quote:I'm told it need to be a majority (possibly 3/4 to indict) and the grand jury was 9 white to 3 black. I'm also told, however, that the jury is largely an irrelevance to a process led and controlled by the prosecutor - the prosecutor can get an indictment for pretty much anyone (proverbially up to and including a ham sandwich) but police officers are very rarely indicted.
Originally posted by Prester John:
How are grand jury verdicts decided? Do they have to be unanimous or is it a majority vote? If it is the latter I would be very curious to know the racial breakdown of that vote.
![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
quote:I would expect such a decision to be made in open court with the prosecutor doing their best to seek a conviction while the defence does their best to seek an acquittal. I find it very hard to believe that the case was so open and shut that there could be no charges - which is what the grand jury (or more realistically the prosecutor) has apparently decided. Given the prosecutor's strong ties to the police it is not out of line to suggest some degree of bias at play here.
Originally posted by orfeo:
I'm less distrubed by the grand jury decision than by the general assumption that it must be wrong.
Killing and murder are regularly treated as synonyms. They're not.
quote:This is true.
Impressions are not facts, But most people riot based on impressions and beliefs, not facts. Governments are brought down based more on belief than fact.
quote:Killing could be accidental. That could be incompetence on the part of a surgeon that results in a patient's death.
Originally posted by orfeo:
I'm less distrubed by the grand jury decision than by the general assumption that it must be wrong.
Killing and murder are regularly treated as synonyms. They're not.
![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
quote:I have neither the time nor the energy to explain to you in detail why this reasoning is completely wrong. Suffice to say that it displays no concept of the need for particular forms of knowledge and/or intention nor the existence of defences that excuse a killing. Nor does it contain any acknowledgment that this unarmed teenager appears to have caused injuries, nor the conflicting evidence as to just what his movements were in the seconds before his death.
Originally posted by Sipech:
quote:Killing could be accidental. That could be incompetence on the part of a surgeon that results in a patient's death.
Originally posted by orfeo:
I'm less distrubed by the grand jury decision than by the general assumption that it must be wrong.
Killing and murder are regularly treated as synonyms. They're not.
Murder is deliberate. An example would be aiming a firearm at an unarmed teenager and discharging the weapon half a dozen times.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
quote:Did I read this right? 67% of the population is black, yet 75% of the Grand Jury was white?
Originally posted by Boogie:
Yep - when 67% of the population of a city is black yet most of the leaders and police are white this rings true
quote:This is very true. And in fact I'd go so far as to say trying to make the individualized system of justice address such things is fundamentally wrong. No individual policeman should be answerable for the ongoing story of poor treatment of African-Americans. Other methods need to be found to deal with it.
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Group rights, grievances and history of maltreatment isn't answered nor addressed in a individualized system of justice.
quote:As of the last census, Ferguson was 67% African-American. The grand jury came from all over St. Louis County which is 73% white. So, the makeup of the grand jury reflected the demographics of St. Louis County.
originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Did I read this right? 67% of the population is black, yet 75% of the Grand Jury was white?
quote:The county attorney didn't present the evidence to the grand jury and he could have declined to prosecute based on lack of evidence. Instead, he county attorney presented all of the evidence to the grand jury. The grand jury made the decision not to indict. The prosecutors weren't in the room when the decision was made. Normally, grand juries indict but normally prosecutors only present cases to a grand jury they believe they can win at trial.
originally posted by Penny S:
In the comments under Cohen, it is stated that the prosecutor comes from a family of police, and his father, one of those policemen, was killed by an African-American.
It doesn't look as squeaky clean as it should, even if he bent over backwards to be unbiassed.
quote:I cannot see how the sensitivity of the situation has anything to do with the quality of the evidence. It has to do with demographics and identity.
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Given the sensitivity of the situation, which indicates that it is very hard to get a clear and defined truth, there seems like a good case to be answered as to what actually happened. The officer does appear to have a case to answer.
quote:This.
Originally posted by orfeo:
I'm less distrubed by the grand jury decision than by the general assumption that it must be wrong.
Killing and murder are regularly treated as synonyms. They're not.
quote:Good context - but it doesn't change the simple fact that no one here, or in the vast majority of America (or anywhere else) knows exactly what happened that day. Nor have any of us seen all of the evidence.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
For hundreds of years, people of African ancestry have been treated horribly here. Some of the manifestations have changed, but it's still awful. And much of that involves bad encounters with law enforcement and the judicial system. Cases like this one happen frequently, AIUI, and aren't appropriately dealt with. So there are the horrors of each individual case, plus cumulative recent injustice, plus injustice going all the way back to slavery.
That's the context. That's why people are inclined to think this was wrongful killing and wrongly handled.
quote:Without having seen all of the evidence, it appears the grand jury (who did) felt that no case to answer exists. As Orfeo pointed out above, killing does not necessarily equal murder; if the killing was justifiable under MO law, no case exists.
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
I think the decision was wrong because, as I understand it, the Grand Jury is there to decide whether there is a case to answer. From what I have seen, there is a case to answer - which doesn't mean that the officer is guilty. It means that there is sufficient evidence to indicate he might be guilty.
quote:Exactly. All tigers are cats. Not all cats are tigers.
Originally posted by Moo:
It is vital that the judge release the grand jury report so that people can understand why they reached the decision they did.
I am not denying that police brutality against blacks happens. However, the fact that it happens does not mean that all allegations are true.
quote:I'm given to understand that all the evidence presented in the case has been made public.
Originally posted by jbohn:
Good context - but it doesn't change the simple fact that no one here, or in the vast majority of America (or anywhere else) knows exactly what happened that day. Nor have any of us seen all of the evidence.
quote:Isn't this the problem "Other methods need to be found to deal with it."? No one wants the group mediation, restoration of relationships/non-relationships and emotional defusing, that would require give and take on all sides. Truth and Reconciliation Commissions models look clumsy when I've seen them in operation (in Canada regarding Indian Residential Schools), but apparently they do much for the airing of group grievances. The history of race relationships seems to cast a very, very long shadow in the USA.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:This is very true. And in fact I'd go so far as to say trying to make the individualized system of justice address such things is fundamentally wrong. No individual policeman should be answerable for the ongoing story of poor treatment of African-Americans. Other methods need to be found to deal with it.
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Group rights, grievances and history of maltreatment isn't answered nor addressed in a individualized system of justice.
quote:I wasn't aware it had actually been released - the last reports I saw suggested that the court hadn't actually agreed to do so, despite McCullough's pronouncement at his press conference.
Originally posted by mousethief:
I'm given to understand that all the evidence presented in the case has been made public.
quote:While I can appreciate your point here, the problem is that the law doesn't work that way - it handles the individual case, not the sum of all cases in aggregation.
Originally posted by mousethief:
The problem is that no one tile in the mosaic is the pattern. But the problem is the pattern. The pattern says that cops kill black young men with impunity. And every time we see lack of punity, it reinforces our perception of the pattern.
quote:I wonder how many of the arsonists, looters and rioters actually live in Ferguson.
Originally posted by jbohn:
how stupid does one have to be to think that burning down the neighborhood one lives in will get them what they want?
quote:Or in shorter version: Why do these unarmed black men keep shooting themselves?
Originally posted by orfeo:
Third, this issue does not just arise in a racial context. I see it everywhere. I've seen it in my own city. There is a simple reasoning process that I see repeatedly: that someone died, and the death was tragic, so therefore the death must be someone's fault.
This reasoning process is rarely articulated, but it is present over and over again. "Fault" isn't even always criminal. Sometimes it's about suing. Just last week, our High Court decided a case where a mentally ill man killed his friend after being discharged from hospital, and the deceased's relatives were trying to sue the hospital. They lost. The hospital did not owe the kind of duty necessary for the suit to be successful.
It is entirely possible for someone to be responsible for a senseless, tragic death. But that responsibility requires proof. It is also entirely possible for a senseless, tragic death to occur for which no particular person is to blame, or for which the dead person is just as much to blame as anyone else. The reason I get so uncomfortable about these cases is that the latter possibilities never seem to be where the majority opinion ends up. The finger always points somewhere.
quote:Good question. But it's a pattern we've seen time and again - in Detroit, in Los Angeles, etc.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:I wonder how many of the arsonists, looters and rioters actually live in Ferguson.
Originally posted by jbohn:
how stupid does one have to be to think that burning down the neighborhood one lives in will get them what they want?
quote:He may have heard something on his police radio that was meant for another policeman. Here is a surveillance video of the convenience store robbery. This video makes me wonder just how gentle and harmless Brown was.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The interesting thing to me is Wilson claims to have been suspicious of Brown because his knowledge of an earlier robbery where cigarillos were stolen, yet prior statements by the Ferguson Police Department claimed Wilson did not know about that robbery. It's an interesting disparity.
quote:Really? It seems to me that every time a white officer kills a black person there is all kinds of recrimination. I don't ever remember seeing rioting in the streets when a white or black officer killed a white youth.
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
The shooting of a 12YO for waving a toy gun around yesterday tells me that there is something very wrong there, and maybe an indictment would have signaled a change. As it is, it SEEMS like white officers can kill black youths without fear of recrimination.
quote:That was essentially his testimony before the grand jury, which begs the question of why the Ferguson Police Department made a point earlier of maintaining that Wilson knew nothing about the robbery. That statement was a few days after the shooting, so they certainly should have interviewed Wilson at that point. So why the information disconnect? Did Wilson say something different to his superiors than he did to the grand jury, or did he make the same statement but his superiors felt the need to alter it for public consumption?
Originally posted by Moo:
He may have heard something on his police radio that was meant for another policeman.
quote:Which points to a good part of the issue being one of group relations with specific shootings or incidents only being a occurrence on the long path of troubles. I am reminded of the story Jared Diamond tells in one of his books about a child who darted out in front of a car in New Guinea and was killed. The fault was clearly the child's, but the resolution involved the families of the driver and child going to tribal-like mediation and exchange of information, emotions, food and money. None of it had anything to do with guilt or culpability. Rather restoration of relationship and prevention of violence between the groups, which in that case, like Ferguson case, didn't know each other before the incident.
Originally posted by Twilight:
]Really? It seems to me that every time a white officer kills a black person there is all kinds of recrimination. I don't ever remember seeing rioting in the streets when a white or black officer killed a white youth.
quote:I've lived thru two rounds of L.A. riots and the charge of "outside agitators" simply doesn't hold water. Similarly, I haven't seen any assessment of what happened last night of course, but in the early Ferguson unrest virtually all arrests of outsiders were of journalists-- including my son-in-law.
Originally posted by jbohn:
quote:Good question. But it's a pattern we've seen time and again - in Detroit, in Los Angeles, etc.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:I wonder how many of the arsonists, looters and rioters actually live in Ferguson.
Originally posted by jbohn:
how stupid does one have to be to think that burning down the neighborhood one lives in will get them what they want?
quote:That's pretty much what I was getting at - in this individual case, it may involve outsiders (although, from Twilight's post, apparently not), but the general trend is local residents burning down their own neighborhood(s) to protest perceived injustice. Which makes about as much sense as showering in a raincoat.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:I've lived thru two rounds of L.A. riots and the charge of "outside agitators" simply doesn't hold water. Similarly, I haven't seen any assessment of what happened last night of course, but in the early Ferguson unrest virtually all arrests of outsiders were of journalists-- including my son-in-law.
Originally posted by jbohn:
quote:Good question. But it's a pattern we've seen time and again - in Detroit, in Los Angeles, etc.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:I wonder how many of the arsonists, looters and rioters actually live in Ferguson.
Originally posted by jbohn:
how stupid does one have to be to think that burning down the neighborhood one lives in will get them what they want?
edit: see Twilight's post re last night's arrests.
quote:Really from Ferguson or just folks saying they're from Ferguson?
Originally posted by Twilight:
I just heard them say that of the 62 people arrested in Ferguson last night, 60 were from Ferguson.
quote:Is reconciliation and restorative justice simply out of the question?
how New Guineans resolve the death of a child who is killed in a traffic accident outside of a court system.
Within five days of the boy's death the family and the driver's employer had come to an agreement on how to make good through a compensation ceremony. The process included the employer and his staff participating in a formal mourning ceremony, giving the family food and a small amount of money to "say sorry".
"In traditional societies, such as New Guinea, the emphasis is not on punishment or deterrence, the emphasis is on emotional reconciliation,"
quote:I don't know that it's even possible to begin a process with people willing to assault journalists and burn down businesses completely unrelated to what they're supposedly upset about.
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Is reconciliation and restorative justice simply out of the question?
quote:A good first step would be the media to stop calling the rioting "protests," and the end of excuse making articles like this.
Originally posted by jbohn:
quote:I don't know that it's even possible to begin a process with people willing to assault journalists and burn down businesses completely unrelated to what they're supposedly upset about.
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Is reconciliation and restorative justice simply out of the question?
quote:OK, I apologize for the posts not being more nuanced.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
ETA: Byron, I am this close to calling you to hell. Please reconsider your tone when speaking about this highly complex and emotionally charged situation.
quote:This is pretty much my impression, from the available evidence.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
The two autopsy reports seem to confirm that Michael Brown was not in a "hands up I surrender" pose when the fatal shots hit him. The video Moo linked appears to shows Michael Brown as both very large and intimidating. Like Croesos I'm a bit puzzled by the discrepancy over knowledge of the theft. I read Officer Wilson's testimony. It felt a bit rehearsed but the detailed description of Michael Brown's behaviour seemed pretty consistent with both the autopsy findings and the behaviour we saw briefly in the video.
The impression of an Officer overawed, surprised by initial aggression, and a bit out of his depth seems pretty consistent with his levels of experience, particularly in the use of firearms in real conflict. It is a little puzzling that he pursued Michael Brown rather than wait for the backup he requested, but maybe he felt he had regained some measure of control. Then got surprised again by a further aggressive move towards him. A contrived testimony? I didn't form that impression.
I think he could legitimately have said nothing, reserved his defence, in case he was indicted. Not quite sure what to make of that. At any rate, he seems to have been, substantially, believed by the Grand Jury. I haven't read anything yet which suggests that is unreasonable.
But that's just a bit of skimming, really.
quote:True, as far as it goes. But unless and until the "moderate" folks in the crowd are willing to stand up to the ones doing the looting and burning, the reality is that no real discussion can take place amidst the ongoing violence.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
people, these are not a unit block. These are human beings. Some are fuckwits. Some are decent people. Some have been wronged. Some are wronging others. Trying to deal with a bunch of individuals as if they were all exactly the same is ... basically going to set us up for further problems.
quote:Some folks are protesting. Others are rioting. It gets complicated by the fact that they're doing it at the same time, in the same space. The media does a horseshit job of differentiating the two. Which makes sense if one thinks about their aim - ratings.
Originally posted by Byron:
A good first step would be the media to stop calling the rioting "protests"
quote:This I generally agree with - but there's more to it than that, I think. We do need to genuinely deal with the fact that people have been mistreated, and that some still are. We also need to deal with the fact that the violence being seen here will get the perpetrators precisely nowhere - violence isn't a given, it's a choice, and treating people as if they can't possibly do anything else is ridiculous.
Originally posted by Byron:
The U.S. has yet to heal centuries of institutional racism, but healing won't start until all citizens are treated with the dignity of high expectations. Making excuses for arson and violence infantilizes. It is, in its own way, deeply racist.
quote:Thank you. I doubt any non-idiot would deny that there are ongoing effects from racism--that's pretty much a given here--but the individual reasons for people joining these particular protests, as well as the kind of protesting they do, will vary greatly.
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:OK, I apologize for the posts not being more nuanced.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
ETA: Byron, I am this close to calling you to hell. Please reconsider your tone when speaking about this highly complex and emotionally charged situation.
I don't for a second deny or downplay the history of white supremacy or its ongoing effects, first and foremost the appalling numbers in prison.
I feel so strongly about the issues I raised precisely because they're a roadblock to finally confronting and beginning to heal it.
quote:Yup, exactly, you put it a lot better than me, thanks.
Originally posted by jbohn:
Some folks are protesting. Others are rioting. It gets complicated by the fact that they're doing it at the same time, in the same space. The media does a horseshit job of differentiating the two. Which makes sense if one thinks about their aim - ratings.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:Again, my point worded better. Thanks.
This I generally agree with - but there's more to it than that, I think. We do need to genuinely deal with the fact that people have been mistreated, and that some still are. We also need to deal with the fact that the violence being seen here will get the perpetrators precisely nowhere - violence isn't a given, it's a choice, and treating people as if they can't possibly do anything else is ridiculous.
quote:Can I apologise and say that I feel ashamed by that article. A headline in a newspaper that starts off,
Originally posted by Byron:
A good first step would be the media to stop calling the rioting "protests," and the end of excuse making articles like this. ...
quote:is self evidently rubbish. Whatever happened in an obscure industrial suburb of a not particularly well known town in the Mid-West on 9th August 2014, anyone who says this is the President's personal fault and responsibility is taking a felt pen and writing 'I am a tw*t' across his own forehead.
Obama failed Ferguson.
quote:It felt a bit contrived to me, especially the way Wilson kept coming back to his own state of mind, which would have been a hugely relevant factor under had charges been laid. Wilson is almost the textbook example of a self-interested witness so some of that may be unavoidable.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I read Officer Wilson's testimony. It felt a bit rehearsed but the detailed description of Michael Brown's behaviour seemed pretty consistent with both the autopsy findings and the behaviour we saw briefly in the video.
. . . A contrived testimony? I didn't form that impression.
quote:It also doesn't help that out of 50+ officers with the Ferguson Police Department, I think 3 are black.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:Did I read this right? 67% of the population is black, yet 75% of the Grand Jury was white?
Originally posted by Boogie:
Yep - when 67% of the population of a city is black yet most of the leaders and police are white this rings true
Irrespective of the legitimacy or even the relevance of Grand Juries (which sound a bit like our old Star Chamber) while I wouldn't expect precise proportionality, something close might persuade the policed that the police act impartially.
quote:There is an ongoing federal investigation as to whether Officer Wilson violated Michael Brown's civil rights. This goes back to battles over segregation where state prosecutors often didn't charge and state juries never convicted Klansmen. Separate charges in federal court were a way to serve justice against those untouchable within the state criminal system.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
As a matter of US law, following this particular finding, is there any possibility of a second Grand Jury hearing in the light of fresh evidence? Or is that it, so far as Officer Wilson is concerned?
quote:As I understand it, no charges were filed, so no jeopardy attaches - it should, theoretically, be able to be reopened at a late date, if fresh evidence were found. IANAL, however.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
As a matter of US law, following this particular finding, is there any possibility of a second Grand Jury hearing in the light of fresh evidence? Or is that it, so far as Officer Wilson is concerned?
quote:Thanks, that's very illuminating.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:There is an ongoing federal investigation as to whether Officer Wilson violated Michael Brown's civil rights. This goes back to battles over segregation where state prosecutors often didn't charge and state juries never convicted Klansmen. Separate charges in federal court were a way to serve justice against those untouchable within the state criminal system.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
As a matter of US law, following this particular finding, is there any possibility of a second Grand Jury hearing in the light of fresh evidence? Or is that it, so far as Officer Wilson is concerned?
There's also the possibility of Officer Wilson being sued in civil court by Michael Brown's surviving family. A similar tactic was used against O.J. Simpson by the Brown (no relation) and Goldman families. In Wilson's case this seems unlikely due to the qualified immunity extended to law officers, rendering them not liable to civil judgement for actions carried out in the official performance of their duties.
quote:They're available here.
Originally posted by Byron:
I hope the transcripts get released quickly.
quote:I didn't use the word "accident". I'm not going to walk through logic towards a conclusion I didn't actually make.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Or in shorter version: Why do these unarmed black men keep shooting themselves?
Originally posted by orfeo:
Third, this issue does not just arise in a racial context. I see it everywhere. I've seen it in my own city. There is a simple reasoning process that I see repeatedly: that someone died, and the death was tragic, so therefore the death must be someone's fault.
This reasoning process is rarely articulated, but it is present over and over again. "Fault" isn't even always criminal. Sometimes it's about suing. Just last week, our High Court decided a case where a mentally ill man killed his friend after being discharged from hospital, and the deceased's relatives were trying to sue the hospital. They lost. The hospital did not owe the kind of duty necessary for the suit to be successful.
It is entirely possible for someone to be responsible for a senseless, tragic death. But that responsibility requires proof. It is also entirely possible for a senseless, tragic death to occur for which no particular person is to blame, or for which the dead person is just as much to blame as anyone else. The reason I get so uncomfortable about these cases is that the latter possibilities never seem to be where the majority opinion ends up. The finger always points somewhere.
The usual standard for firearms training is that you don't point a gun at anything you don't want to shoot. I'm not sure exactly how you get to the idea that deliberately shooting someone six times at distance is one of those accidental things that just happen. Can you walk me through the logic there? I'm not necessarily saying that there's always criminal liability in such an act, but to paint it as an accident with no human actors or fault involved seems a huge stretch.
quote:No, don't think so. First, there is a historical race relations problem in the USA, unresolved and festering, casting a shadow even on the ship, where we have a thread reviewing your current president in the context of his race, jokingly (I think) referred to as Hawaiian in the OP. In which specific issues like the Ferguson shooting, Florida shooting, Rodney King verdict, school and bus integration, and many others, are stopping points on the time line.
Originally posted by Lawrence:
First, [....]
quote:I'm fast coming around to the view that some kind of reparations should be attempted. I know how wicked hard it'd be to decide how it's allocated and spent, but things can't go on as they are.
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
[...] Can it really be forgotten that slavery and post-slavery racism are the roots of this all? And that it all casts the largest shadow?
quote:Designed as such.
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Grand juries are actually designed not to find guilt but to prevent prosecutorial overreach. They are to look at the evidence the prosecution has to determine if the prosecutor can go forward with an indictment.
quote:Where did you hear that?
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
From what I hear, they chose to hear this much information by themselves, not at anybody's request.
quote:
But the goal of criminal law is to be fair — to treat similarly situated people similarly — as well as to reach just results. McCulloch gave Wilson’s case special treatment. He turned it over to the grand jury, a rarity itself, and then used the investigation as a document dump, an approach that is virtually without precedent in the law of Missouri or anywhere else. Buried underneath every scrap of evidence McCulloch could find, the grand jury threw up its hands and said that a crime could not be proved. This is the opposite of the customary ham-sandwich approach, in which the jurors are explicitly steered to the prosecutor’s preferred conclusion. Some might suggest that all cases should be treated the way McCulloch handled Wilson before the grand jury, with a full-fledged mini-trial of all the incriminating and exculpatory evidence presented at this preliminary stage. Of course, the cost of such an approach, in both time and money, would be prohibitive, and there is no guarantee that the ultimate resolutions of most cases would be any more just. In any event, reserving this kind of special treatment for white police officers charged with killing black suspects cannot be an appropriate resolution.
quote:In response to protests, the original decision not to proceed was overturned, the local grand jury bypassed, and the case aggressively prosecuted at trial. After all that, a jury acquitted. What more could've been done?
Originally posted by malik3000:
... Trayvon Martin, ...
quote:A 70 lb weight difference isn't a small factor, but I agree it doesn't really justify the "5 year old" comment. Mind you, the officer was sitting in the car during the first confrontation.
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Here's how Officer Wilson grossly mischaracterized
the size differential:
"The only way I can describe it is I felt like a 5-year-old holding on to Hulk Hogan."
I see nothing in the respective physical attributes cited above that justifies such a description. It sounds to me like a very clever exculpatory statement - the kind of thing dreamed up by skilled attorneys and rehearsed with their clients.
quote:
Does everyone fail to acknowledge that Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson wanted this video released in accordance and compliance with the Sunshine Law? Anybody? Anybody at all?
quote:Bingo.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
The facts of the shooting clearly don't matter nearly as much as the fact of the shooting.
And that is tragic.
quote:It is hyperbole, because it assumes that "justice" would be a conviction of their killers. It says that Trayvon Martin was an innocent kid, not someone who was banging a man's head into the ground.
Originally posted by malik3000:
This all simply demonstrates that when it is said that there is no justice for young Black men, this is not hyperbole, it is cold fact. Ahmadou Diallo, Trayvon Martin, the list keeps growing and growing, year after year, decade after decade, century after century.
quote:And how, exactly, does this author know that the grand jury "threw up its hands"?
Originally posted by Crœsos:
A contrary view:
quote:
... Buried underneath every scrap of evidence McCulloch could find, the grand jury threw up its hands and said that a crime could not be proved
quote:Are you saying that there is an option to bypass the grand jury process?
Originally posted by ldjjd:
In this case, he chose to shift this responsibility to a grand jury.
quote:That doesn't sound to me as if there's something terribly unusual about asking a grand jury to consider probable cause. If they don't, then a judge will. It's simply not correct to portray this as the prosecutor abdicating the decision, because on neither route is it the prosecutor's call whether a matter gets as far as trial.
All felony charges must be presented for consideration either by the Grand Jury or by an associate circuit judge at a preliminary examination, and a little less than half of the cases prosecuted in St. Louis County are presented to the Grand Jury.
quote:From law professor Gabriel Chin, in an article by Jonathan Cohn:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Are you saying that there is an option to bypass the grand jury process?
Originally posted by ldjjd:
In this case, he chose to shift this responsibility to a grand jury.
quote:
If the prosecutor had wanted to bring charges, he could have proceeded by filing an information charging the officer with an offense, which would have resulted in a preliminary hearing before a judge who would have determined whether probable cause existed.
quote:I think you're misinterpreting the charge of "abdication" - it refers to a decision that is made before any consideration by a grand jury or a judge. According to the American Bar Association "The decision to institute criminal proceedings should be initially and primarily the responsibility of the prosecutor." Standard 3-3.9 describes the considerable discretion that a prosecutor has in choosing whether or not to bring charges.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Okay, here is what I found for St Louis County:
quote:That doesn't sound to me as if there's something terribly unusual about asking a grand jury to consider probable cause. If they don't, then a judge will. It's simply not correct to portray this as the prosecutor abdicating the decision, because on neither route is it the prosecutor's call whether a matter gets as far as trial.
All felony charges must be presented for consideration either by the Grand Jury or by an associate circuit judge at a preliminary examination, and a little less than half of the cases prosecuted in St. Louis County are presented to the Grand Jury.
quote:Sorry, Doublethink, but even without knowing the facts, I don't think I can agree with you. I know this is debated as being about race, but as a foreigner to the debate, I can't help thinking there's another elephant in this particular room.
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Even if you accept the police officer's testimony as the unvarnished truth, I don't see that it would mean he had no criminal liability. Moreover, I would have thought that level of incompetence would lead to some level of internal process.
quote:Has anyone told us it won't, though?
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Moreover, I would have thought that level of incompetence would lead to some level of internal process.
quote:Spot on! And especially so when added to a racial dimension where black men are seen as having a high homicidal tendency. Gun culture + racialism = a reasonable action on the part of the police officer. In that context the policeman is also a victim. This incident is not unique and there is no reason to think it will not be repeated. That's what the USA is like, it's in the DNA.
In a culture where guns are freely available and where anybody might have one, I don't see how anyone can complain if an armed policeman shoots rather than risks his own safety - whatever the surrounding circumstances.
quote:I read some of Wilson's testimony. He said that after Brown had punched him hard in the face several times, he started feeling dizzy.
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Moreover, I would have thought that level of incompetence would lead to some level of internal process.
quote:I thought Ezra Klein's article was unbelievable. One, Michael Brown had just robbed a store so the whole gentle giant narrative just doesn't hold. Two, as a fan of college athletics, I can say that young men with bright futures do stupid stuff to jeopardize those futures all the time. Three, the alternative explanation to the on put forward by Wilson is that Wilson was trying to drag Michael Brown through the window of his car. And his plan once he got him through the window was what exactly?
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I surfed into some good articles at Vox.com.
"Officer Darren Wilson's story is unbelievable. Literally." is the linked one. The writer walks through various oddness in his story--adding that odd things *can* happen.
At the very end, there's a link to the account of the victim's friend, who was there.
quote:OK, ISTM, the general tone of the discussion is far too black and white. And, pardon me B62, I will use this as an example.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
A contrived testimony? I didn't form that impression.
quote:Thanks, dude, you're so kind. I just love having my very complex nation summed up in this dismissive way.
Originally posted by Kwesi:
That's what the USA is like, it's in the DNA. [/QB]
quote:I'll confess to not having read the whole thread, but would like to add to Moo's remarks.
Originally posted by Moo:
The policeman tells a very different story.
He says that he was driving his patrol car when he saw two men walking along in the middle of the street. He stopped his car and called out the window for them to get over to the sidewalk. One of them replied, "We're not going very far.", and they continued walking in the middle of the street.
The policeman started to open his car door and get out. Brown quickly moved next to the door so that it would not open. (Brown was 6'5" tall and weighed 289 pounds. He could easily prevent the opening of the car door. Brown then reached through the car window and punched the policeman at least once in the face. He then tried to take policeman's gun, which was in a holster. There was a struggle for the gun and two shots were fired. One lodged in the police car and the other went into Brown's hand.
Brown turned and started going away from the police car; the policeman got out of the car, and Brown turned and charged him. (Given the discrepancy in physical size, Brown could easily have overpowered the policeman and taken the gun.) The policeman started shooting.
There are several pieces of evidence that back up the policeman's story.
quote:New York is a good example of a reformed grand jury system. It's for the prosecutor overseeing it to enforce the rules of evidence (with appeal to a judge if it came up).
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Hi, Byron.
My impression is that the rules of evidence do not apply in most if not all state grand juries. That's explicitly the practice in California. Do you know offhand a few states where that is not the case?
Who would enforce those rules and who would object to their violation?
"Probable cause to believe" is simply a way of stating a low standard of proof.
The grand jurors do not have to be convinced that a crime has been committed nor is it their job to weigh conflicts in evidence or to judge the basic credibility of witnesses.
Unless there is a total or near total lack of grounds for an indictment, such matters should be left to the trial court jury where credibility can be closely argued by both sides.
Given such standards, an indictment usually results. Again, though, the situation we are discussing was most atypical.
quote:As noted upthread, NY grand juries kick 7% of indictments. It's certainly not the case that grand juries should take a punt and leave it to the trial court. If they were a rubber stamp, there'd be no point in having them.
To formally charge an accused person with a crime, 12 [out of 23] grand jurors who heard all the essential and critical evidence and also the legal instructions must agree that there is legally sufficient evidence and reasonable cause to believe that the accused person committed a crime. A grand juror who has not heard all the essential and critical evidence on a case or who has not heard the legal instructions cannot vote in that case.
quote:I thought Ezra Klein's article was unbelievable for its complete lack of comprehension of how violent situations sometimes escalate from verbal aggression (on the part of both parties) to physical violence.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I thought Ezra Klein's article was unbelievable. One, Michael Brown had just robbed a store so the whole gentle giant narrative just doesn't hold. Two, as a fan of college athletics, I can say that young men with bright futures do stupid stuff to jeopardize those futures all the time. Three, the alternative explanation to the on put forward by Wilson is that Wilson was trying to drag Michael Brown through the window of his car. And his plan once he got him through the window was what exactly?
quote:Annoyingly, not that I've been able to find.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Is there a link to the rules and guidelines for grand jury procedures in Missouri? The Wiki article on Grand Juries in the USA doesn't suggest the restriction which Idjjd states, but there seems to be federal and state law in place, and a fair bit of state-to-state variation.
quote:It suggests that the prosecutor has pretty broad latitude in interpreting "make inquiry". It hardly seems likely that the prosecutor exceeded the formal powers, given the seriousness and high profile.
Duties of grand jury.
540.031. A grand jury may make inquiry into and return indictments for all grades of crimes and shall make inquiry into all possible violations of the criminal laws as the court may direct. The grand jury may examine public buildings and report on their conditions.
quote:Ok series of questions, based on this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-30189966
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:Sorry, Doublethink, but even without knowing the facts, I don't think I can agree with you. I know this is debated as being about race, but as a foreigner to the debate, I can't help thinking there's another elephant in this particular room.
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Even if you accept the police officer's testimony as the unvarnished truth, I don't see that it would mean he had no criminal liability. Moreover, I would have thought that level of incompetence would lead to some level of internal process.
In a culture where guns are freely available and where anybody might have one, I don't see how anyone can complain if an armed policeman shoots rather than risks his own safety - whatever the surrounding circumstances.
If every random person might be armed, particularly a threatening and aggressive person, the casual citizen getting shot by the police is a price society has to accept. That's the cost, irrespective of whether the casual citizen happens to be black, a 12 year old child or whatever.
quote:Which shipmates? Care to name them and show where they've said that? Do you honestly think anyone on this thread actually thinks anything resembling that?
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
the 18 year old victim. Who it seems to some people in this thread to deserve the Death penalty by summary execution for stealing cigarettes and jaywalking.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
quote:According to the news I hear, it was a BB gun, and the tell-tale orange cap at the tip of the muzzle to identify a toy was nowhere in evidence. A BB gun is not a toy. It can kill small animals and, if aimed at a choice spot, maim a person. IMHO, a city boy has no business carrying one. Whoever in this unfortunate 12-year-old's life allowed him to possess it was falling down on the job. "Live by the sword, die by the sword..." maybe word will get out.
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
Interesting that when a black 12 year old plays with a toy gun he gets killed.
quote:I believe shooting at Mr Brown, before there was any reason to believe he had a gun, by the policeman's own account, would constitute a crime in and of itself, effectively attempted murder or attempted culpable homicide - especially when he was moving away from the officer on foot. Arguably, if the officer was shooting at Brown and he feared for his life - the officer's account would be consistent with Mr Brown dying trying to defend himself.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
What was Michael Brown doing when the police officer fired the fatal shots? So far as a murder indictment is concerned, that's crucial. On that point, the autopsies back up the officer"s testimony. They do not support Dorian Johnson's.
On the struggle around the car, the forensic evidence supports the officer's testimony more than it supports Dorian Johnson.
What Amanda says about other eye witness testimony is spot on. Particularly since the second independent autopsy didn't contradict the major bullet trajectory findings of the first.
Nobody is arguing that the police officer always behaved properly, sensibly or in accordance with best practice. Heck, it doesn't look to me that he did either. The issue before the grand jury was whether there was probable cause to believe his behaviour was criminal.
quote:He chose not to carry a taser because it was too bulky on his utility belt, he could not get to his baton because he was sitting on it and he believed Brown was too close to him to mace him without it getting back on him and disabling himself, leaving him vulnerable to Brown's attack. That is what he testified to.
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I am unclear why the police officer felt he had no other options other than his gun all throigh the encounter, did he not carry a a baton, a taser, pepper spray, nothing but a gun ?
quote:I read a little bit of Wilson's grand jury testimony. He said that cars had to swerve around the men walking in the street.
Originally posted by Porridge:
Assume for the moment that Wilson did not know of the robbery.
1. Would he have ordered a couple of white kids to get on the sidewalk?
quote:Yes
originally posted by Porridge:
1. Would he have ordered a couple of white kids to get on the sidewalk?
quote:Likely
originally posted by Porridge:
2. Would he have done so in the same manner -- language, vocal tone, volume -- as with the black kids?
quote:The vast majority would. When I was a white kid, I always complied when a police officer told me to stop doing what I was supposed to be doing. Why wouldn't I? At the very minimum, the officer could give me a ticket.
originally posted by Porridge:
1. Would two white kids (with possibly no, or at least less, local history of bad blood between residents & cops) have complied with such an order if issued?
quote:You might believe that. I suspect we'd have a hard time finding an American jury that sees a problem with firing at a fleeing suspect in a robbery.
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I believe shooting at Mr Brown, before there was any reason to believe he had a gun, by the policeman's own account, would constitute a crime in and of itself, effectively attempted murder or attempted culpable homicide - especially when he was moving away from the officer on foot.
quote:Well what about Pooks?
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
quote:Which shipmates? Care to name them and show where they've said that? Do you honestly think anyone on this thread actually thinks anything resembling that?
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
the 18 year old victim. Who it seems to some people in this thread to deserve the Death penalty by summary execution for stealing cigarettes and jaywalking.
quote:
Originally posted by Pooks:
On a slight tangent but related to this story. Having stayed most of the night watching CNN's coverage of the verdict and the subsequent rioting, I must say I was rather bemused by one of the 'expert' commentators who said that burning down a store and looting others is not the way to honour Michael Brown's memory. I thought to myself did he really say that with a straight face? Given Michael Brown just robbed a store himself and shoved the store keeper with force not long before he died, looting seems exactly the right way, if somewhat perversely, the way to 'honour' him.
quote:That strikes me a as problem, life is more important than property.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:You might believe that. I suspect we'd have a hard time finding an American jury that sees a problem with firing at a fleeing suspect in a robbery.
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I believe shooting at Mr Brown, before there was any reason to believe he had a gun, by the policeman's own account, would constitute a crime in and of itself, effectively attempted murder or attempted culpable homicide - especially when he was moving away from the officer on foot.
quote:Concievably, we could believe that if officers were required to carry an effective non-lethal weapon, they would be less likely to use a lethal one. And who the hell sits on their baton ? Do they not train these police officers at all ? If he had never drawn his gun, he'd never been in any danger of Brown shooting him with it. His own actions did not make him safer.
Originally posted by Lawrence:
quote:He chose not to carry a taser because it was too bulky on his utility belt, he could not get to his baton because he was sitting on it and he believed Brown was too close to him to mace him without it getting back on him and disabling himself, leaving him vulnerable to Brown's attack. That is what he testified to.
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I am unclear why the police officer felt he had no other options other than his gun all throigh the encounter, did he not carry a a baton, a taser, pepper spray, nothing but a gun ?
quote:So you want to ignore the part about the white person with an loaded assault rifle in an Airport
Originally posted by Alogon:
quote:According to the news I hear, it was a BB gun, and the tell-tale orange cap at the tip of the muzzle to identify a toy was nowhere in evidence. A BB gun is not a toy. It can kill small animals and, if aimed at a choice spot, maim a person. IMHO, a city boy has no business carrying one. Whoever in this unfortunate 12-year-old's life allowed him to possess it was falling down on the job. "Live by the sword, die by the sword..." maybe word will get out.
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
Interesting that when a black 12 year old plays with a toy gun he gets killed.
I certainly don't want to excuse the trigger-happy rookie cop who jumped to fatal conclusions, nor the 911 dispatcher who failed to transmit the caution of the original caller (who said it might be a toy gun). But I don't envy, either, the lot of those whose job puts them in harm's way every day. Does anyone commenting here actually have experience in this line of work? Those who make these stories all about race ignore an elephant in the room: dysfunctional families, beleaguered school systems, and drug habits. Ferguson et al. will never prosper until these problems are addressed.
![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
quote:Aside from that, given the fact that Brown weighed almost three hundred pounds, there is no way he could fit through the car window.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Three, the alternative explanation to the one put forward by Wilson is that Wilson was trying to drag Michael Brown through the window of his car. And his plan once he got him through the window was what exactly?
quote:It is in the BBC description of his testimony I cited above.
Originally posted by orfeo:
I'd also be interested in where there is evidence that any of the shots were fired while Brown was moving away. Certainly not in the description of Wilson's testimony in that Washington Post article.
quote:Actually, I would have the same view if the person who was killed in this case was white. To me it's the sentimentality of 'honouring' a robber that mystifies me. I also have no love for the American style of policing and gun culture. In fact I was extremely upset about the death of Michael Brown when I first saw the news of his death. That changed when I saw the CCTV footage and later learnt of his altercation with the police prior to the shooting. As far as I am concerned, the victim was the shop keeper and nobody was speaking up for him.
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
The post about celebrating the death of an 18 year old with looting and burning was probably the most revealing one.
quote:Again, is there evidence that Wilson had drawn his gun? The bit of Wilson's testimony in the Washington Post article is "the gun goes down into my hip". Isn't that where a gun is holstered? If Wilson has the gun drawn, what is it doing down at his hip?
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
If he had never drawn his gun, he'd never been in any danger of Brown shooting him with it.
quote:Quote please. Because I haven't spotted it yet.
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
quote:It is in the BBC description of his testimony I cited above.
Originally posted by orfeo:
I'd also be interested in where there is evidence that any of the shots were fired while Brown was moving away. Certainly not in the description of Wilson's testimony in that Washington Post article.
quote:Going to retract this one, because the transcript does say he drew his gun. Difference in choices of quote between the BBC and the Washington Post.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Again, is there evidence that Wilson had drawn his gun? The bit of Wilson's testimony in the Washington Post article is "the gun goes down into my hip". Isn't that where a gun is holstered? If Wilson has the gun drawn, what is it doing down at his hip?
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
If he had never drawn his gun, he'd never been in any danger of Brown shooting him with it.
quote:What about Pooks? She was bemused by the law expert's comment that one should 'honour' a robber. Then went on to illustrate the absurdity of what that honouring would look like based on the commonly used notion that you 'honour' someone by doing what he would have done himself if he were alive. What I have written was not 'celebrating' as you have put it in your previous post, nor was it the same as saying Michael Brown 'deserve the Death penalty by summary execution for stealing cigarettes and jaywalking.' It's regrettable that you can not see the difference.
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
quote:Well what about Pooks?
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
quote:Which shipmates? Care to name them and show where they've said that? Do you honestly think anyone on this thread actually thinks anything resembling that?
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
the 18 year old victim. Who it seems to some people in this thread to deserve the Death penalty by summary execution for stealing cigarettes and jaywalking.
quote:
Originally posted by Pooks:
On a slight tangent but related to this story. Having stayed most of the night watching CNN's coverage of the verdict and the subsequent rioting, I must say I was rather bemused by one of the 'expert' commentators who said that burning down a store and looting others is not the way to honour Michael Brown's memory. I thought to myself did he really say that with a straight face? Given Michael Brown just robbed a store himself and shoved the store keeper with force not long before he died, looting seems exactly the right way, if somewhat perversely, the way to 'honour' him.
quote:Where did Pooks' post say anything about Michael Brown deserving a summary execution? Pooks was questioning Michael Brown's behaviour. The post said nothing about any punishment that he deserved for that behaviour.
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
quote:Well what about Pooks?
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
quote:Which shipmates? Care to name them and show where they've said that? Do you honestly think anyone on this thread actually thinks anything resembling that?
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
the 18 year old victim. Who it seems to some people in this thread to deserve the Death penalty by summary execution for stealing cigarettes and jaywalking.
quote:
Originally posted by Pooks:
On a slight tangent but related to this story. Having stayed most of the night watching CNN's coverage of the verdict and the subsequent rioting, I must say I was rather bemused by one of the 'expert' commentators who said that burning down a store and looting others is not the way to honour Michael Brown's memory. I thought to myself did he really say that with a straight face? Given Michael Brown just robbed a store himself and shoved the store keeper with force not long before he died, looting seems exactly the right way, if somewhat perversely, the way to 'honour' him.
quote:I misread this, he advanced on the car with an angry face and his hands up, so Wilson shot at him again, instead of say - reversing, driving away, or driving the car at him (which would be a lot less likely to kill the man than firing a gun at him).
Mr Brown immediately grabbed Mr Wilson's gun and said: "You are too much of a pussy to shoot me." The officer said he thought he was going to be shot when Mr Brown dug the gun into his hip.
Mr Wilson said he managed to pull the trigger and the gun "clicked" twice without firing, before a shot went through the police car door.
Mr Wilson said Mr Brown stepped back and then looked at him with the "most intense, aggressive face".
"The only way I can describe it, it looks like a demon, that's how angry he looked. He comes back towards me again with his hands up."
Mr Wilson said he covered his face and fired the gun again, firing two shots in the car before Mr Brown ran off and he followed him.
When Mr Brown stopped, Mr Wilson told him to get on the ground. He said he fired a series of shots when Mr Brown kept coming towards him and put his right hand under his shirt in the waistband of his trousers.
quote:Surely a big part of this dynamic is guns. Police are armed, and an aggressive citizen could well be armed too. Guns are a big part of the problem. But they're there, so they're part of the story. In terms of what goes through one's head if someone is charging at them - I can imagine that the difference of whether they've got a gun to hand would be a big factor in how they respond. Take the gun away, and people probably think more rationally about how they respond. Give them a gun (or in fact, any weapon), and I can imagine the first instinct would be using that weapon - why take the risk by not doing so?
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I still don't understand that a police officer is unable to stop a man charging towards him without shooting him multiple times. And I do believe that this is because of training. People do charge towards police in Europe , but they seldom get shot. When someone in Iceland got shot by the police last years, it was world news because it was the first time in centuries.
In the Netherlands, people are aggressive towards the police countless times. There's a lot about that in the news. Yet the police always manages to subdue them without shooting them.
If it is true that Brown charged towards the police, then I don't care how heavy he was, the police should be trained to deal with him without shooting him. They can in other countries.
The feeling I get is that the police is unprepared for dealing with aggressive people, other than pumping them full of lead. Worse when subliminal fear of black people kicks in.
quote:It was a toy. It was an Airsoft which fires plastic pellets with insufficient force to kill anything save an insect. And they shot the boy within 2 seconds of stopping the car.
Originally posted by Alogon:
quote:According to the news I hear, it was a BB gun, and the tell-tale orange cap at the tip of the muzzle to identify a toy was nowhere in evidence. A BB gun is not a toy.
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
Interesting that when a black 12 year old plays with a toy gun he gets killed.
quote:Oh, then, the kid's death was worth it.
Originally posted by Alogon:
Whoever in this unfortunate 12-year-old's life allowed him to possess it was falling down on the job. "Live by the sword, die by the sword..." maybe word will get out.
quote:Yeah, because race is never a factor in any of that.
Originally posted by Alogon:
Those who make these stories all about race ignore an elephant in the room: dysfunctional families, beleaguered school systems, and drug habits. Ferguson et al. will never prosper until these problems are addressed.
quote:But they are intertwined to the point that they are, currently, inseparable. Nothing happens in a vacuum. The history of how the police treat black people, especially in America, will colour nearly every interaction.
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
And what's more frustrating is that those who question whether this one event is actually part of that bigger narrative are responded to as if they are questioning whether the big picture -ism is an issue or not. They are not the same questions.
quote:Sometimes, officers will even shoot someone who's in a wheelchair, as happened here in SF in 2011.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
The feeling I get is that the police is unprepared for dealing with aggressive people, other than pumping them full of lead. Worse when subliminal fear of black people kicks in.
quote:I agree completely.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I still don't understand that a police officer is unable to stop a man charging towards him without shooting him multiple times. And I do believe that this is because of training. People do charge towards police in Europe , but they seldom get shot. When someone in Iceland got shot by the police last years, it was world news because it was the first time in centuries.
In the Netherlands, people are aggressive towards the police countless times. There's a lot about that in the news. Yet the police always manages to subdue them without shooting them.
If it is true that Brown charged towards the police, then I don't care how heavy he was, the police should be trained to deal with him without shooting him. They can in other countries.
The feeling I get is that the police is unprepared for dealing with aggressive people, other than pumping them full of lead. Worse when subliminal fear of black people kicks in.
quote:The article I read said that the nutjob who likes to drink airport coffee with an AR-15 never pointed his weapon at anyone. It also claimed that it was legal for him to wander around the airport openly carrying a weapon. It would clearly be highly illegal for him to point the gun at anyone and threaten to shoot them, but there was no claim that that had happened. There were plenty of people at the airport who were scared by the mere presence of a random guy with a gun.
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
So you want to ignore the part about the white person with an loaded assault rifle in an Airport
not being charged? And certainly not shot.
quote:In criminal law? No.
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Isn't there any extra duty on a trained public servant though ?
quote:The people who were using the phrase "Honor his memory". Were doing it to promote non violence.
Originally posted by Pooks:
quote:Actually, I would have the same view if the person who was killed in this case was white. To me it's the sentimentality of 'honouring' a robber that mystifies me. I also have no love for the American style of policing and gun culture. In fact I was extremely upset about the death of Michael Brown when I first saw the news of his death. That changed when I saw the CCTV footage and later learnt of his altercation with the police prior to the shooting. As far as I am concerned, the victim was the shop keeper and nobody was speaking up for him.
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
The post about celebrating the death of an 18 year old with looting and burning was probably the most revealing one.
With regard to 'celebrating', nobody is celebrating here, but there is an ironic reaction to the notion of 'honouring' someone who robbed others. Colour doesn't come into it. So please stop importing your own prejudices into what I have written. Thank you very much.
quote:Did you read my link? The police arrested him because 2 women in the airport said that they felt threatened and that he did point the gun in their direction. They were able to peacefully arrest a person armed with a loaded automatic rifle. But other policemen spend 2 seconds before deciding they need to shoot a 12 year old?
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:The article I read said that the nutjob who likes to drink airport coffee with an AR-15 never pointed his weapon at anyone. It also claimed that it was legal for him to wander around the airport openly carrying a weapon. It would clearly be highly illegal for him to point the gun at anyone and threaten to shoot them, but there was no claim that that had happened. There were plenty of people at the airport who were scared by the mere presence of a random guy with a gun.
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
So you want to ignore the part about the white person with an loaded assault rifle in an Airport
not being charged? And certainly not shot.
Now, I don't think it's sensible to wander around airports with rifles, and I'm far from sure that it's sensible for it to be legal to wander round airports with rifles. But there's absolutely no evidence that I have seen that suggests that this guy was threatening anyone.
quote:And I don't particularly see what 'licences' have to do with it. It seems to me that both you and Doublethink are fusing together several different bits of law on different topics: the need for a licence to lawfully perform certain tasks, the duty of professionals to exercise reasonable professional care, and general criminal law about killing people.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
What Doublethink said.
If a licenced crane driver doesn't follow the procedures, causing an accident that kills someone, he may very well be guilty at least of manslaughter. I don't see how it would be any different for a licenced cop.
quote:I guess you'll always be able to find a word in my argument you disagree with. I'm sorry, I'm not really interested in dicussing about words, I'm not a lawyer.
orfeo: And I don't particularly see what 'licences' have to do with it.
quote:Words are all we have here.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:I guess you'll always be able to find a word in my argument you disagree with. I'm sorry, I'm not really interested in dicussing about words, I'm not a lawyer.
orfeo: And I don't particularly see what 'licences' have to do with it.
quote:My guess is that this is an American airport.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
The article I read said that the nutjob who likes to drink airport coffee with an AR-15 never pointed his weapon at anyone. It also claimed that it was legal for him to wander around the airport openly carrying a weapon.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote:Some checks and balances are needed. My impression of the police in all of these situations:
orfeo: I've already said I entirely agree with you that the police need good training and good tactics to avoid these fatal confrontations, but it simply does not follow, in my view, that this has a significant bearing on whether a fatal confrontation that DOES occur is a crime.
quote:You clearly DO care, because being charged is criminal law. If Brown's family want to sue the police force, then there'll be a whole different set of issues and questions to deal with, but as soon as you talk about charging people you are talking about looking to CONVICT someone of a crime. We don't go around charging people so that everyone can go "oh well, at least he was charge".
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I don't care about the distinction between civil and criminal law. Heck, I don't even know where this distinction lies. If a crane driver doesn't follow procedures and because if this someone gets killed, he should at least be charged. The same with the cop.
quote:I don't know and don't fucking care what fucking kind of law it is. I am not a lawyer.
orfeo: You clearly DO care, because being charged is criminal law.
quote:Yes, it was the Phoenix Airport in Arizona were I live.
Originally posted by Alogon:
My guess is that this is an American airport.
quote:And why is a court the only thing that counts as impartial? Most people who are involved in traffic accidents are not friends of the police or the prosecutor.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:I don't know and don't fucking care what fucking kind of law it is. I am not a lawyer.
orfeo: You clearly DO care, because being charged is criminal law.
If someone breaks a rule of traffic and because of this someone dies, then yes, I expect this person to be charged. How severe the breach of the rule has been can then be considered in a court of law. Maybe he will be convicted, maybe he won't. But at least an impartial body has taken a look at that.
quote:I agree. And I had thought about making that specific point that in cases such as this one, where there's a possibility of a lack of impartiality, then it should be open to more scrutiny.
Originally posted by ldjjd:
That's a huge "should", Orfeo. I don't think it's a stretch to claim that the police and the prosecutor generally have a pro-police bias in matters involving officer misconduct. Juries tend not to be a whole lot different, but at least in a real trial there is the possibility that evidence submitted will be subject to meaningful challenge.
quote:Actually, the entire legal process was demolished. Start with jurors asking OJ for his autograph, and Judge Ito's strangeness, and go from there.
Originally posted by ldjjd:
The O.J. trial is a notable example of police testimony being totally demolished while the trial court jury (and nearly the whole country) watched.
quote:While I do agree with you that promoting non violence is a worth while goal and value of human life is also a good thing, I just don't think 'honour' is a fitting word in this case.
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
The people who were using the phrase "Honor his memory". Were doing it to promote non violence.
Which in context is a worthwhile goal.
What they where honoring is the value of human life.
quote:
Its interesting that you call him a "robber".
Is the policeman a "shooter"? Or maybe better a "killer"?
quote:
Is death the appropriate punishment for a "robber". Is it easier to kill a "robber" than an 18 year old man?
quote:While I can understand your anger, I can not understand the grotesque way that you misrepresented what I wrote. I probably would have agreed with you on the issue of the process of justice in this case, but for the fact that I don't know enough US law to be able to discuss it intelligently. Which is my short coming of course, but that doesn't give you the right to project your own view over mine, however limited my view may be at this point.
What makes me so angry is not that I KNOW that the policeman was guilty. (Of course I don't)
It is that now we will probably never know for sure. This was not a trial. Both sides were not presented. There is conflicting testimony from both sides that would benefit from proper cross examination.
If I was that policeman and I knew I was innocent I would want a chance to prove it in court.
Of course, there would still be people that would question the outcome of any trial. But they would have a much weaker argument.
quote:That is just not true. The grand jury hears whatever witnesses the DA chooses to present to them. Normally, the DA presents the case for the prosecution in its most minimal form--just enough to show that there is a case--and then suggests to the grand jury the range of charges they might choose to indict on.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
A grand jury can interview pretty much anybody they damn well want to. And not being idiots, this one chose to hear from basically anybody with the slightest connection to the case. That would certainly include the accused.
quote:He should be charged as an individual of course. But the comparison with a traffic incident is irrelevant. When a law enforcer engages someone, doesn't use his training and his procedures to control the situation and then shoots, he should be charged, yes.
orfeo: My problem with your position is this: it's one size fits all. I don't think mandatory charging is any better than mandatory sentencing. Both are, in my view, totally against the notion of individual justice requiring looking at the facts of the individual case.
quote:Why? Why is a comparison with a crane operator apt, but not a comparison with a car driver?
Originally posted by LeRoc:
But the comparison with a traffic incident is irrelevant.
quote:The convenience store video shows Brown committing strong-arm robbery
Originally posted by Pooks:
quote:I called Michael Brown a robber because the evidence showed him to be one.
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
Its interesting that you call him a "robber".
Is the policeman a "shooter"? Or maybe better a "killer"?
quote:Because a crane operator is doing it as a profession, and received training and regulations because of this.
orfeo: Why? Why is a comparison with a crane operator apt, but not a comparison with a car driver?
quote:Okay, fine.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
The fact that Wilson is a cop is very relevant. This has to do with qualifications, yes, but also with the fact that a cop is allowed to do things that other people aren't. With these entitlements come responsabilities.
quote:Okay... Except for the part where you're asking for a guarantee. How exactly do you guarantee such a thing? Try to achieve it, sure, need to use your professional best efforts, sure, but I have a hard time with the notion that a police officer is in a position to give an absolute guarantee about a person's safety. He's a police officer. He's not God.
Wilson stopped Browne for jaywalking. The moment he did this, Browne became his responsibility, and he is required to use all of his training to guarantee Browne's safety.
quote:This strikes me as a bald assertion rather than an assessment of the evidence. What are the correct procedures here? What procedure are you claiming Wilson didn't follow?
He didn't do anything of that, he just improvised.
quote:Well, sorry, but that isn't the law, and I for one think you are proposing a deeply unrealistic burden, and again you are creating notions of a world where 1 person is in control of everything, as if others around them are just passive objects rather than people with autonomy who may act contrary to the same interests, and indeed contrary to their OWN interests. "Everything in your power?" Who says I have power beyond the control of my own voice and limbs? Who says I gain power over a confrontational, physically aggressive person just because I'd like to have it?
As I argued in another thread, killing someone in self-defence should only be allowed as a last resort. First, you should do everything in your power to prevent this situation from occurring. The fact that a cop has special training, that we specifically pay him to deal with aggressive people, puts more of a burden on him to avoid having to resort to self-defence.
quote:Shortly after Michael Brown was killed, my wife contacted a former parishioner who was chief of police in a city with a high crime rate. He is also African-American. She wanted to know under what circumstances Wilson would have been justified in using force. His reply was that if Brown tried to take away Wilson's gun that using deadly force was justified. The police officer would prevent a person from taking their gun at all cost.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:He should be charged as an individual of course. But the comparison with a traffic incident is irrelevant. When a law enforcer engages someone, doesn't use his training and his procedures to control the situation and then shoots, he should be charged, yes.
orfeo: My problem with your position is this: it's one size fits all. I don't think mandatory charging is any better than mandatory sentencing. Both are, in my view, totally against the notion of individual justice requiring looking at the facts of the individual case.
And in my view, if it is indeed true that he didn't try to use his training and procedures to control the situation, he cannot claim self-defence and he's guilty.
quote:Words again. 'Do everything reasonably in his power to try to guarantee' if you want to be a lawyer. Later on your post you're setting up the strawman that I'd think that a police officer can be in control of everything. They can't. But for me, they should do everything reasonable to try, in order to claim self-defence. According to his own story, Wilson didn't try.
orfeo: Okay... Except for the part where you're asking for a guarantee.
quote:I'm not a cop. But he should have followed the procedure that supposedly is in place when someone tries to grab a police officer's gun in a car. The procedure that supposedly is in place when a big person comes charging towards a police officer. The procedure of using you authority to try to calm things down. I don't see Wilson trying to do any of this.
orfeo: What procedure are you claiming Wilson didn't follow?
quote:At the moment Wilson shot Browne, he wasn't directly threatening road-users, bystanders or the shopkeeper.
orfeo: Who says, for that matter, that my sole responsibility is to that confrontational, physically aggressive person in front of me, and not to the road-users, the bystanders, or the shopkeeper who I suspect was robbed by this guy a few minutes ago?
quote:It becomes different if you can show that this employer hasn't followed safety procedures.
orfeo: In the last couple of years our own High Court threw out a work health and safety case against an employer because it used that kind of reasoning: it's not good enough to point to a death and say "you had responsibility, so it's your fault and you must have done the wrong thing".
quote:The decision not to make use of his training to take control of the situation wasn't a split-second decision.
orfeo: No-one makes perfect decisions without the time in which to make decisions.
quote:I strongly disagree with this. There are ways for a policeman to try to prevent someone to take his gun that don't involve deadly force. Otherwise, the policeman shouldn't carry a gun.
Beeswax Altar: His reply was that if Brown tried to take away Wilson's gun that using deadly force was justified.
quote:In my opinion that is so wildly inaccurate that I don't see the point of carrying on this conversation further. It is quite clear to me that you have a picture of what the factual evidence is that is markedly different from the picture that I have (and, I note, Beeswax Altar, and a few others), such that it is pointless trying to have a discussion about the law and theory.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
He just struggled, got out of his car, got scared and shot.
quote:By getting out of his car and thinking "what the hell should I do next?" When a police officer decides to give pursuit, he should be prepared for the fact that the suspect could charge back at him. When that does happen, it shouldn't have to be a split-second decision anymore.
Beeswax Altar: Wilson being a police officer whose job is to arrest those who pose a threat gives pursuit.
quote:In your experience, how common is it for a person heading away from a man with a gun to change direction and move towards them?
Originally posted by LeRoc:
When a police officer decides to give pursuit, he should be prepared for the fact that the suspect could charge back at him.
quote:The way I understand it from Wilson's own statement, he didn't follow any procedure at all to try to guarantee the safety of the person he decided to engage.
orfeo: You are constantly making positive declarations that Wilson didn't follow correct procedure, but you can't articulate what the PROCEDURES are.
quote:I have every right to have an opinion on procedures in other countries. If what Wilson did is police procedure in Missouri, then these procedures are stupid. And if black people are disproportionately the victims of this, then this is a race problem.
orfeo: We get that you would have a different procedure. With all due respect, nobody in Missouri cares about the procedure you would write.
quote:I don't know and I don't care how probable it is. It is a possibility and police should be prepared for it.
orfeo: In your experience, how common is it for a person heading away from a man with a gun to change direction and move towards them?
quote:I'm a layman, but I can think of a number of things. Only patrol the streets in pairs. Call for backup. Try to use your authority to calm down the situation. Have your pepper spray ready before you pursue someone. The police will have to work it out for themselves.
orfeo: And if it's prepared for, what exactly are you proposing you're supposed to do about it?
quote:[*] This policeman had never used his weapon before. If that's someone who "likes to use his gun," then I can't imagine what you're basing this on.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Some checks and balances are needed. My impression of the police in all of these situations:
- They have guns and like to use them.
- They are not very well trained to handle situations of aggression.
- There aren't enough legal checks and balances that allow society to have a grip on this.
quote:That's an evasion of the point. You have to know that there was a procedure that he was required to follow before you can say that he breached the procedure. Assuming for the sake of argument you're correct to say "he didn't follow any procedure" (something I would not automatically agree with having read part of his testimony where he explains his thought processes), this still means absolutely nothing unless there was, in fact, a procedure that covered the situation and that he should have been following.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:The way I understand it from Wilson's own statement, he didn't follow any procedure at all to try to guarantee the safety of the person he decided to engage.
orfeo: You are constantly making positive declarations that Wilson didn't follow correct procedure, but you can't articulate what the PROCEDURES are.
quote:Show me where I have used any of these terms.
Twilight: [*] I think there are quite a few legal checks and balances and they are pretty easy to understand if you don't quit blinding yourself with emotional hot buttons like, "racist history," "innocent teenage boy" "death penalty for robbery," etc. None of which apply in this case.
quote:I'm not going to lay a murder charge against a police officer on the grounds that he failed to patrol in pairs, because most likely it's not his personal decision. He DID call for backup. He tried to use his authority and encountered a belligerent large man who punched him. He discusses in the transcript why he didn't use pepper spray at the car, and the notion that you can use pepper spray while pursuing someone is just bizarre. It's not a long-distance tool.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:I don't know and I don't care how probable it is. It is a possibility and police should be prepared for it.
orfeo: In your experience, how common is it for a person heading away from a man with a gun to change direction and move towards them?
quote:I'm a layman, but I can think of a number of things. Only patrol the streets in pairs. Call for backup. Try to use your authority to calm down the situation. Have your pepper spray ready before you pursue someone. The police will have to work it out for themselves.
orfeo: And if it's prepared for, what exactly are you proposing you're supposed to do about it?
quote:Sorry, it's not up to me to establish the requirements of the Missouri police. I'm not supposed to be an expert. These requirements should be that a police officer should try to do everything to guarantee the safety of someone he decides to engage with. How this works out in detail is up to them.
orfeo: You can't establish a breach of a requirement until you establish the requirement. And "ensure everybody's safety" is not a procedural requirement. That's just an outcome. If there's a procedure, it will tell you best practice towards achieving that outcome.
quote:According to your own admission, pepper spray can be helpful if the subject you persue doesn't run but becomes aggressive. Wilson wasn't prepared for that.
orfeo: and the notion that you can use pepper spray while pursuing someone is just bizarre. It's not a long-distance tool.
quote:Okay, sorry. I think a lot of people are thinking this but you didn't say it so, okay, I withdraw that. I guess that's the only reason I can think of that I might be defending Michael Brown.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:Show me where I have used any of these terms.
Twilight: [*] I think there are quite a few legal checks and balances and they are pretty easy to understand if you don't quit blinding yourself with emotional hot buttons like, "racist history," "innocent teenage boy" "death penalty for robbery," etc. None of which apply in this case.
quote:Then stop asserting with such certainty that he failed to meet the standards of a police officer. Because you don't know anything of the sort. You just feel that he must have failed to meet the standard on the grounds of your perception that European police manage not to kill people.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:Sorry, it's not up to me to establish the requirements of the Missouri police. I'm not supposed to be an expert. These requirements should be that a police officer should try to do everything to guarantee the safety of someone he decides to engage with. How this works out in detail is up to them.
orfeo: You can't establish a breach of a requirement until you establish the requirement. And "ensure everybody's safety" is not a procedural requirement. That's just an outcome. If there's a procedure, it will tell you best practice towards achieving that outcome.
quote:Exactly. And that's a good standard.
orfeo: Then stop asserting with such certainty that he failed to meet the standards of a police officer. Because you don't know anything of the sort. You just feel that he must have failed to meet the standard on the grounds of your perception that European police manage not to kill people.
quote:Because that's not in keeping with the facts about their respective positions. By the time Wilson got out of his car, there was a considerable distance between the car and Brown. This is precisely the fact that some people were originally using to portray this as the gunning down of a man running away.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:According to your own admission, pepper spray can be helpful if the subject you persue doesn't run but becomes aggressive. Wilson wasn't prepared for that.
orfeo: and the notion that you can use pepper spray while pursuing someone is just bizarre. It's not a long-distance tool.
quote:It's not a procedural standard. It's a result, an outcome. That's what I've been telling you the whole time.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:Exactly. And that's a good standard.
orfeo: Then stop asserting with such certainty that he failed to meet the standards of a police officer. Because you don't know anything of the sort. You just feel that he must have failed to meet the standard on the grounds of your perception that European police manage not to kill people.
quote:Words again.
orfeo: It's not a procedural standard. It's a result, an outcome. That's what I've been telling you the whole time.
quote:You should prepare for the fact that he might stop running.
orfeo: There's no reason to prepare for a person who isn't going to run when the person is already moving away from you. That's what pursuit MEANS. It doesn't mean that the guy is currently standing next to you.
quote:Previously the claim was that you should prepare for the fact that he might start running towards you. Which is not the same thing.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:You should prepare for the fact that he might stop running.
orfeo: There's no reason to prepare for a person who isn't going to run when the person is already moving away from you. That's what pursuit MEANS. It doesn't mean that the guy is currently standing next to you.
quote:Normally when you are running away, before running back again you stop.
orfeo: Previously the claim was that you should prepare for the fact that he might start running towards you. Which is not the same thing.
quote:I'm not sure if I understand you. I'm not trying to prove anything, like I said I'm not in a court of law. But I do feel that things are wrong here.
Barnabas62: Maybe. Do shoulds and oughts prove anything about what is? Basically, they are an assertion that what is is wrong, that things ought to be different.
quote:It is the duty of the police in any country to follow procedures that try to guarantee the safety of the person you choose to engage with. If the police in Europe does this, but this police officer in the US didn't even try, then yes. At least manslaughter.
Beeswax Altar: Prosecutor: Ladies and gentleman of the jury. I'm asking you to convict Darren Wilson of murder in the first degree. Why? Because, damn it, this might not have happened in Europe. The state rests.
quote:This is pretty much the essence of why it's wrong to try to use individual court cases to address systemic problems.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Prosecutor: Ladies and gentleman of the jury. I'm asking you to convict Darren Wilson of murder in the first degree. Why? Because, damn it, this might not have happened in Europe. The state rests.
quote:Now this is something I agree with.
orfeo:This is pretty much the essence of why it's wrong to try to use individual court cases to address systemic problems.
quote:With the problem that there is nothing addressing the systemic problems, as previously noted.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:Now this is something I agree with.
orfeo:This is pretty much the essence of why it's wrong to try to use individual court cases to address systemic problems.
quote:And I fail to see how one can deal with the systemic problems w/o exploring what happened in the individual cases.
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:With the problem that there is nothing addressing the systemic problems, as previously noted.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:Now this is something I agree with.
orfeo:This is pretty much the essence of why it's wrong to try to use individual court cases to address systemic problems.
quote:I was discussing your claim that they were celebrating a "robber".
Originally posted by Pooks:
[QUOTE]
While I do agree with you that promoting non violence is a worth while goal and value of human life is also a good thing, I just don't think 'honour' is a fitting word in this case.
quote:What do you mean by saying he is not "an inocent victim"? Is he guilty of a capital crime? Which one? You keep insisting you don't mean it that way but it sounds that way. I never used the phrase "innocent victim". I even said I don't really know what really happened in my post. I was arguing in favor of a trial not a guilty veredict.
What I do have problem with is the kind of thinking that says because someone died a violent death, therefore we must all pretend that he was an innocent victim. (This, by the way, is not the same as saying his life has no value.) In case you were wondering, I also have a problem with the thinking that says all policemen are always right. Both statements are equally stupid in my view.
quote:When you use "the robber" and "not an inocent victim"
I didn't say anything about punishment one way or the other precisely because I know there are those who are more able to think and speak on this issue. If you show me where I said anything about punishment for a robber then I will tell you whether it's appropriate or not.
quote:I never said "Pooks believes he deserved to die". If you understood that I am sorry. I ASKED if the death penalty was appropiate for a robbery. Fully hoping you would disagree with that statement and explain what you mean by "not an innocent victim" and "robber". If you did not mean to defend the shooting using those words.
While I can understand your anger, I can not understand the grotesque way that you misrepresented what I wrote.
quote:That is not only right, it isn't even wrong. Because there's lots of individual cases and it really doesn't matter than there's yet another. Because yet another shooting means merely there's someone else dead and another young cop got to try out his penis.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
And I fail to see how one can deal with the systemic problems w/o exploring what happened in the individual cases.
quote:Yes. But good diagnosis-- not just that "something's wrong" but what precisely is wrong & how and where and when and why-- is an essential element of finding the cure. If we think we're dealing with the flu and it turns out to be ebola, skipping over those individual particularities to just say "oh, you're sick-- something's wrong" would be (and has been) deadly. I would argue the same is true here. Which is why a public examination-- not necessarily a trial but some sort of examination of all those individual particularities-- is essential to healing what appears to be much closer to ebola than the flu.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Individual cases may help the diagnosis that something is wrong. But good diagnosis is not the same as cure.
quote:Apparently, I read it better than you.
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
Did you read my link? The police arrested him because 2 women in the airport said that they felt threatened and that he did point the gun in their direction.
quote:There's no suggestion there that Steinmetz's fingers were anywhere near the trigger, or that the gun was held in a shooting position.
According to a probable cause statement, Steinmetz "proceeded to remove the Stag Arm AR-15 from his right shoulder, thus causing the muzzle to face two victims sitting to the right."
quote:But we do. In some countries it is perfectly legal to beat up or even kill your wife. Yet, we judge it to be wrong.
Barnabas62: We can't judge the criminality of anyone except under the criminal law which applies. Sure, you can assert moral culpability according to your own moral standard, but that doesn't affect findings of legal guilt or innocence. And it would be wrong if it did.
quote:a) It's debatable (four justices dissented)
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Here is a firm critique that can be applied to the the Wilson grand jury proceedings on the part of someone who is anything but a bleeding heart, anti-police, liberal
quote:Seriously? He may not have intended to threaten them. But if you've ever looked down (or rather UP) the business end of an automatic (or semi-automatic) weapon, as I have, you can definitely feel threatened.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
The article doesn't say, but the description sounds like a man removing the gun from his shoulder and placing it across his lap so he can sit down. Poor muzzle discipline? Sure. Unsafe? Quite possibly. But not threatening.
quote:I might consider it wrong that someone in another country is allowed to beat up his wife. But I would never express that by saying that he is guilty. Guilty of what? Of breaking the laws of MY country? Of breaking my moral code?
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:But we do. In some countries it is perfectly legal to beat up or even kill your wife. Yet, we judge it to be wrong.
Barnabas62: We can't judge the criminality of anyone except under the criminal law which applies. Sure, you can assert moral culpability according to your own moral standard, but that doesn't affect findings of legal guilt or innocence. And it would be wrong if it did.
I'm well aware that my voice carries no weight at all, and that it won't affect the findings. Duh. But to me there are problems with the law and the system that regulate the police in the US, and I believe that what Wilson did is wrong. So, even if his laws say he isn't, I find him guilty, and in a better system he would be prosecuted.
quote:How is the evidence not being made available to the public? Between the release of the transcript and the endless reporting via social media in the days following the incident, lack of evidence is hardly a problem.
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
It is said justice should be done, and be seen to be done. In a case like this, it would have been in everyone's interest to have a full trial. The policeman could be properly acquitted, if appropriate, and the evidence heard and understood in public. It is suspicion of cover up which drives the unrest.
quote:No he didn't and wasn't. Throughout this sad episode, Brown was Brown's responsibility. Nobody should ever lose sight of that.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
... Wilson stopped Browne for jaywalking. The moment he did this, Browne became his responsibility, and he is required to use all of his training to guarantee Browne's safety. ...
quote:I would. I guess we express ourselves differently then.
orfeo: I might consider it wrong that someone in another country is allowed to beat up his wife. But I would never express that by saying that he is guilty.
quote:That too.
orfeo: No. I would say that the law of his country is wrong. That it needs changing.
quote:But I do. In some countries, calling on your cell phone while driving isn't illegal. Yet if someone does in such a country and kills a child, I'd say that he's guilty. Even if the laws of his country say that is not.
orfeo: You cannot expect me to follow the better road rules of another country with a lower road death rate.
quote:When a police officer engages a person, he is responsible to take every reasonable measure to try to guarantee the safety of that person. It troubles me that you think he isn't.
Enoch: No he didn't and wasn't. Throughout this sad episode, Brown was Brown's responsibility. Nobody should ever lose sight of that.
quote:Is there any explanation of how Wilson developed sunburn on certain areas of his face, while the rest of it was not sunburned? Is there any evidence that Wilson had been exposed to steam on certain areas of his face, and not the rest of it?
Originally posted by Golden Key:
--I have trouble accepting that Brown severely beat up Wilson's face. The pics I've seen look more like sunburn, or the aftermath of being around lots of steam. And there seems to be a shape to it, rather than impact spots.
quote:If you are prepared to trust a trial verdict as being a generally reliable way of finding truth (not perfect - as a professional advocate I know that they aren't), then you are just plain wrong about that. A 'no case to answer' finding is stronger than a 'not guilty' verdict. It expresses more certainty in the accused's innocence, not less.
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
What makes me so angry is not that I KNOW that the policeman was guilty. (Of course I don't)
It is that now we will probably never know for sure. This was not a trial. Both sides were not presented. There is conflicting testimony from both sides that would benefit from proper cross examination.
If I was that policeman and I knew I was innocent I would want a chance to prove it in court.
Of course, there would still be people that would question the outcome of any trial. But they would have a much weaker argument.
quote:Word.
Originally posted by Eliab:
[...] A 'no case to answer' finding is stronger than a 'not guilty' verdict. [...]
quote:Indeed. Enough incompetence in gathering evidence that one might wonder if it all that group incompetence could really be all that accidental...
Originally posted by Eigon:
I've been reading an article in the Huffington Post, which lays out the story of what happened as told by the police department (or various members of it). What struck me was the total incompetence they were all owning up to - the photographer who didn't have spare batteries for their camera, the scene of crime officers who didn't take basic measurements, the fact that the officer's gun was not tested for fingerprints (since this would have given evidence of whether or not Michael Brown had touched it at any time).
Honestly, I'd sack the lot of them, and draft in officers from somewhere else.
quote:It means exactly that. If a finding of self-defence is inevitable given the burden of proof, which requires self-defence to be disproved beyond reasonable doubt, then there is no case to answer.
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
There is a difference between no case to answer, and a low chance of a guilty verdict. There is self-evidently a thing to be explained, he shot an unarmed man. Now he, and the prosecutor and the grand jury, think he has a good explanation - but that doesn't mean he has no case to answer.
quote:The Zimmerman case is a good example of the pitfalls of sending a weak case to trial. Did airing the facts in open court bring catharsis? Hell no, it led to equal fury, in large part 'cause few people actually followed the details. All that mattered was the result.
Originally posted by orfeo:
I have to say, I am bit mystified why this case is exciting so much commentary, when the grounds for a conviction are so much weaker than, say the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman case, to the extent that is drowning discussion of the death of a 12-year-old boy with a toy gun. [...]
quote:Couldn't agree more. That's why so many people don't look at the evidence. They're fitting it to a prior agenda. I know it's easier to fight for a cause via concrete examples, but it's crucial to pick the right ones, and ensure the facts fit the agenda.
[...] Everyone seems so damned distracted by arguing the intricate details of individual cases that don't go the way they want, that they never have time to talk about how to stop the cases before they happen. I've seen the idea that a trial would be a step towards stopping future incidents, but frankly I think that's rubbish. Not even a conviction is a step towards stopping future incidents. [...]
quote:Well, yes. People tend to get more outraged when they perceive the authorities are sitting back and doing nothing to stop and injustice then they do when the authorities are taking a perceived injustice seriously and looking into the situation. Call me crazy, but that seems appropriate to me.
Originally posted by orfeo:
If you wanted an emblematic case for the problems with police conduct, that is a far, far better candidate. Unlike Martin or Brown, that child was not an actual threat in any way, and the gap between the officer's arrival and the child's death is alarmingly small. That case poses FAR more questions about the quality of police procedures and training...
So why are people not talking about it as much? Call me cynical, but I suspect it's because the authorities are seen to be taking the case seriously. People are fine with the authorities investigating these cases so long as they come to the 'right' conclusions.
quote:Again, you seem to be completely missing the point that knowing the particulars of the individual situations is necessary in order to correctly diagnose the problem and come to that broader preventative solution you seek. There's no point getting a bunch of people together in a board room to talk about racism if the real problem turns out to be arming police with military weaponry-- or to talk about realistic toy guns if the problem is training. We HAVE to investigate and talk about the individual situations first in order to discover the broader trends that can be addressed in those board room meetings.
Originally posted by orfeo:
This is pretty much why I throw up my hands in despair at there ever being any systemic change. Because even if the officer in Cleveland is disciplined or charged or whatever, the child is still dead. It is every bit as bad that this happened regardless of the consequences for the individual police officer.
Everyone seems so damned distracted by arguing the intricate details of individual cases that don't go the way they want, that they never have time to talk about how to stop the cases before they happen. I've seen the idea that a trial would be a step towards stopping future incidents, but frankly I think that's rubbish. Not even a conviction is a step towards stopping future incidents.
Individual cases are just media fodder. Setting out all the details of an individual case is SEXY. We lap it up. Real change is going to be boring and quiet and happen in meetings and back rooms and a lot harder work. The trial system is simply not interested in questions like "how do we stop similar tragedies in the future", it just makes a nice shiny distraction from the important things while people endlessly debate with hindsight whether the actors should have behaved different from how they actually did and decided which witness they find credible.
quote:That is undoubtedly true, and (as pretty much everyone here has said) obviously not helpful. But neither is your suggestion that we should forget about the individual cases and move on to figuring out the bigger solutions. Again, that's impossible w/o first looking at the individual cases to see what happened and why, and to determine if there are any common causes that can be addressed. It is precisely because we all know that truth that we instinctively start looking for patterns in the absence of an investigation. As we've all acknowledged, that's problematic because the more we do that the more we're prone to confirmation bias. But the solution is not to slap people down for talking about individual cases, the solution is to bring the investigation into the light of day so the facts can be known and the conversation about systemic problems based on reality not speculation.
Originally posted by orfeo:
The problem, cliffdweller, is that I don't see people trying to understand the facts of the individual cases. I see, as Byron says, people trying to fit the facts to pre-existing agendas.
quote:Which "people"? No one here has suggested Brown is "innocent." However, many/most have suggested that robbery and even assault of a police officer are not capital offenses-- which does make him a victim. For the same reason, he is not responsible for his own death. Had he been apprehended and convicted of robbery and/or assault, he would be responsible for his later incarceration and loss of freedom. But having not committed a capital crime, he is not responsible for his own death. Whether or not anyone else is responsible is, of course, the question at hand.
Originally posted by orfeo:
And it still puzzles me that people tried to portray Brown as an innocent victim with no responsibility for his own death.
quote:Bearing in mind that I did go on to say that Wilson may well have been beaten, but it just didn't seem that way to me:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:Is there any explanation of how Wilson developed sunburn on certain areas of his face, while the rest of it was not sunburned? Is there any evidence that Wilson had been exposed to steam on certain areas of his face, and not the rest of it?
Originally posted by Golden Key:
--I have trouble accepting that Brown severely beat up Wilson's face. The pics I've seen look more like sunburn, or the aftermath of being around lots of steam. And there seems to be a shape to it, rather than impact spots.
quote:Yes okay, fair enough on the first part. I guess it's the confirmation bias aspect that frustrates me.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:That is undoubtedly true, and (as pretty much everyone here has said) obviously not helpful. But neither is your suggestion that we should forget about the individual cases and move on to figuring out the bigger solutions. Again, that's impossible w/o first looking at the individual cases to see what happened and why, and to determine if there are any common causes that can be addressed. It is precisely because we all know that truth that we instinctively start looking for patterns in the absence of an investigation. As we've all acknowledged, that's problematic because the more we do that the more we're prone to confirmation bias. But the solution is not to slap people down for talking about individual cases, the solution is to bring the investigation into the light of day so the facts can be known and the conversation about systemic problems based on reality not speculation.
Originally posted by orfeo:
The problem, cliffdweller, is that I don't see people trying to understand the facts of the individual cases. I see, as Byron says, people trying to fit the facts to pre-existing agendas.
quote:Which "people"? No one here has suggested Brown is "innocent." However, many/most have suggested that robbery and even assault of a police officer are not capital offenses-- which does make him a victim. For the same reason, he is not responsible for his own death. Had he been apprehended and convicted of robbery and/or assault, he would be responsible for his later incarceration and loss of freedom. But having not committed a capital crime, he is not responsible for his own death. Whether or not anyone else is responsible is, of course, the question at hand.
Originally posted by orfeo:
And it still puzzles me that people tried to portray Brown as an innocent victim with no responsibility for his own death.
quote:The problem I have here is the false polarity. There is a far cry from Brown not being a robber or even possibly a thug (i.e. "typical young black man minding his own business") and him causing his own death. Part of the problem with your polarity is the assumption that someone has to be at fault. There is a range of possibilities between Wilson being 100% responsible and Brown being 100% responsible, including all manner of tragic unfortunate accident and/or poorly trained personnel and/or stupid mistakes or some tragic combination thereof. All manner of things are possible-- which, again, is precisely why we need a thorough and transparent investigation of this and other individual case before rushing to systemic solutions.
Originally posted by orfeo:
As for who is treating Brown as innocent, I was thinking about other material I have seen online through things like Facebook and tumblr, rather than the discussion here.
Saying he did not commit a capital crime, and is therefore not responsible for his own death, is wrong in my view. Because a capital crime is only relevant to an execution, and it is the initial drive to portray this as an execution that is one of the problems. There is good evidence that he assaulted a police officer, tried to get an officer's gun, and charged at an officer. No-one seems to be asking: what did he THINK was going to happen while he was doing these stupid things?
It's perfectly possible to construct "but-for" scenarios to say that Wilson caused the death, but it is equally possible to construct "but-for" scenarios to say that Brown caused it as well (the law doesn't operate on such simple causation tests). It is far from the case that Brown was just a typical young black man minding his own business who was wrongly set upon. I accept that there ARE cases like that, but this is not even close to being one.
It's the failure to recognise Brown's significant contribution to his own death that is exactly the kind of confirmation bias that I have a problem with.
quote:Whether or not those things are in "good evidence" is still debatable, based on the discussion here-- which, again, is precisely why greater public transparency is needed. The fact that you rush past how debatable those are to ask "what did he THINK was going to happen" clearly demonstrates your own confirmation bias.
Originally posted by orfeo:
There is good evidence that he assaulted a police officer, tried to get an officer's gun, and charged at an officer. No-one seems to be asking: what did he THINK was going to happen while he was doing these stupid things?
...It's the failure to recognise Brown's significant contribution to his own death that is exactly the kind of confirmation bias that I have a problem with.
quote:But there is a difference between "I feel threatened by you" and "you are threatening me".
Originally posted by mousethief:
Seriously? He may not have intended to threaten them. But if you've ever looked down (or rather UP) the business end of an automatic (or semi-automatic) weapon, as I have, you can definitely feel threatened.
quote:Indirectly here:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Cliffdweller, where do you think I talked about 100% responsibility? I said the exact opposite.
As for whether the facts are debatable, I'm sorry, but I'm not even going to attempt to dignify suggestions like Wilson was suffering from sunburn. I find that claim absurd.
quote:
There is good evidence that he assaulted a police officer, tried to get an officer's gun, and charged at an officer. No-one seems to be asking: what did he THINK was going to happen while he was doing these stupid things?
It's perfectly possible to construct "but-for" scenarios to say that Wilson caused the death, but it is equally possible to construct "but-for" scenarios to say that Brown caused it as well (the law doesn't operate on such simple causation tests). It is far from the case that Brown was just a typical young black man minding his own business who was wrongly set upon. I accept that there ARE cases like that, but this is not even close to being one.
It's the failure to recognise Brown's significant contribution to his own death that is exactly the kind of confirmation bias that I have a problem with.
quote:I note that in both Martin and Brown's case you accept the shooter's version of events as "true", even tho in both cases that chain of events is in dispute. Again, evidence of your own confirmation bias. We all do it.
Originally posted by orfeo:
To lump Brown, Trayvon Martin and that 12-year-old kid in together as if they are all examples of the same thing just strikes me as fundamentally foolish. At one end we have a child who is a victim of other people's assumptions, in the middle we have Martin, a young guy who seems to have made an unfortunate choice about how to confront a perceived threat that was unnecessary, and then we have Brown using his size to commit crimes and intimidate people. These 3 people have skin colour in common, and they've all died, but that doesn't mean that they are all alike. In fact it's the very essence of racism to treat all of these deaths the same just because the skin colour of the killer was lighter than the skin colour of the deceased.
quote:If you think that "significant contribution" and explicitly saying it is possible to construct but-for tests for both men is indirectly a statement of 100% responsibility, then you are spectacularly wrong. You have quoted the EXACT passage I was going to point you to show that I had not said what you seem to think I said.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:Indirectly here:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Cliffdweller, where do you think I talked about 100% responsibility? I said the exact opposite.
As for whether the facts are debatable, I'm sorry, but I'm not even going to attempt to dignify suggestions like Wilson was suffering from sunburn. I find that claim absurd.
quote:
There is good evidence that he assaulted a police officer, tried to get an officer's gun, and charged at an officer. No-one seems to be asking: what did he THINK was going to happen while he was doing these stupid things?
It's perfectly possible to construct "but-for" scenarios to say that Wilson caused the death, but it is equally possible to construct "but-for" scenarios to say that Brown caused it as well (the law doesn't operate on such simple causation tests). It is far from the case that Brown was just a typical young black man minding his own business who was wrongly set upon. I accept that there ARE cases like that, but this is not even close to being one.
It's the failure to recognise Brown's significant contribution to his own death that is exactly the kind of confirmation bias that I have a problem with.
quote:Actually, it's evidence of the fact that I pay attention to physical evidence like injuries and corroboration from independent witnesses, but have it your way.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I note that in both Martin and Brown's case you accept the shooter's version of events as "true", even tho in both cases that chain of events is in dispute. Again, evidence of your own confirmation bias.
quote:FYI: I simply said that's the way it looks to me. I know that bruises sometimes take days to show up, but I haven't seen any pics of Wilson with actual facial bruises. A couple of pics of other guys went viral, labeled as Wilson, but weren't him.
Originally posted by orfeo:
As for whether the facts are debatable, I'm sorry, but I'm not even going to attempt to dignify suggestions like Wilson was suffering from sunburn. I find that claim absurd.
quote:fwiw, the red marks on this face do look like bruises to me-- but pretty minor ones, more like what you'd see from a hard slap. It suggests to me an altercation, possibly enough to enrage Wilson w/o endangering him. But really not enough to go on one way or 'nother.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:FYI: I simply said that's the way it looks to me. I know that bruises sometimes take days to show up, but I haven't seen any pics of Wilson with actual facial bruises. A couple of pics of other guys went viral, labeled as Wilson, but weren't him.
Originally posted by orfeo:
As for whether the facts are debatable, I'm sorry, but I'm not even going to attempt to dignify suggestions like Wilson was suffering from sunburn. I find that claim absurd.
quote:Wow. I just love the conspiracy theories developing here.
Originally posted by Eigon:
If Wilson had been taken to the hospital and looked at straight after the incident, I'd accept the picture showed that Brown hit him. But he wasn't taken in until the next day, according to the police officers quoted in the Huff Post - so anyone could have hit him in the meantime while they were concocting the story he was going to tell.
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
quote:This is the first time I have heard the statement that Wilson did not go to the hospital until the next day. All the reports I have seen said that Wilson was taken to the hospital a few hours after the shooting.
Originally posted by Eigon:
If Wilson had been taken to the hospital and looked at straight after the incident, I'd accept the picture showed that Brown hit him. But he wasn't taken in until the next day, according to the police officers quoted in the Huff Post - so anyone could have hit him in the meantime while they were concocting the story he was going to tell.
quote:That's a pity. You're about the only person on this thread who makes sense.
Originally posted by orfeo:
I have officially had enough of this appalling conversation. It's like Lindy Chamberlain all over again. "You don't look beat up enough" = "You don't look upset enough". Bye.
quote:You are not the only person who has experienced what you have described, but that's not the real issue here. The real issue is what justice should look like in peoples' minds. If the evidence doesn't help them get there, then the evidence must be discredited. This is a technique used in court by lawyers, so it's not surprising that it has surfaced here time and time again as well. It's not always a right or wise thing to do, but it's not surprising.
Originally posted by Eliab:
I can't be the only person whose taken a knock by accident or while playing some sport that has left me dazed, nauseous or winded, but has left no physical mark.
I also can't be the only person ever to have got into a shower, noticed a bruise, cut or scrape, and thought "How the Hell did I do that?"
Given the ordinariness of both experiences, by what measure do we judge that a face in a photo looks bruised enough to corroborate evidence of a fight?
quote:It is a bit! I don't mind, though. One of the good things about this place is its range.
Originally posted by orfeo:
It's like Lindy Chamberlain all over again.
quote:There is evidence of the timing of the photographs to be found in Volume 3, Eigon. The witness states that the photographs were taken on the same day. The photographs were date stamped and signed. Each photograph was discussed in some detail. The key testimony is from p 14 forward.
Originally posted by Eigon:
If Wilson had been taken to the hospital and looked at straight after the incident, I'd accept the picture showed that Brown hit him. But he wasn't taken in until the next day, according to the police officers quoted in the Huff Post - so anyone could have hit him in the meantime while they were concocting the story he was going to tell.
quote:True. Unless, that is, you refuse to consider any other possibility for which there is reasonable evidence as respectably credible. And I think there might be a bit of that going on.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
seeing a possibility is not the same as saying it definitely happened that way.
quote:I don't think that's a fair comparison. These pictures have been submitted as evidence of a desperate struggle; it's not a stray impression that people shouldn't be drawing conclusions from. Perhaps few people have experience dealing with the emotions of those who have lost children under such traumatic circumstances; far more have a reasonable idea of what the result of a fight tends to looks like.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:It is a bit! I don't mind, though. One of the good things about this place is its range.
Originally posted by orfeo:
It's like Lindy Chamberlain all over again.
Confirmation bias at work? Well, possibly; but seeing a possibility is not the same as saying it definitely happened that way.
quote:This. Remember, the police here are investigating a situation involving one of their own.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Indeed. Enough incompetence in gathering evidence that one might wonder if it all that group incompetence could really be all that accidental...
quote:Clearly I'm not like your average American.
Originally posted by Porridge:
quote:re: Doublethink's concern about coverup: the complete evidence presented to the grand jury has been released and is available to anyone who cares to read it.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Indeed. Enough incompetence in gathering evidence that one might wonder if it all that group incompetence could really be all that accidental...
To some, this may look like transparency.
To others, including me, this could be a version of coverup. The average American adult, I recently read somewhere, spends about 4 and 1/2 minutes a day reading anything. If you seriously want to cover something up, release it in print, in dense and copious quantities. It will remain safely ignored by the vast majority of the populace.
quote:The average American adult will completely ignore whatever they are told if it disagrees with their prejudices, believing it a lie by the other camp. This isn't particularly a slur against Americans - its popular behaviour amongst adults of all nationalities.
Originally posted by Porridge:
The average American adult, I recently read somewhere, spends about 4 and 1/2 minutes a day reading anything. If you seriously want to cover something up, release it in print, in dense and copious quantities. It will remain safely ignored by the vast majority of the populace.
quote:My comment was not directed toward you in particular.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
You may have mistaken my irony, cliffdweller. When on duty, I spend between one and two hours a day reading posts and links here because that's a part of my job as a Host.
quote:I hadn't bothered looking at them, since I've not drawn any conclusions from the photos one way or the other, so the date they were taken is not of much significance to me. I had assumed your link was directed toward one of the other posters who was drawing conclusions based on the photographic evidence.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Back on specifics. Have you had time to look at the photos I linked, and the evidence confirming the date they were taken?
quote:Eigon's suggestion of fakery is irrelevant to my comment. Orfeo was complaining that "You don't look beat up enough" = "You don't look upset enough", and you were (at least partially) agreeing and suspecting confirmation bias. (I think Eigon's scenario is unlikely precisely because I think that the degree of bruising isn't persuasive evidence of a vicious struggle. If he had really tried to get someone to hit him to back up his story, he could have come up with more convincing-looking injuries.)
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Dave W.
I think you cross posted with my response to Eigon re photograph dating and timing. I've looked at all the evidence online. One of the less easy aspects of Hosting is to look at links in some detail.
I'm not accusing Eigon of confirmation bias. It's possible that he hadn't looked at Volume 3. I hadn't seen the Huff Post article.
quote:But if it's normal and always possible, then invoking it seems pointless unless you've got either some way to avoid it or some evidence that you think is less susceptible to it. Otherwise it just devolves into an all-purpose dismissal.
Bias is normal, Dave W. So confirmation bias is always a possibility.
quote:But isn't that exactly what someone with an ax to grind would be expected to say? To be sure, I don't actually think you do - but a self-declaration of lack of bias isn't terribly convincing, particularly after you've just called it out in others both specifically and generally.
I don't have any axe to grind here. I'm reading this stuff for information, but not necessarily taking any of it on face value.
quote:Well, that disagreement was precisely what Orfeo was complaining about in his last comment - that people were saying Wilson didn't "look beat up enough." I was objecting to your apparent support for this particular complaint of his, not your deprecation of Eigon's conspiracy theories; if you've changed your position (or perhaps more precisely, narrowed the scope of your suspicion of confirmation bias) I think maybe we now agree that it isn't unreasonable to see those photos as not supporting the claims of a mortal struggle.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Dave W.
[snip]
I think confirmation bias would be illustrated not by a subjective disagreement over damage shown in photos el al, [snip]
quote:You and I would probably agree that the state self-defence law is not what we would prefer to be in place. But ISTM that, as it stands, it would have a major impact on any finding in favour of an indictment.
In some states, a defendant bears the burden of establishing self-defense. But according to State v. Anthony, once a defendant injects self-defense into a case, the prosecution bears the burden of disproving the defense beyond a reasonable doubt, as made clear in this language from Anthony:
The state has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in lawful self-defense. Unless you find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in lawful self-defense, you must find the defendant not guilty.
Applied to this case, Missouri law would have obligated the prosecution to eliminate any reasonable doubt about Wilson’s testimony that he feared for his life. That is an extremely difficult burden to carry.
quote:I find this very hard to follow. You put all the evidence out in the public domain and because few people will read it all, there's been a cover-up??????
Originally posted by Porridge:
Lastly, re: Doublethink's concern about coverup: the complete evidence presented to the grand jury has been released and is available to anyone who cares to read it.
To some, this may look like transparency.
To others, including me, this could be a version of coverup. The average American adult, I recently read somewhere, spends about 4 and 1/2 minutes a day reading anything. If you seriously want to cover something up, release it in print, in dense and copious quantities. It will remain safely ignored by the vast majority of the populace.
quote:Fox News has a great way to prevent losing face. They simply don't admit when they have been proven wrong. Problem solved.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I'd assess the likelyhood of the US media spending little time on the published detail as pretty close to zero, particularly given their initial and continuing published opinions. Nobody likes losing face, particularly over issues of credibility. The Who speak for all of us when they sing "won't get fooled again".
quote:Maybe you have to live here to understand this phenomenon, but I'll try expressing it.
Originally posted by Gee D:
quote:I find this very hard to follow. You put all the evidence out in the public domain and because few people will read it all, there's been a cover-up??????
Originally posted by Porridge:
Lastly, re: Doublethink's concern about coverup: the complete evidence presented to the grand jury has been released and is available to anyone who cares to read it.
To some, this may look like transparency.
To others, including me, this could be a version of coverup. The average American adult, I recently read somewhere, spends about 4 and 1/2 minutes a day reading anything. If you seriously want to cover something up, release it in print, in dense and copious quantities. It will remain safely ignored by the vast majority of the populace.
quote:AIUI most of the destroyed and vandalized businesses were owned by blacks who were supporting themselves and their families.
Originally posted by Gee D
Finally, I cannot understand the arson and other violence carried out by those protesting. One photograph shown here was of a burnt-out shop, with a sign saying Beauty resting agains ruins. We were told that that had been a beauty salon. Why was it burnt? Was the proprietor a member of the KKK? And the same for other damaged property, the wrecked cars, the smashed windows.
quote:This is exactly why I get so mad at apologists (and they do exist, like in the article I linked). Do the rioters go attack station houses and charge police lines? (Not hit and run, full on charge, with intent to fight to the death.) No, they know full and well it'd be suicide, so they take anger out on innocent people who suffer the exact same feelings. They're making their lives miserable.
Originally posted by Moo:
[...] I don't understand at all why this behavior is tolerated. When people are frustrated they feel like destroying something, but destroying the property of people who belong to the same discriminated-against group as you makes no sense.
Moo
quote:I don't know about it being "tolerated;" after all, there were many arrests (more than 60, IIRC) the night the indictment was announced.
Originally posted by Moo:
I don't understand at all why this behavior is tolerated. When people are frustrated they feel like destroying something, but destroying the property of people who belong to the same discriminated-against group as you makes no sense.
Moo
quote:People do. If they go intending to protest peacefully, they choose not to leave when it turns ugly. If they turn up with the intent to commit crimes, that intent carries over.
Originally posted by Porridge:
[...] mobs don't think.
quote:Most of us (that is, those not actually present at the action) see only what TV cameras show us. How likely is it that the cameras will be trained on people trying to leave the scene, or masses of people penned in, vs. people hurling rocks, bottles, breaking windows, flames. etc.?
Originally posted by Byron:
Yeah, I have, protest turned bad, and I got the hell out soon as possible.
Besides, this doesn't look the same. I don't see anyone penned in, but people attacking stores on open streets. I'm not directing any comments at folk who got caught up in a crowd.
If anyone truly lost control in a mob, I guess they should be allowed to argue irresistible impulse at trial, although Missouri doesn't appear to allow that defense.
quote:I've had exactly that experience in crowds, and it's terrifying. It makes anyone realize their limitations and vulnerability. No criticism whatsoever for people who found themselves in that situation in Ferguson. Someone breaking into a shop and looting it, or committing arson, is, surely, so different it bears little comparison. Being trapped in a crowd isn't a voluntary act.
Originally posted by Porridge:
[...] Good for you for managing to escape. I'm a relatively short and relatively slight (well, I was then, anyway -- now not so much;) woman. I couldn't escape. I couldn't see over the heads around me; I couldn't hear or understand any official efforts at crowd control; and I literally at times did not have my feet on the ground, actually being lifted and carried along in the press of bodies around me. It was so terrifying that even now, years later, I hesitate long and hard before putting myself into any crowded situation. No parades, no live concerts, and if I demonstrate, I stay far in the fringes of the crowd.
quote:I doubt this was much of a factor. It's pulled out every time there's a riot to explain the exact paradox that you're responding to-- the fact that whenever there's this sort of unrest, the rioters end up damaging their own community, rather than the (perceived or real) oppressors. It happened here in L.A in my lifetime in both the Watts riots and in the Rodney King riots, and seems to be the pattern whenever and wherever this occurs. I'm not sure I fully understand the psychology of it either, but I know that "outside agitators" is not really the answer.
Originally posted by Porridge:
Second, according to rumors, there were many out-of-towners present. They won't know who's who or what's what.
quote:These two points, in my experience, are spot-on. As well as the deep American suspicion noted upthread of anything complex or nuanced.
Originally posted by Porridge:
Fourth, mobs don't think. Expecting "sense" of mob action is a waste of energy.
Many years ago, I was involved in an effort to organize welfare moms in my state to respond to proposed cuts in welfare benefits (already down to cheese-parings). The prejudice against these women by non-group members paled to nothingness in comparison with the prejudice the women in my group had for one another.
quote:I wonder what you understand by "personal responsibility" in that it is difficult to decontextualize; and whether culpability and consequent sanctions necessarily vary. For example, is opportunistic theft in a non-riot context more heinous than when an individual, otherwise law-abiding, decides to join looters on the spur of the moment?
Group behaviour affects individual behaviour. This is highly studied and completely obvious. That everyone will be proof against it ignores evolution and cultural development.
This, of course, does not obviate personal responsibility. But to deny the group as an entity is silly
quote:I'm wasn't attributing any level of wrong in my statement, just describing dynamics/mechanism.
Originally posted by Kwesi:
For example, is opportunistic theft in a non-riot context more heinous than when an individual, otherwise law-abiding, decides to join looters on the spur of the moment?
quote:It's the job of the police to arrest those who commit arson and vandalism. My point is that I have never heard a black leader point out to rioters that they are inflicting tremendous pain on other blacks.
Originally posted by Porridge:
quote:I don't know about it being "tolerated;" after all, there were many arrests (more than 60, IIRC) the night the indictment was announced.
Originally posted by Moo:
I don't understand at all why this behavior is tolerated. When people are frustrated they feel like destroying something, but destroying the property of people who belong to the same discriminated-against group as you makes no sense.
Moo
quote:If the hired help are black and the business is destroyed, they are thrown out of work. Moreover, businesses in predominantly black neighborhoods are patronized mostly by black people. If these businesses are destroyed, their customers have to travel out of the neighborhood to get the goods and services they want.
Again, though, we're down to perceptions. First, there's the issue of what the looters/vandalizers "know." I walk down my town's Main Street pretty often; do I know who owns what among the local shops? I know a few; most, I've got no clue about. I don't patronize the businesses, or I've only interacted with hired help, not the business owners, or what-have-you.
quote:Perhaps you're just too distant from the action. Here in US, African-American leaders have been making these points, as well as urging peaceful protest, all the way back to MLK. I remember many, many explicit pleas making these points at the time of both the Watts riots and the Rodney King riots. More recently, in the lead up to the verdict, African-American leaders in Ferguson made these points repeatedly while calling for peace. It certainly is not a new insight or one that is lost on the leadership.
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:It's the job of the police to arrest those who commit arson and vandalism. My point is that I have never heard a black leader point out to rioters that they are inflicting tremendous pain on other blacks.
Originally posted by Porridge:
quote:I don't know about it being "tolerated;" after all, there were many arrests (more than 60, IIRC) the night the indictment was announced.
Originally posted by Moo:
I don't understand at all why this behavior is tolerated. When people are frustrated they feel like destroying something, but destroying the property of people who belong to the same discriminated-against group as you makes no sense.
Moo
]If the hired help are black and the business is destroyed, they are thrown out of work. Moreover, businesses in predominantly black neighborhoods are patronized mostly by black people. If these businesses are destroyed, their customers have to travel out of the neighborhood to get the goods and services they want.
quote:'Cause not trashing anything is part of protesting peacefully?
Originally posted by Moo:
I have heard of many black leaders asking people to protest peacefully, but I have never heard one saying that predominantly black neighborhoods and businesses should not be trashed because of the pain that inflicts on other blacks.
Moo
quote:Sadly, some of the people who oppress blacks are themselves black. Oppressors come in all colors. Isn't violence a form of oppression? And, as you note, both the perpetrators and the victims of violence in Ferguson are predominantly African American.
Originally posted by Moo:
Why protest in predominantly black neighborhoods at all, whether peacefully or otherwise? The people who oppress blacks are not in those neighborhoods.
Moo
quote:Because if they moved the protest to a white neighborhood, they'd stand a good chance of getting mown down.
Originally posted by Moo:
Why protest in predominantly black neighborhoods at all, whether peacefully or otherwise?
quote:AFAIK no one has been shot during the protests. People have been hit with various objects, and buildings have been trashed and set afire, but I have not heard of any gunshots.
Originally posted by Enoch:
I've asked this before. How can one rationally any concept of peaceful protest in a place where firearms are freely available, widely both available and carried? Isn't claiming it does, a sort of well-meaning self-delusion?
quote:I'm sure some supportive group will find a role for him soon.
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I note Darren Wilson has described resigning as "the hardest thing" he's ever had to do. Apparently, then, shooting people is easier. Implying this so publically is not helpful.
quote:I suspect that shooting people is far, far too easy in a place awash with guns. So much so that the first line of defence seems to be 'shoot to kill'
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I note Darren Wilson has described resigning as "the hardest thing" he's ever had to do. Apparently, then, shooting people is easier. Implying this so publically is not helpful.
quote:Again, it might be your geographic distance, but the point has been made, many times, going back to the riots in the 60s.
Originally posted by Moo:
I have heard of many black leaders asking people to protest peacefully, but I have never heard one saying that predominantly black neighborhoods and businesses should not be trashed because of the pain that inflicts on other blacks.
Moo
quote:That's good, but it isn't quite the question I was asking.
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:AFAIK no one has been shot during the protests. People have been hit with various objects, and buildings have been trashed and set afire, but I have not heard of any gunshots.
Originally posted by Enoch:
I've asked this before. How can one rationally any concept of peaceful protest in a place where firearms are freely available, widely both available and carried? Isn't claiming it does, a sort of well-meaning self-delusion?
Moo
quote:This should ease the pain:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I note Darren Wilson has described resigning as "the hardest thing" he's ever had to do. Apparently, then, shooting people is easier. Implying this so publically is not helpful.
quote:Add that to the reputed half a million dollars Wilson allegedly received from people contributing to a fund for his legal defense (which he no longer has to spend for legal defense, except in the unlikely event of a federal civil rights suit or civil suit by Michael Brown's family) and ex-Officer Wilson seems to have suddenly come into about a million dollars. Factoring in his new marketability as a Fox News talking head or adding his by-line to ghost written books by Regnery Publishing, why would anyone be surprised that he quit his day job harassing the black citizens of Ferguson?
ABC offered Darren Wilson a “mid-to-high” six-figure payment to give his first and only public interview on the network, according to the website Got News. An unnamed source from NBC reportedly told the website that both networks engaged in a bidding war to score the first interview with Wilson but NBC backed out after its rival “upped the ante.”
quote:Which raises yet again the many questions about where all the extra forces ordered up by MO's governor, etc. were on the night the no-indictment announcement was made, why the announcement was made at prime TV time to an assemblage apparently primed to riot, etc.
Originally posted by Enoch:
. . . the authorities have little option but to put down the riot by applying overwhelming force. The reason for the riot, whether we sympathise with it or not, becomes irrelevant. IMHO rioters have no grounds for complaint if they get hurt.
quote:A cynic might suspect that one factor of the timing was that it's harder to tell what's going on if the tear gas starts flying under cover of darkness.
Originally posted by Porridge:
Which raises yet again the many questions about where all the extra forces ordered up by MO's governor, etc. were on the night the no-indictment announcement was made, why the announcement was made at prime TV time to an assemblage apparently primed to riot, etc.
quote:You assume that people who have no guns are unarmed. IIRC during the rioting in August, Molotov cocktails were thrown. Just about anyone can make a Molotov cocktail.
Originally posted by Enoch:
If the authorities are policing a population that is habitually armed, faced with a protest, and not knowing whether protesters will suddenly start shooting or not, how can one expect the authorities to treat some protests as peaceful and some as violent, rather than all as violent?
quote:Doesn't that implicitly answer your question then? Clearly here are 5 black leaders who understand the issue and are non-verbally speaking out about it.
Originally posted by Moo:
I saw a picture of five or six black men with guns standing in a line in front of a gas station. The story that went with the picture said that the gas station belonged to a white man who treated his black employees and customers very well.
The men decided they would make sure no one burned the place down.
Moo
quote:There are ways of presenting a presence, of being prepared, that are less likely to provoke a violent reaction. You treat all as potential, but do not show that you are expecting it. You do not put people on the defencive at the beginning of an encounter. That is priming the well.
Originally posted by Enoch:
If the authorities are policing a population that is habitually armed, faced with a protest, and not knowing whether protesters will suddenly start shooting or not, how can one expect the authorities to treat some protests as peaceful and some as violent, rather than all as violent?
quote:Again, my son-in-law was part of the August protests as a journalist covering them. What he saw and reported bears little resemblance to the way it's being depicted here.
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:You assume that people who have no guns are unarmed. IIRC during the rioting in August, Molotov cocktails were thrown. Just about anyone can make a Molotov cocktail.
Originally posted by Enoch:
If the authorities are policing a population that is habitually armed, faced with a protest, and not knowing whether protesters will suddenly start shooting or not, how can one expect the authorities to treat some protests as peaceful and some as violent, rather than all as violent?
The police should treat protests as peaceful until they prove otherwise. However the police need to be prepared in case the Molotov cocktails start flying.
Moo
quote:The two fires that were part of the August protests were indeed apparently started by Molotov cocktails. The protests went south after 4 days of peace protests were met with a provocative and arguably illegal response from the Fergusan PD. Certainly not acceptable, but what I was objecting to is the depiction of the protests as violent rioting from day one. The vast majority of the Ferguson protestors in August were non-violent the entire time. African-American leaders worked closely with the protestors (as MLK did back in the 60s the entire time). There were acts of violence and rioting, but were limited in scope. Some helpful points have been made upthread about the mix of people you find in these sorts of protests, with differing agenda, methods, etc. and the difficulty in separating oneself when it goes south. That was very much the case back in August-- as well, I am guessing, with this week. I certainly would not object to anything anyone has said here to denounce the violence and looting or the impact it has on African American business owners. What I object to is the characterization that this represents accurately the whole of the protests or the majority of the protestors. (The fault though probably lies with the media as much as anyone).
Originally posted by Moo:
If the fires were not started by Molotov cocktails, how were they started?
Moo
quote:Yes, what a shame it is he doesn't live in the UK where there are no injustices, ever.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Apart from a bit of short term cashing in, courtesy of 'the American way' he doesn't appear to have all that many options, Ah well, I suppose that's what happens when you get 'inconveniently' acquitted in the US.
quote:Just speculating. Given Fox's penchant for hiring right wing icons of dubious legal history (e.g. Oliver North), new millionaire Darren Wilson would seem exactly their cup of tea. If he decides to go that route I'd expect him to wait a couple years, just in case anything he said on air might be used in a civil law suit.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
@ Croesos
Have Fox News actually offered Darren Wilson some kind of a job as a free lance talking head. Or are you just speculating that it's only a matter of time?
quote:I doubt the Brown family is getting much, if anything, though I haven't seen anything one way or the other. One of the reasons new millionaire Darren Wilson was able to command such a high price is that he hasn't said anything publicly since the shooting. The Brown family, on the other hand, seem willing to talk very freely to a wide variety of media about their slain son. It's one of those supply and demand things.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Presumably the Brown family and the lawyers for the Browns and Darren Wilson are also receiving fees for TV appearances?
quote:Financial settlement for what? The story is that Wilson resigned voluntarily, so while he's not receiving a severance package, most jobs don't give you severance if you quit. Unless you count the the three and half months of paid administrative leave new millionaire Wilson drew between the time of the shooting and his resignation.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I think Darren Wilson is getting no financial settlement from the police force so perhaps cashing in short term on his unwanted 'fame' is all he's got, Presumably his lawyers have to be paid?
quote:Very few millionaires work what we consider a 'normal job'. As for his safety, it's been noted how often unarmed black men have been shot by American police. It's almost unheard of for any kind of direct personal reprisal to follow. For example, all of the four policemen who shot and killed Amadou Diallo seem to have been living safely for the decade and a half since the shooting. I'm not sure why new millionaire Darren Wilson should be an exception to this longstanding trend. Could you expand on this?
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I wouldn't have thought Darren Wilson's prospects of living safely or getting a 'normal job' were very good.
quote:Someone has offered $5000 for information on the whereabouts of Wilson. The New York Times gave the location of the house he owns. (I presume he's not there now.)
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I wouldn't have thought Darren Wilson's prospects of living safely or getting a 'normal job' were very good. And he doesn't qualify for anything like witness protection new life deals.
quote:AIUI the names of the grand jury members are not disclosed to the public.
Wonder how safe the grand jury members are?
quote:Crœsos: you are, of course, entitled to whatever opinion the above represents, and it's true that young black men get shot far more often, get convicted and imprisoned at greater rates, are unemployed in much higher numbers, get far harsher sentences, and on and on than can be accounted for by their statistical presence in US demographics.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
new millionaire Darren Wilson
new millionaire Darren Wilson
new millionaire Wilson
new millionaire Darren Wilson
quote:I wouldn't describe Wilson as a "right wing icon." Oliver North was an educated Colonel with a proven "way with words," if you like that sort of macho military style. Wilson just talks that "just the facts," style that policeman must learn in school. I don't know any other group that consistently says, "individual," in place of man or woman. It's that flat affect, police style that earned him the "Cold as Ice," headlines. Not Fox News material.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Just speculating. Given Fox's penchant for hiring right wing icons of dubious legal history new millionaire Darren Wilson would seem exactly their cup of tea.
quote:Interestingly, despite the macho mystique of danger associated with law enforcement work, it's actually not even in the the top ten most dangerous jobs in the U.S. While it is riskier work than a typical job [PDF] it's a level of danger roughly comparable to that experienced by electricians or non-construction laborers, both of which earn even less terrific wages than police officers and neither of whom seem to get anywhere near the same amount of sympathy for their workplace risks.
Originally posted by Porridge:
Can we also, however, keep in mind that young police officers, of any race, carry out fairly dangerous work in the midst of a pretty heavily-armed populace, and do so at risk to their lives at not necessarily-terrific wages?
quote:As noted, most police do not truly face much danger in their career. Most American police do not fire their weapons except at paper targets.
Originally posted by Porridge:
Can we also, however, keep in mind that young police officers, of any race, carry out fairly dangerous work in the midst of a pretty heavily-armed populace, and do so at risk to their lives at not necessarily-terrific wages?
quote:Yes, it is. As mentioned earlier it's riskier than a typical job, but by no means at the extreme end of the risk scale. Yet you don't hear quite as many paeans to the psychological stresses of being a lumberjack or a commercial fisher or a coal miner, all professions with a hugely greater chance or injuring or killing workers on any given day.
Originally posted by Porridge:
The stats collected post-incident are only part of the risk, though.
Whenever an officer gets called to an accident, a domestic conflict, a crime-in-progress, s/he is at risk and must face the possibility of getting assaulted or possibly even shot.
An hour's drive from here, 4 officers in my state lost their lives trying to serve a warrant. The occupant, apparently in expectation of being served, booby-trapped his home and blew up the house, himself, the original two responding officers and two more who tried to rescue the first responders.
Yes, that's unusual.
quote:Interestingly that puts your local cops under the tenth percentile for police nationally ($32,670/year according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics). I know someone has to be at the bottom end of the scale when it comes to short-changing public workers, but that dubious honor is usually reserved for states like Mississippi or Alabama. The median annual income for police in the U.S. is $56,130. (For the record, the state of New Hampshire is fairly close to the national statistics in police salary according to the BLS, so I'm not sure what's going on with your local police pay.)
Originally posted by Porridge:
Small-town officers in my state, in places the size of Ferguson, make about $28-$30,000 a year if they work full time. Most towns this size in my state have only part-time officers -- no benefits, no paid leave -- and must have other employment in addition.
quote:But a cop is 8 times more likely to kill a civilian than be killed by one.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I've looked through the stats I could find on line which suggest that about 100 police officers die a year in the U.S. and about half of those deaths are directly related to some form of assault. Police officers in the US kill about 400 people a year, almost always by gunshot.
Those figures together represent a very small proportion of the annual number of homicides by gun in the U.S. (c. 30,000) Statistically, an American citizen is much more likely to be shot and killed by an armed civilian than an armed officer.
quote:Well, sure - isn't that basically what cities do - provide police and fire services? The rest is zoning, permit and code enforcement, which is pretty cheap, and I suppose garbage collection, plus a few bucks for municipal parks and libraries.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
IIRC, the cost of police and fire can be the single biggest budgetary item for an American city. Most of that being wage and retirement.
quote:Economist Paul Krugman sometimes refers to the U.S. federal government as "an insurance company with an army" because, if you judge by expenditure, that's primarily what federal spending goes for: insurance (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid) and the military. In that sense most municipal governments are school systems with a water treatment plant and a police force.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:Well, sure - isn't that basically what cities do - provide police and fire services? The rest is zoning, permit and code enforcement, which is pretty cheap, and I suppose garbage collection, plus a few bucks for municipal parks and libraries.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
IIRC, the cost of police and fire can be the single biggest budgetary item for an American city. Most of that being wage and retirement.
Cities often provide utilities, but those are billed separately. School districts are separate bodies.
quote:In Boston, schools account for 36% of the city budget, just over twice the share spent on public safety.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:Well, sure - isn't that basically what cities do - provide police and fire services? The rest is zoning, permit and code enforcement, which is pretty cheap, and I suppose garbage collection, plus a few bucks for municipal parks and libraries.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
IIRC, the cost of police and fire can be the single biggest budgetary item for an American city. Most of that being wage and retirement.
Cities often provide utilities, but those are billed separately. School districts are separate bodies.
quote:Schools take up much more of my taxes than public safety, too, but around here, schools are run by school districts, and not the city.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
In Boston, schools account for 36% of the city budget, just over twice the share spent on public safety.
quote:Find the nearest city and have a look at their budget.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
isn't that basically what cities do - provide police and fire services? The rest is zoning, permit and code enforcement, which is pretty cheap, and I suppose garbage collection, plus a few bucks for municipal parks and libraries.
Cities often provide utilities, but those are billed separately. School districts are separate bodies.
quote:Even without the schools, public safety would only be 28% of Boston's budget. Possibly it dominates Ferguson's budget, but it doesn't seem reasonable to just say that police and fire are "what cities do."
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:Schools take up much more of my taxes than public safety, too, but around here, schools are run by school districts, and not the city.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
In Boston, schools account for 36% of the city budget, just over twice the share spent on public safety.
The same seems to be true of Ferguson, MO, where Ferguson-Florissant School District serves the majority (but not all) of the residents of the city of Ferguson. Which means that schools don't appear on the city budget.
quote:For a start, all prosecutors have a pro-police bias--it goes with the job. Cops almost never get indicted for excessive force, even in cases that are much more clear-cut than this one. In McCulloch's case it's even more obvious, since he comes from a family of cops and has said he would have been a cop if he hadn't lost a leg to cancer.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Timothy
I appreciate the argument about normal use. From this side of the pond, the odd thing is the fact that the grand jury processes are normally used by the prosecutor to "indict a ham sandwich" if he wants to. Reading the 5th Amendment, the constitutional position appears to have been to prevent prosecutorial strong-arming a case before a jury unless there was "probable cause". The normal reading of "probable" hardly suggests "not obviously not guilty" but that seems to be the way it gets used.
On reflecting, I'm now pretty convinced that the prosecutor wanted to kick the case, not necessarily out of any pro-police bias but because of the evidence. You might argue a bit of both. But from what's out there now, reasonable doubt is a shoe in. So he used the process to share responsibility, for political reasons as well as legal ones.
quote:Without getting graphic, multiple autopsies are problematic.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I think a federal prosecution is still possible (Beeswax Altar opined that it was unlikely earlier in the thread) but if that third autopsy undermines the first and second, then the legal proceedings may not be over.
quote:I thought the results of all three autopsies were released. Doesn't really matter. I'd be shocked if federal charges were brought against Wilson. Let's take the most well known example of federal civil rights charges against police officers. A man recorded LA police officers severely beating Rodney King. Five of them were tried. Four of them were acquitted on all charges with a hung jury on one charge for the fifth. Federal prosecutors brought civil rights charges against four of the five. Only two of them were actually convicted. One of them was the police sergeant in command of the scene who never hit Rodney King at all. At the sentencing hearing, the judge ruled that only the last few strikes by one officer were illegal. So, in a beating lasting over a minute, only the final few seconds violated federal law. He gave them 30 months instead of the 70 months required by the federal sentencing guidelines. Supreme Court upheld that decision.
originally posted by Barnabas62:
I think a federal prosecution is still possible (Beeswax Altar opined that it was unlikely earlier in the thread) but if that third autopsy undermines the first and second, then the legal proceedings may not be over.
quote:By defending cops? Doesn't seem like much of a challenge.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
This is how ambitious and talented defense attorneys become famous.
quote:By winning high profile cases
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:By defending cops? Doesn't seem like much of a challenge.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
This is how ambitious and talented defense attorneys become famous.
quote:But these are high profile cases because they seem to show that cops can kill with impunity; a "win" doesn't make the attorney look talented, it just confirms that suspicion. Nobody's going to get famous for showing he can shoot fish in a barrel.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:By winning high profile cases
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:By defending cops? Doesn't seem like much of a challenge.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
This is how ambitious and talented defense attorneys become famous.
quote:I'm sure he got asked to comment on TV precisely because he has a track record of speaking his mind, regardless of the established official view, on the basis of how he sees the facts of the matter.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Re Cyril Wecht:
I haven't yet read his opinions, but I looked him up on Wikipedia. He may be absolutely right about whatever he said. But he's very controversial--lots of associations with headline cases, and he wrote books about them. He disagreed with the Warren commission about JFK's death--and that alone makes him divisive. Some people absolutely go with the Warren report, some absolutely think there was a massive plot and/or cover-up, and a lot of us are somewhere in the middle. But people who strongly disagree with the official word on JFK are often judged to be kooks, rightly or wrongly.
So, whatever Wecht has to say, he may well be written off because of the above.
FWIW.
quote:Mark O'Mara represented George Zimmerman who wasn't a police officer. Johnny Cochran was famous for representing Michael Jackson and OJ Simpson who weren't police officers. Throw in Jerry Spence, Alan Dershowitz, and Vincent Bugliosi. One of the ways to becoming a famous celebrity attorney is by winning high profile cases and Wilson would have been a high profile case. Attorneys take high profile cases they think they can win. That's the point.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:But these are high profile cases because they seem to show that cops can kill with impunity; a "win" doesn't make the attorney look talented, it just confirms that suspicion. Nobody's going to get famous for showing he can shoot fish in a barrel.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:By winning high profile cases
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:By defending cops? Doesn't seem like much of a challenge.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
This is how ambitious and talented defense attorneys become famous.
quote:A bit of a different story from the Brown case, though.
Originally posted by Porridge:
And now NYC is on the march for its own police-killed black man.
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Gwai
From the statistics, it seems that at least one American a day (c400 a year) is likely to be killed by a police officer, and at least one police officer a week dies violently in the course of duties.
Treating each case on its merits while looking at underlying causes and possible remedies separately looks like the only way those events can be handled.
I haven't had a look at the chokehold case in any detail.
quote:That's only a really serious accusation if there's a general impression that cops can't kill white civilians and particularly, white petty criminals with impunity.
Originally posted by Porridge:
... Cops can kill black civilians (including black petty criminals) with impunity. ...
quote:Maybe I am biased, but as a white American that is exactly my impression, and it's the impression others on my fb feed seem to have too. For instance, I remember a couple dramatically violent cops in my city a few years ago who attacked (separately) a couple of (white) bartenders who cut them off. Either one or both of them went to jail despite lack of video, etc. Neither bartender died either. Yet the cops in Ferguson and NYC won't go to jail, and I bet the one who killed the boy in Michigan (IIRC, had a toy gun in a store, didn't brandish it, killed) doesn't either.
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:That's only a really serious accusation if there's a general impression that cops can't kill white civilians and particularly, white petty criminals with impunity.
Originally posted by Porridge:
... Cops can kill black civilians (including black petty criminals) with impunity. ...
quote:I'm assuming that jurors on a grand jury have to make some kind of promise to judge the case before them on the facts, without external influence and so on.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Something I've been wondering: if you're on a grand jury and realize that your vote might help trigger civil unrest, what should you do?
quote:I've been to the US exactly once, and didn't get much further than the hotel at the end of the runway. But I have plenty of American friends, and friends who visit America, and yes, a couple of times, the shit has gone down and their skin colour (white) hasn't saved them from being treated abominably. At least they weren't shot, though.
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:That's only a really serious accusation if there's a general impression that cops can't kill white civilians and particularly, white petty criminals with impunity.
Originally posted by Porridge:
... Cops can kill black civilians (including black petty criminals) with impunity. ...
quote:Actually that's not certain. It was claimed by new millionaire Darren Wilson during his grand jury testimony, but it contradicts the earliest statements on the matter made by his department shortly after they released the video of the robbery. Since this was several days after the shooting and the department had supposedly already questioned not-yet millionaire Wilson extensively about the incident, why they'd claim the exact opposite of what new millionaire Wilson supposedly told them is opaque. We have to entertain at least the possibility that this was an invented detail to deflect culpability.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
It"s certain that Wilson was aware of the theft before he encountered Brown and Johnson.
quote:As an American I get the impression there are less consequences for a policeman who kills a white civilian but they are more likely to result in a court case.
Originally posted by Enoch:
True, I'm thousands of miles away. I may be unfairly impugning a great nation with a noble vision. But one rather gets the impression from here that if US police are trigger happy, they kill people without discriminating much whether by race, colour or creed.
quote:He was actually at a city park in Ohio. The black man shot in a store for holding a toy gun (one of the store's products) was a separate incident also in Ohio. And yes, the police shooter was also never charged in that case as well.
Originally posted by Gwai:
. . . and I bet the one who killed the boy in Michigan (IIRC, had a toy gun in a store, didn't brandish it, killed) doesn't either.
quote:There's a major factual error in that piece: "Though the medical examiner ruled the death a homicide, Donovan [the prosecutor] decided to go the grand jury route, rather than just charging Pantaleo."
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
More information on the choke-hold case:
Another Shocker [...]
quote:Here's the 10th August interview
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Actually that's not certain. It was claimed by new millionaire Darren Wilson during his grand jury testimony, but it contradicts the earliest statements on the matter made by his department shortly after they released the video of the robbery. Since this was several days after the shooting and the department had supposedly already questioned not-yet millionaire Wilson extensively about the incident, why they'd claim the exact opposite of what new millionaire Wilson supposedly told them is opaque. We have to entertain at least the possibility that this was an invented detail to deflect culpability.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
It"s certain that Wilson was aware of the theft before he encountered Brown and Johnson.
quote:So that excuses the actions of the police?
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:There's a major factual error in that piece: "Though the medical examiner ruled the death a homicide, Donovan [the prosecutor] decided to go the grand jury route, rather than just charging Pantaleo."
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
More information on the choke-hold case:
Another Shocker [...]
In NY, grand juries are mandatory in felony cases, unless the defendant waives it. Sure, the officer could've been charged without one, but if so, a grand jury would've been convened within days, and we'd have the same result.
Turns out my posting up the NY grand jury handbook was more relevant than I ever could've guessed!
quote:Which doesn't explain Chief Jackson's insistence that the only reason he had released the tape was because of a FOIA request. (A FOIA request which, to the best of my knowledge, has never been identified to date.) The clear implication, especially when combined with Jackson's other statements, is that the events depicted on the tape are not related to Wilson's encounter with Brown.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
There's no contradiction, Croesos. The police chief's statement is that Wilson's initial stop was because of jaywalking, which is what Johnson confirms.
The confusion is simply over when Wilson realised that the two might have been involved in the robbery, not when he knew there was a robbery. Has anyone disputed that there was a broadcast about the robbery on police radio?
quote:And I expect people to treat individual cases as individual.
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
But I expect people to claim there was no racism involved and that there is no pattern here.
quote:Actually, Black people are much more likely to be killed during an arrest. When I've got time I may drag out the statistics, but a bit of a summary can be found in the short video at the bottom of this page.
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:That's only a really serious accusation if there's a general impression that cops can't kill white civilians and particularly, white petty criminals with impunity.
Originally posted by Porridge:
... Cops can kill black civilians (including black petty criminals) with impunity. ...
True, I'm thousands of miles away. I may be unfairly impugning a great nation with a noble vision. But one rather gets the impression from here that if US police are trigger happy, they kill people without discriminating much whether by race, colour or creed.
quote:Which seems to take the position that there's no such thing as systematic or institutional racism, or at least such a thing doesn't exist to any degree that would be worthy of discussion.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:And I expect people to treat individual cases as individual.
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
But I expect people to claim there was no racism involved and that there is no pattern here.
quote:Not a bit. But you don't discuss systematic or institutional racism by picking apart an individual case and commenting on its evidence. Which is what most of the discussion here is doing.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Which seems to take the position that there's no such thing as systematic or institutional racism, or at least such a thing doesn't exist to any degree that would be worthy of discussion.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:And I expect people to treat individual cases as individual.
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
But I expect people to claim there was no racism involved and that there is no pattern here.
quote:That isn't what I said, but frankly I don't expect nuance from you. I'm done again. Bye.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Wow. Can't discuss the details of an individual case because it doesn't address systematic racism, and can't discuss systematic racism because individual cases should be discussed individually.
quote:The way to have a nuanced discussion is to have a nuanced discussion-- including engaging with people who disagree with you-- and listening to what other people are saying. Including the many posters who have pointed out that dealing with systemic problems requires a willingness to think beyond individual cases.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:And I expect people to treat individual cases as individual.
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
But I expect people to claim there was no racism involved and that there is no pattern here.
It's highly instructive that this thread, about the Ferguson shooting, is seen as an appropriate vehicle for discussing any death of a black male at the hands of a white police officer.
It's highly instructive that it's often assumed that one's view on any given case will be the same as one's view on every case. That if one thinks one white police officer was correctly not prosecuted, one must think that every white police officer was correctly not prosecuted.
THAT is racism just as much as everything else. Because even if there was no racism involved whatsoever, from time to time a white police officer would kill a black person just by virtue of there being some white police officers and some black people. The statistically 'normal' level of these events is not zero unless and until there are no lethal weapons available.
I'm not going to rejoin this conversation at any length because I simply don't believe that most people are interested in any kind of nuanced discussion about why it's perhaps correct in some cases that a police officer, whatever their skin colour, is innocent of any crime and why in other cases it's rather disturbing that no charges are brought. That's just too subtle for the kind of sweeping general position that fits within a media soundbite.
quote:Nobody said that you think that every white police officer was correctly not prosecuted. But a pattern of acquittals in a country with a long history of racism is not irrelevant to the particular case of Ferguson.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:And I expect people to treat individual cases as individual.
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
[qb] But I expect people to claim there was no racism involved and that there is no pattern here.
It's highly instructive that this thread, about the Ferguson shooting, is seen as an appropriate vehicle for discussing any death of a black male at the hands of a white police officer.
It's highly instructive that it's often assumed that one's view on any given case will be the same as one's view on every case. That if one thinks one white police officer was correctly not prosecuted, one must think that every white police officer was correctly not prosecuted.
THAT is racism just as much as everything else. Because even if there was no racism involved whatsoever, from time to time a white police officer would kill a black person just by virtue of there being some white police officers and some black people. The statistically 'normal' level of these events is not zero unless and until there are no lethal weapons available.
I'm not going to rejoin this conversation at any length because I simply don't believe that most people are interested in any kind of nuanced discussion about why it's perhaps correct in some cases that a police officer, whatever their skin colour, is innocent of any crime and why in other cases it's rather disturbing that no charges are brought. That's just too subtle for the kind of sweeping general position that fits within a media soundbite.
quote:Which is funny considering nobody said this and you have no idea about my race, and even funnier when "everything else" includes shooting unarmed people or 12 year olds kids with toy guns or strangling unarmed "tax evaders".
Originally posted by orfeo:
THAT is racism just as much as everything else.
quote:No, as it happens, I think the NY chokehold looks a lot worse than the Ferguson case. I'll accept the grand jury's decision, as they've reviewed all the evidence, and I haven't, but doesn't mean I have to like it.
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
So that excuses the actions of the police?
quote:Which begs the question of why Chief Jackson didn't say so when asked. He indicated there was no other reason for releasing the tape than a bunch of FOIA requests. It's in the video of your previous CNN link. This was a week after the shooting. Why the reason for the coy responses if Jackson was aware that Wilson had (eventually) recognized Brown as a robbery suspect?
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Croesos, I don't get that argument. The video was relevant if at any time during the altercations. after the first jaywalk encounter, Wilson had grounds for belief that Brown and Johnson might have been involved in the theft. Which they were, of course. I've seen somewhere else some information about the request to release it and will check back.
quote:I did? Where?
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Finally, since you mentioned Johnson's other grand jury testimony. . . .
quote:Sure - that's your point. My point is that just getting a high-profile case isn't enough to win a defense lawyer fame. It has to look like he's achieved something hard, like your examples of successfully defending OJ or MJ, guys who people thought actually ran a serious risk of losing.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:Mark O'Mara represented George Zimmerman who wasn't a police officer. Johnny Cochran was famous for representing Michael Jackson and OJ Simpson who weren't police officers. Throw in Jerry Spence, Alan Dershowitz, and Vincent Bugliosi. One of the ways to becoming a famous celebrity attorney is by winning high profile cases and Wilson would have been a high profile case. Attorneys take high profile cases they think they can win. That's the point.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:But these are high profile cases because they seem to show that cops can kill with impunity; a "win" doesn't make the attorney look talented, it just confirms that suspicion. Nobody's going to get famous for showing he can shoot fish in a barrel.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:By winning high profile cases
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:By defending cops? Doesn't seem like much of a challenge.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
This is how ambitious and talented defense attorneys become famous.
quote:There should be separate threads for every single one? We could dedicate a whole board just to threads discussing white cops shooting black men.
Originally posted by orfeo:
It's highly instructive that this thread, about the Ferguson shooting, is seen as an appropriate vehicle for discussing any death of a black male at the hands of a white police officer.
quote:It's not racism, it's just slopping thinking. And your hypothetical situation is very, very far from the real one we live in here in the US, where black people.
It's highly instructive that it's often assumed that one's view on any given case will be the same as one's view on every case. That if one thinks one white police officer was correctly not prosecuted, one must think that every white police officer was correctly not prosecuted.
THAT is racism just as much as everything else. Because even if there was no racism involved whatsoever, from time to time a white police officer would kill a black person just by virtue of there being some white police officers and some black people. The statistically 'normal' level of these events is not zero unless and until there are no lethal weapons available.
quote:Chief Jackson took a lot of grief for releasing that tape at the same time that he identified Officer Wilson. My sense is that he's in over his head, but has not deliberately done stupid things. I think he's sincere, but that there's a reason he runs a small department in a small city instead of anything larger.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Which doesn't explain Chief Jackson's insistence that the only reason he had released the tape was because of a FOIA request. ...
quote:
“In the public arena, we ought to recognize that it is empirically true that African-American men are more likely, by virtually every measure, to be arrested, sentenced, executed, or murdered than their white peers. We cannot shrug that off with apathy.”
quote:(Italics in about quote added by me)
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
I live in Arizona, police don't treat white and black people the same, they just don't. Any claim
to the contrary at this stage shows willful blindness.
quote:This. This, this, this.
Originally posted by RuthW:
You're not reading this thread in the same context that Americans are.
quote:Exactly. And again, the repeated call to consider each case "individually" (outside of the courtroom) are exactly what allows this sort of systemic inequality to continue.
Originally posted by Porridge:
quote:This. This, this, this.
Originally posted by RuthW:
You're not reading this thread in the same context that Americans are.
In addition to Jim Wallis’s “arrested, convicted, sentenced, killed” list, there’s far more: black men almost invariably receive longer or harsher sentences than whites for the exact same crime.
US black male life expectancy.
Black unemployment
Education for young black US men
It's possible to go on and on. News stories of the overall terrible outcomes, by almost any measure you care to come up with, for black men in the US appear constantly in the US press; I imagine few of these stories cross international borders to help paint a true picture of the status of black American males. When Americans read news of another unarmed black man being shot (just before I started this post, I read of another killing in Arizona), we do so against this larger backdrop.
In fact, it’s hard for me to separate many of our current president’s difficulties in dealing with Congress and assorted domestic issues from precisely this same context. But that’s a different discussion.
quote:Which is still a huge distance from us being able to be "certain that Wilson was aware of the theft". As I mentioned earlier, new millionaire Wilson is a textbook example of a self-interested witness. Chief Jackson also has an interest in painting his department in the best possible light and, not to put too fine a point on it, seems to preside over a police department that specializes in running up fines on spurious or fraudulent charges against black citizens. Given the way "fits the description" is a fairly standard police go-to in situations like this, I don't know how you can claim to know what Wilson knew with absolute certainty. I can see believing it's plausible, possible, or even likely, but how do you get to "certain" in circumstances like this?
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
On Croesos' point about who triggered freedom of information - plus the issue of what Wilson knew and when did he know it, the embedded video clip in an article dated 15 August gives the Chief's explanation of requests from the media, plus his understanding at that time of how it dawned on Wilson that Brown might have been involved in a robbery.
quote:Accusing someone of an ad hominem attack appears in and of itself to be a form of ad hominem attack and is making the hosts' heads hurt.
Originally posted by RuthW to orfeo:
Oh, and nice ad hominem attack on Croesus.
quote:This.
Martin60: Wilson seemed to behave more like a half trained soldier in an insurgency.
quote:After watching the video posted above, I can’t help wondering about the “resistance” to arrest here. Assume for the moment that Garner was telling the truth, was not selling loosies, and had instead just broken up a fight. Are citizens required to cooperate with arresting officers even where the charges are spurious? Is it possible to resist arrest when officers have not yet at any point stated “You’re under arrest?” (I do note the small bulge in the left pocket of Garner’s shorts: a pack of cigarettes or maybe just his wallet?) Is it a misdemeanor to resist false arrest?
Under New York penal law, in order to convict a person of Resisting Arrest, it must be proven that the person:
1. Intentionally prevents or attempts to prevent
2. A police officer or peace officer
3. From effecting an authorized arrest.
Resisting arrest is a misdemeamor charge.
quote:Getting your ass whupped by cops.
Originally posted by Porridge:
This made me wonder what actions or behaviors can be categorized as “resisting arrest”
quote:There's a common law right to resist an illegal arrest (since an illegal arrest is assault, battery, and trespass). Many states have abolished it, but it still exists in NY. (Link also details the NY resisting arrest statute.)
Originally posted by Porridge:
[...] After watching the video posted above, I can’t help wondering about the “resistance” to arrest here. Assume for the moment that Garner was telling the truth, was not selling loosies, and had instead just broken up a fight. Are citizens required to cooperate with arresting officers even where the charges are spurious? Is it possible to resist arrest when officers have not yet at any point stated “You’re under arrest?” (I do note the small bulge in the left pocket of Garner’s shorts: a pack of cigarettes or maybe just his wallet?) Is it a misdemeanor to resist false arrest? [...]
quote:Yep. The cops WILL win a street confrontation.
Originally posted by Byron:
Fight charges in court, not the street.
quote:Did you watch the video? You can call it a "tragic death". But it is still murder.
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:There's a common law right to resist an illegal arrest (since an illegal arrest is assault, battery, and trespass). Many states have abolished it, but it still exists in NY. (Link also details the NY resisting arrest statute.)
Originally posted by Porridge:
[...] After watching the video posted above, I can’t help wondering about the “resistance” to arrest here. Assume for the moment that Garner was telling the truth, was not selling loosies, and had instead just broken up a fight. Are citizens required to cooperate with arresting officers even where the charges are spurious? Is it possible to resist arrest when officers have not yet at any point stated “You’re under arrest?” (I do note the small bulge in the left pocket of Garner’s shorts: a pack of cigarettes or maybe just his wallet?) Is it a misdemeanor to resist false arrest? [...]
Actually doing it is a spectacularly bad idea, as Garner's tragic death shows. Fight charges in court, not the street. If he'd surrendered peacefully, he'd have been taken to central booking, arraigned, and out in around 24 hours, or earlier if they'd given him a desk ticket.
It's just not worth it.
quote:Unless you're white and wealthy.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
The cops WILL win a street confrontation.
quote:My "certain" did not allow for the possibility of a police fraud. I said so.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:If the detail (that he heard the broadcast about the robbery) was indeed invented, it was invented within the first 24 hours. But I'll give you that possibility.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
We have to entertain at least the possibility that this was an invented detail to deflect culpability.
quote:Or White wealthy and have lots of automatic weapons.
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:Unless you're white and wealthy.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
The cops WILL win a street confrontation.
quote:Watched it already, and I'm not apportioning blame, simply speaking practically.
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
Did you watch the video? You can call it a "tragic death". But it is still murder.
Pay particular attention to the lack of medical care after he was no longer "resisting arrest" as you insist in calling his actions. Nice way to blame the victim. At least you did not blame his death on his being overweight as the republican state representative did in the link I posted.
quote:My apologies.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
hosting/
quote:Accusing someone of an ad hominem attack appears in and of itself to be a form of ad hominem attack and is making the hosts' heads hurt.
Originally posted by RuthW to orfeo:
Oh, and nice ad hominem attack on Croesus.
Orfeo appears to have left the thread, but please, all of you, help maintain our high Purgatory standards by ensuring the light on this thread outweighs the heat, or visit Hell and enjoy the company of the hosts there. Thank you for your cooperation.
/hosting
quote:If the cops wanted to take her down then they would take her down. If she resisted in the slightest and got clobbered, she would be charged with resisting arrest. It wouldn't be a national news story, though.
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:Unless you're white and wealthy.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
The cops WILL win a street confrontation.
quote:The point is, they treated her intervention differently. Why would they do that?
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:If the cops wanted to take her down then they would take her down. If she resisted in the slightest and got clobbered, she would be charged with resisting arrest. It wouldn't be a national news story, though.
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:Unless you're white and wealthy.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
The cops WILL win a street confrontation.
quote:It most certainly WOULD. She and her high-priced legal representative would make it one so fast that the heads not rolling afterward would be spinning.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:If the cops wanted to take her down then they would take her down. If she resisted in the slightest and got clobbered, she would be charged with resisting arrest. It wouldn't be a national news story, though.
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:Unless you're white and wealthy.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
The cops WILL win a street confrontation.
quote:Martin, may I just ask what prompted this remark? Seriously, do you imagine for one instant that any US citizen, black, white or magenta, posting on this thread labors away in utter ignorance of his or her own personal culpability in participating in, supporting, and perpetuating the monolithic colossus which is institutional racism in this country? Do you really think this little wisp of information somehow escaped the notice of your US shipmates? Because frankly, I’m at a loss to understand how this remark is supposed to contribute meaningfully to this thread. If it’s actually something more than the usual Christian discussion-stopper of the mournfully-intoned, “Well, we live in a broken world,” followed by a sad shrug and a change of subject, I’d welcome your explanation.
Originally posted by Martin60:
We are the system.
quote:As for lilBuddha, you did come back to this thread after posting yours, so I’ll just content myself with pointing out that some of us do have the luxury of wearying of these grim truths, and of being free, from time to time, to casually suggest that the whole dismal ugly mess go fuck itself. Of course, few of the people whose fates we’ve been discussing have either luxury or freedom.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I'm weary of this thread. ... Fuck the system.
quote:Spoken like a person who does not live in a neighborhood where a willingness to occasionally physically defend yourself is a requirement, a person who does not get harassed by the police on a regular basis, a person who does not understand that sometimes when you're having a crappy day and people are putting their hands on you without your permission, you are not capable of a perfectly logical reaction that rationally weighs the costs and benefits. Particularly since in a lot of places they charge you so much for getting arrested (much less the associated costs of bail or bond and lawyers etc.) and you've frequently lost your job by the time you get out, etc. etc.
Originally posted by Byron:
Actually doing it is a spectacularly bad idea, as Garner's tragic death shows. Fight charges in court, not the street. If he'd surrendered peacefully, he'd have been taken to central booking, arraigned, and out in around 24 hours, or earlier if they'd given him a desk ticket.
It's just not worth it.
quote:Blaming the victim again.
Originally posted by Byron:
Saysay, are you trying to argue that it's wise to resist arrest?
If not, we don't even disagree. However understandable or justifiable, resisting arrest is dangerous in the extreme.
If you think it's wise, then yes, a person might succeed, escape, and stay on the lam until the clock runs down on the statute of limitations. The odds are, however, heavily against them, and the consequences of failure can be dire.
quote:You're a lawyer, aren't you? Because it takes some skill to twist another person's words that thoroughly.
Originally posted by Byron:
Saysay, are you trying to argue that it's wise to resist arrest?
quote:They already are where Garner lives. Didn't save his life.
Outside life of death struggles, chokeholds should be banned.
quote:Really, you're confident that Garner knew the system because he'd been arrested dozens of times? When part of the entire point of the system is to make sure that those being arrested don't understand the procedures that are now ruling and ruining their lives because then they wouldn't be dependent on the wealthy for food and shelter?
Originally posted by Byron:
Garner had been arrested dozens of times, and was out on bail for another crime when he died. He knew the system, and knew that, on such a pissant misdemeanor charge, he'd be back out again in a few hours. If you agree surrendering peacefully would be a better choice, I don't even see how we disagree.
quote:But (and not saying you're arguing with me here, just for clarity)-- to say something was a foolish choice is not the same as saying it should have been a fatal. There are consequences for our foolish choices, but they shouldn't ordinarily be deadly consequences. The fact that Garner was saying "I can't breathe" should have alerted the officer to the problem.
Originally posted by Byron:
Garner had been arrested dozens of times, and was out on bail for another crime when he died. He knew the system, and knew that, on such a pissant misdemeanor charge, he'd be back out again in a few hours. If you agree surrendering peacefully would be a better choice, I don't even see how we disagree.
quote:"His body and life forfeit"? It was an A misdemeanor. He'd either get low bail, or RoR, and if convicted, at most would've faced a fine or a few months in Rikers or the Tombs. OK, we all know that Rikers is a violent shithole, but it's not usually fatal.
Originally posted by saysay:
Really, you're confident that Garner knew the system because he'd been arrested dozens of times? When part of the entire point of the system is to make sure that those being arrested don't understand the procedures that are now ruling and ruining their lives because then they wouldn't be dependent on the wealthy for food and shelter?
I'll tell you what Garner knew about the system. Garner knew that some people with power had taken a dislike to him and declared his body and life forfeit.
But anyone who objects is just stupid and doesn't understand the way the law and the criminal justice system work.
quote:Thanks for clarifying that, I couldn't agree more, which is why I've consistently said the chokehold was wrong. If I'd been on the panel, and gone on the publicly available evidence, I've have voted to indict for manslaughter. As there's a ton of evidence I haven't seen, I can't say for sure that they got it wrong with the extra info factored in.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
But (and not saying you're arguing with me here, just for clarity)-- to say something was a foolish choice is not the same as saying it should have been a fatal. There are consequences for our foolish choices, but they shouldn't ordinarily be deadly consequences. The fact that Garner was saying "I can't breathe" should have alerted the officer to the problem.
quote:I think what both saysay and Ikkyu are pointing out is that what is dangerous in vast swathes of the US is being a black male. He doesn't have to resist arrest to be in danger. Take another look at the Garner video. I admit to a hearing impairment, but where does a cop ever utter the word "arrest?" They're just hassling the guy, actually trying to provoke him into doing something they could legitimately arrest him for. Our perceptions may differ, but where, when, and how did Garner actually resist arrest, beyond protesting verbally about what was actually going on -- their hassling him? Did he try to run? Did he make a fist? Did he try to hit anybody? Did he even utter a verbal threat? After they put their hands on him, he made some random gestures -- with open palms.
Originally posted by Byron:
Ikkyu, once again, I'm speaking in practical terms only, not assigning blame. It's not about what should be, but what is. Resisting arrest is dangerous. Police are trained to control the scene and subdue prisoners by force if need be. If it takes six officers, then six officers will jump on you.
You clearly believe the current system needs to change. OK. How should laws around arrest and force be modified? How should police training be changed?
Personally, I'd like to see more emphasis on persuading uncooperative but nonviolent suspects to comply, and much tighter rules on dangerous techniques. Outside life of death struggles, chokeholds should be banned.
quote:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/brainpickings/rss/~3/rOzfCqVWxMc/
Children’s initial response to the strange often is one of fear. A brown-skinned child, seeing a white person for the first time, may scream with fear. A white-skinned child, seeing a dark person for the first time, may also. If the screaming, fearful child is comforted, reassured and given a chance to learn to know and trust the stranger, he will have one kind of response - one of trust and expectation of friendship. But if his fear is unassuaged or is reinforced by the attitude of the older children and adults around him, he may come to hate what he has feared.
This is why it is so important in a multiracial world and a multiracial society like ours that children have many experiences with individuals of races different from their own. Only in this way can we hope surely to dispel their early fear of the strange and enable them to distinguish among individuals, caring for some and disliking others, not because they belong to a category of loved or hated people, but because of their own personality, as individuals.
quote:We must be listening to and looking at different videos. Again, I have a hearing impairment and never heard the word "arrest." You claim Garner said they were arresting him. Isn't saying "you're under arrest" a responsibility of the police rather than the suspect?
Originally posted by Byron:
Porridge, the clip opens with Garner protesting that they're arresting him: doing anything other than putting his hands behind his back is resisting arrest. He then says "Don't touch me" when the cops try to put his hands in cuffs.
I agree that the chokehold was wrong, and have said so repeatedly. But they had every right to arrest Garner. Selling untaxed smokes is a crime in New York. He wasn't arrested for being who he was, nor did they need to provoke him. They had probable cause already.
Yes, the laws around seizure are harsh, but they have to be. They're designed to take into custody everyone from a gangbanger blasting away at police to someone fleeing a robbery. There's ways to make them better. I suggested some changes: what, specifically, do you want changed?
quote:Doesn't this render your advice not to resist arrest rather pointless? After all, if police can simply claim after the fact "the suspect was resisting in a manner imperceptible to any outsider, but I could tell he was resisting", doesn't that effectively give them carte blanche to justify any level of brutality they want to dish out?
Originally posted by Byron:
Crœsos, resistance isn't always obvious from videos. Prisoners can passively resist, by locking joints, pulling against the cuffs, or simply by going limp.
quote:Wow - I find that story shocking and horrifying, like a return to the Middle Ages.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Chief Jackson also has an interest in painting his department in the best possible light and, not to put too fine a point on it, seems to preside over a police department that specializes in running up fines on spurious or fraudulent charges against black citizens.
quote:... and, the article notes, that comes to $321 in fines and fees per household. And a speeding ticket that leads to an unpaid court fee can easily end up causing someone to spend as much as three weeks in jail waiting to see a judge since the court might open only once per month.
…Despite Ferguson’s relative poverty, fines and court fees comprise the second largest source of revenue for the city, a total of $2,635,400. In 2013, the Ferguson Municipal Court disposed of 24,532 warrants and 12,018 cases, or about 3 warrants and 1.5 cases per household.
quote:What's Byron saying that millions of Americans aren't saying?
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Byron--
A question, if I may: are you an American? And/or in America?
You *don't* have to answer that. But, given the e-mail address you have publicly listed in your public profile, I'm thinking you may not be.
The only reason I ask is that experience with a country makes a huge difference in understanding what goes on there.
Thanks.
quote:I'd be interested to hear the response to this also.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Doesn't this render your advice not to resist arrest rather pointless? After all, if police can simply claim after the fact "the suspect was resisting in a manner imperceptible to any outsider, but I could tell he was resisting", doesn't that effectively give them carte blanche to justify any level of brutality they want to dish out?
Originally posted by Byron:
Crœsos, resistance isn't always obvious from videos. Prisoners can passively resist, by locking joints, pulling against the cuffs, or simply by going limp.
quote:Can we send some cops around to visit some bank execs?
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
The tax on a pack of cigarettes in New York is $4.35.
This has led to people smuggling in truck loads of cigarettes from Virginia where the tax is .30 a pack.
It is likely he was selling smuggled cigarettes which are readily available in New York. Still not appropriate to kill him for that.
quote:The statement you quote was one of anger and frustration.
Originally posted by Porridge:
quote:As for lilBuddha, you did come back to this thread after posting yours, so I’ll just content myself with pointing out that some of us do have the luxury of wearying of these grim truths, and of being free, from time to time, to casually suggest that the whole dismal ugly mess go fuck itself. Of course, few of the people whose fates we’ve been discussing have either luxury or freedom.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I'm weary of this thread. ... Fuck the system.
What do we do about it?
quote:If she had tried to grab a cop's gun like Brown did I wouldn't be surprised if she was aired out.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:The point is, they treated her intervention differently. Why would they do that?
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:If the cops wanted to take her down then they would take her down. If she resisted in the slightest and got clobbered, she would be charged with resisting arrest. It wouldn't be a national news story, though.
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:Unless you're white and wealthy.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
The cops WILL win a street confrontation.
quote:Yes, it is. While more whites than blacks are killed by police, it is disproportionate. I'd suspect folks at the lowest end of the totem pole, regardless of color, are shot by an even more disproportionate rate.
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
It is different for blacks and whites. It is especially different for young black men.
quote:I asked because his arguments are (IMHO) especially unbending, and seem to be "what should be" disguised as "what is". IME on this thread and past discussions here and in hell, when a conversation is about something bad in the US, that sort of argument tends to be made by non-Americans.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:What's Byron saying that millions of Americans aren't saying?
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Byron--
A question, if I may: are you an American? And/or in America?
You *don't* have to answer that. But, given the e-mail address you have publicly listed in your public profile, I'm thinking you may not be.
The only reason I ask is that experience with a country makes a huge difference in understanding what goes on there.
Thanks.
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
for many pages, because they can't get the poster to acknowledge there might be more to the situation.
quote:Bank execs didn't create a market for bootleg cigarettes in New York City.
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:Can we send some cops around to visit some bank execs?
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
The tax on a pack of cigarettes in New York is $4.35.
This has led to people smuggling in truck loads of cigarettes from Virginia where the tax is .30 a pack.
It is likely he was selling smuggled cigarettes which are readily available in New York. Still not appropriate to kill him for that.
quote:The advantage of using a grand jury is that witnesses can testify without worrying about retaliation. Some of the witnesses whose testimony supported Wilson were black. At least one of them went to the police shortly after stories began to circulate that Brown had been shot in the back while running away. Wilson's side of the story had not been released.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
But whatever form this preliminary consideration takes, I think you'd be a lot better off if the hearings took place in public. Justice doesn't get seen to be done without that.
quote:Across the board, at every economic level, black people are treated worse by law enforcement.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:Yes, it is. While more whites than blacks are killed by police, it is disproportionate. I'd suspect folks at the lowest end of the totem pole, regardless of color, are shot by an even more disproportionate rate.
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
It is different for blacks and whites. It is especially different for young black men.
quote:Byron: I don't hear well, but I can read. I haven't understood a single poster here to encourage resisting arrest. I think we all agree that is, as you put it earlier, a spectacularly bad idea.
Originally posted by Byron:
I just don't get where this notion of starry-eyed idealism comes from: my posts couldn't be more brutally pragmatic if I tried.
Cops are trained to use violence to arrest people. They're good at it, and usually succeed. If you fight a cop, you'll get a beating, and a stack of extra charges, possibly much worse than the ones you faced originally. Unless there's a warrant out on you for something bad, in raw cost-benefit terms, resisting arrest is lose-lose.
The idealistic answer would be to recommend you get into a brawl with police if you believe you're being unlawfully arrested (in the few states that haven't abolished that defense, presumably). People are of course free to do that. I really hope they don't, but their call. Can but hope they survive it, 'cause that's far from guaranteed.
quote:You miss the point entirely. Deliberately? Recall the subprime scandal? Which has done more economic damage?
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:Bank execs didn't create a market for bootleg cigarettes in New York City.
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:Can we send some cops around to visit some bank execs?
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
The tax on a pack of cigarettes in New York is $4.35.
This has led to people smuggling in truck loads of cigarettes from Virginia where the tax is .30 a pack.
It is likely he was selling smuggled cigarettes which are readily available in New York. Still not appropriate to kill him for that.
quote:You keep repeating the point that resisting arrest is the problem here. This is what I meant by blaming the victim. If we were discussing what advice to give to the victim that might have helped. Not resisting arrest would not be it because he did not do that. The problem is that the only thing that would have helped him is not being black.
Originally posted by Byron:
I just don't get where this notion of starry-eyed idealism comes from: my posts couldn't be more brutally pragmatic if I tried.
Cops are trained to use violence to arrest people. They're good at it, and usually succeed. If you fight a cop, you'll get a beating, and a stack of extra charges, possibly much worse than the ones you faced originally. Unless there's a warrant out on you for something bad, in raw cost-benefit terms, resisting arrest is lose-lose.
The idealistic answer would be to recommend you get into a brawl with police if you believe you're being unlawfully arrested (in the few states that haven't abolished that defense, presumably). People are of course free to do that. I really hope they don't, but their call. Can but hope they survive it, 'cause that's far from guaranteed.
quote:
The researchers studied county voting records in 10 southern states in which the KKK actively recruited members in the 1960s. The analysis of five presidential voting outcomes, between 1960 and 2000, showed that southern counties with KKK activity in the 1960s had a statistically significant increase in Republican voting compared to counties with no established KKK chapter, even after controlling for a range of factors commonly understood as relating to voting preferences.
quote:It's easy enough for me to believe it, although I also suspect that there is an element of municipal police becoming agents of a quota-based tax collection scheme to some degree (see Crœsos' link from above). I know that I am one of the last people in this country who should be afraid of the police, but even I am starting to feel that fear and I know that poor, black, urban residents are at the other end of the spectrum and have always had every reason to fear the police.
Originally posted by Pooks:
I would like to add a link and see what you and other Shipmates make of it. The reason I want to show this link is because I think it's the flip side of the same coin. If professor Thomas Nolan is right, then he has fingered other contributing factors to the policing problem in the US today. It is a separate problem from racism, but it's one that made the racial tension worse in my opinion.
quote:Thanks for that link, Pooks. The crime of Driving While Black (and its mates) predates this militarization and suspension of civil liberties by decades, but I think Prof. Nolan is on to something. All US citizens, regardless of color, are now living in a country that feels rather more like a police state than I personally am comfortable with. Before anybody challenges me, let me just add that I put one of these bumper stickers on my car not long after 9/11. I lost count of the number of times I got stopped by police for months afterward, always allegedly for a taillight that was out. It still happens once in a while.
Originally posted by Pooks:
Porridge, first of all, I would like to thank you for your posts on this thread explaining the problems that Afro-Americans face in many of the communities in the US today with such patience and care. It is much appreciated.
I would like to add a link and see what you and other Shipmates make of it. The reason I want to show this link is because I think it's the flip side of the same coin. If professor Thomas Nolan is right, then he has fingered other contributing factors to the policing problem in the US today. It is a separate problem from racism, but it's one that made the racial tension worse in my opinion.
quote:"I feared for my life" works really well too --- apparently even police officers turn into complete 'fraidy cats when faced with the BIG SCARY BLACK MAN WITH SUPERHUMAN STRENGTH AND A VANISHING GUN (apparently every black man except Will Smith).
Originally posted by Crœsos:
.... After all, if police can simply claim after the fact "the suspect was resisting in a manner imperceptible to any outsider, but I could tell he was resisting", doesn't that effectively give them carte blanche to justify any level of brutality they want to dish out?
quote:The worst part is that it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. While I know that most police officers are decent human beings trying to do their jobs in a broken system, once you've had a couple encounters with the type who not only isn't trained to de-escalate conflicts but almost seem to be deliberately escalating them so they can make an arrest, you start to get nervous around police officers. That nervousness then becomes the probable cause for detaining you, because if you aren't doing anything illegal, why would you get nervous?
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
I know that I am one of the last people in this country who should be afraid of the police, but even I am starting to feel that fear and I know that poor, black, urban residents are at the other end of the spectrum and have always had every reason to fear the police.
I was surprised that even the author, who used to be a police officer, says that "officers make him feel unsafe when he walks around his own diverse neighborhood in Boston."
quote:This.
Originally posted by saysay:
The worst part is that it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. While I know that most police officers are decent human beings trying to do their jobs in a broken system, once you've had a couple encounters with the type who not only isn't trained to de-escalate conflicts but almost seem to be deliberately escalating them so they can make an arrest, you start to get nervous around police officers. That nervousness then becomes the probable cause for detaining you, because if you aren't doing anything illegal, why would you get nervous?
And a determined cop will always be able find a crime to arrest you for (even if they have to yell at you until you yell back). Which is why the lawyers at Know Your Rights and the ACLU recommend that you limit your interactions with cops to 'yes, sir', 'no, sir,' and 'am I being detained sir?'
I've met cops who seem to believe that a refusal to submit to a search is grounds to get a warrant for a search.
quote:Wow, even Betty Bowers chimed in.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:"I feared for my life" works really well too --- apparently even police officers turn into complete 'fraidy cats when faced with the BIG SCARY BLACK MAN WITH SUPERHUMAN STRENGTH AND A VANISHING GUN (apparently every black man except Will Smith).
Originally posted by Crœsos:
.... After all, if police can simply claim after the fact "the suspect was resisting in a manner imperceptible to any outsider, but I could tell he was resisting", doesn't that effectively give them carte blanche to justify any level of brutality they want to dish out?
And I can't believe nobody has mentioned crimingwhilewhite# yet. Some of the white folks' stories would be hilarious if the reality for black Americans were not so serious.
quote:From what I've heard in the news, over the years, that's a known problem--at least in the short term, like a high-speed chase. Here's an article from LawOfficer.com. It's written by a cop, about fighting his own "adrenaline beast".
But it's worth noting that when one's adrenalin is asked to pump up as often as a police officer's is, it probably affects one's perceptions and judgment on a permanent basis.
quote:However, as you note, it was when the police arrived that things went south. According to Gates's account (and I'm relying on memory here) either the officer refused to look at his identification, or refused to accept it as authentic. All the officer had to do was verify that Gates was in his own home. Or, for that matter, have seen him on TV; Gates has a regular program on PBS. It's not as though he's just another random black face.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
--Re Dr. Gates' arrest for trying to break into his own house: FWIW, the woman who called that in was new in the neighborhood, and specifically said that he might live there. It was when the cop arrived that things got bad. In this particular case, it wasn't *simply* a matter of "you don't belong". As far as the caller knew, it could really have been a burglary. She got a lot of grief for calling it in at all.
quote:You suspect? I don't;the St. Louis Post-Dispatch has demonstrated pretty conclusively, in a number of articles over several years (and, of course, many more if them lately) that they are unambiguously "agents of a quota-based tax collection scheme." These crappy little towns, invented for the specific benefit of specific people, could not exist if they didn't essentially shake down their citizenry. It's time to clean up north St. Louis County.
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
...I also suspect that there is an element of municipal police becoming agents of a quota-based tax collection scheme to some degree...
quote:This sort of thinking is part of the problem.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
The police, in the course of carrying out their duties, have to encounter a significant number of extremely violent thugs. Most people would not like to ask a police officer to have his ass handed to him by a violent thug on a regular basis (and yes, those violent thugs will happily lie about not being able to breathe or whatever in order to get a break).
This desire to keep our police officers safe when dealing with violent thugs, however, seems to have turned into a police playbook that starts by assuming that everyone is a violent thug. Hence all the aggressive control strategies, the yellings and the takedowns. And yes, the shootings of people who are upset with the way they they are being treated, and happen to have saggy pants or a lumpy waistband.
Combine the "everyone's a thug" mindset with a bit of latent (or even patent) racism, and you get dead black man after dead black man.
The police need a different playbook - one that doesn't contain the dead bodies of obstreperous petty criminals.
quote:Which ones? I've said that if you resist arrest, it's likely to end badly. No one appears to dispute this.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
--Byron: I never accused you of being "starry-eyed", and I certainly would never suggest someone resist arrest. However, many of your statements seem to rigidly dismiss what people are telling you about what actually happens.
quote:He didn't put his hands behind his back and go with the NYPD, and shouted "don't touch me" when an officer tried to do it for him. By any reasonable measure (and NY law) that's resisting arrest.
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
You keep repeating the point that resisting arrest is the problem here. This is what I meant by blaming the victim. If we were discussing what advice to give to the victim that might have helped. Not resisting arrest would not be it because he did not do that. The problem is that the only thing that would have helped him is not being black.
quote:I don't agree with the grand jury: from what I've seen, I think they've got it badly wrong. That just it tho: from what I've seen, which is a fraction of what they've seen and heard. Even a Monday morning quarterback needs to've watched the game.
And you keep saying that you don't like the ILLEGAL choke hold. But you stillagree with the grand Jury decision ? They killed a non resisting man by an illegal procedure and you give them the benefit of the doubt because of some mysterious exculpatory evidence nobody has seen.
quote:Wrong, if the investigation's done, I'd like to see the grand jury evidence made public: if it's continuing, I'd like to see a second grand jury as soon as possible.
It seems that for you police should never be charged because they ALWAYS must have a good reason. And they don't even have to make that reason public.
quote:What your statements appear to be missing is proper attribution of fault, that resist arrest or no, the likelihood of violence by police is exponentially greater if you are black and that the police often deliberately ratchet up the tension to create a situation in which they can react aggressively.
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:Which ones? I've said that if you resist arrest, it's likely to end badly. No one appears to dispute this.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
--Byron: I never accused you of being "starry-eyed", and I certainly would never suggest someone resist arrest. However, many of your statements seem to rigidly dismiss what people are telling you about what actually happens.
quote:In no part did he threaten them. If, bound and determined to play tax collector they were, they should have grasped his wrists and attempted to place his hands behind his back. Instead, one officer placed Mr. Garner in a very illegal choke hold, laid him on the ground and knelt on his head whilst maintaining the choke hold even after half the NYPD had arrived to assist.
Originally posted by Byron:
He didn't put his hands behind his back and go with the NYPD, and shouted "don't touch me" when an officer tried to do it for him. By any reasonable measure (and NY law) that's resisting arrest.
quote:This is not aimed at Byron, but at the rules under which police operate. Apparently, the way it is supposed to work is that the officer(s) screams multiple orders at the citizen, and if the citizen does not immediately and silently submit, deadly force is authorized. Have I got that right? Anyone else think this is reasonable?
Originally posted by Byron:
.... He didn't put his hands behind his back and go with the NYPD, and shouted "don't touch me" when an officer tried to do it for him. By any reasonable measure (and NY law) that's resisting arrest. ...
quote:Tell that to the idiots who consistently vote Republican, or to the worse idiots who never vote at all.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
In a democracy, we get to decide how we are policed. we have the right and the power to change police behaviour. These rules need to change for everyone's safety.
quote:You seem to have read almost exactly the opposite of what I wrote. In no way did I call Eric Garner a lying violent thug - quite the opposite. I have seen no evidence that Mr. Garner was at all thuggish - he seems to have been a fairly ordinary man who was in poor health, and was a habitual petty criminal.
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
I particularly noticed the way you cleverly called the victim of the choke hold a violent lying thug.
quote:This is the "assume everyone's a violent thug" mentality in spades, and is precisely the thing that I find unreasonable.
Apparently, the way it is supposed to work is that the officer(s) screams multiple orders at the citizen, and if the citizen does not immediately and silently submit, deadly force is authorized. Have I got that right? Anyone else think this is reasonable?
quote:While I don't dispute that the police encounter a certain number of violent thugs, mostly they seem to deal with a lot of petty low level misdemeanor drug users.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
The police, in the course of carrying out their duties, have to encounter a significant number of extremely violent thugs. Most people would not like to ask a police officer to have his ass handed to him by a violent thug on a regular basis (and yes, those violent thugs will happily lie about not being able to breathe or whatever in order to get a break).
quote:Every video I've seen has been edited. But I haven't seen one in which Eric is told to put his hands behind his back before the cop puts his hands on him. Around here that's a deliberate police tactic so they can rough up someone who has pissed them off (as is having two officers on the scene telling the suspect to do different things, so that no matter what you do, you're disobeying a police officer's lawful orders). Also, while I accept that things may be done differently in different jurisdictions, around here a person putting their hands behind their back is not usually the first step in an arrest, so please don't come back with that pathetic 'he's been arrested so many times he knew what to do' response.
Originally posted by Byron:
He didn't put his hands behind his back and go with the NYPD, and shouted "don't touch me" when an officer tried to do it for him. By any reasonable measure (and NY law) that's resisting arrest.
quote:I'm sure that is great comfort to white folks who get killed by cops.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Across the board, at every economic level, black people are treated worse by law enforcement.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:Yes, it is. While more whites than blacks are killed by police, it is disproportionate. I'd suspect folks at the lowest end of the totem pole, regardless of color, are shot by an even more disproportionate rate.
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
It is different for blacks and whites. It is especially different for young black men.
quote:That's about the way it works, yes.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Apparently, the way it is supposed to work is that the officer(s) screams multiple orders at the citizen, and if the citizen does not immediately and silently submit, deadly force is authorized. Have I got that right? Anyone else think this is reasonable?
quote:Seriously?!
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
]I'm sure that is great comfort to white folks who get killed by cops.
quote:It seems to me that it is really about the cops being able to do whatever they want to to whoever they want to and this, especially Garner being killed for selling individual cigarettes, is a discussion about a relatively recent examples. It isn't unusual to see stores here selling individual cigarettes so I don't get the beef they had with him since he wasn't violating another person's rights doing that.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
White people are wrongly killed by the police as well, yes. But at a lesser rate. That is kinda what this thread is about.
quote:I read some comment on this the other day, with which I think I agree.
Originally posted by Gwai:
So maybe part of the problem is the method of broken windows policing that has been in vogue in this country for too long.
quote:Depending on how charitable you feel, you could describe their "beef" as anything from tax evasion to unlicensed trading to cluttering up the public streets by being poor and black. I'm finding it difficult to feel much charity towards the NYPD at the moment.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
It isn't unusual to see stores here selling individual cigarettes so I don't get the beef they had with him since he wasn't violating another person's rights doing that.
quote:Bullshit. If a couple of cops take a notion to kick your ass today, your ass is going to get kicked and there really isn't much you can do about it.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
And that, Mere Nick, is one reason White people need to change.
quote:I got my info from within this article that shows more whites than blacks being killed by cops in raw numbers. However, due to %s of population, blacks are more likely than whites to be killed by cops. 22 times appears to be far higher than the numbers would actually support.
Originally posted by Porridge:
On the Diane Rehm show this a.m. (NPR), one of her guests (sorry, don't know who it was, just got a segment while driving in the car)stated that young black males were shot by police in the US at 22 times the rate of young white males.
quote:How does this reply in any way address what I said?
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:Bullshit. If a couple of cops take a notion to kick your ass today, your ass is going to get kicked and there really isn't much you can do about it.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
And that, Mere Nick, is one reason White people need to change.
quote:D'you have a link to that version? Here's a transcript & recording of the edited video.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Byron--
As I said a little upthread, Garner *repeatedly* said, "I'm not resisting, I'm not resisting". That may be edited out of some cuts of the recording, but it's there. I googled "garner i'm not resisting" to make sure I hadn't misheard.
quote:Some have been outlined upthread (secrecy aids witness protection and helps prosecutors build their case), but I agree that, if the grand jury returns no true bill, transcripts should be released in most cases (in some, evidence of witness intimidation would be grounds to refuse).
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
[...] Making grand jury processes more open, or abandoning them in favour of adversarial preliminary hearings before a trial judge, might go some way towards fixing these concerns; at least it would shine a light on what had influenced the decisons made, by either grand jury or trial judge.
What are the arguments against either course? I'm no expert in the US constitution or its legal system. These ideas come to me through a more general understanding of the need to have fair legal systems.
quote:Are you out of your mind? Have you ever sat in a court and watched the inquisitorial system at work? I have, and in every case I've watched, the presiding magistrate basically doubles as an extra prosecutor. When he's not actually asleep.
Originally posted by Byron:
the common law could do to reintroduce more inquisitional elements.
quote:Another calculation which agrees with your results, but avoids estimating the current US population:
Originally posted by Porridge:
I freely admit that arithmetic may not be my strong suit, but using the figures from Nick's article based on the current US population of ~316 million yields a death-by-cop rate of roughly 1/10 of one percent for whites, and 3/10 of one percent for blacks.
code:So, according to figures in the article, police kill black people at a rate about 3 times higher than they kill white people.Want BlKillRate compared to WhKillRate:
From figures in the article:
WhKillRate = 2151/WhPop
BlKillRate = 1130/BlPop
WhPop = .63 * TotPop
BlPop = .12 * TotPop
So calculating gives us:
WhPop / BlPop = .63/.12
BlKillRate / WhKillRate = (1130/BlPop) / (2151/WhPop)
= (1130/2151) * (WhPop/BlPop)
= .525 * 5.25
= 2.76
quote:Ah, checking what Porridge said: the 22x figure is for young males being shot. Whereas I suspect the article's 3x figure is for people of any age and sex being shot.
Originally posted by Porridge:
On the Diane Rehm show this a.m. (NPR), one of her guests (sorry, don't know who it was, just got a segment while driving in the car)stated that young black males were shot by police in the US at 22 times the rate of young white males.
quote:Very good.
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
Any similarity with some arguments in this thread may be just a coincidence.
Tom Tomorrow
quote:So there is no way to figure out whether black people are shot by cops at a higher rate than other people because we don't even know how many people cops are shooting in the first place.
Officials with the Justice Department keep no comprehensive database or record of police shootings, instead allowing the nation’s more than 17,000 law enforcement agencies to self-report officer-involved shootings as part of the FBI’s annual data on “justifiable homicides” by law enforcement.
That number – which only includes self-reported information from about 750 law enforcement agencies – hovers around 400 “justifiable homicides” by police officers each year. The DOJ’s Bureau of Justice Statistics also tracks “arrest-related deaths.” But the department stopped releasing those numbers after 2009, because, like the FBI data, they were widely regarded as unreliable.
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif){kind=icon}
quote:This ProPublica article gives a similar number based on the FBI Supplementary Homicide report:
Originally posted by Porridge:
I'm on duty currently, and not in a position to listen long enough to find the exact clip, but here is an audio link (I hope) to the show where I heard the 22X stat.
quote:They also note the incompleteness of the FBI's statistics that Ruth mentioned.
Young black males in recent years were at a far greater risk of being shot dead by police than their white counterparts – 21 times greater, according to a ProPublica analysis of federally collected data on fatal police shootings.
The 1,217 deadly police shootings from 2010 to 2012 captured in the federal data show that blacks, age 15 to 19, were killed at a rate of 31.17 per million, while just 1.47 per million white males in that age range died at the hands of police.
quote:Is this a white people problem?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
This is a white people problem....
quote:I think it's undeniable that within the US there exists a certain amount of both personal and systemic racism.
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
saysay, I'm confused by your recent post compared to other posts you have made: is an emphasis on race helpful or not?
quote:Just to clarify this tangent.
Originally posted by Byron:
Inquisitional *elements*: I'm not suggesting that trial judges become a juge d'instruction (who don't preside over trials, but conduct preliminary hearings in private, much like a grand jury, so I'm not sure how you've seen one in action).
Without it, prosecution and defense compete to spin the facts to their advantage, and can confuse and mislead perfectly competent jurors. As it happens, in most common law jurisdictions, trial judges do have the power to ask questions, but they rarely use it.
quote:What does it have to do with the discussion thus far?
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:Is this a white people problem?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
This is a white people problem....
quote:Any community with a high homicide rate sure as hell doesn't need cops making it worse. It's kind of hard to do something about gun violence if police officers are involved in unjustified shootings.
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:Is this a white people problem?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
This is a white people problem....
38 dead just in November. 35 by gunshot, including two 15 year olds. I'm going out on a limb assuming mostly black.
Sadly for me I started a project in Chicago in early November. What a disaster this place is, and everyone is worried about cops?
quote:As I mentioned, this is a tangent, but the answer is yes. If you dig a massive pit in the middle of a road and force a group to walk down the road at night, it is your responsibility that some fall in.
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:Is this a white people problem?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
This is a white people problem....
quote:This part of your post IS racist. And therefore you should be embarrassed.
Originally posted by romanlion:
Embarrassing.
But hey, F*** the police comin' straight from the underground, a young n**ga got it bad cause I'm brown!
Yeah...
quote:Ikkyu,
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
This part of your post IS racist. And therefore you should be embarrassed.
quote:Chicago can rightly be compared to a massive pit, I agree.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:As I mentioned, this is a tangent, but the answer is yes. If you dig a massive pit in the middle of a road and force a group to walk down the road at night, it is your responsibility that some fall in.
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:Is this a white people problem?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
This is a white people problem....
quote:This is a decades old lyric, written and popularized by a black artist, and hardly “racist”. It illustrates how old and tired the mentality behind it is.
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
quote:This part of your post IS racist. And therefore you should be embarrassed.
Originally posted by romanlion:
Embarrassing.
But hey, F*** the police comin' straight from the underground, a young n**ga got it bad cause I'm brown!
Yeah...
quote:Alternatively, how poignant that a decades-old lyric hasn't lost the force of its meaning. I suppose those folk singing "Give peace a chance" and "We shall overcome" should really just get over it, because we've had peace and freedom for decades already. Oh, wait...
Originally posted by romanlion:
This is a decades old lyric, written and popularized by a black artist, and hardly “racist”. It illustrates how old and tired the mentality behind it is.
quote:I am sorry. I should have followed the example of others and address the substance of the post. Not the person.
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:Ikkyu,
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
This part of your post IS racist. And therefore you should be embarrassed.
romanlion's post may or may not be racist (though I'm not even sure what the offending part of it is supposed to mean) but when you say he ought to be embarrassed by it, you're close to the line between criticising the argument and criticising the person.
As racism is a violation of Commandment 1 (Don't be a jerk), if are unable to engage with a post without directly accusing the poster of racism, it would be better to leave that to the Hosts to identify (and PM us if you think there's an issue requiring intervention) rather than make the accusation yourself.
Eliab
Purgatory Host
quote:My apologies for using a metaphor. I will speak more simply if this helps.
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:Chicago can rightly be compared to a massive pit, I agree.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:As I mentioned, this is a tangent, but the answer is yes. If you dig a massive pit in the middle of a road and force a group to walk down the road at night, it is your responsibility that some fall in.
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:Is this a white people problem?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
This is a white people problem....
The irony of being “forced to walk down the middle of the road” is hilarious though. Are you suggesting that Michael Brown was forced to walk down the middle of the road? Proper use of a sidewalk would have gone a long way for him, no doubt.
quote:Wait--you do realize he's quoting NWA, right? And that his employment of the quote is an ironic contrast between the criticism of police and the disproportionate number of young black men murdered by young black men?
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
quote:This part of your post IS racist. And therefore you should be embarrassed.
Originally posted by romanlion:
Embarrassing.
But hey, F*** the police comin' straight from the underground, a young n**ga got it bad cause I'm brown!
Yeah...
quote:So in a thread which is basically all about the problems with pale people in authority having biases at various levels against poor low-status darker people, your solution is to point at one pale person in authority and say "Look! Him! He has no bias!"?
Originally posted by Byron:
Eutychus, thanks for the explanation, I'm not suggesting that the common law introduce a juge d'instruction, but that trial judges be encouraged to ask neutral truth-seeking questions.
quote:There's plenty non-white judges, and plenty white judges who can be impartial. If we're gonna assume that white judges are racist, the problem goes far beyond their asking inquisitional questions on cross!
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
So in a thread which is basically all about the problems with pale people in authority having biases at various levels against poor low-status darker people, your solution is to point at one pale person in authority and say "Look! Him! He has no bias!"?
quote:There's plenty of non-white cops, too, but that's hardly a panacea. And yes, I am going to assume that the average white judge has racial bias. I'm not going to assume that he's a Klansman or anything like that, but there are plenty of soft biases that don't look like racism to people. Things like, for example, the way that white people think black children (particularly black boys) are older than they really are. There are a whole load of soft cues like that - things that are based on details of bearing, facial expression and so on, where the average white person and the average black person look just a little different, so that someone used to reading the cues of one racial group will make mistakes when trying to read another.
Originally posted by Byron:
There's plenty non-white judges, and plenty white judges who can be impartial. If we're gonna assume that white judges are racist, the problem goes far beyond their asking inquisitional questions on cross!
quote:Tough to say specifically, but I think we can easily identify some things that don’t work.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
@ romanlion
Given the carnage in Chicago, what remedies do you recommend to reduce death by gun?
quote:So the answer is more guns and drugs.
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:Tough to say specifically, but I think we can easily identify some things that don’t work.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
@ romanlion
Given the carnage in Chicago, what remedies do you recommend to reduce death by gun?
Gun bans, drug prohibition, and perpetual control of major metropolitan areas by the democrats.
![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
quote:That's fine - and most of what I was talking about were the soft biases that don't look like explicit racism, rather than explicitly racist judges. (Hence my use of "racial bias" rather than "racism".)
Originally posted by Byron:
Leorning Cniht, for culpability reasons, I feel it's crucial to separate conscious and unconscious bias.
quote:That won't work, at least in Chicago, because more guns and drugs won't actually fit into the city.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
So the answer is more guns and drugs.
quote:Indeed. If someone could/would stop the gangs from running guns in by the ton from Indiana, it would improve certain areas of Chicago decisively.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
How about a bipartisan agreement to find policies which will reduce the death by gun rate?
quote:I largely agree that this is true, and that legalising marijuana (at least) would ease (rather than solve) some of the endemic problems.
Originally posted by romanlion:
As long as there are drug profits to protect, there will be guns. Even if you could eliminate the guns, they would protect their markets with knives and baseball bats.
The dirty little secret is that local, state, and federal law enforcement are not interested in stopping the drug trade because they actively profit from it, and use it to justify their budgets and tactics.
quote:Not per se, but it is a fact that guns are used to protect lives and property on a daily basis, both by citizens and the police. Responsible people are well within their rights to own and carry firearms.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I did think, however, that it was NRA mantra that the solution to gun crime is more guns. If everyone is armed, then every time a criminal points a gun, there are a dozen guns pointing back. I can see some fundamental flaws in that approach, but I wondered if you subscribed to it, or something similar?
quote:Man, you see whitey peeking out from behind every blade of grass don’t you? That must be miserable.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
And it is a mark of prejudice that drugs are assumed to be a minority problem. As if white people do not produce, distribute and use.
quote:I miss the point.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
ETA: re legalisation, do a google search for robbery and legal dispensaries. Or liquor store robberies v. Ice cream shop robberies.
quote:In California, only *medically-prescribed* pot is legal. (Except maybe in Humboldt county. Lots of growers up there. Kind of Pot Central.) Granted, some of the prescribing doctors are reportedly...lax...in their standards. But you have to have a prescription to be legal. I don't know if the Feds are still hassling and raiding med. pot stores and growers; but they did, for some time--pot, medical or not, is still illegal at the Federal level. OTOH, we had Oaksterdam Univ. in Oakland, teaching all things pot. Not sure if it's still around.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Marijuana became legal in Colorado and California. The dispensaries have quickly become targets of robbery.
Liquor stores are a greater target than ice cream shops.
Why? Money. Addictive substances will bring more money and therefore more crime, regardless of legality.
quote:It wasn't a suggestion, it was a statement of fact. Since Michael Brown was killed there have been hundreds of black men murdered in Chicago alone. Not that anyone gives a shit.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You began your Chicago example with the suggestion of Black on black crime.
quote:People on the street are a greater target than liquor stores and ice cream shops combined.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Liquor stores are a greater target than ice cream shops.
quote:This is a discussion on police mistreatment of minorities, specifically black people. So what was the point of your post?
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:It wasn't a suggestion, it was a statement of fact. Since Michael Brown was killed there have been hundreds of black men murdered in Chicago alone. Not that anyone gives a shit.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You began your Chicago example with the suggestion of Black on black crime.
quote:Who do I hate? White people? Certainly not. Perhaps you missed this.
Originally posted by romanlion:
Hatred will blind you.
quote:It is really quite simple.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
the balance of power favours white people and this does not create as much incentive to foment change. But as the power, they must be part of that change.
quote:Your reply does not make any kind of sense.
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:People on the street are a greater target than liquor stores and ice cream shops combined.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Liquor stores are a greater target than ice cream shops.
So what? Should we outlaw bipedalism?
quote:Does that quarter billion include illegal guns?
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Would you say that the quarter of a billion or so firearms in private hands in the U.S. (that's a recent estimate I saw) represents a controlled situation, and gives no cause concern about the way it may fuel death by gun rates?[...]
quote:Yes, people care. There are lots of people at the community meetings I've been going to who both care and are organizing for effective solutions.
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
So much of the last few pages of this thread have been about rationalizing away the points that make people uncomfortable that I wonder if anyone actually cares about what is actually happening.
quote:Really? You don't think changes in the availability of legal guns would at all affect changes in the availability of illegal guns? Where do these illegal guns come from? Do they have their own factories?
Originally posted by Byron:
Guns in the hands of criminals are, of course, a major concern, but, thanks to the numbers of firearms circulating in the black market, one that the law can do little about.
quote:The homicide rate has been falling since the early 1990s.
Originally posted by Byron:
The Second Amendment isn't the problem. It wasn't recognized as an individual right by the courts until '08, and wasn't applied to the states until 2010. Prior to that, states and the federal govt. were free to ban firearms, and some did so (in the case that triggered the second ruling, Chicago banned handguns).
...America's homicide rate has fallen as legal carry laws have spread....
quote:these guys attribute it to a rise of abortions/ decrease in unwanted pregnancies in the late 70s/early 8os.
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
The homicide rate has been falling since the early 1990s.
It has also fallen because ER doctors have gotten better and better at keeping shooting victims alive.
Among other things...
quote:And the National Firearm Makers Lobby. AKA the NRA.
Originally posted by Byron:
Only the most extreme libertarians want firearms to be freely available:
quote:I'd agree that much having to do with firearms in America is indeed cultural. How much of it is a problem, to what degree, and what to do about it are open for debate.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
ISTM, much of the gun problem in America is cultural. Most of the internal expansion in America was in the era of the gun and much of that was in the era of the (relatively) cheap gun.
Much of said growth was also done ahead of the government's ability to protect. "Frontier towns" ceased to exist in the British Isles long before.
And the persistent myth of the "lone protector" against chaos that seems so strong in America.
Address that aspect of culture and you go a long way to allowing potential solutions.
quote:But, while those things may not be true of Europe, they ARE true of Canada-- in fact more so-- larger territory, more of it sparsely populated and far from emergency services. Yet they have had a far easier time passing effective gun control while still addressing those concerns. My husband taught in an isolated logging town in BC was able to get a legal, registered rifle to protect the school kids from the occasional bear that wandered on campus.
Originally posted by jbohn:
Part of the culture that, it seems to me, some of our European friends miss is a matter of scale. The U.S. is a vastly bigger place than (for instance) the UK - and there are still large areas of territory, particularly in the West, where help in the form of the county sheriff or an ambulance can be a long time coming in an emergency. While this doesn't necessarily affect the day-to-day lives of all Americans, it *does* affect how we view the world, from pop culture (John Wayne, anyone?) to lawmaking.
quote:No, they don't. I'm guessing you don't know how much almost daily harassment many people receive because of police attempts to enforce existing gun laws.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
And picking up on Gwai's point earlier, what is wrong for example with giving a higher policing priority than at present to illegal gun trafficking and possession of illegal firearms? That really shouldn't offend Second Amendment defenders and success along those lines would reduce exposure to risk.
I can see it would be difficult, probably dangerous, certainly costly and would need persistence to make and hold gains. The benefits would appear to outweigh that.
quote:We go even further than that - we pay people (either in cash or with gift cards) to turn in weapons (legal or illegal). There are still a lot of them out there.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Well there you go.
What about setting a future date and offering an amnesty for surrender of illegal weapons before that date? Processes like that have been tried in other countries with some success.
quote:No, I'm not arguing that illegal gun possession is OK if you're poor or in a minority group. Although I probably would argue that it's understandable, as the police cannot be relied upon to protect you from violence (and calling the police greatly increases the chance that you yourself will be the victim of police violence even if you're trying to report a crime).
I don't think you're arguing that illegal gun possession is OK if you're poor or in a minority group. I don't see why systematic or random search procedures should have to focus on any particular group. That kind of defeats the object of the exercise. Which doesn't mean that racially-prejudiced law enforcers won't do that. That's part of the overall problem for sure.
quote:I've given up on saying the criminal justice system in the US is broken in ways that most people who live here and have no contact with it can't begin to understand.
Are you arguing that all police forces in the US are institutionally racist? I'm sure some are. That's been a problem in the UK as well.
quote:The U.S. systems (over 50) descend from English common law, designed to uniformly enforce the king's peace in the Middle Ages. Back then, the very concept of race would've been alien: racism as we know it was invented to justify the continued enslavement of Africans who converted to Christianity.
Originally posted by saysay:
[...] I've given up on saying the criminal justice system in the US is broken in ways that most people who live here and have no contact with it can't begin to understand.
I now think it works exactly as it was designed to work - in order to keep the arbitrary wealth and power of certain white people in their hands regardless of merit or how much they abuse that wealth and power.
quote:I can't even... "Overt racism has long been swept away"... "racism still corrupts much U.S. criminal justice"...
Originally posted by Byron:
Overt racism like segregation and all-white juries of course corrupted some U.S. jurisdictions, but that's long been swept away: every time it comes up, the courts strike it down, like this SCOTUS ruling that banned race-based jury challenges.
Yes, obviously racism still corrupts much U.S. criminal justice, but we shouldn't underestimate the progress made, or view it as a design.
quote:In fact the existence of anti-discrimination laws shows that your earlier sentence is not a complete description.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Laws are made by those with power, therefore they will tend towards the interests of those with power.
...
That we need anti-discrimination laws, how recent many of them are and that those laws are regularly referenced shows how far we need to go.
quote:Having very much devoted my professional life to the belief that law should be as available and understandable as possible, I would very much like you to expand on what you mean by this. I have some suspicion that what you mean by this is not what I would mean by it, but I would rather not assume.
Originally posted by saysay:
Apparently it's not a problem that those in power deliberately try to keep those without power from even knowing the law (so we have to pay them large sums of money to tell us what it is)
quote:Saysay, I'm sure you meant nothing by it, but in interests of clarity, if you bracket what I say in quote marks, can you please reproduce my words exactly, and flag any edits with an ellipsis? Thanks.
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:I can't even... "Overt racism has long been swept away"... "racism still corrupts much U.S. criminal justice"...
Originally posted by Byron:
Overt racism like segregation and all-white juries of course corrupted some U.S. jurisdictions, but that's long been swept away: every time it comes up, the courts strike it down, like this SCOTUS ruling that banned race-based jury challenges.
Yes, obviously racism still corrupts much U.S. criminal justice, but we shouldn't underestimate the progress made, or view it as a design.
quote:I've never denied the extent of racism, in society, or the justice system. What I dispute is the hopelessness in your posts. Things are a lot better than they were, and can be made better still. For example, new policies in Philly have slashed the number of police shootings.
Especially when trying to argue against someone who said earlier in the thread that the focus on race rather than systemic issues was misplaced...
Apparently it's not a problem that those in power deliberately try to keep those without power from even knowing the law (so we have to pay them large sums of money to tell us what it is) and then impose draconian punishments for disobeying the law (so we have to pay the state large sums of money because we didn't have the money to fix that code violation when it happened) while their children (at criming while white) are let off the hook with warnings for felonies because they're good kids who made a mistake and deliberately violated a law that they actually knew existed...
It really and truly can't be fixed, can it?
quote:I'm also interested in this. Laws a typically posted up online, and in any case, are published. Many examples available in this thread.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Having very much devoted my professional life to the belief that law should be as available and understandable as possible, I would very much like you to expand on what you mean by this. I have some suspicion that what you mean by this is not what I would mean by it, but I would rather not assume.
Originally posted by saysay:
Apparently it's not a problem that those in power deliberately try to keep those without power from even knowing the law (so we have to pay them large sums of money to tell us what it is)
quote:That underscores earlier point that white people need to be part of the solution now as then. The problem now is that discrimination is a bit less overt and easier to dismiss.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:In fact the existence of anti-discrimination laws shows that your earlier sentence is not a complete description.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Laws are made by those with power, therefore they will tend towards the interests of those with power.
...
That we need anti-discrimination laws, how recent many of them are and that those laws are regularly referenced shows how far we need to go.
And white people fought for the end of slavery, even though they, as white people, faced no danger of being made slaves. The world is not entirely driven by self-interest.
quote:"Frontier towns" in that sense have never existed in the British Isles. They have been continuously settled since human beings moved northwards as the ice withdrew at the end of the Ice Age.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
... "Frontier towns" ceased to exist in the British Isles long before. ...
quote:And America has been continuously settled for more than 14,000 years.
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:"Frontier towns" in that sense have never existed in the British Isles. They have been continuously settled since human beings moved northwards as the ice withdrew at the end of the Ice Age.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
... "Frontier towns" ceased to exist in the British Isles long before. ...
quote:Right, the law is there. But here's a too-common reality (not claiming this is universal, but it does happen, and it happens pretty often):
Originally posted by orfeo:
Well, yes, that I'd agree with.
I'm assuming that all of the USA now has anti-discrimination laws for race? I know that many of the states don't have one for sexuality yet, but race and sex are usually the first ones to be introduced.
quote:Sure, but the economic factors have a time-lag.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I'm not certain it is a separate issue. The economic factors which feed crime are massively influenced by the same racism which fuels police mistreatment. Everywhere, but especially in America.
quote:I agree it's not a separate issue. It is, as Leorning Cnight (sorry; can't spell) notes, a much more complicated, and therefore perhaps separate, discussion.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I'm not certain it is a separate issue. The economic factors which feed crime are massively influenced by the same racism which fuels police mistreatment. Everywhere, but especially in America.
quote:Oddly enough, when talking to real people who are planning community action to try to solve some of these problems I feel a sense of hope.
Originally posted by Byron:
There's many decent people working in the justice system, trying to make it better. There's no cause for nihilism.
quote:All right, that was an exaggeration. However, there is the reality that even when the laws are published online, you have to have both a computer and high speed internet access (not to mention the desire to find out the laws) in order to access them.
quote:I'm also interested in this. Laws a typically posted up online, and in any case, are published. Many examples available in this thread.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Having very much devoted my professional life to the belief that law should be as available and understandable as possible, I would very much like you to expand on what you mean by this. I have some suspicion that what you mean by this is not what I would mean by it, but I would rather not assume.
Originally posted by saysay:
Apparently it's not a problem that those in power deliberately try to keep those without power from even knowing the law (so we have to pay them large sums of money to tell us what it is)
Which laws are being hidden, and by whom?
quote:This is all true (as are the points that saysay made). And not just for black people. Working with the law is generally far more complicated and difficult than it ought to be.
Originally posted by Porridge:
quote:Right, the law is there. But here's a too-common reality (not claiming this is universal, but it does happen, and it happens pretty often):
Originally posted by orfeo:
Well, yes, that I'd agree with.
I'm assuming that all of the USA now has anti-discrimination laws for race? I know that many of the states don't have one for sexuality yet, but race and sex are usually the first ones to be introduced.
A black apartment-hunter is told the apartment s/he is asking about has already been rented, then notices an ad for the same apartment the following week. Has she been discriminated against? Maybe. What can she do about it?
She's apartment-hunting, which means she has both time- and money-pressures. She's probably operating on a deadline; her current lease is running out. She's purging, sorting, packing; she's lining up help for the move. If she has kids, she may also be switching them out of schools or day care. Can she take time out to find a lawyer willing to take this case, given that such cases can be hard to win? Does she have money to pay that lawyer? Does she have the stamina to see this action through the several months or even years it will probably take to reach a conclusion? Is she willing to do all this in the face of a possible, even probable, negative outcome (discrimination is not easy to prove) which in some situations could leave her liable for the landlord's court costs?
I'm not saying the law is of no use; it's a vital foundation. But it also takes resources many people haven't got in order to use it. And to be effective in forestalling, discouraging, eliminating discrimination, a court decision needs to have cases which tick the "right" boxes.
quote:I wouldn't lump the 2 cases together at all, in terms of what the 2 victims were doing before they died. The similarities are minimal. That is the position I've been trying to convey, in various ways, for quite some time.
Originally posted by Porridge:
And you are also right about the cases of Brown and Garner: yes, they were unarmed black men, killed at the hands of white police. But neither guy, however much their families loved them, was a model citizen. These cases do not tick the right boxes.
However, I'd submit that systemic racism probably does play some role in the illegal activities which preceded their deaths. That may be a separate discussion, though.
quote:Perhaps so.
Originally posted by saysay:
Oddly enough, when talking to real people who are planning community action to try to solve some of these problems I feel a sense of hope.
It's when I come on the Ship and read what you've written that I feel a sense of utter despair.
Perhaps you just remind me of someone and it rubs me the wrong way. [...]
quote:Very well said.
Originally posted by orfeo:
There is a limit, I think, to the extent to which you can make the law simpler without making it unfair in other ways. Most of the things like exceptions and defences and burdens of proof exist for pretty good reasons.
What can be done a lot better, though, is explaining the law and making it understandable to the people it affects. Personally I do my best (I've just been involved in a project that has cut the size of a long-winded law in half), but I'm probably still too 'lawyerly' at times. I've seen some examples of really, really radical rewriting of rules to put them in simple language.
And yeah, sometimes you might lose just a little bit of 'nuance' while doing that, but depending on the audience that might be less important. Even if the law itself isn't as simple as possible, there should be other explanatory materials available to people to get the thrust of the law across. In fact, I'm well aware that most of the laws I write don't get read anywhere near as regularly as the summaries and cheat sheets that get created afterwards.
quote:Our public defender system is pretty much overwhelmed in most parts of this country. Competent or not, few of these lawyers have time to do a whole lot more than show up a little before the trial-hearing-arraignment-whatever, meet the defendant for the first time, and suggest a plea deal that might cut time off whatever sentence the prosecution is going for. The possible innocence of the person facing charges can sometimes be a lesser consideration than the ability of the PD's office to scrape up a warm body who's passed the bar for the actual trial.
Originally posted by Byron:
. . . Jail libraries should have copies of laws and/or internet access. If they don't, even the most incompetent public defender ought to be able to produce a copy of the law you're accused of violating. If they refuse, it'd be grounds to see a judge and get replacement counsel, and the court can give you a copy of the information/indictment. If the worst comes to the worst, on a simple harassment charge, you can go pro se and represent yourself.
), but people should be empowered as much as possible. Switching from PDs to a bursary for attorney's fees, and courses in self-representation for minor charges, are all possible reforms, as is mandatory pro bono work to stay licensed.
quote:The antiquity of the statistics is far from the only problem; I can't see any indication of an attempt to factor in the ratio of blacks to whites in the general population, or of the ratio of black to white police officers. It also fails to mention widespread efforts from a few decades ago to assign black officers to black neighborhoods, which would likely push black-officer - black victim shooting stats a bit higher.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
More prosaically, Moo's link also other demonstrates another issue which bothers me. The stats are old. I'd say there was a clear public interest in monitoring such data, keeping it up to date, as a way of responding to any tendencies to confirmation bias which may be around.
quote:What? It clearly does this. This is the entire point of stats that are rates rather than absolute numbers. Not only that, but there are explicit figures indicating the percentage of black police officers compared to the percentage of deaths caused by black police officers.
Originally posted by Porridge:
I can't see any indication of an attempt to factor in the ratio of blacks to whites in the general population, or of the ratio of black to white police officers.
quote:How you can say "I can't see an attempt to factor in the number of black police officers" is utterly beyond me. This is as explicit an attempt to adjust for the number of police officers of each race as it is possible to get.
The black-officer-kills-black-felon rate is 32 per 100,000 black officers in 1998, which is higher than the white-officer-kills-black-felon rate of 14 per 100,000 white officers.
quote:But we're in the nebulous area of racism, and the perception of racism. How exactly do you keep records of it when so much is based not on just the occurrence of an event, but people's conclusion about the cause of the event? Did I not get the job because I was black, or did I not get the job because I wasn't the best person for the job? The individual fact is simply that I didn't get the job. The statistical question is whether being black decreased my chances of getting the job, but even if race was eliminated as a statistical factor that wouldn't mean the individual outcome would change. And I still might BLAME racism and decide it was why I didn't get the job.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
orfeo, there's no point in "better or worse" propositions; rather regularly updated measures based on proper record keeping actually tell you something specific about whether things are getting better or worse.
quote:It's not entirely obvious why murders would be a sensible measure. For starters, a police department that has been successful in reducing crime rates would be penalised. Conversely, failing to stop a serial killer would improve your stats.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
The latest edition of The Economist includes details of a survey designed to measure trigger-happy US police departments by plotting the number of police shootings against the number of murders in a city. Losers are Riverside, San Diego and Sacramento (CA) and Tucson and Phoenix (AZ).
quote:Why are you guys missing this bit of Porridges post? This popped out to me as well when I read the blog. The American Thinker did not think very hard.
Originally posted by Porridge:
It also fails to mention widespread efforts from a few decades ago to assign black officers to black neighborhoods, which would likely push black-officer - black victim shooting stats a bit higher.
quote:I'm not missing it. I'm trying to analyse its relevance, as it's not completely obvious. Because it's not only black officers tending to kill black victims, it's white officers tending to kill white victims, and it's overall very little difference in the propensity of officers of either race (black officers overall killed slightly more often).
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Why are you guys missing this bit of Porridges post? This popped out to me as well when I read the blog. The American Thinker did not think very hard.
Originally posted by Porridge:
It also fails to mention widespread efforts from a few decades ago to assign black officers to black neighborhoods, which would likely push black-officer - black victim shooting stats a bit higher.
quote:44 per 100,000 black police officers, 42 per 100,000 white police officers.
Originally posted by Gwai:
I'd like to see whether those numbers have shootings per officer and not just shootings of variously colored people.
quote:No. When trying to SOLVE a problem, all of that matters.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Orfeo,
You are confusing me. Why doesn't the why matter?
When trying to identify a problem, all of that matters.
quote:No. NO.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
So the solution then garnered from that bare statistic would be to put white officers in charge of black people.
quote:It matters why white officers shoot fewer people, for one thing because that helps us evaluate the statistics. If the statistics said that black officers shoot 39 times as many people, we would know that there was something else going on, for instance. Also, I'm assuming that our end goal is to lower the number of people shot (without drastically increasing the number of police officers killed, of course.)
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:44 per 100,000 black police officers, 42 per 100,000 white police officers.
Originally posted by Gwai:
I'd like to see whether those numbers have shootings per officer and not just shootings of variously colored people.
Does it really matter WHY white police officers aren't shooting more people (of any colour)? If in fact they're not, then the perception that white police officers are tending to kill blacks is simply wrong. EVEN IF THE REASON IT'S WRONG is because white police officers aren't around black people very much, it's still wrong.
quote:
Nonchance factors
have an effect as well. An obvious one is the
policy that police departments may have for
assigning officers to particular neighborhoods.
A common policy is to assign black officers to
black neighborhoods. Consequently, it might be
expected that, when a black officer kills a
felon, there is a high likelihood that the
felon is also black. In line with that
expectation, national statistics indicate that
most of the felons killed by black officers are
themselves black.
quote:... what?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
BTW, Ann Coulter is a contributor to the American Thinker, so...
quote:Ann Coulter is insane. If one wishes for points from the conservative spectrum, there are plenty who are not batshit crazy.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:... what?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
BTW, Ann Coulter is a contributor to the American Thinker, so...
quote:You'd lose your bet.
Originally posted by orfeo:
I would bet, by the way, that the statistics continue to be available if only someone would make the effort to collate them. You would imagine that every case of police homicide is reported and recorded in some fashion. The issue is whether anyone cares enough about collating the facts and figures to generate new (and ongoing) reports similar to that one in 2001.
quote:The statistics significantly under report police caused homicides because they are an aggregation of local statistics reports which frequently under report Police shootings as homicides. It's that confirmation bias you're talking about. Academics have tried to produce better statistics but to date can only provide the conclusion of under reporting. If people have an expectation that there's racial bias, waving obviously flawed statistics in their face and telling them they're wrong isn't going to convince them.
By the F.B.I.’s figures, there were between 378 and 414 police homicides in the five years ending in 2012, the most recent year available. Those numbers, however, include only justifiable homicides without reference to race; mistaken or unjustified killings are not reported. Years of academic research indicate that the actual total is considerably higher.
quote:Well then, if that's our goal (and I think it's an excellent goal), I would argue society should be asking questions about police shootings that don't exclude a very sizable chunk of police shootings by only looking at those where a white office shoots a black victim and ignoring white-shoots-white (undoubtedly larger, in absolute terms), black-shoots-black and black-shoots-white.
Originally posted by Gwai:
Also, I'm assuming that our end goal is to lower the number of people shot (without drastically increasing the number of police officers killed, of course.)
quote:Yes. And?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
From the study linked with The American Thinker's report.
quote:
Nonchance factors
have an effect as well. An obvious one is the
policy that police departments may have for
assigning officers to particular neighborhoods.
A common policy is to assign black officers to
black neighborhoods. Consequently, it might be
expected that, when a black officer kills a
felon, there is a high likelihood that the
felon is also black. In line with that
expectation, national statistics indicate that
most of the felons killed by black officers are
themselves black.
quote:The statistics in the American Thinker article come from this US Department of Justice report. I considered linking directly to the DOJ report, but the American Thinker article presented the information more concisely.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
If one wishes for points from the conservative spectrum, there are plenty who are not batshit crazy.
A publication which includes her may not be selecting for accuracy or reason.
quote:It's possible that's because when police kill someone like Kelly Thomas people are at least willing to entertain the notion that the police may have over-reacted, to the extent that a full trial is warranted. When someone like Michael Brown or Eric Garner dies at the hands of police there's usually a shrug and an explanation as to why they had it coming anyway. Why is there "a major media event" when a white cop kills an unarmed black civilian? Because that's what it takes to get even a minimal investigation.
Originally posted by orfeo:
In all seriousness: when is the last time a death at the hands of police became a major media event when it wasn't a black death? When is the last time a death at the hands of police became a major media event when the police weren't white?
quote:I think you're either misunderstanding what I'm saying or making an unwarranted assumption that the post-2001 data is somehow different from, or worse than, the data from the 80s and 90s used in that report. Nothing in that article supports such
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
quote:You'd lose your bet.
Originally posted by orfeo:
I would bet, by the way, that the statistics continue to be available if only someone would make the effort to collate them. You would imagine that every case of police homicide is reported and recorded in some fashion. The issue is whether anyone cares enough about collating the facts and figures to generate new (and ongoing) reports similar to that one in 2001.
Race and Police Shooting
points outquote:The statistics significantly under report police caused homicides because they are an aggregation of local statistics reports which frequently under report Police shootings as homicides. It's that confirmation bias you're talking about. Academics have tried to produce better statistics but to date can only provide the conclusion of under reporting. If people have an expectation that there's racial bias, waving obviously flawed statistics in their face and telling them they're wrong isn't going to convince them.
By the F.B.I.’s figures, there were between 378 and 414 police homicides in the five years ending in 2012, the most recent year available. Those numbers, however, include only justifiable homicides without reference to race; mistaken or unjustified killings are not reported. Years of academic research indicate that the actual total is considerably higher.
quote:I've yet to see a single remark that Eric Garner "had it coming anyway". Anywhere.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:It's possible that's because when police kill someone like Kelly Thomas people are at least willing to entertain the notion that the police may have over-reacted, to the extent that a full trial is warranted. When someone like Michael Brown or Eric Garner dies at the hands of police there's usually a shrug and an explanation as to why they had it coming anyway. Why is there "a major media event" when a white cop kills an unarmed black civilian? Because that's what it takes to get even a minimal investigation.
Originally posted by orfeo:
In all seriousness: when is the last time a death at the hands of police became a major media event when it wasn't a black death? When is the last time a death at the hands of police became a major media event when the police weren't white?
quote:And this is what makes me want to give up in utter despair. Most jails and prisons don't have law books or internet access. The actual criminal justice system is even worse than the picture I'm painting it. IME the only way to get change is for enough people to realize that there's a problem and be willing to work together.
Originally posted by Byron:
I see where saysay's coming from, but even in the worst case scenario, don't think the picture's that bleak. If you refuse to waive reading, charges are read out at arraignment. Sure, it'll piss everyone off, but you'll get the info you need. Jail libraries should have copies of laws and/or internet access. If they don't, even the most incompetent public defender ought to be able to produce a copy of the law you're accused of violating. If they refuse, it'd be grounds to see a judge and get replacement counsel, and the court can give you a copy of the information/indictment. If the worst comes to the worst, on a simple harassment charge, you can go pro se and represent yourself.
quote:I never made claims about what the majority of jails have or don't have: it was one of several ways an inmate in county can find the charges against them. (BTW, here's a piece by a librarian at Rikers.)
Originally posted by saysay:
And this is what makes me want to give up in utter despair. Most jails and prisons don't have law books or internet access. The actual criminal justice system is even worse than the picture I'm painting it. IME the only way to get change is for enough people to realize that there's a problem and be willing to work together.
quote:In Seattle; John T. Williams, a Native American woodcarver a native American woodcarver was shot for walking while carving with a knife. It created quite a media sensation and public protest. Shot Native American Indian
Originally posted by orfeo:
In all seriousness: when is the last time a death at the hands of police became a major media event when it wasn't a black death? When is the last time a death at the hands of police became a major media event when the police weren't white?
quote:Concise, but incomplete.
Originally posted by Moo:
I considered linking directly to the DOJ report, but the American Thinker article presented the information more concisely.
Moo
quote:It suggests that white cops are trying not to shoot black people. It says nothing about targeting. Here is yet another study that suggests they do.
Originally posted by orfeo:
I also note that that article at least raises doubt, again, whether the existing stats (however flawed) support the idea that white cops target black victims. In fact it suggests they try NOT to target black victims because they know how it will look.
quote:Officer Ian Birk is a murderer, pure and simple, and his colleagues' comments chill my blood.
In Seattle; John T. Williams, a Native American woodcarver a native American woodcarver was shot for walking while carving with a knife. It created quite a media sensation and public protest. Shot Native American Indian
quote:Damn fine article from a hero if ever there was.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
[...] Apologies to the hosts, but I am linking to an article by Frank Serpico, he of the movie fame.
This is four pages long, but well worth the read.
quote:I agree to a point: there's undoubtedly racist cops, but I suspect the majority treat all "hood rats" with equal disdain.
As for Barack Obama and his attorney general, Eric Holder, they’re giving speeches now, after Ferguson. But it’s 20 years too late. It’s the same old problem of political power talking, and it doesn’t matter that both the president and his attorney general are African-American. Corruption is color blind. Money and power corrupt, and they are color blind too.
quote:The review board, composed of Law Officers did say this was an egregious failure by Officer Birk.
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
Officer Ian Birk is a murderer, pure and simple, and his colleagues' comments chill my blood.
Racism is a serious problem; so is the over-empowerment of police officers. I've done prison work, and I know that most of the people incarcerated are bad guys. But too many cops assume that everyone who's not a cop is a bad guy.
We have to work on that.
quote:What information in the DOJ report was omitted from the American Thinker article?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Concise, but incomplete.
Originally posted by Moo:
I considered linking directly to the DOJ report, but the American Thinker article presented the information more concisely.
Moo
quote:Then you've had the very good fortune to not run across Congressman Peter King.
Originally posted by orfeo:
I've yet to see a single remark that Eric Garner "had it coming anyway". Anywhere.
quote:Agreed. I think I shared earlier how a friend who spends much more time working with youth on the streets than I do was talking about community policing as an important part of the answer. If so, it would help with shootings of any color person. Still, it doesn't have to be exclusive. We can ask why so many of our black men are getting shot by the police without stopping asking why our police are shooting so many people. I think I'd say both questions should be asked.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Well then, if that's our goal (and I think it's an excellent goal), I would argue society should be asking questions about police shootings that don't exclude a very sizable chunk of police shootings by only looking at those where a white office shoots a black victim and ignoring white-shoots-white (undoubtedly larger, in absolute terms), black-shoots-black and black-shoots-white.
Originally posted by Gwai:
Also, I'm assuming that our end goal is to lower the number of people shot (without drastically increasing the number of police officers killed, of course.)
quote:Others have answered this, but let me also add that the (white, I think) cops who (separately) beat up multiple Chicago bartenders for cutting them off were a big media sensation here, and not because of the race of any of the participants.
Originally posted by orfeo:
In all seriousness: when is the last time a death at the hands of police became a major media event when it wasn't a black death? When is the last time a death at the hands of police became a major media event when the police weren't white?
quote:I'd strongly say that we need to talk about both. I don't know if you know/have looked at the major causes of death for African-American men under the age of 30. If you don't know, it's relevant to this conversation, and I suspect underlining people's reactions. No, most of those deaths are not from the police, but it means it's a vulnerable area. However probably even more relevant is that it is completely impossible to live in America with your eyes open and not have very clear evidence of police racism. I could tell you multiple stories myself, and I don't mean from the newspaper either. Eh, I just wrote up two examples and then cut them because I don't want to distract from the thread, but it's clear cut. And if there is clearcut evidence that a significant number of police officers are racist--I am sure most are not, but that's not nearly enough--then it's enough to make people more suspicious of the power police are wielding to shoot and kill African Americans.
Originally posted by orfeo:
The problem of people dying at the hands of police is not the same problem as black people dying at the hands of white police, and it's not going to have the same solution. As long as people continue to insist on wanting to talk about how to solve black deaths from racist police (and I note that the desire to cling onto THAT being the problem is fascinatingly strong - you're pretty much the only responder to suggest that it's just fine if we stop talking about race and get more general about it), they are not going to be talking about how, in general, to reduce the overall death count. They are going to keep focusing on trying to reduce an aberration in the death count.
quote:Which by the way I am super suspicious of since it means black police officers will generally be stationed in poorer more dangerous areas of town than white officers.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Besides, I'm now being told that blacks already police blacks as much as possible!
quote:I (a white male, for the record) grew up in the "hood", and lived there until my early twenties. I only stopped being pulled over with astonishing regularity whenever I ventured into the tonier suburbs after I moved (to an average, working-class suburb), and my car license plates no longer came up on the terminal in the police car as being from the "hood".
Originally posted by Byron:
I agree to a point: there's undoubtedly racist cops, but I suspect the majority treat all "hood rats" with equal disdain.
quote:It doesn't seem appropriate to thank you for 'rectifying' my good fortune.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Then you've had the very good fortune to not run across Congressman Peter King.
Originally posted by orfeo:
I've yet to see a single remark that Eric Garner "had it coming anyway". Anywhere.
quote:Part of the context is that people like King will grasp on to any straw to justify a police killing, particularly if the deceased is black. The other part of the context is that Peter King is an obnoxious scumbag.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:It doesn't seem appropriate to thank you for 'rectifying' my good fortune.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Then you've had the very good fortune to not run across Congressman Peter King.
Originally posted by orfeo:
I've yet to see a single remark that Eric Garner "had it coming anyway". Anywhere.
Honestly, that comment doesn't even make sense on its own terms. If obesity was a factor, how on earth does he conclude the police weren't in a position to know? Is he proposing they arrested Garner with their eyes shut and didn't receive any visual information about his weight?
quote:
If Irish America is one large, cantankerous family, Peter King is the second cousin who gets drunk and flips his car over in an accident bad enough to make the local news. He breaks up Thanksgiving dinner with some extended rant that manages to mix racism with quotes from The Quiet Man. He's the reason we need to go across town for midnight mass. Peter King shames us. He shames us all.
quote:This story, if true, is unsurprising to anyone who has read Witness 40's journal entry, which reads like a letter to Penthouse Forum adapted for exonerating a police shooting. ("I always thought your letters were made up until it happened to me!" is the usual line inserted at the beginning in a desperate attempt to gain credibility.) It's not surprising someone would fabricate an eye witness account in a high profile case like this (there's always someone willing to make a splash that way), but it surprised me that the prosecution team thought it credible enough to submit as evidence to the grand jury.
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
An interesting article about one of the witnesses in the Ferguson Grand Jury
Unmasking Ferguson Witness
If you believe the reporter, one of the witnesses fabricated most of her testimony and has a history as a serial perjurer.
quote:The article doesn't explain anything. It presents differing perceptions about the Ferguson vs. Garner cases by black people and white people, and then says this:
Originally posted by orfeo:
While we're talking about Slate articles, I really, really like this one.
But then I would, because it backs up my own views a great deal.
quote:But no, that doesn't appear to be the crucial variable, because he only presents data on the views of white people varying by how much information they have. But no information about how or whether black people's views vary by the information they have. And he certainly doesn't present any information that black people or white people had a different distribution of amount of information.
How did whites arrive at different opinions in the two cases? The crucial variable appears to be information, not race.
quote:It's explicitly a statement of the crucial variable for white people. Accompanied by an explicit statement that the variable didn't have the same effect on the opinion of black people.
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
But no, that doesn't appear to be the crucial variable, because he only presents data on the views of white people varying by how much information they have. But no information about how or whether black people's views vary by the information they have.
quote:Could you point out where Saletan says this? As far as I can tell, Saletan doesn't give any figures at all about the split of views among black people based on the amount of information black people have about the cases.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Accompanied by an explicit statement that the variable didn't have the same effect on the opinion of black people.
quote:I find that to be a somewhat bizarre question. I can't really think about the white split, and the information differential it correlates with, and what it means about racism in this country, unless I understand more about the black data on whether or not there's an information differential for black people.
What do you make of the white split on the Brown and Garner cases? Does it affect your assessment of racism in this country?
quote:The problem is your assumption that the black view is "stereotyping". We don't know that.
Originally posted by orfeo:
And now I will probably be shouted at back in Hell for even daring to suggest that black people might be more prone to stereotyping these cases and treating them all the same just on account of skin colour. But sorry, even without the additional data, that's what the survey shows explicitly, that black people are saying that race is a major factor in these cases, and it's therefore not surprising that the percentages on the actual verdicts do not vary much between the 2 cases that have the same racial makeup.
White people are clearly following through on their view that race is NOT a major factor in the cases, because they are seeing the case against one white police officer as having merit and the other case as not having merit. When a lot of white people say they don't think the race of the people involves is important, they are telling the truth.
quote:The perception is not that all white people treat them differently-- it's that white police officers treat them differently. The data about what white people in general think is going on in these two cases only demonstrates that white and black Americans have different perceptions/ expectations of the police. I would hypothesize it also suggests that white Americans want to believe that this is a race-blind society. It does not tell you whether or not this IS a race-blind society or whether or not black Americans are treated differently by the police. You are taking the assumptions of white Americans as truth while discounting the assumptions of black Americans, when neither has been proven one way or the other, at least by this study.
Originally posted by orfeo:
But if the commonality they are perceiving is that white people treat them a certain way because of their race, then evidence of what white people actually think is critical. And this evidence is that white people are not looking at these cases on the basis of race.
That's the key thing here: if the perception is about RACISM, it's about what is supposedly in the minds of white people.
quote:That is not what the evidence is, but what one conclusion might be.
Originally posted by orfeo:
And this evidence is that white people are not looking at these cases on the basis of race.
quote:Good point. Which goes even more to my overall point.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:That is not what the evidence is, but what one conclusion might be.
Originally posted by orfeo:
And this evidence is that white people are not looking at these cases on the basis of race.
Another is that people, when faced with indirect evidence which has no direct effect on them, are more likely to be swayed by confirmation bias.
quote:No, on this you are simply wrong. Many things are open to interpretation, but the logic of this is inescapable.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:That is not what the evidence is, but what one conclusion might be.
Originally posted by orfeo:
And this evidence is that white people are not looking at these cases on the basis of race.
Another is that people, when faced with indirect evidence which has no direct effect on them, are more likely to be swayed by confirmation bias.
quote:No, I am not. It is vitally important to understand that the survey asked people both whether they BELIEVED race was a factor in the cases, and what they thought about the outcome of the case.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
You are taking the assumptions of white Americans as truth while discounting the assumptions of black Americans, when neither has been proven one way or the other, at least by this study.
quote:No. It is evidence that race is not a factor in
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:No, on this you are simply wrong. Many things are open to interpretation, but the logic of this is inescapable.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:That is not what the evidence is, but what one conclusion might be.
Originally posted by orfeo:
And this evidence is that white people are not looking at these cases on the basis of race.
Another is that people, when faced with indirect evidence which has no direct effect on them, are more likely to be swayed by confirmation bias.
We have 2 cases with the same racial profile. If white people are deciding these cases on the basis of race, 2 cases with the same racial profile should result in the same view from white people.
It is the perfect control. The facts that these cases have in common are that a white officer killed an unarmed black man. The very fact that a really, really large percentage of white people think that one white officer should have been charged and that the other shouldn't conclusively demonstrates that whatever racism might be floating out there, race has failed to be the determining factor. Some other factor HAS to be the explanation for why they view one white police officer who killed a black man as innocent of a crime and think another white police officer who killed a black man ought to have been charged.
You simply cannot treat something as the causative factor when the "causative factor" is present in 2 different situations but the situations yield different results. It's logically impossible. There is no correlation here between the race of the police officer and the view of white people as to whether the police officer should be charged.
quote:Yes, I know, and that's what I said isn't it? I talked about the lack of racism in the white people taking the survey.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
No. It is evidence that race is not a factor in the way white people interpret the event(or, more accurately, in the way white people report they interpret the event. It is NOT evidence that race was not a factor in the event itself.
quote:Here's what you said,
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Yes, I know, and that's what I said isn't it? I talked about the lack of racism in the white people taking the survey.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
No. It is evidence that race is not a factor in the way white people interpret the event(or, more accurately, in the way white people report they interpret the event. It is NOT evidence that race was not a factor in the event itself.
quote:It's a bit ambiguous what you mean by "they are telling the truth"-- did you mean:
Originally posted by orfeo:
White people are clearly following through on their view that race is NOT a major factor in the cases, because they are seeing the case against one white police officer as having merit and the other case as not having merit. When a lot of white people say they don't think the race of the people involves is important, they are telling the truth.
quote:Well, thinking aloud, suppose that you were a white police officer, lived in an area full of white people, had white friends and white neighbors, and generally didn't have much social contact with black people.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Okay then, so my next question is this: suppose, for the sake of argument, that this does indeed mean that we have ended up with a white police force that is more racist than the white community it is drawn from.
How?
quote:(Bold mine)
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:No, on this you are simply wrong. Many things are open to interpretation, but the logic of this is inescapable.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:That is not what the evidence is, but what one conclusion might be.
Originally posted by orfeo:
And this evidence is that white people are not looking at these cases on the basis of race.
Another is that people, when faced with indirect evidence which has no direct effect on them, are more likely to be swayed by confirmation bias.
We have 2 cases with the same racial profile.
quote:The power to abuse makes any infraction worse. But I think exposure is also a factor. Letter b. in cliffdweller's list. A higher percentage of minorities go through the criminal justice system, minority communities tend to be in higher crime areas. This makes it easy to make an association between minority and criminal.
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
It doesn't take a police force that is more racist than the population, just toleration of what the racists do.
quote:How are you not making my point for me? And the article's point: that the views of white people were determined by information, aka evidence, and not race?
Originally posted by lilBuddha/orfeo/this is my best attempt to fix up the code:quote:(Bold mine)
We have 2 cases with the same racial profile.
But we do not have two cases which are the same.
One the evidence is indirect, the other is a video recording in which the mistreatment is unmistakable. If we had two similar levels of evidence you would have a better point.
quote:No, this is not "the perfect control" - this is a terrible way to do experiments.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:How are you not making my point for me? And the article's point: that the views of white people were determined by information, aka evidence, and not race?
Originally posted by lilBuddha/orfeo/this is my best attempt to fix up the code:quote:(Bold mine)
We have 2 cases with the same racial profile.
But we do not have two cases which are the same.
One the evidence is indirect, the other is a video recording in which the mistreatment is unmistakable. If we had two similar levels of evidence you would have a better point.
That is exactly what you're now saying. That something other than race was determinative.
Frankly I'm not sure that you understand the technique of fixing a common element to test whether it has an effect or not. Having the SAME kind of evidence would actually render it more difficult to show that the evidence was relevant.
quote:The police have contact with black crime victims as well as black perps. When someone who has very little has been robbed, the police who investigate will feel sympathy.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Suppose you police an area with mostly black residents. You go to work, you sit in your patrol car, you get called out for some crime or other, and the perp is black. You get called to another crime. The perp is black again. (Because you're in a largely black area - everyone is black.)
So out of all the people you meet, you have a bunch of white non-criminals (family, friends, colleagues) and a bunch of black criminals. If the only black people you spend any time with are the ones you're arresting...
quote:Yeah, well, he segued from being the angel of life to the angel of death in . . . how many minutes was it? What a versatile, multi-talented fellow he is!
Originally posted by Moo:
Shortly before Wilson's encounter with Brown, he had been sent to a home where a baby had stopped breathing. The ambulance was on its way, but Wilson was closer. He was told to go and perform CPR until the EMTs arrived.
quote:Which seems to imply that the views of black Americans aren't determined by information, given the lack of difference of opinion in that group. On the other hand it's just as plausible to say that both groups are forming their opinions based on information but they're weighting credibility differently.
Originally posted by orfeo:
How are you not making my point for me? And the article's point: that the views of white people were determined by information, aka evidence, and not race?
quote:And yet, I'm finding that people won't even readily accept THAT proposition.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Doing it your way doesn't show anything except maybe that the proposition "all white people always react out of racism to the exclusion all other considerations" is not true. But that's pointless, since nobody was arguing that.
quote:It is quite obvious? Well, a grand jury didn't think it was quite obvious that they committed a crime. Which is the question. Killing is not murder. Killing is not manslaughter.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
What i am saying, orfeo, is that in Ferguson the evidence of what exactly happened is subject to interpretation and everybody is going to view it through their preconceptions.
In Staton Island, it is quite obvious that the police killed a man unnecessarily.
quote:Where does physical evidence come into this ranking system?
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Which seems to imply that the views of black Americans aren't determined by information, given the lack of difference of opinion in that group. On the other hand it's just as plausible to say that both groups are forming their opinions based on information but they're weighting credibility differently.
Originally posted by orfeo:
How are you not making my point for me? And the article's point: that the views of white people were determined by information, aka evidence, and not race?
It also fits with the data set as given to interpret it as indicating that white Americans will usually believe one type of evidence (e.g. the testimony of a white police officer) is inherently more credible than another type of evidence (e.g. the eyewitness testimony of black civilians) while still believing a third type of evidence (e.g. a video recording) to be more credible than either. The difference in black and white opinions could simply be a product of black Americans weighting the first two types of evidence differently than white Americans.
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:The police have contact with black crime victims as well as black perps. When someone who has very little has been robbed, the police who investigate will feel sympathy.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Suppose you police an area with mostly black residents. You go to work, you sit in your patrol car, you get called out for some crime or other, and the perp is black. You get called to another crime. The perp is black again. (Because you're in a largely black area - everyone is black.)
So out of all the people you meet, you have a bunch of white non-criminals (family, friends, colleagues) and a bunch of black criminals. If the only black people you spend any time with are the ones you're arresting...
Moreover, the police are sometimes the first responders in medical emergencies. Shortly before Wilson's encounter with Brown, he had been sent to a home where a baby had stopped breathing. The ambulance was on its way, but Wilson was closer. He was told to go and perform CPR until the EMTs arrived.
Moo
quote:You missed my point. Leorning Cnicht said that white policemen have contact with blacks only when they arrest them for law-breaking. I was pointing out that there are situations where white policemen have contact with blacks who are not breaking the law.
Originally posted by lilBuddha
It is perfectly possibly to believe ill of a group generally and still feel sympathy for individuals. Racism isn't white hoods and lynching v. rainbows and kittens; it is a spectrum. It isn't necessarily hate completely, or even hate at all.
quote:And here is the problem with physical evidence.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Where does physical evidence come into this ranking system?
quote:And then this one
FBI forensic tests showed the gun was fired twice in the car, with one bullet hitting Brown's arm while the second one missed, the newspaper said.
In addition to Wilson's uniform and gun, forensic tests found the teen's blood on the interior door panel of his car, The Times said.
quote:Once the opposing narratives take hold, there is no such thing as objective physical evidence. There is only suspicion of anything which does not confirm the story already believed.
The revelation, provided by unnamed government officials familiar with a federal civil rights investigation, marked the first public account of Wilson's testimony to investigators.
That it could potentially serve as exculpatory evidence -- or at the very least, used by Wilson's supporters to back the officer's account of what transpired on Canfield Drive on August 9 -- immediately drew suspicion and anger from leading activists who portended an ominous reaction from Brown supporters.
"This is clearly constructed and contrived to justify the killing of Mike Brown," Ferguson resident Pam Peters told CNN affiliate KTVI.
quote:Seriously? You think someone here is saying "all white people always react out of racism to the exclusion all other considerations"? You think you're having a hard time getting people to disagree with that?
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:And yet, I'm finding that people won't even readily accept THAT proposition.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Doing it your way doesn't show anything except maybe that the proposition "all white people always react out of racism to the exclusion all other considerations" is not true. But that's pointless, since nobody was arguing that.
quote:She is a local legend.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Me too. You can read the testimony in the October 23 transcript (from p184 onwards). It's a bit of an understatement to say she doesn't come across well.
quote:Yes, thanks. For some reason, links aren't working for me tonight. Most tedious.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Is this link the one you meant?
quote:Grand Juries.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:It is quite obvious? Well, a grand jury didn't think it was quite obvious that they committed a crime. Which is the question. Killing is not murder. Killing is not manslaughter.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
What i am saying, orfeo, is that in Ferguson the evidence of what exactly happened is subject to interpretation and everybody is going to view it through their preconceptions.
In Staton Island, it is quite obvious that the police killed a man unnecessarily.
quote:People weigh evidence. This is so broad a statement as to be useless.
Originally posted by orfeo:
The idea that videos are somehow objective and make things obvious is one that I would reject. People weigh evidence. Even video evidence.
quote:I'm not trying to spin anything. But why do you think that this evidence would cease to exist if there wasn't a video of it?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The police grabbed Eric Garner in a choke-hold before attempting to put him in handcuffs. The choke-hold was maintained even after he was on the ground surrounded by multiple cops whilst one knelt on his head. Spin that.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Where does physical evidence come into this ranking system?
This is one of the things that frustrate me so much in these cases. People constantly put it up as simply a contest between different eyewitness accounts it's not. George Zimmerman didn't just get believed because he had a convincing sounding voice, he also had physical injuries. Wilson didn't just get believed because he was a cop, he got believed because of things like the evidence of his gun discharging in his car in a way that was consistent with his story of Brown trying to get his gun. What "credibility" do you assign to a bullet hole? Does it make a difference to you if it's a white bullet?
quote:Good question, given the string of scandals that have recently plagued American criminal forensics. On the one hand, you claim this sort of thing can't and won't happen. On the other hand we've got accounts of this exact thing happening even at elite law enforcement organizations. Is this string of scandals simply a case of rampant conspiracy mongering? Which brings us back to the question of your implication of the inherent unreasonableness of black Americans. Is it necessarily an example of racial boosterism, as you imply, that black Americans apparently refuse to believe in the perfect and incorruptible nature of police investigations, including physical evidence? Or is it a fairly rational assessment of how often the game is rigged, particularly against them?
Originally posted by orfeo:
Yeah well, if people want to view everything through the lens of conspiracy theory, I can't help them. In one of my overly-epic posts (in the Hell thread I think) I set out my basic philosophy. I don't really believe there are many conspiracies of that kind in the world. Mistakes and misunderstandings, yes. Faking of injuries and bullet holes, no.
quote:Exactly. Sometimes evidence is very clear, but a lot of it requires interpretation. Many times that interpretation is made by experts employed by a judicial system that has not earned black people's trust.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
orfeo,
Evidence is most often subjective, even physical evidence. Evidence is often pieces of an incomplete puzzle which the observer must then solve. Preconception and motivation often play a part in the attempted solution. Objectivity is a chimaera.
quote:Agreed in part!
Originally posted by lilBuddha
Barnabas62,
The evidence supports parts of Wilson's story. The gaps are the key; and those gaps are supplied, on either side, by interested parties. But interest is only one factor. Eyewitness testimony is fraught with problem. Even the participants of an event often fill in missing information and supply incorrect information. Even with nothing to gain this happens.
quote:I think politically that is undoubtedly correct given current suspicions and mistrusts, even if an acquittal was pretty much a shoo-in. As a matter of current jurisprudence, a "no bill" finding looks pretty justified to me on the way information was presented. Even allowing for the different standard of a probable cause finding. Which of course is what orfeo and I have been saying all along.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You may well be right, Barnabas62, but I do think a trial would better serve than a grand jury.
The American implementation and interpretation of self-defence laws don't appear to consider a person instigating a situation in which they must defend themselves.
quote:If the trial jury hears the same evidence that the grand jury did, it is highly unlikely that they would convict. Then the protests would break out anew.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You may well be right, Barnabas62, but I do think a trial would better serve than a grand jury.
quote:So justice in America is being eviscerated to salve DAs' egos. Sweet.
Originally posted by Moo:
AIUI prosecutors don't like bringing cases to trial when they are likely to lose. It makes them look bad.
Moo
quote:Yeah...that DA was really trying his best here...to do something...
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:So justice in America is being eviscerated to salve DAs' egos. Sweet.
Originally posted by Moo:
AIUI prosecutors don't like bringing cases to trial when they are likely to lose. It makes them look bad.
Moo
quote:Most people in any line of work don't want to do a bad job or be seen to do a bad job. This is normal human nature.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:So justice in America is being eviscerated to salve DAs' egos. Sweet.
Originally posted by Moo:
AIUI prosecutors don't like bringing cases to trial when they are likely to lose. It makes them look bad.
Moo
quote:If he "didn't want to be seen doing a bad job," then why did he do such a piss poor job?
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:Most people in any line of work don't want to do a bad job or be seen to do a bad job. This is normal human nature.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:So justice in America is being eviscerated to salve DAs' egos. Sweet.
Originally posted by Moo:
AIUI prosecutors don't like bringing cases to trial when they are likely to lose. It makes them look bad.
Moo
quote:I don't think he did, aside from calling that one witness who was clearly not to be believed. Can you tell me specifically what other things you think he did badly?
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
If he "didn't want to be seen doing a bad job," then why did he do such a piss poor job?
quote:There are times when one has to overcome one's normal human nature for the good of another. I should think that being a DA is a textbook case of this.
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:Most people in any line of work don't want to do a bad job or be seen to do a bad job. This is normal human nature.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:So justice in America is being eviscerated to salve DAs' egos. Sweet.
Originally posted by Moo:
AIUI prosecutors don't like bringing cases to trial when they are likely to lose. It makes them look bad.
Moo
quote:To misquote Aaron Sorkin, instead of focusing on not looking like we're doing a bad job, it would be great if one focused on actually not doing a bad job.
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
quote:If he "didn't want to be seen doing a bad job," then why did he do such a piss poor job?
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:Most people in any line of work don't want to do a bad job or be seen to do a bad job. This is normal human nature.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:So justice in America is being eviscerated to salve DAs' egos. Sweet.
Originally posted by Moo:
AIUI prosecutors don't like bringing cases to trial when they are likely to lose. It makes them look bad.
Moo
quote:Well, the questioning of Darren Wilson was amazingly poor; I could have done far better than that just off the top of my head, and I am but a simple music critic who has never trod a law school floor.
Originally posted by Moo:
I don't think he did, aside from calling that one witness who was clearly not to be believed. Can you tell me specifically what other things you think he did badly?
quote:Again, I don't give a fuck who gets pissed with him. I give a fuck that he do his best to see that justice is done. Moo's post suggests that he be given some leniency for not doing his job properly because of his fears about how he will be perceived.
Originally posted by Porridge:
Aw, c'mon. There's no way the guy could avoid doing a bad job -- from somebody's point-of-view. Regardless of outcome, at least one major constituency would be totally pissed with him.
quote:mousethief, I get that, and in truth, I agree with you . . . probably. The real problem here is that in this situation, justice is very much in the eye of the beholder. That's what really divides the factions.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Again, I don't give a fuck who gets pissed with him. I give a fuck that he do his best to see that justice is done. Moo's post suggests that he be given some leniency for not doing his job properly because of his fears about how he will be perceived.
Originally posted by Porridge:
Aw, c'mon. There's no way the guy could avoid doing a bad job -- from somebody's point-of-view. Regardless of outcome, at least one major constituency would be totally pissed with him.
quote:He later in the interview said he would not charge any of the witnesses with perjury who "absolutely lied" because he thought it was more important to present the entire picture.
Well, early on, I decided that anyone who claimed to have witnessed anything was going to be presented to the grand jury.
And I knew that no matter how I handled it, there would be criticism of it. So if I didn’t put those witnesses on, then we’d be discussing now why I didn’t put those witnesses on. Even though their statements were not accurate.
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
News from New York re. the murder of 2 policemen initially looked like the Freedom Movement putting itself back by about 50 years. One might hope that someone somewhere will soon say 'Look, all this can't go on'.
Probably a little optimistic but, in spite of the latest tragedy, could the US be on the cusp of a real change to race relations in the Police force similar to what was seen here after the Stephen Lawrence inquiry?
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
quote:Did you really just say that???
Originally posted by romanlion:
Tough Christmas for some NYPD kids this year, but on the bright side there is one less worthless piece of shit roaming the streets. Hopefully his friends and family will do the world a favor and blow their own brains out as well.
quote:Perhaps some of us are above using tragic death to score points.
Originally posted by romanlion:
Rather quiet here the last day or so. Strange considering recent developments….
quote:Who here, over the last sixteen pages, has said that?
Originally posted by romanlion:
You want dead cops? Be careful what you wish for….
quote:Agreed. I certainly do not wish cops, or anyone else, dead in the USA.
Originally posted by Gramps49:
The USA is a violent society. We have to find ways of reducing the violence.
quote:And this is as sad an indictment of the state of the USA as any. Well, that, and the cop in Cleveland who immediately assumed that a kid with a toy gun had a real gun.
Originally posted by Gramps49:
If I had been the deputy I would also have had my gun drawn and at the ready if a man approached my car with his hands in his pocket.
quote:I'm so very glad that I live somewhere where none of those would be considered out of the ordinary, let alone an 'error'. Police are public servants, and are accountable to us almost exactly in the way that we aren't accountable to them.
Originally posted by mousethief:
I think the man erred in three ways: 1, approaching a cop with hands in pockets, 2, inquiring about police business that was none of his business, and 3, publicly bitching about it. Moron.
I hope he got his dog home safe however.
quote:To his cause?
Originally posted by rolyn:
My point was that the actions of the person who murdered the 2 NY Policemen did a darn site more harm to his cause than good.
quote:And I think the cop erred by taking out his weapon and taking off the safety without so much as saying 'sir, place and keep your hands where I can see them.' Hell, you can get rid of the 'sir' for all I care.
Originally posted by mousethief:
I think the man erred in three ways: 1, approaching a cop with hands in pockets, 2, inquiring about police business that was none of his business, and 3, publicly bitching about it. Moron.
quote:Don't all black people have the same cause? </sarcasm>
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:To his cause?
Originally posted by rolyn:
My point was that the actions of the person who murdered the 2 NY Policemen did a darn site more harm to his cause than good.
Do we have evidence that he was involved in trying to change the way police interact with civilians in any meaningful way? Had he so much as attended a peaceful protest?
quote:It's an even better argument for emigrating.
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I would think this would be a good argument for a bulletproof car, and a two way microphone.
quote:Have to say that I agree with you. I thought it was very odd to say that there was a 'cause' involved here.
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:To his cause?
Originally posted by rolyn:
My point was that the actions of the person who murdered the 2 NY Policemen did a darn site more harm to his cause than good.
Do we have evidence that he was involved in trying to change the way police interact with civilians in any meaningful way? Had he so much as attended a peaceful protest?
Because from my point of view, what he have is someone who got fed up, shot his girlfriend (who had military training), posted a common military strategy (for every one of ours killed, we'll kill two of theirs), and then killed two cops.
I think it's a bit of a stretch to claim that he was working towards a cause (I have my doubts that he even thinks he was).
quote:This! It was a brisk day today here, but not cold enough for gloves, so I had my hands in my pockets a lot when outside. You know what, I don't think anyone ever though I had a gun all day even though I walked past multiple security people/cops.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but December in the Pacific Northwest is somewhat chilly, yes? If I see a man with his hands in his pockets here in winter, I assume it's because he doesn't want his hands to get cold.
quote:"walk past" <> "walk up to"
Originally posted by Gwai:
quote:This! It was a brisk day today here, but not cold enough for gloves, so I had my hands in my pockets a lot when outside. You know what, I don't think anyone ever though I had a gun all day even though I walked past multiple security people/cops.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but December in the Pacific Northwest is somewhat chilly, yes? If I see a man with his hands in his pockets here in winter, I assume it's because he doesn't want his hands to get cold.
quote:That depends on what color you are:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:"walk past" <> "walk up to"
Originally posted by Gwai:
[This! It was a brisk day today here, but not cold enough for gloves, so I had my hands in my pockets a lot when outside. You know what, I don't think anyone ever though I had a gun all day even though I walked past multiple security people/cops.
quote:And now this.
Originally posted by Porridge:
quote:It's an even better argument for emigrating.
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I would think this would be a good argument for a bulletproof car, and a two way microphone.
![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
quote:I guess I wouldn't be too concerned, to be honest - it's been legal here for quite some time, and the only effect it's had day-to-day was one loonjob (thankfully ex-) Senator wearing a bulletproof vest outside his clothing and disrupting the Legislature to protest.
Originally posted by Porridge:
As a US citizen in a state where the General Court (state reps) have once again changed the rules to allow weapons (open OR concealed) to be carried in the House chambers, I begin to feel like a porcelain tea cup perched on the rim of a powder keg.
quote:
Reuters interviewed 25 African American male officers on the NYPD, 15 of whom are retired and 10 of whom are still serving. All but one said that, when off duty and out of uniform, they had been victims of racial profiling,
The officers said this included being pulled over for no reason, having their heads slammed against their cars, getting guns brandished in their faces, being thrown into prison vans and experiencing stop and frisks while shopping. The majority of the officers said they had been pulled over multiple times while driving. Five had had guns pulled on them.
quote:Whisky Tango Foxtrotting Foxtrot?
and about one third said they made some form of complaint to a supervisor.
All but one said their supervisors either dismissed the complaints or retaliated against them by denying them overtime, choice assignments, or promotions.
quote:We don't even have metal detectors. We have one (1) state trooper stationed in the gallery to watch over our fourth-graders when they attend sessions for their obligatory field trip. Nobody's required to report anything to anybody.
Originally posted by jbohn:
I guess I wouldn't be too concerned, to be honest
quote:That site had a list of people killed by police in the US. I notice that every victim whose photo they show was black. There was a fatal shooting by police about ten miles from here in September. It was shown that the victim was pointing a gun at the police when he was killed, and the shooting was ruled justified.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
And now this.
quote:If you read the stories, every victim who they pictured was also unarmed.
Originally posted by Moo:
I notice that every victim whose photo they show was black. There was a fatal shooting by police about ten miles from here in September. It was shown that the victim was pointing a gun at the police when he was killed, and the shooting was ruled justified.
The victim was white; I wonder if he would have made the statistics if he had been black.
quote:Shown by whom? Justified by whom?
Originally posted by Moo:
It was shown that the victim was pointing a gun at the police when he was killed, and the shooting was ruled justified.
quote:A few years back in Seattle, a man who had been in court for a divorce proceeding showed up the next day with a gun to give the judge some feedback. He was arrested and the court very quickly got metal detectors and security guards. I was amused when some citizen filed a lawsuit saying the security infringed their second amendment rights to bear arms. The judge ruled against the lawsuit in about 20 minutes. Apparently you don't have a right to bear arms around a judge. I believe the same has happened at the Supreme Court when they instituted security.
Originally posted by Porridge:
As a US citizen in a state where the General Court (state reps) have once again changed the rules to allow weapons (open OR concealed) to be carried in the House chambers, I begin to feel like a porcelain tea cup perched on the rim of a powder keg.
quote:If someone points a gun at a policeman, the policeman will tell him to drop it. If he does not, the policeman will shoot. The problem is that the policeman can't tell whether the gun is loaded or not, and he can't afford to wait until a bullet enters his body to find our.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:Shown by whom? Justified by whom?
Originally posted by Moo:
It was shown that the victim was pointing a gun at the police when he was killed, and the shooting was ruled justified.
Because you seem to be at the point where if you can justify killing an unarmed man, you can justify pretty much anything.
quote:Of course they'll do that. Then there's the time when the dead guy had something that looked like a gun, then another time when he reached for his ID and the officer thought it might be gun, and another time when he was walking around with his hands in his pockets and had headphones on under his hat and couldn't hear the officer.
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:If someone points a gun at a policeman, the policeman will tell him to drop it. If he does not, the policeman will shoot. The problem is that the policeman can't tell whether the gun is loaded or not, and he can't afford to wait until a bullet enters his body to find our.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:Shown by whom? Justified by whom?
Originally posted by Moo:
It was shown that the victim was pointing a gun at the police when he was killed, and the shooting was ruled justified.
Because you seem to be at the point where if you can justify killing an unarmed man, you can justify pretty much anything.
quote:Damn right they are! Those damned Asians...Brinsley had the right idea targeting that slant, with his higher average income, education, and his longer life expectancy.
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Even whites are beginning to realise (sic) the problem of privilege...
quote:If you point a gun at a cop, you're probably going to die. If a cop thinks you're pointing a gun at him, you're probably going to die. If a cop thinks you're about to point a gun at him, you're probably going to die. If a cop doesn't care whether you're reaching for ID or a gun, you're probably going to die. If a cop doesn't wait for you to respond to a shouted order, you're probably going to die.
Originally posted by Moo:
In the case I referred to, it was a gun. What do you think the police should have done when the man failed to drop it when ordered to do so?
quote:I get that you are making these ostensibly racist comments expecting the irony to be readily apparent. Perhaps it is. All the same, it seems to me to be a most unhelpful way to engage in Purgatory, because in a text-based medium where not everyone has the same linguistic expectations, it risks being seen as much more inflammatory than was intended.
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:Damn right they are! Those damned Asians...Brinsley had the right idea targeting that slant, with his higher average income, education, and his longer life expectancy.
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Even whites are beginning to realise (sic) the problem of privilege...
Bastards....
quote:It's like a script to "get out of jail free": Cop A shoots Citizen B for whatever reason or no reason at all. All Cop A has to do is say that B appeared to be armed, and that A feared for her/his life, and that makes it all ok. Repeat ad nauseam and it's no wonder people are sick of it.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
.... The argument isn't whether the dead guy pointed a gun at the cops or not. It's how rigorous the investigation is and whether it relies solely or mostly on the testimony of the cops who shot a man dead and have every reason to say they "feared for their lives".
quote:I'm pretty sure that shooting him will also distribute his potentially dangerous blood...
Originally posted by Porridge:
Furthermore, if he's cutting himself enough to bleed, he needn't point his knife at others to potentially put them at risk. He could have hepatitis, he could be HIV-positive -- and people don't normally dress for the grocery store with 2 layers of rubber gloves and a set of goggles, just-in-case.
quote:And at that point, no one would have said they used inappropriate force.
Originally posted by Porridge:
I grant you, a taser would be preferable to bullets in such situations. But even tasers have sometimes resulted in fatal outcomes.
quote:In the US, that would be a bad assumption. All cops carry a sidearm. The majority do not carry a taser.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I mean, I have to assume if the cops have handguns, they also have tasers.
quote:As citizens, we are responsible for what police do on our behalf. We have the obligation to review and critique what our public servants do. If my boss tells me I've screwed up, I'm expected to improve, not argue back that she wasn't there so she can't tell me how to do my job.
Originally posted by Porridge:
Hold on, now. While I don't condone shooting people, let's also bear in mind that Monday-morning quarterbacking is a lot easier than the Sunday-night game-play reality.
quote:And yet all those mental health professionals and others manage to do their jobs without shooting their patients when they get out of control. And while health professionals (not just in psychiatry, either) are indeed at a high risk of being assaulted at work, we would never consider arming them. Perhaps because the idea of a nurse shooting a patient who isn't complying with instructions seems, well, insane.
My work involves people who occasionally pull some pretty crazy shit. There's no way for your average bystander, or cop (or MH professional for that matter), to ascertain with confidence that a guy running around stabbing himself might not suddenly start stabbing others at any moment, especially if he's panicking. He's unpredictable, incoherent, and a cop's voice may not be quite as loud as the ones this guy might be hearing in his head. ....
quote:I'm starting to appreciate the fact that the cops around here just give PTSD-suffering veterans severe beatings sometimes. I mean, they sometimes beat someone to death, but...
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Ok. So it's lethal force or nothing.
That strikes me as the end point of a particularly poor set of decisions.
quote:As has been made abundantly clear in the previous pages, our "obligation to review and critique what our public servants do" doesn't mean squat when the police and public prosecutors get put in charge of the review and critique process.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
As citizens, we are responsible for what police do on our behalf. We have the obligation to review and critique what our public servants do. If my boss tells me I've screwed up, I'm expected to improve, not argue back that she wasn't there so she can't tell me how to do my job.
quote:Look, I'm not arguing with you, especially not as someone who has only recently returned to full-time duty after in fact being attacked by a client. And no, I didn't shoot him. Neither am I defending cops shooting civilians, criminal, crazy, or otherwise. I am simply pointing out that (A) we're all pretty good at figuring out afterward what SHOULD have happened; and (B) we rarely know all the details of what DID happen (in my own case, having lost consciousness during the attack, I certainly couldn't supply full details); and (C) cops, like the rest of us, are human, and screw up.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
And yet all those mental health professionals and others manage to do their jobs without shooting their patients when they get out of control. And while health professionals (not just in psychiatry, either) are indeed at a high risk of being assaulted at work, we would never consider arming them. Perhaps because the idea of a nurse shooting a patient who isn't complying with instructions seems, well, insane.
quote:But this is not an acceptable excuse.
Originally posted by Porridge:
(C) cops, like the rest of us, are human, and screw up.
quote:This is what I was saying, except I was talking about the guns. When you have the authority to kill...
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Cops are human and screw up, but we are told to do what they say when they say it, so their level of acountability should match the level of authority they are given.
quote:That's not an "article" - it's an opinion column by a conservative pundit and former speechwriter for Reagan and G.H.W.Bush - a man who wrote that George W. Bush was "the first great leader of the 21st century."
Originally posted by Moo:
I came across an interesting article about police-public interactions in New York City.
Moo
quote:Can you show that his numbers are incorrect?
Originally posted by Dave W.:
That's not an "article" - it's an opinion column by a conservative pundit and former speechwriter for Reagan and G.H.W.Bush
quote:Why? His central thesis rests on one unsupported claim:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:Can you show that his numbers are incorrect?
Originally posted by Dave W.:
That's not an "article" - it's an opinion column by a conservative pundit and former speechwriter for Reagan and G.H.W.Bush
Moo
quote:Why would I? I don't see any way in which they show that the NYPD is particularly good or bad - do you?
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:Can you show that his numbers are incorrect?
Originally posted by Dave W.:
That's not an "article" - it's an opinion column by a conservative pundit and former speechwriter for Reagan and G.H.W.Bush
Moo
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles
Where is his evidence for this? There a fairly serious body of academic work that suggests that the crime rate reduction was caused largely by demographic changes.
quote:I think you two don't realize what has happened in New York City over the past two weeks. At a protest march people chanted, "What do we want? Dead cops. When do we want them? Now" Here is a video. Less than two weeks later two policemen sitting in a patrol car were shot and killed. Here is the news story. The article I linked to was making the point that New Yorkers would be a hell of a lot worse off if it weren't for the police. Some New Yorkers appear not to believe this.
Originally posted by Dave W
quote:Why would I? I don't see any way in which they show that the NYPD is particularly good or bad - do you?
Originally posted by Moo
Can you show that his numbers are incorrect?
quote:I don't think either of us were debating that - it was his further point which seemed be (in context) that any problems surrounding the police were statistical anomalies.
Originally posted by Moo:
The article I linked to was making the point that New Yorkers would be a hell of a lot worse off if it weren't for the police.
quote:If I were a NYC police officer, I would already have gone into another line of work: I remember being a six year old in Greenwich Village (NYC) and my classmate in show and tell shared a picture of her beloved big brother's stitches. He (African-American) had smart-talked a police officer and had the shit beaten right out of him. She basically told us he had said some stupid things, but because of her honesty re the stupid insults, I believe she really did get the whole story when he told her he had never been threatening or disobeyed those police. What struck me almost as much as that gory picture or the scared girl was the reaction of the adults. They seemed to all think that was wrong, but predictable. As long as it is predictable and normal that young black men who are rude to the police will get the shit kicked out of them, then I cannot stand with the police. As long as the police reaction to criticism is not "Yes, and we will retrain until this is not a problem, we will punish offenders" I cannot stand with the police. As long as the police defend the oppressors in their midst, I cannot stand with the police even though they are mostly good people who are protecting us. As long as Shaniqua's brothers injuries are normal, I cannot stand with the police.
Originally posted by Moo:
If I were a New York policeman, I would go into a different line of work or find a job someplace where the police are not considered the enemy.
Moo
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
quote:I don't see any reason to think you are any better informed, unless "Alleghany [sic] Mountains of Virginia" is somehow code for "the mean streets of NYC".
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles
Where is his evidence for this? There a fairly serious body of academic work that suggests that the crime rate reduction was caused largely by demographic changes.quote:I think you two don't realize what has happened in New York City over the past two weeks.
Originally posted by Dave W
quote:Why would I? I don't see any way in which they show that the NYPD is particularly good or bad - do you?
Originally posted by Moo
Can you show that his numbers are incorrect?
quote:Some people chanted something at a protest for about a minute; nearly two weeks later, two cops were killed. Case closed!
At a protest march people chanted, "What do we want? Dead cops. When do we want them? Now" Here is a video. Less than two weeks later two policemen sitting in a patrol car were shot and killed. Here is the news story.
quote:Perhaps you and Podhoretz have found a new slogan for them: "The NYPD - at least they're better than nothing!"
The article I linked to was making the point that New Yorkers would be a hell of a lot worse off if it weren't for the police.
quote:Yeah? Me too! They sound like a pretty messed-up organization.
If I were a New York policeman, I would go into a different line of work or find a job someplace where the police are not considered the enemy.
quote:I have no idea if this is even remotely true, since I'm too far removed. However, this is nice counterbalance to the NYT article.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Perhaps you and Podhoretz have found a new slogan for them: "The NYPD - at least they're better than nothing!"
quote:The Podhoretz thing (if that's what you were referring to) wasn't an article in the NYT, it was a column in the NYPost.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:I have no idea if this is even remotely true, since I'm too far removed. However, this is nice counterbalance to the NYT article.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Perhaps you and Podhoretz have found a new slogan for them: "The NYPD - at least they're better than nothing!"
NYPD cops stop patrolling
quote:If you're going to divide the total by 3, you should divide the 2000 by three also - there's no reason to think they meant "2000 out of each of 3 shifts." I don't think that can account for a 90% drop in summonses for minor offenses or a 40% drop in arrests for major felonies.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
There should be at least 3 shifts, though they may not be evenly staffed. but assume they are and that is only ~11,500 per shift. There will be a number on vacation or some other sort of leave. Any given day a number will be in or preparing for court, attending training, performing public relations duties, etc. And New York is a very large city. 2,000 shifted towards the protests is a significant number.
quote:
A "sickout", or (especially by uniformed police officers) "blue flu", is a type of strike action in which the strikers call in sick. This is used in cases where laws prohibit certain employees from declaring a strike. Police, firefighters, air traffic controllers, and teachers in some U.S. states, are among the groups commonly barred from striking usually by state and federal laws meant to ensure the safety or security of the general public.
quote:Calls for "Dead cops" are more than criticism. This is especially true when they are followed a few days later by the shooting of two policemen who were sitting in a patrol car not interacting with the public at the time.
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Why is it automatically assumed by the police that they do not have to accept criticism? Especially when some of their members are clearly doing actions which invite criticism? Surely somewhere in the police contract there is some mention of actually upholding the laws.
quote:But are the attitude of a minority of protesters. Yet the police are treating anyone who criticises them as being at one with that minority.
Originally posted by Moo:
Calls for "Dead cops" are more than criticism.
quote:Which seems odd, since no one (including police officers) should ever give completely uncritical support to anything.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
[Actually anything but completely uncritical support seems to be too much for them].
quote:You know what I find disquieting? The fact that a cop facing no threat to his person can kill a man using a banned chokehold, in broad daylight, in front of witnesses, while being videoed, and still not get charged with any crime.
Originally posted by Moo:
The police find this extremely disquieting, and I don't blame them.
Moo
quote:And the sane response to such a threat should be "Don't let the door hit your arse on the way out."
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Picking up the football and threatening to leave the pitch is ridiculous.
quote:It seems like a no-brainer to me-- "an officer and a gentleman", right? Why would anyone on the force not want that?
Originally posted by Porridge:
Maybe it's time to inject another element: protecting the honor and integrity of "de corps" by keeping everybody on the up-and-up.
quote:Exactly. Somewhere along the line, somebody seems to have confused "we enforce the law" with "we are the law."
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Any organization which feels it is above questioning should immediately be questioned.
quote:This. I don't agree with people shouting that the only answer to bad cop behavior is guerrilla violence. What I do think is that a police officer tried and convicted with first degree murder of a civilian should be given a higher minimum sentence than a civilian, and definitely should be subject maximum sentence the law has to offer-- whether that be life without parole or the death penalty in states that has it.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:You know what I find disquieting? The fact that a cop facing no threat to his person can kill a man using a banned chokehold, in broad daylight, in front of witnesses, while being videoed, and still not get charged with any crime.
Originally posted by Moo:
The police find this extremely disquieting, and I don't blame them.
Moo
quote:Yes. That is the obvious distinction between the Ferguson and the New York cases. And as I said earlier, what compounds the problem is the confidentiality of the grand jury hearings. Justice was not seen to be done, despite what the general public has seen. That is very destructive of respect for due process. And loss of respect for due process (or corruption of due process) is very dangerous to social order.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:You know what I find disquieting? The fact that a cop facing no threat to his person can kill a man using a banned chokehold, in broad daylight, in front of witnesses, while being videoed, and still not get charged with any crime.
Originally posted by Moo:
The police find this extremely disquieting, and I don't blame them.
Moo
quote:Is there a parallel with taking aircraft hostage? It used to be that aircraft hijackings were fairly routine - the plane would be flown to some suitable spot, there would be a negotiator and after a while there would be a deal and the hostages would get to go home.
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
If I drew a gun on a public street, people - including police - would run away and then call for back up. Back-up would include a negotiator.
Do US police ever back off and not immediately confront ?
quote:Perhaps you're right, LC - all those police in other developed countries who don't shoot on sight are being terribly irresponsible.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
If you pull a gun in public, and I am armed, and have a chance to stop you from hurting anyone, dare I risk not taking it?
quote:Haven't you just described Open Carry?
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
If you pull a gun in public, and I am armed, and have a chance to stop you from hurting anyone, dare I risk not taking it?
quote:Here's the thing that flummoxes me:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
If you pull a gun in public, and I am armed, and have a chance to stop you from hurting anyone, dare I risk not taking it?
quote:Well, some of us prefer to conduct ourselves in public spaces as if life were not a perpetual 'Shootout at the OK Corral.'
If you pull a gun in public, and I am armed, and have a chance to stop you from hurting anyone, dare I risk not taking it?
quote:Jesus, Mary, Joseph and the rest of the neighbors, what foolishness.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
If you pull a gun in public, and I am armed, and have a chance to stop you from hurting anyone, dare I risk not taking it?
quote:Like it ends with all those semi-trained hunters in the Maine Woods during deer season?
Originally posted by Golden Key:
How's that going to end?
quote:Are you seriously suggesting these kinds of figures of speech are peculiarly American?
Originally posted by Porridge:
The thing is, this culture seems entranced with competitive violence, and seems driven toward high-tension drama. Violence infuses the language we use to talk about our common life: patients “battle” cancer; politicians “fight” for their constituents, and so on.
quote:This. The language we use in large degree shapes how we view the world, and in return, how we move and act and choose to respond in various situations.
Originally posted by Porridge:
The thing is, this culture seems entranced with competitive violence, and seems driven toward high-tension drama. Violence infuses the language we use to talk about our common life: patients “battle” cancer; politicians “fight” for their constituents, and so on.
By contrast, there’s little drama in crisis intervention. Rarely does it include do-or-die moments. It unfolds slowly and patiently, not quickly and dramatically. It starts high, but gradually ratchets down to a bloodless, calm end. There seems to be something in the American psyche that repudiates this kind of denouement.
quote:According to that link, the Mounties did try to shoot him; they just failed to hit him.
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
It is quite possible to arrest the shooter calmly even after 5 people have been shot. The Mounties very methodically moved the shooter into a space where he knew he had no options.
quote:Now, now, that's not the point. The point is (as is generally the case with HB) that Americans/guns are BAD, and Canada/gun control are GOOD. Details like the shootout that happened first just confuse the issue. </dripping sarcasm>
Originally posted by Dave W.:
According to that link, the Mounties did try to shoot him; they just failed to hit him.
quote:According to the link provided, the Mounties went to the wrong building, and were tipped off to the location of the suspect by a citizen. I'm failing to see the "methodical moving" of the suspect, unless you imply that the apartment building raid was some sort of decoy to get him out in the open...?
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
The Mounties very methodically moved the shooter into a space where he knew he had no options.
quote:But it wasn't for lack of trying the first time; the Mounties who fired certainly did want someone else to get shot or otherwise injured.
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
But I would point out that nobody else got shot or otherwise injured.
quote:Was that what the Mounties were interested in during the first encounter?
And no-one was interested in being the hero who shot the villain.
quote:Don't be absurd. I'm not defending guns or violence, I'm just attacking sanctimonious twaddle.
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Oh, hell, I don't care. You people need your violence and your guns. Enjoy, d*mmit!
Some of us would prefer to do things differently.
There is no way to argue this topic.
quote:I don't know who HB means by "you people" here, but if this is a reference to Americans, please note: I have neither need nor use for violence or guns, and I am an American.
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Oh, hell, I don't care. You people need your violence and your guns. Enjoy, d*mmit!
Some of us would prefer to do things differently.
There is no way to argue this topic.
quote:How about a real-life example that took place outside in broad daylight in which the confused people with guns were all officers of the law?
Originally posted by Golden Key:
After the movie theater shooting in Colorado, a bunch of people went out and bought guns. I tried to visualize a possible scenario: movie starts; Joker-style Real Shooter starts shooting; various other people start shooting (in the half dark!); no one's quite sure who's the Real Shooter; spooked by that and the running movie, people shoot anyone they see; innocent people are wounded or killed; Real Shooter slips away; cops show up; all they know is that there are bloody people on the floor, and a lot of shooters.
How's that going to end?
quote:That is absurd. No one kills more blacks in America than blacks.
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
...whites in the US live in fear that blacks will one day rise up in revolt, so the solution is to shoot them first.
when they can't even safely get out of their own neighborhoods?
quote:This isn't sanctimonious twaddle, it's just bullshit totally unsupported by evidence.
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
It is not sanctimonious twaddle to point out that a large proportion of whites in the US live in fear that blacks will one day rise up in revolt, so the solution is to shoot them first.
quote:It's anti-American bigotry is what it is.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
This isn't sanctimonious twaddle, it's just bullshit totally unsupported by evidence.
quote:As long as they keep sending us their oil and best entertainers, I say we let it slide.
Originally posted by RuthW:
It's anti-American bigotry is what it is.
quote:Which, unfortunately, is HB's usual stock in trade. Which, unfortunately, alienates even those of us Americans who might otherwise agree with him in greater or lesser degree.
Originally posted by RuthW:
It's anti-American bigotry is what it is.
quote:Good grief! It's like your family's cursed by history!
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
I'm not making this up.
My grandfather had a heart attack while police chief in Sarajevo, if you remember the unfortunate history of that area.
My father had to give up a research position in Germany when Hitler came to power (and, no, I'm not trying to invoke Godwin's Law - this is just history)
And now I'm watching the Bastion of Democracy, the Light to all the World, destroy itself over skin colour and equal rights in general. Colour me "disappointed"
quote:Here's another appalling story.
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
I'm not making this up.
quote:I don't get the sense that in the USA public-police relations are "generally positive". Are they? Are they 'generally positive' in the UK, Australia, other places?
Public-police relations in Canada are generally positive, because police here accept close scrutiny as a key component of the legal system. Outside Quebec, any suspicious death in Canada involving a police officer is investigated by an independent body, insulating police from suspicions of a cover-up and raising public confidence in the process.... Where systemic problems have occurred...the public response has been to demand improvement. And, by and large, police have accepted such critiques with an appropriate sense of obligation, at least after the fact.
quote:You do realize that "the above link" is just a newspaper editorial, right?
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
As a contrast, from the above link:
quote:Macleans is a news magazine, not a newspaper, the most widely circulated in Canada by far. The reference to illegal techniques is most likely to the recent Supreme Court ruling that Mr. Big entrapment methods* are contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:You do realize that "the above link" is just a newspaper editorial, right?
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
As a contrast, from the above link:
In parts of the newspaper where they have actual news, on the other hand, we can find articles with headlines like Police who lie: How officers thwart justice with false testimony. The subhed is good too: "In 100 recent cases across Canada, police used illegal techniques, excessive force and racial profiling, then covered it up with false testimony."
On the plus side, though, Maclean's editorial staff thinks Canadian public-police relations are "generally positive".
quote:Oh, I beg your pardon - a news magazine, not a newspaper. I hardly think that makes their editorials any more authoritative.
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:Macleans is a news magazine, not a newspaper, the most widely circulated in Canada by far. The reference to illegal techniques is most likely to the recent Supreme Court ruling that Mr. Big entrapment methods* are contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:You do realize that "the above link" is just a newspaper editorial, right?
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
As a contrast, from the above link:
In parts of the newspaper where they have actual news, on the other hand, we can find articles with headlines like Police who lie: How officers thwart justice with false testimony. The subhed is good too: "In 100 recent cases across Canada, police used illegal techniques, excessive force and racial profiling, then covered it up with false testimony."
On the plus side, though, Maclean's editorial staff thinks Canadian public-police relations are "generally positive".
quote:The heart of Mr. Big entrapment schemes is lying to criminals, not lying in court under oath later. Are you not familiar with Mr. Big? Wiki says it's also known as "the Canadian technique".
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Where did NP say anything about criminals?
quote:Both you and NP have praised Canadian police practices and relations, so a mention of criticism of Canadian police is hardly off topic.
Are you just trying to press some buttons, while avoiding the discussion, or do you actually care to talk about the issue?
quote:Are they? Is it? I would be interested in reading a survey comparing police review practices and public knowledge of them - do you have a link?
In most countries that claim to be "developed", the police are under some form of organised review process, that is open and understood by the majority of people.
quote:No, I don't think that would serve - the claim was that there were organized and well understood police review processes in most developed countries, not Canadian provinces.
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Dave W. If you search for "police complaints commission" or 'review' with every province in Canada, you will come up with links for what you seem to want.
quote:I guess it is different - in my experience in the US, people don't usually point to unsupported statements in newspaper or magazine editorials as some kind of evidence.
And yes, a national news magazine is rather different from a newspaper which are local to a city or area. I perceive media is also different in the USA.
quote:is "Quebec." (Caveat - this is from the Maclean's editorial, but in the context of the piece it's a statement against interest, so perhaps it's OK.)
Where else do the police get to kill citizens without having a review?
quote:Policing is a provincial responsibility in Canada with complicated cost-shared programs with the federal gov't. Thus we have to go province by province.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
....
quote:The situation in UK seems to be that trust is dropping in police, if you follow the links within this article of the BBC to the stats they based it on.
A review of the literature demonstrates that the Canadian public held relatively favourable views of the police <list of many articles>. This is not surprising as Roberts (2004) points out that the police have a mandate (i.e., protection of society) that is generally consistent with the perspective of the public. As well, another mundane explanation of the high public approval rating of the police is associated with their high visibility in the community. Specifically, police officers are usually seen by the general public performing "some useful function" such as directing traffic at the scene of an accident.
quote:
There is research, for example from the London School of Economics, backing up Topping's view. The more contact people have with the police, whether the contact is initiated by the police or by the member of the public, the less trust and confidence they are likely to have in them. The opposite is true for other public services like the NHS, where people have a more positive view after having contact.
quote:No, we don't. I'm hardly likely to go searching through the websites of every sub-national administrative division of the developed world; it was Horseman Bree's claim, let him back it up.
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:Policing is a provincial responsibility in Canada with complicated cost-shared programs with the federal gov't. Thus we have to go province by province.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
....
quote:Do you have any real idea of how likely news is to be made up or invented in Canada, or are you just comparing your perceptions of Canada to your perceptions of the US? If the former - how can you possibly know that? If the latter - well, what a surprise.
news is not nearly as likely to made up or invented here than I perceive in your country.
quote:This is beside the point. But what do you want to know? I've been a news junky since the 1960s; I miss the era of shortwave radio and have to settle mostly for newsfeeds from various sources, though winter is pretty good for catching signals not intended for here. Pravada (Russia) is currently the craziest I'm following, more so that even Fox IMHO.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Do you have any real idea of how likely news is to be made up or invented in Canada,
quote:Both actually. I actually want to hear your personal perceptions and everyone else's: about police-public relations. The info generally seems to be that the situation is somewhat different in the USA regarding this issue, but I'm not certain if it is or not as the info is not very systematic. I am not following what the problem is with the question.
Dave W.
or are you just comparing your perceptions of Canada to your perceptions of the US? If the former - how can you possibly know that? If the latter - well, what a surprise.
quote:If you say so. Odd that you brought it up, though.
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:This is beside the point.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Do you have any real idea of how likely news is to be made up or invented in Canada,
quote:Frankly, I think you'd be better off looking for more polling data, but to each his own.
quote:Both actually. I actually want to hear your personal perceptions and everyone else's: about police-public relations.
Dave W.
or are you just comparing your perceptions of Canada to your perceptions of the US? If the former - how can you possibly know that? If the latter - well, what a surprise.
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
The only thing that's changed at all is what the wealthy people in Manhattan want to hear. What they want to do has not changed.
quote:So going to Ferguson was more than just a feel-good PR exercise.
17. Handgun Litigation Project:
Riverside acts as a fiscal agent for this program which successfully litigated against the top handgun manufactures and distributors for negligence in the distribution of illegal firearms, which accounts for more than 90% of gun-related deaths in the United States each year.
quote:Horseman Bree assumed she agreed with the protesters about her church and the larger Church as a whole. Like I said in my original post, she was telling all Christians that they need to do more of what she wants to do. I also said what it would look like if Riverside Church really did what she was calling them to do in order to be seen as relevant to the masses. Riverside Church has a paid staff of 130 and an operating budget of $14 million despite having an ASA of 550 and a membership of around 1600 counting affiliates. Knowing how membership roles are tallied I suspect less than half of the membership number is very active at all. So, you have essentially 1 staff person for every 5 active members. Take the 1600 number literally and you have 1 staff person for every 13 people. Seems to me like what the majority of people at Riverside Church want to attend their beautiful church, listen to their expensive organ played by their talented organist, hear a sermon sanctifying their political beliefs, and write checks to support their causes. Taking to the streets to the streets and building community means something to me. What I suspect Butler really wants them to hear is, "Sure you could always do more. Who couldn't? But, at least, you are doing more than most of all those other churches." That will be enough. Yes, they'll feel a bit guilty about not doing more but they'll feel good that they feel guilty.
originally posted by Golden Key:
Ok, I read her article. Am I missing something? She didn't say her church or The Church is irrelevant--just that the world at large thinks that.
quote:I don't think it was a PR move per se. I think she did what people of her theological and political temperament do and then said what they say after doing the sort of thing they do. She may truly believe she is issuing some sort of prophetic call to action. I hear the teacher in the Peanuts cartoons. To the extent I'm inclined to listen to pastors of New York churches not in my own tradition about what I needed to do to be relevant (and that's virtually not at all), I'd be far more inclined to listen to the pastor from Times Square Church.
originally posted by Golden Key:
So going to Ferguson was more than just a feel-good PR exercise.
quote:Who me? I think the church should be concerned with social justice. I just think that if the church is reduced mainly to political activism and faith in human government that we've stopped truly being the Body of Christ and become nothing more than a slightly more aggressive Rotary Club. I believe in original sin. I don't believe people are inherently good. As a result, looking for salvation through systemic change is silly. People built the old system. People corrupted the old system. People will build the new system. People will corrupt it. Meet the new boss same as the old boss. What needs to be changed is people. All the political activism in the world isn't going to change that. The risen Christ can and does. Despite being a crazy fundamentalist, the pastor at Times Square Church believes that. I sincerely doubt that clergy like Amy Bulter really do. Yes, I've met dozens of them and had long conversations with some. Most of them are good, well intentioned people that I more or less like. It's not personal. I wonder why some of them went into the ministry when social work or lobbying was what they really felt called to do. Others really are gifted pastors.
originally posted by Horseman Bree:
But there are people who WANT to believe that social justice is not an issue the church should even think about.
quote:Claiming that the two great commandments necessarily leads to supporting any specific political agenda is a non sequitur. I'm interested in sound exegesis and not proof texting. The vision of Jesus suggested by advocates of the social gospel just doesn't stand up to thorough criticism even that coming from scholars who are not the least bit conservative or even Christian.
originally posted by Horseman Bree:
No matter what the Bible says, and no matter how "literally" they read it. They can't see that The Two Great Commandments are about "we are all in this together, and God will not be happy if you mistreat someone else"
quote:Marcionism remains a popular heresy. Now, even the 10 commandments are suspect. Might as well go ahead and throw out the Shema next.
originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Hell, most of them can't remember that there are just TWO Great Commandments. They are too busy trying to get Hebrew rules written on court houses to recognise that they HAVE neighbours.
quote:This is well put and worth highlighting.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I think the church should be concerned with social justice. I just think that if the church is reduced mainly to political activism and faith in human government that we've stopped truly being the Body of Christ and become nothing more than a slightly more aggressive Rotary Club. I believe in original sin. I don't believe people are inherently good. As a result, looking for salvation through systemic change is silly. People built the old system. People corrupted the old system. People will build the new system. People will corrupt it. Meet the new boss same as the old boss. What needs to be changed is people. All the political activism in the world isn't going to change that. The risen Christ can and does.
quote:All systems could stand to improve. However, I don't think the focus of the Church should be on changing the system. As a matter of fact, the more political a person gets the more I wish they would leave Christianity out of it. The more politically partisan a person becomes the more likely they are to start using bad arguments and bad theology to sanctify their entire political agenda. They do more harm than good. Those who agree with them will do so regardless of the perfunctory appeal to Christianity. The ones who don't will recognize the political rhetoric for what it is and be turned off to the church the person represents.
originally posted by no prophet's flag is so far...
My question is whether you do actually see a role for systemic change at all, or if it is at zero, and if your statement was a product of binary, either-or expression.
quote:I wouldn't presume to proclaim a Christian response to any issue on which faithful Christians are clearly divided. This doesn't mean that individual Christians can't act on their convictions whatever they may be. They can and should. I have a problem when Christians make the political issues that separate us more important the faith that unites us. If you are making a controversial political issue central to the faith, you are missing the point and I don't what the political issue is, what political party supports it, or if I agree or disagree with your position.
originally posted by RuthW:
BA: What should Christians say or do, then, in your opinion? If there were a prominent case of alleged police brutality involving a white cop and a black or brown member of the public in your town, would you address it in the pulpit? What would you say to parishioners troubled by the case and trying to decide what to say or do?
quote:I'm sorry, but what's your evidence that the people who are trying to get Hebrew rules written on court houses aren't also running food banks and soup kitchens or otherwise trying to solve some of these problems without governmental intervention?
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
But there are people who WANT to believe that social justice is not an issue the church should even think about.
No matter what the Bible says, and no matter how "literally" they read it. They can't see that The Two Great Commandments are about "we are all in this together, and God will not be happy if you mistreat someone else"
Hell, most of them can't remember that there are just TWO Great Commandments. They are too busy trying to get Hebrew rules written on court houses to recognise that they HAVE neighbours.
quote:There are times when I look at the school to prison pipeline in some of the places I've lived and think the system is working exactly as designed.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
People built the old system. People corrupted the old system. People will build the new system. People will corrupt it. Meet the new boss same as the old boss.
quote:I know the question wasn't addressed to me. And like Beeswax Altar I wouldn't presume to tell a Christian what to do or say. But that Huffington Post piece was one of the most alienating things I've read in a while; it's pieces like that that make me think maybe I should give up on the Episcopalians because I will never actually be one of them and they will never stop reminding me of that.
Originally posted by RuthW:
What should Christians say or do, then, in your opinion?
quote:Almost all of the community organizing meetings I've been to about coordinating a response to police brutality while addressing the problems in our communities have taken place in churches. Granted, many of them have taken place in nondenominational black churches. But unless she's defining the church as her church (and/or the Episcopal church), this statement is ridiculous. I will grant you that different places are different so it's possible that the young organizers in Ferguson do feel that way. But in most of the places I've lived the church is who shows up to fill in the gaps in the economic and social safety net.
We gathered in a church basement, where we listened to young organizers talk about what they were doing and why. Their message was clear: the church is not showing up. The church has no relevance for me, for my life.
quote:You also said:
Affiliations
The church is interdenominational. It is affiliated with both the United Church of Christ and the American Baptist Churches and cooperates with the Council of Churches in the City of New York as well as the New York State, National, and World Councils of Churches.
quote:As I mentioned upthread, check out the Social Justice tab on the church's site. Go through all its sections. And note the lower-right corner of the front page--they've just started a winter homeless shelter. They're actually doing stuff, not just talking.
But in most of the places I've lived the church is who shows up to fill in the gaps in the economic and social safety net.
quote:Food banks, soup kitchens, homeless shelters are very good things, but they are only really sticking plasters. Helping the poor will also need to include helping them into work, good schools, ensuring minimum wages are adequate to alleviate poverty, minimising their tax burden, ensuring there is quality affordable housing, providing quality affordable healthcare ... many of which are well and truly in the realm of government policy.
Originally posted by saysay:
I'm sorry, but what's your evidence that the people who are trying to get Hebrew rules written on court houses aren't also running food banks and soup kitchens or otherwise trying to solve some of these problems without governmental intervention?
quote:Spot on.
Originally posted by Gwai:
BA: I'll give you credit for being generally consistent. Still it sounds like you have a belief that Christians shouldn't be divisive. I think many of us (on both sides of the spectrum) disagree and say there are points of doctrine/action on which we would split from the rest of the church. So if you preach that Christians shouldn't be divisive you are already taking a view on something that Christians greatly disagree over.
I don't say that to criticize you. I think how much one should fight over and where one should drop a thing for the sake of unity is a very hard question. I just mean to point out that I don't think it's possible to avoid having stated opinions about what Christians should do unless you have no hard opinions at all. And unity is a hard (though valuable) thing for sure!
That church is working for its beliefs intensely, so of course it's doing something divisive. Christ completely worship practices and beliefs, and boy was that divisive. If one has a strong belief about where the Church needs to be re race and racism, I don't know that it would clearly be very Christian to stand in the corner afraid of annoying anyone.
quote:My bad. Beeswax Altar's reference to the Episcopalians confused me.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
saysay--
Um, Riverside Church isn't Episcopalian.
quote:
Affiliations
The church is interdenominational. It is affiliated with both the United Church of Christ and the American Baptist Churches and cooperates with the Council of Churches in the City of New York as well as the New York State, National, and World Councils of Churches.
quote:
You also said:
quote:
But in most of the places I've lived the church is who shows up to fill in the gaps in the economic and social safety net.
quote:I never said they were only talking the talk not walking the walk.
As I mentioned upthread, check out the Social Justice tab on the church's site. Go through all its sections. And note the lower-right corner of the front page--they've just started a winter homeless shelter. They're actually doing stuff, not just talking.
quote:I thought the article in the Huffington Post was alienating. That's not a judgment on the church, although if her sermons are anything like the article, I doubt I would feel particularly welcome in that congregation.
I found the article a little off-putting, simply because of so many buzz words. phrases, and attitudes. But I looked through the church's site; read Rev. Butler's bio, which you can find by clicking on her name at the top of the HuffPost article; and read her personal account on the church's site. AFAICT, there's more to her and her church than you seem to think.
quote:I know that. However, I live in the US. The realities of our political system mean that most politicians are in big business' pocket.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:Food banks, soup kitchens, homeless shelters are very good things, but they are only really sticking plasters. Helping the poor will also need to include helping them into work, good schools, ensuring minimum wages are adequate to alleviate poverty, minimising their tax burden, ensuring there is quality affordable housing, providing quality affordable healthcare ... many of which are well and truly in the realm of government policy.
Originally posted by saysay:
I'm sorry, but what's your evidence that the people who are trying to get Hebrew rules written on court houses aren't also running food banks and soup kitchens or otherwise trying to solve some of these problems without governmental intervention?
quote:If the political system is broken, and politicians are not working for the people they represent then perhaps that suggests a priority for the church would be to work to fix the system as the first step to getting society to work for the benefit of all it's citizens.
Originally posted by saysay:
I live in the US. The realities of our political system mean that most politicians are in big business' pocket.
quote:No, I have no problems with Christianity causing divisions. As many liberal Christians lament, the words of the Nicene Creed divide people. The exclusivist claim of salvation through Jesus divides people. I'm OK with that. I'm a Christian. I have a problem when people who identify as Christians deem the Christian faith as believed by the Church for centuries to be irrelevant but will not hesitate to fight tooth and nail for the platform of their political tribe. If I thought the implementation of my political beliefs was more important than the spread of the Gospel, I would have gone into politics.
originally posted by Gwai:
BA: I'll give you credit for being generally consistent. Still it sounds like you have a belief that Christians shouldn't be divisive. I think many of us (on both sides of the spectrum) disagree and say there are points of doctrine/action on which we would split from the rest of the church. So if you preach that Christians shouldn't be divisive you are already taking a view on something that Christians greatly disagree over.
quote:I'm skeptical of preachers claiming the prophetical mantle for themselves. Growing up in charismatic churches, I've heard prophecy used to justify a whole bunch of nonsense. I'm every bit as skeptical of mainline preachers claiming to be prophetic when preaching their politics from the pulpit.
originally posted by cliffdweller:
As a preacher I find that line constantly before me. Part of the key IMHO is prophetic discernment.
quote:And that's your opinion. However, the Gospels only address what the individual should do. Jesus tells the rich young rule to sell everything he owns. Jesus asks his individual disciples what they did to the least of these. Scripture and indeed Christian tradition doesn't provide a set of economic policies that Christians must strive to implement. Pretending it does is a mistake. Making the implementation of economic policies the main priority of the Church is an even bigger mistake. Besides, I thought we weren't supposed to try to force our religious beliefs on others through government force.
originally posted by Alan Creswell:
Food banks, soup kitchens, homeless shelters are very good things, but they are only really sticking plasters. Helping the poor will also need to include helping them into work, good schools, ensuring minimum wages are adequate to alleviate poverty, minimising their tax burden, ensuring there is quality affordable housing, providing quality affordable healthcare ... many of which are well and truly in the realm of government policy.
quote:Yeah, Che and Fidel changed the system didn't they? Would Jesus found a dictatorship that thousands would board overcrowded rafts and brave shark infested waters to escape? Cuba really is heaven compared to the other Communist countries.
originally posted by Golden Key:
And, tying into the Camara quote: Che Gueverra reportedly said "Jesus made me a Communist".
quote:Well, the church would have to define the people. Then, the church would have to come to a consensus about what a system that worked for the people looked like. Then, the church would have to convince the people that the system envisioned by the church would work better for the people than the current system. The good news of Jesus life, death, and resurrection is not that the United States can be more like Norway. For the record, it's not about Norway or any other nation becoming more like the United States either. Christians have flourished in every political system imaginable. Jesus sent his disciples to make more disciples not to overthrow the Roman Empire.
originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
If the political system is broken, and politicians are not working for the people they represent then perhaps that suggests a priority for the church would be to work to fix the system as the first step to getting society to work for the benefit of all it's citizens.
quote:Kinda my point-- which you would had seen had you not snipped my comment out of context.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
snip
quote:I'm skeptical of preachers claiming the prophetical mantle for themselves. Growing up in charismatic churches, I've heard prophecy used to justify a whole bunch of nonsense. I'm every bit as skeptical of mainline preachers claiming to be prophetic when preaching their politics from the pulpit.
originally posted by cliffdweller:
As a preacher I find that line constantly before me. Part of the key IMHO is prophetic discernment.
quote:Wonderful demonstration of missing the point. Now go back and read what I actually said and try again.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
It goes beyond how often you make prophetic political statements from the pulpit. Let's say I'm a member of your church. Would it be possible for me to discern your political beliefs from casual conversation? How about from reading your facebook feed? Because if I can, the chances that I'm going to believe you are truly being prophetic and not using the pulpit to cram your political opinions down my throat is about zero.
quote:Cliffdweller, asserting that people are missing the point is fine. Giving them paternalistic orders is not, and is not going to move the discussion forward in any helpful way.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Wonderful demonstration of missing the point. Now go back and read what I actually said and try again.
quote:In this instance, the people would be those who live and work in the United States. And, ultimately those are the people who need to act for change, and therefore identify what changes they want. It might just take something from the Church, and others, to kick start the process. Perhaps as a start if the churches were to say that the amount of money spent on political campaigning in a country and world where so many people are in abject poverty is obscene, and suggest limits on spending and how much an individual can give to political parties - possibly linked to incentives for donations to organisations providing direct help to the poor instead. Without so much money from business and rich individuals bankrolling campaigns they will have less hold over politicians, and without the money to spend campaigning will have to rely more on individual party members on the doorstep - and (in the UK at least) the local party membership is going to be more representative of the people than the party central office and their PR people.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:Well, the church would have to define the people. Then, the church would have to come to a consensus about what a system that worked for the people looked like. Then, the church would have to convince the people that the system envisioned by the church would work better for the people than the current system.
originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
If the political system is broken, and politicians are not working for the people they represent then perhaps that suggests a priority for the church would be to work to fix the system as the first step to getting society to work for the benefit of all it's citizens.
quote:It's not about whether Christians should flourish, but about the whole of society. It's about love of neighbour.
Christians have flourished in every political system imaginable.
quote:Most restrictions on campaign finance has been ruled unconstitutional. Besides, both political parties receive billions of dollars in funding. What the focus on campaign finance assumes is that there is a unique third party position popular enough to win elections. I doubt there is. I'm sure there would be some benefit to removing some of the money from politics but not worth making it the priority of the Church. Christians haven't even embraced democracy until fairly recently. Hard to see how elections being run should be a central concern to Christians. Should it be important to us as Americans who live in a representative democracy? Maybe. Important to us as Christians? I don't think so.
originally posted by Alan Creswell:
Perhaps as a start if the churches were to say that the amount of money spent on political campaigning in a country and world where so many people are in abject poverty is obscene, and suggest limits on spending and how much an individual can give to political parties -
quote:Even with all the money in US politics, representatives are more responsive to the people than members of parliament. Congressional whips only dream of having as much power as whips in parliament. Imagine a possible backbench revolt on nearly every major vote.
originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
- and (in the UK at least) the local party membership is going to be more representative of the people than the party central office and their PR people
quote:Campaign finance reform has nothing to do with loving one's neighbor. Again, where does Jesus call for political campaigns much less tell us how they should be financed? He doesn't. Given that broad an interpretation, love of neighbor can be used to justify anything and everything conceivable. A verse that can mean anything means nothing.
originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
It's not about whether Christians should flourish, but about the whole of society. It's about love of neighbour.
quote:Well, imagine a Senate where one member can kill a measure favored by the majority.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Imagine a possible backbench revolt on nearly every major vote.
quote:However, the clergy involved in the Ferguson protests made a real difference there, helping to bring sides together, calming situations, and witnessing in a good way. I know many of them, and they're not all "progressive." They're concerned about their community and their witness.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
...My facebook feed was filled with pictures and stories of Episcopal and other mainline clergy joining protests in Ferguson. If making the Gospel all about the progressive cause du jour was the secret to being deemed relevant by the masses, TEC parishes would all be filled to capacity. ...
quote:What about the Sermon On The Mount? Wasn't just spoken to individuals. As Alan pointed out, politics can help implement Jesus' basic social teachings. Politics don't have to be "the main priority of the Church"; but shouldn't helping our neighbor have at least the basics of life be up there somewhere?
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:And that's your opinion. However, the Gospels only address what the individual should do. Jesus tells the rich young rule to sell everything he owns. Jesus asks his individual disciples what they did to the least of these. Scripture and indeed Christian tradition doesn't provide a set of economic policies that Christians must strive to implement. Pretending it does is a mistake. Making the implementation of economic policies the main priority of the Church is an even bigger mistake. Besides, I thought we weren't supposed to try to force our religious beliefs on others through government force.
originally posted by Alan Creswell:
Food banks, soup kitchens, homeless shelters are very good things, but they are only really sticking plasters. Helping the poor will also need to include helping them into work, good schools, ensuring minimum wages are adequate to alleviate poverty, minimising their tax burden, ensuring there is quality affordable housing, providing quality affordable healthcare ... many of which are well and truly in the realm of government policy.
quote:I assume that they also went to the protest leaders and asked them to repent for the damage to so many shops owned by blacks.
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
There was one majorly wince-worthy moment when they met to pray with police officers and called on them to repent. That was arrogant, among other things - but that misstep aside, I didn't see any negatives stemming from their involvement. God bless them.
quote:And I find that a little disturbing. Granted, it might be nice if cops and civilians got on that well. But if officers divide good and bad civilians according to who is happy to see them...they could seriously misjudge people.
Interviewer: So how do you tell the difference between these kids here, and bad kids out there?
Officer: Well, when they smile, wave, and say "Hi, officer!"
quote:The worst part is that it's a vicious cycle. Once you've had one run-in with a bad cop who has violated your rights and left you with bruises for no reason you could see, you tend to get nervous around cops. In other cops' minds, that nervousness turns into probable cause for harassing you, because why would you be nervous if you weren't committing a crime?
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:And I find that a little disturbing. Granted, it might be nice if cops and civilians got on that well. But if officers divide good and bad civilians according to who is happy to see them...they could seriously misjudge people.
Interviewer: So how do you tell the difference between these kids here, and bad kids out there?
Officer: Well, when they smile, wave, and say "Hi, officer!"
And a lot of people probably don't pay them any attention at all.
quote:The prosecutor filed charges based on the written police report alone, without reviewing any of the evidence. Mr. Wingate, who was apparently told by his lawyer "just sign, and everything basically goes away" agreed to a continuance for 2 years, subject to a set of conditions.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
How in the bloody hell did it get to a court without the video being viewed? How did it result in a conviction?
quote:No maybe, the tape should have been reviewed. Took less than 5 minutes of time to do so, no excuse.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Should the prosecutor have reviewed the car's video? Maybe, but the system isn't set up to have the prosecutor be the line of defense against a lying cop, and while a prosecutor might want to review the evidence to ensure he has a good case, I rather suspect that in a lot of cases prosecutors move based on the police report alone, push the defendant into a plea bargain, and move on to the next case.
quote:Lousy defence attorney. Same reason as above.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Did the defense attorney railroad Mr. Wingate into accepting the charge? The report rather sounds that way, but without knowing the details of the discussion between Mr. Wingate and his attorney, it's hard to say for certain. If the attorney wasn't very sure he could get a not guilty judgement in court, a "keep your nose clean for two years" continuance might be a rational tactic.
quote:For all the lofty rhetoric, that's how our criminal injustice system works in practice for anyone below the middle class.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
How in the bloody hell did it get to a court without the video being viewed? How did it result in a conviction?
quote:I'm sure the Police Guild will defend her right to give false testimony.
Before [Police Chief] O’Toole announced she would be seeking a review of the officer’s conduct, police had said they believed the counseling Whitlatch received from her supervisor was “an appropriate resolution.
quote:Lord have mercy. Literally.
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
At least Seattle has apologized and gotten the continuance dismissed. For a look at a more typical reaction read this Letter from Alberqurque
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
quote:Be fair - it took House of Cards the best part of 30 years to go the other way...
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Hasn't arrived in the UK yet.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:Yes, and there was a lot of powerful stuff in the full Justice Department report. Stuff like this:
Originally posted by romanlion:
... From the article:
"In an 86-page report released Wednesday that detailed and evaluated the testimony of more than 40 witnesses, the Justice Department largely corroborated or found little credible evidence to contradict the account of the officer, Darren Wilson"
That's powerful stuff, considering the current AG.
quote:Yep, that's powerful stuff. The report also describes how the Ferguson police were directed by city authorities to raise more revenue and targeted African-American residents to achieve that goal.
The Justice Department's investigation found a pattern of racial disparities among Ferguson Police, from use of force to traffic stops. The report argued these disparities can only be explained, at least in part, because of unlawful bias and stereotypes against African Americans.
The report noted that, although black people make up about 67 percent of Ferguson's population, 88 percent of documented uses of force by Ferguson police from 2010 to August 2014 were against African Americans. In the 14 police canine bite cases for which racial data was available, the people bitten were black.
There were similar racial disparities in traffic stops. From 2012 to 2014, 85 percent of people stopped, 90 percent of people who received a citation, and 93 percent of people arrested were black. Black drivers were more than twice as likely as their white counterparts to be searched during vehicle stops, but 26 percent less likely to have contraband.
quote:Also available from the Justice Department's website [PDF].
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Yep, that's powerful stuff. The report also describes how the Ferguson police were directed by city authorities to raise more revenue and targeted African-American residents to achieve that goal.
Read the full report here.
quote:Slight misunderstanding. The episode GK referred to is not yet available in the UK. But Series 4 is being screened on Sky Living and the first three series are also available.
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:Be fair - it took House of Cards the best part of 30 years to go the other way...
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Hasn't arrived in the UK yet.
quote:And yet a lot of people were surprised (or at least acted surprised) by the suggestion that the Ferguson Police Department or the local judiciary were anything other than paragons of truth and justice. The notion that maybe the Ferguson police would lie about their actions and be backed up by a complacent court system was treated some kind of wild-eyed conspiracy theory.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Back on the main theme. The shortcomings in Ferguson are scandalous and damning. It's hardly surprising that some guilt by association was applied to Darren Wilson. But the report on the shooting provides good confirmation that the Grand Jury finding was reasonable, whatever legitimate criticisms may apply to that specific process or more generally to the Ferguson authorities.
quote:
In one instance in the report, a city official expressed unease about the injustice that kept the city afloat. In 2012, a City Council member wrote to other city officials opposing the reappointment of the municipal court judge, arguing that he “does not listen to the testimony, does not review the reports or the criminal history of defendants, and doesn’t let all the pertinent witnesses testify before rendering a verdict.”
The city manager acknowledged the judge’s shortcomings. But, according to the report, he said, “the City cannot afford to lose any efficiency in our Courts, nor experience any decrease in our Fines and Forfeitures.” The judge was reappointed.
quote:Such yearning! Yet I'm struggling to imagine exactly when this America existed that "we" (by which I suppose you mean you) knew and loved.
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Is there sufficient public force to bring back the America we once knew and sometimes loved?
quote:Full transcript can be found here.
I recognize that the findings in our report may leave some to wonder how the department’s findings can differ so sharply from some of the initial, widely reported accounts of what transpired. I want to emphasize that the strength and integrity of America’s justice system has always rested on its ability to deliver impartial results in precisely these types of difficult circumstances – adhering strictly to the facts and the law, regardless of assumptions. Yet it remains not only valid – but essential – to question how such a strong alternative version of events was able to take hold so swiftly, and be accepted so readily.
A possible explanation for this discrepancy was uncovered during the course of our second federal investigation, conducted by the Civil Rights Division to determine whether Ferguson Police officials have engaged in a widespread pattern or practice of violations of the U.S. Constitution or federal law.
As detailed in our searing report – also released by the Justice Department today – this investigation found a community that was deeply polarized; a community where deep distrust and hostility often characterized interactions between police and area residents.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:Such yearning! Yet I'm struggling to imagine exactly when this America existed that "we" (by which I suppose you mean you) knew and loved.
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Is there sufficient public force to bring back the America we once knew and sometimes loved?
When exactly was America known and loved by you for its fair and even-handed treatment of the poor and minorities at home, and modest and helpful engagement abroad? Or did it have some other praiseworthy virtue, now sadly lost?
quote:Seemed to whom? I don't know how old you are, but I'm less than a decade away from retirement. I was a pre-teen when MLK was murdered, and in my mid-teens when women were marching for treatment as humans in their own right. When was this golden age when people of color, women, and sexual minorities enjoyed -- or were in clear sight of enjoying -- full equality and fair and equal treatment under US law?
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Sorry, was interrupted.
I can remember a time when the Republic seemed to be heading in a generally better direction.
quote:I'm reasonably sure that mine isn't the only part of the country where regular old bio, chem, & physics form a normal part of high school curricula in local school districts, although back when I was in school we dissected actual frogs, and now they use virtual ones.
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
There was a science program that wasn't being eviscerated by creationists;
quote:When & where was this "actual people" scenario playing out, exactly? I remember things differently, and I've been a woman for more than 3 decades.
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
. . . when women were being recognised as actual people, not just rape fantasies;
quote:This I do remember. A woman couldn't legally get one, period.
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
when the abortion issue was basically settled;
quote:Unless maybe you were a certain Southern governor and the folks who voted him into office . . .
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
. . . when the Voting Rights Act was seen to be a helpful thing;
quote:Again - when exactly was this?
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Sorry, was interrupted.
I can remember a time when the Republic seemed to be heading in a generally better direction.
quote:Your defiance of my recent warning directed at you against fuelling pond wars is noted. To the admins.
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
What have you got now? Duck Dynasty and Honey-Boo-Boo as icons of how to live; politicians who actively work at destroying the Office of the President; wars that are fought for no visible reason, with weapons that would be regarded as inhumane by anyone but Dr. Strangelove; and a population that thinks Elvis is still alive.
quote:That after 21 pages, other than "racism is horrible, it hasn't gone away, and things have been spiraling out of control, and we have to try to fix this somehow, God have mercy," there's little else to say?
Originally posted by romanlion:
The (second) odd silence on this thread says more than every word herein....
quote:Indeed it does. But much of my criticism in relation to this whole affair was on people's insistence on treating Case 1 as if it must be an example of Systemic Problem 2.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Conclusion 1: One Ferguson cop wasn't racist in one particular incident.
Conclusion 2: Ferguson police officers are generally racist.
One can leap to either conclusion, but Conclusion 2 has been shown to apply to a far greater number of police officers than Conclusion 1. Conclusion 2 also has a vastly more significant impact on the community than Conclusion 1.
quote:Dunno. It didn't make NEARLY as big a splash as the story that a white cop got away with murder.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Hey, wait, I've heard about a place where this has happened. Someplace in the US, possibly in Missouri. Big investigation, results in the news I think. Now where was that?
quote:It also assumes that white people and black people in Ferguson are equally likely to commit crime. Since black Americans are (on average) poorer than white ones, and many types of crime correlate to poverty, this may not be a valid assumption.
Originally posted by orfeo:
statistically in about 2 out of every 3 cases that argument is going to be false.
quote:Alright, comment was not accurate. But, reading through parts of the report, the evidence and its corroboration of wilson's account is focussed on what happened after the initial confrontation. That is where all the forensic evidence is. Where it is not is the initial confrontation. It is not unreasonable to suspect Wilson began the confrontation poorly and set the stage for escalation. Does this mean he is a murderer? No,
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
His narrative wasn't wonky. That's essentially what that 87 page report concluded. It also demolished a large number of genuinely wonky witness narratives. That's what weighing the facts against the testimony can do.
quote:Certainly. No argument there. The findings on the systemic question (which as I understand it is separate to the report on the single incident) do confirm all that.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Connect the dots. The findings confirm why people don't trust the authorities. Because they cannot be blindly trusted and that there still exists a strong bias. And too large a percentage of the time, they will be justified in their fears.
quote:First, they're supposed to not build the conclusion into the reaction by asserting that the narrative was wonky as if that's an established fact.
so how are people supposed to react to the verdict? "Way hey, he didn't commit murder, but given his wonky narrative he probably escalated the confrontation uneccesarily to deadly force and caused a preventable death. But it the charge over-reached and the prosecution couldn't prove its case so yea Justice"?
quote:True. The tradition of the blindfold Lady Justice goes back to the 15th Century - and many other Lady Justice statues are blindfold. But I was wrong about the one on the Old Bailey. Wiki informs me that the Old Bailey brochure advises that her impartiality is assured by her "maidenly form". I think I prefer the blindfold ..
Originally posted by M.:
Tangent - the statue atop the Old Bailey isn't blindfold.
M.
quote:You don't solve bias by ignoring it. Some of the Ferguson police are Black so it's not always a White authority figure. If however, the Authority is unusually corrupt and does not care about justice, you would be foolish to rely on that authority to correct its own wrongs rather than lie.
Originally posted by orfeo:
You don't solve bias in one direction by simply applying equal and opposite bias. You don't address a working assumption that in any encounter, the black person is at fault by replacing it with a working assumption that in any encounter, the white authority figure is at fault. That's not justice, that's just revenge.
quote:And it is because many police still do that black people assume the worst from them.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
But you don't assume the guilt of any particular individual
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
quote:You don't solve bias by ignoring it. Some of the Ferguson police are Black so it's not always a White authority figure. If however, the Authority is unusually corrupt and does not care about justice, you would be foolish to rely on that authority to correct its own wrongs rather than lie.
Originally posted by orfeo:
You don't solve bias in one direction by simply applying equal and opposite bias. You don't address a working assumption that in any encounter, the black person is at fault by replacing it with a working assumption that in any encounter, the white authority figure is at fault. That's not justice, that's just revenge.
The report shows a large number of people who have been fined and arrested on spurious charges of resisting arrest the system has been perverted into a tax farming revenue system.
Do you expect them and their neighbors to believe that system will correct its own excesses? I wouldn't. Instead they listen to whatever stories are given by random people who claim to have been there.
quote:I got it out of what you didn't say. We all agree there are two conclusions of the report, but you focus on only the first; that the police officer should be acquitted. You only mentioned the second as far as claiming that people use it to claim that the first conclusion when made by the system is unreliable.
Originally posted by orfeo:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Palimpsest:
I honestly wonder how anyone got "just ignore the bias" out of anything I said.
quote:Do you believe that the court system in Ferguson demonstrated that still has an interest in facts? Did I miss a post where you discussed how your naïve ideals were wrong about the courts here?
But this is also what shits me. Politics is largely a fact-free zone. I am naive and idealistic enough to hope that the court system still has an interest in facts. I am even naive and idealistic enough to believe that politics, and public debate in general, should be interested in facts, but I'm well aware that it usually isn't.
quote:The physical evidence convinces me that Wilson's account was relatively correct after the confrontation began. It does not convince me that he did not set the tone for more violence than was necessary. It does not convince me that he was purely a respondent and not also an aggressor.
Originally posted by orfeo:
This is exactly why things like physical evidence are so crucial. I don't basically believe this policeman because I think he has perfect recall or because he has no reason to exaggerate, I basically believe him because there's physical evidence to support key things such as that there was a struggle for his gun.
quote:I have acknowledged the presence of overall bias again and again and again. I've even done it in my posts last night, whatever you might think my "focus" is. I have also explicitly stated in some other headline cases that it looks to me, from my external seat on a lounge munching popcorn, that the policemen in those cases did something wrong.
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
quote:I got it out of what you didn't say. We all agree there are two conclusions of the report, but you focus on only the first; that the police officer should be acquitted. You only mentioned the second as far as claiming that people use it to claim that the first conclusion when made by the system is unreliable.
Originally posted by orfeo:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Palimpsest:
I honestly wonder how anyone got "just ignore the bias" out of anything I said.
So, did I miss your comments about a system that the police, the court, the judge and the clerks office were biased and geared toward extracting fines rather than administering justice?
Earlier in the thread you said in defense of the Grand Jury presentation;
quote:Do you believe that the court system in Ferguson demonstrated that still has an interest in facts? Did I miss a post where you discussed how your naïve ideals were wrong about the courts here?
But this is also what shits me. Politics is largely a fact-free zone. I am naive and idealistic enough to hope that the court system still has an interest in facts. I am even naive and idealistic enough to believe that politics, and public debate in general, should be interested in facts, but I'm well aware that it usually isn't.
quote:Palimpsest: For example.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Certainly. No argument there. The findings on the systemic question (which as I understand it is separate to the report on the single incident) do confirm all that.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Connect the dots. The findings confirm why people don't trust the authorities. Because they cannot be blindly trusted and that there still exists a strong bias. And too large a percentage of the time, they will be justified in their fears.
quote:Yes, because trying to open your car door is so violent.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:The physical evidence convinces me that Wilson's account was relatively correct after the confrontation began. It does not convince me that he did not set the tone for more violence than was necessary. It does not convince me that he was purely a respondent and not also an aggressor.
Originally posted by orfeo:
This is exactly why things like physical evidence are so crucial. I don't basically believe this policeman because I think he has perfect recall or because he has no reason to exaggerate, I basically believe him because there's physical evidence to support key things such as that there was a struggle for his gun.
It also further convinces me that American cops are poorly trained* and too much reliant on their firearms.
quote:You seem to have neatly placed me in the category of someone who thinks the policeman is guilty. I did not say this Policeman was guilty. After the DOJ report, I say he isn't guilty, since that report is credible.
Originally posted by orfeo:
If you want to ignore that and focus on the fact that I don't agree with the Ship's majority on the guilt of this particular policeman, that's your decision. I'm not going to waste my time trying to be answerable to selective reading. Frankly, if I want to talk about examples of bias, I only need refer to my own experience of people painting me as being on one "side" of this debate when all I've done for months on end is criticise the constant insistence on dividing everybody neatly into 2 categories.
quote:Well, of course he doesn't have to be a blameless angel, does he?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I am saying that, even if the final outcome is the correct one, it does not inherently make Wilson a blameless angel.
quote:No, there is no reliable evidence.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
But I still don't know what reliable evidence there is that in this particular incident he provoked Michael Brown.
quote:Eyewitness testimony is fraught with problems. I am not basing any doubts on his testimony.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I think you have suspicions, which you are entitled to. And they are supported by Dorian Johnson's testimony. So I'll have one more go.
quote:The amount of training that US police officers are required to receive is appallingly low. In the UK, police receive far more training at the base level. And well more again for those who are allowed to carry firearms.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Heck, you may be right about poor police officer training
quote:I am not asserting that Wilson necessarily is, but some people certainly are.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
but nobody is that stupid.
quote:A car door can be opened into you only if you are standing right next to it. Why did Brown position himself there?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
If a car door is opened in front of you, perhaps not violent. If a car door is opened into you, violent.
quote:Sure is. The Justice Department Report does a pretty good job in this particular case of sifting out reliable and unreliable testimony, and the various pressures on witnesses.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Eyewitness testimony is fraught with problems.
quote:I think a part of the justifiable criticism of Ferguson Law and Order is this strong impression that support for the law enforcement agencies may have put loyalty ahead of veracity. But that is also a sword which cuts both ways.
Witnesses Consistent with Prior Statment, Physical Evidence and Other Witnesses who Inculpate Wilson
There are no witnesses who fall under this category
quote:Or why did Wilson position his vehicle where he did?
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:A car door can be opened into you only if you are standing right next to it. Why did Brown position himself there?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
If a car door is opened in front of you, perhaps not violent. If a car door is opened into you, violent.
Moo
quote:You're too modest. And your qualification is right on the money. I'm very conscious that I haven't personally been on the receiving end of anything like the Ferguson "stink".
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I do not disagree with your post B62.* Though I would qualify that the onus is greater on the abuser than the abused.
*other than the misguided respect.
quote:Yes, I agree. I think I've posted before about the feedback mechanism of growing distrust between the police and the policed, and it's clear that in Ferguson, and in many other places, there's plenty of distrust to go around.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
We could do this all day and not resolve anything.
What I am arguing is the beginning of any encounter can influence the tone of the encounter. And that the police, especially American police,** have a poor history of setting tone.
quote:I think these kinds of fines should be explicitly non-revenue making. Take all the money, put it in a pot, and pay it out as a tax credit to all your citizens next year, or something.
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
The state is also thinking of reducing the maximum percentage of revenue the cities can get from traffic fines from 30% to 10% and is looking at cities which are already over the 30% cap.
quote:Most cities raise their fine income from their own residents, so the residents are already paying for the police force. Go revenue-neutral on fines and increase the local property tax to pay for the police force, and you don't actually change anyone's net fiscal situation.
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Many of them have severe revenue problems. The solution is probably not one where the city can't afford a police force. Fixing this would require state-wide restructuring of taxes in ways that are not likely to happen. This problem can be seen quite clearly in how schools are financed locally.
quote:Thanks for the link: very interesting reading. I already knew that our system of justice was broken, but I have been way underestimating just how broken it is.
Originally posted by saysay:
At some point we're also going to have to deal with the people who make a profit off of prisons and prisoners and really don't want the system to change.
quote:From the article I posted earlier about the cities around Ferguson
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
The kind of city that has a permanent cop lurking on the 300 feet of state highway within its boundaries to generate income is fairly rare.
quote:
Officials in nearby cities rejected any comparison to Ferguson.
“You don’t dismantle the whole house in order to kill one bug,” said Mayor Patrick Green of Normandy, who is black. He said that his police force had issued more citations since state agencies asked it to help patrol Interstate 70, and that the money had been used to pay for public safety. “Everyone’s saying, ‘Oh, no, that’s cities just taking advantage of the poor,’ ” he said. “When did the poor get the right to commit crimes?”
quote:Amen, amen, and amen.
Originally posted by saysay:
At some point we're also going to have to deal with the people who make a profit off of prisons and prisoners and really don't want the system to change.
quote:(Italics mine.)
What Is A Speed Trap?
When most people think about speed traps, they think about police hiding behind billboards or waiting to pick off motorists right where the speed limit changes.
However, there is a broader, more accurate definition that covers these situations and more:
A speed trap exists wherever traffic enforcement is focused on extracting revenue from drivers instead of improving safety, made possible by speed limits posted below the prevailing flow of traffic.
quote:In other words, it's a set up.
Detailed research by the U.S. Department of Commerce has shown that the safest rate of travel is a few miles per hour above the average traffic speed. Enforced speed limits set below that average speed are speed traps, sacrificing safety for revenue.
)
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
That is completely arse backwards as a regulatory concept. You can't set a speed limit based on the flow of traffic. The flow of traffic is determined by a range of factors, including the speed limit.
quote:(From Maine's Department of Transportation.)
When establishing a speed limit, the main premise is that most drivers are prudent and will voluntarily comply with a reasonable speed limit. To determine what is reasonable, engineers measure drivers' speed on a section of roadway, the speed at which 85% of drivers are at or below is the standard for determining a speed limit. A properly set speed limit will be within 3 miles per hour (±) of this observed speed. The posted speed limit will then be rounded to the nearest 5 miles per hour.
quote:Just because you have criteria doesn't mean they're not arbitrary. Do you have a link? It would be interesting to compare.
Originally posted by orfeo:
And furthermore, in the jurisdictions I know about speed limits are not arbitrary, they are determined by a set of criteria.
quote:Apparently (according to one of the studies cited) changing the posted speed limit doesn't have much effect on the actual average speed on many roads, but it helps prevent inadvertent outliers by setting a standard and it provides an unambiguous basis for enforcement.
Speed limit determinations rely on the premise that a reasonable speed limit is one that conforms to the actual behavior of the majority of drivers; one will be able to select a speed limit that is both reasonable and effective by measuring drivers' speeds. Speed limits set by E&TS [engineering and traffic studies] are normally set near the 85th percentile speed. The 85th percentile speed is the speed at or below which 85 percent of the traffic is moving, and statistically represents one standard deviation above the average speed.
Studies of the effects of establishing, raising and lowering speed limits include federal studies FHWA-RD-92-084 and FHWA-RD-98-154 (summaries can be found in Appendix D.1 and the full reports can be found at the FHWA web site). These studies demonstrate that the most effective attribute in establishing the speed limit is to determine the 85th percentile speed and set the posted speed close to that value. The empirical data in these studies demonstrates that setting the speed limit too high or too low can increase collisions. Speed limits that are set near the 85th percentile speed of free flowing traffic are safer and produce less variance in vehicle speeds. Because of this, the 85th percentile is used to establish the upper limit of operating speeds that are considered reasonable and prudent.
quote:How do you set a provisional limit? What's the basis for it? Putting "provisional" in front of it does nothing to solve the logical problem of finding a basis for deciding what that limit is going to be. All I'm going to ask you now is: how did you set the provisional limit on the new road?
Originally posted by Dave W.:
For newly constructed roads, I suspect they assign provisional limits, then do the engineering study.
quote:Benchmarking. You look at similar roads, and you set the provisional limit equal to that.
orfeo: How do you set a provisional limit?
quote:Why? Why do "most country roads with some curves have speed limit of 40 mph"? On what basis? How did they get that speed limit in the first place?
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:Benchmarking. You look at similar roads, and you set the provisional limit equal to that.
orfeo: How do you set a provisional limit?
Your new road is a country road with some curves. Most country roads with some curves have speed limit of 40 mph. So you set your provisional limit at 40 mph. In the first weeks, you fine no-one, but you do your engineering study.
You find out that unlike the other country roads with some curves, 70% of the cars go faster than 40 mph on your road. They may go 45, they may go 52, but a lot of cars don't obey the speed limit, more than at other country road with curves. So you set the permanent speed limit of your road to 50 mph.
Simples.
quote:By the same process.
orfeo: Why? Why do "most country roads with some curves have speed limit of 40 mph"? On what basis? How did they get that speed limit in the first place?
quote:Me.
orfeo: And okay, hands up who has actually seen these 'provisional' speed limits that only last for a few weeks?
quote:How was the limit on the first one set?
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:By the same process.
orfeo: Why? Why do "most country roads with some curves have speed limit of 40 mph"? On what basis? How did they get that speed limit in the first place?
quote:Easy - use the limits set on similar, existing roads.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:How do you set a provisional limit? What's the basis for it? Putting "provisional" in front of it does nothing to solve the logical problem of finding a basis for deciding what that limit is going to be. All I'm going to ask you now is: how did you set the provisional limit on the new road?
Originally posted by Dave W.:
For newly constructed roads, I suspect they assign provisional limits, then do the engineering study.
quote:As I pointed out in the post immediately above the one in which you ask this question - not much.
And the next question is: how did that provisional limit influence driving behaviour for your study?
quote:It's both. And it's the exact kind of problem I deal with every day of my working life. That's why I'm talking about it.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
You don't seem to get it - this is not a "logical" problem, it's a practical one.
quote:This was a new section of a ring road around a middle-sized city. The limit was first set at 70 km/h, because that's the limit for most ring roads around middle-sized cities in the Netherlands.
orfeo: How was the limit on the first one set?
quote:No turtles. The rules-of-thumb 'this is the usual speed limit on a ring road' or 'this is the usal speed limit on a rural road with curves' arose historically.
orfeo: You are basically facing the "it's turtles all the way down" problem.
quote:Two days ago you had no idea how US transportation authorities set speed limits. Since then, you've written north of 1500 words on the topic, concluding that they're all lying about how they do it, and now you think you may actually have found a fool-proof defense against speeding tickets.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Can I also add, that if any of this is actually a law about how to set road limits - as opposed to just a claimed policy with no legal standing - then it provides a golden avenue for someone in the USA to challenge a speeding fine, on the grounds that the speed limit on the road was not lawfully determined.
quote:I doubt that it's lying, in terms of being consciously aware of the logical knot and doing it anyway.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:Two days ago you had no idea how US transportation authorities set speed limits. Since then, you've written north of 1500 words on the topic, concluding that they're all lying about how they do it, and now you think you may actually have found a fool-proof defense against speeding tickets.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Can I also add, that if any of this is actually a law about how to set road limits - as opposed to just a claimed policy with no legal standing - then it provides a golden avenue for someone in the USA to challenge a speeding fine, on the grounds that the speed limit on the road was not lawfully determined.
Allow me to say that I am highly skeptical when you say "this is exactly what I spend my days doing", if by "this" you mean anything like writing manuals for guiding traffic engineers in doing their job.
quote:I understand perfectly how they can do it once there is traffic. I'd be deeply fascinated about your insights as to how they can integrate such a survey into the procedure for establishing the speed limit on a road that no-one has driven on yet.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
I'm sure Australia must be very lucky indeed to have such a wonderfully talented person.
And yet, for all your self-proclaimed expertise, you can't seem to figure out how or why traffic engineers can integrate surveys of observed speeds into a procedure for zoning speed limits. It's rather reminiscent of the apocryphal story of the scientist who proved that bumblebees can't fly.
quote:Same answer as before. Set a provisional limit based on similar roads (or the design speed), then do the survey, then set the permanent limit. Are you unfamiliar with the concept of an iterative process?
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:I understand perfectly how they can do it once there is traffic. I'd be deeply fascinated about your insights as to how they can integrate such a survey into the procedure for establishing the speed limit on a road that no-one has driven on yet.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
I'm sure Australia must be very lucky indeed to have such a wonderfully talented person.
And yet, for all your self-proclaimed expertise, you can't seem to figure out how or why traffic engineers can integrate surveys of observed speeds into a procedure for zoning speed limits. It's rather reminiscent of the apocryphal story of the scientist who proved that bumblebees can't fly.
quote:Maybe they don't talk about it because it's trivial. Most people on this thread seem to think that, and they have already pointed out the most likely procedure for getting a starting point. It's just common sense. I really can't see why this talk about a starting point is so important to you.
orfeo: I'm not unfamiliar with iterative processes. I'm trying to point out, patiently, that the transport authorities in the USA don't appear to be talking about the starting point, they're only talking about the review process afterwards.
quote:Surely you don't expect me to find all the details for you, of all people? It would be insufferably rude and/or foolish for me to try to show you up in such a manner.
Originally posted by orfeo:
The fact that you can come up with a process of setting a provisional speed limit merely highlights that the links you provide DON'T TALK ABOUT THIS PROCESS! Which is actually the most important part for any road that is never reviewed.
quote:Common sense? That's the thing about legal disputes, you suddenly discover that people's "common sense" wasn't actually common.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Maybe they don't talk about it because it's trivial. Most people on this thread seem to think that, and they have already pointed out the most likely procedure for getting a starting point. It's just common sense. I really can't see why this talk about a starting point is so important to you.
quote:Dammit. I'm going to say this because it's been bugging me for hours.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Suppose an expert in (whatever it is that you do) were to begin working with a client like an American state transportation agency, and as part of the work the expert needed to understand the existing method of setting speed limits. If the client started to describe the current practice, and said something that the expert (not being an expert on this particular topic)
quote:I hate to burst your bubble but I saw it rather quickly myself.
originally posted by orfeo:
The whole reason my job is specialist is because most people can't see that so quickly, and in any case like any skill it's honed through practice.
quote:It doesn't matter. It's just a provisional speed limit. The only imortant thing here is to try not to have any grave accidents while the provisional speed limit is in force.
orfeo: You and DaveW both agree that you go and find "similar" roads to set the initial speed limit. I'd bet a large sum, though, that if I asked each of you to go and write down what would make 2 roads "similar", you wouldn't come up with the same answer. You'd probably have some things in common, yes, but they wouldn't be the same.
quote:Sorry, let me attempt to be clearer. I mean you are not expert in the sense that you do not possess a close familiarity with the existing regulations and practices involved in setting speed limits in the US.
What exactly do you think I need to be an expert in here?
quote:I find the notion that anyone would build a road and only afterward consider what the speed limit should be pretty ludicrous.
Originally posted by orfeo:
You and DaveW both agree that you go and find "similar" roads to set the initial speed limit. I'd bet a large sum, though, that if I asked each of you to go and write down what would make 2 roads "similar", you wouldn't come up with the same answer. You'd probably have some things in common, yes, but they wouldn't be the same.
One of you, for example, might focus entirely on the driving experience and talk about the width of the road, the number of lanes, how curvy it was, and whether the surface was smooth.
The other one of you might, because you're thinking of your local neighbourhood that you also use as a pedestrian, talk about how built-up the area surrounding the road is, the amount of foot traffic, whether there are driveways that cars are coming in and out of, and so on.
quote:Perhaps a little wordy, but yeah.
Originally posted by orfeo:
4. Ruth's comments are entirely logical.
quote:The chapter I cited references
Originally posted by orfeo:
2. The Washington State law does not give primacy to the 85th percentile rule.
quote:The 85% rule would come under the that description if that was considered standard engineering practice in the other links various others have put in this thread.
Whenever the secretary of transportation shall determine upon the basis of an engineering and traffic investigation that any maximum speed herein before set forth is greater than is reasonable or safe with respect to a state highway under the conditions found to exist at any intersection ...
quote:Well, "faster than the flow of traffic" does work as a principle for cops in deciding who to book.
Originally posted by RuthW:
The 85 percentile thing works because in general cops around here give speeding tickets for unsafe speeding. The speed limit on the freeway is 65, but when conditions permit people drive 70 and no one gets a ticket for that. The person who gets a ticket for speeding is the person who is going faster than the flow of traffic -- because that's what's not safe.
quote:...such as understanding what the word "primacy" means?
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
I guess the United States will just have to continue to get along without your special talents.
quote:Engineering and traffic studies take into account both the actual qualities of the road and surrounds and how fast drivers have decided to go, as well as looking at whether or not the speed drivers have chosen has led to lots of accidents. If people are going too fast for a particular stretch of road, they'll put in traffic calming measures rather than simply lower speed limits, because lowering speed limits simply doesn't work -- most people drive more by what makes sense to them than by the posted speed limit, and lowering speed limits doesn't actually make people drive more slowly. If it did, cities that set speed traps wouldn't make any money from them.
Originally posted by orfeo:
You'd have to wonder, though, why on earth you would then abandon the actual qualities of the road and surrounds and base your later reviews entirely on "how fast drivers have decided to go".
quote:Morality has nothing to do with it. The reason is because not going with the flow of traffic is what's most dangerous about speeding. It's why you can also get a ticket for driving too slowly on the freeway.
Originally posted by orfeo:
The obvious reason for "faster than the flow of traffic", though, is that the cops don't have the resources to book everybody and a faster car (1) will stand out, and (2) is arguably more morally deserving of a ticket.
quote:No worries, the snark was not aimed at you.
Originally posted by RuthW:
Sorry, lilBuddha -- I should have noted that you'd already made this point.
quote:I said "morally" because legally everyone who speeds is liable for a ticket.
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:Morality has nothing to do with it. The reason is because not going with the flow of traffic is what's most dangerous about speeding. It's why you can also get a ticket for driving too slowly on the freeway.
Originally posted by orfeo:
The obvious reason for "faster than the flow of traffic", though, is that the cops don't have the resources to book everybody and a faster car (1) will stand out, and (2) is arguably more morally deserving of a ticket.
quote:A logical conundrum that is so easily sidestepped is not much of a conundrum, is it?
Originally posted by orfeo:
1. Whether it would resolve the logical conundrum depends on what it is. If it's based on actual qualities of the road and surrounds, then yes.
quote:I agree that would be odd - but it's also nothing like what I've described.
You'd have to wonder, though, why on earth you would then abandon the actual qualities of the road and surrounds and base your later reviews entirely on "how fast drivers have decided to go".
quote:I hope you don't think primacy means "base your later reviews entirely on" - and as Palimpsest notes, other provisions point to the use of traffic studies, which will likely lead to a manual emphasizing the 85th percentile measure.
2. The Washington State law does not give primacy to the 85th percentile rule.
quote:The California law requires Caltrans use engineering and traffic surveys, which must consider prevailing speeds - listed as first required element, in fact.
3. Neither, I would argue, does the Californian law, ...
quote:Now you seem to be including a mysterious assumption that the posted speed limit is supposed to indicate a sharp distinction between safe and unsafe speeds - this is nowhere supported by the contents of the manual.
... although the manual does continue the mysterious implicit assumption that 15% of all drivers will drive at an unsafe speed (which is not logically equivalent to the finding that the 85th percentile is the speed at which your chances of being in a collision are lowest)..
...
quote:Glad we can agree on something!
4. Ruth's comments are entirely logical.
quote:It seems to me you have been completely misunderstanding the nature of my observations. The "conundrum" is simply the disparity between the claimed method of speed limit setting and the rules of logic. I've been pointing out solutions to the "conundrum" the entire time, and the entire point of what I've been saying all along is that the claimed method of speed limit setting cannot be the actual method. I never suggested it was actually difficult to set speed limits.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:A logical conundrum that is so easily sidestepped is not much of a conundrum, is it?
Originally posted by orfeo:
1. Whether it would resolve the logical conundrum depends on what it is. If it's based on actual qualities of the road and surrounds, then yes.
quote:Perahaps, but it's a sharp distinction between lawful and unlawful speeds. I'm not sure which option you're taking - that they are making some safe speeds unlawful, or that they are allowing some unsafe speeds to be lawful. It is, however one of the fundamental oddities of the claimed system that the safest possible speed is also the lawful maximum, meaning that you are only allowed to fall on one side of the 'middle' speed in safety terms.
Now you seem to be including a mysterious assumption that the posted speed limit is supposed to indicate a sharp distinction between safe and unsafe speeds - this is nowhere supported by the contents of the manual.
quote:It seems to me I understand the nature of your observations, it's just that I think you're observing a straw man. It's only a problem if the entirety of the "claimed method" is "we only ever use the 85th percentile", but I don't think that's a claim anyone is actually making.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:It seems to me you have been completely misunderstanding the nature of my observations. The "conundrum" is simply the disparity between the claimed method of speed limit setting and the rules of logic. I've been pointing out solutions to the "conundrum" the entire time, and the entire point of what I've been saying all along is that the claimed method of speed limit setting cannot be the actual method. I never suggested it was actually difficult to set speed limits.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:A logical conundrum that is so easily sidestepped is not much of a conundrum, is it?
Originally posted by orfeo:
1. Whether it would resolve the logical conundrum depends on what it is. If it's based on actual qualities of the road and surrounds, then yes.
quote:If there isn't actually a sharp distinction between safe and unsafe speeds, then posted speed limits will always fall into one of these two categories, regardless of how they they're established.
quote:Perahaps, but it's a sharp distinction between lawful and unlawful speeds. I'm not sure which option you're taking - that they are making some safe speeds unlawful, or that they are allowing some unsafe speeds to be lawful.
Now you seem to be including a mysterious assumption that the posted speed limit is supposed to indicate a sharp distinction between safe and unsafe speeds - this is nowhere supported by the contents of the manual.
quote:This is another thing you've imported into the "claimed method" which doesn't seem to actually show up in (e.g.) the California speed limit manual previously cited, which says:
It is, however one of the fundamental oddities of the claimed system that the safest possible speed is also the lawful maximum, meaning that you are only allowed to fall on one side of the 'middle' speed in safety terms.
quote:
Speed limits that are set near the 85th percentile speed of free flowing traffic are safer and produce less variance in vehicle speeds.
code:For example, if the speed limit is set at 40 mph, then the 85% percent of the cars drive below 50 mph. So, f(40)=50.f(x) = the maximum speed at which the 85% slowest percentile cars drive when the speed limit is set at x
quote:Don't tell that to ACA advocate Donald Verrilli.
Originally posted by orfeo:
But "well, you know what I actually meant" is one thing you simply cannot get away with in the business of writing laws.
quote:I was referring to his 2015 appearance. Two week "old news".
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I know a little about Verrilli's 2012 Supreme Court appearance.....Maybe you're referring back to that "old news"?
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
quote:That was very interesting reading.
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:I was referring to his 2015 appearance. Two week "old news".
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I know a little about Verrilli's 2012 Supreme Court appearance.....Maybe you're referring back to that "old news"?
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
Alito tends to agree with orfeo. From the article:
Probably the toughest questions for Verrilli came from Justice Samuel Alito, who repeatedly pressed him about why the Supreme Court shouldn’t read the disputed language to mean subsidies can only go to people living in certain states. “If Congress did not want the phrase ‘established by the state’ to mean what that would normally be taken to mean, why did they use that language?” he asked Verrilli.
quote:In the 2012 case, plaintiff's advocate Carvin (same one arguing in 2015) and the dissenting conservative justices all agreed that would obviously collapse without federal subsidies. Unless one thinks that Congress intended to set up exchanges that would obviously collapse, that would seem to be a pretty good reason "why the Supreme Court shouldn’t read the disputed language to mean subsidies can only go to people living in certain states."
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:I was referring to his 2015 appearance. Two week "old news".
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I know a little about Verrilli's 2012 Supreme Court appearance.....Maybe you're referring back to that "old news"?
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
Alito tends to agree with orfeo. From the article:
Probably the toughest questions for Verrilli came from Justice Samuel Alito, who repeatedly pressed him about why the Supreme Court shouldn’t read the disputed language to mean subsidies can only go to people living in certain states. “If Congress did not want the phrase ‘established by the state’ to mean what that would normally be taken to mean, why did they use that language?” he asked Verrilli.
quote:Congress intended the states to set up exchanges as a requirement to qualify for subsidization. This is clear.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Unless one thinks that Congress intended to set up exchanges that would obviously collapse....
quote:Was on Sky last night. Dramatically very powerful. It did play very much to the narrative that there is institutional racism in US police forces, that ranks will close to defend an officer who shoots a member of a racial minority, that evidence will be manufactured/tampered with to support the closing of ranks.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Tonight's "The Lawn Chair" episode of ABC TV's "Scandal" is very relevant.
{Slight SPOILERS for series story arc:}
Olivia Pope is a "fixer" in Washington, DC. She fixes the problems of the rich, powerful, and famous. (Occasionally, other people, too.) She's African-American, and the sometime mistress and great love of the white president of the US.
In "The Lawn Chair", there's a Ferguson-type situation, and Olivia winds up right in the middle of it.
Very powerful episode. Looks at all sides. I haven't read the reviews, but I've seen headlines that indicate similar feelings.
It doesn't seem to be online yet. Maybe in a few days?
quote:RL is not so straightforward.
This is a fantasy less of just and timely government intervention to punish racist violence than of a world where respectability politics actually works.
quote:I think everyone agrees that his arrest for murder was entirely appropriate, which means that his superiors acted correctly.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Alright, police apologists, spin this one as the victim's fault.
quote:But only BECAUSE there was a horrifically graphic video AND because the video was shown to the family and the media first, not the police. Before that video surfaced, the officer was on desk duty and telling the story that Mr. Scott tried to grab his Taser* and he feared for his life ... sound familiar? Every time a killer cop repeats this story, I'm reminded of The Press Conference Rag from Chicago:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
In this incident, the police acted correctly when presented with the eyewitness video. They arrested the policeman on a murder charge and terminated him from the police force....
quote:*And since he had already fired the Taser, the officer knew it couldn't be fired again even if Scott did get a hold of it.
Oh yes, oh yes, oh yes they both
Oh yes, they both
Oh yes, they both reached for
The gun, the gun, the gun, the gun,
Oh yes, they both reached for the gun
for the gun.
...
Understandable, understandable
Yes it's perfectly understandable
Comprehensible, Comprehensible
Not a bit reprehensible
It's so defensible
quote:Well, no. One has to dispense with the rubbish from movies and television. There are no special spots which incapacitate but are not lethal. Many lethal wounds to not stop a person immediately. It is not uncommon for people for people to be unaware they have been shot at all.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
If you have to shoot, shoot to wound,
quote:Not quite certain what you mean by this.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
One of the "implications" of the current *bad*cop* incidents is: if you don't WANT to be arrested -- or otherwise comply with lawful police commands -- you need not do so ...
quote:I think he means that if the police can't shoot someone in the back who is running away, people will think that there's no reason to stick around to be arrested.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Not quite certain what you mean by this.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
One of the "implications" of the current *bad*cop* incidents is: if you don't WANT to be arrested -- or otherwise comply with lawful police commands -- you need not do so ...
quote:It's an island, silly, where are the criminals going to go?
Originally posted by Eliab:
Fuck knows how we manage over here where the police don't even carry guns.
quote:The community where the cop shot the unarmed fleeing guy in the back … had not long ago been a high crime area and the police were very aggressive in clamping down … Now it is a relatively peaceful safe area …
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Not quite certain what you mean by this.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
One of the "implications" of the current *bad*cop* incidents is: if you don't WANT to be arrested -- or otherwise comply with lawful police commands -- you need not do so ...
Do you mean people think they need not comply with police?
Or that they actually need not comply?
quote:So of course it makes perfect sense to just shoot him dead.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
Why did that guy run away rather than peacefully wait to be given his citation … ??? Was there a dead body in the trunk … ??? Was the guy armed … ??? The cop has no way of knowing ...
quote:Obviously, no, it doesn't … Nor does it "make sense" to flee a police officer (a felony) … The whole bit was a tragic unnecessary mess … But the FACT is that the guy would still be alive if he had done what the officer -- entirely LAWFULLY and peacefully -- ordered him to do …
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:So of course it makes perfect sense to just shoot him dead.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
Why did that guy run away rather than peacefully wait to be given his citation … ??? Was there a dead body in the trunk … ??? Was the guy armed … ??? The cop has no way of knowing ...
quote:No … In that case the officer obviously was totally wrong … I don't think anyone is defending his actions …
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Still bullshit. A cop should fire their weapon when it is reasonable to believe the suspect is a danger to the cop or to others. Not when it is a possibility. Using your logic, a cop should shoot everyone they encounter unless they are already dead.
This bastard's first reaction was to plant the taser and lie. Yeah, justifiable.
quote:Still bullshit, blame the victim rubbish.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
quote:No … In that case the officer obviously was totally wrong … I don't think anyone is defending his actions …
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Still bullshit. A cop should fire their weapon when it is reasonable to believe the suspect is a danger to the cop or to others. Not when it is a possibility. Using your logic, a cop should shoot everyone they encounter unless they are already dead.
This bastard's first reaction was to plant the taser and lie. Yeah, justifiable.
(OTOH, the actions of the dead guy ALSO were both indefensible and stupid …
quote:Obviously, no, it doesn't … Nor does it "make sense" to flee a police officer (a felony) … The whole bit was a tragic unnecessary mess … But the FACT is that the guy would still be alive if he had done what the officer -- entirely LAWFULLY and peacefully -- ordered him to do … [/QUOTE]
Originally posted by Teilhard:
So of course it makes perfect sense to just shoot him dead.
quote:Yes … The "math" is that the vast majority of police officers carry out their duties lawfully and honorably …
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Still bullshit, blame the victim rubbish.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
quote:No … In that case the officer obviously was totally wrong … I don't think anyone is defending his actions …
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Still bullshit. A cop should fire their weapon when it is reasonable to believe the suspect is a danger to the cop or to others. Not when it is a possibility. Using your logic, a cop should shoot everyone they encounter unless they are already dead.
This bastard's first reaction was to plant the taser and lie. Yeah, justifiable.
(OTOH, the actions of the dead guy ALSO were both indefensible and stupid …
Disclosure: A law enforcement officer gave his life in an action which saved a group of women being fired upon, one of which was my mother.
I've counted among my friends cops, both civilian and military.
I've also been harassed for the crime of existing. Seen it happen to friends, family, etc.
No, interactions cannot be reduced to predetermined formulas. But the maths are pretty conclusive unless you choose to ignore them.
quote:You might want to consider Prior Complaintfiled on Officer Slager.
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
quote:Obviously, no, it doesn't … Nor does it "make sense" to flee a police officer (a felony) … The whole bit was a tragic unnecessary mess … But the FACT is that the guy would still be alive if he had done what the officer -- entirely LAWFULLY and peacefully -- ordered him to do …
Originally posted by Teilhard:
So of course it makes perfect sense to just shoot him dead.
quote:No, no it isn't. The maths with no spin do not indicate this. There are several conclusions one can come to. One being yours, another being that a majority of police do not face encounters which test their honour or integrity. Yet another is that more issues occur but are ignored, not reported and/or are common enough not to make the news.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
Yes … The "math" is that the vast majority of police officers carry out their duties lawfully and honorably …
quote:Sorry, but that is a stupid comparison. The situations are very different.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
Sorry … But … when ANYBODY refuses to follow a police officer's lawful commands (to stop … to raise hands … to come out … etc. … AND may or may not be armed) … Well … the perpetrator may suffer consequences … Tough luck ...
quote:I've been debating internally whether to let myself rise to this unperceptive remark.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:It's an island, silly, where are the criminals going to go?
Originally posted by Eliab:
Fuck knows how we manage over here where the police don't even carry guns.
quote:Why do (some) countries issue firearms to police officers?
Originally posted by Teilhard:
Sorry … But … when ANYBODY refuses to follow a police officer's lawful commands (to stop … to raise hands … to come out … etc. … AND may or may not be armed) … Well … the perpetrator may suffer consequences … Tough luck ...
quote:You might want to check your irony detector for bullet holes first.
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:I've been debating internally whether to let myself rise to this unperceptive remark.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:It's an island, silly, where are the criminals going to go?
Originally posted by Eliab:
Fuck knows how we manage over here where the police don't even carry guns.
quote:Yes - it's shocking that a scared person confronted by a violent and homicidal armed antagonist should run away in fear without performing a fully worked out risk assessment analysis.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
But the FACT is that the guy would still be alive if he had done what the officer -- entirely LAWFULLY and peacefully -- ordered him to do …
quote:And will you express your trust the outcome of the legal process if it results in a conviction? So many earlier on this thread were swift to jump to the conclusion that the grand jurors in the Ferguson matter had been false to their oath.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Alright, police apologists, spin this one as the victim's fault.
quote:It is a misunderstanding of the legal system that says a jury will always be either correct and true or incorrect and false.
Originally posted by Gee D:
quote:And will you express your trust the outcome of the legal process if it results in a conviction? So many earlier on this thread were swift to jump to the conclusion that the grand jurors in the Ferguson matter had been false to their oath.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Alright, police apologists, spin this one as the victim's fault.
quote:In America, "the State" represents "the People" and carries out their wishes, for good or ill …
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:No, no it isn't. The maths with no spin do not indicate this. There are several conclusions one can come to. One being yours, another being that a majority of police do not face encounters which test their honour or integrity. Yet another is that more issues occur but are ignored, not reported and/or are common enough not to make the news.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
Yes … The "math" is that the vast majority of police officers carry out their duties lawfully and honorably …
Cops are people. People vary from good to bad, not in binary, but in spectrum.
And this is not a question of good person versus evil person. It is often that police think they are in the right by virtue of being police. America suffers from this more than other first-world countries, IMO.
Training in America is woefully inadequate and uneven. Here is an American cop's view. Though I would add emphasis to an institutional us v. them attitude prevalent in America. Cops tend to think the public should be deferential to them. They should be servants of the people, not an arm of the state.
quote:Perhaps you could answer my question instead of something I did not say.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It is a misunderstanding of the legal system that says a jury will always be either correct and true or incorrect and false.
quote:You said:
Originally posted by Gee D:
quote:Perhaps you could answer my question instead of something I did not say.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It is a misunderstanding of the legal system that says a jury will always be either correct and true or incorrect and false.
quote:My impression is that many people did not agree with the verdict. This is not the same as thinking the jury false.
Originally posted by Gee D:
So many earlier on this thread were swift to jump to the conclusion that the grand jurors in the Ferguson matter had been false to their oath.
quote:If a white cop in a system biased towards white people convict him, I would have more faith in the correctness of the verdict than at other times.
Originally posted by Gee D:
And will you express your trust the outcome of the legal process if it results in a conviction?
quote:In addition, The U S Justice Department found no cause to charge the officer, either …
Originally posted by Gee D:
I have more to do with my time than to trawl back, post by post, but Orfeo in particular went through them. Many posters said that on the evidence, the grand jury had to have committed for trial (if that's the correct phrase, it would have been here). That's tantamount to saying that the jurors were false to their oath.
Obviously things are very different here, but viewing case outcomes purely in terms of colour and not on the evidence presented seems a strange analysis to me, one very hard to understand.
quote:You refer to the federal civil rights investigation? That one has a pretty high bar.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
In addition, The U S Justice Department found no cause to charge the officer, either …
quote:Yes … The Feds found no evidence of a Black/White aspect in that tragic case …
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:You refer to the federal civil rights investigation? That one has a pretty high bar.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
In addition, The U S Justice Department found no cause to charge the officer, either …
quote:Yes. And also a misunderstanding to think that the system is working and trustworthy. It ain't.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It is a misunderstanding of the legal system that says a jury will always be either correct and true or incorrect and false.
quote:I disagree. It means that people think they made the wrong decision. Not that they knowingly made the wrong decision.
Originally posted by Gee D:
I have more to do with my time than to trawl back, post by post, but Orfeo in particular went through them. Many posters said that on the evidence, the grand jury had to have committed for trial (if that's the correct phrase, it would have been here). That's tantamount to saying that the jurors were false to their oath.
quote:OK. First, I think cases should be determined on evidence and not in terms of colour. But the reality, in Britain and America, is that white people have lower chance of incarceration and receive lower sentences for the same crimes. I sincerely doubt this is different in Australia.
Originally posted by Gee D:
Obviously things are very different here, but viewing case outcomes purely in terms of colour and not on the evidence presented seems a strange analysis to me, one very hard to understand.
quote:That's an incredibly stupid argument.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
So, yes we "the People" authorize the police to carry weapons and use them -- appropriately … in the course of enforcing the laws passed by the congress and legislature …
Yes, we do expect -- demand -- that ordinary citizens must routinely yield to the authority of the police … If you are badly treated, wrongly arrested, etc., that must be taken up with the judge in court, with assistance of your attorney …
Whether I like it or not I do NOT have a right to resist arrest, to refuse to cooperate with an officer performing a duty, etc. … If I do stupidly refuse … there will be consequences ...
quote:Every case is its own case …
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:That's an incredibly stupid argument.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
So, yes we "the People" authorize the police to carry weapons and use them -- appropriately … in the course of enforcing the laws passed by the congress and legislature …
Yes, we do expect -- demand -- that ordinary citizens must routinely yield to the authority of the police … If you are badly treated, wrongly arrested, etc., that must be taken up with the judge in court, with assistance of your attorney …
Whether I like it or not I do NOT have a right to resist arrest, to refuse to cooperate with an officer performing a duty, etc. … If I do stupidly refuse … there will be consequences ...
Suppose someone walks up to an armed police officer and calls him a cunt. If the policeman then shoots the person dead, it might strictly be true that this was a "consequence" of the insult, in the sense that had the victim not mouthed off, he'd probably not have been killed. It would also be true to say that society frowns on (and, it could be argued, may properly criminalise) the verbal abuse of police officers, and true that as a matter of ordinary prudence, it's probably best not to call someone a cunt if they are holding a gun. And yet all those observations miss the point. The problem the incident would highlight is not the prevalence of bad language. The murder is ever so slightly more serious than the provocation.
People, police officers included, are not allowed to shoot people who ignore, abuse and disobey them. Shooting someone dead for no good reason is a serious moral evil, and a gross abuse of public trust. Saying that it wouldn't have happened if the victim had not been guilty of some trivial misconduct is either stupid irrelevance to the real moral issue (killing people is wrong) or an attempted justification of summary executions of people the cops don't like.
This incident, is, of course, very different to other police shootings where the officer might plausibly have thought he was in actual danger. There the issue is whether the officer should be believed, and whether if so he acted reasonably. We can see on the video that this officer shot a man in the back who was running away, and not presenting any threat to anyone. That's not OK. It's not understandable. It's not excusable. It's not the sort of thing you do by mistake. Pointing out that officers are at risk of assault, and have to make life-and-death decisions in difficult circumstances when facing possible assault is certainly relevant to some cases, but not this one. People who believe in the general professionalism and integrity of the police force ought to be the first to condemn this killing, not the first to defend it.
quote:Which of these particular offences necessitates shooting the guy in the back - whilst he is running away - until he is down?
Originally posted by Teilhard:
In the South Carolina case … Why did the guy CHOOSE to run away from the cop … ??? The cop (at that time) had NO way of knowing … Was the vehicle stolen … ??? Had the guy just robbed a store … ??? Is the guy armed … ??? Is there a dead teenage girl in the trunk … ??? Does he have outstanding arrest warrants for felony crimes … ???
quote:In the now known particulars of the case, obviously none of the now known facts of that case called for shooting the guy … I don't know that anyone is contending otherwise ...
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:Which of these particular offences necessitates shooting the guy in the back - whilst he is running away - until he is down?
Originally posted by Teilhard:
In the South Carolina case … Why did the guy CHOOSE to run away from the cop … ??? The cop (at that time) had NO way of knowing … Was the vehicle stolen … ??? Had the guy just robbed a store … ??? Is the guy armed … ??? Is there a dead teenage girl in the trunk … ??? Does he have outstanding arrest warrants for felony crimes … ???
quote:The really sad part is that there are now apps to automatically upload footage because there have been too many stories of police deleting the footage and charging the person recording it with a crime.
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
I guess we have to keep our smartphones out at all times, ready to record whatever police violence we may happen to witness.
quote:And the "math" is that the vast majority of people - yes, even criminals - don't want the severe punishment that comes with assaulting a police officer. So police and mundanes are in the same situation: interacting with someone who may or may not be extremely dangerous.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
Yes … The "math" is that the vast majority of police officers carry out their duties lawfully and honorably …
quote:In a country where everyone knows a prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich, it could also be a criticism of the criminal injustice system.
Originally posted by Gee D:
If you go back and read the thread, you'll find repeated comments which may be summarised as being "He only got off because he was white and the victim black". That to me is clearly saying that the jurors were false to their oath.
quote:And in prison for failure to pay child support.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
But again … IF that unfortunate foolish guy had simply obeyed, complied with, the cop's ENTIRELY LAWFUL commands, he almost certainly would still be alive today ...
quote:None of the "then known" facts called for shooting the guy either. That's why the cop is being charged with murder.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
In the now known particulars of the case, obviously none of the now known facts of that case called for shooting the guy … I don't know that anyone is contending otherwise ...
quote:No, it wouldn't - because we don't expect cops to shoot people with busted taillights on the off-chance that they are actually murderers. And anyway, his choices weren't limited to "let him run away" and "shoot him in the back."
… BUT … If somebody's teenage daughter's body had been found in the trunk of the (possibly stolen) car and it turned out that the street cop had simply allowed the driver to run away unharmed … THEN the public cry would be, "Why did the cops just let that guy run away … ???"
quote:Right - a "tragic mistake" which he then immediately proceeded to lie about.
Real life real world police work is very very very difficult, *dicey* and dangerous … Cops do make split second decisions without any luxury of knowing all the facts that will be known ten minutes or ten hours or ten days later … and so sometimes they make tragic mistakes, as in this case in South Carolina …
quote:I am not aware that anyone has contended that "failing to obey a police order is grounds for 'summary execution'" ...
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
It's worth noting that almost everyone who has seen the video describes the actions of the police officer as reprehensible. This includes the Chief of Police who described the video as deeply upsetting, other police officers and even his original lawyer.
There were several attempts to start an internet group funding project to raise money for defending the lawyer. One was closed down by the site, the other has gotten a few hundred dollars of the five thousand dollar goal.
So apparently the theory that if you do not immediately obey a police officer's instructions, it's justifiable grounds for summary execution is not a popular one.
If it becomes expected action that police will shoot you dead, it will create a counter reaction that the safest course of action for a criminal when he sees a policeman is to shoot the policeman dead. This has happened in various places in the past, and it's a good argument for why most modern countries have police and not soldiers.
quote:Surely the cop did, in fact, have some information about most of those contingencies? It was a traffic stop, so presumably he'd checked the licence plate and would have known that the car had at least not been reported stolen and was not registered to any dangerous felon. If he'd had his radio on he'd have known that there hadn't been any reported store robberies in the area (or, if there had, WTF was he doing pulling people over for a busted tail-light?*). He didn't know that the guy wasn't armed, but he certainly knew that he hadn't drawn a gun or tried to use one, but was instead running away. And while he wouldn't have been able to immediately disprove your curious fantasy about dead bodies, it must be right that there are at least a thousand times as many cars in the States with weed in the glove compartment than there are with a body in the boot, so I can see no particular reason for shooting someone on the off-chance.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
In the South Carolina case … Why did the guy CHOOSE to run away from the cop … ??? The cop (at that time) had NO way of knowing … Was the vehicle stolen … ??? Had the guy just robbed a store … ??? Is the guy armed … ??? Is there a dead teenage girl in the trunk … ??? Does he have outstanding arrest warrants for felony crimes … ???
quote:So you keep saying, but WHY? Quite possibly this person did something a bit wrong and a bit dumb, and because of that, he was shot dead. But given the fact that the shooting is such a colossal over-reaction to the wrong, dumb thing that 'provoked' it, that scarcely seems relevant to any important issue.
Nope, sorry … IF that unfortunate kid in Ferguson and that unfortunate guy in South Carolina had simply obeyed, complied with, lawful police command, both would almost certainly be alive today ...
quote:None of those hypothetical situations/cases "necessitate shooting the guy in the back while he is running away" …
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:Which of these particular offences necessitates shooting the guy in the back - whilst he is running away - until he is down?
Originally posted by Teilhard:
In the South Carolina case … Why did the guy CHOOSE to run away from the cop … ??? The cop (at that time) had NO way of knowing … Was the vehicle stolen … ??? Had the guy just robbed a store … ??? Is the guy armed … ??? Is there a dead teenage girl in the trunk … ??? Does he have outstanding arrest warrants for felony crimes … ???
quote:As I understand the facts of this case, the brake lights were not working, which is a potentially serious safety problem …
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:Surely the cop did, in fact, have some information about most of those contingencies? It was a traffic stop, so presumably he'd checked the licence plate and would have known that the car had at least not been reported stolen and was not registered to any dangerous felon. If he'd had his radio on he'd have known that there hadn't been any reported store robberies in the area (or, if there had, WTF was he doing pulling people over for a busted tail-light?*). He didn't know that the guy wasn't armed, but he certainly knew that he hadn't drawn a gun or tried to use one, but was instead running away. And while he wouldn't have been able to immediately disprove your curious fantasy about dead bodies, it must be right that there are at least a thousand times as many cars in the States with weed in the glove compartment than there are with a body in the boot, so I can see no particular reason for shooting someone on the off-chance.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
In the South Carolina case … Why did the guy CHOOSE to run away from the cop … ??? The cop (at that time) had NO way of knowing … Was the vehicle stolen … ??? Had the guy just robbed a store … ??? Is the guy armed … ??? Is there a dead teenage girl in the trunk … ??? Does he have outstanding arrest warrants for felony crimes … ???
This wasn't a split-second judgment call which has been shown to be wrong only with the benefit of hindsight. It's a case of shooting an unarmed, non-threatening American citizen in the back.
quote:So you keep saying, but WHY? Quite possibly this person did something a bit wrong and a bit dumb, and because of that, he was shot dead. But given the fact that the shooting is such a colossal over-reaction to the wrong, dumb thing that 'provoked' it, that scarcely seems relevant to any important issue.
Nope, sorry … IF that unfortunate kid in Ferguson and that unfortunate guy in South Carolina had simply obeyed, complied with, lawful police command, both would almost certainly be alive today ...
Is the death any less of a tragedy because the guy ran from the police? Are his family less bereaved? Is he less deserving of our sympathy? Is his murder any less reprehensible?
I think the answer to all of those is a pretty clear 'no'. If you disagree, if you think we should care less that he was murdered because he acted foolishly, then what you are saying is monstrous. If you agree, then its irrelevant.
(*Does anyone else find the 'busted tail-light' thing suspicious, given that the video certainly looks like the subsequent pursuit and suiting took place in broad daylight?
I was pulled over by police once in the US for a broken tail-light (and, of course, was requested to stay in the car while papers were checked, so couldn't verify it) in a hire car, which some friendly gremlin had completely repaired 5 seconds after the cop's departure, so I've always assumed that "broken tail-light' is the US equivalent of the English police's "driving erratically", as the legal fiction used to pull over motorists that they are suspicious of where there is rationale they could articulate. But at least in my case it was actually dark when I was stopped. I'm generally sceptical of knee-jerk accusations of racism, but I do think it is frighteningly plausible that the only relevant darkness in this case was that of Mr Scott's skin.)
quote:Well, as Eliab states above:
Originally posted by Teilhard:
In this case, obviously the cop made a tragically wrong decision … Is anyone arguing otherwise … ???
quote:And again, if the officer had not shot an unarmed man in the back, he wouldn't be facing murder charges today. For some reason, however, you persist in focusing on what the victim could have done differently, rather than on the murderer's culpability.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
Again, if the guy in South Carolina had simply obeyed the officer's LAWFUL commands, he would almost certainly still be alive today ...
quote:LOTS of people who die a tragic unnecessary untimely death do so by "acting foolishly" …
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:Well, as Eliab states above:
Originally posted by Teilhard:
In this case, obviously the cop made a tragically wrong decision … Is anyone arguing otherwise … ???
"if you think we should care less that he was murdered because he acted foolishly, then what you are saying is monstrous. If you agree, then its irrelevant."
quote:Oh, no … I agree that firing and charging the cop was the correct thing to do … Is anyone contending otherwise … ???
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:And again, if the officer had not shot an unarmed man in the back, he wouldn't be facing murder charges today. For some reason, however, you persist in focusing on what the victim could have done differently, rather than on the murderer's culpability.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
Again, if the guy in South Carolina had simply obeyed the officer's LAWFUL commands, he would almost certainly still be alive today ...
quote:Ah yes, the poor put upon policeman (whose initial instincts were to cover up the incident - as he continued to do so in the days afterwards).
Originally posted by Teilhard:
But, and, yes … IF the guy had simply complied with lawful police commands, he likely would still be alive today … True … ???
quote:I read somewhere that even if the taillight was out, the law only requires one functioning taillight.
Originally posted by Eliab:
(*Does anyone else find the 'busted tail-light' thing suspicious, given that the video certainly looks like the subsequent pursuit and suiting took place in broad daylight?
quote:Yes. Many people are arguing that he made a vicious homicidal and wicked decision.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
In this case, obviously the cop made a tragically wrong decision … Is anyone arguing otherwise … ???
quote:Not necessarily. Sometimes cops will shoot you even when you're complying with their orders.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
But, and, yes … IF the guy had simply complied with lawful police commands, he likely would still be alive today … True … ???
quote:Situations like that one in South Carolina are rare, which is why they are "news" ...
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:Not necessarily. Sometimes cops will shoot you even when you're complying with their orders.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
But, and, yes … IF the guy had simply complied with lawful police commands, he likely would still be alive today … True … ???
Walter Scott could have made different choices - hell, if he hadn't even driven down that road that day, he'd still be alive. But even then we would still have a system in which cops like Slager apparently believe they can gun down unarmed people with impunity. I think the latter issue is a lot more important than the former.
quote:Except if not for the video surfacing it wouldn't have made much of the news.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
Situations like that one in South Carolina are rare, which is why they are "news" ...
quote:Yes … Nobody's video of ordinary boring cop-citizen interactions will ever make it onto the 6 o'clock news …
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:Except if not for the video surfacing it wouldn't have made much of the news.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
Situations like that one in South Carolina are rare, which is why they are "news" ...
quote:Suppose Mike badly insults Dave. Dave has had a tough day.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
But, and, yes … IF the guy had simply complied with lawful police commands, he likely would still be alive today … True … ???
quote:I, for one, am not minimizing anything …
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
quote:Suppose Mike badly insults Dave. Dave has had a tough day.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
But, and, yes … IF the guy had simply complied with lawful police commands, he likely would still be alive today … True … ???
If Dave loses his temper and punches Mike, people might say "He shouldn't have done it, but hell, Mike was pretty rude to him." The reaction may be wrong but it isn't totally disproportionate to the triggering event.
Now suppose if instead of punching Mike, Dave stabs him two dozen times in the chest. In this case most people wouldn't dream of saying "Yeah, but Mike was rude. It wouldn't have happened otherwise." This may be entirely true, but the action and reaction are so utterly disproportionate that it'd seem a weird and disrespectful comment. It would sound like the speaker was trying to minimise Dave's crime.
Similarly, shooting an unarmed man in the back as they're running away is a grossly disproportionate response. Even if the victim was wrong or foolish to run, mentioning this can make it sound like you're trying to minimise the crime. You're doing the police no favours by arguing this (and I'm certainly not in the anti-police camp here).
quote:Teilhard, I'm aware you think the officer should be charged. I was trying to explain why, despite this, your comments might look like attempts to minimise the officer's responsibility (whether or not they were intended as such).
Originally posted by Teilhard:
I, for one, am not minimizing anything …
I agree that firing and charging the officer was the right thing to do … Hello … ???
quote:Yes. They're not necessarily gunning them down, sometimes they're beating or tasing them for no particular reason. But, yes, I think that's the contention.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
But, really … ??? Is it the contention that cops all across America are routinely just gunning down innocent unarmed citizens for -- what ??? -- sport … ??? Really … ???
quote:How could you possibly know how rare they are?
Originally posted by Teilhard:
quote:Situations like that one in South Carolina are rare, which is why they are "news" ...
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:Not necessarily. Sometimes cops will shoot you even when you're complying with their orders.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
But, and, yes … IF the guy had simply complied with lawful police commands, he likely would still be alive today … True … ???
Walter Scott could have made different choices - hell, if he hadn't even driven down that road that day, he'd still be alive. But even then we would still have a system in which cops like Slager apparently believe they can gun down unarmed people with impunity. I think the latter issue is a lot more important than the former.
quote:From what I've seen and heard of the coverage of the situation, the officer was in communication with Dispatch … Upon hearing in real time that the suspect was running and that a taser was in use, there would immediately be a call for "officer needs assistance" …
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Teilhard--
Given your connections with law enforcement: if an unarmed person runs away from a traffic stop, is a lone cop required to follow them? Or is the cop expected to call for backup?
Thx.
quote:I minimize the responsibility of neither the officer NOR the dead guy for the terrible tragic mess they BOTH created ...
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
quote:Teilhard, I'm aware you think the officer should be charged. I was trying to explain why, despite this, your comments might look like attempts to minimise the officer's responsibility (whether or not they were intended as such).
Originally posted by Teilhard:
I, for one, am not minimizing anything …
I agree that firing and charging the officer was the right thing to do … Hello … ???
Saying "Yeah, Dave should definitely be prosecuted for murder, but Mike was rude and it wouldn't have happened otherwise..." still sounds like someone making excuses for Dave.
quote:Yes … Both "war" and "crime" are relatively rare …
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:How could you possibly know how rare they are?
Originally posted by Teilhard:
quote:Situations like that one in South Carolina are rare, which is why they are "news" ...
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:Not necessarily. Sometimes cops will shoot you even when you're complying with their orders.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
But, and, yes … IF the guy had simply complied with lawful police commands, he likely would still be alive today … True … ???
Walter Scott could have made different choices - hell, if he hadn't even driven down that road that day, he'd still be alive. But even then we would still have a system in which cops like Slager apparently believe they can gun down unarmed people with impunity. I think the latter issue is a lot more important than the former.
War and crime also regularly make the news - do you take that a sign that war and crime are rare?
quote:Yeah, it was an equal thing. Guy not wanting to go to jail for missing child support payment running and a cop who couldn't be arsed to chase killing a non-threatening man.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
quote:I minimize the responsibility of neither the officer NOR the dead guy for the terrible tragic mess they BOTH created ...
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
quote:Teilhard, I'm aware you think the officer should be charged. I was trying to explain why, despite this, your comments might look like attempts to minimise the officer's responsibility (whether or not they were intended as such).
Originally posted by Teilhard:
I, for one, am not minimizing anything …
I agree that firing and charging the officer was the right thing to do … Hello … ???
Saying "Yeah, Dave should definitely be prosecuted for murder, but Mike was rude and it wouldn't have happened otherwise..." still sounds like someone making excuses for Dave.
quote:That's your standard for rare? So as long as most people aren't actually shot in the back by cops, you think that counts as rare?
Originally posted by Teilhard:
Most houses are not burglarized, most cars are not stolen, most persons are neither raped nor murdered ...
quote:Yes … If only if only if only the guy had just stayed in his car … as lawfully ordered …
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Yeah, it was an equal thing. Guy not wanting to go to jail for missing child support payment running and a cop who couldn't be arsed to chase killing a non-threatening man.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
quote:I minimize the responsibility of neither the officer NOR the dead guy for the terrible tragic mess they BOTH created ...
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
quote:Teilhard, I'm aware you think the officer should be charged. I was trying to explain why, despite this, your comments might look like attempts to minimise the officer's responsibility (whether or not they were intended as such).
Originally posted by Teilhard:
I, for one, am not minimizing anything …
I agree that firing and charging the officer was the right thing to do … Hello … ???
Saying "Yeah, Dave should definitely be prosecuted for murder, but Mike was rude and it wouldn't have happened otherwise..." still sounds like someone making excuses for Dave.
quote:You seem to be implying that "being shot in the back by cops" ISN'T "rare" … (So, is it "common," then, like going to the dentist, or what … ???)
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:That's your standard for rare? So as long as most people aren't actually shot in the back by cops, you think that counts as rare?
Originally posted by Teilhard:
Most houses are not burglarized, most cars are not stolen, most persons are neither raped nor murdered ...
quote:Rarity is your claim - you back it up.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
quote:You seem to be implying that "being shot in the back by cops" ISN'T "rare" … (So, is it "common," then, like going to the dentist, or what … ???)
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:That's your standard for rare? So as long as most people aren't actually shot in the back by cops, you think that counts as rare?
Originally posted by Teilhard:
Most houses are not burglarized, most cars are not stolen, most persons are neither raped nor murdered ...
So, what are the known statistics on that … ???
quote:Clearly the best plan is to shoot them in the back as they try to run away then fit up some evidence and an account of provoking the event.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
What SHOULD society do regarding "deadbeat" parents who don't or can't pony up court-ordered child support … ??? -- just forget it … ???
quote:The rarity of such tragedies is demonstrated by the fact that the are "newsworthy" …
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:Rarity is your claim - you back it up.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
quote:You seem to be implying that "being shot in the back by cops" ISN'T "rare" … (So, is it "common," then, like going to the dentist, or what … ???)
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:That's your standard for rare? So as long as most people aren't actually shot in the back by cops, you think that counts as rare?
Originally posted by Teilhard:
Most houses are not burglarized, most cars are not stolen, most persons are neither raped nor murdered ...
So, what are the known statistics on that … ???
quote:I'm pretty sure news coverage is a poor proxy for estimating rarity. By this standard there is rarely ever violence in the Middle East.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
The rarity of such tragedies is demonstrated by the fact that the are "newsworthy" …
It's like jetliners full of people … Multiple thousands of safe landings every day don't make headlines … ONE crash does, often for days on end ...
quote:Okay … *shrug*
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:I'm pretty sure news coverage is a poor proxy for estimating rarity. By this standard there is rarely ever violence in the Middle East.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
The rarity of such tragedies is demonstrated by the fact that the are "newsworthy" …
It's like jetliners full of people … Multiple thousands of safe landings every day don't make headlines … ONE crash does, often for days on end ...
quote:Prison is now a "hassle"? Huh. Who knew.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
I do agree that the legalities these days re: court-ordered child support often add up to a big messy hassle …
quote:The claim (above) was that it is not "rare" for a police officer to shoot an unarmed person in the back …
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:Prison is now a "hassle"? Huh. Who knew.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
I do agree that the legalities these days re: court-ordered child support often add up to a big messy hassle …
Re: rarity. Maryland just passed a law requiring information on officer involved killings to be compiled by a state agency. Between 2010-2014, 109 people have died. That's more than two per year.
According to these people, so far in 2015 cops have killed someone in the US every eight hours.
Are they all as cut-and-dried as this case? No, most of them are a bit messier; in many of them the officers were likely justified in using some force (but not necessarily lethal force).
But I'm not sure one death every eight hours counts as rare.
quote:No, you're right. The BIG problem in America is not that COPS have gun and are trigger happy.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
The BIG problem in America is not that COPS have guns and are trigger*happy …
quote:Some -- not all -- cops do feel as if they are under siege these days, not only by the crooks but also sometimes by ordinary citizens …
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:No, you're right. The BIG problem in America is not that COPS have gun and are trigger happy.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
The BIG problem in America is not that COPS have guns and are trigger*happy …
It's that the cops treat the general public as an enemy in a war.
quote:Yes … Street cops do their daily work in the real world, not in the neat tidy orderly world of a court room … How does an officer KNOW if that person is a dangerous felon, and/or a psychopath, armed, or … just a regular guy … ???
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
I suspect one of the biggest problems with police culture is that it is very difficult for front-line officers to remember that many of the people they deal with, including some of the ones they arrest, are innocent until proven guilty by a court of law. However, they also witness criminal acts, and they are also tasked with apprehending people who have already been convicted (e.g. parole violation) of a crime. I truly do understand the temptation to punish someone who has clearly committed a criminal act, but in our legal system, police don't determine guilt and punishment, the courts do. Heck, I even understand the temptation to punish someone who is being mouthy or abusive, but again, that is not the job of the police. Unfortunately, should an officer be unable to resist the temptation to mete out punishment, it is apparently very easy to pass it off as "resisting arrest" or "not cooperating" or the perennial favourite, "HE TRIED TO GRAB MY GUN AND I FEARED FOR MY LIFE!!!!"
quote:Bullshit. The police generally only even bother showing up (much less arriving quickly) if you're a rich white person. Otherwise, half the time they don't come, the other half the time they refuse to take a report. Sometimes when they show up they leave the reporting victim with bruises.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
Yet … despite that, when a citizen calls *911* and the cops arrive quickly, sometimes in force, generally citizen crime victims are VERY glad for it, and relieved that the cops come with guns, tazers, handcuffs, K-9 partners, etc. …
quote:You're behind the times. Google Chris Rock: selfie every time he's pulled over by the police.
Google the fascinating (hilarious but entirely serious) video by Chris Rock: "How Not To Get Your Ass Kicked By The Police" ...
quote:Yes, I've seen his recent "selfies" …
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:Bullshit. The police generally only even bother showing up (much less arriving quickly) if you're a rich white person. Otherwise, half the time they don't come, the other half the time they refuse to take a report. Sometimes when they show up they leave the reporting victim with bruises.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
Yet … despite that, when a citizen calls *911* and the cops arrive quickly, sometimes in force, generally citizen crime victims are VERY glad for it, and relieved that the cops come with guns, tazers, handcuffs, K-9 partners, etc. …
quote:You're behind the times. Google Chris Rock: selfie every time he's pulled over by the police.
Google the fascinating (hilarious but entirely serious) video by Chris Rock: "How Not To Get Your Ass Kicked By The Police" ...
quote:Which is kind of odd when you consider that violent crime is at a 30-year low, and cops kill 10 times more civilians than civilians kill cops. If that's what counts as "under siege" then they are paranoiacs who need counseling.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
Some -- not all -- cops do feel as if they are under siege these days, not only by the crooks but also sometimes by ordinary citizens …
quote:It's rare … That makes it "news" ...
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Yet another example;
Police Deputy shoots restrained fugitive by mistake. The 73 year old deputy used his gun rather than his taser by mistake.
quote:One of my great uncles some decades ago was a town marshall … He was shot and killed by a burglar … My uncle wasn't paranoid -- he was just DEAD …
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Which is kind of odd when you consider that violent crime is at a 30-year low, and cops kill 10 times more civilians than civilians kill cops. If that's what counts as "under siege" then they are paranoiacs who need counseling.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
Some -- not all -- cops do feel as if they are under siege these days, not only by the crooks but also sometimes by ordinary citizens …
quote:I've certainly tried different things at great personal cost.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
If indeed the cops routinely misbehave in your community as your claim (above), you have a citizen's right -- indeed, DUTY -- to blow the whistle in that situation … Have you done so … ???
quote:Such incidents ARE rare … which is why they are "news" … Ten thousand people arrested and tried without any violence is NOT "news" … (Or does your local newspaper, e.g., give a detailed account, a few pages in length, complete with photographs, of every routine traffic stop, DWI arrest, common shoplifting investigation, domestic assault case, occasional minor drug bust, etc., etc. … ??? Really … ???)
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
You keep repeating these incidents are rare. If they were so rare, the newspapers wouldn't know that people are interested in knowing about them.
In this case, an untrained volunteer friend of the Sheriff shot a restrained man "in error". What's not rare is that the Sheriff didn't want to charge him with anything. That seems to be the common police reaction to police misdoing.
quote:I don't know the specific community to which you refer … but a good start would be to go to a local influential politician who has some power and influence and has a reputation of integrity; the mayor; the local newspaper; the U. S. Attorney for your District …
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:I've certainly tried different things at great personal cost.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
If indeed the cops routinely misbehave in your community as your claim (above), you have a citizen's right -- indeed, DUTY -- to blow the whistle in that situation … Have you done so … ???
But how does one blow the whistle?
quote:No, you claimed that it was rare, but had nothing to support that except a) the fact that it's in the news (apparently you think everything that's in the news is rare) and b) "*shrug*".
Originally posted by Teilhard:
The claim (above) was that it is not "rare" for a police officer to shoot an unarmed person in the back …
quote:It's probably a fairly natural point of view. Humans make a handful of errors per hour under normal conditions (and many more when tired, under stress, etc.).
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
In this case, an untrained volunteer friend of the Sheriff shot a restrained man "in error". What's not rare is that the Sheriff didn't want to charge him with anything. That seems to be the common police reaction to police misdoing.
quote:Okay … *shrug*
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:No, you claimed that it was rare, but had nothing to support that except a) the fact that it's in the news (apparently you think everything that's in the news is rare) and b) "*shrug*".
Originally posted by Teilhard:
The claim (above) was that it is not "rare" for a police officer to shoot an unarmed person in the back …
quote:Yes … On occasion, e.g., a surgeon or other medical professional makes a grievous error, resulting in the unnecessary accidental death of an innocent patient … Our response -- as a society, as a health care institution, as a licensing board -- is not necessarily to jail or fire the person who screwed*up, but rather to try to learn from the mistake(s), institute improved practices, and generally do better in the subsequent cases … IOW, "malpractice" doesn't necessarily call for hanging the practitioner ("out to dry") …
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:It's probably a fairly natural point of view. Humans make a handful of errors per hour under normal conditions (and many more when tired, under stress, etc.).
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
In this case, an untrained volunteer friend of the Sheriff shot a restrained man "in error". What's not rare is that the Sheriff didn't want to charge him with anything. That seems to be the common police reaction to police misdoing.
As you describe it, the Sheriff's untrained volunteer friend shot someone whilst intending to discharge a taser at them. On the face of it, this is, exactly, an error. Charging the friend with a crime is the wrong response. The person who deserves to be in the dock is the Sheriff who authorized his untrained buddy to help out with police work carrying lethal weapons without proper training.
That's the root cause here - not the guy who actually fired the weapon and dropped it in surprise when it recoiled because he was expecting a taser.
People screw up. It happens. You don't fix the problem by yelling at them and telling them not to screw up.
ETA: If the suspect was already restrained, there was clearly no need to discharge any weapon at him - gun, taser or whatever. In that case, the decision to fire a weapon becomes a conscious fault, not an error, and the fact that the weapon was a gun in error rather than a taser doesn't provide any mitigation.
quote:Yes … Each and every "case" is its own "case," whether in medicine or in policing or in law … and so must be evaluated and judged and when appropriate, adjudicated, as the particular case that it is …
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
If a surgeon allows an untrained friend to scrub in and assist in the operation and the patient dies due to errors the surgeon will lose their license and the friend is likely to be charged with manslaughter.
When someone is shot and killed by a policeman, it needs to be investigated and not simply dismissed by the policeman or his friends as "excusable homicide". After public outrage the D.A. has charged the reservist with second degree manslaughter. This is as it should be.
I would agree the Sheriff is negligent, but the reservist was negligent in seeking situations for which he was untrained to respond properly.
quote:See, that's the thing about training. One of the things that it teaches you is "who is qualified to do this task you're being trained to do". The people who are trained to do task X are supposed to know not to let untrained people do X.
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
I would agree the Sheriff is negligent, but the reservist was negligent in seeking situations for which he was untrained to respond properly.
quote:Which is a great standard to promote if you're trying to cover up systematic abuses. Like, for example, a small, not=so-hypothetical Missouri town using its police force to raise revenues via a series of trumped up, racially motivated charges and a Byzantine court bureaucracy deliberately designed to rack up additional fees and charges. Yes, I can see why you'd want to avoid discussing systematic problems.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
Yes … Each and every "case" is its own "case," whether in medicine or in policing or in law … and so must be evaluated and judged and when appropriate, adjudicated, as the particular case that it is …
Broad brush condemnations of either "cops" or "docs" are neither realistic nor helpful …
quote:Lack of gun control is a systemic problem from top to bottom. Until this is tackled in the US there will be many, many more deaths.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Yes, I can see why you'd want to avoid discussing systematic problems.
quote:Law enforcement training in the U.S. Is, as I mentioned earlier, woefully inadequate. Standards for hiring are varied and often inadequate.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:See, that's the thing about training. One of the things that it teaches you is "who is qualified to do this task you're being trained to do". The people who are trained to do task X are supposed to know not to let untrained people do X.
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
I would agree the Sheriff is negligent, but the reservist was negligent in seeking situations for which he was untrained to respond properly.
Whilst it might be reasonable to expect untrained people to guess that X requires special training, ...
quote:And one of my uncles died whilst dancing. This anecdote is as relevant to mt's comment as yours.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
quote:One of my great uncles some decades ago was a town marshall … He was shot and killed by a burglar … My uncle wasn't paranoid -- he was just DEAD …
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Which is kind of odd when you consider that violent crime is at a 30-year low, and cops kill 10 times more civilians than civilians kill cops. If that's what counts as "under siege" then they are paranoiacs who need counseling.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
Some -- not all -- cops do feel as if they are under siege these days, not only by the crooks but also sometimes by ordinary citizens …
In your opinion, who should handle "burglars" … and how … ??? Maybe just let them go about their chosen career and encourage homeowners to insure their stuff … ???
quote:Indeed. It is amusing to understand that their amendment which gave Americans the right to gunliness is frequently argued as 'can't be changed', which puzzles me given the meaning of the word "amendment".
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:Lack of gun control is a systemic problem from top to bottom. Until this is tackled in the US there will be many, many more deaths.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Yes, I can see why you'd want to avoid discussing systematic problems.
quote:Although the U.S. Constitution has been amended on average every 12.6 years since ratification, including amendments that altered or even repealed previous amendments (I'm looking at you, Eighteenth Amendment!) to date no section of the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments that were approved as a block in 1791) has ever been altered by a subsequent Constitutional Amendment. So while it's theoretically possible to alter or repeal the Second Amendment, most Americans would see it as opening a can of worms best left unopened.
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Indeed. It is amusing to understand that their amendment which gave Americans the right to gunliness is frequently argued as 'can't be changed', which puzzles me given the meaning of the word "amendment".
quote:Municipal budgets are stretched thin all across the USA and at the same time many citizen taxpayers strongly resist tax increases to pay for services, yet expect -- DEMAND -- that government at all levels deliver high quality services …
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Which is a great standard to promote if you're trying to cover up systematic abuses. Like, for example, a small, not=so-hypothetical Missouri town using its police force to raise revenues via a series of trumped up, racially motivated charges and a Byzantine court bureaucracy deliberately designed to rack up additional fees and charges. Yes, I can see why you'd want to avoid discussing systematic problems.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
Yes … Each and every "case" is its own "case," whether in medicine or in policing or in law … and so must be evaluated and judged and when appropriate, adjudicated, as the particular case that it is …
Broad brush condemnations of either "cops" or "docs" are neither realistic nor helpful …
quote:What an excuse. None of this mandates that the solution lies in the direction of victimising one particular community - that aspect is down to a particular bit of culture coming to the fore (or simply being more evident) in that particular circumstance.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
Municipal budgets are stretched thin all across the USA and at the same time many citizen taxpayers strongly resist tax increases to pay for services, yet expect -- DEMAND -- that government at all levels deliver high quality services …
So, yes … That situation in Ferguson, while extreme is endemic ...
quote:In all democratic countries this is true.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
In America, "the State" represents "the People" and carries out their wishes, for good or ill …
quote:Again, the training is inadequate.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
So, yes we "the People" authorize the police to carry weapons and use them -- appropriately … in the course of enforcing the laws passed by the congress and legislature …
quote:It's not an "excuse" … It's a fact …
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:What an excuse. None of this mandates that the solution lies in the direction of victimising one particular community - that aspect is down to a particular bit of culture coming to the fore (or simply being more evident) in that particular circumstance.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
Municipal budgets are stretched thin all across the USA and at the same time many citizen taxpayers strongly resist tax increases to pay for services, yet expect -- DEMAND -- that government at all levels deliver high quality services …
So, yes … That situation in Ferguson, while extreme is endemic ...
The other issue is that municipal and state government in the US has long suffered from low levels of pervasive corruption.
quote:Some -- obviously not ALL -- licensed peace officers ARE adequately properly trained and supervised … Most police departments (by my own real world real life experience) do not operate as paramilitary commandos …
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:In all democratic countries this is true.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
In America, "the State" represents "the People" and carries out their wishes, for good or ill …
quote:Again, the training is inadequate.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
So, yes we "the People" authorize the police to carry weapons and use them -- appropriately … in the course of enforcing the laws passed by the congress and legislature …
And you miss the point. The point is that because police feel they are above the citizens, their treatment of them will be adversarial. This will lead to unnecessary violence and death.
Many police in America act as if they are military in a hostile environment. No, actually, they are worse. View the police in Ferguson encountering protestors. Even in the presence of peaceful demonstrators, they have their weapons raised. Most military train to keep weapons down unless intending to shoot. Raising weapons raises tensions and raises the likelihood of fatal mishap.
quote:Except that the point of contention was that they were doing so in a manner which was highly discriminatory and targeting particular communities.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
As long as municipalities are everywhere stretched budget thin and citizens none the less expect and demand high quality government services, cops will write tickets and courts will impose fines ...
quote:That was the case in Ferguson, yes …
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:Except that the point of contention was that they were doing so in a manner which was highly discriminatory and targeting particular communities.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
As long as municipalities are everywhere stretched budget thin and citizens none the less expect and demand high quality government services, cops will write tickets and courts will impose fines ...
quote:It seems pretty egregious to call predatory policing and trumped up charges "high quality government services", and the insistence that people are just begging for these things is even more baffling.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
As long as municipalities are everywhere stretched budget thin and citizens none the less expect and demand high quality government services, cops will write tickets and courts will impose fines ...
quote:(1) Municipal government services include much more than "policing" … (2) But … Yes, it is obvious that there are serious racial/economic disparity problems in Ferguson … and in many other cities and towns, too … (3) But again … in every municipality in the USA, municipal budgets are increasingly stretched thin, and city councils and mayors everywhere scramble for adequate revenue ...
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:It seems pretty egregious to call predatory policing and trumped up charges "high quality government services", and the insistence that people are just begging for these things is even more baffling.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
As long as municipalities are everywhere stretched budget thin and citizens none the less expect and demand high quality government services, cops will write tickets and courts will impose fines ...
quote:What typically fascinates me about analyses like this is that there seems an almost willful blindness to the possibility that there may be a causal connection between (2) and (3). It never seems to occur to those putting forward this kind of "justification" for racist confiscation schemes disguised as a police force that perhaps the reason (2) "there are serious racial/economic disparity problems in Ferguson" is because (3) the Ferguson municipal government made a deliberate policy decision to fund itself by using a predatory and racist policing system to expropriate the wealth of its black citizens. This is not something that "increasingly" happens, it's a very old story. Older than the U.S. has been a country, in fact.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
(1) Municipal government services include much more than "policing" … (2) But … Yes, it is obvious that there are serious racial/economic disparity problems in Ferguson … and in many other cities and towns, too … (3) But again … in every municipality in the USA, municipal budgets are increasingly stretched thin, and city councils and mayors everywhere scramble for adequate revenue ...
quote:Do you know one of the reasons their budgets are stretched thin? Police. Police salaries and retirement eat a significant portion of many city budgets. So, the reason they can't pay for better policing is the cost of the police.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
quote:(1) Municipal government services include much more than "policing" … (2) But … Yes, it is obvious that there are serious racial/economic disparity problems in Ferguson … and in many other cities and towns, too … (3) But again … in every municipality in the USA, municipal budgets are increasingly stretched thin, and city councils and mayors everywhere scramble for adequate revenue ...
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:It seems pretty egregious to call predatory policing and trumped up charges "high quality government services", and the insistence that people are just begging for these things is even more baffling.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
As long as municipalities are everywhere stretched budget thin and citizens none the less expect and demand high quality government services, cops will write tickets and courts will impose fines ...
quote:So, the solution to these long term racial/economic disparities and injustices … is to continue working toward full human and civil rights for everyone …
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:What typically fascinates me about analyses like this is that there seems an almost willful blindness to the possibility that there may be a causal connection between (2) and (3). It never seems to occur to those putting forward this kind of "justification" for racist confiscation schemes disguised as a police force that perhaps the reason (2) "there are serious racial/economic disparity problems in Ferguson" is because (3) the Ferguson municipal government made a deliberate policy decision to fund itself by using a predatory and racist policing system to expropriate the wealth of its black citizens. This is not something that "increasingly" happens, it's a very old story. Older than the U.S. has been a country, in fact.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
(1) Municipal government services include much more than "policing" … (2) But … Yes, it is obvious that there are serious racial/economic disparity problems in Ferguson … and in many other cities and towns, too … (3) But again … in every municipality in the USA, municipal budgets are increasingly stretched thin, and city councils and mayors everywhere scramble for adequate revenue ...
quote:Well, there you go … "Catch 22" ...
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Do you know one of the reasons their budgets are stretched thin? Police. Police salaries and retirement eat a significant portion of many city budgets. So, the reason they can't pay for better policing is the cost of the police.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
quote:(1) Municipal government services include much more than "policing" … (2) But … Yes, it is obvious that there are serious racial/economic disparity problems in Ferguson … and in many other cities and towns, too … (3) But again … in every municipality in the USA, municipal budgets are increasingly stretched thin, and city councils and mayors everywhere scramble for adequate revenue ...
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:It seems pretty egregious to call predatory policing and trumped up charges "high quality government services", and the insistence that people are just begging for these things is even more baffling.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
As long as municipalities are everywhere stretched budget thin and citizens none the less expect and demand high quality government services, cops will write tickets and courts will impose fines ...
quote:Not really. Increased incarceration rates due to mandatory minimums really took off when legislatures applied them to non-violent drug offenders. The crime rates for things like burglary and car theft have been declining for years and the effective sentences for those particular offenses haven't gone up by that much. It's not thieves that are exploding the U.S. prison population, it's the War on [Some Classes of People Who Use Certain Types of] Drugs.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
quote:Well, there you go … "Catch 22" ...
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Do you know one of the reasons their budgets are stretched thin? Police. Police salaries and retirement eat a significant portion of many city budgets. So, the reason they can't pay for better policing is the cost of the police.
Maybe the police departments everywhere could just rely on unpaid volunteers …
But, yes … Seriously … Many state budgets include huge amounts for "corrections," with those costs skyrocketing during the last three decades …
This happened in part because citizens became weary of being victimized by burglars and car thieves, so state legislatures initiated very serious automatic sentencing guidelines that called for locking up just about every career offender for a long time …
quote:Yes … Drug offenders were included in the general "lock 'em up" movement, along with burglars and car thieves … and the closing down of state hospitals during the 70s and 80s nationwide has also greatly burdened the corrections (and law enforcement) situation right up to the present day …
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Not really. Increased incarceration rates due to mandatory minimums really took off when legislatures applied them to non-violent drug offenders. The crime rates for things like burglary and car theft have been declining for years and the effective sentences for those particular offenses haven't gone up by that much. It's not thieves that are exploding the U.S. prison population, it's the War on [Some Classes of People Who Use Certain Types of] Drugs.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
quote:Well, there you go … "Catch 22" ...
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Do you know one of the reasons their budgets are stretched thin? Police. Police salaries and retirement eat a significant portion of many city budgets. So, the reason they can't pay for better policing is the cost of the police.
Maybe the police departments everywhere could just rely on unpaid volunteers …
But, yes … Seriously … Many state budgets include huge amounts for "corrections," with those costs skyrocketing during the last three decades …
This happened in part because citizens became weary of being victimized by burglars and car thieves, so state legislatures initiated very serious automatic sentencing guidelines that called for locking up just about every career offender for a long time …
quote:My point was that it isn't available funds but how they are applied. If the UK can manage to afford better training, it is fairly shocking that the U.S. cannot.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
Well, there you go … "Catch 22" ...
Maybe the police departments everywhere could just rely on unpaid volunteers …
quote:Yes … The UK" is not the "USA" … The nature of the society, the attitude toward police and government, etc., is different …
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:My point was that it isn't available funds but how they are applied. If the UK can manage to afford better training, it is fairly shocking that the U.S. cannot.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
Well, there you go … "Catch 22" ...
Maybe the police departments everywhere could just rely on unpaid volunteers …
quote:Well, then ... it's a damn good thing for everybody !!! that your friend quit -- since she apparently never learned what the role of a defense attorney is. ??? Hint: it has nothing to do with the client's guilt or innocence. !!! ??? ...
Originally posted by Teilhard:
... One of my friends practiced law for a number of years, did a lot of pro bono work, served as a public defender … She quit legal practice in disgust because she came to realize that most practice of law involves trying to find sneaky ways AROUND the law, and she knew (didn't suspect, but KNEW) that her clients were nearly always indeed guilty of the crimes for which they were charged …
quote:Really??? I had no idea ...
See … LOTS of accused/suspected persons are taken away in handcuffs, subjected to search, held in jail until bail is approved and paid -- all BEORE that person has been "proven guilty" of anything … !!! What's with that … ???
In a system of presumed REAL "innocence," no one would ever be forced to spend a night in jail, subjected to being handcuffed, etc., required to post bail, etc. … True … ???...
!!! Maybe ... I should watch more cop shows on TV??? quote:Yes, it's complicated, isn't it … ???
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:Well, then ... it's a damn good thing for everybody !!! that your friend quit -- since she apparently never learned what the role of a defense attorney is. ??? Hint: it has nothing to do with the client's guilt or innocence. !!! ??? ...
Originally posted by Teilhard:
... One of my friends practiced law for a number of years, did a lot of pro bono work, served as a public defender … She quit legal practice in disgust because she came to realize that most practice of law involves trying to find sneaky ways AROUND the law, and she knew (didn't suspect, but KNEW) that her clients were nearly always indeed guilty of the crimes for which they were charged …
quote:Really??? I had no idea ...
See … LOTS of accused/suspected persons are taken away in handcuffs, subjected to search, held in jail until bail is approved and paid -- all BEORE that person has been "proven guilty" of anything … !!! What's with that … ???
In a system of presumed REAL "innocence," no one would ever be forced to spend a night in jail, subjected to being handcuffed, etc., required to post bail, etc. … True … ???...
There is provision in our legal system, with sufficient evidence, to hold someone to answer charges. ... And the person being held can challenge that -- it's called habeas corpus. !!! They can also challenge the legality of a search -- if the search was illegal, the evidence cannot be used in court. Right ... ??? In Canada, time in custody prior to conviction is counted double !!! towards the actual sentence because it really is a big deal to hold someone who hasn't (yet) been convicted of a crime. Really ...
quote:Some licensed peace officers are adequately trained and serve the community. Some aren't and through inexperience, lack of training or malice abuse their position of trust.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
[Some -- obviously not ALL -- licensed peace officers ARE adequately properly trained and supervised … Most police departments (by my own real world real life experience) do not operate as paramilitary commandos …
OTOH, there are far too many gun nuts in America who have too many guns and too much ammo … Our society is crazy ...
quote:No, with very few exceptions, I NEVER "'blame' victims" … I do ALWAYS, however, try to "understand what happened, and why" …
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
quote:Some licensed peace officers are adequately trained and serve the community. Some aren't and through inexperience, lack of training or malice abuse their position of trust.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
[Some -- obviously not ALL -- licensed peace officers ARE adequately properly trained and supervised … Most police departments (by my own real world real life experience) do not operate as paramilitary commandos …
OTOH, there are far too many gun nuts in America who have too many guns and too much ammo … Our society is crazy ...
Unfortunately the former group tends to close ranks and protect the bad group.
As for not being paramilitary, your statement may have been partially true at one point. That was before the
Pentagon surplus war gear flows to police departments Nothing says paramilitary like owning armored trucks with large guns.
Your lame defense by blaming victims, claiming police get an out because your relative was killed by a criminal and the many other unconvincing arguments you've made on this trhead actually help demonstrate that police need thorough external civilian control. Otherwise law officers like you give a free pass to any policeman who kills someone when there's no justifiable reason. No one is saying that minor offences shouldn't lead to arrest. It's not necessary to shoot someone who is not harming anyone and if they escape, they can always be arrested another time.
As for the gun nuts, to my surprise we might actually agree on something. The U.S. has far too many guns floating around. Alas, the Bill of Rights has a special historical status in the amendments to the constitution. A number of the original states refused to join the United States before these were incorporated. That doesn't mean that the current ruling that a well regulated militia means anyone can buy guns, but we'll have to wait till the Supreme Court changes a great deal.
quote:You've now repeated this (or some version of it) eleven times in the last week. It seems typical of the law enforcement mentality that always tries to deflect blame for police brutality onto the victims.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
But … OTOH, I also understand … clearly … the FACT … that the unfortunate guy running away almost certainly would still be alive today if only if only he had simply complied with lawful police commands … It's a mess … Sometimes life is like that …
quote:(1) The cop should not have shot the guy …
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:You've now repeated this (or some version of it) eleven times in the last week. It seems typical of the law enforcement mentality that always tries to deflect blame for police brutality onto the victims.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
But … OTOH, I also understand … clearly … the FACT … that the unfortunate guy running away almost certainly would still be alive today if only if only he had simply complied with lawful police commands … It's a mess … Sometimes life is like that …
Perhaps if Walter Scott had quietly sat in his car the cop wouldn't have shot an unarmed man in the back eight times. But cops have to deal with noncompliance all the time, and when one of them just decides to kill the man he stopped for a broken taillight, I think that cop's behavior is a much more serious problem than Scott's behavior.
quote:Nope … Nobody has made any such claim …
Originally posted by RuthW:
Last time I checked, resisting arrest was not punishable with the death penalty. Neither was running away from cops.
quote:There is more than one (1) fact in most cases, including this one ...
Originally posted by mdijon:
(1) Those two things don't belong in the same list.
(2) There is no (2).
quote:Not just historical--scriptural or quasi-scriptural, depending on who you're talking to. (And they might not put it that way, but that's what it comes down to.)
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
As for the gun nuts, to my surprise we might actually agree on something. The U.S. has far too many guns floating around. Alas, the Bill of Rights has a special historical status in the amendments to the constitution.
quote:Which has bugger all to do with level of training being lower in the US.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
Yes … The UK" is not the "USA" … The nature of the society, the attitude toward police and government, etc., is different …
quote:All groups tend to do this. It is human nature. It is worse amongst those who share threat.
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Some licensed peace officers are adequately trained and serve the community. Some aren't and through inexperience, lack of training or malice abuse their position of trust.
Unfortunately the former group tends to close ranks and protect the bad group.
quote:One of the problems in some California counties, is the deputies must serve in correctional facilities. This can lead to a warped perception of the public.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
One of my brothers was a sheriff's deputy in California,
quote:Not just historical--scriptural or quasi-scriptural, depending on who you're talking to. (And they might not put it that way, but that's what it comes down to.)
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
As for the gun nuts, to my surprise we might actually agree on something. The U.S. has far too many guns floating around. Alas, the Bill of Rights has a special historical status in the amendments to the constitution.
quote:I agree with Boogie. If that is really the case, then you have no alternative but to accept that quite a lot of random innocent people will get shot, killed. If policing has to assume that the other person has a gun, some of those random people will be shot by police men and women.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Although the U.S. Constitution has been amended on average every 12.6 years since ratification, including amendments that altered or even repealed previous amendments (I'm looking at you, Eighteenth Amendment!) to date no section of the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments that were approved as a block in 1791) has ever been altered by a subsequent Constitutional Amendment. So while it's theoretically possible to alter or repeal the Second Amendment, most Americans would see it as opening a can of worms best left unopened.
quote:
That's the price you all have to pay for your constitutional right to carry arms. End of story. Man up to it.
quote:If you aren't trying to excuse the shooting, at least in part, then what the hell is your repeated focus on the victim's actions intended to achieve? You seem to be arguing that it's all very unfortunate, but the police have to do a dangerous job, and sometimes split second decisions ('do I shoot this man in the back or not?') have to be made, and by running away this victim is equally culpable with the shooter. If not that, what are you arguing?
Originally posted by Teilhard:
In the case of that cop in South Carolina, e.g., I don't see how his shooting that fleeing guy in the back can be "defended" … and I have not tried to do so ...
But … OTOH, I also understand … clearly … the FACT … that the unfortunate guy running away almost certainly would still be alive today if only if only he had simply complied with lawful police commands … It's a mess … Sometimes life is like that …
quote:I think that makes the point very well.
Originally posted by mdijon:
It's like saying "I of course deplore wife-beating. On the other hand burnt toast isn't very nice".
These might be two reasonable facts to highlight in different contexts, but putting them together takes you somewhere very unreasonable.
quote:Every case is about both the "Law" and the "Facts" -- ALL of them ...
Originally posted by mdijon:
You don't seem to get that you can't say "I of course deplore the shooting of an unarmed man in the back and planting evidence on them" and then follow up with "on the other hand it was daft that they ran away".
These might be two facts but putting them together in that way means something about how you connect those facts and apply them to a situation. We aren't dealing with fact salads of posts, the selection of facts is supposed to mean something.
It's like saying "I of course deplore wife-beating. On the other hand burnt toast isn't very nice".
These might be two reasonable facts to highlight in different contexts, but putting them together takes you somewhere very unreasonable.
quote:You seem to offer a potential different situation that day, with the cop shooting the guy in the back while the guy was sitting peacefully in the driver's seat ...
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:If you aren't trying to excuse the shooting, at least in part, then what the hell is your repeated focus on the victim's actions intended to achieve? You seem to be arguing that it's all very unfortunate, but the police have to do a dangerous job, and sometimes split second decisions ('do I shoot this man in the back or not?') have to be made, and by running away this victim is equally culpable with the shooter. If not that, what are you arguing?
Originally posted by Teilhard:
In the case of that cop in South Carolina, e.g., I don't see how his shooting that fleeing guy in the back can be "defended" … and I have not tried to do so ...
But … OTOH, I also understand … clearly … the FACT … that the unfortunate guy running away almost certainly would still be alive today if only if only he had simply complied with lawful police commands … It's a mess … Sometimes life is like that …
quote:I think that makes the point very well.
Originally posted by mdijon:
It's like saying "I of course deplore wife-beating. On the other hand burnt toast isn't very nice".
These might be two reasonable facts to highlight in different contexts, but putting them together takes you somewhere very unreasonable.
quote:Taking into account ALL of the facts of this -- and similar cases -- it is indeed obvious that this is a deeply rooted serious SET of problems that will not be solved easily or in a short time ...
Originally posted by mdijon:
No, I don't see that. Saying cases are about facts is like saying sentences are about words. Of course they are, but the way the words are joined together means something more than the sum of the words.
Likewise they way you keep linking two particular facts in this case says something. But I've already tried explaining that and you've sailed past it - I can't make it any clearer.
The point is that faced with the two facts the appropriate first societal response is "My God how do we stop cops shooting people in the back and planting evidence on them" not "My God we need to invest in public education to stop them running from cops".
quote:I now have no idea what you are talking about. The victim wasn't shot in the driving seat, he was shot while running away. I haven't suggested anything different.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
You seem to offer a potential different situation that day, with the cop shooting the guy in the back while the guy was sitting peacefully in the driver's seat ...
quote:Incorrect. One brake light is acceptable if that is all your car has. If your car has three, they must all work.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
...in South Carolina you're only required to have one working taillight.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:I now have no idea what you are talking about. The victim wasn't shot in the driving seat, he was shot while running away. I haven't suggested anything different.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
You seem to offer a potential different situation that day, with the cop shooting the guy in the back while the guy was sitting peacefully in the driver's seat ...
I am arguing that running away from a police officer in a way that does not threaten anyone cannot reasonably be deemed a contribution to one's subsequent murder. It might be wrong and dumb considered on its own, but it is in no way a relevant factor in assessing moral responsibility for a fatal shooting.
Are you able to answer my question about what you are arguing?
quote:The cop had in that case both moral and legal responsibility NOT to shoot the guy in the back … PERIOD ...
Originally posted by Teilhard:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:I now have no idea what you are talking about. The victim wasn't shot in the driving seat, he was shot while running away. I haven't suggested anything different.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
You seem to offer a potential different situation that day, with the cop shooting the guy in the back while the guy was sitting peacefully in the driver's seat ...
I am arguing that running away from a police officer in a way that does not threaten anyone cannot reasonably be deemed a contribution to one's subsequent murder. It might be wrong and dumb considered on its own, but it is in no way a relevant factor in assessing moral responsibility for a fatal shooting.
Are you able to answer my question about what you are arguing?
quote:I have been a licensed driver for now nearly fifty years and I have more than once been pulled over by an officer, to inform me that I had an important light *out* … It is an important public safety matter … (I'm a *white* guy, BTW …)
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:Incorrect. One brake light is acceptable if that is all your car has. If your car has three, they must all work.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
...in South Carolina you're only required to have one working taillight.
quote:You didn't follow the link, did you?
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:Incorrect. One brake light is acceptable if that is all your car has. If your car has three, they must all work.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
...in South Carolina you're only required to have one working taillight.
quote:
The State argues that because Jihad's vehicle featured two “stop lamps,” the statutory provisions regarding vehicle safety mandate that both lamps be “maintained in good working order.” We disagree.
[...]
There is no dispute that Jihad's vehicle had at least one brake light (on the left side) in good working condition at the time the officer effected the stop. Because we find the statutory scheme mandates only one functioning “stop lamp,” in this instance Jihad's vehicle was in full compliance with all statutory requirements regarding rear vehicle lights. Since neither Jihad's driving nor his vehicle transgressed any traffic law, the patrolman's stop was unreasonable.
quote:This parallel construction suggests you think disobeying a cop is somehow equivalent in seriousness to murder.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
The cop had in that case both moral and legal responsibility NOT to shoot the guy in the back … PERIOD ...
The guy running away in that case had indeed both legal and moral responsibility to OBEY a police officer's lawful commands … PERIOD ...
quote:No … I'm saying that it was a MESS, all around …
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Teilhard--
Are you saying that the police officer and the man who ran are equally responsible for what happened?
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Teilhard--
Are you saying that the police officer and the man who ran are equally responsible for what happened?
quote:If the first answer to the question about equal responsibility was no, then which party do you think was most responsible?
Originally posted by Teilhard:
No … I'm saying that it was a MESS, all around …
quote:Sure I did.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:You didn't follow the link, did you?
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:Incorrect. One brake light is acceptable if that is all your car has. If your car has three, they must all work.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
...in South Carolina you're only required to have one working taillight.
quote:If the unfortunate guy had not initiated a crisis by fleeing a police officer (a serious crime) he almost certainly would be alive today …
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Teilhard--
Are you saying that the police officer and the man who ran are equally responsible for what happened?quote:If the first answer to the question about equal responsibility was no, then which party do you think was most responsible?
Originally posted by Teilhard:
No … I'm saying that it was a MESS, all around …
quote:Also assaulted the officer (a very serious crime) and likely shot him with his own taser. Probably attempted murder with regard to a police officer.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
If the unfortunate guy had not initiated a crisis by fleeing a police officer (a serious crime) he almost certainly would be alive today …
quote:You're right, I wasn't aware the appeals court ruling had been reversed. Thanks for the link.
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:Sure I did.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:You didn't follow the link, did you?
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:Incorrect. One brake light is acceptable if that is all your car has. If your car has three, they must all work.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
...in South Carolina you're only required to have one working taillight.
You didn't follow the case to
it's conclusion did you?
"JUSTICE MOORE: We granted a writ of certiorari in this case (1) and now address the sole issue whether driving a vehicle with a non-functioning brake light supports a traffic stop. We find it does and reverse."
quote:OK, then why associate the two statements? What point are you trying to make by supplementing the first with the second?
Originally posted by Teilhard:
The cop had in that case both moral and legal responsibility NOT to shoot the guy in the back … PERIOD ...
The guy running away in that case had indeed both legal and moral responsibility to OBEY a police officer's lawful commands … PERIOD ...
quote:Yes … The (sensational) news stories thus far have still not yet reported ALL of the facts (which ARE important, yes ???) … What about the taser struggle … ???
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:Also assaulted the officer (a very serious crime) and likely shot him with his own taser. Probably attempted murder with regard to a police officer.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
If the unfortunate guy had not initiated a crisis by fleeing a police officer (a serious crime) he almost certainly would be alive today …
No way this cop gets convicted of murder.
quote:I "associate" those two statements of fact because (1) they are central to the case, and, (2) they are both TRUE …
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:OK, then why associate the two statements? What point are you trying to make by supplementing the first with the second?
Originally posted by Teilhard:
The cop had in that case both moral and legal responsibility NOT to shoot the guy in the back … PERIOD ...
The guy running away in that case had indeed both legal and moral responsibility to OBEY a police officer's lawful commands … PERIOD ...
For any crime/accident/event you could potentially come up with a long list of "it wouldn't have happened unless..." facts. Normally we don't bother to mention them unless they are relevant to some specific point. When we're talking about crime, we're usually talking about moral relevance. As in mdijon's domestic violence example, it may be perfectly true that the victim would not have been assaulted if she hadn't burnt the toast, and possibly even true that she only burnt the toast because she was careless, but a a general rule we do not think those facts worth mentioning, because they are morally irrelevant. They do not in any way lessen our indignation against the attacker. Even a culinary fanatic, who considered it morally obligatory for wives (and husbands) to apply themselves assiduously to the proper toasting of bread would have the sense and tact to shut up about it in such a case, lest he be suspected of condoning such despicable conduct. It is a morally irrelevant fact. It has no bearing at all on the important point that domestic violence is wrong.
I'm arguing that an attempt, however unlawful or foolish, to avoid arrest by running, where there is no reason to think anyone is being put at risk, is a morally irrelevant fact to the question of police shooting. It simply has no bearing on whether the cop was right to gun down a citizen. It belongs in the "he looked at me funny" category of provocations which no reasonable person would see as affording any excuse whatsoever for lethal violence.
You seem to be repeatedly insisting it is an important point that needs to be made that this man was wrong to run away. Why?
quote:Well The Sharpton Gazette and it's ilk are not interested in ALL the facts, only the ones that generate revenue for them.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
quote:Yes … The (sensational) news stories thus far have still not yet reported ALL of the facts (which ARE important, yes ???) … What about the taser struggle … ???
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:Also assaulted the officer (a very serious crime) and likely shot him with his own taser. Probably attempted murder with regard to a police officer.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
If the unfortunate guy had not initiated a crisis by fleeing a police officer (a serious crime) he almost certainly would be alive today …
No way this cop gets convicted of murder.
quote:So … In fact … The story isn't about a vicious racist homicidal cop shooting an innocent dark-skinned angel for sport, is it … ???
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:Well The Sharpton Gazette and it's ilk are not interested in ALL the facts, only the ones that generate revenue for them.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
quote:Yes … The (sensational) news stories thus far have still not yet reported ALL of the facts (which ARE important, yes ???) … What about the taser struggle … ???
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:Also assaulted the officer (a very serious crime) and likely shot him with his own taser. Probably attempted murder with regard to a police officer.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
If the unfortunate guy had not initiated a crisis by fleeing a police officer (a serious crime) he almost certainly would be alive today …
No way this cop gets convicted of murder.
The video makes a couple of things clear other than the shooting itself.
The two men are on the ground when the video starts, and Scott (green shirt) is clearly on top. Another eyewitness indicated that this was the second tussle, the first having occurred a hundred yards or so earlier in the foot chase.
The taser barbs are connected to the officer, one in his torso and one in (or around) his leg. When Scott starts to move away from the officer you can see that he is pulling the taser wires with him, inadvertently or not.
Even before the stupid decision to flee, assault a cop, and shoot him with a taser, Mr. Scott made another stupid decision to buy a used Mercedes missing a brake light rather than catch up on his child support.
quote:How about this for a more clear analogy:
Originally posted by Teilhard:
I "associate" those two statements of fact because (1) they are central to the case, and, (2) they are both TRUE …
But indeed, a question of "burned toast" or "a funny look" has nothing to do with this case, does it … ???
quote:Except … "Fleeing a police officer" is not the legal or moral equivalent of "you dented my car" ...
Originally posted by Leaf:
quote:How about this for a more clear analogy:
Originally posted by Teilhard:
I "associate" those two statements of fact because (1) they are central to the case, and, (2) they are both TRUE …
But indeed, a question of "burned toast" or "a funny look" has nothing to do with this case, does it … ???
You, Teilhard, dented my car.
I shot you.
I shouldn't have shot you, but then again, you dented my car.
This is the question of moral relevance that Eliab is raising. Repeating the statement "but he dented my car" is unlikely to be perceived as a morally relevant fact to anyone but me.
quote:Nor is "you assaulted me and shot me with a taser."
Originally posted by Teilhard:
Except … "Fleeing a police officer" is not the legal or moral equivalent of "you dented my car" ...
quote:That assumes quite a lot, doesn't it? Patrolman Slager's traffic stop was almost certainly pretextual, an excuse for an "investigatory stop". Mr. Scott seems to have reached the conclusion that Patrolman Slager did not feel particularly bound by either the law or common police practice (a view amply demonstrated as correct by the later video). So why exactly does a police officer who is willing to shoot a fleeing suspect in the back, plant evidence, and lie to his own superiors about the incident get the benefit of the doubt when it comes to good behavior and following recommended procedure? It seems just as plausible to argue that Officer Slager might have found some other pretextual justification for assaulting or otherwise harming Mr. Scott. Patrolman Slager's actions are not ones that inspire your obvious assumption of his strict adherence to the law and police procedure.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
If the unfortunate guy had not initiated a crisis by fleeing a police officer (a serious crime) he almost certainly would be alive today …
quote:But discharging a firearm eight times in an urban area? I'm guessing that pales in comparison with the hazards of a broken tail light.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
I have more than once been pulled over by an officer, to inform me that I had an important light *out* … It is an important public safety matter …
quote:If indeed it is established that the guy assaulted the police officer, grabbed his taser, and used it or tried to use it on the officer, that certainly is not anything like, "You dented my car … !!!"
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:Nor is "you assaulted me and shot me with a taser."
Originally posted by Teilhard:
Except … "Fleeing a police officer" is not the legal or moral equivalent of "you dented my car" ...
quote:One problem here is, broadly speaking, the inability to empathize. No doubt you can imagine yourself denting someone's car - a stupid, careless thing to do that you ought not to have done. You probably don't think you deserve to die for it, though.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
Except … "Fleeing a police officer" is not the legal or moral equivalent of "you dented my car" ...
quote:Doesn't fucking matter. Scott was the furthest thing from being a danger when he was shot.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
quote:If indeed it is established that the guy assaulted the police officer, grabbed his taser, and used it or tried to use it on the officer, that certainly is not anything like, "You dented my car … !!!"
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:Nor is "you assaulted me and shot me with a taser."
Originally posted by Teilhard:
Except … "Fleeing a police officer" is not the legal or moral equivalent of "you dented my car" ...
Again … "Fleeing a police officer" is a CRIME … "Resisting arrest" is a CRIME ...
quote:Evidence?
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:Nor is "you assaulted me and shot me with a taser."
Originally posted by Teilhard:
Except … "Fleeing a police officer" is not the legal or moral equivalent of "you dented my car" ...
quote:Yes … The officer did what he had to do fir public safety …
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
And now we have police deliberately running over a suspect with their patrol car.
quote:As I said earlier, in the video you can see Mr. Scott on top of the officer on the ground. You can also see him holding the officer by the forearm after they get up. That is assault.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:Evidence?
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:Nor is "you assaulted me and shot me with a taser."
Originally posted by Teilhard:
Except … "Fleeing a police officer" is not the legal or moral equivalent of "you dented my car" ...
quote:Since the guy ran away, the officer had no opportunity to "pat" him down … Was the guy armed -- or not … ??? … Not being a "god" or equipped with x-ray vision, the officer had no way of knowing …
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Doesn't fucking matter. Scott was the furthest thing from being a danger when he was shot.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
quote:If indeed it is established that the guy assaulted the police officer, grabbed his taser, and used it or tried to use it on the officer, that certainly is not anything like, "You dented my car … !!!"
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:Nor is "you assaulted me and shot me with a taser."
Originally posted by Teilhard:
Except … "Fleeing a police officer" is not the legal or moral equivalent of "you dented my car" ...
Again … "Fleeing a police officer" is a CRIME … "Resisting arrest" is a CRIME ...
quote:But, after a day-and-half struggle, you've managed to find a way!
Originally posted by Teilhard :
In the case of that cop in South Carolina, e.g., I don't see how his shooting that fleeing guy in the back can be "defended" … and I have not tried to do so ...
quote:Is this similar to the way it was perfectly logical for Patrolman Slager to assume Mr. Scott had a teenager's corpse in his trunk? After all, he was a black man with a broken tail light. Doesn't that make it practically a foregone conclusion? Mr. Scott should be posthumously ashamed for not coming through on this. [/sarcasm]
Originally posted by Teilhard:
Since the guy ran away, the officer had no opportunity to "pat" him down … Was the guy armed -- or not … ??? … Not being a "god" or equipped with x-ray vision, the officer had no way of knowing …
quote:*sigh* … If the guy had simply obeyed the law, we wouldn't be having this conversation -- would we … ???
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:But, after a day-and-half struggle, you've managed to find a way!
Originally posted by Teilhard :
In the case of that cop in South Carolina, e.g., I don't see how his shooting that fleeing guy in the back can be "defended" … and I have not tried to do so ...
quote:Is this similar to the way it was perfectly logical for Patrolman Slager to assume Mr. Scott had a teenager's corpse in his trunk? After all, he was a black man with a broken tail light. Doesn't that make it practically a foregone conclusion? Mr. Scott should be posthumously ashamed for not coming through on this. [/sarcasm]
Originally posted by Teilhard:
Since the guy ran away, the officer had no opportunity to "pat" him down … Was the guy armed -- or not … ??? … Not being a "god" or equipped with x-ray vision, the officer had no way of knowing …
quote:That is not the point.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
*sigh* … If the guy had simply obeyed the law, we wouldn't be having this conversation -- would we … ???
quote:Which "guy" are we talking about here? The dead one or the one charged with murder?
Originally posted by Teilhard:
*sigh* … If the guy had simply obeyed the law, we wouldn't be having this conversation -- would we … ???
quote:No … In this case, THIS case is "the point" …
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:That is not the point.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
*sigh* … If the guy had simply obeyed the law, we wouldn't be having this conversation -- would we … ???
The point is:
a) whether police response to a situation is proportionate
b) whether police response to a situation is racially biased.
That is all.
quote:Once again, by you logic, police should begin every encounter by shooting first and questioning those who chanced to survive.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
Since the guy ran away, the officer had no opportunity to "pat" him down … Was the guy armed -- or not … ??? … Not being a "god" or equipped with x-ray vision, the officer had no way of knowing …
But again … If only if only the guy had simply peacefully lawfully wisely remained in the vehicle -- as lawfully commanded by a licensed peace officer -- he almost certainly would still be alive today ...
quote:It would appear that Mr. Scott was a fleeing felon, and as such was subject to the use of deadly force.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Scott was the furthest thing from being a danger when he was shot.
quote:How on earth you get there from what I said is beyond me.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
But, okay, turn it around, then …
OTOH, are you suggesting that a *white* cop must give extra "slack" to a *black* guy just because the cop is *white* and the guy is *black* … ??? Really … ??? Is that what you're implying … ???
quote:You usae an article which doesn't even meet Wikipedia's standards?
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:It would appear that Mr. Scott was a fleeing felon, and as such was subject to the use of deadly force.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Scott was the furthest thing from being a danger when he was shot.
quote:This would not be funny even if it were not stupid. It hardly takes more than two functioning brain cells to understand there are situations in which the failure to pay child support is by circumstance, rather than intent.
Originally posted by romanlion:
On the bright side his kids will probably get some subsistence out of their Dad for a change.
quote:(Emphasis mine.)
Under U.S. law the fleeing felon rule was limited in 1985 to non-lethal force in most cases by Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1. The justices held that deadly force "may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others."[2]
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
quote:I'm not making any claims of "racial bias" … Others are doing so …
Originally posted by Crœsos:
You seem not to understand the meaning of the term "racial bias". Or at least you seem to think that Eutychus' questioning of the possibility of racial bias in this case is a backhanded way of advocating a different form of racial bias. I'm not sure how you got from questions of racial bias in this case to the idea that questioning racial bias means advocating a different form of racial bias. Could you explain how you leaped to this conclusion?
quote:No … The "logic" -- which has been affirmed by SCOTUS rulings -- is that a police officer is allowed to take reasonable steps to ensure her/his personal safety during any kind of "stop" or detention, including a "pat down" for weapons …
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Once again, by you logic, police should begin every encounter by shooting first and questioning those who chanced to survive.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
Since the guy ran away, the officer had no opportunity to "pat" him down … Was the guy armed -- or not … ??? … Not being a "god" or equipped with x-ray vision, the officer had no way of knowing …
But again … If only if only the guy had simply peacefully lawfully wisely remained in the vehicle -- as lawfully commanded by a licensed peace officer -- he almost certainly would still be alive today ...
quote:" … the mayor's wife … " … ???
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:How on earth you get there from what I said is beyond me.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
But, okay, turn it around, then …
OTOH, are you suggesting that a *white* cop must give extra "slack" to a *black* guy just because the cop is *white* and the guy is *black* … ??? Really … ??? Is that what you're implying … ???
I'm also wondering what you learned in your years as a prison chaplain.
What I've learned from mine that's relevant to this case is that a) racial bias in a judicial system appears almost ubiquitous b) not everybody has the same spontaneous reaction to a cop car as you or I might do.
I'm not totally sure of all the details in this case, but from similar cases I know of I suspect that Scott was a well-known figure around town, if only for not paying maintenance, and so the cop looked for any excuse to pull him over. A much easier target for swaggering in front of than, say, the mayor's wife.
I also know a good few people whose first instinct when faced with a cop is to run. Cops to them don't spell help or due process. They spell trouble, harrassment, twisting your testimony, and violence - perhaps violence they witnessed as a kid.
This cop's response was disproportionate and unjustified - and exacerbated, most likely, by the colour of the victim.
quote:The part where this doesn't count as "approv[ing]" or "defend[ing]" the shooting.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
But in any case, (A) I have NOT approved of nor defended the officer's act of shooting the guy in the back … Hello …???
AND (B) I do not approve or defend the guy having resisted arrest, either …
What about either (A) or (B) is unclear … ???
quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:
Since the guy ran away, the officer had no opportunity to "pat" him down … Was the guy armed -- or not … ??? … Not being a "god" or equipped with x-ray vision, the officer had no way of knowing …
quote:I like your emphasis, because a police officer who has just been assaulted, likely twice, and then tased, is going to have little difficulty convincing people that there was probable cause to believe that the suspect posed a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to himself or others.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
romanlion--
Re fleeing felon rule:
Did you read that? Starting at "US Case Law"? There was a court case--Tennessee v. Garner:
quote:(Emphasis mine.)
Under U.S. law the fleeing felon rule was limited in 1985 to non-lethal force in most cases by Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1. The justices held that deadly force "may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others."[2]
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Teilhard--
Are you saying that the police officer and the man who ran are equally responsible for what happened?
quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:
No … I'm saying that it was a MESS, all around …
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
If the first answer to the question about equal responsibility was no, then which party do you think was most responsible?
quote:You said no it wasn't equal. There are therefore two options - either the police officer or the unfortunate guy. If you can't bring yourself to answer that tells you something.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
If the unfortunate guy had not initiated a crisis by fleeing a police officer (a serious crime) he almost certainly would be alive today …
If the officer had not shot the guy he would almost certainly still be alive today …
It was a MESS ...
quote:Yes … It was a … M-E-S-S ...
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Teilhard--
Are you saying that the police officer and the man who ran are equally responsible for what happened?quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:
No … I'm saying that it was a MESS, all around …quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
If the first answer to the question about equal responsibility was no, then which party do you think was most responsible?quote:You said no it wasn't equal. There are therefore two options - either the police officer or the unfortunate guy. If you can't bring yourself to answer that tells you something.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
If the unfortunate guy had not initiated a crisis by fleeing a police officer (a serious crime) he almost certainly would be alive today …
If the officer had not shot the guy he would almost certainly still be alive today …
It was a MESS ...
quote:This messy exchange indicates vividly exactly what a MESS that encounter was …
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:The part where this doesn't count as "approv[ing]" or "defend[ing]" the shooting.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
But in any case, (A) I have NOT approved of nor defended the officer's act of shooting the guy in the back … Hello …???
AND (B) I do not approve or defend the guy having resisted arrest, either …
What about either (A) or (B) is unclear … ???
quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:
Since the guy ran away, the officer had no opportunity to "pat" him down … Was the guy armed -- or not … ??? … Not being a "god" or equipped with x-ray vision, the officer had no way of knowing …
quote:I'm pretty sure the answer (if you ever get one) will be something along the lines of "If the deaf man had only obeyed the officer's LAWFUL orders . . . "
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
And sign-language is a threat? I did a google search on Hawthorne, California and if police there do not know gang sign from sign language, they ought turn in their badges. Not sure how any signs, gang or otherwise could be interpreted as assault.
quote:That you seem to be equating the two without saying so directly.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
But in any case, (A) I have NOT approved of nor defended the officer's act of shooting the guy in the back … Hello …???
AND (B) I do not approve or defend the guy having resisted arrest, either …
What about either (A) or (B) is unclear … ???
quote:I'm not "equating" anything … I'm trying to understand what happened, and why …
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:That you seem to be equating the two without saying so directly.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
But in any case, (A) I have NOT approved of nor defended the officer's act of shooting the guy in the back … Hello …???
AND (B) I do not approve or defend the guy having resisted arrest, either …
What about either (A) or (B) is unclear … ???
quote:"Little difficulty convincing people"? It seems he's already had more than a little difficulty, since he's been fired and charged with murder. You'd think his own police force would be a pretty sympathetic audience, but it looks like they stopped backing him after they saw the video.
Originally posted by romanlion:
I like your emphasis, because a police officer who has just been assaulted, likely twice, and then tased, is going to have little difficulty convincing people that there was probable cause to believe that the suspect posed a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to himself or others.
quote:Yeah, no way they did that preemptively to avoid weeks of nightly riots, local businesses being burned to the ground and cops being shot on the street.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:"Little difficulty convincing people"? It seems he's already had more than a little difficulty, since he's been fired and charged with murder. You'd think his own police force would be a pretty sympathetic audience, but it looks like they stopped backing him after they saw the video.
Originally posted by romanlion:
I like your emphasis, because a police officer who has just been assaulted, likely twice, and then tased, is going to have little difficulty convincing people that there was probable cause to believe that the suspect posed a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to himself or others.
quote:That case happened in Seattle a couple of years back
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:I'm pretty sure the answer (if you ever get one) will be something along the lines of "If the deaf man had only obeyed the officer's LAWFUL orders . . . "
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
And sign-language is a threat? I did a google search on Hawthorne, California and if police there do not know gang sign from sign language, they ought turn in their badges. Not sure how any signs, gang or otherwise could be interpreted as assault.
quote:But when the man first fled, there wasn't probable cause that he was dangerous. IANAL, but I think that, in this case, "fleeing felon" applies to when he first fled.
Originally posted by romanlion:
I like your emphasis, because a police officer who has just been assaulted, likely twice, and then tased, is going to have little difficulty convincing people that there was probable cause to believe that the suspect posed a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to himself or others.
In which case, deadly force was appropriate.
quote:But possibly of something else, do you think?
Originally posted by romanlion:
I am telling you right now that this cop will NEVER be convicted of murder in the State of South Carolina ...
quote:Are you arguing that the cop was right (or, at least, entitled) to shoot him?
Originally posted by romanlion:
In which case, deadly force was appropriate.
quote:It's possible certainly, but based on how far we have already come from the initial conclusions everyone jumped to, I wouldn't necessarily bet on it.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:But possibly of something else, do you think?
Originally posted by romanlion:
I am telling you right now that this cop will NEVER be convicted of murder in the State of South Carolina ...
quote:Isn't "the reality of how police go about their business" exactly what we're talking about? When people suggest that the cop should stay put, call for backup or whatever, they are suggesting that the current "reality..." ends up with an excessive number of unnecessarily dead people, and that maybe we should change the reality.
Originally posted by romanlion:
The idea that the cop could have just "stayed put" is sweet, but simply does not square with the reality of how police go about their business in this country.
quote:IOW, anybody should feel *FREE* to just run away from a lone police officer … ???
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:Isn't "the reality of how police go about their business" exactly what we're talking about? When people suggest that the cop should stay put, call for backup or whatever, they are suggesting that the current "reality..." ends up with an excessive number of unnecessarily dead people, and that maybe we should change the reality.
Originally posted by romanlion:
The idea that the cop could have just "stayed put" is sweet, but simply does not square with the reality of how police go about their business in this country.
quote:No. But people shouldn't be shot just because they run away from a lone police officer.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
IOW, anybody should feel *FREE* to just run away from a lone police officer … ???
quote:Not at all.
Originally posted by Eliab:
Is this really the sort of policing you want to see?
quote:Well, not exactly, if I understand the thread as I have followed it to this point.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Isn't "the reality of how police go about their business" exactly what we're talking about?
quote:It was a huge MESS … Wasn't it ... ???
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:No. But people shouldn't be shot just because they run away from a lone police officer.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
IOW, anybody should feel *FREE* to just run away from a lone police officer … ???
At that point the shooting is very much the sole fault of the police officer.
Anything else is the equivalent of blaming a rape victim because 'she shouldn't have got drunk'.
quote:No. It was really quite simple.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
It was a huge MESS … Wasn't it ... ???
quote:Is irrelevant - you are essentially trying over and over to make this into a mitigating factor, without actually coming out and saying so.
IF the guy had calmly complied with the LAW and with lawful commands of a police officer, he almost certainly would still be alive today ...
quote:And why do you think this is?
Originally posted by romanlion:
Not to mention the countless deaths of young black men at the hands of other young black men.
quote:These situations would be simple if and only if citizens always obeyed the laws and behaved always responsibly … but that doesn't happen … which is why we have police and courts and so on ...
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:No. It was really quite simple.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
It was a huge MESS … Wasn't it ... ???
quote:Is irrelevant - you are essentially trying over and over to make this into a mitigating factor, without actually coming out and saying so.
IF the guy had calmly complied with the LAW and with lawful commands of a police officer, he almost certainly would still be alive today ...
quote:Is this directed at me?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Trying really hard to remove responsibility from the police aren't you?
quote:Did you read my post? Because I think my implication is clear.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:And why do you think this is?
Originally posted by romanlion:
Not to mention the countless deaths of young black men at the hands of other young black men.
quote:And of course, in this particular case, because the accused is a cop -- a *white* guy, at that -- he is naturally reflexively "presumed guilty" until he proves himself innocent in a court of law … (forget about "public opinion," in which he has already been not only accused, but tried and convicted, yes … ???)
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:Is this directed at me?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Trying really hard to remove responsibility from the police aren't you?
quote:Did you read my post? Because I think my implication is clear.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:And why do you think this is?
Originally posted by romanlion:
Not to mention the countless deaths of young black men at the hands of other young black men.
But in addition to a violent black market in minority communities I am sure there is an evil white person, or cop, or both at work as well. Probably several. It is certainly no reflection on the individuals who commit these murders unless of course they happen to be a cop, or a white person, or (*gasp*) both.
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:Is this directed at me?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Trying really hard to remove responsibility from the police aren't you?
quote:Your garden must truly be green if you can spare as much bovine fertilizer as it took to produce this post.
Originally posted by romanlion:
But in addition to a violent black market in minority communities I am sure there is an evil white person, or cop, or both at work as well. Probably several. It is certainly no reflection on the individuals who commit these murders unless of course they happen to be a cop, or a white person, or (*gasp*) both.
quote:Hmmmm, I thought it was because he shot an unarmed man who was progressively becoming less of a threat and then planted evidence to suggest a different narrative than what actually occurred. Silly me.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
]And of course, in this particular case, because the accused is a cop -- a *white* guy, at that -- he is naturally reflexively "presumed guilty" until he proves himself innocent in a court of law … (forget about "public opinion," in which he has already been not only accused, but tried and convicted, yes … ???)
quote:The officer in question has been charged and has been fired … If he goes to trial all of the relevant facts will have been gathered and will be made public … At some point a determination of "guilt" or "innocence" will be made …
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
He was presumed innocent, as he was in a prior complaint, until the video surfaced. At that point people had to ask themselves "who are you going to believe? The police officer or your own lying eyes."
And keep on mitigating. Let's not forget that the victim left his car in the road, littered the road with his blood and may have done public urination. Of course, one of the actions is much, worse than all of the others, and it's not failing to obey a police officer and running away.
quote:So why are you so clear that some of the blame lies with the victim? Unless you claim to know all the facts yourself.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
Rather than taking part in an anti-cop lynch mob, I want to know what happened and why ...
quote:Ummmmm … SOME of the "blame" for what happened DOES lie with the guy who resisted arrest and ran away ...
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:So why are you so clear that some of the blame lies with the victim? Unless you claim to know all the facts yourself.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
Rather than taking part in an anti-cop lynch mob, I want to know what happened and why ...
The police were not exactly shy about publicising and magnifying the victims every brush with the law prior to the video surfacing. If they were as scrupulous about adhering to fact finding as you claim to be then their public relations department would have just STFU.
quote:No. Taking your view that 'we don't know all the facts' it's impossible to know that for certain. If you want to take the view that something happened off-camera that could justify shooting the guy in the back - then that reasoning works in both directions.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
Ummmmm … SOME of the "blame" for what happened DOES lie with the guy who resisted arrest and ran away ...
quote:Back in the bad old days, before the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, when Plod could throw you in a van full of his fellows for a good shoeing, would you have considered trying to avoid an unjust beating by running away "blame" for what happened next, or something else?
Originally posted by Teilhard:
Ummmmm … SOME of the "blame" for what happened DOES lie with the guy who resisted arrest and ran away ...
quote:We DO know SOME of the facts …
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:No. Taking your view that 'we don't know all the facts' it's impossible to know that for certain. If you want to take the view that something happened off-camera that could justify shooting the guy in the back - then that reasoning works in both directions.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
Ummmmm … SOME of the "blame" for what happened DOES lie with the guy who resisted arrest and ran away ...
quote:And he lied to his supervisors and his attorney about what happened, and when the video surfaced, his attorney quit. There's only two legitimate reasons for an attorney to dump a client: the client can't pay, or the client intends to engage in further criminal activity, in this case, likely perjury and obstruction of justice.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Hmmmm, I thought it was because he shot an unarmed man who was progressively becoming less of a threat and then planted evidence to suggest a different narrative than what actually occurred. Silly me.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
]And of course, in this particular case, because the accused is a cop -- a *white* guy, at that -- he is naturally reflexively "presumed guilty" until he proves himself innocent in a court of law … (forget about "public opinion," in which he has already been not only accused, but tried and convicted, yes … ???)
quote:So … You're suggesting that because, say, the Tsarnaev kid (the surviving Boston Marathon Bomber), e.g., was and is represented by Counsel … it means that he is in reality an innocent fella, a stand*up good guy … ??? Interesting idea ...
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:And he lied to his supervisors and his attorney about what happened, and when the video surfaced, his attorney quit. There's only two legitimate reasons for an attorney to dump a client: the client can't pay, or the client intends to engage in further criminal activity, in this case, likely perjury and obstruction of justice.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Hmmmm, I thought it was because he shot an unarmed man who was progressively becoming less of a threat and then planted evidence to suggest a different narrative than what actually occurred. Silly me.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
]And of course, in this particular case, because the accused is a cop -- a *white* guy, at that -- he is naturally reflexively "presumed guilty" until he proves himself innocent in a court of law … (forget about "public opinion," in which he has already been not only accused, but tried and convicted, yes … ???)
I'm sure that there's plenty of Shipmates on this thread who are cynical about lawyers; what does it say when even a lawyer doesn't want to have anything to do with this cop?
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
... There's only two legitimate reasons for an attorney to dump a client: the client can't pay, or the client intends to engage in further criminal activity, in this case, likely perjury and obstruction of justice.
I'm sure that there's plenty of Shipmates on this thread who are cynical about lawyers; what does it say when even a lawyer doesn't want to have anything to do with this cop?
quote:Read what I wrote: there's only two reasons for an attorney to quit. From that, one can conclude that Tsarnaev's lawyer is pretty sure she'll get paid and that he won't be committing any crimes in the near future. Maybe your friend who used to be a defense attorney could explain ... oh, wait ...
Originally posted by Teilhard:
So … You're suggesting that because, say, the Tsarnaev kid (the surviving Boston Marathon Bomber), e.g., was and is represented by Counsel … it means that he is in reality an innocent fella, a stand*up good guy … ??? Interesting idea ...
quote:Are you -- or are you not -- suggesting that a person who is in deep trouble with the law does not deserve to be represented by an attorney … ???
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Read what I wrote: there's only two reasons for an attorney to quit. From that, one can conclude that Tsarnaev's lawyer is pretty sure she'll get paid and that he won't be committing any crimes in the near future. Maybe your friend who used to be a defense attorney could explain ... oh, wait ...
quote:I agree …
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Time to pull the handbrake on the runaway logic train.
quote:Teilhard, your posts on this thread might make rather more sense if you would distinguish a "capital crime" from the word "crime" written in capitals.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
The driver instead bolted from the vehicle and ran away (for reasons of his own) … which is a CRIME ...
In the video of a passer by, the taser is seen on the ground as the officer fires several shots at the (now criminal) driver who is again attempting to flee following his again having resisted arrest (which is a CRIME) …
quote:What makes you think anyone is arguing that more should be done to the cop in this case?
Originally posted by Teilhard:
What more should be done in THIS case -- a handy tree and a length of sturdy rope … ???
What do you want … ???
quote:That's the puzzle for me …
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:What makes you think anyone is arguing that more should be done to the cop in this case?
Originally posted by Teilhard:
What more should be done in THIS case -- a handy tree and a length of sturdy rope … ???
What do you want … ???
quote:You have failed to comprehend the meaning of my question.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
quote:That's the puzzle for me …
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:What makes you think anyone is arguing that more should be done to the cop in this case?
Originally posted by Teilhard:
What more should be done in THIS case -- a handy tree and a length of sturdy rope … ???
What do you want … ???
The cop has been (A) charged and (B) fired …
From this point, the legal process will go forward …
So ...
quote:It would be worthwhile to review the investigation of the previous complaint by a citizen that ended with the investigation clearing him without ever interviewing the complainant or witnesses.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
But, entirely seriously … I'm not clear what the cop bashers are wanting in this case …
The officer has been:
(1) charged with murder … and, (2) fired …
I expect that he will be brought to trial (or that the case will be adjudicated via a plea bargain) …
So, really … ???
What more should be done in THIS case -- a handy tree and a length of sturdy rope … ???
What do you want … ???
quote:Okay …
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:You have failed to comprehend the meaning of my question.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
quote:That's the puzzle for me …
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:What makes you think anyone is arguing that more should be done to the cop in this case?
Originally posted by Teilhard:
What more should be done in THIS case -- a handy tree and a length of sturdy rope … ???
What do you want … ???
The cop has been (A) charged and (B) fired …
From this point, the legal process will go forward …
So ...
You apparently think someone on this thread is arguing that more should be done. What gives you that idea?
quote:As I understand that previous case, it was indeed a cut*and*dried situation that certainly didn't require some extensive huge "investigation" …
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
quote:It would be worthwhile to review the investigation of the previous complaint by a citizen that ended with the investigation clearing him without ever interviewing the complainant or witnesses.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
But, entirely seriously … I'm not clear what the cop bashers are wanting in this case …
The officer has been:
(1) charged with murder … and, (2) fired …
I expect that he will be brought to trial (or that the case will be adjudicated via a plea bargain) …
So, really … ???
What more should be done in THIS case -- a handy tree and a length of sturdy rope … ???
What do you want … ???
The problem is not just inept or bad policeman, it's the culture of cover up.
quote:Well, no. You're wanting to treat each individual case in isolation. That is indeed the function of the criminal justice system - to determine whether the cop in each case was acting lawfully when he killed someone, or whether he should be convicted of some crime.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
Okay …
The discussion is rendered moot
quote:I am indeed not interested in endorsing any broad brush blanket denunciations of "police" …
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:Well, no. You're wanting to treat each individual case in isolation. That is indeed the function of the criminal justice system - to determine whether the cop in each case was acting lawfully when he killed someone, or whether he should be convicted of some crime.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
Okay …
The discussion is rendered moot
In the bigger picture (that would be the "implications") most of us would like to investigate changes that might result in fewer dead people.
quote:"Properly" and "not" are not the sum total of the options.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
Clearly, e.g., the cop in the Ferguson case acted properly, while that cop in South Carolina did not …
quote:Well, sure, but that's like saying you're going to reduce the level of crime in your area by having fewer criminals. It's not something you can actually control.
So, e.g., I consider it simply reasonable to help ensure public safety in general -- of both police and ordinary citizens -- by expecting EVERYONE to obey the laws and to respect each other mutually …
quote:Yes, re playing to that particular narrative--which is often true, AIUI.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:Was on Sky last night. Dramatically very powerful. It did play very much to the narrative that there is institutional racism in US police forces, that ranks will close to defend an officer who shoots a member of a racial minority, that evidence will be manufactured/tampered with to support the closing of ranks.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Tonight's "The Lawn Chair" episode of ABC TV's "Scandal" is very relevant.
{Slight SPOILERS for series story arc:}
Olivia Pope is a "fixer" in Washington, DC. She fixes the problems of the rich, powerful, and famous. (Occasionally, other people, too.) She's African-American, and the sometime mistress and great love of the white president of the US.
In "The Lawn Chair", there's a Ferguson-type situation, and Olivia winds up right in the middle of it.
Very powerful episode. Looks at all sides. I haven't read the reviews, but I've seen headlines that indicate similar feelings.
It doesn't seem to be online yet. Maybe in a few days?
BUT
It did give the office of Attorney General a tick, when it comes to supporting the truth of things. And this review strikes me as spot on. Particularly this final summary.
quote:RL is not so straightforward.
This is a fantasy less of just and timely government intervention to punish racist violence than of a world where respectability politics actually works.
quote:Yes, this is my point, and why treating each case independently misses part of the analysis. Sure, each case is independent when it comes to the legality of the killing, but questions of training, standing orders and the like should depend on the ensemble of all cases.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
So far as "best available option" is concerned, none of the above means there is nothing to be learned, to be factored into training or "standing orders" for armed officers.
quote:Lots of things are crimes (rather than CRIMES), but that doesn't give the police carte blanche to shoot a fleeing suspect.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
(5) In the video of a passer by, the taser is seen on the ground as the officer fires several shots at the (now criminal) driver who is again attempting to flee following his again having resisted arrest (which is a CRIME) …
quote:IOW, each case is its own case …
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
There isn't always time for considered judgment. The law does allow for 20-20 hindsight over the legality of actions, but not over "best available option, all things considered". And that strikes me as fair. In Officer Wilson's case, the detailed findings, confirmed by the Justice Department's review, established the reality of significantly threatening behaviour. That answered the issue of legality of actions, and exonerated Officer Wilson. And in that specific case, that also strikes me as fair.
So far as "best available option" is concerned, none of the above means there is nothing to be learned, to be factored into training or "standing orders" for armed officers.
quote:And yet it's not as dangerous as people (and, it seems, the police) think it is.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
See … Police officers aren't showing up at a front door to sell tickets to the Policemens' Ball … They're doing work that is inherently dangerous …
quote:I'd be more inclined to believe this if you linked to the news article or police press release about it (people shooting at the police almost always make the news here). As it is, it seems like a fictional anecdote in service to your Narrative.
A few weeks ago I had a couple of conversations with a young officer in training … In his very FIRST ride*along with an experienced sworn officer, they went out to a house in the countryside to serve a warrant (generally a fairly routine matter) … When they stepped up to the front door, knocked, and identified themselves as, "Police …" … they were met by a HAIL of gunfire through the door … Fortunately, neither one of them was hit … They retreated to cover and the suspects made an escape out the back door into the woods …
quote:Well, sure. Keep your hands where the officer can see them. Don't make any sudden movements. Obey the officer's lawful commands.
See … there are good REASONS for certain routine police procedures, such as DEMANDING, "Keep both your hand where I can see them … " …
quote:Please define respect. I've gotten in trouble for things such as: failing to say sir, saying sir when the officer thought I was being sarcastic, failing to answer a question I didn't understand fast enough, and having the wrong look on my face.
So, e.g., I consider it simply reasonable to help ensure public safety in general -- of both police and ordinary citizens -- by expecting EVERYONE to obey the laws and to respect each other mutually …
quote:Yes, your understanding is that when a complaint is filed, you should just ask the policeman what happened and not talk to witnesses or the complainant. It's just a cut and dried situation where you of course take the word the policeman and not doubt that he's not telling the truth. And if some unhelpful video shows up that shows that the policeman lied and acted wrongfully, just run around screaming "It's a MESS, It's a MESS" and far too complicated to figure out.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
quote:As I understand that previous case, it was indeed a cut*and*dried situation that certainly didn't require some extensive huge "investigation" …
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
quote:It would be worthwhile to review the investigation of the previous complaint by a citizen that ended with the investigation clearing him without ever interviewing the complainant or witnesses.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
But, entirely seriously … I'm not clear what the cop bashers are wanting in this case …
The officer has been:
(1) charged with murder … and, (2) fired …
I expect that he will be brought to trial (or that the case will be adjudicated via a plea bargain) …
So, really … ???
What more should be done in THIS case -- a handy tree and a length of sturdy rope … ???
What do you want … ???
The problem is not just inept or bad policeman, it's the culture of cover up.
See … Police officers aren't showing up at a front door to sell tickets to the Policemens' Ball … They're doing work that is inherently dangerous …
So when the "complainant" in that case flat refused to: (1) step outside so the officer could speak with him, OR (2) present both his hands in clear view … at that point the officer made a judgment call in order to protect his own safety and life … Hence, the use of a taser …
A few weeks ago I had a couple of conversations with a young officer in training … In his very FIRST ride*along with an experienced sworn officer, they went out to a house in the countryside to serve a warrant (generally a fairly routine matter) … When they stepped up to the front door, knocked, and identified themselves as, "Police …" … they were met by a HAIL of gunfire through the door … Fortunately, neither one of them was hit … They retreated to cover and the suspects made an escape out the back door into the woods …
See … there are good REASONS for certain routine police procedures, such as DEMANDING, "Keep both your hand where I can see them … " …
One of the ongoing difficulties in understanding/discussing any of these cases is that many people simply have no idea just how difficult and dangerous routine police work can be ...
quote:Again … I have not "defended" the South Carolina officer … I simply want to know what happened, and why … before I join in a chorus of condemnation … I do note that he has been both charged and fired …
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
quote:Yes, your understanding is that when a complaint is filed, you should just ask the policeman what happened and not talk to witnesses or the complainant. It's just a cut and dried situation where you of course take the word the policeman and not doubt that he's not telling the truth. And if some unhelpful video shows up that shows that the policeman lied and acted wrongfully, just run around screaming "It's a MESS, It's a MESS" and far too complicated to figure out.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
quote:As I understand that previous case, it was indeed a cut*and*dried situation that certainly didn't require some extensive huge "investigation" …
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
quote:It would be worthwhile to review the investigation of the previous complaint by a citizen that ended with the investigation clearing him without ever interviewing the complainant or witnesses.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
But, entirely seriously … I'm not clear what the cop bashers are wanting in this case …
The officer has been:
(1) charged with murder … and, (2) fired …
I expect that he will be brought to trial (or that the case will be adjudicated via a plea bargain) …
So, really … ???
What more should be done in THIS case -- a handy tree and a length of sturdy rope … ???
What do you want … ???
The problem is not just inept or bad policeman, it's the culture of cover up.
See … Police officers aren't showing up at a front door to sell tickets to the Policemens' Ball … They're doing work that is inherently dangerous …
So when the "complainant" in that case flat refused to: (1) step outside so the officer could speak with him, OR (2) present both his hands in clear view … at that point the officer made a judgment call in order to protect his own safety and life … Hence, the use of a taser …
A few weeks ago I had a couple of conversations with a young officer in training … In his very FIRST ride*along with an experienced sworn officer, they went out to a house in the countryside to serve a warrant (generally a fairly routine matter) … When they stepped up to the front door, knocked, and identified themselves as, "Police …" … they were met by a HAIL of gunfire through the door … Fortunately, neither one of them was hit … They retreated to cover and the suspects made an escape out the back door into the woods …
See … there are good REASONS for certain routine police procedures, such as DEMANDING, "Keep both your hand where I can see them … " …
One of the ongoing difficulties in understanding/discussing any of these cases is that many people simply have no idea just how difficult and dangerous routine police work can be ...
The rest of us have a different understanding on how the police should be regulated. Complaints should be investigated. Officers who commit errors should be retrained or if necessary removed from the position where they can damage citizens. Police who cover up felonies by other police should be removed.
The larger point in this case is not the treatment of the officer, or your pathetic arguments in defense of him, but that this is one incident which happened while someone was taking a video of it. A number of people living there have pointed out there are other complaints that were ignored. Not all complaints are valid, but if you don't do a valid investigation, how can you know if they are valid complaints?
quote:No, sometimes it involves putting your life on the line. Here's how it should be done.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
Oh, yeah … Police work is … what … ??? … Coffee breaks at the donut shop and harassing black guys for fun … ???
quote:Umm … Yes … ???
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:No, sometimes it involves putting your life on the line. Here's how it should be done.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
Oh, yeah … Police work is … what … ??? … Coffee breaks at the donut shop and harassing black guys for fun … ???
quote:(1) Brian Fitch shot Officer Patrick face*to*face, and then in the head -- NOT in the back …
Originally posted by Eutychus:
(4) not shot a fleeing suspect in the back for no good reason.
Triple question marks do not an argument make, by the way.
quote:Really? Do you really not see the difference between
Originally posted by Teilhard:
See, it ISN'T the case that "cops can get away with anything" ...
quote:and "cops can get away with anything"?
But until the police (who currently know they can do just about anything they want and get away with it) start getting held accountable more regularly, until they start approaching people in a way that is more likely to de-escalate the situation than escalate it, I don't have another choice.
quote:Your strawman convinces no one.
Coffee breaks at the donut shop and harassing black guys for fun … ???
quote:In the recent Minnesota case I have been citing (July 30, 2014), both the murderer and the officer were *white* … They were both also male, which is the best predictor of a problematic legal situation ("testosterone poisoning," which knows no bounds of race or economic status) …
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:Really? Do you really not see the difference between
Originally posted by Teilhard:
See, it ISN'T the case that "cops can get away with anything" ...
quote:and "cops can get away with anything"?
But until the police (who currently know they can do just about anything they want and get away with it) start getting held accountable more regularly, until they start approaching people in a way that is more likely to de-escalate the situation than escalate it, I don't have another choice.
And do you really think that this example, where the police had already released a statement clearing the officer of any wrongdoing before the video surfaced, helps your argument?
Oh, yes, cops can be held accountable if there happens to be a witness who takes video of the incident, as long as the police officer doesn't notice him and erase the video footage, and as long as he has the sense to go to the media with the footage instead of doing what the police tell people to do, which is bring the evidence of any crime or wrongdoing to them.
Sure, that totally points to a system where the cops are poor victims who are justified in feeling under siege because people question their actions or criticize them sometimes.
quote:Your strawman convinces no one.
Coffee breaks at the donut shop and harassing black guys for fun … ???
And they don't limit themselves to black guys, although black men do tend to produce the most reliable source of slave labor.
quote:I'm suggesting that if people were a little less afraid that any contact with police might result in their death - if they thought that they would treated with respect - there might be less violence between police and citizens.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
(2) You are suggesting that cops should perform routine traffic stops differently … ???? Yes or no … ????
quote:??? How is this a response to what I said?
Originally posted by Teilhard:
In the recent Minnesota case I have been citing (July 30, 2014), both the murderer and the officer were *white*
quote:Oh, please … VERY VERY few "contacts with police" result in the death of a citizen … It is RARE, which is why it makes the evening news and provokes so much interest and anxiety …
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:I'm suggesting that if people were a little less afraid that any contact with police might result in their death - if they thought that they would treated with respect - there might be less violence between police and citizens.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
(2) You are suggesting that cops should perform routine traffic stops differently … ???? Yes or no … ????
quote:You posted something (above) about "black guys" as a "reliable source of slave labor" …
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:??? How is this a response to what I said?
Originally posted by Teilhard:
In the recent Minnesota case I have been citing (July 30, 2014), both the murderer and the officer were *white*
quote:I believe the last time we had this exchange I asked you in what universe one death every eight hours counts as rare. I don't believe you answered my question.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
Oh, please … VERY VERY few "contacts with police" result in the death of a citizen … It is RARE, which is why it makes the evening news and provokes so much interest and anxiety …
quote:Are you more of a 'no shit Sherlock' or 'thank you Captain Obvious' type of person?
You posted something (above) about "black guys" as a "reliable source of slave labor" …
Not all crooks are *black* … and not all police-citizen encounters are ANYTHING about "race" ...
quote:Having served as a chaplain in a super-max for adult male felons and having visited not a few persons in other correctional facilities, I know that the snarky bit about "slave labor" is simply nonsense …
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:I believe the last time we had this exchange I asked you in what universe one death every eight hours counts as rare. I don't believe you answered my question.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
Oh, please … VERY VERY few "contacts with police" result in the death of a citizen … It is RARE, which is why it makes the evening news and provokes so much interest and anxiety …
Citizens are far more likely to be killed by police than police are to be killed by citizens. And that's not counting the more routine beatings that don't lead to death. And it doesn't usually make the news unless there's mass protesting unless you're living in Bizarro world.
But I'm also guessing you're not going to care until it happens to you or someone you love.
quote:Are you more of a 'no shit Sherlock' or 'thank you Captain Obvious' type of person?
You posted something (above) about "black guys" as a "reliable source of slave labor" …
Not all crooks are *black* … and not all police-citizen encounters are ANYTHING about "race" ...
Do you deny that the majority of prisoners (modern day slave labor) currently being held in the US are black or brown men?
quote:What do you call it when the state chooses who to incarcerate, pays them sometimes as little as 18 cents an hour in order to not only do jobs necessary to the running of the prison, but also to manufacture furniture which is in large part used to furnish state office buildings? And then charges them more than $1/hour to talk on the phone, and then hits them with a bunch of fines and fees they'll never be able to pay when they get out, thus practically guaranteeing that they will return?
Originally posted by Teilhard:
Having served as a chaplain in a super-max for adult male felons and having visited not a few persons in other correctional facilities, I know that the snarky bit about "slave labor" is simply nonsense …
quote:You seem to be missing the point: this thread is titled Ferguson and its implications. Most of the people on it are trying to talk about the systemic problems. You, on the other hand, seem to be intent on insisting that every case is an isolated incident.
I don't see the South Carolina case as being any example of these problems, however ...
quote:Certainly one option that a resident may choose is to stay in his cell all day rather than do some useful and interesting work for which he is paid (indeed at a VERY low rate) … The reason, however, that prison industries in general operate as they do is so as not to compete with industries on the *outside* ...
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:What do you call it when the state chooses who to incarcerate, pays them sometimes as little as 18 cents an hour in order to not only do jobs necessary to the running of the prison, but also to manufacture furniture which is in large part used to furnish state office buildings? And then charges them more than $1/hour to talk on the phone, and then hits them with a bunch of fines and fees they'll never be able to pay when they get out, thus practically guaranteeing that they will return?
Originally posted by Teilhard:
Having served as a chaplain in a super-max for adult male felons and having visited not a few persons in other correctional facilities, I know that the snarky bit about "slave labor" is simply nonsense …
quote:You seem to be missing the point: this thread is titled Ferguson and its implications. Most of the people on it are trying to talk about the systemic problems. You, on the other hand, seem to be intent on insisting that every case is an isolated incident.
I don't see the South Carolina case as being any example of these problems, however ...
They are not isolated incidents. In the past week, the cops in my city (not state: city) have shot one person (not fatally), beaten one person to death, and sent three more (including a toddler) to the hospital by hitting them with their car.
quote:And do you not understand that slavery and segregation etc. were once "laws" that deserved no "respect"?
Originally posted by Teilhard:
But they are a DIFFERENT question that the social glue of "respect for the Laws" …
quote:Right. "cases"... in which people "chose for themselves"... Seriously, what is it with you and your three question marks and periods while defending the undefensible?
The kid in Ferguson and the guy in South Carolina unfortunately chose for themselves to break the Laws …
No … I do not see the individual cases as "isolated incidents," but as "cases" ...
quote:Huh … Requiring that a motor vehicle in South Carolina must have functioning brake lights is a law akin to "segregation" and it is a law that "deserves no respect" … ???? Really … ???? Why … ????
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:And do you not understand that slavery and segregation etc. were once "laws" that deserved no "respect"?
Originally posted by Teilhard:
But they are a DIFFERENT question that the social glue of "respect for the Laws" …
quote:Right. "cases"... in which people "chose for themselves"... Seriously, what is it with you and your three question marks and periods while defending the undefensible?
The kid in Ferguson and the guy in South Carolina unfortunately chose for themselves to break the Laws …
No … I do not see the individual cases as "isolated incidents," but as "cases" ...
quote:We were talking about the investigation of the prior complaint where you just defended the investigation as "cut and dried" Remember. You seem to be able to leap to that conclusion just fine.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
… I have not "defended" the South Carolina officer … I simply want to know what happened, and why … before I join in a chorus of condemnation … I do note that he has been both charged and fired …
See, it ISN'T the case that "cops can get away with anything" ...
quote:It is not too dangerous for the police officer investigating the complaint to actually talk to the complainant and witnesses to see what they have to say rather than just listen to the policeman.
As I understand that previous case, it was indeed a cut*and*dried situation that certainly didn't require some extensive huge "investigation" …
See … Police officers aren't showing up at a front door to sell tickets to the Policemens' Ball … They're doing work that is inherently dangerous …
quote:I fail to see what bearing this has on the recent S. Carolina case. My view of this and the other high-profile cases discussed is that a police culture of impunity in which officers think they can get away with shooting fleeing suspects who are a posing no immediate threat to them needs changing (and would, I suspect, make incidents like the one you relate less likely).
Originally posted by Teilhard:
(1) Brian Fitch shot Officer Patrick face*to*face, and then in the head -- NOT in the back …
(2) You are suggesting that cops should perform routine traffic stops differently … ???? Yes or no … ????
quote:You keep going on about this case - wWhy do you think that it is relevant?
Originally posted by Teilhard:
Should he have performed his (supposedly routine) police duty differently … ??? How so … ???
quote:Again, I have consistently agreed that in the South Carolina case, given the facts as we now have them, charging and firing the cop was the correct thing … So …
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:I fail to see what bearing this has on the recent S. Carolina case. My view of this and the other high-profile cases discussed is that a police culture of impunity in which officers think they can get away with shooting fleeing suspects who are a posing no immediate threat to them needs changing (and would, I suspect, make incidents like the one you relate less likely).
Originally posted by Teilhard:
(1) Brian Fitch shot Officer Patrick face*to*face, and then in the head -- NOT in the back …
(2) You are suggesting that cops should perform routine traffic stops differently … ???? Yes or no … ????
Your sole argument seems to be "perps should behave better". Your self-righteous assertion that you paid your traffic fine like a nice model citizen and escaped unscathed suggests to me that you have zero empathy for people who might have good reason to expect they won't get a fair deal from law enforcement and whose sole experience of it has been unfair.
Did you really not learn anything from the guys you met in the supermax about that reality? Or did you believe that the prosecutors, cops and judges never once bent the truth in their own favour, or failed to implement due process, to secure a conviction?
The guy was wrong to run and his flight was most probably motivated by guilt for something more than his tail light, but he doesn't deserve to be summarily executed. Off the top of my head, from my prison experience I can think of three people straight away who fled police. All three are complete delinquents but I'm very glad they are alive and got their day in court - and so I would think are their families.
As I said earlier, physical danger goes with the territory of being in uniform, but it is not a license to perform summary justice - something the cop in the video I linked to clearly understood better than you do.
quote:One of the reasons I have several times presented the Officer Scott Patrick tragedy is simply to remind that patrol officers face such a possibility every hour of every day on the job …
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:You keep going on about this case - wWhy do you think that it is relevant?
Originally posted by Teilhard:
Should he have performed his (supposedly routine) police duty differently … ??? How so … ???
I think we can all agree that shooting a cop who pulls you over is murder. And, assuming the shooter here acted with any sort of premeditation and self-control, there may well been absolutely nothing the victim could have done about it. Guns are dangerous. Pistols, particularly, can be kept hidden until just before firing, and a single shot can kill, so there will be gun murders where the victim simply has no chance to escape. This is not fair, or right, or just - it's just how guns work.
You seem to be arguing that the murder of a police officer by a motorist in Minnesota somehow (partially) excuses a trigger-happy cop in South Carolina when he shoots an unarmed, fleeing, man who was presenting no threat whatsoever. If you're right (hint: you're not) by the same logic the fatal shooting of a black man in Missouri by a police officer would have to excuse a black man in South Carolina running from an armed cop.
quote:A job which has such a high in-work death rate, it doesn't even appear in the top 10 most dangerous jobs in the US.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
One of the reasons I have several times presented the Officer Scott Patrick tragedy is simply to remind that patrol officers face such a possibility every hour of every day on the job
quote:And it certainly doesn't excuse unnecessary use of lethal force.
One of the reasons I have several times presented the Officer Scott Patrick tragedy is simply to remind that patrol officers face such a possibility every hour of every day on the job …
quote:Well, I'm beginning to see what you learned in your time as chaplain.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
E.g., virtually everybody held in custody resents it and a large percentage protest that they are in fact *innocent* ...
quote:Why, exactly, is the system of fraudulent charges and predatory policing that existed (exists?) in Ferguson worthy of respect?
Originally posted by Teilhard:
But they are a DIFFERENT question that the social glue of "respect for the Laws" …
quote:Could you expand on this a bit? How is it possible that prison-based clothing or furniture manufacture (for instance) does not compete with similar industries on the "outside"?
Originally posted by Teilhard:
Certainly one option that a resident may choose is to stay in his cell all day rather than do some useful and interesting work for which he is paid (indeed at a VERY low rate) … The reason, however, that prison industries in general operate as they do is so as not to compete with industries on the *outside* ...
quote:Several reasons:
Originally posted by Teilhard:
I do note that no one -- except me -- in these exchanges has expressed any disgust or outrage at the "summary execution" of Officer Scott Patrick by Brian Fitch …
quote:Oh, yes … Commercial fishing, mining, logging, farming -- are all dangerous occupations …
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:A job which has such a high in-work death rate, it doesn't even appear in the top 10 most dangerous jobs in the US.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
One of the reasons I have several times presented the Officer Scott Patrick tragedy is simply to remind that patrol officers face such a possibility every hour of every day on the job
Which is not to diminish the mental and physical risks officers may face, but talking them up does no one any favours - least of all the officers themselves.
quote:I agree …
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:And it certainly doesn't excuse unnecessary use of lethal force.
One of the reasons I have several times presented the Officer Scott Patrick tragedy is simply to remind that patrol officers face such a possibility every hour of every day on the job …
[edited for new page goodness]
quote:This sounds vaguely familiar (p. 5):
Originally posted by Teilhard:
OTOH, neither race nor gender nor religion nor economic status "excuse" anti-social behavior, either … Do they … ???
quote:Yup, if only "those people" were better behaved!
City officials have frequently asserted that the harsh and disparate results of Ferguson’s law enforcement system do not indicate problems with police or court practices, but instead reflect a pervasive lack of “personal responsibility” among “certain segments” of the community. Our investigation has found that the practices about which area residents have complained are in fact unconstitutional and unduly harsh. But the City’s personal-responsibility refrain is telling: it reflects many of the same racial stereotypes found in the emails between police and court supervisors. This evidence of bias and stereotyping, together with evidence that Ferguson has long recognized but failed to correct the consistent racial disparities caused by its police and court practices, demonstrates that the discriminatory effects of Ferguson’s conduct are driven at least in part by discriminatory intent in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
quote:Prison industries (in the USA) are small operations not run for profit and don't compete with *outside* companies by a bidding process or such … Their reason for being is not "economic," but rather for institutional reasons and in some cases, rehabilitation ...
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Why, exactly, is the system of fraudulent charges and predatory policing that existed (exists?) in Ferguson worthy of respect?
Originally posted by Teilhard:
But they are a DIFFERENT question that the social glue of "respect for the Laws" …
quote:Could you expand on this a bit? How is it possible that prison-based clothing or furniture manufacture (for instance) does not compete with similar industries on the "outside"?
Originally posted by Teilhard:
Certainly one option that a resident may choose is to stay in his cell all day rather than do some useful and interesting work for which he is paid (indeed at a VERY low rate) … The reason, however, that prison industries in general operate as they do is so as not to compete with industries on the *outside* ...
quote:The situation in Ferguson, Missouri was indeed not simply unfortunate by deeply unjust … but it is not a typical community, either …
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:This sounds vaguely familiar (p. 5):
Originally posted by Teilhard:
OTOH, neither race nor gender nor religion nor economic status "excuse" anti-social behavior, either … Do they … ???
quote:Yup, if only "those people" were better behaved!
City officials have frequently asserted that the harsh and disparate results of Ferguson’s law enforcement system do not indicate problems with police or court practices, but instead reflect a pervasive lack of “personal responsibility” among “certain segments” of the community. Our investigation has found that the practices about which area residents have complained are in fact unconstitutional and unduly harsh. But the City’s personal-responsibility refrain is telling: it reflects many of the same racial stereotypes found in the emails between police and court supervisors. This evidence of bias and stereotyping, together with evidence that Ferguson has long recognized but failed to correct the consistent racial disparities caused by its police and court practices, demonstrates that the discriminatory effects of Ferguson’s conduct are driven at least in part by discriminatory intent in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
quote:A large percentage of jail/prison residents committed crime(s) while intoxicated on *something* and many of those have frank addiction problems … Many incarcerated persons also struggle with serious mental illness … and many have a serious underlying personality disorder …
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:Well, I'm beginning to see what you learned in your time as chaplain.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
E.g., virtually everybody held in custody resents it and a large percentage protest that they are in fact *innocent* ...
Yes, in my experience too, many of those imprisoned resent it, but a much smaller proportion protest their complete innocence.
Also in my experience, irrespective of actual guilt, not a small proportion of that resentment is down to improper procedures and the denial of a right to a fair trial.
While it's ironic to see how quickly delinquents and criminals become sticklers for the finer points of law when it works in their favour, that doesn't mean they shouldn't benefit from the law. That's the whole point of equality before the law.
If you're of the constituency that thinks "well, they probably did something so screw their right to proper treatment", I think this conversation is likely to continue in Hell.
OK, like everyone else you bring your own baggage to this thread, but throwing it all at us does not constitute a rational argument.
In particular, neither the way people behave in prison and how dangerous law enforcement is have anything to do with unlawful use of lethal force by police officers.
quote:I'm not sure what your criteria are for "small operations", but US$1 billion per year wouldn't seem like it's "small" in anyone's estimation. Having a large (by everyone's estimation except yours) competitor that can pay below minimum wage, doesn't have to return a profit to shareholders, and doesn't have to go through the bidding process would seem to put any similar business at a significant disadvantage. Claiming that there's no economic competition involved would seem to rest on the assumption that the U.S. military wouldn't bother supplying its troops with uniforms (to take one example) if it couldn't do so through prison labor. To say this is a dubious assumption gives it too much credit.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
Prison industries (in the USA) are small operations not run for profit and don't compete with *outside* companies by a bidding process or such … Their reason for being is not "economic," but rather for institutional reasons and in some cases, rehabilitation ...
quote:By harping on about this "point" on this thread, the strong implication is that you believe that this "point" mitigates (or even justifies) the unlawful use of excessive and lethal force by the police.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
But my point still stands …
Gender, age, race, economic status, religion, political views, etc., do NOT "excuse" anti-social behavior … Do they … ???
quote:NO jail or prison in the USA operates for or at a profit … Incarceration is a VERY expensive thing … Again, prison industries are in place for two reasons: (1) to keep residents busy during the day and, (2) rehabilitation ...
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:I'm not sure what your criteria are for "small operations", but US$1 billion per year wouldn't seem like it's "small" in anyone's estimation. Having a large (by everyone's estimation except yours) competitor that can pay below minimum wage, doesn't have to return a profit to shareholders, and doesn't have to go through the bidding process would seem to put any similar business at a significant disadvantage. Claiming that there's no economic competition involved would seem to rest on the assumption that the U.S. military wouldn't bother supplying its troops with uniforms (to take one example) if it couldn't do so through prison labor. To say this is a dubious assumption gives it too much credit.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
Prison industries (in the USA) are small operations not run for profit and don't compete with *outside* companies by a bidding process or such … Their reason for being is not "economic," but rather for institutional reasons and in some cases, rehabilitation ...
quote:Nope, I hold no such view …
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:By harping on about this "point" on this thread, the strong implication is that you believe that this "point" mitigates (or even justifies) the unlawful use of excessive and lethal force by the police.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
But my point still stands …
Gender, age, race, economic status, religion, political views, etc., do NOT "excuse" anti-social behavior … Do they … ???
quote:Point to somewhere in this thread where someone's said that. Double-dare ya.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
But the idea then that one should just -- *shrug* -- when a police officer is murdered … ???
quote:What has most often happened (above) is a comment that, "Police work really isn't so dangerous … " and/or, (implied), "Cops bring this on themselves by the way they treat people …"
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:Point to somewhere in this thread where someone's said that. Double-dare ya.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
But the idea then that one should just -- *shrug* -- when a police officer is murdered … ???
All you've got is rhetoric. And no one is convinced.
quote:False! Like every other government function, a significant number of American prisons have been privatized. According to Wikipedia [caveat lector] the largest American for-profit prison operator had US$162.51 million in net income (a.k.a. profit) according to its 2011 financial statements. (Update yourself, Wikipedia!) Now you can argue that prisons shouldn't be operated for profit, but the fact is that they are.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
NO jail or prison in the USA operates for or at a profit …
quote:Which has nothing at all to do with your earlier assertion that prison labor doesn't "compete with industries on the *outside*". If you're providing a service directly comparable to other entities, you're competing with them. The only way you can claim there's no competition is to argue that the services provided would not be sought in the private sector if not available via prison labor, which seems a dubious proposition for a lot of the military equipment being produced.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
Incarceration is a VERY expensive thing … Again, prison industries are in place for two reasons: (1) to keep residents busy during the day and, (2) rehabilitation ...
quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:
NO jail or prison in the USA operates for or at a profit
quote:Source
In their 2011 third-quarter earnings report, the GEO group proudly announced an increase in profits from the previous year. This joyous news can be at least partially attributed to changes in immigration law, particularly in states like Arizona and Oklahoma, which allow for, among other things, the indefinite detention of illegal immigrants, including those whose asylum proceedings are underway. The majority of immigrants who are picked up by law enforcement officials, mostly on civil charges, like being caught with a broken tail light for instance, will end up in privately run prisons. In many of these facilities, they will be charged $5 per minute to call their loved ones, whilst earning $1 per day for their labor, from which the corporation running the facility will profit.
quote:What, exactly, are you basing this on? I know we'd all like to believe Ferguson was some anomalous outlier, but given the differential outcomes for black and white Americans' encounters with their justice system, this seems more aspirational than descriptive.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
The situation in Ferguson, Missouri was indeed not simply unfortunate by deeply unjust … but it is not a typical community, either …
quote:Bring what on themselves? Increased scrutiny of their claims? Why, exactly, would a skeptical approach to the Ferguson government's assertion that they have no problem with racism in its justice system be unjustified given their behavior?
Originally posted by Teilhard:
What has most often happened (above) is a comment that, "Police work really isn't so dangerous … " and/or, (implied), "Cops bring this on themselves by the way they treat people …"
quote:The private prison system holds about 10% of residents nationwide … NO prison or jail run by a county or a state or by the Feds operates at a profit …
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:False! Like every other government function, a significant number of American prisons have been privatized. According to Wikipedia [caveat lector] the largest American for-profit prison operator had US$162.51 million in net income (a.k.a. profit) according to its 2011 financial statements. (Update yourself, Wikipedia!) Now you can argue that prisons shouldn't be operated for profit, but the fact is that they are.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
NO jail or prison in the USA operates for or at a profit …
quote:Which has nothing at all to do with your earlier assertion that prison labor doesn't "compete with industries on the *outside*". If you're providing a service directly comparable to other entities, you're competing with them. The only way you can claim there's no competition is to argue that the services provided would not be sought in the private sector if not available via prison labor, which seems a dubious proposition for a lot of the military equipment being produced.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
Incarceration is a VERY expensive thing … Again, prison industries are in place for two reasons: (1) to keep residents busy during the day and, (2) rehabilitation ...
quote:It simply isn't as dangerous as many police would have the public believe. You cannot simultaneously have "Most police do not fire their weapon in the line of duty" with "It's a combat zone Out There, people".
Originally posted by Teilhard:
What has most often happened (above) is a comment that, "Police work really isn't so dangerous … "
quote:However, this is the very logic you use about fleeing arrest....
Originally posted by Teilhard:
and/or, (implied), "Cops bring this on themselves by the way they treat people …"
quote:(...)
Originally posted by Teilhard:
NO jail or prison in the USA operates for or at a profit …
quote:Instead of shifting your ground, how about conceding that your initial assertion was flat out wrong?
Originally posted by Teilhard:
NO prison or jail run by a county or a state or by the Feds operates at a profit …
quote:Which translates to "NO jail or prison in the USA operates for or at a profit … except for the ones that do". While undeniably true, it's hardly a breathtakingly insightful observation.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
The private prison system holds about 10% of residents nationwide … NO prison or jail run by a county or a state or by the Feds operates at a profit …
quote:No …
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:It simply isn't as dangerous as many police would have the public believe. You cannot simultaneously have "Most police do not fire their weapon in the line of duty" with "It's a combat zone Out There, people".
Originally posted by Teilhard:
What has most often happened (above) is a comment that, "Police work really isn't so dangerous … "
quote:However, this is the very logic you use about fleeing arrest....
Originally posted by Teilhard:
and/or, (implied), "Cops bring this on themselves by the way they treat people …"
quote:Ummm … Yes … Any and every *for*profit* company necessarily operates at a profit or it quickly goes out if business …
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Which translates to "NO jail or prison in the USA operates for or at a profit … except for the ones that do". While undeniably true, it's hardly a breathtakingly insightful observation.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
The private prison system holds about 10% of residents nationwide … NO prison or jail run by a county or a state or by the Feds operates at a profit …
quote:This is a true statement that means nothing. AFAIK, no US governmental agency is allowed a profit. Even should an agency bring in more revenue than it costs, it is not profit in the business sense. The word you may be looking for is surplus.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
NO prison or jail run by a county or a state or by the Feds operates at a profit …
quote:Not so silly.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
The vast majority -- 90% -- of jails and prisons in America are government owned and operated and operate at a staggering LOSS …
The "slave labor" bit is just silly ...
quote:NO government operated jail or prison in America generates either a net "profit" or a "surplus" or any such thing ...
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:This is a true statement that means nothing. AFAIK, no US governmental agency is allowed a profit. Even should an agency bring in more revenue than it costs, it is not profit in the business sense. The word you may be looking for is surplus.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
NO prison or jail run by a county or a state or by the Feds operates at a profit …
quote:Last chance: do you concede this is nowhere near what you initially asserted, to whit:
Originally posted by Teilhard:
NO government operated jail or prison in America generates either a net "profit" or a "surplus" or any such thing ...
quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:
NO jail or prison in the USA operates for or at a profit …
quote:So, you can't. Even if law enforcement was the safest profession on the planet, you'd still be struggling to find anyone who'd just shrug at the murder of just one officer.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
quote:What has most often happened (above) is a comment that, "Police work really isn't so dangerous … " and/or, (implied), "Cops bring this on themselves by the way they treat people …"
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:Point to somewhere in this thread where someone's said that. Double-dare ya.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
But the idea then that one should just -- *shrug* -- when a police officer is murdered … ???
All you've got is rhetoric. And no one is convinced.
quote:Apples and oranges …
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:Last chance: do you concede this is nowhere near what you initially asserted, to whit:
Originally posted by Teilhard:
NO government operated jail or prison in America generates either a net "profit" or a "surplus" or any such thing ...quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:
NO jail or prison in the USA operates for or at a profit …
quote:I think my "outrage meter" is well calibrated, thank you ...
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:So, you can't. Even if law enforcement was the safest profession on the planet, you'd still be struggling to find anyone who'd just shrug at the murder of just one officer.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
quote:What has most often happened (above) is a comment that, "Police work really isn't so dangerous … " and/or, (implied), "Cops bring this on themselves by the way they treat people …"
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:Point to somewhere in this thread where someone's said that. Double-dare ya.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
But the idea then that one should just -- *shrug* -- when a police officer is murdered … ???
All you've got is rhetoric. And no one is convinced.
You need to recalibrate your outrage meter, and read what people are actually saying.
quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:
Apples and oranges …
Armed (private) security guards aren't police officers, either ...
So, to whit. There are no private prisons in the US. Even if there are they make no money, and anyway they aren't real prisons.
quote:About 10% of incarcerated persons are in private for profit facilities …
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:
Apples and oranges …
Armed (private) security guards aren't police officers, either ...
quote:If you cannot be bothered to understand how your government works, re funding, I will not be bothered to instruct you.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
NO government operated jail or prison in America generates either a net "profit" or a "surplus" or any such thing ...
quote:Italics and bold mine.
Who is investing? At least 37 states have legalized the contracting of prison labor by private corporations that mount their operations inside state prisons. The list of such companies contains the cream of U.S. corporate society: IBM, Boeing, Motorola, Microsoft, AT&T, Wireless, Texas Instrument, Dell, Compaq, Honeywell, Hewlett-Packard, Nortel, Lucent Technologies, 3Com, Intel, Northern Telecom, TWA, Nordstrom’s, Revlon, Macy’s, Pierre Cardin, Target Stores, and many more. All of these businesses are excited about the economic boom generation by prison labor. Just between 1980 and 1994, profits went up from $392 million to $1.31 billion. Inmates in state penitentiaries generally receive the minimum wage for their work, but not all; in Colorado, they get about $2 per hour, well under the minimum. And in privately-run prisons, they receive as little as 17 cents per hour for a maximum of six hours a day, the equivalent of $20 per month. The highest-paying private prison is CCA in Tennessee, where prisoners receive 50 cents per hour for what they call “highly skilled positions.” At those rates, it is no surprise that inmates find the pay in federal prisons to be very generous. There, they can earn $1.25 an hour and work eight hours a day, and sometimes overtime. They can send home $200-$300 per month.
quote:Do the math …
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:If you cannot be bothered to understand how your government works, re funding, I will not be bothered to instruct you.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
NO government operated jail or prison in America generates either a net "profit" or a "surplus" or any such thing ...
And, as your argument does not reflect having read my link, I will quote a relevant part to you.
quote:Italics and bold mine.
Who is investing? At least 37 states have legalized the contracting of prison labor by private corporations that mount their operations inside state prisons. The list of such companies contains the cream of U.S. corporate society: IBM, Boeing, Motorola, Microsoft, AT&T, Wireless, Texas Instrument, Dell, Compaq, Honeywell, Hewlett-Packard, Nortel, Lucent Technologies, 3Com, Intel, Northern Telecom, TWA, Nordstrom’s, Revlon, Macy’s, Pierre Cardin, Target Stores, and many more. All of these businesses are excited about the economic boom generation by prison labor. Just between 1980 and 1994, profits went up from $392 million to $1.31 billion. Inmates in state penitentiaries generally receive the minimum wage for their work, but not all; in Colorado, they get about $2 per hour, well under the minimum. And in privately-run prisons, they receive as little as 17 cents per hour for a maximum of six hours a day, the equivalent of $20 per month. The highest-paying private prison is CCA in Tennessee, where prisoners receive 50 cents per hour for what they call “highly skilled positions.” At those rates, it is no surprise that inmates find the pay in federal prisons to be very generous. There, they can earn $1.25 an hour and work eight hours a day, and sometimes overtime. They can send home $200-$300 per month.
It is not private prison v. state prison, but making a profit from prisoners. The selling point is that these profits offset the costs of incarceration. The reality is that incarceration has increased, even though crime has gone down.
quote:Do the thinking. Profit if profit is to be made, this will be the incentive, not whether people should be incarcerated.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
Do the math …
quote:You don't really want to have a discussion …
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'm through with trying to have an intelligent, on-topic discussion with you here. Try here instead.
quote:Go ahead, cross the road and find out.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
quote:You don't really want to have a discussion …
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'm through with trying to have an intelligent, on-topic discussion with you here. Try here instead.
You only want everybody to agree with you …
I get it ...
quote:One could, I suppose, try to cut expenses by having positions staffed by unpaid volunteers … Or/and, by cutting amenities to ZERO -- no weight room, no basketball court, no availability of cable TV … NO dessert included with supper … NO therapy or education programs … Just lock 'em up ...
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Do the thinking. Profit if profit is to be made, this will be the incentive, not whether people should be incarcerated.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
Do the math …
If a local agency can find a source to help defray local costs, they will. This, more than proper treatment, will inform who they arrest and how long they keep them.
It does not matter that the system costs more than the amount they get in return, but that components within that system see benefit.
quote:I'm here … I'm posting to the topics …
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Go ahead, cross the road and find out.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
quote:You don't really want to have a discussion …
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'm through with trying to have an intelligent, on-topic discussion with you here. Try here instead.
You only want everybody to agree with you …
I get it ...
quote:Again, where? Unless you believe that holding the police to the same standard of the law as civilians is "anti-police", then this is just rhetoric with no basis in fact.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
The fact is that I don't just join harmoniously in the chorus of anti-police songs, and that seems to be a problem for some …
quote:1) A citizens review board to look at all use of force incidents and make recommendations. You'll want the board to be composed primarily of former military or former cops (or other people who have been in the position of having to make a fast call about whether or not to use force and how much force).
Originally posted by Teilhard:
But, seriously …
(Aside from imposed limitations on use of *question*marks*)
What specific reforms do you suggest … ???
quote:I do tend to give extra "slack" to the police unless I have good reason otherwise …
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:Again, where? Unless you believe that holding the police to the same standard of the law as civilians is "anti-police", then this is just rhetoric with no basis in fact.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
The fact is that I don't just join harmoniously in the chorus of anti-police songs, and that seems to be a problem for some …
You're consistently misrepresenting people's posts and opinions. It's making you look stupid. Why would you want to do that?
quote:In addition, I favor -- and I have lobbied for -- changes in the laws such that convicted persons are not further penalized upon completion of sentence (by being essentially barred from employment, housing, credit, and so on) …
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:1) A citizens review board to look at all use of force incidents and make recommendations. You'll want the board to be composed primarily of former military or former cops (or other people who have been in the position of having to make a fast call about whether or not to use force and how much force).
Originally posted by Teilhard:
But, seriously …
(Aside from imposed limitations on use of *question*marks*)
What specific reforms do you suggest … ???
2) A change in police officers' Bill of Rights and employment law to make it easier to remove officers who have had multiple complaints made against them even if the majority believes that criminal charges aren't warranted.
3) Some form of prosecutorial oversight to make it more difficult to to completely overcharge based on little to no evidence because they know they won't get caught and the defendant will likely take a plea deal. Consequences (such as job loss) when they are caught in any of the prosecutorial misconduct that runs rampant and is seldom punished.
That'll do for a start.
quote:If you mean by "slack", you think that police officers should be held to a different, lower standard of behaviour than the people they purportedly serve, then you deserve every moment of your Hell call.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
But, no … Ordinary citizens are not allowed to do some things that the police are allowed to do ...
quote:Which makes it an interesting example of "lemon socialism": privatized profits, socialized losses/costs. I don't think it serves discussion well to pretend that this isn't an example of government providing a massive subsidy to private business in the form of a sub-minimum wage work force with no ability to unionize and extremely limited ability to do anything about unsafe work conditions or predatory management practices. You can argue (and have, sort of, argued) that labor is beneficial to the imprisoned, but pretending such labor isn't competing with free laborers doing the same jobs is a fatuous denial of reality.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
quote:Do the math …
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Who is investing? At least 37 states have legalized the contracting of prison labor by private corporations that mount their operations inside state prisons. The list of such companies contains the cream of U.S. corporate society: IBM, Boeing, Motorola, Microsoft, AT&T, Wireless, Texas Instrument, Dell, Compaq, Honeywell, Hewlett-Packard, Nortel, Lucent Technologies, 3Com, Intel, Northern Telecom, TWA, Nordstrom’s, Revlon, Macy’s, Pierre Cardin, Target Stores, and many more. All of these businesses are excited about the economic boom generation by prison labor. Just between 1980 and 1994, profits went up from $392 million to $1.31 billion. Inmates in state penitentiaries generally receive the minimum wage for their work, but not all; in Colorado, they get about $2 per hour, well under the minimum. And in privately-run prisons, they receive as little as 17 cents per hour for a maximum of six hours a day, the equivalent of $20 per month. The highest-paying private prison is CCA in Tennessee, where prisoners receive 50 cents per hour for what they call “highly skilled positions.” At those rates, it is no surprise that inmates find the pay in federal prisons to be very generous. There, they can earn $1.25 an hour and work eight hours a day, and sometimes overtime. They can send home $200-$300 per month.
The annual cost of jails and prisons in the USA is around $75,000,000,000 … (that's 75 BILLION dollars) ...
quote:Well, sort of.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
I'm here … I'm posting to the topics …
quote:Absolutely incorrect. It is that you are ignoring real problems and the fact that the police are not neutral in judging police behaviour. Or neutral in who they target.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
The fact is that I don't just join harmoniously in the chorus of anti-police songs, and that seems to be a problem for some …
quote:White man in a white man's world. You can, much more easily, ignore the very real culture of racism which still infects society. Not saying everyone is racist, but that there exist inequities and the impetus to fix them is not the same for those not affected. Or even to notice them.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
I do post out of my own life experience and long reflection on it ...
quote:Generally,
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:If you mean by "slack", you think that police officers should be held to a different, lower standard of behaviour than the people they purportedly serve, then you deserve every moment of your Hell call.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
But, no … Ordinary citizens are not allowed to do some things that the police are allowed to do ...
quote:The broad huge deep problem of "racism" (and racial injustice and disparities in the judicial system) IS a problem … I have never indicated otherwise …
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Well, sort of.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
I'm here … I'm posting to the topics …
quote:Absolutely incorrect. It is that you are ignoring real problems and the fact that the police are not neutral in judging police behaviour. Or neutral in who they target.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
The fact is that I don't just join harmoniously in the chorus of anti-police songs, and that seems to be a problem for some …
quote:White man in a white man's world. You can, much more easily, ignore the very real culture of racism which still infects society. Not saying everyone is racist, but that there exist inequities and the impetus to fix them is not the same for those not affected. Or even to notice them.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
I do post out of my own life experience and long reflection on it ...
quote:Well, again … I suppose we could save some $$$ by asking correctional officers to work as unpaid volunteers …
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Which makes it an interesting example of "lemon socialism": privatized profits, socialized losses/costs. I don't think it serves discussion well to pretend that this isn't an example of government providing a massive subsidy to private business in the form of a sub-minimum wage work force with no ability to unionize and extremely limited ability to do anything about unsafe work conditions or predatory management practices. You can argue (and have, sort of, argued) that labor is beneficial to the imprisoned, but pretending such labor isn't competing with free laborers doing the same jobs is a fatuous denial of reality.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
quote:Do the math …
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Who is investing? At least 37 states have legalized the contracting of prison labor by private corporations that mount their operations inside state prisons. The list of such companies contains the cream of U.S. corporate society: IBM, Boeing, Motorola, Microsoft, AT&T, Wireless, Texas Instrument, Dell, Compaq, Honeywell, Hewlett-Packard, Nortel, Lucent Technologies, 3Com, Intel, Northern Telecom, TWA, Nordstrom’s, Revlon, Macy’s, Pierre Cardin, Target Stores, and many more. All of these businesses are excited about the economic boom generation by prison labor. Just between 1980 and 1994, profits went up from $392 million to $1.31 billion. Inmates in state penitentiaries generally receive the minimum wage for their work, but not all; in Colorado, they get about $2 per hour, well under the minimum. And in privately-run prisons, they receive as little as 17 cents per hour for a maximum of six hours a day, the equivalent of $20 per month. The highest-paying private prison is CCA in Tennessee, where prisoners receive 50 cents per hour for what they call “highly skilled positions.” At those rates, it is no surprise that inmates find the pay in federal prisons to be very generous. There, they can earn $1.25 an hour and work eight hours a day, and sometimes overtime. They can send home $200-$300 per month.
The annual cost of jails and prisons in the USA is around $75,000,000,000 … (that's 75 BILLION dollars) ...
Very little of what most governments do generates a profit. In fact, most of the problems people try to resolve via the state are things that aren't easily amenable to market-based solutions. But the argument that the best possible activity for prisoners is as workers for profit-making enterprises, training for jobs that by definition are under threat due to competition from a subsidized prison labor system, is one that should be made without hand-waving away the larger (and fairly obvious) economic considerations. Given the realities of prison labor, why isn't it accurate to see the system as a massive $75 billion subsidy the U.S. government is paying to private enterprise? Again, it may be possible to argue that this kind of subsidy is justified, but that argument should be made explicitly in its own terms, not by pretending it's something else.
quote:We're no nearer understanding what you actually mean by this.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
I do tend to give extra "slack" to the police unless I have good reason otherwise
quote:The issue of imprisonment and its various paradoxes is entirely irrelevant to the accountability or otherwise of police forces.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
Or, alternatively … I suppose we could send convicted violent offenders to live in YOUR basement apartment for a couple of years ...
quote:Every person is affected by their identity, yes. But they are not equal experiences.
But, while I am indeed a *white*guy* my own world is NOT exclusively either "white" or all "guy" …
But, yes … EVERY person -- of every race and ethnic identity and gender and age and social/economic circumstance -- is influenced by her/his own history and life experiences …
This is true for EVERY person -- not just *white*guys* (or even, *black*guys*) … nor just "crooks" and "cops" ...
quote:I tend to give the police "extra slack" in their work precisely because some of the things they do -- are EXPECTED to do !!! -- are by their nature *dicey* at best (use of force, including deadly force)
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:We're no nearer understanding what you actually mean by this.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
I do tend to give extra "slack" to the police unless I have good reason otherwise
"Giving extra slack" to police does not imply, as you suggest, allowing them to run stop signs and so forth, since these are things which in certain circumstances they are allowed, by law, to do (as indeed they are permitted to use lethal force in certain circumstances).
It implies being more indulgent with police than with the general public when they do things they are not allowed, by law, to do.
That's the clear implication of "giving extra slack to police". If that's not what you mean by that comment, you have some explaining to do.
quote:So in your view people doing something "dicey" are allowed (apparently even expected) to screw up more than people doing things that aren't "dicey"? That's messed up.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
I tend to give the police "extra slack" in their work precisely because some of the things they do -- are EXPECTED to do !!! -- are by their nature *dicey* at best (use of force, including deadly force)
quote:The trouble with people these days is they expect to have rights (use of force including deadly force) without responsibilities (being held to higher standards with less slack).
Originally posted by Teilhard:
I tend to give the police "extra slack" in their work precisely because some of the things they do -- are EXPECTED to do !!! -- are by their nature *dicey* at best (use of force, including deadly force)
quote:You know, I'd like it if these were the choices. But it seems to me police departments too often make the choice "cop did nothing wrong according to our procedures" or "cop will face criminal charges."
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I'd guess that the result of the investigation will be either "cop reacted reasonably to perceived threat" or "cop screwed up and will face the following punishment / re-education / whatever".
quote:"if you don't ask the right question, every answer seems wrong"
I suspect it will not consider the question of whether the police department's training is at fault. I suspect this to be the real answer.
quote:Yes … Everybody ELSE should be required to follow the law and respect everyone else's rights (but exceptions must be made in MY case, i.e., I should be allowed to drive a vehicle without brake lights and I should be allowed to run away from the police, etc. …)
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:The trouble with people these days is they expect to have rights (use of force including deadly force) without responsibilities (being held to higher standards with less slack).
Originally posted by Teilhard:
I tend to give the police "extra slack" in their work precisely because some of the things they do -- are EXPECTED to do !!! -- are by their nature *dicey* at best (use of force, including deadly force)
quote:Indeed … There is no "equal" or "equivalent" to one's own life experiences … Some things simply cannot be received and apprehended vicariously -- they must be lived ...
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Originally posted by Teilhard:
quote:Every person is affected by their identity, yes. But they are not equal experiences.
But, while I am indeed a *white*guy* my own world is NOT exclusively either "white" or all "guy" …
But, yes … EVERY person -- of every race and ethnic identity and gender and age and social/economic circumstance -- is influenced by her/his own history and life experiences …
This is true for EVERY person -- not just *white*guys* (or even, *black*guys*) … nor just "crooks" and "cops" ...
quote:Everyone inevitably has "opinions" ("The Grand Canyon of Arizona is just a big hole in the ground … ") which may or may not be formed and informed by actual real world real life experience(s) ...
Originally posted by Porridge:
So we can only have opinions about what we've lived through?
That's going to make it tough to recruit juries. "I say, Mr. Jones, have you ever committed a B&E? No? Then m'lud / your honor (pick whatever applies your side of the pond), I challenge the seating of this juror, as he has no idea what the charge against my client is all about."
quote:This may actually be a contributing factor to police misconduct; the knowledge that a large segment of the general population will either automatically disbelieve such incidents or hand-wave them away. Given this, calls for changes in police training are likely to fall on deaf ears since the system already 'works' for those with the most ability to implement such changes.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:We're no nearer understanding what you actually mean by this.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
I do tend to give extra "slack" to the police unless I have good reason otherwise
"Giving extra slack" to police does not imply, as you suggest, allowing them to run stop signs and so forth, since these are things which in certain circumstances they are allowed, by law, to do (as indeed they are permitted to use lethal force in certain circumstances).
It implies being more indulgent with police than with the general public when they do things they are not allowed, by law, to do.
That's the clear implication of "giving extra slack to police". If that's not what you mean by that comment, you have some explaining to do.
quote:Increased and better training is always a good idea, for sure ...
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:This may actually be a contributing factor to police misconduct; the knowledge that a large segment of the general population will either automatically disbelieve such incidents or hand-wave them away. Given this, calls for changes in police training are likely to fall on deaf ears since the system already 'works' for those with the most ability to implement such changes.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:We're no nearer understanding what you actually mean by this.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
I do tend to give extra "slack" to the police unless I have good reason otherwise
"Giving extra slack" to police does not imply, as you suggest, allowing them to run stop signs and so forth, since these are things which in certain circumstances they are allowed, by law, to do (as indeed they are permitted to use lethal force in certain circumstances).
It implies being more indulgent with police than with the general public when they do things they are not allowed, by law, to do.
That's the clear implication of "giving extra slack to police". If that's not what you mean by that comment, you have some explaining to do.
Take the Scott shooting, for example. Why did Patrolman Slager feel so confident that he could get away with planting evidence and filing a fraudulent report? Most likely because he knew that, in the absence of overwhelming outside evidence, no one would question anything he did. Or that if anyone did ask questions they'd be derided as cop-haters. A system that is geared to only apply accountability in instances where blatant abuses are caught on video as they occur in real time is a system that invites abuses.
quote:When a police officer is exceeding the speed limit (lights and siren on), running stop signs and red lights, on occasion a tragic crash occurs, in which an innocent person is injured or killed; on occasion, a person is shot by an officer in a *dicey*iffy* situation that called for a split second decision by the officer (the Ferguson case comes to mind); sometimes a citizen is injured or dies while foolishly resisting arrest (the guy on the street corner in New York comes to mind); etc. …
Originally posted by Eutychus:
So what do you mean by "giving them extra slack"?
quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:
Increased and better training is always a good idea, for sure ...
quote:This is kind of the perfect illustration of why changes in training are doomed in the current context. Despite the NYPD having an established policy against using choke holds Officer Pantaleo was perfectly comfortable using one, knowing that if anything went wrong a large segment of the population would consider Eric Garner's struggles to breathe "resisting arrest" and think he got what he deserved. Interestingly enough, struggling when unable to breathe is instinctive, not voluntary, in most mammals (including humans).
Originally posted by Teilhard:
. . . sometimes a citizen is injured or dies while foolishly resisting arrest (the guy on the street corner in New York comes to mind); etc. …
For such kind of mistakes, I tend to favor not necessarily firing or charging the officer ...
quote:Certainly, in retrospect, a taser would have been a better choice … But the guy was huge -- ca. 300 pounds -- and was resisting before the "choke hold" was applied ..
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:
Increased and better training is always a good idea, for sure ...quote:This is kind of the perfect illustration of why changes in training are doomed in the current context. Despite the NYPD having an established policy against using choke holds Officer Pantaleo was perfectly comfortable using one, knowing that if anything went wrong a large segment of the population would consider Eric Garner's struggles to breathe "resisting arrest" and think he got what he deserved. Interestingly enough, struggling when unable to breathe is instinctive, not voluntary, in most mammals (including humans).
Originally posted by Teilhard:
. . . sometimes a citizen is injured or dies while foolishly resisting arrest (the guy on the street corner in New York comes to mind); etc. …
For such kind of mistakes, I tend to favor not necessarily firing or charging the officer ...
quote:Yet again illustrating why changes in training are futile in the current context. The policy against choke holds is considered an irrelevancy, something officers have the "choice" to ignore, and should suffer no consequences even when their use of the forbidden practice leads to the exact thing the practice was forbidden to prevent.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
quote:Certainly, in retrospect, a taser would have been a better choice … But the guy was huge -- ca. 300 pounds -- and was resisting before the "choke hold" was applied ..
Originally posted by Crœsos:
This is kind of the perfect illustration of why changes in training are doomed in the current context. Despite the NYPD having an established policy against using choke holds . . .
quote:Training and re-training are always at issue …
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Yet again illustrating why changes in training are futile in the current context. The policy against choke holds is considered an irrelevancy, something officers have the "choice" to ignore, and should suffer no consequences even when their use of the forbidden practice leads to the exact thing the practice was forbidden to prevent.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
quote:Certainly, in retrospect, a taser would have been a better choice … But the guy was huge -- ca. 300 pounds -- and was resisting before the "choke hold" was applied ..
Originally posted by Crœsos:
This is kind of the perfect illustration of why changes in training are doomed in the current context. Despite the NYPD having an established policy against using choke holds . . .
quote:I think Crœsos is trying to make the point that if department policy is "no chokeholds", then by definition, a choke hold is the WRONG choice... always ... every time ...regardless of what happened before or what other choices were available. This policy is in place precisely because experience has shown that chokeholds (also sometimes called a sleeper hold) can easily go fatally wrong. Properly applied, the chokehold is supposed to reduce blood circulation to the brain and induce lightheadedness or unconsciousness. When it is mis-applied, it cuts off the airway (trachea) instead. So not only was the chokehold the wrong choice, it was also performed incorrectly. So there's just one simple question to answer: why the hell wouldn't we hold police officers accountable when they deliberately violate policy, do it incorrectly, and cause the death of a citizen?
Originally posted by Teilhard:
Certainly, in retrospect, a taser would have been a better choice … But the guy was huge -- ca. 300 pounds -- and was resisting before the "choke hold" was applied ..
quote:Is that the spirit in which you conducted your prison chaplaincy?
Originally posted by Teilhard:
By nature of the real world, cops (and indeed, all professional persons) at least on occasion are "flying by the seat of their pants" ...
quote:In the real world, "life" doesn't always go "by the book," so, yes on occasion, one does what one has to do …
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:I think Crœsos is trying to make the point that if department policy is "no chokeholds", then by definition, a choke hold is the WRONG choice... always ... every time ...regardless of what happened before or what other choices were available. This policy is in place precisely because experience has shown that chokeholds (also sometimes called a sleeper hold) can easily go fatally wrong. Properly applied, the chokehold is supposed to reduce blood circulation to the brain and induce lightheadedness or unconsciousness. When it is mis-applied, it cuts off the airway (trachea) instead. So not only was the chokehold the wrong choice, it was also performed incorrectly. So there's just one simple question to answer: why the hell wouldn't we hold police officers accountable when they deliberately violate policy, do it incorrectly, and cause the death of a citizen?
Originally posted by Teilhard:
Certainly, in retrospect, a taser would have been a better choice … But the guy was huge -- ca. 300 pounds -- and was resisting before the "choke hold" was applied ..
Or do we jut "cut them some slack"? And if this "slack" is because they have to make split-second, life-or-death decisions, why don't other professionals making the same kinds of decisions get "slack"? You know, professionals like pilots or air traffic controllers...? how about EMTs...? or truck and taxi drivers...?
quote:Assuming your best-case scenario where the injury/death is entirely accidental and no ill motives at play, there still seems to be me an appropriate middle ground here. If a police officer makes a fatal error under pressure, again, even assuming the best of motives, it still might very well disqualify him or her from service. This doesn't have to be a shaming thing-- rather a discernment thing-- in the same way someone who has developed palsy in their dominant hand might come to be deemed inappropriate to continue their career as a neurosurgeon, even if they still have a sincere desire to heal people. Making quick decisions under pressure IS what police work is all about. It is, I would agree, an unenviable task. But that IS the job. And as such, an inability to perform that task-- to make good decisions under pressure-- should disqualify you for the job.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
quote:When a police officer is exceeding the speed limit (lights and siren on), running stop signs and red lights, on occasion a tragic crash occurs, in which an innocent person is injured or killed; on occasion, a person is shot by an officer in a *dicey*iffy* situation that called for a split second decision by the officer (the Ferguson case comes to mind); sometimes a citizen is injured or dies while foolishly resisting arrest (the guy on the street corner in New York comes to mind); etc. …
Originally posted by Eutychus:
So what do you mean by "giving them extra slack"?
For such kind of mistakes, I tend to favor not necessarily firing or charging the officer ...
quote:Yes, as a chaplain -- or any clergy -- one must sometimes make a decision to act (or not) without being able to say, "Excuse me for just a moment will you, please, while I consult with my superior (or Manual of Procedures)" …
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:Is that the spirit in which you conducted your prison chaplaincy?
Originally posted by Teilhard:
By nature of the real world, cops (and indeed, all professional persons) at least on occasion are "flying by the seat of their pants" ...
Professionals may sometimes fly by the seat of their pants, but they do so in full knowledge of the rules and the law, and aware of the consequences if they flout them. Or they aren't worthy of being called professionals.
quote:You mean you don't know the law before you start out? Oh dear.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
one must sometimes make a decision to act (or not) without being able to say, "Excuse me for just a moment will you, please, while I consult with my superior (or Manual of Procedures)"
quote:The problem with any and every real life real world situation -- every one of them, without exception -- is that it is a "case," which involves not only "the Law," but also the immediate "Facts," which vary -- sometimes wildly -- from one "case" to another …
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:You mean you don't know the law before you start out? Oh dear.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
one must sometimes make a decision to act (or not) without being able to say, "Excuse me for just a moment will you, please, while I consult with my superior (or Manual of Procedures)"
And the issue is not one of making judgement calls, it is one of facing the consequences if you make a judgement call that takes you way outside the law. All the more so if it involves taking a life.
quote:Why doesn't this principle apply to the Scott shooting? It's the one bit of controversial policing you've gone out of your way to pointedly not endorse. Why doesn't Patrolman Slager get a pass with "he was 'flying by the seat of his pants' and didn't have time to go 'by the book', so sometimes you just decide to shoot someone eight* times in the back, plant evidence, and file a false report about it"?
Originally posted by Teilhard:
In the real world, "life" doesn't always go "by the book," so, yes on occasion, one does what one has to do …
quote:Well, everyday real life in the every day real world is not always clearly a simple matter of *either/or* or "all or nothing," is it … ???
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Why doesn't this principle apply to the Scott shooting? It's the one bit of controversial policing you've gone out of your way to pointedly not endorse. Why doesn't Patrolman Slager get a pass with "he was 'flying by the seat of his pants' and didn't have time to go 'by the book', so sometimes you just decide to shoot someone eight* times in the back, plant evidence, and file a false report about it"?
Originally posted by Teilhard:
In the real world, "life" doesn't always go "by the book," so, yes on occasion, one does what one has to do …
--------------------
*Patrolman Slager reportedly fired his weapon eight times. I've not seen anything so far on how many of those shots hit Mr. Scott, and the assertion of "eight times" is meant to reflect Patrolman Slager's decision that that was the proper number of shots to fire, not an evaluation of his accuracy as a marksman.
quote:That doesn't so much answer the question as evade it. We understand you're not cutting Patrolman Slager the "slack" you're otherwise so generous with when it comes to cops killing civilians. The question is why? Is it simply that he was caught on video? The generalities you've offered as mitigating in other cases ("life doesn't always go 'by the book'", "all professional persons at least on occasion are 'flying by the seat of their pants'", "there are ALWAYS occasional situations that require a 'judgment call'") would seem to be just as applicable to the Scott shooting.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
quote:Well, everyday real life in the every day real world is not always clearly a simple matter of *either/or* or "all or nothing," is it … ???
Originally posted by Crœsos:
]Why doesn't this principle apply to the Scott shooting? . . .
Again -- and again, and again -- every case is its own case ...
quote:Well …
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:That doesn't so much answer the question as evade it. We understand you're not cutting Patrolman Slager the "slack" you're otherwise so generous with when it comes to cops killing civilians. The question is why? Is it simply that he was caught on video? The generalities you've offered as mitigating in other cases ("life doesn't always go 'by the book'", "all professional persons at least on occasion are 'flying by the seat of their pants'", "there are ALWAYS occasional situations that require a 'judgment call'") would seem to be just as applicable to the Scott shooting.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
quote:Well, everyday real life in the every day real world is not always clearly a simple matter of *either/or* or "all or nothing," is it … ???
Originally posted by Crœsos:
]Why doesn't this principle apply to the Scott shooting? . . .
Again -- and again, and again -- every case is its own case ...
quote:Agreed.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
If you focus on just individual trees/cases, you may miss the trend happening in the forest/police system as a whole.
quote:As with everything in society including, but not limited to our "police system" (and also the laws and the courts) reflects our society as a whole …
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Teilhard--
Yes, each case is its own case, but that's not all it is.
Let's say there's a big, ancient oak forest where you like to walk. One day, you notice that your favorite ancient tree seems sick. You sadly walk through the forest, and discover other sick trees here and there. You begin to realize that it's not just ancient oaks that are sick, maybe dying from old age--you encountered sick trees from all stages of their life cycle.
Sitting in a quiet cafe later, drinking coffee to warm up, you chat with a barista. She says she knows an arborist, and gives you his number. You thank her, and head home.
Vegging out on the couch, watching "Law & Order", you wonder whether you should bother to call. Just trees, right? Trees die, just like any other living thing. But what if it's not just individual trees? What if it's Sudden Oak Death Syndrome (real thing), or toxic dumping, or intentional poisoning, or some new problem? If whatever it is is systemic, then it might wipe out the whole forest.
So do you call the arborist, and ask him if there might be a systemic problem? Or do you say you saw a tree that might be sick? Or do you just grab a pint of Ben & Jerry's ice cream, and finish watching your show?
Short version: If you focus on just individual trees/cases, you may miss the trend happening in the forest/police system as a whole.
quote:No doubt, "racism" is a widespread malignant problem in society … It's not confined to "cops" ...
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Teilhard--
They can be symptoms of a wider problem. And, in the case of Sudden Oak Death Syndrome, the disease can *spread*--even through something as simple as moving firewood.
It does seem that there are systemic problems of police brutality and police racism that have been going on for a long, long time--and not just the stuff that makes big headlines.
Whether that's due to society, police training and culture, individual officers, or misunderstandings, ISTM that it's wise to look at both the forest and the trees, and figure out what's going on, so it can be treated and managed.
quote:This statement is peculiarly tin-eared. In which world would we be arming racists and giving them 'slack' when they shoot black people?
Originally posted by Teilhard:
No doubt, "racism" is a widespread malignant problem in society … It's not confined to "cops" ...
quote:BINGO … The solution to this widespread longstanding problem is not to disarm all the cops, but to address "racism" …
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:This statement is peculiarly tin-eared. In which world would we be arming racists and giving them 'slack' when they shoot black people?
Originally posted by Teilhard:
No doubt, "racism" is a widespread malignant problem in society … It's not confined to "cops" ...
As opposed to the other thing, which is to try and make the police force less racist, and less likely to abuse their authority.
quote:I'm sorry. This is a complete non-sequitur. No one has argued that US police officers should be disarmed. Everyone has argued you shouldn't hire racist cops.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
BINGO … The solution to this widespread longstanding problem is not to disarm all the cops, but to address "racism" …
quote:But, see, I don't think that THE problem is "racist cops" …
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:I'm sorry. This is a complete non-sequitur. No one has argued that US police officers should be disarmed. Everyone has argued you shouldn't hire racist cops.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
BINGO … The solution to this widespread longstanding problem is not to disarm all the cops, but to address "racism" …
quote:So we go from "BINGO!" to "well, it's not THE problem."
Originally posted by Teilhard:
But, see, I don't think that THE problem is "racist cops"
quote:Is it "possible to hire non-racist" public school teachers, social workers, nurses and physicians, building contractors, retail clerks, realtors and bankers, etc. … ???
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:So we go from "BINGO!" to "well, it's not THE problem."
Originally posted by Teilhard:
But, see, I don't think that THE problem is "racist cops"
Given that racism is pervasive, but not endemic, do you think it's possible to hire non-racist cops? If so, then why not do that? It might even turn out that the non-racist cops are also better at being decent, responsible law officers who don't shoot white people either.
quote:It's possible to change organisations to make certain types of behaviour less acceptable and in doing so change the mix of people who are generally interested in joining and staying in those organisations.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
Is it "possible to hire non-racist" public school teachers, social workers, nurses and physicians, building contractors, retail clerks, realtors and bankers, etc. … ???
quote:Yes … "Racism" remains a pervasive social problem in America … Continued segregation of people of color happens in many cities. e.g., in part through unacknowledged "redlining" …
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:It's possible to change organisations to make certain types of behaviour less acceptable and in doing so change the mix of people who are generally interested in joining and staying in those organisations.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
Is it "possible to hire non-racist" public school teachers, social workers, nurses and physicians, building contractors, retail clerks, realtors and bankers, etc. … ???
Some organisations have done this much better than others.
quote:Actually not engaging with this - I asked you a perfectly legitimate question, and I'm asking it again. Do you think it's possible, during hiring and training process for law enforcement officers, to select the non-racists over the racists?
Originally posted by Teilhard:
Is it "possible to hire non-racist" public school teachers, social workers, nurses and physicians, building contractors, retail clerks, realtors and bankers, etc. … ???
quote:I my experience, it's possible to select people on the basis of behavioural compliance, but hearts and minds are another story entirely. I've seen correct things verbally expressed while the nonverbal behaviour says something contradictory.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Do you think it's possible, during hiring and training process for law enforcement officers, to select the non-racists over the racists?
I think it is, and I think it's imperative that it's done.
quote:But do you think racist cops are A problem?
Originally posted by Teilhard:
But, see, I don't think that THE problem is "racist cops" …
quote:I think it is impossible to achieve/hire/select a *perfect* faculty or staff -- or police force -- because we will never have a *perfect* society of 100% *perfect* human beings ...
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:Actually not engaging with this - I asked you a perfectly legitimate question, and I'm asking it again. Do you think it's possible, during hiring and training process for law enforcement officers, to select the non-racists over the racists?
Originally posted by Teilhard:
Is it "possible to hire non-racist" public school teachers, social workers, nurses and physicians, building contractors, retail clerks, realtors and bankers, etc. … ???
I think it is, and I think it's imperative that it's done.
quote:As a Christian, I understand that all of us -- our thoughts and words, feelings, acts and negligences -- are tainted by "sin," which includes one or other degree of prejudice (which may be racial, ethnic, economic, or other) ...
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:But do you think racist cops are A problem?
Originally posted by Teilhard:
But, see, I don't think that THE problem is "racist cops" …
To take a real-life example, two policemen from a small Florida town were recently fired when it was discovered that they were also Klansmen. Does this count as correcting a problem that needed addressing, or persecution for some harmless outside interests?
quote:Again, you're dodging the question, which is quite straight forward: do you think that there should be (no prophet's caution taken into account) some sort of bias towards hiring non-racists for the job of police officer?
Originally posted by Teilhard:
I think it is impossible to achieve/hire/select a *perfect* faculty or staff -- or police force -- because we will never have a *perfect* society of 100% *perfect* human beings ...
quote:Of course … A police officer whose work behavior shows a "racist" pattern should be
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:Again, you're dodging the question, which is quite straight forward: do you think that there should be (no prophet's caution taken into account) some sort of bias towards hiring non-racists for the job of police officer?
Originally posted by Teilhard:
I think it is impossible to achieve/hire/select a *perfect* faculty or staff -- or police force -- because we will never have a *perfect* society of 100% *perfect* human beings ...
While you're not answering that one, why not try this: should police officers who subsequently show racist behaviour lose their jobs?
quote:Indeed, The UK is not The USA ...
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
In the UK, we fire their arses so hard, the door doesn't even hit their butts on the way out. And everyone is good with that: senior police officers, politicians and the public.
A very different culture, it seems.
quote:I expect that such statistics vary from one country to another, along with per capita ownership of guns, general social attitude toward authority, racial/ethnic makeup and history of the population, etc. ...
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Less dead cops and less dead felons for starters.
quote:Sure, other countries vary, but the USA is in a league of its own. Check this out:
Originally posted by Teilhard:
I expect that such statistics vary from one country to another, along with per capita ownership of guns, general social attitude toward authority, racial/ethnic makeup and history of the population, etc. ...
quote:A number of years ago, I was visiting some friends in Canada and picked up a copy of "Macleans" … It was a special issue concerning some particular anniversary in Canadian history …
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:Sure, other countries vary, but the USA is in a league of its own. Check this out:
Originally posted by Teilhard:
I expect that such statistics vary from one country to another, along with per capita ownership of guns, general social attitude toward authority, racial/ethnic makeup and history of the population, etc. ...
Visualizing gun deaths – Comparing the U.S. to rest of the world
The USA is not only far more violent than any other developed country, it is almost as violent as Iraq and the Congo, and beat out Pakistan. Pray tell, what cultural / social / economic factors do those three countries and the USA have in common that would explain their similar rankings? Why is the USA much more violent than say, the United Kingdom or Canada, when these countries have so many cultural, legal and historic connections and similarities?
quote:I think the gun issue is just one aspect of a larger difference between US and Canada (I'm an American married to a Canadian). The westward settlement of US and Canada by Europeans was pretty similar. But the way we tell the story is different-- Canadians will stress the community aspect of it-- "we worked together to build a new society"-- Americans will stress "rugged individualism". Both to some degree are true. One had to be fairly individualistic/ adventurous to venture westward-- but no one survived that trip alone. So it was a bit of both. But what we stress is what has come to be honored in the two different nations.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
A number of years ago, I was visiting some friends in Canada and picked up a copy of "Macleans" … It was a special issue concerning some particular anniversary in Canadian history …
One of the feature articles was a comparison of Canada with the unruly giant Neighbor to the South, The USA … Interestingly, while Canada has a high per capita gun ownership, they tend to use their firearms for proper things, such as "hunting" … Why so … ???
In the article, there was a comparison (accurately I think), noting that in Canada, THE cultural hero tends to be "The Mountie" while in "the States," it is "The Outlaw" (think: Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid; Jesse James; the Gangsters; et al.) … In "the States," we have loads of well-armed angry private "Militia" guys who hate the government and plenty of their neighbors, too …
quote:Yes … In "the States," far too often "freedom" and "liberty" translate to, "Don't tell ME what to do … !!!," and, "Get out of my way … !!!"
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:I think the gun issue is just one aspect of a larger difference between US and Canada (I'm an American married to a Canadian). The westward settlement of US and Canada by Europeans was pretty similar. But the way we tell the story is different-- Canadians will stress the community aspect of it-- "we worked together to build a new society"-- Americans will stress "rugged individualism". Both to some degree are true. One had to be fairly individualistic/ adventurous to venture westward-- but no one survived that trip alone. So it was a bit of both. But what we stress is what has come to be honored in the two different nations.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
A number of years ago, I was visiting some friends in Canada and picked up a copy of "Macleans" … It was a special issue concerning some particular anniversary in Canadian history …
One of the feature articles was a comparison of Canada with the unruly giant Neighbor to the South, The USA … Interestingly, while Canada has a high per capita gun ownership, they tend to use their firearms for proper things, such as "hunting" … Why so … ???
In the article, there was a comparison (accurately I think), noting that in Canada, THE cultural hero tends to be "The Mountie" while in "the States," it is "The Outlaw" (think: Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid; Jesse James; the Gangsters; et al.) … In "the States," we have loads of well-armed angry private "Militia" guys who hate the government and plenty of their neighbors, too …
Consequently, this gets played out in the core issue of individual freedom vs. communal good. Most political, social and economic issues revolve around that balance. Canadians tend to settle such issues in favor of communal good-- what serves the greater community best: so gun control, universal health care, etc. Americans almost always settle such issues in favor of individual "freedom" even when it ends up hurting just about everyone. Gun violence and a deeply broken health care system are just two symptoms of that.
quote:My own dear loving sweetly pious Swedish Lutheran mother (may she Rest in Peace) harbored and sometimes expressed some distinct bigotry re: "Catholics" and "Jews" … She honestly didn't know any better and in conversation about such things … well … she had been formed by her upbringing and didn't want to know else …
Originally posted by Golden Key:
{Tangent}
Re the police Klansmen in Florida:
Michael Landon (Little Joe in the old "Bonanza" TV series) used to tell a story about visiting a small Southern town. The sheriff and the deputy were fans, and drove ML around to see the sites. "Yup, and over there is where we hold the Klan meetings," said the sheriff. ML said, "You know I'm Jewish, right? And so's Lorne Green." (Ben Cartwright.) Sheriff and deputy were shocked, then fell all over themselves disassociating themselves from the Klan.
{/Tangent}
quote:Well, I'm sorry, but this sort of attitude to those who have authority over life and death is completely unacceptable.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
Changing of hearts and minds … takes time … People ARE "sinners" … and we all have some dismaying faults of our own (perhaps, including self-righteous judgment toward others who are not as socially/morally progressive as they ought be …)
quote:For sure, all professional persons who have responsibility for others' lives require more training and greater supervision … Has anyone argued otherwise … ???
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:Well, I'm sorry, but this sort of attitude to those who have authority over life and death is completely unacceptable.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
Changing of hearts and minds … takes time … People ARE "sinners" … and we all have some dismaying faults of our own (perhaps, including self-righteous judgment toward others who are not as socially/morally progressive as they ought be …)
With great power comes great responsibility. You hold those over you to account, and yes, to a greater degree than the general populus. If they can't handle that level of scrutiny and accountability, they know where the door is.
quote:Yes. You.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
For sure, all professional persons who have responsibility for others' lives require more training and greater supervision … Has anyone argued otherwise … ???
quote:Yep, that's the mythological Wild West argument. Since I asked the question, I'll offer my answer. The biggest difference between the USA and all these other countries is that from its earliest days, the USA had both a) slavery and b) organized armed civilian slave patrols to control the slaves. The slave states demanded the Second Amendment so their so-called "militias" -- which were really just groups of slave owners with guns -- would never be called up to serve in another state, leaving the slave holders at the mercy of those they had abused. I don't think it's a coincidence that all the things that black men are supposed to do to avoid getting shot by police are similar to what slave owners expected - calling the officer sir, no hands in pockets, never argue, always comply immediately, etc. -- but white people can be assertive to the point of rudeness with cops and still survive. Check out Flex Your Rights when you've finished laughing at Chris Rock's video. Here's their advice on what to do when the cops knock on your door:
Originally posted by Teilhard:
... One of the feature articles was a comparison of Canada with the unruly giant Neighbor to the South, The USA … Interestingly, while Canada has a high per capita gun ownership, they tend to use their firearms for proper things, such as "hunting" … Why so … ???
In the article, there was a comparison (accurately I think), noting that in Canada, THE cultural hero tends to be "The Mountie" while in "the States," it is "The Outlaw" (think: Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid; Jesse James; the Gangsters; et al.) … In "the States," we have loads of well-armed angry private "Militia" guys who hate the government and plenty of their neighbors, too …
quote:I'm guessing that in certain areas of the USA, 1 and 2 might result in getting shot, and 3 will probably mean your door gets knocked down. After all, you weren't "cooperating".
Don’t Let Them Inside
It’s a good safety habit to determine who is at your door before opening it. If after looking out the window, through your peephole, or asking “Who is it?” you find police at your door, you have several options that may help keep them from unexpectedly entering.
1). If you’re concerned they might try to force an entry, you may greet them outside after exiting through another door.
2). You may speak with officers through the opening protected by your chain lock.
3). If police come to your door and you don’t require their help, you may simply decline to answer the door at all. Unless they have a warrant, they will eventually leave.
quote:No … I simply want to know the FACTS of a particular case before I give a decision about that case …
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:Yes. You.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
For sure, all professional persons who have responsibility for others' lives require more training and greater supervision … Has anyone argued otherwise … ???
quote:Yes … MANY American institutions reflect the deep problems in our society …
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:Yep, that's the mythological Wild West argument. Since I asked the question, I'll offer my answer. The biggest difference between the USA and all these other countries is that from its earliest days, the USA had both a) slavery and b) organized armed civilian slave patrols to control the slaves. The slave states demanded the Second Amendment so their so-called "militias" -- which were really just groups of slave owners with guns -- would never be called up to serve in another state, leaving the slave holders at the mercy of those they had abused. I don't think it's a coincidence that all the things that black men are supposed to do to avoid getting shot by police are similar to what slave owners expected - calling the officer sir, no hands in pockets, never argue, always comply immediately, etc. -- but white people can be assertive to the point of rudeness with cops and still survive. Check out Flex Your Rights when you've finished laughing at Chris Rock's video. Here's their advice on what to do when the cops knock on your door:
Originally posted by Teilhard:
... One of the feature articles was a comparison of Canada with the unruly giant Neighbor to the South, The USA … Interestingly, while Canada has a high per capita gun ownership, they tend to use their firearms for proper things, such as "hunting" … Why so … ???
In the article, there was a comparison (accurately I think), noting that in Canada, THE cultural hero tends to be "The Mountie" while in "the States," it is "The Outlaw" (think: Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid; Jesse James; the Gangsters; et al.) … In "the States," we have loads of well-armed angry private "Militia" guys who hate the government and plenty of their neighbors, too …
quote:I'm guessing that in certain areas of the USA, 1 and 2 might result in getting shot, and 3 will probably mean your door gets knocked down. After all, you weren't "cooperating".
Don’t Let Them Inside
It’s a good safety habit to determine who is at your door before opening it. If after looking out the window, through your peephole, or asking “Who is it?” you find police at your door, you have several options that may help keep them from unexpectedly entering.
1). If you’re concerned they might try to force an entry, you may greet them outside after exiting through another door.
2). You may speak with officers through the opening protected by your chain lock.
3). If police come to your door and you don’t require their help, you may simply decline to answer the door at all. Unless they have a warrant, they will eventually leave.
Like so many other crappy things in the USA, gun violence and police brutality against black men is part of the legacy of slavery. There's contemporary influences as well, such as the war on drugs and the military-industrial complex, but slavery and the 2nd Amendment came first.
Oh, and by the way, those contemporary "militias" who hate the guvmint? Many of them are pretty open about their racism as well.
quote:And when the police and prosecutors refuse to release the FACTS because they see the world as a game and their job as winning the game, the truth be damned, maintaining power and control is all...???
Originally posted by Teilhard:
No … I simply want to know the FACTS of a particular case before I give a decision about that case …
quote:This [warning: graphic content] is a lynch mob.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
E.g., in the South Carolina case, I have consistently AGREED that charging and firing the officer was apparently the right thing to do (until/unless more FACTS come to light indicating otherwise) …
I'm just not inclined to get up a lynch mob every time a police officer discharges a weapon ...
quote:Your words, not mine …
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:And when the police and prosecutors refuse to release the FACTS because they see the world as a game and their job as winning the game, the truth be damned, maintaining power and control is all...???
Originally posted by Teilhard:
No … I simply want to know the FACTS of a particular case before I give a decision about that case …
quote:Yeah …
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:This [warning: graphic content] is a lynch mob.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
E.g., in the South Carolina case, I have consistently AGREED that charging and firing the officer was apparently the right thing to do (until/unless more FACTS come to light indicating otherwise) …
I'm just not inclined to get up a lynch mob every time a police officer discharges a weapon ...
This is criticism.
Not being tell the difference leads to ridiculous levels of hyperbole, like claiming it's the person performing an (alleged) summary execution who's being "lynched", not the guy who ended up dead.
[added content warning]
quote:In the South Carolina case, the PD only did the right thing w/r/t the officer because an independent third party recorded the incident and took it to the media. Their initial response was to say that the officer followed proper procedure.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
But, umm …
In, say, the Ferguson Case or the South Carolina case, what facts do you believe (or know or imagine) should have been released, but are being held back … ???
quote:In the South Carolina case, supervising authorities decided/acted -- initially -- on basis of the FACTS that they HAD at the time …
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:In the South Carolina case, the PD only did the right thing w/r/t the officer because an independent third party recorded the incident and took it to the media. Their initial response was to say that the officer followed proper procedure.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
But, umm …
In, say, the Ferguson Case or the South Carolina case, what facts do you believe (or know or imagine) should have been released, but are being held back … ???
When proper procedure allows for things like that, expect people to take to the streets.
"People need to know all of the facts we refuse to give them before jumping to conclusions.. "
quote:A shining example of an anti-police "lynch mob" (which in fact resulted in the "summary execution" of two NYPD officers) was that "protest" march in NYC, chanting, "What do we want … ??? DEAD COPS … !!! When do we want 'em … ??? NOW … !!!"
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:This [warning: graphic content] is a lynch mob.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
E.g., in the South Carolina case, I have consistently AGREED that charging and firing the officer was apparently the right thing to do (until/unless more FACTS come to light indicating otherwise) …
I'm just not inclined to get up a lynch mob every time a police officer discharges a weapon ...
This is criticism.
Not being tell the difference leads to ridiculous levels of hyperbole, like claiming it's the person performing an (alleged) summary execution who's being "lynched", not the guy who ended up dead.
[added content warning]
quote:They didn't have many FACTS. They had a dead body, and they had a police officer's lies.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
In the South Carolina case, supervising authorities decided/acted -- initially -- on basis of the FACTS that they HAD at the time …
quote:Well, yes, they should have acted on facts which could surface in the future by opening an investigation instead of telling the public that the shooting was justified.
Should they instead have acted upon … what ??? … rumors, conjecture, imagination … ??? … on facts as yet unknown but which could surface in the future … ???
quote:Fire a gun, get a paid vacation at taxpayers' expense. Yep, sounds like an incentive to de-escalate situations.
In most jurisdictions, any officer involved in a shooting incident is immediately placed upon paid administrative "leave," i.e., temporarily suspended of duties or assigned to non-patrol duties …
quote:Lucky you.
In Minnesota, where I reside, any officer involved fatal shooting is automatically reviewed by the grand jury (properly so) ...
quote:If only there were some kind of organization that would investigate suspicion circumstances to see if there were crimes committed! That would be a real boon to the police, instead of having to wait around for information to fall in to their laps.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
In the South Carolina case, supervising authorities decided/acted -- initially -- on basis of the FACTS that they HAD at the time …
Should they instead have acted upon … what ??? … rumors, conjecture, imagination … ??? … on facts as yet unknown but which could surface in the future … ???
quote:In Baltimore Faux news faked footage to make it seem like peaceful protesters (who have been protesting every week since Jerome West was killed in police custody) were calling for the death of cops rather than asking for the information that they have a right to and calling for systemic reforms.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
A shining example of an anti-police "lynch mob" (which in fact resulted in the "summary execution" of two NYPD officers) was that "protest" march in NYC, chanting, "What do we want … ??? DEAD COPS … !!! When do we want 'em … ??? NOW … !!!"
quote:The "protesters" in NYC several months ago were marching regarding that guy who died while resisting (his 31st) arrest …
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:In Baltimore Faux news faked footage to make it seem like peaceful protesters (who have been protesting every week since Jerome West was killed in police custody) were calling for the death of cops rather than asking for the information that they have a right to and calling for systemic reforms.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
A shining example of an anti-police "lynch mob" (which in fact resulted in the "summary execution" of two NYPD officers) was that "protest" march in NYC, chanting, "What do we want … ??? DEAD COPS … !!! When do we want 'em … ??? NOW … !!!"
But it's true that people are angry. And some of them don't have much left to lose, which worries me.
quote:If the system where you live is truly that corrupt and dangerous, I invite you to move to Minnesota ...
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:They didn't have many FACTS. They had a dead body, and they had a police officer's lies.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
In the South Carolina case, supervising authorities decided/acted -- initially -- on basis of the FACTS that they HAD at the time …
quote:Well, yes, they should have acted on facts which could surface in the future by opening an investigation instead of telling the public that the shooting was justified.
Should they instead have acted upon … what ??? … rumors, conjecture, imagination … ??? … on facts as yet unknown but which could surface in the future … ???
quote:Fire a gun, get a paid vacation at taxpayers' expense. Yep, sounds like an incentive to de-escalate situations.
In most jurisdictions, any officer involved in a shooting incident is immediately placed upon paid administrative "leave," i.e., temporarily suspended of duties or assigned to non-patrol duties …
quote:Lucky you.
In Minnesota, where I reside, any officer involved fatal shooting is automatically reviewed by the grand jury (properly so) ...
Where I live you give up your constitutional right to not engage with the police unless they have probable cause to suspect you of a crime if you live in certain neighborhoods, and you can get beaten to death because an officer doesn't like the look on your face because your unwillingness to engage with the police is probable cause that you have committed a crime.
It's a neat trick.
quote:Any investigation/inquiry worthy of confidence takes TIME … People don't always necessarily come forward in the first three minutes or even the first three days ...
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:If only there were some kind of organization that would investigate suspicion circumstances to see if there were crimes committed! That would be a real boon to the police, instead of having to wait around for information to fall in to their laps.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
In the South Carolina case, supervising authorities decided/acted -- initially -- on basis of the FACTS that they HAD at the time …
Should they instead have acted upon … what ??? … rumors, conjecture, imagination … ??? … on facts as yet unknown but which could surface in the future … ???
quote:Police Application Form --
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:Actually not engaging with this - I asked you a perfectly legitimate question, and I'm asking it again. Do you think it's possible, during hiring and training process for law enforcement officers, to select the non-racists over the racists?
Originally posted by Teilhard:
Is it "possible to hire non-racist" public school teachers, social workers, nurses and physicians, building contractors, retail clerks, realtors and bankers, etc. … ???
I think it is, and I think it's imperative that it's done.
quote:This all or nothing rhetoric comes across as disingenuous. No one has said that all cops are psychopaths looking for any excuse to hurt people and hiding behind a badge and a broken system.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
What should be done … ??? FIRE all police officers everywhere and start from scratch, in the meantime relying on volunteer citizen patrols … ???
What, then … ???
quote:Do you live in or near the area you will be patrolling? Have you ever?
Originally posted by Teilhard:
Police Application Form --
Gender: M … F …
Age:
Training & Certification:
Are you a "racist" … ???: Yes … No ...
quote:Yes …
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:This all or nothing rhetoric comes across as disingenuous. No one has said that all cops are psychopaths looking for any excuse to hurt people and hiding behind a badge and a broken system.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
What should be done … ??? FIRE all police officers everywhere and start from scratch, in the meantime relying on volunteer citizen patrols … ???
What, then … ???
But some of them are.
I've given some of my suggestions upthread.
It has to be easier to remove cops with multiple excessive use of force complaints. Citizens need a say. Out of control prosecutors need to be reigned in. The war-like mentality that has the police treat citizens as if they were the enemy has to stop. Police who step over the thin blue line and report misconduct by their fellow officers should be protected, not hounded out of the profession.
There are things that can be done if people are willing to admit that there's a problem.
quote:If it's so obvious, why are protests necessary?
Originally posted by Teilhard:
Yes, of course, any officer who does exhibit sigh a pattern of outrageous behavior should be disciplined, assigned to NON-patrol duty, sand/or fired …
quote:Interesting rhetorical question …
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:If it's so obvious, why are protests necessary?
Originally posted by Teilhard:
Yes, of course, any officer who does exhibit sigh a pattern of outrageous behavior should be disciplined, assigned to NON-patrol duty, and/or fired …
quote:Okay, one last opportunity for you to dodge the question: do you think it's possible, during the hiring and training of police officers to, at the very least indicate that if they get caught doing racist shit, they can hand in their badge and their gun and get the hell out of Dodge?
Originally posted by Teilhard:
quote:Police Application Form --
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I asked you a perfectly legitimate question, and I'm asking it again. Do you think it's possible, during hiring and training process for law enforcement officers, to select the non-racists over the racists?
I think it is, and I think it's imperative that it's done.
Gender: M … F …
Age:
Training & Certification:
Are you a "racist" … ???: Yes … No ...
quote:Whether we like it or not, whether it is an ideal arrangement or not, every human institution -- including police departments, courts, councils, internet discussion groups, school faculties, etc. -- is staffed entirely and solely by sinful fallible flawed human beings … some of whom will be found to entertain disgusting notions, values, thoughts and inclinations …
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:Okay, one last opportunity for you to dodge the question: do you think it's possible, during the hiring and training of police officers to, at the very least indicate that if they get caught doing racist shit, they can hand in their badge and their gun and get the hell out of Dodge?
Originally posted by Teilhard:
quote:Police Application Form --
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I asked you a perfectly legitimate question, and I'm asking it again. Do you think it's possible, during hiring and training process for law enforcement officers, to select the non-racists over the racists?
I think it is, and I think it's imperative that it's done.
Gender: M … F …
Age:
Training & Certification:
Are you a "racist" … ???: Yes … No ...
Because the idea of having racist desk sergeants, racist admin staff, racist custody officers and the like is not the answer to not having racist beat officers.
quote:I want a non"racist" SOCIETY … It will take time …
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
To conclude: you don't want a non-racist police force.
Well done. You are officially part of the problem.
quote:Well, yes, police officers are human, and as such will make mistakes, and some of them will be bad people.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
Whether we like it or not, whether it is an ideal arrangement or not, every human institution -- including police departments, courts, councils, internet discussion groups, school faculties, etc. -- is staffed entirely and solely by sinful fallible flawed human beings
quote:The part where you shrug your shoulders and don't want to do anything to help society become less racist.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
I want a non"racist" SOCIETY … It will take time …
What is not clear about this … ???
quote:Like it or not, our police officers grow up in and reflect our society … We don't have the luxury of importing them from Heaven …
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:Well, yes, police officers are human, and as such will make mistakes, and some of them will be bad people.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
Whether we like it or not, whether it is an ideal arrangement or not, every human institution -- including police departments, courts, councils, internet discussion groups, school faculties, etc. -- is staffed entirely and solely by sinful fallible flawed human beings
But some fraction of the population engage in criminal behaviour. We don't tolerate that in police officers - if a police officer is caught burgling houses or selling drugs on street corners, we don't expect to reassign him to a desk job.
Why should we treat racist police differently?
The police, as has been mentioned several times on this thread, are given special authority that ordinary people don't have. By virtue of that authority, a racist (or otherwise bad) police officer can do more harm than he could if he had another job. A racist cop is worse for society than a racist librarian or a racist bank teller.
Yes, there's lots of racism around, but the people we select to be police officers should be, perhaps, from the least racist half of the population.
Also note that a racist environment breeds more racism. If you're borderline racist, and you spend your time hanging out with racists, you will become more racist. Maybe you can't fire every racist, but if you fire the worst examples, you'll make those you didn't fire less racist than they would otherwise be, just by removing the worst influences. Plus you make it clear that, whatever people's private opinions, if they commit egregious racist acts they're going to be out of work.
quote:Excuse me … ???
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:The part where you shrug your shoulders and don't want to do anything to help society become less racist.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
I want a non"racist" SOCIETY … It will take time …
What is not clear about this … ???
Wanting a non-racist society means not tolerating racism.
quote:Who has suggested that we import our police personnel from Heaven? I grant, one poster has suggested we import vacationing Swedish cops, but I'm assuming that was in jest.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
Like it or not, our police officers grow up in and reflect our society … We don't have the luxury of importing them from Heaven …
And every one of them is a fallible flawed sinful human being who is imperfect and does make mistakes ...
quote:Okay …
Originally posted by Porridge:
quote:Who has suggested that we import our police personnel from Heaven? I grant, one poster has suggested we import vacationing Swedish cops, but I'm assuming that was in jest.
Originally posted by Teilhard:
Like it or not, our police officers grow up in and reflect our society … We don't have the luxury of importing them from Heaven …
And every one of them is a fallible flawed sinful human being who is imperfect and does make mistakes ...
What Leorning Cniht has suggested is that we recruit police from the less-racist half of our society. What problem, if any, do you have with that suggestion?
quote:Sounds like a plan ...
Originally posted by Porridge:
A list? Why a list, when a reasonably reliable test already exists, which we could ask applicants to take when they apply for jobs or places in police training academies?
quote:My over all preference, though … is for an integrated (!!!) realistic understanding of life in human community … taking account of differences, foibles, and even sins (!!!) …
Originally posted by Teilhard:
quote:Sounds like a plan ...
Originally posted by Porridge:
A list? Why a list, when a reasonably reliable test already exists, which we could ask applicants to take when they apply for jobs or places in police training academies?
![[Tear]](graemlins/tear.gif)
quote:Well that's the mystery, isn't it? Freddie Gray is apparently well enough to run away from police at a good clip of speed immediately before his arrest (which we wouldn't expect if his spinal cord was already partially severed), but somehow ends up dead due to causes that no one in the Baltimore Police Department or Mayor's office can explain. From the Atlantic:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
From the basic film clips I've seen on the news, Freddie looked like he was in bad shape when they started to drag him to the van. Didn't look like a resisting sort of dragging. More like collapse. NOT saying the police weren't responsible, just that the problem may have started before the van.
quote:So we're left with a lack of information in which we can only speculate. More to the point, there are all kinds of questions that the Baltimore PD should be able to answer, but apparently either can't or won't.
Freddie Gray's death on April 19 leaves many unanswered questions. But it is clear that when Gray was arrested in West Baltimore on the morning of April 12, he was struggling to walk. By the time he arrived at the police station a half hour later, he was unable to breathe or talk, suffering from wounds that would kill him.*
<snip>
The police say Gray didn't resist arrest and that officers didn't use force, which seems to be mostly corroborated by video shot by bystanders. Gray seems to shout in pain, and his leg seems injured as officers drag him to a police van. (Someone off camera shouts, "His leg broke and y'all dragging him like that!") Gray also had asthma and requested his inhaler, but didn't get it. Yet it's not the leg or the asthma that killed him. Instead, it was a grave injury to his spinal cord. Gray's family said he was treated for three fractured vertebrae and a crushed voice box, the sorts of injuries that doctors say are usually caused by serious car accidents. The van made at least two stops before reaching the police station, but there's no footage to say what happened during the journey or at those stops.
It's a baffling conundrum. "None of the officers describe any use of force," Deputy Police Commissioner Jerry Rodriguez said. "None of the officers describe using any force against Mr. Gray." And yet somehow Gray was fatally hurt while in police custody.
quote:FWIW: I brought up the way he looked *to me* when they first dragged him, because virtually all the media I encountered said he looked fine before he got into the van. I only heard one person who noticed what I did.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Well that's the mystery, isn't it? Freddie Gray is apparently well enough to run away from police at a good clip of speed immediately before his arrest (which we wouldn't expect if his spinal cord was already partially severed), but somehow ends up dead due to causes that no one in the Baltimore Police Department or Mayor's office can explain.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
From the basic film clips I've seen on the news, Freddie looked like he was in bad shape when they started to drag him to the van. Didn't look like a resisting sort of dragging. More like collapse. NOT saying the police weren't responsible, just that the problem may have started before the van.
quote:It's something the Baltimore PD has confirmed, so we can be fairly certain of its accuracy.
Originally posted by Porridge:
Just heard an unconfirmed radio report that the van made a previously unreported stop en route to the station.
quote:From this we can surmise that full cooperation is not forthcoming from the officers involved, since they should remember the stops made, and that records of such stops are either not made or are easily altered after the fact. Having to rely on "footage from a privately owned security camera" indicates there's stonewalling going on by at least some parties involved. The fact that this information is now in the media indicates that this stonewalling was at least partially unsuccessful.
Baltimore police announced today that newly obtained security camera footage showed the police van transporting Freddie Gray made a previously unknown stop on the day he was arrested.
<snip>
[Deputy Commissioner Kevin] Davis said they learned of the new stop after examining footage from a privately owned security camera. The only detail he announced about this stop was that it took place at North Fremont Avenue and Mosher Street.
quote:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/30/doubts-freddie-gray-injured-himself_n_7177356.html
Originally posted by romanlion:
The kid did it to himself. Sounds like another person in the back of the vehicle is saying so.
quote:Oh, yeah. Point violence.
Originally posted by romanlion:
The kid did it to himself. Sounds like another person in the back of the vehicle is saying so. Also a bolt inside the van that matches the head wound.
Hands up! Don't shoot!
quote:The same reason there's resistance to bodycams, I guess.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Is there any reason why such equipment is not routinely used?
quote:Except in this case we're talking about someone already in police custody, a situation where typical privacy considerations usually don't apply.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
To be fair, there is also the matter of the privacy of citizens being continuously recorded by police.
quote:Though in general the incidence of someone crushing their own voicebox is fairly rare.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Here's what's probably a stupid question, but anyway ...
I'm assuming there's a fairly high rate of prisoners deliberately injuring themselves in the back of vans and claiming "the cops did it!", it would be a means by which the person in custody might think it could cast doubt on his arrest, maybe gets some compensation, etc.
quote:Recent events may have damaged my irony meter, so if I'm misreading you, I apologize.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I'm assuming there's a fairly high rate of prisoners deliberately injuring themselves in the back of vans and claiming "the cops did it!", it would be a means by which the person in custody might think it could cast doubt on his arrest, maybe gets some compensation, etc.
quote:I dunno. The ACLU has an app you can use to upload video from your cell phone to the web as it's being shot. They introduced it during the Occupy campaigns of a couple years back. So it's doable and can't be horribly difficult. So that excuse is gone.
Originally posted by jbohn:
I'd guess in some cases it's simply economics - newer vehicles may (or may not) have cameras, etc. installed at delivery, but older ones aren't retrofitted due to cost.
Then, of course, there's the "lost film" issue. Ideally, you'd have realtime streamed delivery to a secure storage location that the PD doesn't have access to (state attorney's office or some such) - but that's a pretty expensive and technologically challenging proposition.
quote:Initial view of autopsy report. The medical officer is said to have determined that Freddy Gray's death was a homicide. And this has contributed to the finding of probable cause.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Baltimore police to face criminal charges
quote:In actuality, I dropped (from two successive semesters) six of them, failed five more, and only one passed the course.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
So what would have happened if you'd failed them?
quote:The ACLU's solution is much simpler than a police implementation would be. That said, it still is not unreasonable from a technical standpoint.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:I dunno. The ACLU has an app you can use to upload video from your cell phone to the web as it's being shot. They introduced it during the Occupy campaigns of a couple years back. So it's doable and can't be horribly difficult. So that excuse is gone.
Originally posted by jbohn:
I'd guess in some cases it's simply economics - newer vehicles may (or may not) have cameras, etc. installed at delivery, but older ones aren't retrofitted due to cost.
Then, of course, there's the "lost film" issue. Ideally, you'd have realtime streamed delivery to a secure storage location that the PD doesn't have access to (state attorney's office or some such) - but that's a pretty expensive and technologically challenging proposition.
quote:Which feeds back to the discussion earlier in the thread about non-violent movements. MLK Jrs use of non-violence was as much a tactic as an ethic, it worked because the white majority still could be shamed about the treatment that the protesters were greeted with.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The ACLU's solution is much simpler than a police implementation would be. That said, it still is not unreasonable from a technical standpoint.
But that is not the reason it hasn't occured. The reason such abuses take place is that the police feel justified in doing it. And a significant number of the public agree or accept.
quote:I'm not sure it's about the public agreeing or accepting that police abuse is justified - I think it's more about the police painting such behavior as isolated incidents rather than revelations of systemic failures, and most people buying into it.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
But that is not the reason it hasn't occured. The reason such abuses take place is that the police feel justified in doing it. And a significant number of the public agree or accept.
quote:It's partly also the assumption that if there are abuses they aren't really abuses because the people being targeted are 'wrongs 'uns'. It becomes more of a live issue when nice middle class people find themselves on the wrong side of this.
Originally posted by saysay:
Even the mainstream media got frustrated last night at getting herded into staging areas and not being able to document how the police were handling protestors who were breaking curfew.
Martial law is fun. No, really.
quote:One of the article linked mentioned that the number of arrests was linked to promotion. It was cited as a factor in the resulting poor policing.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
A little out of "left field" but one question which has occurred to me from recent entries is whether U.S. Police have performance related pay and if so what sorts of targets are set. IME performance targets often have the impact of distorting behaviour away from good principles towards the achievement of required statistics. Is this any kind of factor here?
quote:That was from the David Simon interview.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:One of the article linked mentioned that the number of arrests was linked to promotion. It was cited as a factor in the resulting poor policing.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
A little out of "left field" but one question which has occurred to me from recent entries is whether U.S. Police have performance related pay and if so what sorts of targets are set. IME performance targets often have the impact of distorting behaviour away from good principles towards the achievement of required statistics. Is this any kind of factor here?
quote:
How do you reward cops? Two ways: promotion and cash. That's what rewards a cop. If you want to pay overtime pay for having police fill the jails with loitering arrests or simple drug possession or failure to yield, if you want to spend your municipal treasure rewarding that, well the cop who’s going to court 7 or 8 days a month — and court is always overtime pay — you're going to damn near double your salary every month. On the other hand, the guy who actually goes to his post and investigates who's burglarizing the homes, at the end of the month maybe he’s made one arrest. It may be the right arrest and one that makes his post safer, but he's going to court one day and he's out in two hours. So you fail to reward the cop who actually does police work. But worse, it’s time to make new sergeants or lieutenants, and so you look at the computer and say: Who's doing the most work? And they say, man, this guy had 80 arrests last month, and this other guy’s only got one. Who do you think gets made sergeant? And then who trains the next generation of cops in how not to do police work? I’ve just described for you the culture of the Baltimore police department amid the deluge of the drug war, where actual investigation goes unrewarded and where rounding up bodies for street dealing, drug possession, loitering such – the easiest and most self-evident arrests a cop can make – is nonetheless the path to enlightenment and promotion and some additional pay. That’s what the drug war built, and that’s what Martin O’Malley affirmed when he sent so much of inner city Baltimore into the police wagons on a regular basis.
quote:In addition to the David Simon quote, there's the reality that in a lot of places officers accused of using excessive force are often suspended with pay pending an investigation, which nearly always clears them of wrongdoing.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
A little out of "left field" but one question which has occurred to me from recent entries is whether U.S. Police have performance related pay and if so what sorts of targets are set. IME performance targets often have the impact of distorting behaviour away from good principles towards the achievement of required statistics. Is this any kind of factor here?
quote:Simon has been criticized for making the situation depicted in The Wire so bleak and hopeless that it drains off all energy for effective political action in Baltimor. I don't really buy that criticism, both in the sense that I think the portrayal of the situation is pretty realistic, and in the sense that there are some signs of hope in The Wire, albeit not political ones.
Originally posted by orfeo:
God, that interview is depressing. And yet so thoroughly plausible.
quote:From memory, I think the dialogue continues that "courageous and far-sighted will not only lose you the next election, but the one after that as well".
Sir Humphrey: If you want to be really sure that the Minister doesn't accept it, you must say the decision is "courageous".
Bernard: And that's worse than "controversial"?
Sir Humphrey: Oh, yes! "Controversial" only means "this will lose you votes". "Courageous" means "this will lose you the election"!
quote:This is true to such an extent that politicians help manufacture a perception of a 'crisis' so that they can then be seen to solve it.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
It's an issue with democracies that "crisis management" is much easier to justify politically than prevention of future crisis by means of a present cost.
quote:The US police situation requires immediate and long term action. The immediate is dubious. Individuals will be punished, a few policies will be "changed", but real, systemic change? I'm dubious.
It's an issue with democracies that "crisis management" is much easier to justify politically than prevention of future crisis by means of a present cost. Mind you, in US terms, police credibility strikes me as an immediate crisis requiring action now. But that's where the chronic polarisation of US political life comes in.
quote:Simples - Stewart and Colbert don't make any pretense of telling us the "truth" - we know they're making it up for a laugh. The "real" journalists are making it up much of the time as well (or virtually ALL of the time, if one is a Faux News viewer), but they try to sell it as reality...
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
it is massively telling that a recent poll showed that Americans trust humorists Jon Stewert and Stephen Colbert more than any of their "real" journalists.
quote:We have form for that...
Originally posted by Jane R:
I thought of this thread when I saw this bizarre tale of police brutality on Tyneside. I had to check the date to be sure it wasn't posted on April Fool's Day... you couldn't make it up.
quote:Wait a minute, you guys have police who have to face a gross misconduct hearing if they beat an animal to death?
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:We have form for that...
Originally posted by Jane R:
I thought of this thread when I saw this bizarre tale of police brutality on Tyneside. I had to check the date to be sure it wasn't posted on April Fool's Day... you couldn't make it up.
quote:Ahh but Mosby's got that situation all sorted out now.
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:Wait a minute, you guys have police who have to face a gross misconduct hearing if they beat an animal to death?
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:We have form for that...
Originally posted by Jane R:
I thought of this thread when I saw this bizarre tale of police brutality on Tyneside. I had to check the date to be sure it wasn't posted on April Fool's Day... you couldn't make it up.
No fair.
Most of our police don't face any kind of hearing or discipline when they beat a human to death.
quote:What is this, some Magic Negro shit? Seriously???
Originally posted by romanlion:
Ahh but Mosby's got that situation all sorted out now.
quote:WTF? How can anyone interpret anything that has happened as the "racist police department" being "put in its place"?
How is Baltimore these days, now that the racist police department has been put in its place?
