Freedom Riders, the SCLC, etc.) from distant jurisdictions are not as subject to intimidation and retaliation as locals (which could explain why point #1 was at least superficially true).

I'm a little distressed at how widely this idea has spread in the present day, given its fairly well-known and odious past. If nothing else, the long-term failure of that media strategy should be a deterrent from its deployment, but apparently not.
I'm struck by the fact that you don't seem similarly disappointed in the actions of the people that ARE, in fact, outsiders who decide to fly halfway across their country to cause trouble. As Moo has pointed out, these are exactly the people most likely to be troublesome because they have zero stake in the community. After the damage is caused, they just up and leave again, satisfied with the publicity they've generated for 'the cause'.

The one thing you haven't actually mentioned in your analysis of why the authorities might be inclined to refer to outside agitators is the possibility that it's factually true.

The analysis you want is right there in point #2. I specifically mentioned two notorious groups of outsiders that would stir up trouble in Southern communities. Where I think the criticism goes awry is the implicit assumption that the 'native' community is perfectly happy with the status quo before getting riled up by a bunch of outsiders. In other words, it mistakes the absence of tension for the presence of justice.

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
I saw a statistic (which I can't find at the moment) that more than 160 people were arrested, and only seven were residents of Ferguson. I refuse to believe that the majority of the outsiders were journalists.

Given how fragmented jurisdictions are in that part of Missouri, I wouldn't be surprised (though a link to something you say you vaguely remember would be nice). How many of those classified as "not from Ferguson" were from somewhere else in St. Louis County? Of the rest, how many were from the neighboring Franklin, Jefferson, or St. Charles Counties or the city of St. Louis (which is outside St. Louis County for historical reasons mostly to do with white flight)? You don't have to actually live in Ferguson to be a the wrong end of harassment by their police force, just driving down the wrong stretch of road will do it.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Of course, blaming trouble on "outside agitators" has a long history in American race relations.
I wasn't talking about "outside agitators"; I was talking about arsonists and looters who come from outside because a riot is a good cover for their activities.

quote:
I wonder how many of those from more distant locations are press. The police forces in Ferguson seem to make it a point to detain members of the press.
I saw a statistic (which I can't find at the moment) that more than 160 people were arrested, and only seven were residents of Ferguson. I refuse to believe that the majority of the outsiders were journalists.

Moo

The Freedom of Press Foundation listed 22 journalists (including my SIL) arrested or detained as of 2 days ago. There are no doubt others. Most of these journalists were listed by name on conservative blogs (including Glenn Beck's) not as journalists but as "commie agitators". (I told SIL I would consider that a badge of honor).

Googling percentage of Ferguson arrests from out of state, I learn that police report (hmm... reliable?) that "93%" of the arrests are "not from Ferguson" but as CNN reports police also report only 25% are from out of state.

In the US, large urban areas such as St. Louis are surrounded by vast interconnected suburbs. I don't find it surprising that a number of residents living on the outskirts of Ferguson are protesting. Many would have, no doubt, friends, coworkers or family living in Ferguson. Others may have had encounters with the police while driving through.

But when you look only at out of state arrests, it looks to me like we're looking at a number much closer to the number of journalists detained/arrested.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
In the US, large urban areas such as St. Louis are surrounded by vast interconnected suburbs. I don't find it surprising that a number of residents living on the outskirts of Ferguson are protesting. Many would have, no doubt, friends, coworkers or family living in Ferguson. Others may have had encounters with the police while driving through.

But when you look only at out of state arrests, it looks to me like we're looking at a number much closer to the number of journalists detained/arrested.

It should also be noted that from Ferguson "out of state" is less than five miles away. Nearby residents in Illinois would have similar reasons for joining in protests as Missouri-based "residents living on the outskirts of Ferguson"

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I'm struck by the fact that you don't seem similarly disappointed in the actions of the people that ARE, in fact, outsiders who

Does it matter? Does it matter where agitators come from when there is reason for the protests which draws them.
ISTM, the conversation regarding the troublemakers is a screen with which to ignore the underlying problems.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
The police aren't inciting the crowd to riot by showing up in force.

People who actually study things like this say that the police are the ones usually inciting riot.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

And the military, the group the Ferguson cops seems to wish to be, do not engage protestors in the manner the police have precisely to avoid escalation in response.
Whatever the the final determination of the causal events, the police' response shares blame in the resultant situation.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I'm struck by the fact that you don't seem similarly disappointed in the actions of the people that ARE, in fact, outsiders who
Does it matter? Does it matter where agitators come from when there is reason for the protests which draws them.
ISTM, the conversation regarding the troublemakers is a screen with which to ignore the underlying problems.

Yes, it matters. It matters if people pretend to speak for people that they don't actually speak for.

Black people charging in and acting as if all black people agree with them is no more laudable than Christian supposed-leaders who claim to speak for me as a Christian, or Muslim nutters who claim to speak for all Muslims.

It doesn't matter what the 'cause' is, people obsessed with the 'cause' are very good at deciding to take a situation and treat it like a cookie cutter of whatever situation they themselves come from, or just to use it to forward the 'cause' with no real interest in how this might affect the individuals whose chief concern is their individual situation. People have already referred to other cases of protesters coming in and causing a riot (Seattle). If you've come from elsewhere, your sole interest in the location is that it's the staging ground for your event. It's about you, not about the location or the community.

I am thoroughly in favour of the people of Ferguson having the right to express their concerns about the situation in their community. I fail to see how someone who comes in from elsewhere is going to be part of an ongoing solution for the community. At the end of this, the people from outside - whether they be protesters or media - are going to pack up and move on, and simply not give another thought to whether things in Ferguson have improved or not.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Does it matter? Does it matter where agitators come from when there is reason for the protests which draws them.
ISTM, the conversation regarding the troublemakers is a screen with which to ignore the underlying problems.

People have the right to protest injustice. Outsiders should make sure that their actions agree with the goals of the local protesters.

There are some people who come simply to loot and commit arson. Their actions make life more difficult for the locals who used to do their shopping at the grocery stores that have been torched.

At the time of the Los Angeles riots, I read an interview with a man who lived in a neighborhood where there was arson and looting. The reporter and the man were looking out the window at a convenience store going up in flames. The man said, "There goes the only place within two miles where we can buy milk for our kids." I'm ready to bet that the people who torched it had never bought anything there.

Moo

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

seekingsister. Yes. But I don't know what the answer is any more beyond fantasy.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Yes, it matters. It matters if people pretend to speak for people that they don't actually speak for.

Black people charging in and acting as if all black people agree with them is no more laudable than Christian supposed-leaders who claim to speak for me as a Christian, or Muslim nutters who claim to speak for all Muslims.

It doesn't matter what the 'cause' is, people obsessed with the 'cause' are very good at deciding to take a situation and treat it like a cookie cutter of whatever situation they themselves come from, or just to use it to forward the 'cause' with no real interest in how this might affect the individuals whose chief concern is their individual situation. People have already referred to other cases of protesters coming in and causing a riot (Seattle). If you've come from elsewhere, your sole interest in the location is that it's the staging ground for your event. It's about you, not about the location or the community.

I am thoroughly in favour of the people of Ferguson having the right to express their concerns about the situation in their community. I fail to see how someone who comes in from elsewhere is going to be part of an ongoing solution for the community. At the end of this, the people from outside - whether they be protesters or media - are going to pack up and move on, and simply not give another thought to whether things in Ferguson have improved or not.

Yeah, the nerve of those outsiders, coming in and stirring up trouble when everything was fine before they showed up.

I'm always suspicious about arbitrary divisions about who is and isn't supposed to be outraged by the clearly outrageous. Very often it's an insincere ruse to isolate local protesters and reinforce to the wider world the idea that any abuses aren't any concern of theirs.

And why stop at the whole town of Ferguson? "That shooting happened over on Caddiefield Road. You live on Ellison Drive. That's two whole blocks away. None of your business!"

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

It doesn't matter what the 'cause' is, people obsessed with the 'cause' are very good at deciding to take a situation and treat it like a cookie cutter of whatever situation they themselves come from, or just to use it to forward the 'cause' with no real interest in how this might affect the individuals whose chief concern is their individual situation. People have already referred to other cases of protesters coming in and causing a riot (Seattle).

And people have already shown that:
1. The estimates of those outside the greater St. Louis area are not as large as first appeared to be.
2. The remaining numbers of out-of-towners detained is quite close to the number of journalists known (by name-- see my link) to have been detained.

You seem to be doing the exact same thing you are complaining about-- using riots in other places/ other times to conclude what is going on in Ferguson and who is at fault.

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
If you've come from elsewhere, your sole interest in the location is that it's the staging ground for your event. It's about you, not about the location or the community.

I am thoroughly in favour of the people of Ferguson having the right to express their concerns about the situation in their community. I fail to see how someone who comes in from elsewhere is going to be part of an ongoing solution for the community. At the end of this, the people from outside - whether they be protesters or media - are going to pack up and move on, and simply not give another thought to whether things in Ferguson have improved or not.

Historically, that has not been the case. Historically, "freedom walkers" and other outside protestors (who were called, as noted above "outside agitators" by their opponents) were instrumental in working for change in Birmingham, in Selma. In all sorts of place where injustices were happening, having "outsiders" come in and bring attention to the plight, showing solidarity and support for those who were protesting, has been instrumental in bringing real change.

Whether that will happen in Ferguson or not remains to be seen, of course. But having the "eyes of the world" focused on a place where so much injustice has gone on for so long outside the glare of publicity is probably a good thing. Yes, in the end, it will be up to the citizens of Ferguson to decide how they will rebuild after the chaos and turmoil of the last few weeks. But now the world will be watching. And historically we know that that is a good thing.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
coming in and stirring up trouble when everything was fine before they showed up.

What a pity that's the exact opposite of what I actually said.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

here's one indication of why out-of-towners might be upset about Ferguson PD

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
coming in and stirring up trouble when everything was fine before they showed up.

What a pity that's the exact opposite of what I actually said.

Really? The exact opposite? Hmmm... try working on your communication skills, then, because my impression of what you said is precisely the same as Crœsos'. So since we both hear it the same way, perhaps you can explain what you DID mean by the quote below that was the "exact opposite" of suggesting the out-of-towners (including, again, my SIL) were the ones "stirring up trouble":

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Yes, it matters. It matters if people pretend to speak for people that they don't actually speak for.

Black people charging in and acting as if all black people agree with them is no more laudable than Christian supposed-leaders who claim to speak for me as a Christian, or Muslim nutters who claim to speak for all Muslims.

It doesn't matter what the 'cause' is, people obsessed with the 'cause' are very good at deciding to take a situation and treat it like a cookie cutter of whatever situation they themselves come from, or just to use it to forward the 'cause' with no real interest in how this might affect the individuals whose chief concern is their individual situation. People have already referred to other cases of protesters coming in and causing a riot (Seattle). If you've come from elsewhere, your sole interest in the location is that it's the staging ground for your event. It's about you, not about the location or the community.

[ 23. August 2014, 14:15: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
People have the right to protest injustice. Outsiders should make sure that their actions agree with the goals of the local protesters.

Exactly. This is what I'm trying to say.

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Historically, that has not been the case. Historically, "freedom walkers" and other outside protestors (who were called, as noted above "outside agitators" by their opponents) were instrumental in working for change in Birmingham, in Selma. In all sorts of place where injustices were happening, having "outsiders" come in and bring attention to the plight, showing solidarity and support for those who were protesting, has been instrumental in bringing real change.

Well, it depends which bit of history you're looking at, doesn't it? I mean, what you've just referred to is completely in keeping with Moo's point. Bringing attention to the plight of the 'insiders', making it about the 'insiders', giving them support - all of that would be entirely appropriate in my view.

I suspect that I'm just rather more cynical than you about whether that's what has happened in more recent history. My perception is that these days it's not clear that it's simply the committed, principled, idealistic people who make the effort to turn up at a location. Maybe it's because transport has become quicker and easier.

And is it the case that outsiders did anything to 'bring attention' to Ferguson? Or did Ferguson 'bring attention' to itself, such that those looking for the latest troublespot to gather found it?

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
coming in and stirring up trouble when everything was fine before they showed up.

What a pity that's the exact opposite of what I actually said.
Really? The exact opposite? Hmmm... try working on your communication skills, then, because my impression of what you said is precisely the same as Crœsos'. So since we both hear it the same way, perhaps you can explain what you DID mean by the quote below that was the "exact opposite" of suggesting the out-of-towners (including, again, my SIL) were the ones "stirring up trouble":

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Yes, it matters. It matters if people pretend to speak for people that they don't actually speak for.

Black people charging in and acting as if all black people agree with them is no more laudable than Christian supposed-leaders who claim to speak for me as a Christian, or Muslim nutters who claim to speak for all Muslims.

It doesn't matter what the 'cause' is, people obsessed with the 'cause' are very good at deciding to take a situation and treat it like a cookie cutter of whatever situation they themselves come from, or just to use it to forward the 'cause' with no real interest in how this might affect the individuals whose chief concern is their individual situation. People have already referred to other cases of protesters coming in and causing a riot (Seattle). If you've come from elsewhere, your sole interest in the location is that it's the staging ground for your event. It's about you, not about the location or the community.

WELL IF YOU DIDN'T DELETE THE RELEVANT PARAGRAPH, MAYBE YOU'D KNOW!

It would also sure help if you didn't substitute phrases. I didn't say 'stirring up trouble', and the phrase of Croesos' I rejected was 'everything was fine'. I used italics to highlight it, for God's sake. You clearly know what italics mean, seeing you used them yourself, but apparently you're happy to ignore the ones used by me.

It was Croesos' suggestion that I'd said 'everything was fine' which was the exact opposite of what I said, in the 4th paragraph of a 4-paragraph post that you've decided to turn into a 3-paragraph post while demanding I show you where I said the exact opposite to something that wasn't the thing I highlighted as the exact opposite.

You changed the question AND doctored the evidence. Well done all round, there.

[ 23. August 2014, 14:30: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

Oh, so sorry to have missed such a major infraction. You must feel so terribly maligned and misunderstood, poor dear. Much like the poor peaceful people of Ferguson, always being lumped in with those outside commie agitators. Cuz really it's the exact same thing.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Oh, so sorry to have missed such a major infraction. You must feel so terribly maligned and misunderstood, poor dear. Much like the poor peaceful people of Ferguson, always being lumped in with those outside commie agitators. Cuz really it's the exact same thing.

How does your decision to actively cut out a paragraph of my post make any kind of sensible analogy? Who am I being 'lumped in' with? And how does explicitly distinguishing between the people of Ferguson and outsiders translate as 'lumping in'? And why the blazes are you talking about commies?

You talk about 'missing' something as if it was inadvertent. I don't understand: did your finger slip and accidentally delete several lines of my text without you noticing?

[ 23. August 2014, 14:41: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

I suspect that I'm just rather more cynical than you about whether that's what has happened in more recent history. My perception is that these days it's not clear that it's [ simply* the committed, principled, idealistic people who make the effort to turn up at a location.

Well, yes, not surprising that I have a different pov than you, since it is my son you are calling a troublemaker.

*and of course, no one has said that it is "simply" the idealistic ones that showed up (gotta love those italics, huh?). Everyone has acknowledged the presence of some real outside troublemakers. I even offered first-person testimony from SIL to that effect.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
How does your decision to actively cut out a paragraph of my post make any kind of sensible analogy? Who am I being 'lumped in' with? And how does explicitly distinguishing between the people of Ferguson and outsiders translate as 'lumping in'? And why the blazes are you talking about commies?

You talk about 'missing' something as if it was inadvertent. I don't understand: did your finger slip and accidentally delete several lines of my text without you noticing?

I was being sarcastic.

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And why the blazes are you talking about commies?

Because, as noted above, that was the exact term ("commie agitator") used to describe my SIL (and 21 others), by name. See my "freedom of press" link above.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Everyone has acknowledged the presence of some real outside troublemakers.

In which case, why precisely are we having this conversation? I'm not aware of having made a single claim that would rely on a quantity. I specifically said that the people of Ferguson were entitled to protest their situation, which completely negates the fatuous claim by Croesos that I said everything was fine.

Outside troublemakers create greater trouble. By definition. If everyone agrees there are some real outside troublemakers present, then everyone agrees that there is more trouble present than there would be if there were no outside troublemakers present.

So remind me again why saying that outside troublemakers are a bad thing because they just create trouble is so awful?

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Well, yes, not surprising that I have a different pov than you, since it is my son you are calling a troublemaker.

And I've done that where exactly?

Is your son a journalist? What I said about journalists is that they will pack up and leave and won't be part of an ongoing solution. Nowhere did I label journalists troublemakers.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

Seriously, are your empathy skills really that low that you can't think of any reason why I in particular might be upset by what you are saying about out-of-town protestors?

His bruises haven't healed yet, btw. Thanks for asking.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Seriously, are your empathy skills really that low that you can't think of any reason why I in particular might be upset by what you are saying about out-of-town protestors?

His bruises haven't healed yet, btw. Thanks for asking.

Are your reading skills that low that you haven't noticed my agreement with both Moo and yourself about the kind of out-of-town protestors that are fine?

You decide which category of out-of-town protestor your son's in. Presumably you have some insight into his motivations. Is he one of the outside troublemakers you acknowledge really exist? If not, stop assuming my critical remarks about people who come in and make the situation all about themselves instead of about the people and community affected have anything to do with your son.

As for his bruises, it might shock you to learn that I don't make careful notes of everything said on a Hell thread. You just mentioned that he was a protestor. You did not just mention that he was hurt. Maybe you mentioned that earlier, but as I wasn't directly involved in conversation with you at the time I wasn't aware of it.

So, now that I know he has bruises, how's he doing?

[ 23. August 2014, 14:56: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
, why precisely are we having this conversation?

This is kinda my problem. Arguing about who is adding fuel to the fire is being used to obscure the cause of the fire.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
, why precisely are we having this conversation?
This is kinda my problem. Arguing about who is adding fuel to the fire is being used to obscure the cause of the fire.

But that's exactly why I said it does matter about outsiders. Their motivations matter. It matters if the reasons of the people who are coming along, adding fuel, are different to the reasons of the people in Ferguson who started the fire, ie started the protest.

If the people of Ferguson wanted a small, controlled burn, it matters a hell of a lot whether someone came in with the intention of turning it into a conflagration. There's a huge difference between someone who tries to support the people of Ferguson in the aims of the people of Ferguson, and someone who tries to use the people of Ferguson to further the aims of someone else.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Cliffdweller, if your son is actually your son-in-law and that this is what SIL is referring to, I had indeed seen the references. I had thought you were now talking about someone else in your family.

To be honest, you befuddled me by saying you were upset by what I was saying about out-of-town protestors. If your son/SIL is a journalist, your son/SIL simply doesn't fit in the category of protestors as far as I'm concerned, never mind out-of-town ones. And my last response to you is rendered completely irrelevant.

Again, I don't think anything I said about 'troublemakers' applied to journalists. I still maintain that journalists are not necessarily involved in making anything better, which requires long-term solutions, but that was the only context in which I mentioned journalists. I did not label journalists as troublemakers. I've gone back and reread all my posts on this page and I don't see anything that equates the two. The fact that some police appear to have decided to treat journalists as troublemakers doesn't mean that my references to troublemakers were in agreement with that police behaviour.

[ 23. August 2014, 15:25: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

Clearly that's not how I read your comments, especially in the immediate context where we're providing evidence that nearly all the "outsiders" were journalists.

I suppose even in hell there comes a time when someone is just too close to the situation to read/respond correctly. Mostly I just felt weird not participating in the conversation given the close connection/ inside knowledge. But it's perhaps wisest not to.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Clearly that's not how I read your comments, especially in the immediate context where we're providing evidence that nearly all the "outsiders" were journalists.

It was also you who provided the confirmation that the troublemakers were real:

quote:
otoh, on the plane flying to Missouri, he met a couple of people who did self-identify as "anarchists" whose stated purpose was to "f**k things up" to expose the dangers of the American "police state". So there is a kernel of truth in the charges-- the problem is that then gets generalized to the locals, members of the press, ecumenical peacemaking teams etc. that are there for much different reasons.

I won't deny that the troublemaker label gets generalized. I will, however, deny that I generalized it.

I still find it difficult to understand why you would say that your son was a protestor, other than you must be under stress. That sounds like the very generalization that shouldn't happen. He's a journalist. His motivation is to document, not participate.

So long as we understand each other now.

[ 23. August 2014, 15:42: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I fail to see how someone who comes in from elsewhere is going to be part of an ongoing solution for the community.

That's pretty straightforward and definitive. Outsiders are trouble and you don't see any way they could be helpful.

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Historically, that has not been the case. Historically, "freedom walkers" and other outside protestors (who were called, as noted above "outside agitators" by their opponents) were instrumental in working for change in Birmingham, in Selma. In all sorts of place where injustices were happening, having "outsiders" come in and bring attention to the plight, showing solidarity and support for those who were protesting, has been instrumental in bringing real change.
Well, it depends which bit of history you're looking at, doesn't it? I mean, what you've just referred to is completely in keeping with Moo's point. Bringing attention to the plight of the 'insiders', making it about the 'insiders', giving them support - all of that would be entirely appropriate in my view.

That was fairly quick, from failing to see how outsiders could be in any way beneficial to suddenly realizing that maybe certain outsiders, acting in orfeo-approved ways, could potentially be beneficial. But wait, the evolution continues!

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
So remind me again why saying that outside troublemakers are a bad thing because they just create trouble is so awful?

Now it's not "someone [anyone?] who comes in from elsewhere" that's the problem, it's "outside troublemakers", which is a pretty radical revision of the original "outsiders bad!" position.

And now some blatant revisionism:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
But that's exactly why I [eventually] said it does matter about outsiders. Their motivations matter.

It's pretty ballsy to go from a blanket condemnation of all outsiders to a careful parsing of motives without acknowledging the radical change executed.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

If the people of Ferguson wanted a small, controlled burn,

ISTM, the people of Ferguson reacted. Full stop.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

I'm not sure we can even say that. It seems like a mistake to treat "the people of Ferguson" as a unified entity with a single, consistent set of desires.

Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I fail to see how someone who comes in from elsewhere is going to be part of an ongoing solution for the community.
That's pretty straightforward and definitive. Outsiders are trouble and you don't see any way they could be helpful.

What part of "ongoing" do you not understand? It has taken decades to create the situation in Ferguson and it is not going to be fixed by Christmas. By definition, no "outsider" will still be around in a couple of years' time, when the residents will still be working on the solution.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I fail to see how someone who comes in from elsewhere is going to be part of an ongoing solution for the community.
That's pretty straightforward and definitive. Outsiders are trouble and you don't see any way they could be helpful.
What part of "ongoing" do you not understand? It has taken decades to create the situation in Ferguson and it is not going to be fixed by Christmas. By definition, no "outsider" will still be around in a couple of years' time, when the residents will still be working on the solution.

What part of "going to be a part" is unclear? Is it inconceivable that outsiders, whether journalists or peacemakers like Shane Clairborne, will have some part in the ongoing solution? Did MLK and the freedom riders have no part in the ongoing solutions in Selma, Birmingham, etc.?

Obviously the residents will be the ones who ultimately determine what happens next and will be the ones who ultimately are impacted by that. But to suggest that "outsiders" have "no part" in any "ongoing" (i.e. effective, long term) solution is to continue to excuse apathy and disinterest in anything outside our own narrow communities.

There. Ya got me back in.

[ 23. August 2014, 18:31: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
What part of "ongoing" do you not understand? It has taken decades to create the situation in Ferguson and it is not going to be fixed by Christmas. By definition, no "outsider" will still be around in a couple of years' time, when the residents will still be working on the solution.

What makes you think that Ferguson is a special case?

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
What part of "ongoing" do you not understand? It has taken decades to create the situation in Ferguson and it is not going to be fixed by Christmas. By definition, no "outsider" will still be around in a couple of years' time, when the residents will still be working on the solution.
What makes you think that Ferguson is a special case?

Who said it was?

Joanna clearly understands my point, while Croesos is clearly wilfully ignoring it.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

Joanna clearly understands my point, while Croesos is clearly wilfully ignoring it.

or... "everyone who agrees with me does so because they understand my brilliant logic & superior intellect. Anyone who disagrees with me 'clearly' is willfully ignorant."

iow, it's impossible for anyone to fully understand precisely what you are saying and not come to the exact same conclusion as you. All disputers are by definition incredibly stupid, rebellious, or blind.

The very definition of [brick wall]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

Joanna clearly understands my point, while Croesos is clearly wilfully ignoring it.
or... "everyone who agrees with me does so because they understand my brilliant logic & superior intellect. Anyone who disagrees with me 'clearly' is willfully ignorant."

iow, it's impossible for anyone to fully understand precisely what you are saying and not come to the exact same conclusion as you. All disputers are by definition incredibly stupid, rebellious, or blind.

The very definition of

Oh yes. Because I said everyone, didn't I?

Oh no wait, no I didn't. I used a particular poster's name. Is your name Croesos?

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Joanna clearly understands my point, while Croesos is clearly wilfully ignoring it.

Which point was that? You seem to keep changing it in contradictory ways.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

orfEEo?

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

I may have missed it, but wondering after hearing a piece on CBC Radio One, about the issue of poverty with the race relations.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

Joanna clearly understands my point, while Croesos is clearly wilfully ignoring it.
or... "everyone who agrees with me does so because they understand my brilliant logic & superior intellect. Anyone who disagrees with me 'clearly' is willfully ignorant."

iow, it's impossible for anyone to fully understand precisely what you are saying and not come to the exact same conclusion as you. All disputers are by definition incredibly stupid, rebellious, or blind.

The very definition of

No...it's Croesus. Croesus makes a game of deliberately misunderstanding what people say. He does it so that you'll waste time trying to explain what you meant. Croesus will continue to insist you mean what he said you meant and continue to attack the strawman he constructed. One can combat this tactic in one of two ways. The first is by ignoring him. The second is by playing the game by taking something he says, twist it's meaning, and insist for the rest of the thread that's what he meant. Option 1 is the easiest approach. However, option 2 can be quite fun and rewarding provided you have the time to play the game.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Option 1 is the easiest approach. However, option 2 can be quite fun and rewarding provided you have the time to play the game.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0