Originally Posted By skinnerbox The fact that the DOJ asked him *not* to release the video for fear that the violence would escalate -- which it did -- should have been reason enough for Jackson to keep it from public view. Some have speculated online that Jackson released the video because of the success that Capt. Ron Johnson, an African-American with the state highway patrol, had on Thursday night, marching with the protesters in a peaceful fashion. This guy essentially showed up Jackson and made him look like the idiotic poor leader he's been all along. And having Eric Holder, another high profile African-American, request withholding of the video was probably another insult to his fragile racist ego. And before anyone pops off and claims that this couldn't be about race, remember the photo recently released by Anonymous of the Chief's son horsing around in their living room, taken by one of his son's friends. You can clearly see a Confederate flag hanging on the wall in the background. And no one connected with the family has stepped forward to deny the flag's existence. Sorry, but in a town where two-thirds of the citizens are African-American and the police force is 97% white, where the Chief has a Confederate flag in his effn living room... really makes the case for bigotry and racism in the Ferguson PD, from the top on down.
Originally Posted By ecdc Last night, the cops put a curfew in place, and protestors showed up and defied it. Good for them. Why on earth do we keep telling black Americans they have to be subjected to whatever the whims of the police are? And it's worth noting, prominent black residents of St. Louis are participating in the protests defying curfew, including an alderman. This is an issue of power. The people want power, and the police in Ferguson keep lying about what they are doing. They said last night they were just firing smoke into the crowd; reporters and others verified that lie. They fired gas. Wesley Lowery of the Washington Post talked about being arrested by Ferguson police. He laid down and said "I'm not resisting." The police replied: You're resisting! He explained how terrifying that was--it's the police word against yours. The police keep lying, why should I believe them? Also, if Michael Brown was under suspicion of robbery, why on earth wasn't his friend arrested?
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Last night, the cops put a curfew in place, and protestors showed up and defied it. Good for them." No, not good for them. The sooner this situation isn't exacerbated by something one side or the other is doing, the sooner something actually constructive can happen.
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 Post 67 In Ferguson, Michael Brown was the first murder there all year. And the cops there are completely out of control So there isn't rampant crime there. But you asked why do we ask black men to be perfect? I'm not asking them to be perfect. But they have to do better than killing each other on the streets in places like Chicago, Milwaukee and New Orleans to name a few.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>No, not all cops are bad.<< Didn't you just say that cops in your neck of the woods become abusive, if not outright dangerous, unless you are submissive to them? Every encounter I have had with a cop in the past 20 years has been a negative one, even though I have always been polite and courteous.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 So if some black men murder each other in Chicago, etc., all black men should be treated as though they're potential murderers? I know you'll say that's not what you said. But that's the attitude too many people have and exactly what people all over the country are fed up with.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Part of the disconnect here is created by where you live. A lot of things are tolerated in San Francisco that would never be tolerated in any other U.S. city. One day a month supporters of bicycle transit literally clog city streets and intersection as a way of showing support for bicycle transit. Motorists are greatly delayed. In San Francisco it is tolerated; in most other large cities they would be arrested. They hold a major parade where large numbers participate while nude or nearly nude. In San Francisco it is tolerated (if not celebrated); in most other large cities they would be arrested. In the area around Market & McAlister large numbers of people congregate in a park openly dealing and using hard drugs and alcohol (according to the observation of my son when he visited). Cops go right by and totally ignore it. In San Francisco it is tolerated; in most large cities they would be arrested. I'm not saying that approach is right or wrong... I won't make that judgement here. but it is very different from the approach that would be taken most places.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>The sooner this situation isn't exacerbated by something one side or the other is doing, the sooner something actually constructive can happen.<< Except that's just the problem. The impetus is always on not the cops. The cops behave humanely and we act like they're a bunch of heroes. A cop goes out and speaks to the protestors and suddenly he's everyone's favorite cops. The responsibility is on the cops to do the right thing, not to set a curfew that restricts protestors rights and puts people in a position of having to do whatever the cops say or else. That's not an equitable situation. So I'll have to disagree: I hope these protestors continue with their peaceful defiance, and I hope the cops wise up and quit it with their military-style tactics.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>But they have to do better than killing each other on the streets in places like Chicago, Milwaukee and New Orleans to name a few.<< What on earth does that have to do with anything regarding this situation? The response to Michael Brown's killing is the problem: Your response ought to be "It's appalling that black men in this country keep getting murdered," not "Well what'd he do to deserve it," or "Why do black men that Michael Brown didn't even know in cities thousands of miles away keep doing bad things?" I suppose if you're the victim of a crime, I should just ask, "Well, maybe this'll stop happening when white men in Portland get it together.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip The Highway Patrol had really backed off on the show of force. It worked for exactly ONE night. The next night the troublemakers (largely a different group from the protesters) were back looting and burning. There are no easy answers, and plenty of fault to be found on all sides.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>plenty of fault to be found on all sides.<< Exactly what fault is to be found on the side of peaceful protestors? I thought protesting was as American as mom and apple pie. If the only fault we can find is "They didn't do what the cops told them to do," then that's exactly the problem some of us are trying to illuminate.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Protest draws people and media. Inevitably, a minority of those people go on to loot and burn, knowing the media will be there to eat every bit of it up. It's been like that during protests going all the way back to the Viet Nam era. The later at night it gets the more chance the troublemakers have had to consume liquid courage. I see nothing unreasonable about a midnight curfew. You are starting to sound like the right-wing conservatives around here... they think the government should have no control over anything. Many of them agree with you that the government shouldn't be involved with this at all. They feel the law-abiding citizens (the great majority) and business owners should arm themselves and take are of the problem on their own. Not so sure that is a great answer either.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>they think the government should have no control over anything.<< Strawman. No one said that. A curfew is unreasonable. The police could do their job and arrest looters, not shut down an entire community's right to protest.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox I've lived in San Francisco for 26 years. Time for a reality check regarding your hyperbole... <<One day a month supporters of bicycle transit literally clog city streets and intersection as a way of showing support for bicycle transit. Motorists are greatly delayed.>> Motorists are not "greatly delayed." Hyperbole. If they were, cops would be arresting the cyclists left and right. <<They hold a major parade where large numbers participate while nude or nearly nude.>> You're speaking about our Pride Parade. Yes, *some* of the participants are nude, less than 5%. It's a four-hour parade. Over 100,000 line the streets. But the vast majority of participants and observers are clothed appropriately. Again, you're grossly exaggerating. <<In the area around Market & McAlister large numbers of people congregate in a park openly dealing and using hard drugs and alcohol (according to the observation of my son when he visited).>> This one goes so far beyond the pale, it's pretty much a bald faced lie. Market & McAllister is at UN Plaza, where tech companies like Twitter have taken up residence nearby. It's a couple of blocks from City Hall and the Main Public Library. The use of drugs in UN Plaza was more of a problem in the past, but those days are gone. Even so, it was never openly tolerated by the SFPD; arrests were routinely made except for pot smoking because of medical use laws. So the notion of cops "going by and ignoring" hard drug use is nonsense. Now... all of these exaggerated claims of yours, RT, regarding the city I'm still living in points to a bigger problem: the perception of individuals regarding a particular community who don't actually live in that community. You have no idea what really goes on in San Francisco, yet you pop off and make stupid claims about my city as if you're speaking gospel. Well, guess what? You're doing the exact same thing when it comes to African-Americans living in depressed areas such as Ferguson, claiming to know precisely what their mindsets are, what their motivations are for their behavior, how they should behave, act, kowtow, etc, to the police or anyone else. It's this sanctimonious attitude of yours, RT, that reflects the bigger attitude of most white middle class Americans towards minorities. You expect everyone else to have your ideals and your life experiences and your goals. You also believe that everyone else has the same level and number of opportunities to "better themselves" in the world, even though you have far more privileges afforded to you from birth for simply being a white male. But you never let that simple fact change your opinion about impoverished minorities like Ferguson residents, just like you don't let facts about San Francisco affect your prejudices regarding what you think my city is all about. Racism is alive and well in America because of false assumptions like these. Clinging to false ideas perpetuates this crap and breeds intolerance. It's time to open up to the hard realities of how most white people in this country want to stay in control and in power and are absolutely utterly and completely TERRIFIED of anyone who isn't just like them.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox And a big discussion board "THANKS!" to ecdc for being the voice of sanity in this thread. I agree with his posts 1000%. And shame on anyone else who tries to excuse Chief Jackson and members of the Ferguson Police for their despicable power trips of the past week.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <The police could do their job and arrest looters, not shut down an entire community's right to protest.> Gee, there's an idea. Arrest the people breaking the law and leave the people who aren't alone.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Skinner, First of all I said nude or NEARLY nude... there is a big difference. And even if it were just 1%, it would not be tolerated in virtually every other large city I am aware of. As for Market & McAlister, my son was there about 10 years ago; long before Twitter. He would have no reason to lie about what he saw... he LIKES both drinking and smoking pot a great deal. In fact he was in town for a Phish concert, and they generally do a fair amount of both at the concerts. As for the traffic jams, that is what I read in the "mainstream media" (NOT FOX news which I never listen to). In fact that is where the great majority of my information about San Francisco comes from. Don't blame me if the media are writing a bunch of B.S. about your fair burgh. That is about the only thing those of us in flyover land have to go on. You certainly don't have any problem attributing motivation to what goes on in Missouri based I'm sure largely on media reports (how many of you have actually ever been here?). I doubt the reports you get are any more accurate than the reports I get about San Francisco.
Originally Posted By ecdc Since it's only a matter of time before they show up, let's dispose of a few stand-by canards right now: 1) Blacks don't care about black-on-black crime. Nonsense, and only white (and unfortunately some black) people with the luxury of ignorance would say otherwise. Ta-Nehisi Coates disposes of that silliness here: <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/08/black-people-are-not-ignoring-black-on-black-crime/378629/">http://www.theatlantic.com/nat.../378629/</a> 2) Black people just need to get their own community in order. Again, nonsense. As Coates says, making rap music go away or telling guys to pull up their pants isn't the issue. The issue is white racism. The end. 3) Absent fathers are to blame. Again, people who say this have the luxury of ignorance. Black parents are much harder on and more strict with their kids than most white parents. Black parents teach their young men to "toughen up" and "be a man," because they understand that being tough is the only way to survive white racism and the cruelty the world will surely offer them. I have the luxury of relying on the goodness of society and, barring that, the criminal justice system to protect me. Black Americans do not have that privilege.
