Police Power and Racial Tensions in Ferguson, Missouri

[TroutBum]

Yeah, the difference between hearing you won't get a loan and that your stepson's killer will not even be indicted, such a small thing to you. For you, it's not at all mitigated the hours of time that Head has joined with his wife in the pleas for non-violence. No, that one comment is enough to convict the man in your eyes.

No small thing? I know you're emotional about this subject, but try to take your emotions out of it and read my post again. Reckless behavior is reckless regardless of color, race, or gender. I'll be honest, if I were in his situation, I probably would have done the exact same thing -- probably worse -- because of emotional distress. Sorry OB, being distressed doesn't absolve you of crimes committed, nor does it give someone free reign to act carelessly enough to cause harm or loss to other people.

Your previous paragraph is more than enough evidence for my take on your biases.

So I have to be overly emotional and sensitive to any/all race related incident? At that, regardless of facts, I have to automatically choose the side of the alleged victim? Maybe I'm missing something here?

 

[TroutBum]

Someone helped raise $500k for Wilson to help him out.

......

https://conservativetribune.com/officer-wilson-present/

Since I know you, I know that you think this is ********, but rather than just post a link, why not explain why you think this is ********? Stroked gave a response to your unasked question/comment, but I'd really like to know why you think this is such a bad thing. Seriously.

 

[One Brow]

No small thing? I know you're emotional about this subject, but try to take your emotions out of it and read my post again. Reckless behavior is reckless regardless of color, race, or gender.

Since when are utterances of grief and anger the same as reckless behavior? Did Head actually incite any specific person? Did anyone hear him and immediately begin looting? (Hint: the answer is no; once again the violence was the result of escalation over a few hours between the protesters and the police).

I'll be honest, if I were in his situation, I probably would have done the exact same thing -- probably worse -- because of emotional distress. Sorry OB, being distressed doesn't absolve you of crimes committed, nor does it give someone free reign to act carelessly enough to cause harm or loss to other people.

Detail the harm and/or loss instigated by Head, please.

So I have to be overly emotional and sensitive to any/all race related incident? At that, regardless of facts, I have to automatically choose the side of the alleged victim? Maybe I'm missing something here?

Being overly emotional and sensitive will make you more likely to act on your biases, not less likely.

We never react to facts per se, but to our interpretations of these facts, which interpretations are colored by our biases.

In this case, given the track record of the Ferguson police these last few months (and for much longer, really), I would say they have earned some extra skepticism.

 

[TroutBum]

Since when are utterances of grief and anger the same as reckless behavior?

I feel like I'm arguing with my seven year old. She thinks she has seriously solid logic, but it's so flawed that it's pretty much impossible for her to see it. Let's put it this way, OB, if I'm stressed out, depressed, and angry because I just lost my job, I can't walk into a crowded movie theater and start screaming "FIRE". If I do, then at the very least, I'm going to get in trouble for disturbing the peace (or something like that). If someone is trampled to death, then I'm going to jail for involuntary manslaughter. If I stand up in front of a crowd, with national media in my face, and yell something about burning this bitch down, then anything that burns down should be on my shoulders.

Did Head actually incite any specific person?

You tell me. He tells people to burn it down, and wouldn't you know it, people burned it down. You can argue till you're blue that they would have done it anyway, or that they were doing it before hand, but that just doesn't work. If a parent gives their minor son a bottle of whiskey, and that kid gets wasted later and then gets into an accident that kills someone else, you better believe that that parent is in deep ****. It doesn't matter if the kid would have got another bottle from someone else if the parent hadn't given it to him, nor would it matter if he had been drinking earlier that day before the parent gave him the bottle.

Did anyone hear him and immediately begin looting? (Hint: the answer is no; once again the violence was the result of escalation over a few hours between the protesters and the police).

Oh, I didn't know you were there, covering the story, and had such an amazing in-depth insight to what really happened. Thanks for answering the question for me. (Since it's essentially not answerable, nor does it matter even if it was)

Detail the harm and/or loss instigated by Head, please.

No need. You've read the same articles I have.

Being overly emotional and sensitive will make you more likely to act on your biases, not less likely.

Um, that's what I've been saying for a while now. Stop being emotional. Take off your "poor, oppressed me" glasses and start looking at reason and fact.

We never react to facts per se, but to our interpretations of these facts, which interpretations are colored by our biases.

Yup.

In this case, given the track record of the Ferguson police these last few months (and for much longer, really), I would say they have earned some extra skepticism.

I totally agree. Once the skepticism has been resolved, however, a more logical approach must be taken if you're attempting to fix the problem.

In short, don't loot/burn your city because of a perceived injustice, because you're only making things worse.

 

[One Brow]

I feel like I'm arguing with my seven year old. She thinks she has seriously solid logic, but it's so flawed that it's pretty much impossible for her to see it. Let's put it this way, OB, if I'm stressed out, depressed, and angry because I just lost my job, I can't walk into a crowded movie theater and start screaming "FIRE". If I do, then at the very least, I'm going to get in trouble for disturbing the peace (or something like that). If someone is trampled to death, then I'm going to jail for involuntary manslaughter. If I stand up in front of a crowd, with national media in my face, and yell something about burning this bitch down, then anything that burns down should be on my shoulders.



You tell me. He tells people to burn it down, and wouldn't you know it, people burned it down. You can argue till you're blue that they would have done it anyway, or that they were doing it before hand, but that just doesn't work. If a parent gives their minor son a bottle of whiskey, and that kid gets wasted later and then gets into an accident that kills someone else, you better believe that that parent is in deep ****. It doesn't matter if the kid would have got another bottle from someone else if the parent hadn't given it to him, nor would it matter if he had been drinking earlier that day before the parent gave him the bottle.



Oh, I didn't know you were there, covering the story, and had such an amazing in-depth insight to what really happened. Thanks for answering the question for me. (Since it's essentially not answerable, nor does it matter even if it was)



No need. You've read the same articles I have.



Um, that's what I've been saying for a while now. Stop being emotional. Take off your "poor, oppressed me" glasses and start looking at reason and fact.



Yup.



I totally agree. Once the skepticism has been resolved, however, a more logical approach must be taken if you're attempting to fix the problem.

In short, don't loot/burn your city because of a perceived injustice, because you're only making things worse.

In order for you to be responsible for people leaving the panicked theater, you have to show some plausible connection between what you yelled and when you yelled it, and how the people behaved. If you yell "fire" in theater #1, three hours later in theater #3 people leave in a panic, and there has been a past history of people leaving this particular theater in large, panicked groups, how reasonable it is that you are responsible?

Here, the separation between Head's comment and any subsequent violence was a few hours. To my understanding, the violence started several blocks away. There's a history of violence in these protests. The notion that Head's comment were the key catalyst is not believable to those who are not predisposed to assign blame to Head.

Your comparing a single comment to a bottle of whiskey. Does Head control some major organization I'm not aware of, where he has followers that obey his every command? If not, why would you think people are responding to his sentence, as opposed to their own emotions?

That you sneer over my understanding of the events, rather than point to evidence that contradicts it, says a lot about your bias here. I am local, and probably hear a little more about it on the local news than you do on the national news. There were a few hours between the announcement of the verdict and the violence, and there was escalation by both sides during that time period, your sneers notwithstanding.

I've read the articles you have, plus some local articles, plus heard some longer segments on the local news. I have not heard any evidence that Head instigated or encouraged any person to perform any particular act of violence. I accept you have no such evidence, either.

I'm not oppressed.

Burning and looting has been a tool for encouraging change in the past. Sometimes, it's the only thing that makes the people in power listen. That doesn't make the violence right, but it makes the violence inevitable.

 

[VINYLONE]

I haven't really chimed in in this thread for many reasons. I think many of us think we know the truth or the reality of the situation but we are so far removed from it, we have absolutely no idea. This remark will probably be taken in offense, but I wonder how many of you folks have any sort of interaction with black folk on a consistent basis. Hell, those of you that live behind the Mormon curtain are so isolated from true urban living, you have no idea the alternate reality that black folk live. Well, let me take that back and say that it's not necessarily an alternate reality but a different cultural reality. The only similarity you share with the rest of the country is that most of you get your black cultural cues from the internet or television.

I remember back in 2007 when Mr. Sharpton took Mr. O'Reilly to a restaurant in Harlem and the reaction Mr. O'Reilly gave:

https://mediamatters.org/research/2007/09/21/oreilly-surprised-there-was-no-difference-betwe/139893

This in a nut shell speaks to the chasm between America and Black America in regards to cultural understanding. There are a few black dudes here at work and we talk all the time regarding race relations and interactions with the police. You have no idea what black folks go through with the police and the idea that these recent protests in the street have something to do with the most recent deaths of unarmed black men is a missing the forest for the trees type outlook. I think one of Mr. McNamara's lessons in the "Fog of War" is to empathize with the enemy. This rings true not only for war but for most of life's situations. Empathy is key in understanding the root of these protests.

I came across this interview between Esquire and, novelist, James Baldwin. It's from 1968. 1968. It's a little long but it's worth a read.

https://www.esquire.com/features/james-baldwin-cool-it

Here's an excerpt:

Q. What would you say ought to be done to improve the relationship of the police with the black community?

BALDWIN : You would have to educate them. I really have no quarrel particularly with the policemen. I can see the trouble they're in. They're hopelessly ignorant and terribly frightened. They believe everything they see on television, as most people in this country do. They are endlessly respectable, which means to say they are Saturday-night sinners. The country has got the police force it deserves and of course if a policeman sees a black cat in what he considers a strange place he's going to stop him; and you know of course the black cat is going to get angry. And then somebody may die. But it's one of the results of the cultivation in this country of ignorance. Those cats in the Harlem street, those white cops; they are scared to death and they should be scared to death. But that's how black boys die, because the police are scared. And it's not the policemen's fault; it's the country's fault.

 

[TroutBum]

I don't have to live outside of the Mormon Curtain to understand the difference between smart and dumb. Robbing a store = dumb. Black, white, purple, pink -- it doesn't matter what color you are, stupid is as stupid does. Had Brown chosen to not be dumb, he'd still be alive. Want to not be oppressed? Want to fix the divide between your culture and another? Want to not get shot by the police? The answer is a lot simpler than you all are making it out to be:

While I'm here, is there anything more obnoxious than a liberal dick weed from California who has the temerity to lecture the board about how we can't really know how it is because we've never "lived there" -- right after he insults us by using terms like Mormon Curtain. I wasn't aware that you lived in Utah, Dick. Thanks for your outstanding contributions.

 

[One Brow]

Had Brown chosen to not be dumb, he'd still be alive. Want to not be oppressed? Want to fix the divide between your culture and another? Want to not get shot by the police? The answer is a lot simpler than you all are making it out to be:

You mean like John Crawford in Beavercreek, who carried around a toy gun he intended to purchase while still inside that store? YOu mean like Tamar Rice, who was 12 and playing with a toy gun?

For that matter, there is no evidence that Wilson had connected Brown to any robbery at all, outside of the testimony of a man who says that Brown was trying to charge Wilson while he had one hand stuck into his pants. I see no reason to think that Brown would be alive if he had paid for those cigarellos.

Moreover, I find it odd that you think his being a robber means there was no injustice here. Is death always an appropriate penalty for robbery, or just when the robber looks like Brown?

 

[TroutBum]

You mean like John Crawford in Beavercreek, who carried around a toy gun he intended to purchase while still inside that store? YOu mean like Tamar Rice, who was 12 and playing with a toy gun?

What I see as tragic accidents or inept officers with poor training/judgement, you see as veiled racism. Are there undoubtedly bad cops who target black people, Hispanic people, Jews, etc.? Of course there are, but I believe there are 999 good guys for every rotten *** wipe.

For that matter, there is no evidence that Wilson had connected Brown to any robbery at all, outside of the testimony of a man who says that Brown was trying to charge Wilson while he had one hand stuck into his pants. I see no reason to think that Brown would be alive if he had paid for those cigarellos.

Ok. We disagree, no sense in continuing to argue.

Moreover, I find it odd that you think his being a robber means there was no injustice here. Is death always an appropriate penalty for robbery, or just when the robber looks like Brown?

Indeed, that is odd. Of course, I didn't say that, or even hint that death is an appropriate penalty. Thank you for putting words in my mouth ala HighlandHomie though, it really makes me want to see your point of view.

Do you disagree with the statement that people who commit crimes have a better chance of being shot by police than those who don't?

 

[Gameface]

Do you disagree with the statement that people who commit crimes have a better chance of being shot by police than those who don't?

I think people who commit crimes and are black are much more likely to be shot and killed by police than people who commit crimes and are white.

But since a crime was committed, however significant, we don't need to address the issue.

 

[TroutBum]

I think people who commit crimes and are black are much more likely to be shot and killed by police than people who commit crimes and are white.

But since a crime was committed, however significant, we don't need to address the issue.

???

That was a simple question for OneBrow.

*edit

Since the obvious answer is yes, then my obnoxious meme fits. So, if you're black and you know that if you commit a crime you're more likely to get shot and killed, doesn't it make double sense to not commit the crime? I just don't get it. This is like chain smokers suing tobacco companies when they get lung cancer forty years later; it's time for some g'damn personal responsibility.

Stop blaming the man for putting you down, because he hasn't been for at least two generations.

 

[Gameface]

???

That was a simple question for OneBrow.

*edit

Since the obvious answer is yes, then my obnoxious meme fits. So, if you're black and you know that if you commit a crime you're more likely to get shot and killed, doesn't it make double sense to not commit the crime? I just don't get it. This is like chain smokers suing tobacco companies when they get lung cancer forty years later; it's time for some g'damn personal responsibility.

Stop blaming the man for putting you down, because he hasn't been for at least two generations.

**** man! Except that he has been putting you down.

Selective enforcement of overbearing laws against a certain segment of the population isn't a "duh, let's be ghetto angles" moment and more of a "hey let's enforce the laws fairly" moment as far as I'm concerned.

You see it one way and refuse to acknowledge the injustice inherent in our present system. You have sympathy for police officers. I commend you. But I also implore you to look at the other side of the coin. Please. No joking, no games, please. Please look at this as a whole. Please look at the destruction. Please look at the human beings. Please.