So disturbed by this shooting, and the aftermath

[Sunshine72]

Here's a link to a video from Tuesday night in which a police officer in Ferguson pointed his gun at and threatened to kill a group of people filming the protests. [Language warning]

He has been relieved of duty and suspended indefinitely!

[poppy]

Again...race is obviously factoring in...this is the problem, not the cure.

 

 

 

 

Would the rioting/looting stop if we sent only black police to Ferguson? Are we REALLY asking to be segregated again???? b/c it seems you are saying that there is no way to be fair (law without race factoring in) if white police never stopped black citizens.

 

What *IS* the answer here, in your opinion??? If we cannot be colorblind, and treat each citizen with impartiality under the law, what CAN we do???

I didn't say a word about the race of the police. Not one.

 

Or course we should treat people impartially. Pretty twisted world where it's being made out like I am the one causing that issue. The evidence points to it being a larger long term institutional issue. That is what needs to be addressed.

[poppy]

OK so we are going to have to agree to disagree. And to me, your comment basically equals "just imprison or kill all white cops who use deadly force against black people, period. No investigation necessary."

My comment was meant to convey that that in most cases, police will be exonerated for these sorts of unintended, rash killings . So saying 'let's wait for the investigation', while it sounds like a reasoned and balanced approach, is heavily weighed against the victim .

 

How you got to ' let's kill all white cops' is pretty baffling to me.

[Slojo]

Again...race is obviously factoring in...this is the problem, not the cure.  

 

 

 

 

Would the rioting/looting stop if we sent only black police to Ferguson?  Are we REALLY asking to be segregated again????  b/c it seems you are saying that there is no way to be fair (law without race factoring in) if white police never stopped black citizens.

 

What *IS* the answer here, in your opinion???  If we cannot be colorblind, and treat each citizen with impartiality under the law, what CAN we do???

 

From my perspective (I'm not the original poster), I am not suggesting that we cannot be colorblind. I am suggesting that there is evidence to suggest that we are not necessarily colorblind. What we can do is to first acknowledge that while the Civil Rights era was great for continuing to make our "union more perfect" that we didn't finish the job. We can acknowledge the danger that exists on both sides -- police officers that don't know the community members well and community members that have a history with the police that generates mistrust -- creates a much more dangerous situation for all. The issue isn't race per se -- though that is often our shortcut -- but it is whether the police AND the community see themselves in each other. It is really hard, given history, given socio-economic reality, given community psychology, to do that under a scenario where the police is majority white and the citizens are majority black, in a situation where most of the police don't live in the neighborhoods they serve, where most of the police couldn't name 10 or 15 citizens in that area that they regard as peers/acquaintances/friends, and where a history of antagonism has specific roots and where at least a significant minority of the police literally regard most of the citizens as "animals" to be controlled. Not a strong platform on which to base policing. The addition of black cops is not about bodies - it's about increasing the likelihood that some of those negative dynamics will die down.  I noticed that the new officer in charge HUGGED people and talked to people as if he knew them or at least wanted to get to know them. He acknowledged that the anger was at least understandable, even while having to hold the peace. He has relationships with "the peaceful protesters" (bothers to take the effort to know the difference) and has some tools for distinguishing between the two types of people. I imagine, partly because he is black - and maybe because he has a son that "looks like" many of the young people in Ferguson -- that he at the very least has what Tahenisi Coates describes as "broad sympathies and benefit of the doubt" for black youth because he was one (or is raising one). It doesn't sound the the current chief has spent a whole lot of time investing in that. 

 

One does not have to be African American to do all that -- in fact, I'm counting on folks from other backgrounds to "develop and continue to work on having 'broad sympathies and the benefit of the doubt'" toward my children, in matters of law, education, health care and community-building. But the presence of African Americans on the force, in this case, is likely to facilitate and hasten progress in this area because it honestly doesn't look like it's happening on its own. This has precedent in history where the legal or social shift happened, and THEN hearts and minds changed (integration of troops and schools, voting rights, etc...)

 

Coates talks about bias/prejudice as having "broad sympathies and the benefit of the doubt for those deemed similar to you, and broad suspicions for - and a bias for fearing -- those deemed different.  In tense or uncertain situations, those sympathies and suspicions can make the critical (and life-altering) difference. They can literally dictate life and death. And imagine broad suspicions fell both ways -- and now a kid is dead (yeah, a young person who just graduated from high school and has been 18 all of two minutes - still a kid in my book and probably in his mama's heart, too). 

 

One does not have to be African American to do any of this in Ferguson or any number of places where the "reset button" needs to be hit on race relations. In

fact, I'm counting on folks from other backgrounds to "develop and continue to work on having 'broad sympathies and the benefit of the doubt'" toward my children, in matters of law, education, health care and community-building. But the presence of African Americans on the force, in this case, is likely to facilitate and hasten progress in this area because it honestly doesn't look like it's happening on its own. This has precedent in history where the legal or social shift happened, and THEN hearts and minds changed (integration of troops and schools, voting rights, etc...)

 

 

I don't know, I feel like even a police department that does all that is going to be subject to "racist cop murdered a black boy" because of the attitudes I see displayed above.

 

One news story did say Ferguson just bought those cameras but hadn't installed them yet; and another said they have been trying to diversify the police force but haven't had much success attracting black police officers.  I do realize that's just one side talking, but I won't assume everything they say and do is wrong.

 

I'm all for continuous improvement.  I just don't see race relations following along, partly because of the constant baiting without any actual interest in fact finding.

 

 

Well, let's just let the cameras get installed -- and give that (and anything else we've got) a chance. That's all we can ever do. We are pretty darn sure that the current state of things isn't working. There may always be "race-baiting" (although I don't see it that way). The mere mention of race as a factor cannot itself be evidence of race-baiting.  Point to a time in history when any problem has been solved by being silent.  Many things played into this scenario happening as it is, not insignificant among them is race. It doesn't need to be emotional or scary to just matter-of-factly state that. Surely you don't suggest that people continue to live with the tensions and complexities that are so very apparent in that community, and have less language rather than more to describe and analyze what is at the root of the problem.  

 

As for fact-finding -- well, both sides have reason to fear that the facts won't be fully discovered. We will likely never know, but to suggest only those who want to leave race out of it are interested in the facts and those who think race complicates it hold no such interest -- well, that gets us back to "broad suspicions" territory, and perhaps it's time to resolve to be done with that. 

 

Thank you for sharing what you see as honestly as you can -- it may not square with my truth, but we indeed must build whatever community we can with each other, for that, in the end, is the only thing that will really ever work. Here's to building "broad sympathies!"

[weaver_67579]

I once worked for a small juvenile detention center. There was a small community nearby that was overwhelmingly white. But the police still managed to bring in the same black kid every weekend for fricking trespassing. They didn't arrest white kids for trespassing. He cuts across someone's lawn or something and he ends up in detention. The next morning he would be released and no charges. This happened almost every weekend for several weeks. My boss tried to talk to the police department, no change. She had to go to the judge and the judge had to talk to the police before they quit doing it.

Did the owners of the property call it in? Then it would be an obligation of the police to check it out. Maybe the white kid neighbors were friends and had permission to pass through or knew the neighbor was cranky and didn't mess with him/her. If the kid was coming in every weekend you would think he would have enough sense to not keep doing it... seems like there is more to the story.

[CaffeineDiary]

 

One news story did say Ferguson just bought those cameras but hadn't installed them yet; and another said they have been trying to diversify the police force but haven't had much success attracting black police officers.  I do realize that's just one side talking, but I won't assume everything they say and do is wrong.

 

 

See, I'm totally willing to make that assumption when we're talking about a police department that beat the tar out of a prisoner and then charged him with destruction of property for getting his blood on their uniforms when they beat him.

 

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

 

Again, there's no "general rule" here.  When we talk about the Ferguson police department, we're talking about bad actors who have proven their badness again and again.  If you want to bend over backwards to extend them an unwarranted amount of slack, that's certainly your privilege, but I doubt many people will be joining you.

[Valley Girl]

My comment was meant to convey that that in most cases, police will be exonerated for these sorts of unintended, rash killings . So saying 'let's wait for the investigation', while it sounds like a reasoned and balanced approach, is heavily weighed against the victim .

 

 

If wanting to wait for full details is viewed as some veiled bias, with what are we left then? Rush to judgment and nevermind the facts? How many times on this board when dealing with hot button topics have posters admonished others (sometimes indignantly) that they should not judge because they don't know the whole story about someone's food stamp use or a perceived incident of religious discrimination or a child's acting out in public? In those cases, the weight of sentiment is usually on "But you don't KNOW what's really going on" or "there must be another side of the story." And so often, those people cautioning a rush to judgment are right. With the benefit of a fuller 360 picture, the situation looks clearer. And understanding grows.

 

Why on earth, with such a serious incident as a shooting, would people want to do less? That doesn't negate the very real social issues at play or the concerns about how things have been handled post-incident. There's going to need to be plenty of soul-searching and action on all sides in the aftermath. But refusing to "pick sides" until the facts are in? Considering that EVERYBODY has bias of one sort or another based on their experiences, wanting the full picture isn't weighting one side over another. Seems to me it's an effort to keep bias out and focus on what really happened. Since there are very different versions of events out there at this point, that IS "reasoned and balanced."

[Murphy101]

I will quietly restate something I have often thought and noted here.

 

I don't know if racism is the biggest factor GENERALLY so much as money. (I can certainly believe race is a factor, maybe even frequently. And I'm talking generally, not just Ferguson.)

 

I do agree there are two Americas.

 

But I don't think they are white vs black.

 

I think they are monetarily divided.

 

I have zero faith in our system bc it's just too obvious that money determines way too many outcomes.

 

So while I am entirely skeptical anything useful will come of an investigation, it's mostly because of money that I think that.

[SKL]

I will quietly restate something I have often thought and noted here.

 

I don't know if racism is the biggest factor GENERALLY so much as money. (I can certainly believe race is a factor, maybe even frequently. And I'm talking generally, not just Ferguson.)

 

I do agree there are two Americas.

 

But I don't think they are white vs black.

 

I think they are monetarily divided.

 

I have zero faith in our system bc it's just too obvious that money determines way too many outcomes.

 

So while I am entirely skeptical anything useful will come of an investigation, it's mostly because of money that I think that.

 

Yesterday we were visited by a businessman from Ferguson.  (He is black in case it matters.)  I live in a diverse large city in the northern Midwest.  The Ferguson businessman commented that the social situation is just so different there vs. here.  Here we have the race stuff but that is relatively minor compared to the economic divide.  Down there the racial divide is more significant.  Based on my observations and based on history, that makes sense to me.

 

I think from the perspective of the underclass, it's easier to take a system that discriminates based on what you have vs. what you are.  Of course we still have racism and plenty of crime here, but when the people involved are of different races, there isn't a widespread impulse to riot etc.  People want to know what went down and then they want to pursue the situation legally if the authorities went too far.  (It probably helps that a lot of the police, judges, and other folks in government (including the mayor) are black, so one can hope that racial bias in the system is not working to prevent justice.)

 

When we talk about "two Americas," I think it oversimplifies matters.  There are more than "two Americas" if you are going to look at it that way.  (I don't prefer that language myself, I think it is divisive and we don't need any more divisive language in this country.)

 

[poppy]

If wanting to wait for full details is viewed as some veiled bias, with what are we left then? Rush to judgment and nevermind the facts? How many times on this board when dealing with hot button topics have posters admonished others (sometimes indignantly) that they should not judge because they don't know the whole story about someone's food stamp use or a perceived incident of religious discrimination or a child's acting out in public? In those cases, the weight of sentiment is usually on "But you don't KNOW what's really going on" or "there must be another side of the story." And so often, those people cautioning a rush to judgment are right. With the benefit of a fuller 360 picture, the situation looks clearer. And understanding grows.

 

Why on earth, with such a serious incident as a shooting, would people want to do less? That doesn't negate the very real social issues at play or the concerns about how things have been handled post-incident. There's going to need to be plenty of soul-searching and action on all sides in the aftermath. But refusing to "pick sides" until the facts are in? Considering that EVERYBODY has bias of one sort or another based on their experiences, wanting the full picture isn't weighting one side over another. Seems to me it's an effort to keep bias out and focus on what really happened. Since there are very different versions of events out there at this point, that IS "reasoned and balanced."

 

I understand what you are saying, and in an ideal world I'd agree.  In this world, I don't know how to reconcile that with he police who beat Rodney King being exonerated.  The man who shot Trayvon Martin being exonerated (I know GZ isn't a cop). The policeman who shot Oscar Grant (Fruitville Station) while Grant was facedown on the pavement, and it was caught on video, being basically exonerated.  The example above of the officer who shot a man carrying a toy gun at a costume party being exonerated.  The many many many other examples in the links by calandsmom.  It may be an effort to keep bias out, but the bias is built into the way these situations have been judged. Over and over and over again.

 

If you really want to look at the evidence to get the truth, the weight of police officers (of any race) shooting and killing black men with impunity should be a factor in considering how this case is likely to play out.

 

[Slojo]

I will quietly restate something I have often thought and noted here.

 

I don't know if racism is the biggest factor GENERALLY so much as money. (I can certainly believe race is a factor, maybe even frequently. And I'm talking generally, not just Ferguson.)

 

I do agree there are two Americas.

 

But I don't think they are white vs black.

 

I think they are monetarily divided.

 

I have zero faith in our system bc it's just too obvious that money determines way too many outcomes.

 

So while I am entirely skeptical anything useful will come of an investigation, it's mostly because of money that I think that

 

Agreed - the wealth gap is a big divide and growing. it is definitely a larger determinant of life chances in many cases than race (though race is a big doozy in lots of areas, including the beginning of life in which the birth outcomes for black moms and babies are better predicted by race than by class, for example; so are hypertension rates). That said - it's pretty hard to disentangle race and class in many instances.  The ratio of white wealth to black wealth is 40 to 1. The average black woman has a net worth of less than $600. So while there's Oprah running around -- the far more common black experience (and this is inclusive of the "hanging on by their fingernails" black middle class -- and the middle class of all races, in general -- most folks are struggling to make it economically).  So basically, we are (or are quickly becoming) a Brazil or a South Africa -- where, yes, black people can achieve a certain wealth and power status, but that's not the case for the vast majority - so the race/class distinction becomes not very useful writ large). So it's also too simplistic to say, it's just class either.  I didn't mention class - in part, because we typically don't get to flash our "I'm middle class" buttons in such tense situations as an interaction with the police. Probably class would determine the outcome of the investigation -- yep, if Denzel Washington's son or Eric Holder's son was killed, money and influence would help those cases, most certainly.  But that is part of the issue here - in such situations where civilians and police are making split second decisions about what to do in a tense, escalating situation there's not a whole lot of time to determine "class" and in this country race often serves as a proxy for class - i.e., black sometimes reads as poor/working class/perhaps as possible criminal intent. 

 

I've been followed in stores, asked to service a room (for conferences in which I was a key note speaker), given unsolicited advice on how to apply for government services, told that "these premises are reserved for guests only (when I was a freaking guest paying good money for the services), etc... hmm, race as a proxy for class.  So, when an unarmed black teenager has this kind of encounter with the police, kind of didn't matter in that moment what his economic class status was -- didn't matter for Travon Martin (whose parents are government workers - not rolling in it, but in jobs that put one in the typical middle class), Renisha McBride (two-income, middle class family), Sean Bell (killed the morning before his weeding, his uncle is head coach of a major university team and came from a decidedly middle class black family) and Bill Cosby's son - Columbia University PhD student -- targeted because some dude didn't like "black thugs."

 

So, yes, by all means, let's put class front and center here. But let's not make it an either/or because that's not particularly helpful either. 

 

Yesterday we were visited by a businessman from Ferguson.  (He is black in case it matters.)  I live in a diverse large city in the northern Midwest.  The Ferguson businessman commented that the social situation is just so different there vs. here.  Here we have the race stuff but that is relatively minor compared to the economic divide.  Down there the racial divide is more significant.  Based on my observations and based on history, that makes sense to me.

 

I think from the perspective of the underclass, it's easier to take a system that discriminates based on what you have vs. what you are.  Of course we still have racism and plenty of crime here, but when the people involved are of different races, there isn't a widespread impulse to riot etc.  People want to know what went down and then they want to pursue the situation legally if the authorities went too far.  (It probably helps that a lot of the police, judges, and other folks in government (including the mayor) are black, so one can hope that racial bias in the system is not working to prevent justice.)

 

When we talk about "two Americas," I think it oversimplifies matters.  There are more than "two Americas" if you are going to look at it that way.  (I don't prefer that language myself, I think it is divisive and we don't need any more divisive language in this country.)

 

 

Two Americas absolutely oversimplifies - it was shorthand. There are multiple experiences of America, to point that out should not be divisive in and of itself. Again, point to a place in history where being silent about the stark realities that various groups have faced has made things better?  It never has. The division comes from the experiences being present and having no acknowledgement or willingness to address them. I am very much in favor of all of us seeing this as "an American problem" and not just a "black problem" -- it never really works out well for African Americans to be the only ones raising a social concern anyway. The Civil Rights movement needed white people to be an active and visible part of the movement to fully gain traction. Situations like these need all of us saying how can we work together to have something like this not happen again - anywhere. 

 

It always baffles me a bit when I hear criticisms that "the language is divisive" as if the actual conditions that people face are not? Huh?  My making an observation is doing more harm than the decades long history and dynamics that complicated this situation that the people of Ferguson now find themselves in? Really?  Observing that the wealthy are getting wealthier while the majority are falling farther behind is divisive, but the actual economic policies that make that make that statement true are not?  I would love to hear how others make observations about social problems/phenomena - especially when there is something to compare and contrast. Is it only divisive because it makes someone uncomfortable to hear that not everyone has the same experience of "this being a nation of just laws and a fair legal system"?  I'd love to unpack that comment because in my experience it has come to mean that "I don't want to have to think about unpleasant things." Which is fine (because, actually neither do I) - but then let's call it that. 

[SKL]

I think everyone agrees that police brutality is wrong, racial bias in the justice system is wrong, and when the two come together, it's doubly wrong.  (Not saying that happened to M. Brown, but it does happen in our country, yes.)

 

The message needs to be that Americans of all colors want to fix this.  Too often the message comes across sounding like "white people hate black people."  This is the effect of, for example, the focus on only the cases where white cops got away with murdering black people, without any mention of the many cases where white cops were subjected to appropriate accountability measures or the killing was in fact justifiable.  That's called skewing the facts to inflame racial tensions.

 

When I was a kid, racism was fueled by the fact that it was frequently brought to our attention that a black person committed this rape and that murder against a white person.  It was determined to be unhelpful and the media tried to tone it down and balance it out.  (At least where I live.)  The fact still remains that a white person is a lot more likely to be murdered by a black person than the other way around.  However, it is understood that fueling anger over this fact is never going to improve race relations.  Likewise, it is a fact that in some places, a white officer has murdered a black man and not been found guilty of murder.  Fueling racial anger over it is never going to improve race relations.  It is basically saying "white people hate black people" or "white people are just as happy if black people are dead." 

 

How do you start a productive dialogue from there?

 

This is an opportunity to work on things like making all police more accountable (universal dashcams are a great idea; maybe new independent review procedures etc).  That can be done without essentially accusing white people of hating black people.

 

Last night I went to a community festival in a very mixed area of the city.  It is a light-hearted weekly event and I've taken my kids there many times.  Last night there was a strange tension.  Many black people were making a point to catch my eye and gauge ... something.  The police were clearly on edge.  Nobody did anything to anyone "up here" and yet the folks seemed to feel at at odds, watchful, defensive.  It's sad.  I know it will pass, but it's like we take two steps forward, one step back.

[SKL]

It always baffles me a bit when I hear criticisms that "the language is divisive" as if the actual conditions that people face are not? Huh? 

 

In any relationship one cares about, one doesn't focus on the areas of disagreement over everything else.  A couple that is having marital issues still uses language of being a couple unless they have really given up.  Words are powerful and need to be respected as such.

 

[SadieMarie]

Did the owners of the property call it in? Then it would be an obligation of the police to check it out. Maybe the white kid neighbors were friends and had permission to pass through or knew the neighbor was cranky and didn't mess with him/her. If the kid was coming in every weekend you would think he would have enough sense to not keep doing it... seems like there is more to the story.

 

There was not more to the story.  And knowing that makes me less likely to summarily dismiss people when they describe similar situations.  So many of us (white us) have no experience with this, do not see it, and so don't believe it or maybe don't want to believe it.  Who wants to believe this kind thing happens to our fellow citizens on a regular basis (and worse)?  If we believe it then we might feel the need to stand with them and DO something, much more comfortable to tell ourselves that there must be more to the story and then go about our business, smug in the belief that they must have deserved it.

 

We worked with several different law enforcement agencies.  Some were good, professional and competent.  Some were not.  

[poppy]

In any relationship one cares about, one doesn't focus on the areas of disagreement over everything else.  A couple that is having marital issues still uses language of being a couple unless they have really given up.  Words are powerful and need to be respected as such.

 

 

This is a bit rich coming from the poster who has brought up at least twice "The fact still remains that a white person is a lot more likely to be murdered by a black person than the other way around."

 

Which- I have no idea if that is true or not - but it truly has absolutely nothing to do with the death of Michael Brown.  Or the issue of police facing consequences for shootings.  Or anything else on this topic other than baiting, as far as I can see.

[SKL]

This is a bit rich coming from the poster who has brought up at least twice "The fact still remains that a white person is a lot more likely to be murdered by a black person than the other way around."

 

Which- I have no idea if that is true or not - but it truly has absolutely nothing to do with the death of Michael Brown.  Or the issue of police facing consequences for shootings.  Or anything else on this topic other than baiting, as far as I can see.

 

As you know, I brought up the statement as an example of divisive comments that are irrelevant to the case at hand.  Because other posters were making divisive comments that are equally irrelevant to the disposition of the Michael Brown case, in an attempt to silence anyone trying to focus on what we do and don't know in this specific case. 

 

Obviously there is a double standard here as far as that goes.

[poppy]

As you know, I brought up the statement as an example of divisive comments that are irrelevant to the case at hand.  Because other posters were making divisive comments that are equally irrelevant to the disposition of the Michael Brown case, in an attempt to silence anyone trying to focus on what we do and don't know in this specific case. 

 

Obviously there is a double standard here as far as that goes.

 

Race is not irrelevant to the Michael Brown shooting.

Not wanting to talk about race doesn't change that fact.

And saying "well sometime black people kill white people too!" is pretty insulting to all involved.

 

[SKL]

Race is not irrelevant to the Michael Brown shooting.

Not wanting to talk about race doesn't change that fact.

And saying "well sometime black people kill white people too!" is pretty insulting to all involved.

 

That is not what I said.

 

Done with a discussion where people take words out of context and have no desire to understand each other.

 

[Slojo]

In any relationship one cares about, one doesn't focus on the areas of disagreement over everything else.  A couple that is having marital issues still uses language of being a couple unless they have really given up.  Words are powerful and need to be respected as such.

 

Absolutely. And in this thread, you will see that I personally have used the language reflective of the above an staying engaged with relationship: "develop broad sympathies for one another"; "I'm sorry that happened to you", "thank you for sharing your story" "my truth may feel different, but I appreciate you sharing your perspective as honestly as you can", "we must build whatever community we can with one another" - my posts (as is my general orientation) are peppered with such statements, so I really truly hope you see me doing my part to stay committed to the relationship - and ask, in relationship, that you re-read my posts if you've missed them. 

 

Words are indeed powerful - which is why I have challenged folks to be thoughtful in the ways in which they refer to Mike Brown, to consider that he has parents who very much loved him, to clarify my statements when folks have assumed any level of criticism of law enforcement is tantamount to suggesting "all cops are bad/abuse power" - nope, I lived next to cops as neighbors for 15 years - I don't hold such broad brush sentiments. I've acknowledged shorthand that could have been more artfully worded. All of these too are about staying in relationship, and at some point, I'd like to be acknowledged for that as well.

 

To use the marriage analogy, I actually don't see the reasonable folks using language suggesting they want out of the relationship - they are using language to suggest that the relationship is strained or challenged (and we can agree to disagree on whether "two Americas" (since that is the language that triggered a reaction in you) is the language of "divorce" or language to describe some pretty dramatic differences in lived reality. Still looking for guidance about how that can be shared without being accused of being divisive. Continuing the analogy, it's as if we've agreed to go to marriage counseling, but before we again the session, we're told that we can't talk about infidelity, debt or our differing parenting philosophies -- because talking about those would be divisive and talking about our actual different experiences around those will not be tolerated. 

 

As far as the broader dialogue goes, the language I would look to signal a desire to "divorce" would be the language of succession (which no one has invoked here - unlike what happens every four years around a presidential election), the language of repatriation, for my tastes, the language of anarchy, or the language of war - none of that has been put on the table by anyone worth taking seriously. Rather, I've heard the heard the language of organizing, of seeking policy change, of wanting to have voices heard, of grief, of anger - all things that signal care and commitment to relationship.  Dr King said "If i seem, at times, to be deeply disappointed in America, know that there can be no great disappointment where there is not great love."  Language of relationship. Please respect my words as such.

 

Further, with the marriage analogy,the historical precedent has been to assume that what was in the best interest and opinion of the man, was the voice for both partners in the relationship. Women had not independent opinion or perspective of their own, no different reality to consider, no rights which her husband was bound to respect. And that was how it was in most places for thousands of years. In this country, I imagine that has changed, even while individual couples still struggle with the vestiges of that tradition and men and women still often experience marriage quite differently, even in the happiest of unions. So i'm not sure whose interests are served when only one way to interpret how to be in relationship is seen as legitimate, when only a limited set of ways to take action are seen as being "a respecter of laws and due process" and when the bias in the reading of one's responses when they do disagree is to suggest that they, and only they, have been less than thoughtful in their understanding that "words have power and need be respected as such."

 

I think everyone agrees that police brutality is wrong, racial bias in the justice system is wrong, and when the two come together, it's doubly wrong.  (Not saying that happened to M. Brown, but it does happen in our country, yes.)

 

The message needs to be that Americans of all colors want to fix this.  Too often the message comes across sounding like "white people hate black people."  This is the effect of, for example, the focus on only the cases where white cops got away with murdering black people, without any mention of the many cases where white cops were subjected to appropriate accountability measures or the killing was in fact justifiable.  That's called skewing the facts to inflame racial tensions.

 

When I was a kid, racism was fueled by the fact that it was frequently brought to our attention that a black person committed this rape and that murder against a white person.  It was determined to be unhelpful and the media tried to tone it down and balance it out.  (At least where I live.)  The fact still remains that a white person is a lot more likely to be murdered by a black person than the other way around.  However, it is understood that fueling anger over this fact is never going to improve race relations.  Likewise, it is a fact that in some places, a white officer has murdered a black man and not been found guilty of murder.  Fueling racial anger over it is never going to improve race relations.  It is basically saying "white people hate black people" or "white people are just as happy if black people are dead." 

 

How do you start a productive dialogue from there?

 

This is an opportunity to work on things like making all police more accountable (universal dashcams are a great idea; maybe new independent review procedures etc).  That can be done without essentially accusing white people of hating black people.

 

Last night I went to a community festival in a very mixed area of the city.  It is a light-hearted weekly event and I've taken my kids there many times.  Last night there was a strange tension.  Many black people were making a point to catch my eye and gauge ... something.  The police were clearly on edge.  Nobody did anything to anyone "up here" and yet the folks seemed to feel at at odds, watchful, defensive.  It's sad.  I know it will pass, but it's like we take two steps forward, one step back.

 

I am truly sorry for any tension you and your children experienced, but I'm not sure that you can lay that at the feet of unnamed black people who were trying to gauge something in your eyes. That feels like it gets into the territory of "how could you possibly know what they were feeling?" They probably wanted a light-hearted weekly event for their family as well. So I am going to respectfully challenge you to own those are your feeling and perceptions. The reason why this case has sparked such attention is precisely because it's the kind of thing that no only happened/could happen in Ferguson, but can happen (and has - maybe without the result in someone being dead) "up here", in my town and in places in between. So it doesn't take anybody doing anything to anyone up here -- it's already happened (you may be relatively more or less aware of it).  The tension is sad - very much so, but the underlying conditions and root causes are sadder still. We aren't going to make it out together tension-free, and I truly hope that's not your criteria for "staying in the marriage."  Because that's not real, and that only serves to have "everyone shut up about it already" while nothing changes. 

 

We get to all put our biggest big girl/big boy pants on for this -- and keep developing those broad sympathies (rather than deep suspicions) that I keep bringing up for each other. On that note, if you are up for being personally challenged, I am going to ask you to respectfully reconsider your interpretation that the prevailing message - from me or from others has been "white people hate black people" (language does indeed matter) unless that is a direct quote from someone. I know very, very few people who jump there. The reality is much more nuanced - let's give each other the mutual respect and broad sympathies to respect and reach to understand the nuance - because that indeed is a foundation of a good marriage (okay, i think I'm done with that analogy ;-). We really aren't that far bout in our perspectives - i've nodded my head at much of what you've said -- and what others have said. And, I think, so far I've fairly respectfully (though no shrinkingly or apologetically) responded to those I've disagreed with the most thoughtful reply I could muster. Onward - together! It's indeed the only thing that will ever work.

[poppy]

That is not what I said.

 

Done with a discussion where people take words out of context and have no desire to understand each other.

 

 

You said "relevant to the case at hand".  What case is there that you are talking about other than the shooting?

 

[weaver_67579]

There was not more to the story.  And knowing that makes me less likely to summarily dismiss people when they describe similar situations.  So many of us (white us) have no experience with this, do not see it, and so don't believe it or maybe don't want to believe it.  Who wants to believe this kind thing happens to our fellow citizens on a regular basis (and worse)?  If we believe it then we might feel the need to stand with them and DO something, much more comfortable to tell ourselves that there must be more to the story and then go about our business, smug in the belief that they must have deserved it.

 

We worked with several different law enforcement agencies.  Some were good, professional and competent.  Some were not.  

 

So why did the kid keep trespassing? or are you saying the kid was never on the property at all?

 

To be fair-I'm a no trespassing kind of gal. If I see you hiking around our farm without permission, you will likely be seeing me coming out to meet you-and I have.

 

[SadieMarie]

So why did the kid keep trespassing? or are you saying the kid was never on the property at all?

 

To be fair-I'm a no trespassing kind of gal. If I see you hiking around our farm without permission, you will likely be seeing me coming out to meet you-and I have.

 

 

I guess he didn't understand that when you are a white kid cutting across a lawn it is called "taking a short cut" and doing when you are black it is called "trespassing."  

[SKL]

Regarding the side topic of trespassing, I would be asking myself, "is this youngster intentionally trying to get removed from his home?  Is something going on there that he is trying to escape?"  I knew someone (white) who used to repeatedly commit petty theft and end up spending the night in jail.  It seems he had no better place to sleep.

[SadieMarie]

Regarding the side topic of trespassing, I would be asking myself, "is this youngster intentionally trying to get removed from his home? Is something going on there that he is trying to escape?" I knew someone (white) who used to repeatedly commit petty theft and end up spending the night in jail. It seems he had no better place to sleep.

 

No.

 

Why is it so hard for people to believe me?

[weaver_67579]

I guess he didn't understand that when you are a white kid cutting across a lawn it is called "taking a short cut" and doing when you are black it is called "trespassing."  

 

I'm just wondering who had the problem-the police-like I thought your original post on this topic implied or the land owner that perhaps called the kid in. Like I said-you would think the kid would just use the sidewalk if he/she just kept getting hauled in for it. Even as a kid I think I would have figured out not to trespass after the first time...seems strange that he/she kept doing it. I don't care what color you are, if the owner of the property doesn't want you taking a short cut through their property-don't do it. Even if the land owner is racist-he/she has the right to allow and not allow who they very well please on their property for whatever reasons they see fit.  For instance. I have a few neighbors with kids in the teenage range. Remember-I live in a rural area on a farm. One family's kids could cross my property pretty much at will because I know the girls and family well. They played softball with my oldest dd. They have cared for our animals when we have been gone and know all about what they can/cannot do with them. The kids from another, closer, house would be stopped by me as soon as I saw them on the property. They are not home often and I don't know them well. If I told them not to come on the property and I saw them "taking a shortcut" across the pasture, I just might call the police if it happened even after being asked to not be on our property. Farms can be dangerous-with animals and equipment and I don't really want people without knowledge how to deal with them around without asking. The neighbor watching from across the road would likely find my calling on one neighbor kid and not another rather arbitrary without knowing the context. All I was saying about your post was that I didn't feel like I had enough context to assume it was cops just dragging in black kids who trespass. It could be racist land owner or cops, it could be that kid threw his trash on the ground every day when he walked through or teased the resident dog... , it could be the neighbor knows the white kid's family and gave permission for them to walk through the yard... or any number of issues that you or I don't know the full context on. I have never heard of police taking anyone in for trespassing on private property without the landowner calling it in-making it a property owner issue and not a police issue. Did you talk to the land owner to see if/why the called in the trespass?

 

[SadieMarie]

No white kids ever LOCKED UP for trespassing.   The police make the call about detention.  Anyone could call the police and complain.  They do not get to determine what happens to a juvenile.  If your kid cuts across my lawn (in town, we are not talking about farmland) I do NOT get to determine whether he is locked up.  The judge dismisses every one of them as not having merit, but the kid still has to be locked up for twenty-four hours.  The police control whether to arrest and lock him up for that first 24 hours and that is what they chose to do over and over again until a judge told them to knock it off.  They get to determine that first twenty-four hours and after that it is a judge.  The standard for detention at the time was a danger or a flight risk.  He was neither.

[MrsMommy]

No white kids ever LOCKED UP for trespassing.   The police make the call about detention.  Anyone could call the police and complain.  They do not get to determine what happens to a juvenile.  If your kid cuts across my lawn (in town, we are not talking about farmland) I do NOT get to determine whether he is locked up.  The judge dismisses every one of them as not having merit, but the kid still has to be locked up for twenty-four hours.  The police control whether to arrest and lock him up for that first 24 hours and that is what they chose to do over and over again until a judge told them to knock it off.  They get to determine that first twenty-four hours and after that it is a judge.  The standard for detention at the time was a danger or a flight risk.  He was neither.

 

I totally get what you're saying, and sadly, I can see this happening. Probably not in my neighborhood, but maybe in my town, and definitely in the metro area. And I can totally understand the cutting across the lawn thing, especially in a neighborhood like mine, where all the backyards meet up with no fences around them. It's really kind of sad to think that people would view that as anything other than the shortest distance between two points. I would never, ever view that as trespassing...I sure didn't when I was a kid doing the same thing!

[Shelly in IL]

I haven't seen yet in this conversation that there are allegations that the cop had a blown orbital bone around his eye. If this is true, perhaps Michael Brown didn't help his situation any?

[MrsMommy]

I haven't seen yet in this conversation that there are allegations that the cop had a blown orbital bone around his eye. If this is true, perhaps Michael Brown didn't help his situation any?

 

I'm pretty sure that's been confirmed as false information.

[weaver_67579]

I'm pretty sure that's been confirmed as false information.

 

Who confirmed that as false? I haven't seen anything on that yet. I have not seen anything officially confirming it as true either, but I kind of figured it would shake out in the investigation. I know all of the evidence is not released during investigations.

[Trish]

Four of the 120 arrested the other night were from Ferguson.

[weaver_67579]

No white kids ever LOCKED UP for trespassing.   The police make the call about detention.  Anyone could call the police and complain.  They do not get to determine what happens to a juvenile.  If your kid cuts across my lawn (in town, we are not talking about farmland) I do NOT get to determine whether he is locked up.  The judge dismisses every one of them as not having merit, but the kid still has to be locked up for twenty-four hours.  The police control whether to arrest and lock him up for that first 24 hours and that is what they chose to do over and over again until a judge told them to knock it off.  They get to determine that first twenty-four hours and after that it is a judge.  The standard for detention at the time was a danger or a flight risk.  He was neither.

 

The first statement is likely not true. I'm pretty sure some white kids have been arrested for trespassing at some point. I didn't say the landowner gets to choose if someone gets locked up. They do get to choose if they want call the police and if they want to press charges. Obviously, they did so frequently.  I don't think the police just go around and randomly pick up people for being in yards without being called.

 

Why isn't the question being answered as to why someone would keep trespassing if they get picked up for it? That would seem to be to be a defiant act to kind of stick it to the landowner. It seems like there is a deliberate effort to talk badly about the police, but no effort to label the kid's trespassing as wrong. The kid committed a wrong act and doesn't seem to quick on the uptake if he/she kept repeating it.

 

As to the other poster who would not define crossing through yards as trespassing-well that is your right to let whomever you choose to pass through. I lived in a development for years and the neighbor kids I knew had the ok to pass through at will. We did have a fenced back yard with a trampoline that was off-limits unless we were home. My kids were free to pass through the yards of our close neighbors as well. However, if some stranger or troublemaker passed through I would have stopped them. There was one creepy guy about 18-19 years old that was forbidden on my property. I would have called the police on him if he ever showed back up again. Just because yards are connected, does not mean it is a highway for everyone to use at will for everyone with yards that are connected

 

I have a former co-worker who had to euthanize her dog because some jerk of a kid walked through her yard and harassed her dog. One day the kid got bitten-while the dog was in his kennel-hmmm the kid had to put his body parts in the kennel. Other kids finally fessed up that the brat would poke the dog with a stick. If you have pets, you may not want your yard used as a highway. This is the reason our 4 dogs were in the house when we were gone even though we had a securely fenced back yard. How about if you are a master gardener and love your prize petunias and the kids in the neighborhood tromp through and stomp on your manicured and tended plant life. My best friend in high school had a neighbor like this and it was because kids would play hide and seek and such and ruin her plants. If you have a nice landscaped yard, You might not want your yard used as a highway. I know the rails to trails projects are often not supported by farmers that the trail will pass through-because of people leaving trash and because people sometimes don't stay on the trail. If you get in with a cranky bull or a horse that kicks-the farmer can be sued even though you are trespassing. Trash in the fields used for hay can be eaten by livestock and kill them. If you have things in your yard that people can get hurt on-you may not want people you did not invite on your property-even trampolines and swing sets. Frankly-even in a development with connected yards with no fences-you don't have to give a reason for not wanting anyone or even particular people in your yard.

 

[SadieMarie]

The first statement is likely not true. I'm pretty sure some white kids have been arrested for trespassing at some point. I didn't say the landowner gets to choose if someone gets locked up. They do get to choose if they want call the police and if they want to press charges. Obviously, they did so frequently.  I don't think the police just go around and randomly pick up people for being in yards without being called.

 

Why isn't the question being answered as to why someone would keep trespassing if they get picked up for it? That would seem to be to be a defiant act to kind of stick it to the landowner. It seems like there is a deliberate effort to talk badly about the police, but no effort to label the kid's trespassing as wrong. The kid committed a wrong act and doesn't seem to quick on the uptake if he/she kept repeating it.

 

As to the other poster who would not define crossing through yards as trespassing-well that is your right to let whomever you choose to pass through. I lived in a development for years and the neighbor kids I knew had the ok to pass through at will. We did have a fenced back yard with a trampoline that was off-limits unless we were home. My kids were free to pass through the yards of our close neighbors as well. However, if some stranger or troublemaker passed through I would have stopped them. There was one creepy guy about 18-19 years old that was forbidden on my property. I would have called the police on him if he ever showed back up again. Just because yards are connected, does not mean it is a highway for everyone to use at will for everyone with yards that are connected

 

I have a former co-worker who had to euthanize her dog because some jerk of a kid walked through her yard and harassed her dog. One day the kid got bitten-while the dog was in his kennel-hmmm the kid had to put his body parts in the kennel. Other kids finally fessed up that the brat would poke the dog with a stick. If you have pets, you may not want your yard used as a highway. This is the reason our 4 dogs were in the house when we were gone even though we had a securely fenced back yard. How about if you are a master gardener and love your prize petunias and the kids in the neighborhood tromp through and stomp on your manicured and tended plant life. My best friend in high school had a neighbor like this and it was because kids would play hide and seek and such and ruin her plants. If you have a nice landscaped yard, You might not want your yard used as a highway. I know the rails to trails projects are often not supported by farmers that the trail will pass through-because of people leaving trash and because people sometimes don't stay on the trail. If you get in with a cranky bull or a horse that kicks-the farmer can be sued even though you are trespassing. Trash in the fields used for hay can be eaten by livestock and kill them. If you have things in your yard that people can get hurt on-you may not want people you did not invite on your property-even trampolines and swing sets. Frankly-even in a development with connected yards with no fences-you don't have to give a reason for not wanting anyone or even particular people in your yard.

 

I worked there for four years and there was not another kid brought in for trespassing from that community.  That was one of the things that made it so weird.  In fact, it would have been weird to have any kid locked up for trespassing, tickets or notifying parents or charges or whatever, but locking up a kid for trespassing was just not something that happened.  They were treating this kid differently because he was black.  It was clear to all of us and the judge and they had to stop.  So I guess that my boss took issue with it and the judge intervened means that justice won in the end and I will call that a success for the system.  

 

Focusing on why this kid didn't stay on the sidewalk is just a way to not deal with the fact that he was treated differently than a white kid would have been.  That is what makes it racist.  It is about a differential treatment by the police.  That is not right.  There is no way to make it right.  Tell me fifty more trespassing hypothetical situations and it still won't be right.  Tie yourself in knots arguing about the seriousness of trespassing and the stupidity of this particular kid and it still won't be right.  Clearly you need it to somehow be right.

[MrsMommy]

Who confirmed that as false? I haven't seen anything on that yet. I have not seen anything officially confirming it as true either, but I kind of figured it would shake out in the investigation. I know all of the evidence is not released during investigations.

 

I'm already pretty sure you're going to argue with me over sources, but I'm going to believe CNN, who has reported all along that he had a swollen face, not a broken eye socket (they actually refused to report on that at all), over the "Gateway Pundit, who originally reported that story." One of these sources is credible, the other is not. But you can choose to discount that if you wish.

[SKL]

I worked there for four years and there was not another kid brought in for trespassing from that community.  That was one of the things that made it so weird.  In fact, it would have been weird to have any kid locked up for trespassing, tickets or notifying parents or charges or whatever, but locking up a kid for trespassing was just not something that happened.  They were treating this kid differently because he was black.  It was clear to all of us and the judge and they had to stop.  So I guess that my boss took issue with it and the judge intervened means that justice won in the end and I will call that a success for the system.  

 

Focusing on why this kid didn't stay on the sidewalk is just a way to not deal with the fact that he was treated differently than a white kid would have been.  That is what makes it racist.  It is about a differential treatment by the police.  That is not right.  There is no way to make it right.  Tell me fifty more trespassing hypothetical situations and it still won't be right.  Tie yourself in knots arguing about the seriousness of trespassing and the stupidity of this particular kid and it still won't be right.  Clearly you need it to somehow be right.

 

I think people are trying to establish that most kids of any color would have stopped the repeated behavior if they didn't want the repeated consequence.  Do we know that white kids were doing the exact same thing as the black kid over and over and over again?  I mean, I did my share of trespassing as a kid, but when I was told to get off the property I got off and stayed off.  It's not like being asked to move to the sidewalk is mistreatment.  I think it's a fair question to ask why this kid kept doing this when he knew what the consequence would be and he could easily have avoided it.

 

I agree that the consequence was ridiculous and I'm glad it was stopped.  However, ridiculous consequences happen to kids of all colors.  My 14yo (white) nephew got into a tussle with a black classmate when the classmate intentionally busted up his science fair project.  My nephew came out with a black eye and a 6 MONTH suspension (first offense ever, excellent student etc etc).  The other boy came out with no injuries and a 3 DAY suspension (repeat offender btw).  The difference was that my nephew had in his hand a tiny piece of rubber which was part of his science project.  The school principal (who is black btw) decided he had violated the "no tolerance" weapons rule.

[SKL]

I'm already pretty sure you're going to argue with me over sources, but I'm going to believe CNN, who has reported all along that he had a swollen face, not a broken eye socket (they actually refused to report on that at all), over the "Gateway Pundit, who originally reported that story." One of these sources is credible, the other is not. But you can choose to discount that if you wish.

 

I saw the story about the broken eye socket on other mainstream news.

[MrsMommy]

I saw the story about the broken eye socket on other mainstream news.

 

Yes, and they're starting to back peddle on it, because they were talking to a "family friend" who may or may not even know the officer. The real story will come out eventually, but I'm highly skeptical about this particular report, in light of further information coming out.

[SKL]

Yes, and they're starting to back peddle on it, because they were talking to a "family friend" who may or may not even know the officer. The real story will come out eventually, but I'm highly skeptical about this particular report, in light of further information coming out.

 

Skepticism is healthy.  That is why some of us keep saying that we want to know the facts before we condemn anyone.

[MrsMommy]

Skepticism is healthy.  That is why some of us keep saying that we want to know the facts before we condemn anyone.

 

Too bad Mike Brown didn't have that same courtesy done to him.

[poppy]

Skepticism is healthy.  That is why some of us keep saying that we want to know the facts before we condemn anyone.

 

In this case, I think the healthy  skepticism would be directed towards the Ferguson police.  Since that group has already sent out incriminating videos of the shooting victim to the press, and has otherwise badly mismanaged just about everything in the town they are supposed to protect and serve.

[weaver_67579]

I worked there for four years and there was not another kid brought in for trespassing from that community.  That was one of the things that made it so weird.  In fact, it would have been weird to have any kid locked up for trespassing, tickets or notifying parents or charges or whatever, but locking up a kid for trespassing was just not something that happened.  They were treating this kid differently because he was black.  It was clear to all of us and the judge and they had to stop.  So I guess that my boss took issue with it and the judge intervened means that justice won in the end and I will call that a success for the system.  

 

Focusing on why this kid didn't stay on the sidewalk is just a way to not deal with the fact that he was treated differently than a white kid would have been.  That is what makes it racist.  It is about a differential treatment by the police.  That is not right.  There is no way to make it right.  Tell me fifty more trespassing hypothetical situations and it still won't be right.  Tie yourself in knots arguing about the seriousness of trespassing and the stupidity of this particular kid and it still won't be right.  Clearly you need it to somehow be right.

 

I am not saying it is not racist behavior by the cops and/or the property owner. I am saying that I wouldn't assume it to be so. My comment on white kids arrested for trespassing was not about your particular community-just that certainly whites get arrested for it at times. I'm fair sure I have seen trespassing law reports in our local paper and being as the population is overwhelmingly white-the perpetrator almost certainly was too.

 

The stories about trespassing were not hypothetical-they were real, about the dog, the flowers and the farmers. They were to illustrate that not everyone welcomes other people tramping through their property without permission and it is not always about race. I think I also stated that even if the property owner is racist-so what. That makes him/her a jerk-but they still have the right to have or not have whomever they choose on their property. The kid obviously knew that that particular person did not want him/her on the property. After the first offense-that problem was with the kid. I am not saying that I know the owner and/or police were nice or even in the right. I am saying there is apparently proof that the kid was disobeying the wishes of the property owner on several occasions.  You can like or not like people treating people of different races, religions or creeds all you want. That does not take away their right to keep trespassers off their property. This country also values your right to have those beliefs-even if most of the population does not agree. Nope-I'm not at all feeling sorry for a kid picked up multiple times for trespassing on someone else's property. Now-if he was never on the property and got called in or got a beating by the police after not resisting... that would be a different story. I don't need it to be "right" in some way. I do get tired of the poor-whoever- got picked up for XYZ without painting the whole picture including how that person was doing something wrong that contributed to their bad circumstances.

 

Why is it wrong to point out that the kid was obviously in the wrong by continuing to trespass after obviously know the owner did not want him/her on their property-regardless of the reason why?

[weaver_67579]

I'm already pretty sure you're going to argue with me over sources, but I'm going to believe CNN, who has reported all along that he had a swollen face, not a broken eye socket (they actually refused to report on that at all), over the "Gateway Pundit, who originally reported that story." One of these sources is credible, the other is not. But you can choose to discount that if you wish.

 

No argument here-I still didn't hear it this morning either-but, I've been in the garden on and off too. Just wondering...

 

[SadieMarie]

I think people are trying to establish that most kids of any color would have stopped the repeated behavior if they didn't want the repeated consequence.  Do we know that white kids were doing the exact same thing as the black kid over and over and over again?  I mean, I did my share of trespassing as a kid, but when I was told to get off the property I got off and stayed off.  It's not like being asked to move to the sidewalk is mistreatment.  I think it's a fair question to ask why this kid kept doing this when he knew what the consequence would be and he could easily have avoided it.

 

I agree that the consequence was ridiculous and I'm glad it was stopped.  However, ridiculous consequences happen to kids of all colors.  My 14yo (white) nephew got into a tussle with a black classmate when the classmate intentionally busted up his science fair project.  My nephew came out with a black eye and a 6 MONTH suspension (first offense ever, excellent student etc etc).  The other boy came out with no injuries and a 3 DAY suspension (repeat offender btw).  The difference was that my nephew had in his hand a tiny piece of rubber which was part of his science project.  The school principal (who is black btw) decided he had violated the "no tolerance" weapons rule.

 

The point is that it was racist behavior by a police officer.  It does happen.  It does not mean that all police officers are racist.  I never said that.  I worked with a lot of police officers who showed remarkable restraint and professionalism.  Police departments know it is a problem and the good ones try to address it with training and education and with their hiring practices.  I just listened to interviews with police officers in the state where I live, talking about how they try to deal with this issue.  It is the responsibility of the leadership of any organization to set the tone and standards.  Some do and some don't and it is not sounding to me like this was a priority in Ferguson.  

 

The question is not whether racism exists in our justice system, it is what should we do about it and what is being done in a lot of places.  I gave a rather small example of racist behavior by a police officer.  It was resolved.  My point was that if you are white you are not very likely to observe things like this because it does not happen to you and why, because of where I worked and what I observed. I do not dismiss it out of hand.  And instead it becomes all about why a fifteen year old did not stay on the sidewalk.  If police departments can acknowledge that this is a problem what is the big deal about the rest of us doing it? But it seems like some people just can't.

 

If I were to respond to your example based on the response I was given this would be where I start questioning what was wrong with your nephew, how he must have provoked what happened, that maybe there was a history that played into it that you could not know about, how do you define "tiny" and on and on and on...  that the principal was just trying to do his job...I might bring up other examples of fights in schools where things were not as they appeared.  I might talk about a white principal being unfair to a black student, as though that has anything to do with what happened to your nephew.  In other words, I would try every way I could to deny that your nephew could have been treated unfairly by a biased authority figure based on the color of his skin.  But that would be irrelevant.  It would just be me not wanting to believe you because it goes against my own need to not want it to be true.

[SKL]

The point is that it was racist behavior by a police officer.  It does happen.  It does not mean that all police officers are racist.  I never said that.  I worked with a lot of police officers who showed remarkable restraint and professionalism.  Police departments know it is a problem and the good ones try to address it with training and education and with their hiring practices.  I just listened to interviews with police officers in the state where I live, talking about how they try to deal with this issue.  It is the responsibility of the leadership of any organization to set the tone and standards.  Some do and some don't and it is not sounding to me like this was a priority in Ferguson.  

 

The question is not whether racism exists in our justice system, it is what should we do about it and what is being done in a lot of places.  I gave a rather small example of racist behavior by a police officer.  It was resolved.  My point was that if you are white you are not very likely to observe things like this because it does not happen to you and why, because of where I worked and what I observed. I do not dismiss it out of hand.  And instead it becomes all about why a fifteen year old did not stay on the sidewalk.  If police departments can acknowledge that this is a problem what is the big deal about the rest of us doing it? But it seems like some people just can't.

 

If I were to respond to your example based on the response I was given this would be where I start questioning what was wrong with your nephew, how he must have provoked what happened, that maybe there was a history that played into it that you could not know about, how do you define "tiny" and on and on and on...  that the principal was just trying to do his job...I might bring up other examples of fights in schools where things were not as they appeared.  I might talk about a white principal being unfair to a black student, as though that has anything to do with what happened to your nephew.  In other words, I would try every way I could to deny that your nephew could have been treated unfairly by a biased authority figure based on the color of his skin.  But that would be irrelevant.  It would just be me not wanting to believe you because it goes against my own need to not want it to be true.

 

I think the point PPs are trying to make is that the repeat trespasser's behavior sounds erratic by any standard and may not be comparable to anything the other local kids were doing.

 

To establish disparate treatment motivated by racial bias, don't you have to first establish that the kid was treated differently than white kids who were doing the same thing, including repeating the offense a similar number of times?  Or was this boy thrown in the slammer overnight for his very first trespassing offense while other boys were not?

[idnib]

It sounds like they've started drawing down the National Guard numbers.

[SadieMarie]

I think the point PPs are trying to make is that the repeat trespasser's behavior sounds erratic by any standard and may not be comparable to anything the other local kids were doing.

 

To establish disparate treatment motivated by racial bias, don't you have to first establish that the kid was treated differently than white kids who were doing the same thing, including repeating the offense a similar number of times?  Or was this boy thrown in the slammer overnight for his very first trespassing offense while other boys were not?

 

I give up.

[poppy]

I think the point PPs are trying to make is that the repeat trespasser's behavior sounds erratic by any standard and may not be comparable to anything the other local kids were doing.

 

To establish disparate treatment motivated by racial bias, don't you have to first establish that the kid was treated differently than white kids who were doing the same thing, including repeating the offense a similar number of times?  Or was this boy thrown in the slammer overnight for his very first trespassing offense while other boys were not?

 

I find it pretty amazing that an eyewitness report of apparent racist police behavior in one town has been met with so many multi paragraph 'but sometimes unfair things happen to white people' stories and 'it must have been the kid's fault' stories. I find that very telling.  It's a massive amount of resistance that we'd be unlikely  to see if a poster reported a different kind of unfairness.  For example, if a poster said the local school administration showed unfair bias against a homeschool kid, do you think we would see   lots of stories about 'well in my town public school children have just as bad' and pages of speculation about how it was probably that homeschool kid's strange parent and erratic behavior that caused the bias?

[OH_Homeschooler]

Too bad Mike Brown didn't have that same courtesy done to him.

 

This is absolutely the best rebuttal I've heard in a month. 

[weaver_67579]

I find it pretty amazing that an eyewitness report of apparent racist police behavior in one town has been met with so many multi paragraph 'but sometimes unfair things happen to white people' stories and 'it must have been the kid's fault' stories. I find that very telling.  It's a massive amount of resistance that we'd be unlikely  to see if a poster reported a different kind of unfairness.  For example, if a poster said the local school administration showed unfair bias against a homeschool kid, do you think we would see   lots of stories about 'well in my town public school children have just as bad' and pages of speculation about how it was probably that homeschool kid's strange parent and erratic behavior that caused the bias?

 

However-the eyewitness report did not give information on the other side of the story. I felt like it was missing something-like why in the world would the kid keep doing it-made no sense. Why am I supposed to take the poster's word for it, when there was no "other side" presented to compare. It was like I was blown off when pointing out trespassing is wrong... but the black kid was treated differently... Well I don't know that. As a pp said-did the property owner call on an equal number of white kids? Did those white kids keep doing it or did they stop after one offense? Did the white kids have permission?  All of those things give context and would determine if equal treatment was given for equal violations.

 

It is not that I don't believe racism doesn't exist. I have seen it.  I have also seen people throwing race into things that really were just about something else. I have been called racist because I argued against reparations and because I say I am against illegal immigration (and Mom is a legal immigrant - on that side I'm a 1st generation American). I do not take that word lightly and it bugs me when people throw that around when people just don't agree with them-or when people see something from the outside and don't know the facts.

 

Why do people defend people's actions that have done wrong just because the punishment was too harsh? I can say the police were wrong for detaining said trespassing kid-and the kid was wrong for setting foot on the property after being told not to. Why dismiss that unfair things can happen to white people? Are we not entitled to want consequences for when we are treated unfairly?

 

As to the homeschooer idea-it would depend on the problem with the homeschooler as to if I would have an issue with the school's side or the student's. Why would there be an assumption that I or anyone else couldn't think enough to know not all homeschoolers do everything right...

 

Still waiting on the answer to:  Why is it wrong to point out the kid's wrongdoing?

[Truscifi]

I thought SadieMarie's posts were pretty clear that the standard for the 24 hr lockup before court was if the kid is a danger or flight risk and the black kid was neither but was held over night every time anyway from the very beginning, and that no white kids who did not meet that criteria were held for the 24 hr lockup in the time she worked there, and that the problem was egregious enough that not only her supervisor at the detention center but also a judge got involved and told the police department to stop holding him over night with no grounds.

 

I don't understand why other factors would change an assessment of bias by the cops.