Police Power and Racial Tensions in Ferguson, Missouri

[HighlandHomie]

Unless the kid assaulted the officer and tried to disarm the cop, which has been reported.

Why I'm bothering? I really don't know.

But like I posted a few minutes ago, the shooting death of the kid is no longer the primary source of the outrage and unrest in that community and around the world. It is the power structure in this country.

 

[QuinSnydersHair]

But like I posted a few minutes ago, the shooting death of the kid is no longer the primary source of the outrage and unrest in that community and around the world. It is the power structure in this country.

So the protestors realize that the deceased was breaking a law and no so innocent and now they have to shift their blind hate to something else because they realize they were wrong the first time around?

 

[GVC]

Good post and I agree to some extent. However, there is a question that needs to be asked: How many of the black people that are in prison are there because they broke the law? It doesn't matter if you think the law is stupid, immoral, or flat out wrong; if you want to live in the USA, then you have to follow the rules. We typically have zero sympathy for other races that break the law and are incarcerated, so why do blacks get some sort of special attention?

Sometimes, it really is black and white: don't break the law, don't go to prison. Seriously.

1. If the law and its enforcement does more harm than good, or if it effectively treats one group of people differently than another, the focus should be on the law and law enforcement and not on those who are their victims.

2. Had you grown up in an African American community, there's a much higher probability you'd have ended up in prison, given the youthful activities you've copped to. But hey, who cares if the law isn't enforced the same everywhere (as you've incorrectly assumed...)? I wonder if increases in penalties for white collar crimes have kept pace with increases in penalties for non-violent or non-property crimes (I honestly don't know the answer to this, but I have my suspicions)?

 

[Hantlers]

If a cop pulls a gun and you still come after him, then you're a moron who shouldn't be surprised when you get shot.

It's pretty simple: If a cop pulls a gun, stand down. This isn't difficult at all.

 

[TroutBum]

If he did, one shot by the cop to subdue the kid would suffice. If that shot had gone in the kid's head and killed him, that's part of the duty. But it has been established several shots were fired, the kid started to run and turned around with his hands up to surrender and was shot more times until he was dead.

Unless real life isn't Hollywood, and people don't just fall down dead as **** after one shot. Go youtube "police shootings caught on tape" and see how many shots some of those people take before they finally hit the ground. Never mind the fact that the kid was enormous. You can kill a fox with a single .22 slug, no problem. To kill a bear, however, you'll need to shoot him tens, if not hundreds of times before he stops charging. Size, adrenalin, and of course, the whole "this isn't NCIS" thing matter.

You know me!

Well, not biblically. Yet.

You better know I was joking you pansy. You're very smart, in the dumbest way possible.

I know, that's why I responded in kind. The first part of my response was cereal though.

Common sense is relative, bro.

Agreed, but it is certainly more reliable than emotional responses.

Of course you agree, cause I'm ****ing right. The smoke for me is the following:

1. Unarmed black kid shot 6 times

Easily explained by common sense. (See my replies to Dumb **** above) Backed up by reports in the media. Backed up by testimony from two witnesses. Backed up by the fact that the original story was told by a kid who just robbed a convenience store and has as much credibility as my left ball, which has pretty much been deemed false.

2. Pulls them over, without cause (didn't know about the robbery)

Except, according to reports, he didn't "pull anyone over", but instead told them to get out of the road. Which was followed by reports of insults being hurled at the officer while trying to provoke a fight. Which was followed by the cop driving away. According to the police, he received a call about the robbery after he pulled away, but turned around after the call.

3. Known racial tension in the region

So, the cop should have been like, "Ummm, I think those are the guys that robbed the Qwik-E-Mart, but man, there sure is a lot of racial tension around here... I should probably just let them carry on and have a good day."? So solly Challie, that's not how police do ****, thank the Gods.

4. History of police abuse

I have yet to hear or read about any past police abuse from the FPD. However, even if there was, my answer to #3 applies here as well.

5. Total complete and total overreaction by local cops after the shooting, speaks to character

Kind of like the reaction of protesters, looters, and rioters that go banana's before there is even a chance for the facts to come out? That's a dodge on my part, but seriously? Speaks to character? I think any police force would react the same way given #3 is correct. I could bring up the whole "**** the police" attitude that saturates the culture, which on top of #3 might explain any overreaction (and I use that term loosely, as I didn't see any) the police may have had. Throw some riots, looting, and vandalism into the mix and I'd say the FPD did exactly what the situation realistically called for.

Landscapers don't carry automatic weapons. Although I weedwacker to the peen sure would hurt.

Doesn't matter, the idea is still the same.

Good point.

I know.

Yes, you're a dumb white guy. Me too. *highfive*

At least we got huge dongs out of the whole deal.



Wait...

But like I posted a few minutes ago, the shooting death of the kid is no longer the primary source of the outrage and unrest in that community and around the world. It is the power structure in this country.

Wait, you mean nobody is outraged now that it is starting come out that the kid was a complete *** hat, and essentially got himself killed by being stupid? And now you're saying that people are starting to be infatuated with yet another myth that the media is stirring into the pot?

Gosh, this is really a shocking turn of events.

 

[framer]

If he did, one shot by the cop to subdue the kid would suffice. If that shot had gone in the kid's head and killed him, that's part of the duty. But it has been established several shots were fired, the kid started to run and turned around with his hands up to surrender and was shot more times until he was dead.

The narrative you outline has most definitely NOT been established. The current evidence would seem to contradict it. But that is why we should probably investigate before going all ape crap. . .

 

[Hotdog]

We have an incident where we don't know exactly what happened. There is a scenario where this cop would have had to use deadly force. We don't know for sure if he gunned down this "kid" "for no reason"

If the cops was being charged at from this "kid" just after having an altercation where he was struck in the face and had a wrestling match over his own gun, which went off during the struggle, then the cop is within his right to protect himself. He doesn't have to be gentle to the "gentle giant" at that point. I'm tired of this argument that he could have tazed him or something. The cop and Michael Brown were somewhere between 35 feet and less away from each other. It would only take a couple seconds for Michael Brown to reach the cop. But the cop can't wait all the way til he gets to him either. So this means he has to decide to kill or not kill in a matter of seconds. All while trying to control his emotions through all of this.

If this is what happened then Michael Brown asked for it and had it coming. Never ever will the people ever allow any citizen, no matter what color you are, to fight and wrestle with cops. Or reach to stop the cop from pulling his gun out. It's just ain't happening. Sorry. If you ever find a cop pointing a gun at you, you had better not make any sudden movements, and make any threatening gestures, and you should do exactly as he says. It's for the good of the situation right then and the future, no matter what. You can always try to fight it later. (Unless you just robbed a store and you don't want to go to jail and you would rather die than go to jail, then do what ever you can to not go)

 

[TroutBum]

1. If the law and its enforcement does more harm than good, or if it effectively treats one group of people differently than another, the focus should be on the law and law enforcement and not on those who are their victims.

So what you're saying is when a black person breaks the law, it is essentially the fault of the police that that person has committed a crime, and the perpetrators of the crimes are now considered "victims", right? I know that's not what you're really saying, but seriously, that's what you're saying.

2. Had you grown up in an African American community, there's a much higher probability you'd have ended up in prison, given the youthful activities you've copped to. But hey, who cares if the law isn't enforced the same everywhere (as you've incorrectly assumed...)?

I have no idea why you constantly bring up my past, and how I got away with stuff, in the context of these discussions. I got LUCKY, and that's the only reason I didn't end up in prison. As for the law being enforced differently, I don't know how I gave the impression that I disagree with you on that point, because I don't. But to me, your point is moot because -- wait for it -- if you're not breaking the law, you're not going to jail. Nobody forced you to break the law, you made that decision all by yourself. Those are fundamental facts that people like you willfully neglect when discussing this kind of ****.

I wonder if increases in penalties for white collar crimes have kept pace with increases in penalties for non-violent or non-property crimes (I honestly don't know the answer to this, but I have my suspicions)?

I doubt it very highly. In my next life, I'm totally getting into the Ponzi/Fraud business. The recent dismissal of that Provo Ponzi scheme case pretty much seals the deal for me.

3. I have no idea why you consider yourself a "liberal". You're a textbook authoritarian who just happens to vote Democrat and doesn't hate ****.

I don't consider myself a liberal. When I was 18, I put a big red R next to my name on the voter registration card. When I was in my late 20's, I changed it to a big D. Three or four years ago I changed it to Unaffiliated/Independent. My beliefs have changed over the years as I gained life experience. If this particular aspect of my thought process makes me an authoritarian in your eyes, then that's fine by me. I don't know their views, nor do I care.

 

[AlaskanAssassin]

My biggest issue with this event is that the community and media played the "race" card before any facts were unveiled. It seems like both Black Rights groups and the media took that angle before we even knew what really happened. Just because a white cop kills a young black adult doesn't mean that race played a role in the officers actions.

It is ABSOLUTELY possible that race can play a part in tragedies like this. I think a responsible person needs to wait for all of the information before jumping to defend someone. In this case, the Ferguson community elected to defend someone that only now we realize has some major character flaws.

If it turns out that the officer did handle this situation improperly, than he needs to be appropriately disciplined, including possible jail time. However, unless someone can bring some real information forward indicating that this might have been racially motivated, I think he deserves the benefit of the doubt from that regard.

 

[AlaskanAssassin]

As such, it makes perfect sense that some African Americans would feel as though the police are their enemies. I imagine a pretty compelling argument could be made that the police do more harm than good in low-income Black communities.

Couldn't this argument be made by any low-income community? It's not like white "trailer trash" communities love the police! While I have no data to show this, I would imagine that household income has a stronger relationship to criminal activity than race does.

 

[GVC]

So what you're saying is when a black person breaks the law, it is essentially the fault of the police that that person has committed a crime, and the perpetrators of the crimes are now considered "victims", right? I know that's not what you're really saying, but seriously, that's what you're saying.

What? Maybe read my posts before responding to them.

Let's say that ************ is outlawed tomorrow, with a penalty of death by hanging. Further, let's assume that fat, white, chinless Mormons are the only people arrested for ************. Should I not feel sympathy when you're put to death for playing with yourself? Would you not be the victim of ridiculously punitive and prejudicial laws and law enforcement?

What do you think of Sharia law?

I have no idea why you constantly bring up my past, and how I got away with stuff, in the context of these discussions. I got LUCKY, and that's the only reason I didn't end up in prison. As for the law being enforced differently, I don't know how I gave the impression that I disagree with you on that point, because I don't. But to me, your point is moot because -- wait for it -- if you're not breaking the law, you're not going to jail. Nobody forced you to break the law, you made that decision all by yourself. Those are fundamental facts that people like you willfully neglect when discussing this kind of ****.

1. You'd have required far more luck if you were a Black kid in a Black community. That's the obvious point that you've somehow missed (again).

2. What makes you think I've ignored that basic point? I'm only pointing out that historical context matters when discussing race and criminal law (and law enforcement) in America. This stuff doesn't happen in a vacuum.

I doubt it very highly. In my next life, I'm totally getting into the Ponzi/Fraud business. The recent dismissal of that Provo Ponzi scheme case pretty much seals the deal for me.

I'm gonna guess that you also have no idea why I brought this up...

Effectively, over the last 40 years, laws and penalties have been made relatively harsher for crimes more likely to be committed by certain groups of people (Black folks). I'm guessing this is a moot point for you too...I guess I should just be glad I'm white.

 

[fishonjazz]

If this happened, we live on Earth in completely segregated societies, would Earth be better over the long-haul? I ask seriously.

I say yes.... well at least for my people

 

[framer]

What? Maybe read my posts before responding to them.

Let's say that ************ is outlawed tomorrow, with a penalty of death by hanging. Further, let's assume that fat, white, chinless Mormons are the only people arrested for ************. Should I not feel sympathy when you're put to death for playing with yourself? Would you not be the victim of ridiculously punitive and prejudicial laws and law enforcement?

What do you think of Sharia law?



1. You'd have required far more luck if you were a Black kid in a Black community. That's the obvious point that you've somehow missed (again).

2. What makes you think I've ignored that basic point? I'm only pointing out that historical context matters when discussing race and criminal law (and law enforcement) in America. This stuff doesn't happen in a vacuum.



I'm gonna guess that you also have no idea why I brought this up...

Effectively, over the last 40 years, laws and penalties have been made relatively harsher for crimes more likely to be committed by certain groups of people (Black folks). I'm guessing this is a moot point for you too...I guess I should just be glad I'm white.

See, this is all just crap, You are creating straw man after straw man and whining that nobody is seeing things your way. You don't get to define all of the terms of the argument, despite your desire to. Sharia Law? seriously. . .

The laws that you have outlined as being hostile to blacks are generally gang centered. Do you know why those laws are passed? Because many people, especially in the black community, see gangs as a problem. They demand stricter laws get passed to help with the problem and these laws hurt people who are affiliated with gangs. Would rescinding these laws make things better for some black people? Yes, some, but it would also hurt many others who are daily threatened by gang influences in their neighborhood. And yet there you sit saying that these laws are passed as an organized attempt to "get blackie!" and it is disgusting.

If you can, go ahead and outline the specific laws that are meant to specifically punish black people. Since they are so insidious and prevalent, I suspect you can list quite a few. Personally I think you are talking out of your ***

 

[framer]

And since when do we get to add separated paragraphs?

 

[Hantlers]

And since when do we get to add separated paragraphs?

Yeah, I never could figure that out. Seems like a lot of extra work.

 

[TroutBum]

What? Maybe read my posts before responding to them.

I read your posts. I responded. On some level, you believe black people who commit crimes should have less accountability than other people based on their history and cops being meanies. I could not disagree with this any harder.

Let's say that ************ is outlawed tomorrow, with a penalty of death by hanging. Further, let's assume that fat, white, chinless Mormons are the only people arrested for ************.

Wow, you either just got super lucky at describing me, or you're being an ******* on purpose. That's very out of character for you, but I'm game I suppose.

Should I not feel sympathy when you're put to death for playing with yourself? Would you not be the victim of ridiculously punitive and prejudicial laws and law enforcement?

You've entirely missed something vital. What on Earth makes you think, that given your scenario, I would continue to jerk off? I'm not a terribly bright man, but if history shows that fat, white, chinless Mormons are being targeted for pulling their tallywhacker, the last thing I'm going to do is tune up the old meat flute. I guess I could walk into a convenience store with my dong in my hand, show the cashier what my preferred method is, taunt him with the last 8 inches of the tip, walk out to the middle of the road and continue walking and jerking until a cop tells me to stop -- at least I'd then be a victim instead of a stupid *** fool, and thus deserving of your pity, but I think I'll just stick to not whacking off.

What do you think of Sharia law?

To be honest, I don't think too much about it. It doesn't apply to me, so I haven't bothered to research it past a few google searches. It seems like your question is asking for a specific answer from a very broad term; what aspect of Sharia law are you asking about?

1. You'd have required far more luck if you were a Black kid in a Black community. That's the obvious point that you've somehow missed (again).

But probably not, because I have a brain. While luck had something to do with not getting caught, it was also a whole lot of not being a dumb ****. As for missing your point, I didn't miss anything -- I see your point, and it's stupid, therefore, not worth replying directly to. But since you're being so polite and rational, here's an answer for you: I smoked pot all the time, but I always did it at my house. I never put it in my car, I never smoked in public, I never carried paraphernalia or any other type of thing that might get me caught with me. I never drove high. I never sold a shred. In short, I avoided the stupid things that people usually do. If I moved into a neighborhood that was famous for flying drones overhead, had pot sniffing dogs, and a history of police abusing their power over pot heads, I would have just stopped smoking pot. That may be hard for you to fathom, but not everyone is hooked through the bag like you are.

2. What makes you think I've ignored that basic point? I'm only pointing out that historical context matters when discussing race and criminal law (and law enforcement) in America. This stuff doesn't happen in a vacuum.

Well, ok? Doesn't make your argument any less ****ty.

I'm gonna guess that you also have no idea why I brought this up...

A little arrogance goes a long way with you, doesn't it? The whole thing about getting into white collar crime because the judicial system is ******** should have been obvious when I stated that the dismissal of a massive Ponzi scheme, orchestrated by a white Mormon, was thrown out of court over technicalities like the prosecuting attorneys failing to file paperwork on time, was the reason I was going to get into it in my next life. (assuming I come back as a fat, white chinless Mormon) Next time I'll preface my comments in *** Wipe so you can understand them better.

Effectively, over the last 40 years, laws and penalties have been made relatively harsher for crimes more likely to be committed by certain groups of people (Black folks).

I've heard this a lot, usually from whiny **** heads who have the victim mentality. I've never cared enough to fact check those claims, but the fact that they are likely true only reinforces my previous comments. If you know that you're under a microscope, it might be a good idea to not commit the crimes that you're under the microscope for. But hey, they are human beings with the same intelligent brains we all have, they can figure that shít out on their own -- or not -- I don't care. Bring me some real injustice, and I'll gladly take the side of the oppressed.

I'm guessing this is a moot point for you too...I guess I should just be glad I'm white.

You do whatever you feel like you need to do, man.

 

[TroutBum]

And since when do we get to add separated paragraphs?

Yeah, I never could figure that out. Seems like a lot of extra work.

Quote tags. Really not all that hard.

I prefer reading posts that are broken down like that, especially in complex threads like this. I imagine some people find it annoying; to them I apologize.

 

[GVC]

I've heard this a lot, usually from whiny **** heads who have the victim mentality. I've never cared enough to fact check those claims, but the fact that they are likely true only reinforces my previous comments. If you know that you're under a microscope, it might be a good idea to not commit the crimes that you're under the microscope for.

Of course.

It's probably worth considering where we're focusing that microscope though. Do you not think there's a point where punishments become too punitive? Where the punishment is so egregious that the law does more harm than good? If so, shouldn't we be more upset at law makers and enforcers than those who break the law, especially when it comes to non-violent or non-property crimes?

If a group of historically marginalized people is put under that microscope by their historical oppressors, is it any surprise they don't like it and/or occasionally rally around "**** the police"?

This's all I'm trying to say.

 

[Stoked]

Of course.

It's probably worth considering where we're focusing that microscope though. Do you not think there's a point where punishments become too punitive? Where the punishment is so egregious that the law does more harm than good? If so, shouldn't we be more upset at law makers and enforcers than those who break the law, especially when it comes to non-violent or non-property crimes?

If a group of historically marginalized people is put under that microscope by their historical oppressors, is it any surprise they don't like it and/or occasionally rally around "**** the police"?

This's all I'm trying to say.

Not surprising but completely ineffective and misguided. In fact all it serves it to further the scrutiny of that microscope.

One of the biggest failings of black leaders like Sharpton and Jackson is that they have not explained this and worked towards true change of those conditions sufficiently, imo.

They are more concerned with their name in the paper.

 

[TroutBum]

Of course.

It's probably worth considering where we're focusing that microscope though. Do you not think there's a point where punishments become too punitive?

Yes I do.

Where the punishment is so egregious that the law does more harm than good?

Yes I do. Utah liquor laws are a good example of this. As opposed to crimes like drugs, the people who are affected by Utah's antiquated, BS laws can just take their business elsewhere where it's totally legal. The state and the residents suffer from poor tax base, poor image, etc. probably not what you were talking about, but I brought it up because that is an example where I agree with you. Where I don't agree with you is criminal law.

If so, shouldn't we be more upset at law makers and enforcers than those who break the law, especially when it comes to non-violent or non-property crimes?

Yes. How people go about being upset is another issue. You don't get things changed by rioting and looting, but by getting involved and playing the game.

If a group of people, especially one that has historically been marginalized, is put under that microscope by their historical oppressors, is it any surprise they don't like it and/or occasionally rally around "**** the police"?

I can't comment on this because I think it's BS. At what point will they no longer be able to claim oppression? Is it an eternal thing? As long as people keep feeding "oppressed" people their pity and welfare, it will be much harder for those oppressed to get out from under the boot of their alleged oppressors.

Keep in mind, we're not talking about homeless people, or mentally handicapped people, or gay people, or people in actual distress, we're talking about an entire race of people (black folks, as you call them) who are content with being the victims. The greatest athletes in the world are black. The best actors and actresses are black. The President is black. The greatest scientist alive right now is black. There is no excuse anymore. None. Stop making excuses for them.

This's all I'm trying to say.

Likewise.