Originally Posted By Witches of Morva ORDDU: Not too long ago there was an incident in Los Angeles where a white police officer was beating up a black, homeless woman just because she was walking along the freeway--which is supposedly illegal--but instead of merely arresting her he proceeded to attack her. It was caught on film, thankfully. That is a clear case of police brutality and there are certainly plenty of legitimate cases involving such heinous actions. But the case with Michael Brown isn't one of them. It currently appears that Michael Brown was an aggressor who bit off more than he could chew. The results of his actions cost him his life. But here in Morva we don't blame the police officer for what happened. We blame the person who made the most bad decisions which led to his own demise... ORWEN: Also, the people who decided to protest with riots come across as though they were just looking for an excuse to do something evil. If they were serious about doing the right thing, they wouldn't do the terrible things that they did. They aren't innocent and don't deserve anybody's sympathy. ORGOCH: Got common sense and decency?
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>It was caught on film, thankfully.<< Since the Michael Brown incident was not caught on video, we will never know exactly what happened. But imagine that the woman in the freeway beating case was left to tell her side of the story. Who would believe that a cop would unleash a beating on her like that? Imagine many people assuming the cop was innocent and she was a scofflaw who "asked for it." People would ask, "what in the world was she walking on a freeway for? Yeah, she got a beating but a car could have killed her." That sort of thing. Different cases, and yes we have the video of Michael Brown committing a crime moments before his fatal confrontation. But I still do not understand why he needed to be shot that many times. It seems excessive to me, and now, there won't even be a trial to explore that question. I also would like to know why the officer didn't have a taser to use instead. I most troubled that the officer displayed little in the way of regret. Even if he felt the shooting was necessary, the human thing to do would be to reflect and wonder what, if anything, could have been done to prevent it. None of that soul-searching was apparent in his interview.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<I most troubled that the officer displayed little in the way of regret. Even if he felt the shooting was necessary, the human thing to do would be to reflect and wonder what, if anything, could have been done to prevent it. None of that soul-searching was apparent in his interview.>> I'm sure that was tightly controlled and well rehearsed as demanded by Wilson's lawyer. If he showed any remorse or second guessing of his actions it could be used against him in the inevitable civil suit.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 I also wonder why, if he truly felt threatened, he didn't simply step on the accelerator for a second. I also don't accept the idea that Brown was the aggressor simply on Wilson's say so, when the nearest witnesses said it was Wilson who grabbed Brown. These are the kinds of things that, once again, are supposed to be sorted out in a trial, with an actual prosecutor and defense attorney able to cross examine all witnesses; rather than no cross being performed by a "prosecutor" acting as stealth defense attorney.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Cops don't run, they arrest. I'm not sure that is always the best thing, but those are the rules of the game.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip And really, that is the way it HAS to be. What do you want? A system where if the person you are seeking to arrest presents a sufficient threat you know the cop will run instead of trying to pursue you? That makes no sense at all.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Cops don't run, they arrest. I'm not sure that is always the best thing, but those are the rules of the game.> Notice I said "for a second." i.e. move a few feet away, out of "danger," then get out of the car, point your gun at the unarmed kid and say "you're under arrest."
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Here's a good article on how the physical evidence (e.g. the blood trail) and the audio evidence that Wilson was unaware of when he made his initial statements, do NOT back Wilson's story. <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/12/01/1348720/-The-audio-recording-of-the-Michael-Brown-shooting-proves-Darren-Wilson-s-story-is-false?detail=email">http://www.dailykos.com/story/...il=email</a> You should read both what comes before and after this, but: "To summarize: Darren Wilson claims that he started shooting at Michael Brown when Brown was 15 feet away and charging toward him, and that Brown continued to advance without slowing until the final shot was fired. A conservative estimate of the distance Brown would have covered if he was continuously charging for the duration of the shots is more than 90 feet. The bottom line: Wilson's description of the events is simply impossible given the physical evidence." (snip) "Humans, of course, have far from perfect memories. If someone recalled a distance as being about 15 feet when it was actually more like 20 feet, or was a little off on the number of shots fired, I wouldn't consider that a serious issue. But this, this is far more than a minor discrepancy. Wilson's account of what happened is different on a fundamental level from what actually happened. "
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>I'm sure that was tightly controlled and well rehearsed as demanded by Wilson's lawyer. If he showed any remorse or second guessing of his actions it could be used against him in the inevitable civil suit.<< Yep.
Originally Posted By barboy4 So we have another street execution of a back male this time by New York's finest.......who needs guns when you can just choke the life out of a person. But I'm afraid even with video of the victim gasping for air and eking out "I can't breathe" this officer still has a sporting chance of avoiding a criminal complaint.
Originally Posted By ecdc Here's a good bit on "black on black" crime. Turns out that (shocker!) it's black communities most worried about crime and who are doing the most to combat it. Whites who invoke the whole "what about black on black crime?" are far less concerned about black lives than they are about deflecting criticism of whites.
Originally Posted By ecdc <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/12/black_community_is_concerned_with_black_on_black_crime_suggesting_otherwise.html">http://www.slate.com/articles/...ise.html</a>
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Whites who invoke the whole "what about black on black crime?" are far less concerned about black lives than they are about deflecting criticism of whites.>> You provided good information but then took an uncalled for cheap shot. Whites ask the question because we never hear of black's concern about black on black crime from the media, but they sensationalize the hell out of their concern about white on black crime.
Originally Posted By Donny Dabob2 said :To summarize: Darren Wilson claims that he started shooting at Michael Brown when Brown was 15 feet away and charging toward him This is not true
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Donny, did you even bother to read the link? Or the official police report, which was linked within it? <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1370562-14-43984-care-main.html">http://www.documentcloud.org/d...ain.html</a> See the bottom of page 14. Remember, this is Wilson's story, not to be confused with reality: "P.O. Darren Wilson continued to give Brown commands to stop; however, Brown ignored them. Once Brown got within approximately 15 feet of him, P.O. Darren Wilson indicated he discharged five rounds to stop the threat. According to P.O. Darren Wilson, this did not slow Brown down and he continued to advance. P.O. Darren Wilson discharged two additional rounds; however, Brown continued to advance." That's Wilson's statement, as recorded in the official report. And the link I posted showed that that simply didn't jibe with the audio that Wilson didn't know at that time had been recorded. Conservatively, Brown would have covered 90 feet or more in those 6 plus seconds if he was "charging" as Wilson said. As the author pointed out, if the audio allowed time for, say, 20 feet of advance, no big deal. Anyone can misjudge 20 feet as 15 feet. But 90 feet at minimum and saying it was 15 feet? No way. "Wilson's account of what happened is different on a fundamental level from what actually happened. "
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Whites ask the question because we never hear of black's concern about black on black crime from the media, > We do if we know where to listen. As Larry Willmore said on last night's Daily Show (paraphrasing): "Just because you're not in on the conversation doesn't mean it's not happening. Go to any black church on Sunday." He also said "Black on black crime? You mean... 'crime?'" <but they sensationalize the hell out of their concern about white on black crime.> Well, it's not really "white on black crime" we're talking about, it's police shooting unarmed black guys. The police are quite rightly held to a higher standard, and by and large aren't doing it to unarmed white guys. Can you imagine what would have happened if the Ferguson protesters had brought assault rifles and pointed them at the cops a la the Bundy ranch? Those people didn't even get arrested.
Originally Posted By ecdc Exactly, Dabob2. Look, we all understand implicitly that, where there's smoke, there's usually fire. We all deal with this in our lives in one way or another. When I was a manager at a call center, it was always the same people who were late. Without fail, the same people. When you'd talk to these people, they always seemed to have a good excuse. "Hey, my car broke down." "My kid's sick again." The individual stories weren't that bad, but collectively, it was damning: you are always late, your coworkers who also have children and car trouble aren't, the end. It's really the same notion here. When we dig into the story, we get a sense of maybe some plausibility around the claims of guys like George Zimmerman or Darren Wilson. It seems reasonable. But when we step back, we are left with a damning conclusion: young, unarmed black men are getting gunned down by cops and wanna-be-cops. This isn't some coincidence. The white focus on *anything* except the base problem--white supremacy and racism--is telling. Oh, it's the black community. It's black on black crime. It's rap music and sagging pants. It's poverty. It's blah blah blah blah. You know what it reminds me of? It's the equivalent of saying we need to tackle the federal deficit by cutting PBS's funding. It is the focus on the exact wrong thing because white Americans are uncomfortable focusing on the real problem.
Originally Posted By utahjosh <The white focus on *anything* except the base problem--white supremacy and racism--is telling. Oh, it's the black community. It's black on black crime. It's rap music and sagging pants. It's poverty. It's blah blah blah blah.> I guess it depends on what the conversation is and what your goals are. Poverty and civilian crimes seem to be much bigger problems in our country than the smaller, but terrible culture of racism and power trips of police officers.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Go to any black church on Sunday>> Hell, I haven't been in a "white church" in over 4 years. Why would I go to a black one? But you are making my point for me. I certainly don't have to go to ANY church to be pounded over the head with coverage of a cop shooting a black man.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Poverty and civilian crimes<< These two things are very inter-related, yet as a nation, we cannot come to any sort of agreement on the causes let alone the solution. Most people assume "bad life choices" when it comes to poverty, rather than it being at least partially the result of decades (centuries) of an imbalanced system. There is no overstating how some of us, through luck of birth, have distinct advantages over others. Just get a job. Just go to college. Just stop listening to rap music. Just do this, just do that. So easy to be dismissive of what other people are up against. The two major political parties will likely never agree on how to fix the problem of poverty. One side believes in trickle down economics, the other in government stepping in to level the playing field, and few politicians are willing to come down anywhere in between those two polar opposite places. And as the rest of us increasingly get our media input by self-selecting only that with which we already agree, I am pessimistic that any of it will change in my lifetime. I used to think that there truly was a huge, silent majority of middle-of-the-roaders out there willing to vote for moderate, solution-oriented common sense politicos, but I think I have been kidding myself. I think most people are more comfortable being on team red or team blue and viewing all things through those prisms.
