Jump to content

Menu

So disturbed by this shooting, and the aftermath


AlmiraGulch

Recommended Posts

Would it make any difference to anyone if the reports are now saying there are witnesses to support the police officer? That Mr. Brown possibly grabbed his gun and the first shot was fired accidentally, because the alleged victim grabbed it and actually turned it towards the police officer? That the supporting witness to Mr. Brown was his accomplice? Clearly there is much to still be determined.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 404
  • Created
  • Last Reply

 

I will not, however, continue to be part of a conversation where people are unjustly accusing a deceased young man of things they have no idea he did, or generally maligning him and assassinating his character. I've said my piece, and I'm shocked and saddened by some of the responses from people (some of who aren't even from the area, and don't know what the heck they're talking about, because, let's face it, if you're not from here, you don't understand the complexities of the situation, and don't even tell me you, because that's just insulting to locals), and I'm just not going to do anything to encourage that part of the conversation any longer.

 

Oh please. The events in Ferguson are part of a national discussion, and unless you were present at the time of the shooting your take on the events does not get to trump what someone else brings to the conversation.  The reality is that at this time there are still a lot of unanswered questions about what happened that day, and none of us should be jumping to conclusions at this time. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh please. The events in Ferguson are part of a national discussion, and unless you were present at the time of the shooting your take on the events does not get to trump what someone else brings to the conversation.  The reality is that at this time there are still a lot of unanswered questions about what happened that day, and none of us should be jumping to conclusions at this time. 

 

This is the last time I will respond to you. Quoted from my post above.

 

"OK, if anyone wants to discuss the fact that people's Constitutional rights are being trampled on in Ferguson, or the disgusting fact that looters and other criminals are coming to Ferguson from around the country just to make trouble when the people of Ferguson are just looking for peace and justice, or the fact that children are being denied their right to education because of the violence, I will happily continue to participate in those conversations. I will also be happy to talk about how we can help the folks in Ferguson."

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the last time I will respond to you. Quoted from my post above.

 

"OK, if anyone wants to discuss the fact that people's Constitutional rights are being trampled on in Ferguson, or the disgusting fact that looters and other criminals are coming to Ferguson from around the country just to make trouble when the people of Ferguson are just looking for peace and justice, or the fact that children are being denied their right to education because of the violence, I will happily continue to participate in those conversations. I will also be happy to talk about how we can help the folks in Ferguson."

 

See, when you post your comments in an opinion discussion you don't get to choose who does or does not comment.  You don't even get to choose which parts of your comments they focus upon.  I believe your take on this case is fundamentally flawed and I am allwoed to say so.  That of course doesn't mean you have to respond.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We had a similar situation here a couple years ago (and I almost got slammed into by a couple cop cars as they rushed down the block to the scene).

 

The big difference in how the police reacted was this:  they got information out to the community as quickly as they could.  They tried to be as transparent as possible, as quickly as possible.  They did not bring out the riot gear or the tear gas. 

 

AND they had been trying for years to become allies with the community rather than dictators.

 

ETA -- this does not minimize the fact that a kid basically got killed for committing some petty crimes (and then coming at a police officer in a threatening way and grabbing his gun when he (the petty criminal) got cornered....), however it does show that bad things like this can happen and not have the entire community fall apart and have even more people get hurt in various ways.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

See, when you post your comments in an opinion discussion you don't get to choose who does or does not comment.  You don't even get to choose which parts of your comments they focus upon.  I believe your take on this case is fundamentally flawed and I am allwoed to say so.  That of course doesn't mean you have to respond.

 

Until I figure out how to block your posts, I guess I'm forced to respond.

 

I am telling you WHAT I AM WILLING TO DISCUSS. I WILL NOT ENGAGE IN ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS CASE.

 

I do have the right to pick what I comment on, yes? Or do I only get to talk about what you want?

 

My take is no more fundamentally flawed than yours, and given that I'm a local, I think I know a hell of a lot more about it than you do.

 

"OK, if anyone wants to discuss the fact that people's Constitutional rights are being trampled on in Ferguson, or the disgusting fact that looters and other criminals are coming to Ferguson from around the country just to make trouble when the people of Ferguson are just looking for peace and justice, or the fact that children are being denied their right to education because of the violence, I will happily continue to participate in those conversations. I will also be happy to talk about how we can help the folks in Ferguson."

Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, I don't think it matters if the kid mouthed off or was aggressive, or if the police officer involved was incompetent, or justified because he didn't know if the kid had a weapon.

 

What matters is the whole history between police and community up to this point.  That's why there are now demonstrations and less honorable activities going on. The current situation is not because one kid got killed, so his behavior (good or bad) is somewhat irrelevant.  That was only the trigger for what was already building.

 

Seems like when we hear the details, the trigger for these things often involves some less than honorable behavior on the part of the victim.  But if a city is reacting this way, that suggests there has been a build up of tensions over years.  And then the cops come in and make it worse with their reaction because they seem to be clueless.  Which is how this started in the first place.

 

But no, the kid doesn't deserve to be dead, even if he did rob a store and shove the clerk.  No matter how much I condemn that behavior, that punishment is over the top.

 

I agree with most of what you have said, and the Ferguson PD is in need of a massive clean up, much of which may need to come from the outside.  I also support this case being reviewed by the federal authorities as I would be hesitant to accept anything coming from the Ferguson PD at face value.

 

I do disagree with the bolded as again, I do not see anyone stating he should have been shot for assaulting a store clerk.  However, if he did attempt to take a firearm from an officer and assaulted/attempted to assault the officer, then it is possible an act of deadly force was justified.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with most of what you have said, and the Ferguson PD is in need of a massive clean up, much of which may need to come from the outside.  I also support this case being reviewed by the federal authorities as I would be hesitant to accept anything coming from the Ferguson PD at face value.

 

I do disagree with the bolded as again, I do not see anyone stating he should have been shot for assaulting a store clerk.  However, if he did attempt to take a firearm from an officer and assaulted/attempted to assault the officer, then it is possible an act of deadly force was justified.

 

 

The thing is, at this point, the only evidence we have of his behavior is the video from the store.  And even that may be open to interpretation. 

 

Problem is, the evidence for whether he tried to grab the officer's gun is probably not going to be on tape.  And the community is likely reacting to the only hard evidence there currently is -- which is the video in the store.  And the release of that video at the time it was released.  Which wasn't exactly timed to allow for communication with the community, but probably to boost the claims of the police dept -- and since we don't have all the evidence yet, releasing bits of info here and there tends to look a bit bad when it supports one "side".

 

I'm not really trying to support one or the other person (or victim), because I don't have the facts.  However, I think what's clear is the community needs a police dept that can deal with this properly -- whether it was an accident or justified or the result of a rogue cop.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Until I figure out how to block your posts, I guess I'm forced to respond.

 

I am telling you WHAT I AM WILLING TO DISCUSS. I WILL NOT ENGAGE IN ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS CASE.

 

I do have the right to pick what I comment on, yes? Or do I only get to talk about what you want?

 

My take is no more fundamentally flawed than yours, and given that I'm a local, I think I know a hell of a lot more about it than you do.

 

"OK, if anyone wants to discuss the fact that people's Constitutional rights are being trampled on in Ferguson, or the disgusting fact that looters and other criminals are coming to Ferguson from around the country just to make trouble when the people of Ferguson are just looking for peace and justice, or the fact that children are being denied their right to education because of the violence, I will happily continue to participate in those conversations. I will also be happy to talk about how we can help the folks in Ferguson."

 

It is fundamentally flawed when you refuse to wait on the facts and decide to reinvent the word "victim."  Unless the "locals" are getting super secret autopsy or forensic reports, no, I don't believe you know anymore than anyone else about this incident, which is fairly clear from some of your posts.

 

Also, you said "I do have the right to pick what I comment on, yes? Or do I only get to talk about what you want?"

 

The last sentence of the post you replied to: "That of course doesn't mean you have to respond."

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

But neither of those things should count for more than the actual facts of this case. And we're still waiting for those.

 

Depends on how cynical you are about whether the facts revealed about the case will actually be true. We don't know exactly what happened, sure.  We do know there  is a very strong history of judges and juries acquitting police officers in circumstances similar to these, often ridiculously unjustly.  Whether that will happen in Ferguson with the media attention, who knows.

 

If there were no media attention and there were no protest, do you think that would change things? I think it would very much be in the officer's favor. And that is troubling.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just as a demonstration of how different police departments can be viewed by their communities --

 

I grew up in Los Angeles (in the "Valley" actually).  Then I moved to Illinois and went to a double feature with someone: Blue Thunder and Valley Girl.

 

My companion thought Blue Thunder was completely over the top fantasy and he just couldn't take it seriously.  He really liked Valley Girl.

 

I thought Valley Girl was just silly and not based in fact at all.

 

But Blue Thunder was only one step away from what the LA police were already doing.

 

He couldn't see that, because he'd never lived in an area where the police were hoping to be a mini-army.

 

If you've never heard of Blue Thunder (don't think it made that much splash): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Thunder

"Francis McNeil "Frank" Murphy (Roy Scheider) is a Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) helicopter-pilot-officer and troubled Vietnam War veteran with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). His newly assigned field partner is Richard Lymangood (Daniel Stern). The two patrol Los Angeles at night and give assistance to police forces on the ground."

 

And the helicopter is generally very scary.  And bad things happen because the police have too much power.

 

I don't know that it was in any way a good movie.  I just thought it was interesting that I saw it as more realistic than Valley Girl, but someone who wasn't from LA had the opposite reaction.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing is, at this point, the only evidence we have of his behavior is the video from the store.  And even that may be open to interpretation. 

 

Problem is, the evidence for whether he tried to grab the officer's gun is probably not going to be on tape.  And the community is likely reacting to the only evidence there is -- which is the video in the store.

 

 

Releasing the tape was yet another mistake of the Ferguson PD.  However, as can be seen in this thread, even without that tape the narrative from some would be "he was shot for jaywalking" yet we all know that is unlikely to be what was said by the officer in his statement or what will be presented to a grand jury.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Depends on how cynical you are about whether the facts revealed about the case will actually be true. We don't know exactly what happened, sure.  We do know there  is a very strong history of judges and juries acquitting police officers in circumstances similar to these, often ridiculously unjustly.  Whether that will happen in Ferguson with the media attention, who knows.

 

If there were no media attention and there were no protest, do you think that would change things? I think it would very much be in the officer's favor. And that is troubling.

 

But what if the evidence shows the officer was justified?  Should he be held accountable for the sins of others?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anybody other than me become skeptical about the county prosecutor? When he was a child, his father, who was a police officer, was shot and killed by an young black man. I find it very hard to believe that he can be impartial in this case, and I really think the professional thing for him to do would be to recuse himself so someone without that kind of baggage could take over. I don't even fault him if he isn't impartial, because that was a horrible thing to live through and grow up with, but one would think that if you get to that point in your career, you would know when to step back.

 

I also think that if he were to recuse himself, it would do a lot to help the protestors feel like they're being heard, and might calm things down. If we can help the protestors find justice, and get them out of the streets, the bad guys will be a lot easier to find, because they won't be hiding in the crowds, looking for trouble.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But what if the evidence shows the officer was justified?  Should he be held accountable for the sins of others?

 

No.

 

But given the long and very well documented history of injustices cases similar to this, and given the police's ridiculous mishandling of the situation on so many fronts since the shooting has happened, the assumption that the dead young man was at fault does not make sense.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing is, at this point, the only evidence we have of his behavior is the video from the store.  And even that may be open to interpretation. 

 

Problem is, the evidence for whether he tried to grab the officer's gun is probably not going to be on tape.  And the community is likely reacting to the only evidence there is -- which is the video in the store.

 

 

Except the video evidence from the store really isn't relevant to the deadly incident that occurred minutes later with officer.

 

I have such mixed feelings about this whole thing, still.

 

First, stealing cigars or talking shit to a police officer or even physically resisting an officer are not offenses that are punishable by death.  They just aren't.  And what I would do in a similar circumstance is also not relevant, because I am not a trained police officer charged with serving and protecting the people of my city.  They do not have the same luxury of knee-jerk response that I may have.   

 

Still, if the officer felt that his life was threatened, if Brown was charging at the officer, and shooting him 5 times didn't stop him, then the 6th shot may have been necessary to stop him.  Unfortunately, it was fatal.

 

We have heard Brown's friend's account.  We have heard some witness accounts that say Brown was trying to surrender.  We have also heard video on which the person recording claims to have witnessed the incident, and that Brown kept going toward the officer.  And then there's the account given by the friend of the officer, that states that Brown did, in fact, keep charging the officer aggressively, according to the officer.  The real truth could be all in perception. 

 

I find it ludicrous that some people seem to be saying that this guy must have been guilty of something or the officer wouldn't have shot him, and since we are reasonably sure he stole some cigars a few minutes before, and mouthed off to the police, and failed to get out of the street...well...that must be telling.  Ridiculous.

 

I find it equally ludicrous that some people seem to think this police officer got out of bed and said "I think I'll go shoot me a black person today." Or that he didn't hesitate to use deadly force because the guy was black, and, thus worthless in the eyes of the white officer.   I mean...really?  Give me a break.  Equally ridiculous.

 

What I do know is that the police response in the past week has been abysmal.  The residents of Ferguson are living in fear.  The children cannot start school. The community at large is being misrepresented.  Businesses and livelihoods are being destroyed by opportunists in the name of justice, and that is in and of itself a complete injustice.    And while the facts of this specific case remain largely unknown, once again we are seeing just how wide the racial divide remains in this country, and just how large a role race still plays in the justice system in this country.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Except the video evidence from the store really isn't relevant to the deadly incident that occurred minutes later with officer.

 

But it is relevant to public opinion.  There's the feeling that "this low life was already robbing a store and bullying a clerk".  So that somewhat justifies what happened a few minutes later.

 

I'm talking more about perceptions and reactions, not actual facts or guilt.

 

I'm discussing how police interact with their communities.

 

As you've pointed out, there's no way I'm going to know what actually happened. 

 

eta -- quotes

Link to post
Share on other sites

I havent been to Ferguson in twenty years (before these people moved from the inner city to the neighborhood), but there are enough inner city youth that have moved to my neighborhood that I know what jaywalking means when it involves thugs, and when it involves a police stop.Jaywalking in this context has nothing to do with crossing the street.it has everything to do with disregarding the rule of law, and preventing normal citizens from going about their business. I think we need a national task force to come up with a plan to integrate thugs into society...be a good thing for Sharpton to work on. The mothers would thank them for giving them a chance to sleep without gunfire.

 

I was trying to ignore this, but I cannot let it go.

 

"These people"?  Just say what you mean.  "The Blacks." That's exactly what you mean by "these people" and "these inner city youth" and "thugs".  So, just have the courage to come out and say exactly what you mean.  

 

And please spare us all the back pedaling of "I don't mean everyone...just the ones who act like thugs, and so if that's what you act like then that's what I'll call you."  Because that's absolute crap.  

 

Oh, and for the record, I was the white girl from Ferguson who chose to be bussed (cabbed, actually) into the city for high school.  The fact that it was a public high school, and also the top ranked one in the state (still is), and that I was surrounded by inner city black youth who happened to excel academically, is probably irrelevant to you, because if the situation were reversed, and if they had been bussed into your white county school, they would have been "inner city thugs" to you.

 

My god. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

But it is relevant to public opinion.  There's the feeling that this low life was already robbing a store and bullying a clerk.  So that somewhat justifies what happened a few minutes later.

 

I'm talking more about perceptions and reactions, not actual facts or guilt.

 

Yeah, I agree with you.  I just can't pass up an opportunity to point out how messed up it is, though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The police and the Dept of Defense were training in army-type helicopters over our city last night.  And they didn't bother to tell anyone beforehand.

 

I'm like, what?

 

I know they'd probably been planning this for the past year or so, and they probably didn't want to let anyone know beforehand (in case someone around here happens to have anti aircraft missiles), but the timing is beyond ridiculous.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But it is relevant to public opinion.  There's the feeling that "this low life was already robbing a store and bullying a clerk".  So that somewhat justifies what happened a few minutes later.

 

I don't think it justifies anything the officer did, but it definitely goes against the information from those in the community that portrayed Mr. Brown as a "gentle giant" who would never be physical with anyone.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Except the video evidence from the store really isn't relevant to the deadly incident that occurred minutes later with officer.

 

I have such mixed feelings about this whole thing, still.

 

First, stealing cigars or talking shit to a police officer or even physically resisting an officer are not offenses that are punishable by death.  They just aren't.  And what I would do in a similar circumstance is also not relevant, because I am not a trained police officer charged with serving and protecting the people of my city.  They do not have the same luxury of knee-jerk response that I may have.   

 

Still, if the officer felt that his life was threatened, if Brown was charging at the officer, and shooting him 5 times didn't stop him, then the 6th shot may have been necessary to stop him.  Unfortunately, it was fatal.

 

We have heard Brown's friend's account.  We have heard some witness accounts that say Brown was trying to surrender.  We have also heard video on which the person recording claims to have witnessed the incident, and that Brown kept going toward the officer.  And then there's the account given by the friend of the officer, that states that Brown did, in fact, keep charging the officer aggressively, according to the officer.  The real truth could be all in perception. 

 

I find it ludicrous that some people seem to be saying that this guy must have been guilty of something or the officer wouldn't have shot him, and since we are reasonably sure he stole some cigars a few minutes before, and mouthed off to the police, and failed to get out of the street...well...that must be telling.  Ridiculous.

 

I find it equally ludicrous that some people seem to think this police officer got out of bed and said "I think I'll go shoot me a black person today." Or that he didn't hesitate to use deadly force because the guy was black, and, thus worthless in the eyes of the white officer.   I mean...really?  Give me a break.  Equally ridiculous.

 

What I do know is that the police response in the past week has been abysmal.  The residents of Ferguson are living in fear.  The children cannot start school. The community at large is being misrepresented.  Businesses and livelihoods are being destroyed by opportunists in the name of justice, and that is in and of itself a complete injustice.    And while the facts of this specific case remain largely unknown, once again we are seeing just how wide the racial divide remains in this country, and just how large a role race still plays in the justice system in this country.

 

I agree 100%.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

But it is relevant to public opinion.  There's the feeling that "this low life was already robbing a store and bullying a clerk".  So that somewhat justifies what happened a few minutes later.

 

I'm talking more about perceptions and reactions, not actual facts or guilt.

 

I'm discussing how police interact with their communities.

 

As you've pointed out, there's no way I'm going to know what actually happened. 

 

eta -- quotes

 

I do find it absolutely repugnant that the police were the ones to send that video to the press.  They are supposed to enforce the law, not try to poison public opinion about a man who was killed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The mindset of the officer and the mindset of the person he is approaching does play into an outcome, too. 

I read this with interest.

 

It does make sense that the officer could have been completely taken off guard if, in his own mind, he was stopping a guy for walking in the street and mouthing off, but the mindset of Brown was that he just robbed a place and he thought he was being stopped for that.  The cop could be thinking "what the hell?  Why is this guy being so aggressive when I was just on him for jaywalking?"  Whereas Brown, if he did in fact respond aggressively, could have though he was being stopped for a robbery.  

 

I'm not drawing any conclusions here at all, just seeing that it could make a difference in what each party could have been thinking, and also could support what I said when I said previously that the real truth could be in perception.  I can see an officer thinking that a "suspect's" reaction was completely over the top, and so maybe interpreting that as being "charged",  and maybe the guy was on something, or whatever, while the other guy could have been reacting as if he was being brutalized and harassed because he was a suspect in a robbery, or that he was actually surrendering.  I don't know.  Just something else to consider.

 

Again, I'm only speaking to the possible mindsets of both sides, and not drawing any conclusions.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

I do find it absolutely repugnant that the police were the ones to send that video to the press.  They are supposed to enforce the law, not try to poison public opinion about a man who was killed.

 

Yeah, and I don't buy for a second that the only reason they released it was because so many members of the press were requesting it under the Freedom of Information Act.  How would they even have known about it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your definition of jaywalking is what?

 

I havent been to Ferguson in twenty years (before these people moved from the inner city to the neighborhood), but there are enough inner city youth that have moved to my neighborhood that I know what jaywalking means when it involves thugs, and when it involves a police stop.Jaywalking in this context has nothing to do with crossing the street.it has everything to do with disregarding the rule of law, and preventing normal citizens from going about their business. I think we need a national task force to come up with a plan to integrate thugs into society...be a good thing for Sharpton to work on. The mothers would thank them for giving them a chance to sleep without gunfire.

 

This also speaks to the problem of cultures not understanding each other and bad things happening as a result.  One group of people may walk down the middle of the street talking loud when they're just out and about.  Another may only do it when they're about to commit a crime or have just done so.

 

And there isn't a lot of data to back up either contention -- that a) it's just a cultural thing (with no relation to crime) or  b ) that it is a marker of crime.

 

As a scientist and statistician, I do also wonder about the statistics that get tossed about concerning more black men being in jail than whites.  Is that evidence that more African Americans get arrested and convicted and put in jail for crimes that whites would not get in trouble for? Or is it support of the alternative hypothesis that more African Americans commit crimes?

 

If there is evidence other than rates of incarceration, I'd be interested in seeing it.  At this point,  I see the incarceration rate evidence getting cited as evidence that there is bias -- but then the refutation is made that African Americans are just committing more crimes.  And there's no way to support one argument over the other given that one piece of evidence.  So people fall back on feelings.

 

I'm not arguing one side or the other.  Just wondering whether any of this data can actually be used to prove anything.  It doesn't look all that convincing to me, one way or the other.

 

And whatever data anyone came up with would have to be fairly current -- the lead poisoning that went on up until the 90's or so may have differentially created much higher rates of incarceration in some groups if lead poisoning results in more criminal behavior (as is now hypothesized).

 

Course, if kids were still getting poisoned in the 90's by leaded gasoline, they'd only be hitting their 20's now, when crime rates tend to be high.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It does make sense that the officer could have been completely taken off guard if, in his own mind, he was stopping a guy for walking in the street and mouthing off, but the mindset of Brown was that he just robbed a place and he thought he was being stopped for that.  The cop could be thinking "what the hell?  Why is this guy being so aggressive when I was just on him for jaywalking?"  Whereas Brown, if he did in fact respond aggressively, could have though he was being stopped for a robbery.  

 

 

Yep -- I would have liked it, but no one would have seen that I liked it.

 

The case itself is so darn complicated.  And we know so little.

 

All that we do know is that Ferguson is not in a good situation right now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the "teen" is a three-hundred pound thug who is charging at the cop, the policeman isn't supposed to shoot?

 

Now he's a thug?  FFS.  Really?  Would you say that if it was a white girl who was shot on the top of the head? What if it was a 300# white boy? 

 

OK, if anyone wants to discuss the fact that people's Constitutional rights are being trampled on in Ferguson, or the disgusting fact that looters and other criminals are coming to Ferguson from around the country just to make trouble when the people of Ferguson are just looking for peace and justice, or the fact that children are being denied their right to education because of the violence, I will happily continue to participate in those conversations. I will also be happy to talk about how we can help the folks in Ferguson.

 

I will not, however, continue to be part of a conversation where people are unjustly accusing a deceased young man of things they have no idea he did, or generally maligning him and assassinating his character. I've said my piece, and I'm shocked and saddened by some of the responses from people (some of who aren't even from the area, and don't know what the heck they're talking about, because, let's face it, if you're not from here, you don't understand the complexities of the situation, and don't even tell me you, because that's just insulting to locals), and I'm just not going to do anything to encourage that part of the conversation any longer.

 

:iagree:   This discussion all around the web has really brought out some true colors in people I thought I respected.  Calling people in Ferguson animals, animalistic, thugs.  I would like to say I can't believe it, but it's just really disappointing. 

 

 

So to some people the video seems to show Brown paying for the cigars.  The owner did NOT call the cops.  Supposedly another customer did.  But do you really think someone would charge an armed police officer because he was scared about stealing cigars???It's not like he's running from a murder scene. http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017210083

Link to post
Share on other sites

He isn't supposed to shoot to kill.  

 

 

My BIL is a police officer.  He said they were taught that if they used their weapons, they were to shoot to kill. You don't fire the gun unless the situation is dire and you don't mess around.  In real life, it's not like the Lone Ranger, grazing the guy's hand so you can grab his gun and tie him up.   

Link to post
Share on other sites

My BIL is a police officer.  He said they were taught that if they used their weapons, they were to shoot to kill. You don't fire the gun unless the situation is dire and you don't mess around.  In real life, it's not like the Lone Ranger, grazing the guy's hand so you can grab his gun and tie him up.   

Yep.

 

If the situation really IS dire enough that use of a gun is justified, trying to shoot to wound is likely to get the police officer killed instead and whomever he was shooting at now has access to his weapon.

 

This is not to say that the situation here was dire enough; I am not commenting on that. But that is why they are taught to shoot to kill.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The mindset of the officer and the mindset of the person he is approaching does play into an outcome, too. 

 

I read this with interest.

 

It does make sense that the officer could have been completely taken off guard if, in his own mind, he was stopping a guy for walking in the street and mouthing off, but the mindset of Brown was that he just robbed a place and he thought he was being stopped for that.  The cop could be thinking "what the hell?  Why is this guy being so aggressive when I was just on him for jaywalking?"  Whereas Brown, if he did in fact respond aggressively, could have though he was being stopped for a robbery.  

 

I'm not drawing any conclusions here at all, just seeing that it could make a difference in what each party could have been thinking, and also could support what I said when I said previously that the real truth could be in perception.  I can see an officer thinking that a "suspect's" reaction was completely over the top, and so maybe interpreting that as being "charged",  and maybe the guy was on something, or whatever, while the other guy could have been reacting as if he was being brutalized and harassed because he was a suspect in a robbery, or that he was actually surrendering.  I don't know.  Just something else to consider.

 

Again, I'm only speaking to the possible mindsets of both sides, and not drawing any conclusions.  

Thank you for the link.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As usual, Ta-Nehisi Coates has some wisdom about this situation:

 

Among the many relevant facts for any African-American negotiating their relationship with the police the following stands out: The police departments of America are endowed by the state with dominion over your body. This summer in Ferguson and Staten Island we have seen that dominion employed to the maximum ends—destruction of the body. This is neither new nor extraordinary. It does not matter if the destruction of your body was an overreaction. It does not matter if the destruction of your body resulted from a misunderstanding. It does not matter if the destruction of your body springs from foolish policy. Sell cigarettes without proper authority and your body can be destroyed. Resent the people trying to entrap your body and it can be be destroyed. Protect the home of your mother and your body can be destroyed. Visit the home of your young daughter and your body will be destroyed. The destroyers of your body will rarely be held accountable. Mostly they will receive pensions. 

 

 

Meanwhile, in Nevada, white ranchers train guns on federal agents and are, largely, laughed off.  Imagine if the protesters in Ferguson tried the same thing.  They would be mowed down by gunfire like dogs.

 

My personal take on this is that you know the local police are in the wrong based on one simple, easy-to-apply metric: they're going out of their way to try anything, anything at all, to prevent people from videotaping, recording, or otherwise reporting what's going on, even to the extent of arresting reporters after they've been given a court order telling them not to.

 

The people who are guilty are the people trying to hide the truth.  In Ferguson, today, that's the police.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Supposedly another customer did.  But do you really think someone would charge an armed police officer because he was scared about stealing cigars???It's not like he's running from a murder scene. http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017210083

 

Well, maybe.  Because the sad truth is that too often in this country law enforcement responds to black men as if they're suspects in violent crimes, when in reality the alleged crime is something like possession, or, perhaps, stealing cigars.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your god is right. You do have racist assumptions in the extreme.  Thugs = blacks? Get real, and stop insulting good people. Thugs are all shades, and the behavior fits the cultural description.

 

 

And no, I didn't go to a 'white county school'. I"m a military brat. My friends were all shades, from many different countries. We didn't care then, and we don't care now what your skin tone is. Your character is what matters.

 

You said what you said.  You barely tried to disguise it.

 

It's too bad we can't see likes on this board right now, or you'd see just how many people read what you wrote the same way I did.  Which is, of course, how you meant it.  

 

Stop playing the victim.  No one did anything to you here except call you out on your own statements. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a little nervous about wading into this conversation and almiragulch pretty much said exactly what I think anyway.

 

A few months ago an unarmed white teenage girl was shot by a white local police officer. All the media reports I saw showed witnesses saying she was trying to comply and the officer shot her for no reason. Or they said, maybe she was being a smart mouth and not doing what he said, but there were other things he could have done rather than shoot and kill her. He ended up being investigated but was found to have done nothing wrong.

 

I talked to dh (who is in law enforcement) about it and he said a few things that I didn't realize. Police officers shoot to kill and most are not allowed discharge their weapons for the purpose of restraining someone. They are only allowed to fire if they think someone's life is in immediate danger. Each department has their own deadly force policy about what immediate danger is.

 

Also, unarmed people can still be dangerous. In our local case, she was using her car as a weapon.

 

Police officers are judged based on how a reasonable person would behave at the time. So, if a reasonable person would think their life was in danger at the time, their actions are justified legally. They are not judged on hindsight. So, looking back a shooting may have not been justified, but it doesn't make it a criminal act. It could just be a very tragic mistake.

 

Police officers have much more dangerous jobs than I realized. When they pull someone over, they have no idea who the person is or what might get escalated.

 

Dh is not a local cop and he always says they have the hardest jobs in law enforcement. They walk into chaotic situations and have to respond immediately. I'm sure there are bad ones and some good ones who have made bad mistakes. I guess I just think about if my Dh were in that situation i wouldn't want him to be judged for past wrong police actions that he had nothing to do with.

 

FTR, I am not siding with the police officer in this case, but I do hope the facts are able to come out before everyone decides he is a murderer (not that people are saying that here but I have read several blog posts that say it).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now he's a thug?  FFS.  Really?  Would you say that if it was a white girl who was shot on the top of the head? What if it was a 300# white boy? 

 

 

:iagree:   This discussion all around the web has really brought out some true colors in people I thought I respected.  Calling people in Ferguson animals, animalistic, thugs.  I would like to say I can't believe it, but it's just really disappointing. 

 

 

So to some people the video seems to show Brown paying for the cigars.  The owner did NOT call the cops.  Supposedly another customer did.  But do you really think someone would charge an armed police officer because he was scared about stealing cigars???It's not like he's running from a murder scene. http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017210083

 

This. I keep thinking this over and over, and I really should just stay off of Facebook from now on, because so many people that I thought deserved my respect are just so cold and heartless. Why can't we remember that we're all just people?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Because we have about 150 years of seeing how white police officers assault young black men without much consequence. Anyone who has studied US history can't help but become a bit jaded on this topic. 

 

And if it is fair to bring this up, then it is equally fair to bring up the fact that statistically, it is much more likely that a black man was trying to murder the white guy than the other way around.  Personally I don't think either is relevant to the immediate fact finding.

 

Let's allow the people with the evidence to figure out the facts of this particular incident.

 

I understand what Heigh Ho was trying to say about what "jaywalking" really is in the context we have here.  This (the jaywalking part) isn't about Michael Brown, it's about what "keeping the peace" means in neighborhoods where people (of any color) intimidate their neighbors and a lot more.

 

I listened to a tape recorded by one of the people in the crowds at the time the body was still lying in the road.  One person said "oh, a cop shot him?  I thought it was just a N------ dumped a man."  (Possibly not an exact quote, but you get the point.)  These folks are not surprised by the idea that a person within the community would murder another person in the community in the middle of the street in broad daylight.  This is not a completely safe, peaceful neighborhood as long as the cops let people "jaywalk" as they please.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now he's a thug?  FFS.  Really?  Would you say that if it was a white girl who was shot on the top of the head? What if it was a 300# white boy? 

 

 

 

What does the color of his skin matter?  If it was a 300 pound white boy who was in that video roughing up the store clerk, yeah, I'd call him a thug.  It's hard to imagine a girl in that situation, but if it was, I'd call her one too.  Was the cop supposed to let him do whatever he wanted because he happened to be black?  This wasn't some nice kid walking home to Grandma's house, minding his own business.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My BIL is a police officer. He said they were taught that if they used their weapons, they were to shoot to kill. You don't fire the gun unless the situation is dire and you don't mess around. In real life, it's not like the Lone Ranger, grazing the guy's hand so you can grab his gun and tie him up.

They are also taught to shoot in 3-round bursts, at least in my dh's dept.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What does the color of his skin matter?  If it was a 300 pound white boy who was in that video roughing up the store clerk, yeah, I'd call him a thug.  It's hard to imagine a girl in that situation, but if it was, I'd call her one too.  Was the cop supposed to let him do whatever he wanted because he happened to be black?  This wasn't some nice kid walking home to Grandma's house, minding his own business.

Many people see "thug" as a racist term.  Let's do a comparison of news reports of black men who are suspects and white men who are suspects and see how often "thug" is used, maybe?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, I agree with @AlmiraGulch that in this context, "thug" is clearly a dog-whistle racist usage, and I'm glad she called the speaker out on it.  Maybe the speaker didn't mean it that way, but then she or he should have been more careful with words.

 

Normally, among friends, I'd extend the benefit of the doubt, but given that I've seen text copy-pasted from freaking STORMFRONT here, I've stopped doing that here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They are also taught to shoot in 3-round bursts, at least in my dh's dept.

Dh also said this to me. He said he wasn't sure if it was like that everywhere, but in both his military and law enforcement training that is how it is. He said shooting 6 rounds was almost like pulling the trigger twice (I think)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't care what word you use, that encounter in the convenience store proves something about this man's character.  Because he is dead and the convenience store incident may not have had anything to do with the shooting, I am not pushing the point, but if people try to say this was just a nice regular guy peacefully going about his business, i.e., try to paint his character all positive or vulnerable, then that invites people to bring up evidence of the opposite.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My BIL is a police officer.  He said they were taught that if they used their weapons, they were to shoot to kill. You don't fire the gun unless the situation is dire and you don't mess around.  In real life, it's not like the Lone Ranger, grazing the guy's hand so you can grab his gun and tie him up.   

 

This is not the way it's done in other countries.  This is not always the way it's done in the military.  If this is really the philosophy of police departments in this nation, then I feel sad for our country.  It means that situations like this one, which are sadly common, are more likely to turn deadly when they don't have to.  There are ways to train people to shoot to disarm, not shoot to kill.

 

Many of the attitudes in this thread have made me pretty sad.  The whole situation makes me feel sad and outraged and hopeless.  If I, as a privileged white middle class American feel hopeless and disempowered when I think about what can be done about this, I can't even begin to imagine approaching this issue as an African-American.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is not the way it's done in other countries. This is not always the way it's done in the military. If this is really the philosophy of police departments in this nation, then I feel sad for our country. It means that situations like this one, which are sadly common, are more likely to turn deadly when they don't have to. There are ways to train people to shoot to disarm, not shoot to kill.

n.

This may be something communities want to have a discussion about. I do not believe that law enforcement is allowed to shoot with the intention to injure/restrain. I have no idea why that is the policy, but it is something I have wondered about.

 

ETA it has been this way for a long time. About the only thing I remember from 2nd grade is a police officer coming to talk to our class. He was telling us not to ever even point a toy gun at a cop because they shoot to kill not to injure. It really freaked me out even though I rarely ran into the police and I didn't even have a toy gun.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And if it is fair to bring this up, then it is equally fair to bring up the fact that statistically, it is much more likely that a black man was trying to murder the white guy than the other way around.  Personally I don't think either is relevant to the immediate fact finding.

 

Let's allow the people with the evidence to figure out the facts of this particular incident.

 

I understand what Heigh Ho was trying to say about what "jaywalking" really is in the context we have here.  This (the jaywalking part) isn't about Michael Brown, it's about what "keeping the peace" means in neighborhoods where people (of any color) intimidate their neighbors and a lot more.

 

I listened to a tape recorded by one of the people in the crowds at the time the body was still lying in the road.  One person said "oh, a cop shot him?  I thought it was just a N------ dumped a man."  (Possibly not an exact quote, but you get the point.)  These folks are not surprised by the idea that a person within the community would murder another person in the community in the middle of the street in broad daylight.  This is not a completely safe, peaceful neighborhood as long as the cops let people "jaywalk" as they please.

 

What? What statistics are you referring to?? And now the dead 19 year old was trying to MURDER the armed officer? What?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

This may be something communities want to have a discussion about. I do not believe that law enforcement is allowed to shoot with the intention to injure/restrain. I have no idea why that is the policy, but it is something I have wondered about.

 

ETA it has been this way for a long time. About the only thing I remember from 2nd grade is a police officer coming to talk to our class. He was telling us not to ever even point a toy gun at a cop because they shoot to kill not to injure. It really freaked me out even though I rarely ran into the police and I didn't even have a toy gun.

 

Do they not carry tasers?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...