Ferguson

[flyingiguana]

I have to say, too, that a lot of the white people (on facebook) that I'm seeing going on endlessly about how black kids just don't commit the sort of crimes that Brown is assumed to have committed are doing a huge amount of stereotyping.

 

The kids THEY went to school with, the kids THEY are friends with, the kids THEY are dating who happen to be black are not Michael Brown.  They did not go into a convenience store and steal and rough up the clerk.  They did not attack a police officer.

 

Just because there are many many black people out there who would never do such a thing does not mean Brown didn't, nor does it mean the cop was not feeling threatened by a guy who was physically after him.

 

It is not racism to point out that Brown did these things.

 

However, it is also true that there may be systemic racism in that particular police force that that particular community is reacting to.  And that those of us who may live in communities where that isn't a problem might not fully understand.

 

[SKL]

Really? To me there is such a mountain of conflicting evidence that the only way to accurately ensure justice was a trial.  There is enough for probable cause. It's not without a doubt....just cause....just the possibility that yes, Officer Wilson did something wrong.

 

I do believe that the tendency not to prosecute police officers played a part.  BUT I also believe that a very big part was the tendency for many to view black men is inherently guilty until proven innocent.  I am no where convinced that if Michael Brown was white, that there would not have been an indictment.  I also find Officer Wilson's use of racist and dehumanizing language (referring to Michael as an "it" and a "demon") extremely troubling and telling.

 

It never makes the national news when white people get shot in the process of committing a crime.  (Or when a black cop shoots a black guy.)  When was the last time you saw that kind of news story?  So how can you be so sure that there would have been an indictment if Mr. Brown had been white?  I suspect that is an assumption based on your own bias.

 

Wilson was using scary language to support his assertion that he felt in fear of his life.  That was an important element of the case.  He is not wrong for saying Brown's demeanor as well as his actions were scary.  Brown's friend also stated that Brown's demeanor became scary.  Perhaps the words you picked out were the best ones he could think of at that moment to convey his thoughts.  I have heard a lot worse.  We aren't all walking dictionaries who can think of the exact perfect politically correct term to describe everything that happens to us.

 

[umsami]

It never makes the national news when white people get shot in the process of committing a crime.  (Or when a black cop shoots a black guy.)  When was the last time you saw that kind of news story?  So how can you be so sure that there would have been an indictment if Mr. Brown had been white?  I suspect that is an assumption based on your own bias.

 

Wilson was using scary language to support his assertion that he felt in fear of his life.  That was an important element of the case.  He is not wrong for saying Brown's demeanor as well as his actions were scary.  Brown's friend also stated that Brown's demeanor became scary.  Perhaps the words you picked out were the best ones he could think of at that moment to convey his thoughts.  I have heard a lot worse.  We aren't all walking dictionaries who can think of the exact perfect politically correct term to describe everything that happens to us.

 

 

Actually, I posted a link earlier in the thread that shows black cops harassing a black handyman for being in the wrong neighborhood.  It was a elderly white lawyer and her hispanic maid who defended the man.

 

The issue with this case is that so many witnesses (also evidenced in the NPR chart above) said Michael Brown had his hands up in a form of surrender when fatally shot.  That's the issue.  You may doubt how those hands were, but that should have been taken to trial.  There is enough probably cause.  When you surrender, and you are unarmed, the cops should stop shooting.  

 

With regards to his language, I'm sorry I don't give it a pass. I find it telling that you refer to political correctness.  So that's the only reason not to use racist, dehumanizing language?  Sad.   I also find his Hulk Hogan and a 5 year old comparison laughable...seeing as they were of similar size and height.  I've yet to meet a 6'4" 210 pound 5 year old.   Officer Wilson got four hours to tell his story to the Grand Jury.  Nobody told Michael Brown's story.

[hornblower]

Flyingiguana -

 

Are you seriously suggesting there's no evidence that police officers react differently to suspects of different races?

 

this thread itself had several examples and stats presented.

 

And bottom line is police officers are people and there have been plenty of studies done on racism. What about the recent tv setup they did with various people trying to steal a bike from a park? The passersby called the cops on the black youth but offered to help the white woman....

 

I think most of us need to have a lot of awareness training to overcome these biases. in a law enforcement context that kind of training should be mandatory.

 

Driving while black, shopping while black. walking while black - these "offences" are sadly real.

[LucyStoner]

I'd have a lot more respect for someone who finds Wilson's actions totally justified if it didn't seems to nearly always be someone who is totally unwilling to see why racial tensions flare high. It seems to me that most all of Wilson's defenders are totally unwilling to see that there is an unfortunate history of excessive force, lethal or not, against men from certain racial minorities. They see Wilson as all good and Brown as all bad, with no nuance or middle ground. They outright dismiss the legacy of police violence in Ferguson and elsewhere.

 

I have seen the disparity up close and personal, with traffic stops taking a whole new tone when it is realized that there is a white girl in the car. I have no reason to lie. I have every reason to feel both fear and disgust on behalf of my young male, black relatives. Bluntly, I only have black male relatives because of a serious crime committed against my mother yet somehow she chose love and life and to not let that bias her against all black men. I am tired of people pointing to crimes committed by a black person or inflammatory articles about immorality of people based on race and holding all black people responsible for that. If my mother can, in a post Roe world, deliver a child of rape and not hate anyone for it, then people who've not experienced anything like that can surely do the same.

 

I can think of a number of totally justifiable police shootings. Sometimes force is necessary. Sometimes a cop has no choice but to shoot to kill to protect themselves or a fellow officer or a community member. But not every police shooting is justified and when an unarmed black man is killed by a cop people have every reason and right to think of the many other times an all too similar event has taken place.

[mommymilkies]

For everyone who says racism doesn't come into play, here's one tidbit.  There's far more eye opening articles and facts out there. 

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/darren-wilsons-first-job-was-on-a-troubled-police-force-disbanded-by-authorities/2014/08/23/1ac796f0-2a45-11e4-8593-da634b334390_story.html?utm_content=bufferc45ab&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

[Miss Peregrine]

Actually, I posted a link earlier in the thread that shows black cops harassing a black handyman for being in the wrong neighborhood. It was a elderly white lawyer and her hispanic man who defended the man.

 

The issue with this case is that so many witnesses (also evidenced in the NPR chart above) said Michael Brown had his hands up in a form of surrender when fatally shot. That's the issue. You may doubt how those hands were, but that should have been taken to trial. There is enough probably cause. When you surrender, and you are unarmed, the cops should stop shooting.

I haven't look at the NPR link yet, but I will. Did it say how many witnesses said that Wilson stood over Browns slumped body and emptied his gun into his back? I read several of those statements.

[SKL]

You don't think that's a problem? 

 

What's revolting is not that Voddie stated the truth about the fact that so many black men (and white... yes, he preaches the same thing to EVERYONE), but that so many fathers neglect their duty to raise their sons, or to educate themselves to do better. 

 

In this day and age of information and available FREE resources, there is absolutely NO EXCUSE for men -- ANY man -- not to take the steps to try and figure out how to be a good father and teach their sons NOT to rob convenience stores and attack people.  At.All. 

 

I liked the article and will look it up when my daughters get to the age when they experience discrimination over their race.

 

[Miss Peregrine]

All illegal drugs do not cause aggressive behavior. Nothing in Brown's system was linked to aggressive behavior or an sudden suicide (by cop) wish. If he had PCP in his system, then the illegal drugs could be a factor. Pot? Not linked to rage or aggression (in fact, if anything it's the opposite.)

 

And I don't think Wilson should be hung. I don't believe in the death penalty under any circumstances. I don't even know that I think he guilty of murder. I do think he's not being entirely honest in his accounting of events and that he used unnecessarily lethal force.

Not everyone reacts the same way to MJ. The video of Brown in the convenience store minutes before he was shot suggests "aggressive demeanor" to me.

[SKL]

The issue with this case is that so many witnesses (also evidenced in the NPR chart above) said Michael Brown had his hands up in a form of surrender when fatally shot.  That's the issue.  You may doubt how those hands were, but that should have been taken to trial.  There is enough probably cause.  When you surrender, and you are unarmed, the cops should stop shooting.  

 

With regards to his language, I'm sorry I don't give it a pass. I find it telling that you refer to political correctness.  So that's the only reason not to use racist, dehumanizing language?  Sad.   I also find his Hulk Hogan and a 5 year old comparison laughable...seeing as they were of similar size and height.  I've yet to meet a 6'4" 210 pound 5 year old.   Officer Wilson got four hours to tell his story to the Grand Jury.  Nobody told Michael Brown's story.

 

I didn't see where it said "in a form of surrender" on the NPR chart.  You are assuming / embellishing that part.

 

It is impossible that he had his hands up "in a form of surrender" when he was fatally shot, considering the fatal shots entered through the top of his head.  You are adding a considerable amount of interpretation.

 

"Demon" is not racist.  What race is a demon?  You can fuss about the guy's word choice all day, but I highly doubt there is a nice enough word he could have used to satisfy you.  You have a right to read his words with healthy skepticism, as I'm sure the Grand Jury did as well.  But all of your comments have me convinced that you convicted the officer before you heard the first piece of actual evidence.

 

Most people don't think a jury would have convicted.  So what good would it do to send the case to trial, really?  It would have just postponed the inevitable rioting etc.  Nobody would have been happier.  Healing, if that is possible, would have been postponed longer.

[flyingiguana]

Flyingiguana -

 

Are you seriously suggesting there's no evidence that police officers react differently to suspects of different races?

 

this thread itself had several examples and stats presented.

 

And bottom line is police officers are people and there have been plenty of studies done on racism. What about the recent tv setup they did with various people trying to steal a bike from a park? The passersby called the cops on the black youth but offered to help the white woman....

 

I think most of us need to have a lot of awareness training to overcome these biases. in a law enforcement context that kind of training should be mandatory.

 

Driving while black, shopping while black. walking while black - these "offences" are sadly real.

 

I'm saying we don't know to the level of statistical certainty that would be required in most fields (at least, the fields of hard science that I've been in).

 

I'm saying that there may be other explanations, and that getting to the root of the problem may mean letting go of beliefs and anecdotes.

 

The study you give (of the bike stealing) would be one example of someone trying to get hard evidence.  So I'm glad you posted that (was there a link upthread?).

 

However, I think we also have to think about the root causes of why a black male youth would be treated differently.  Is it just flat out racism -- because everyone just "knows" that black kids are trouble?  Or are people responding with the data they have at hand -- their life experiences up to that point? 

 

In other words, have more people seen black kids committing crimes?  And is it not a bias of only seeing crime when it's committed by a black person?

 

Can the latter actually be termed racism?  If it is, is it useful to call it racism?  Would it be fixed in the same way?  By using the same word, are we making it so the root problem would never be addressed?

 

Are more blacks pulled over by police because they actually look like the description of a recent perpetrator of a crime?  (That is why Brown was stopped -- it wasn't just jaywalking)

 

I'm not arguing that there is no racism.  I'm just arguing that most of the evidence presented for it is flawed.  It wasn't a good test.

 

The driving while black, shopping while black etc phenomena can be explained in more than one way.  And I'm still not convinced that the evidence is there.

 

Anecdotes are not evidence of systemic racism.  I can answer anecdotes with my own (as a white person) where I was accused of shoplifting for no good reason, where I was looked at funny in a job interview (with the interviewer basically wondering why the heck I was there), where I was ignored and didn't count in all sorts of situations.  And while it hasn't happened to me personally, the men in my white family have been stopped by police and roughed up -- because they happened to look like someone who had just committed a crime and run away.

 

Saving my big point for last (so I hope it gets read): I play devil's advocate with these statistics, because I suspect that there IS racism acting in this country.  But I don't see the solid statistical proof.  I only see anecdotes and stories and studies that could be easily confusing cause and effect.

 

But without that solid statistical proof, how could I ever convince someone who had a firm belief that there was no racism that there actually was?

 

I made it red so that would get read.

 

It's about making the argument stronger, not tearing it down.

 

And about figuring out WHY, so when things get addressed, society is sure it's addressing the correct thing and not the red herring.

 

[lovinmyboys]

This has been said a million times so I don't know why I am repeating it, but there was no indictment because there is not enough evidence that Wilson broke the law-even if the shooting was not justifiable. After Brown tried to get his gun, it doesn't matter whether he was stumbling or charging toward Wilson. If a reasonable person could have interpreted it as charging, he was within the law. It doesn't matter whether he was charging or not, so you don't need a trial to sort it out. I'm not saying that is how the law should be, but it is the law. Maybe it would have been nice to get answers as to exactly what happened at the trial, but it doesn't really matter what really happened as far as whether he acted within the law or not. (Assuming he was shot while going toward the officer. It is illegal to shoot a fleeing suspect, but I think the forensic evidence said he was shot while facing Wilson).

 

Ftr,I believe black people generally are not treated as well as white people by the police. I don't think Brown should have been shot (but I wasn't there so I cant say for sure). I think the prosecutor should have recused himself. I think police officers should wear body cams if we as a society want to shell out the cost for them. I think there are other cases that would be more cut and dry that a black person was wrongly shot that should have gotten the media attention (the 12yr old in Cleveland for one).

[umsami]

I didn't see where it said "in a form of surrender" on the NPR chart.  You are assuming / embellishing that part.

 

It is impossible that he had his hands up "in a form of surrender" when he was fatally shot, considering the fatal shots entered through the top of his head.  You are adding a considerable amount of interpretation.

 

"Demon" is not racist.  What race is a demon?  You can fuss about the guy's word choice all day, but I highly doubt there is a nice enough word he could have used to satisfy you.  You have a right to read his words with healthy skepticism, as I'm sure the Grand Jury did as well.  But all of your comments have me convinced that you convicted the officer before you heard the first piece of actual evidence.

 

Most people don't think a jury would have convicted.  So what good would it do to send the case to trial, really?  It would have just postponed the inevitable rioting etc.  Nobody would have been happier.  Healing, if that is possible, would have been postponed longer.

 

No, the chart does not say that.  But many of the witnesses said that.  The point is that there is conflicting stories that should have come out in an actual jury trial.  It was not the job of the grand jury to weigh all of the evidence.

 

You say that most people think that a jury wouldn't have convicted him? First off, convicted for what? I'll agree not for murder one.  But something else? Involuntary manslaughter? Voluntary manslaughter? Why not.  So, I guess that whenever we have a crime, let's just figure out what most people think...and not bother with an actual trial?  I don't know if he would have been convicted or not.  I do think that there should have been a trial.

 

As for the use of the term "demon", yes, it's racist. I urge you to look at the link for Officer Wilson's previous employment that mommiemilkies posted.  Here are a few articles about Officer Wilson's choice of words and why they are so troubling...and telling.

 

http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2014/11/why-did-wilson-call-michael-brown-a-demon.html

 

http://www.vox.com/2014/11/25/7283327/michael-brown-racist-stereotypes

 

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/11/25/1347416/-Darren-Wilson-perfect-and-sweet-vs-the-big-black-demonic-super-monster#

[livetoread]

I'd have a lot more respect for someone who finds Wilson's actions totally justified if it didn't seems to nearly always be someone who is totally unwilling to see why racial tensions flare high. It seems to me that most all of Wilson's defenders are totally unwilling to see that there is an unfortunate history of excessive force, lethal or not, against men from certain racial minorities.

I agree with this completely (though I am one who finds Wilson's actions justified, if not totally, and only with the info I have so far). It's why I stated upthread that I wish this wasn't the case that sparked the much needed conversation. I have no doubt there have been unjustified shootings influenced by racism, and there will be others. It's a conversation we so need to have, but it's marred by this example. It's too easy to dismiss this shooting as justified (and I think it probably was) and so others are too, except they aren't. It's too easy to dismiss the very real problem that exists based on this example where it isn't clear the problem existed.

[LucyStoner]

Not everyone reacts the same way to MJ. The video of Brown in the convenience store minutes before he was shot suggests "aggressive demeanor" to me.

I'm not saying he wasn't aggressive. I am saying that the MJ in his system is not something that aggression can be tied to.

[lovinmyboys]

While it is much more likely you will be shot by a cop if you are black, I would suggest that white women not be too sure it couldn't happen to you if you act in a way that could be perceived as life threatening to a cop. Here is a news story from my town of an unarmed white teen girl who was shot by a cop. The grand jury did not indict him earlier this month and lots of people here aren't happy about it (though the cop definitely has supporters).

 

http://m.wlwt.com/news/samantha-ramseys-friends-family-dismayed-deputy-who-shot-her-wont-face-charges/29612096

 

 

The witnesses said different things than the officer, the dash cam doesn't exactly confirm his story. Even his story doesn't seem to justify the shooting. Very few police officers go to trial for a shooting, so I don't think Michael Browns case is unusual in that respect,

[Miss Peregrine]

No, the chart does not say that. But many of the witnesses said that. The point is that there is conflicting stories that should have come out in an actual jury trial. It was not the job of the grand jury to weigh all of the evidence.

 

You say that most people think that a jury wouldn't have convicted him? First off, convicted for what? I'll agree not for murder one. But something else? Involuntary manslaughter? Voluntary manslaughter? Why not. So, I guess that whenever we have a crime, let's just figure out what most people think...and not bother with an actual trial? I don't know if he would have been convicted or not. I do think that there should have been a trial.

 

As for the use of the term "demon", yes, it's racist. I urge you to look at the link for Officer Wilson's previous employment that mommiemilkies posted. Here are a few articles about Officer Wilson's choice of words and why they are so troubling...and telling.

 

http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2014/11/why-did-wilson-call-michael-brown-a-demon.html

 

http://www.vox.com/2014/11/25/7283327/michael-brown-racist-stereotypes

 

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/11/25/1347416/-Darren-Wilson-perfect-and-sweet-vs-the-big-black-demonic-super-monster#

So someone dug up 100-year old cartoons to prove that Wilson is a racist? That last link, especially, LOL.

[SKL]

No, the chart does not say that.  But many of the witnesses said that.  The point is that there is conflicting stories that should have come out in an actual jury trial.  It was not the job of the grand jury to weigh all of the evidence.

 

You say that most people think that a jury wouldn't have convicted him? First off, convicted for what? I'll agree not for murder one.  But something else? Involuntary manslaughter? Voluntary manslaughter? Why not.  So, I guess that whenever we have a crime, let's just figure out what most people think...and not bother with an actual trial?  I don't know if he would have been convicted or not.  I do think that there should have been a trial.

 

As for the use of the term "demon", yes, it's racist. I urge you to look at the link for Officer Wilson's previous employment that mommiemilkies posted.  Here are a few articles about Officer Wilson's choice of words and why they are so troubling...and telling.

 

http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2014/11/why-did-wilson-call-michael-brown-a-demon.html

 

http://www.vox.com/2014/11/25/7283327/michael-brown-racist-stereotypes

 

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/11/25/1347416/-Darren-Wilson-perfect-and-sweet-vs-the-big-black-demonic-super-monster#

 

No, I think we just had a grand jury go over the evidence for a long time and decide there wasn't enough evidence to convict.  Who said popular opinion should rule?  I'm saying most people agree that it is futile to fuss about whether there needed to be a trial or not.  It is not up to public opinion to decide that, though, the justice system has been employed to decide that already.

 

I think you want to see a trial because you are not ready to accept that he is not legally guilty and you think a trial would give you some hope of celebrating a "guilty" verdict.  You are entitled to your opinions, wishes, and hopes.  I think it would be more helpful to focus on the broader issue of what is best to do going forward.  A cop camera would have been nice to have in this case, so let's push for more cop cameras.  What can be done to increase the number of black people training to become cops in majority-black communities?  What other good suggestions are there?  Arguing about whether MB was walking, charging, or falling toward the cop in your opinion is fruitless.

 

And while it's true we don't get to hear MB's version of events (we do have his buddy's), we also don't have reporters going on and on about every negative thing he ever did.  We weren't even supposed to see the video of him violently robbing a store.  We know about the cop's troubled family history etc. and the wrongs of the dept he worked for (though he never had an incident/complaint), but nobody would dare to talk about whether there was anything in MB's past actions, his language, his family history etc. that might inform us on his likely actions / demeanor on the day of the shooting.  That's pretty one-sided.

 

When people say "I was scared" in connection with encountering a large young black male in any everyday situation, guess what - they are immediately attacked as being racist.  It's racist to be scared of a black guy.  Therefore no matter how Wilson said "I was scared for my life" it is going to be cast as racist.  So I really don't care about how people want to spend their time analyzing the choice of words.  Fact is there is nothing Wilson could say other than "I plead guilty" that would please those people.

[umsami]

So someone dug up 100-year old cartoons to prove that Wilson is a racist? That last link, especially, LOL.

 

The last link is meant to be comedic, actually...it's the ridiculousness of Wilson's testimony.

[mommymilkies]

Susan,

 

Please close this thread.  No one is changing their mind.  They are only getting upset and sure the "others" don't understand...

Really? I think this discussion is very interesting and eye opening.  I'm sorry you're not happy with how it's turning out, but the OP so far hasn't asked for it to close and I don't see any obvious board violations. 

[mommymilkies]

I'm saying we don't know to the level of statistical certainty that would be required in most fields (at least, the fields of hard science that I've been in).

 

I'm saying that there may be other explanations, and that getting to the root of the problem may mean letting go of beliefs and anecdotes.

 

The study you give (of the bike stealing) would be one example of someone trying to get hard evidence.  So I'm glad you posted that (was there a link upthread?).

 

However, I think we also have to think about the root causes of why a black male youth would be treated differently.  Is it just flat out racism -- because everyone just "knows" that black kids are trouble?  Or are people responding with the data they have at hand -- their life experiences up to that point? 

 

In other words, have more people seen black kids committing crimes?  And is it not a bias of only seeing crime when it's committed by a black person?

 

Can the latter actually be termed racism?  If it is, is it useful to call it racism?  Would it be fixed in the same way?  By using the same word, are we making it so the root problem would never be addressed?

 

Are more blacks pulled over by police because they actually look like the description of a recent perpetrator of a crime?  (That is why Brown was stopped -- it wasn't just jaywalking)

 

I'm not arguing that there is no racism.  I'm just arguing that most of the evidence presented for it is flawed.  It wasn't a good test.

 

The driving while black, shopping while black etc phenomena can be explained in more than one way.  And I'm still not convinced that the evidence is there.

 

Anecdotes are not evidence of systemic racism.  I can answer anecdotes with my own (as a white person) where I was accused of shoplifting for no good reason, where I was looked at funny in a job interview (with the interviewer basically wondering why the heck I was there), where I was ignored and didn't count in all sorts of situations.  And while it hasn't happened to me personally, the men in my white family have been stopped by police and roughed up -- because they happened to look like someone who had just committed a crime and run away.

 

Saving my big point for last (so I hope it gets read): I play devil's advocate with these statistics, because I suspect that there IS racism acting in this country.  But I don't see the solid statistical proof.  I only see anecdotes and stories and studies that could be easily confusing cause and effect.

 

But without that solid statistical proof, how could I ever convince someone who had a firm belief that there was no racism that there actually was?

 

I made it red so that would get read.

 

It's about making the argument stronger, not tearing it down.

 

And about figuring out WHY, so when things get addressed, society is sure it's addressing the correct thing and not the red herring.

Really?  Because plenty of links and studies have been provided, many more are out there available, and you're obviously not living life as a minority if you don't think racism exists because of statistics that can be manipulated.  You don't need solid statistical proof.  You need to live that life.  You'll never convince racists and racism deniers (or flat earthers or holocaust deniers) something they don't want to know-statistics or not. 

 

ETA: I am not a statistician.  No, thank you.  I took plenty of stats in school and I know how data can be manipulated.  But you're overthinking it.  I know you're trying to play Devil's Advocate, but is it really necessary?  The statistics really speak for themselves. You "suspect" that there is racism, but many people LIVE IT. As for Brown being stopped because he resembled a perpetrator-which testimony of Wilson's are you reading?  Because his initial ones say the opposite.  It was only later that he changed it. 

 

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/02/black-stats-racism-debunk

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/08/how-much-racial-profiling-happens-in-ferguson/378606/

[hornblower]

I'm saying we don't know to the level of statistical certainty that would be required in most fields (at least, the fields of hard science that I've been in).

 

/snip/

 

 

Hmmm.  IS there any data point that would satisfy you? I've done 'time' both in hard science (biology & lactation) & in the humanities (poli sci, economics, crim) & it seems to me that some hard science folks just never want to accept any data that the humaities generates. Is it softer? Yup. Is it relevant? I'd argue so but honestly, some of the arguments you're presenting sound like nothing would ever satisfy you, so frankly, you need to be honest about whether any data from research in the crim & sociology fields would satisfy you.

 

There IS research on how the black offender is treated by the US criminal justice system. You just have to spend some time on google scholar & seek it out. For instance Kamalu et al.  Racial Disparities in Sentencing: Implications for the Criminal Justice System and the African American Community, AFRICAN JOURNAL OF CRIMINOLOGY & JUSTICE STUDIES: AJCJS; Volume 4, No. 1, June 2010

 

Ibe et al RACIAL MISUSE OF “CRIMINAL PROFILING†BY LAW ENFORCEMENT: INTENTIONS AND IMPLICATIONS. African Journal of Criminology and Justice Studies: AJCJS, Vol.6, #s1 &2

November 2012

 

 

The link I put above  was to a story showing how a white, drunk, belligerent, jaywalking armed with a gun man was treated by white cops.  (spoiler: he didn't get shot. The situation was diffused.)

 

Someone asked me above what I thought it proved. It's like people need it spelled out: I believe that there is a general tendency among police forces in the US to react with less force & especially with less deadly force when the offender is white than when the offender is black.  Here is the link again.

 

 

The set up about various people apparently stealing a bike & the responses of the observers was an ABC News thing for the "What Would You Do" segment. Watch it

.

 

 

 

[LucyStoner]

Susan,

 

Please close this thread. No one is changing their mind. They are only getting upset and sure the "others" don't understand...

You said on the other thread you feel totally hopeless in all caps. Perhaps that view is informing your view of this thread. Maybe for your sanity, it's best not to read it if it is affecting you to that degree.

[Susan in MO]

 

Chart from PBS analyzing the various witness statements.  I still do not understand why (well, I do...the prosecutor) there was not enough probable cause for an indictment.  There's a boat load of probable cause for a trial to proceed.  Sigh.

 

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/newly-released-witness-testimony-tell-us-michael-brown-shooting/

 

This chart is not helpful in proving probable cause.  Below the chart PBS clearly states that,  "The chart above doesn’t reveal who was right or wrong about what happened that day, but it is a clear indication that perceptions and memories can vary dramatically."

 

For the chart to be truly helpful towards proving probable cause, it should state which of the witnesses recounted their testimony when faced with the forensic data, and which of of the witnesses were inconsistent.   

 

PBS also states, "McCulloch highlighted the variations in witness accounts 

. “In subsequent interviews with law enforcement, or their testimony before the grand jury, many of the same witnesses acknowledged that they didn’t actually see the shooting,†McCulloch said. “Some were running for cover. Some were relating what they heard from others or as I said, what they assumed happened.†But many witnesses held steadfast to their interviews. “Several other witnesses maintained their original statement that Mr. Brown had his hands int he air and was not moving toward the officer when he was shot,†McCulloch said

 

There is not enough information here to draw conclusions.  

[umsami]

No, I think we just had a grand jury go over the evidence for a long time and decide there wasn't enough evidence to convict.  Who said popular opinion should rule?  I'm saying most people agree that it is futile to fuss about whether there needed to be a trial or not.  It is not up to public opinion to decide that, though, the justice system has been employed to decide that already.  

 

You did.  You said that Most people don't think he would be found guilty.

 

I think you want to see a trial because you are not ready to accept that he is not legally guilty and you think a trial would give you some hope of celebrating a "guilty" verdict.  You are entitled to your opinions, wishes, and hopes.  I think it would be more helpful to focus on the broader issue of what is best to do going forward.  A cop camera would have been nice to have in this case, so let's push for more cop cameras.  What can be done to increase the number of black people training to become cops in majority-black communities?  What other good suggestions are there?  Arguing about whether MB was walking, charging, or falling toward the cop in your opinion is fruitless.

 

I don't want to accept that he is not legally guilty.  I want a trial because I think there was enough evidence to warrant one.  It was not the Grand Jury's job to weigh and judge Officer Wilson's innocence.   I do agree that cop cameras are good and that's actually what his family called for in their press conference after the verdict.  But, there is a larger issues at stake...such as systemic racism that are not being addressed. The issues of racism within his own PD and the surrounding communities. Unless people actually acknowledge that racism did play a part here...that the fact that the first reason Officer Wilson stopped them was because they were jaywalking (what he said)....then I'm not sure what will go forward.  Every black man or teen walking should not automatically be viewed as a suspect.  I also think that our cops should be given different training to use nonviolent means. I do not think that cops should always be justified in using deadly force, especially with unarmed individuals.  There should be a higher bar. Human life should be valued more.

 

And while it's true we don't get to hear MB's version of events (we do have his buddy's), we also don't have reporters going on and on about every negative thing he ever did.  We weren't even supposed to see the video of him violently robbing a store.  We know about the cop's troubled family history etc. and the wrongs of the dept he worked for (though he never had an incident/complaint), but nobody would dare to talk about whether there was anything in MB's past actions, his language, his family history etc. that might inform us on his likely actions / demeanor on the day of the shooting.  That's pretty one-sided.  

 

You're kidding, right? I've seen a boat load of Michael Brown things on his past...his parents...his being a "thug"....pictures of him with a gun and money with friends...etc.  That boy has already been tried and found guilty long ago.

 

When people say "I was scared" in connection with encountering a large young black male in any everyday situation, guess what - they are immediately attacked as being racist.  It's racist to be scared of a black guy.  Therefore no matter how Wilson said "I was scared for my life" it is going to be cast as racist.  So I really don't care about how people want to spend their time analyzing the choice of words.  Fact is there is nothing Wilson could say other than "I plead guilty" that would please those people.

 

It's fine to say "I was scared."  It's different when one uses racially charged language and stereotypes.  Dismantling those stereotypes is part of the problem.  There was a good piece on NPR recently, "With Kids, I'm Dad...Alone, I'm a Thug."  http://www.npr.org/2014/11/17/361804353/six-words-with-kids-im-dad-alone-thug

 

I'll add I have very little hope that anything will change...or would have changed, even if Wilson had been found guilty.  Nothing changed after Newtown.  We've had quite a few school shootings since.  I'm very pessimistic about Americans to change anything.   And changing the issues regarding Ferguson will take white people acknowledging privilege and racism and this thread has shown me that that's a long way off.  

[mommymilkies]

Yes, such a helpful thread.  We all hate each other.

 

 

PLEASE END THIS THREAD

Um, everyone is behaving civil that I have seen except for this.  Why are you trying to end this thread? 

[umsami]

Yes, such a helpful thread.  We all hate each other.

 

 

PLEASE END THIS THREAD

 

I don't hate anybody.  I think this thread has made it very clear how different people's perceptions of events are and how different people's experiences are.  Without having these discussions, how can we change?   Do I better understand why people believe the Grand Jury was right after reading this thread? Yes.  Did I learn some things form it? Yup.    Do I hate people who don't agree with me? No, not at all.  They still might not agree with me, but hopefully, maybe they have at least some more understanding for people like me who felt that there should have been a trial. 

 

Also, there are some commonalities regarding what we can do to avoid things like this in the future.  Let's just hope that the lawmakers and people in charge agree.

[Catwoman]

Yes, such a helpful thread. We all hate each other.

 

 

PLEASE END THIS THREAD

Seeking, I don't think the moderators read every thread, so if you would like to see it closed, you need to click on a "report" button (found at the bottom of every post) and make your request.

[*Lulu*]

Yes, such a helpful thread. We all hate each other.

 

 

PLEASE END THIS THREAD

We must be reading different threads then.

 

I do not read posts filled with hatred toward each other, but frustration.

 

Even the posters with whom I find zero to agree with in this thread have not been what I would describe as hate filled.

 

This is a hard topic.

 

Hard topics require difficult conversations.

 

Difficult conversations often are accompanied by frustration.

 

It does not mean that difficult conversations should not be had.

[mommymilkies]

I find it strange that because people do not agree with posts that it's necessary to report and ask it to be shut down.  If it got nasty OT and broke down into a fight? Yes.  But this is discussion and debate.  I don't see why someone would want it closed.  That makes me sad. 

[Catwoman]

I find it strange that because people do not agree with posts that it's necessary to report and ask it to be shut down. If it got nasty OT and broke down into a fight? Yes. But this is discussion and debate. I don't see why someone would want it closed. That makes me sad.

FWIW, I don't think the thread needs to be shut down. I just told Seeking how to report a thread, because she seemed to be directing her comments to the moderators and I wasn't sure whether or not they would see her posts here.

[SKL]

Every black man or teen walking should not automatically be viewed as a suspect.

 

Everyone agrees with you on this.  The problem is that MB WAS a suspect in a violent robbery. (I'm assuming all agree it is not wrong to apprehend robbery suspects.)

 

The fact that he was initially told off for jaywalking is not significant in my mind.  I have been stopped by many cops for many things that are not a big deal.  My sister and I have been stopped (while walking) many times for no reason at all.  The cops would ask "where are you going / what are you doing."  One time as a teen I was asked "are you running away?"  A few months ago I was stopped (and given a costly ticket) because the light over my license plate went out.  Yes, it can be irritating, but I don't agree that being stopped briefly for jaywalking is the best blue-on-black issue to build on.  It just isn't very compelling.

 

What I would suggest is that, as Iguana also suggested, people should come up with a comprehensive analysis of data and statistics (not anecdotes) and responsibly crunch the numbers and present the clear discrepancies.  Pick out the biggest problems and add on a few representative anecdotes / videos to get people's hearts interested in the issue.  And then make the justice department accountable for addressing the reality.

 

The MB case just isn't the right place to build from, as far as bias goes.  (As far as police cameras, yes.)

 

I believe that racial bias creates unfair situations in law enforcement.  I believe that a responsible analysis would prove this convincingly.  Who's going to do it?

[SKL]

nm/dp

 

[goldberry]

Bluntly, I only have black male relatives because of a serious crime committed against my mother yet somehow she chose love and life and to not let that bias her against all black men. I am tired of people pointing to crimes committed by a black person or inflammatory articles about immorality of people based on race and holding all black people responsible for that. If my mother can, in a post Roe world, deliver a child of rape and not hate anyone for it, then people who've not experienced anything like that can surely do the same.

 

 

 

Thank you for sharing that.  

[goldberry]

This is a hard topic.

 

Hard topics require difficult conversations.

 

Difficult conversations often are accompanied by frustration.

 

It does not mean that difficult conversations should not be had.

 

Amen, and well said.

[elegantlion]

If you guys cannot hear all of the hurt and defensiveness in all of your posts, then you are completely blind.  I guess I'll just quit reading.

 

Yes, I suggest that. Not to sound flippant, but I'm sure there are plenty of people reading and not commenting who feel emotional about this situation. I do, for many reasons I cannot discuss on a public forum. I am interested in the dialogue, I am interested in her facts from both sides, not only as a white person, but as a resident of the state of Missouri. 

 

I've had to walk away a few times and not post my emotions because they do not advance the conversation. Honestly, I wish there was an ignore thread button for those that are bothered by the back and forth between differing opinions on hotly debated subjects. I appreciate the debate here, because there is evidence being shared on both sides., Elsewhere I see a bunch of hype and rhetoric without anything to substantiate it. Please don't suggest we shut down dialogue simply because it is emotional, this is how we advance our society into something that more of us can agree on, a way to find peace to live with each other regardless of our beliefs. 

 

This type of thread is where change can happen, where compromise can be found, please don't suggest we all retreat to our corners simply because it's hard. 

[MrsMommy]

I think this conversation is important and needs to be had, especially since it's being had so respectfully. You want to know why? Because I used to be the kind of person that had a very flippant attitude about racism. I used to think that "they" were exaggerating things, for whatever reason...I don't think I ever even bothered to identify any possible reason.

 

But conversations like this, and research I have done, has completely changed my mind. I can't think of any other issue where I've done such an about-face. I now feel very passionately about this issue in a completely different way than I used to, and if it wasn't for conversations like this, maybe that wouldn't have happened, and that thought makes me very sad. I'm glad that I've had the chance to learn and discuss, and I hope other people will have similar experiences. Not so they agree with me necessarily, but so they can see a different point-of-view, and think about some hard topics in ways they otherwise might not have.

[*Lulu*]

If you guys cannot hear all of the hurt and defensiveness in all of your posts, then you are completely blind. I guess I'll just quit reading.

First (((hugs))) because I can feel the hurt in your posts today.

 

Second, If the threads discussing this is distressing you beyond what you can bear, then it absolutely makes sense to step away.

 

Please understand though that the conversations we have that are heavy with hurt and defensiveness are important. It isn't about making people change thier minds; it is about allowing people to see events through a different lens. Hurt is not hatred.

 

Racism, marriage equality, sexism, mental health care, rape culture, special needs, spiritual beliefs are all topics that carry emotional connections and the potential for a great deal of hurt. These are also some of the most valuable conversations I have read or participated in on these forums. Yes, the education topics have been informing and encouraging, but the threads that delve into issues of how we live and interact with one another have been transformative.

[hornblower]

 

What I would suggest is that, as Iguana also suggested, people should come up with a comprehensive analysis of data and statistics (not anecdotes) and responsibly crunch the numbers and present the clear discrepancies.  Pick out the biggest problems and add on a few representative anecdotes / videos to get people's hearts interested in the issue.  And then make the justice department accountable for addressing the reality.

 

This research has been done. Just check out this one article that I linked above (free pdf here) for example on racial profiling & track down the references if you want to do your own analysis. There are tons of criminologists and sociologists who have done countless hours of research & data gathering & analysis on this. It's not anecdotes & stories.

 

I believe some people really don't know/aren't aware of the extent of the research into civil rights issues & the impact of race on life outcomes in America. They need to be made aware & flashpoint stories like this are one way in which awareness becomes rooted in the society.

 

I also suspect that others find it convenient to keep on insisting there isn't research, calling for data, calling for stats & shrugging that nothing can be done until we know more. It's a method of procrastinating & maintaining the status quo. 

[Scrub Jay]

Really? I think this discussion is very interesting and eye opening.  I'm sorry you're not happy with how it's turning out, but the OP so far hasn't asked for it to close and I don't see any obvious board violations. 

 

OP here, I don't understand why it would need to be closed?  But that is up to Susan and the mods.  I have been reading the thread intently.

 

[SKL]

This research has been done. Just check out this one article that I linked above (free pdf here) for example on racial profiling & track down the references if you want to do your own analysis. There are tons of criminologists and sociologists who have done countless hours of research & data gathering & analysis on this. It's not anecdotes & stories.

 

I believe some people really don't know/aren't aware of the extent of the research into civil rights issues & the impact of race on life outcomes in America. They need to be made aware & flashpoint stories like this are one way in which awareness becomes rooted in the society.

 

I also suspect that others find it convenient to keep on insisting there isn't research, calling for data, calling for stats & shrugging that nothing can be done until we know more. It's a method of procrastinating & maintaining the status quo. 

 

I looked for stats on killings by cops, and most of what I found were articles saying "nobody knows how often this happens.  It isn't really tracked."  (Though I did find some numbers in the past, I was not able to find them again, so I cannot remember if they answered the pertinent questions for this discussion.)  So no, I don't think people are just dodging.

 

The article you linked was not really what I'm talking about.  It cited a few narrow studies but not comprehensive stats.

 

There are lots of stats out there about relative this and relative that, but I haven't seen any that look at them as a group and try to find causation and draw overall conclusions.  A statistic standing alone doesn't do much, especially in the area of crime and enforcement.  Crime rate is going to impact arrest rates which impact stats on incidents during arrests as well as incarceration, which has various effects on communities, which have effects on crime rates and around and around.  I think there is a lot of work left to be done to create an objective picture of the situation.

 

[umsami]

I'll also add that because of this thread, I actually had a good discussion with somebody on Facebook who started out posting a disturbing meme.  While we started off with different viewpoints, we ended up agreeing on a few things...so that felt good.

I could have ignored the post...or de-friended her...or whatever.  But I didn't.  I tried to respectfully engage.  I think I saw her side a little better from this side, and she saw my side a little better.

 

 

[Miss Peregrine]

I'll also add that because of this thread, I actually had a good discussion with somebody on Facebook who started out posting a disturbing meme. While we started off with different viewpoints, we ended up agreeing on a few things...so that felt good.

I could have ignored the post...or de-friended her...or whatever. But I didn't. I tried to respectfully engage. I think I saw her side a little better from this side, and she saw my side a little better.

Disturbing memes. So very sad. I'm sickened by some that I've seen.

[hornblower]

The article you linked was not really what I'm talking about.  It cited a few narrow studies but not comprehensive stats.

??? One of the citations is the BJS.

 

BJS, Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics, published annually by U.S. Dep.t of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Using data gathered for FBI’s Uniform Crime Report (UCR)

 

How is that not comprehensive stats?

 

Also this

 

Durose, M., et al., United States Department of Justice-Bureau of Justice Statistics Study: Contact Between Police and the Public: Findings of the 2002 National Survey was sited.

 

Want other sources?

 

here's a quick book list:

 

The Rich get Richer and the Poor Get Prison.  By Jeffrey Reiman.

 

Power, Politics, and Crime.  By William J. Chambliss.

 

Investigating Difference:  Human and Cultural Relations in Criminal Justice.  The Criminal Justice Collective of Northern Arizona University.

 

The Real War on Crime. By the National Criminal Justice Commission and Steven R. Donziger.

 

for original research, see this reading list for PhD prep & their section on race & crime. The section on poverty/social class & crime would also be relevant. http://www.unomaha.edu/college-of-public-affairs-and-community-service/criminology-and-criminal-justice/_files/documents/criminology-reading-list.pdf

 

 

ETA -

 

Oh & the biggie text by Harvard law professor Randall Kennedy: Race, Crime & the Law.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Race-Crime-Law-Randall-Kennedy/dp/0375701842/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1417030763&sr=8-3&keywords=randall+kennedy

 

he has some newer books on race in the US. I haven't read the new one yet. It's called The Persistence of the Color Line: Racial Politics & the Obama Presidency

 

 

[Laurie4b]

 

This is an important issue -- at this point the anger seems to all be going towards cops and how they interact with people of various races.  But nowhere is it proved that they do interact differently.  So does it make sense to continue to tell cops they need to do it differently?  Or is that barking up the wrong tree?  Is it a waste of time and money?  Is accusing the wrong party likely to make race relations worse?

 

It is not racist to ask these questions.  In fact, it may be the least racist thing to do.

 

I want to nuance the bolded perception of what is being said.

 

1. There is a mound of social-psychology research supporting the fact that all of us process information in ways that incorporate "shortcuts." Those shortcuts can include our sometimes unconscious perceptions of people. Totally different than the race issue, so maybe a good example because it broadens the point:  when shown random photos and asked about the perception of a person's character, people rate attractive people as having better character than plain people. (huh? We know it's not true, but sure enough, that's what people do in experiments.) Similarly, when shown the same school files with different photos attached, teachers rate a child as having more potential if that child is attractive. (Are teachers bigoted against plain children? No. Their brains are taking shortcuts that they aren't even aware of.)  So it's not surprising that we all (not just LEOs) often process racial information in similar "short cut" ways and we may do so totally unconsciously.

 

2. For most of us, if we do something as a result of a shortcut involving racial perception, there is little impact. However, if a law enforcement officer does it because of that, a life could be lost. Check out the links Mrs. Mungo has posted on the what the SC cop said about the behavior of the man he had pulled for a seatbelt violation, and then shot for obeying him ,  for instance. I am inclined to believe that he could have actually thought he was telling the truth. (I'm equally open to the possibility that the LEO was lying to his supervisor.)  Or Officer Wilson characterized Michael Brown as looking so angry that he had a "demonic" expression on his face. Is it possible that that expression was pain from being shot?

 

3. Additionally, if our adrenaline kicks in as it does when a person feels threatened, it creates that tunnel vision effect and some details are not processed. I was shocked to find that LEO are not specifically trained to deal with that. A feeling of being threatened that is not a reality of being threatened (SC guy that Mrs. Mungo posted about, 12 year old kid with an airsoft gun; adult in Walmart with an airsoft gun) results in lost lives.

 

4. Because racial shortcuts in LEO's brains have the potential to have such devastating consequences, we have to be more careful about it. That is not anger toward cops.  People have pointed out 2 basic things: 1) if a person is unaware of implicit racism, it is more likely to affect actions and 2) police protocols in the US seem to escalate rather than de-escalate situations. Other countries' LEOs used different tactics. For example UK cops with guy with machete: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cX5CPx4RKWw  or another incident: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFddlI9QHJk

Ferguson cops 2 weeks after Michael Brown's death. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZRUqgDBTt8  (I posted these near the beginning of the thread, but I'm reposting to save any interested people time to go scroll through to find them.)

Mrs. Mungo posted that even our military is carefully trained not to escalate things.

 

If we acknowledge that human beings have brains that take "shortcuts" and that some of those shortcuts are racially based, we can do things about it. We can have specific trainings; we can make sure that LEO departments are integrated so that they have more fellow officers who are of different races, helping to disperse possible "threat" shortcuts that appear; and we can develop opportunities to build trust between the people of a community and LEOs assigned to protect them.

 

If we acknowledge that police, who are following the protocols they have been taught, can escalate a situation, then we can demand that protocols be changed. If an officer is trained to shoot to kill, but not to de-escalate, deaths of unarmed people or all out innocent people would decrease. I believe some areas of the country have more proactive protocols. We can change that. Then officers don't get blamed for following their training and fewer people get killed.

 

[myfunnybunch]

Because forensics are more reliable than multiple, conflicting witness statements.

 

 

What I want to know is, why is no one talking about the fact that there were illegal drugs in Brown's body, and the fact that many drugs will cause people to become aggressive, especially when the person taking them has just committed a crime, and also physically attacked another person just before the incident with the police officer?  Why is nobody talking about THAT?  How come all of those who think Wilson ought to be hung aren't talking about what BROWN did, and what forensics show?  How is it that multiple, conflicting stories about what witnesses *supposedly* saw (because we know everyone is honest, right?) carry more weight than the scientific evidence? 

 

Pretty ironic coming from people who think that science -- even if it's still just in the theory stage -- trumps the belief of some that the literal Genesis account of Creation is true.   :confused1:

 

 

Because a grand jury proceeding isn't held to determine guilt or innocence. The only question considered is whether or not the evidence indicates the need to proceed to trial. 

 

Obviously, to the grand jury panel and to many people following this case, the evidence does not indicate the need for a trial. I just don't think it's productive to equate a desire for a trial with a desire to hang Officer Wilson. In my opinion, there are too many questions around what the evidence actually demonstrates. I think the wrong decision was made because I would like to see all of the evidence (including autopsy reports indicating drug use, witness statements, preceding events, what Brown did, what Wilson did, all of it) presented in a courtroom in front of a judge by a prosecutor and a defender to a jury of peers.

 

And as for the "pretty ironic" statement...ew. Really? What in heaven's name does one's Biblical belief have to do with one's opinion about the grand jury decision? That's just grossly inflammatory.

 

Cat

 

[scooby-do]

We have professionals, a system we are to adhere to, and laws to be followed. First of all, every loss of life is sad no matter what the color of your skin. Second, if only the young man would have obeyed the commands and had not charged the police officer he would be alive. People in this country always want to place the blame other then where it should be. The young man did not get shot because he was black; he got shot because he did not listen to the commands of the police officer and threatened to take his gun. He gave him two chances and warning shots and told him to STOP ; he still choose to not listen.

 

People agree with the system if they get the results they wanted. Then when  people don't get the results they wanted; they say there is something wrong with the system.

 

A very positive thing could come of all this. I 100% agree that police officers should wear cameras; that would be the best thing especially in these circumstances. But I don't think that those who are fighting for it will end up agreeing it's a good thing once it's implemented.

 

I'm not sure; but I believe that inciting violence is a crime??? The step father told everyone to burn the place down( but I'm leaving out an adjective he used that would not be allowed on this site) Why would he want people to burn down their livelihoods? We are at the Christmas season and those poor people working and looking to make money for their families now have nothing. I am sad for them. Why would all those people protesting want to take away jobs from their own community?

 

Only 12% of the people voted in the last election ; these are clearly not people who wanted to be proactive with their voice to help make changes. What does looting shoes, liquor , and cell phones have to do with a young man losing his life?

 

Justice means rightfulness or lawfulness. The police officer acted under the laws that are placed to give him the authority to act when his life or any persons life is in danger.

[Mrs Mungo]

Want other sources?

 

Another book that I would recommend to people is "Savage Inequalities" by Jonathan Kozol, an educator who spent time and partially wrote about the schools in St. Louis. Several people have said that they thought the reason there were not more local police of color on the Ferguson police force is because they lack the proper educational background. This might help you see how that is *still* a failing in the system, not just in the population.

 

 

2. For most of us, if we do something as a result of a shortcut involving racial perception, there is little impact. However, if a law enforcement officer does it because of that, a life could be lost. Check out the links Mrs. Mungo has posted on the what the SC cop said about the behavior of the man he had pulled for a seatbelt violation, and then shot for obeying him ,  for instance. I am inclined to believe that he could have actually thought he was telling the truth. (I'm equally open to the possibility that the LEO was lying to his supervisor.)  Or Officer Wilson characterized Michael Brown as looking so angry that he had a "demonic" expression on his face. Is it possible that that expression was pain from being shot?

 

3. Additionally, if our adrenaline kicks in as it does when a person feels threatened, it creates that tunnel vision effect and some details are not processed. I was shocked to find that LEO are not specifically trained to deal with that. A feeling of being threatened that is not a reality of being threatened (SC guy that Mrs. Mungo posted about, 12 year old kid with an airsoft gun; adult in Walmart with an airsoft gun) results in lost lives.

Right, the point I was attempting to make with those videos of the SC shooting was that 1) Wilson could be telling the complete truth as far as his perception is concerned and still be wrong about the situation and 2) it is clear that many police officers do not have enough training to not take those mental short cuts, think through the situation and attempt to de-escalate. This is something that certainly can and SHOULD be done. It's something that training can definitely help.

 

Also, it was to show that *regardless* of what you believe with regard to the Brown shooting, there are times where an unarmed black person has done nothing whatsoever wrong and is still shot. And the cop believes he was right, even after the fact, even with video evidence that shows he was wrong. If there had been no video, if there was a petty crime in the area that the cop could have had in his mind, if the man had died-do you think the cop would have been fired and facing prosecution or no?

 

 

4. Because racial shortcuts in LEO's brains have the potential to have such devastating consequences, we have to be more careful about it. That is not anger toward cops.  People have pointed out 2 basic things: 1) if a person is unaware of implicit racism, it is more likely to affect actions and 2) police protocols in the US seem to escalate rather than de-escalate situations. Other countries' LEOs used different tactics. For example UK cops with guy with machete: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cX5CPx4RKWw  or another incident: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFddlI9QHJk

Ferguson cops 2 weeks after Michael Brown's death.

  (I posted these near the beginning of the thread, but I'm reposting to save any interested people time to go scroll through to find them.)

Mrs. Mungo posted that even our military is carefully trained not to escalate things.

And members of our military can be *prosecuted* for escalating instead of de-escalating, for not following the rules of engagement. Not all ROE available to the public, but which the military has publicly admitted include not firing at unarmed *enemy combatants*, never mind unarmed civilians. Why do we expect our military to treat enemy fighters better than the police treat our own citizens? I promise that it's scary to be patrolling through a crowded city of people with unfamiliar noises and faces and smells and trying to figure out who may or may not be actively trying to kill you. They are trained to deal with it. So, I firmly believe that the police can and should be trained to deal with these instances too.

[Donna A.]

How do forensics explain whether or not Michael Brown was behaving in an aggressive way at the moment the fatal shot was fired? That is the critical question. If the fatal shot had been fired in the car scuffle, that might have been more conclusive, but it was fired at some distance from the police car.  Forensics explain that the head was down--that could mean charging.... or it could mean slumping forward in pain.

 

The drugs in his system -- everyone knows that many drugs can, and do, affect a person's behavior and thought processes.  That's why they're illegal.  But perhaps no one wants to have a conversation about that because there are several states (and groups) trying to get some drugs legalized. Pointing to the drug's in Brown's body as at least ONE factor in his behavior on that fateful day would conflict with that agenda. 

 

Forensics in this case also verify Wilson's testimony as to what happened when.  There was more to it than just his head being down.  Distance, the angle of the gun, the bruises on Wilson's face, etc.  These forensic facts back up the officer's story.

 

There is also the video of Brown's behavior toward the clerk (or was it a customer?) inside the store. 

 

ALL of those things combined show Brown's aggressive behavior throughout the entire ordeal.

 

 

Posted Today, 09:21 AM

Because forensics are more reliable than multiple, conflicting witness statements.

 

 

What I want to know is, why is no one talking about the fact that there were illegal drugs in Brown's body, and the fact that many drugs will cause people to become aggressive, especially when the person taking them has just committed a crime, and also physically attacked another person just before the incident with the police officer?  Why is nobody talking about THAT?  How come all of those who think Wilson ought to be hung aren't talking about what BROWN did, and what forensics show?  How is it that multiple, conflicting stories about what witnesses *supposedly* saw (because we know everyone is honest, right?) carry more weight than the scientific evidence? 

 

Pretty ironic coming from people who think that science -- even if it's still just in the theory stage -- trumps the belief of some that the literal Genesis account of Creation is true.   :confused1:

 

As a fellow Christian who has conservative theological beliefs including that the BIble is the authoritative word of God, I am horrified that you would inject such a statement into this discussion. Were you accusing Usami specifically? ETA: She is Muslim.  I hope you will think about it and apologize.

 

 

No, it was not directed specifically at Usami.  It was directed at anyone in this thread who has repeatedly insisted on believing (and repeating) the multiple, conflicting testimonies over the forensic evidence. 

[Momof3littles]

 

Only 12% of the people voted in the last election ; these are clearly not people who wanted to be proactive with their voice to help make changes. What does looting shoes, liquor , and cell phones have to do with a young man losing his life?

 

 

 

I don't know, but I imagine if I had lived through decades of the same old, same old, I might have a sense of apathy and feel my vote wouldn't really matter. 

 

Again, in my mind, this is "white privilege" coming into play.  If you haven't lived it, I don't think you can really understand.