Riots in Missouri - Part 3

[The Question]

The blood splatter showed the robber was moving towards the cop.

He had a name, you know.

 

[Lilbaz]

He had a name, you know.

Both of them did.

 

[The Question]

Both of them did.

Yes, but Darren Wilson is alive and a millionaire and people aren't actively attempting to dehumanize him and describe him as some kind of demon.

 

[TheComicbookKid]

Again, I can't answer this question because I have never seen another officer or backed up another officer who had a traffic stop or terry stop of an individual and when I asked them "what did you pull him over for?/stop him for?" the officer responded "cause he's black"...

Been a cop since 2010... work for a known large agency... high crime rates... worked my first 3 years in an area that was mixed white/black about 50/50 and for the past year and going into my fifth year the area I work is almost 100% African American and it's the busier part of town to work in.

The basis of your question being that some people were racially profiled is like fantasy-land to me because I've never seen it happen.

I find this post fascinating. The normalcy of racial profiling is how it has become so.....easy to do.

Underage drinking happens at fraternities(a largely racially segregated institution) across the country but cops aren't going to put effort into actually walking around an off-campus facility unless there's an actual complaint. It's just accepted as a fact of life unless they try drinking and driving.

But as someone who lived in a poor black community, 10 black people, especially young men, sitting on a porch drinking. You could expect to have a cop car slow down or get "polite" questions from an officer as a matter of life. You don't have to be doing anything.

 

[Ilikecomics123]

So typically bad witnesses are not screened out before testifying before a jury?

Were the bad witnesses at least cross examined or were they allowed to influence the jury with a full uninterrupted testimony?



Misguided at best.



Any context?

That guy could be mentally ill or on PCP.

and reaching out to assault a cop makes sense at close range, not 35 feet away.



What makes you think this witness is credible but those who contradict his/her are not?

Being high on PCP is valid excuse??

Ever fight a guy high on PCP? I have.

They don't feel much, they are pretty much mentally "checked out"...

Luckily I have a taser so that's an option but if the taser failed or wasn't available and I was getting my a$$ beat by someone high on PCP I would definitely feel my life is in danger because the drug causes a lunatic high on it to not feel anything and act like an animal.

 

[Ilikecomics123]

I find this post fascinating. The normalcy of racial profiling is how it has become so.....easy to do.

Underage drinking happens at fraternities(a largely racially segregated institution) across the country but cops aren't going to put effort into actually walking around an off-campus facility unless there's an actual complaint. It's just accepted as a fact of life unless they try drinking and driving.

But as someone who lived in a poor black community, 10 black people, especially young men, sitting on a porch drinking. You could expect to have a cop car slow down or get "polite" questions from an officer as a matter of life. You don't have to be doing anything.

Wrong on both counts. Again, I guess some posters on this forum just have different experiences than mine... but we are all entitled to our opinions. So I appreciate everybody's take and perception and opinions, but here's mine:

1) Underage drinking and DUI enforcement is HUGE in law enforcement. Every Friday and Saturday night and during special occasions DUI checkpoints are announced to the public and activated. The area I work is home to a major state university and the campus police are always looking for DUIs and underage drinking. It's a huge part of their job.

I went to a major University years prior to becoming a cop and yeah, I saw cops and campus police all the time pulling over people looking for DUIs.

So because going to college is typically and historically a "white privilege" you automatically think cops aren't out there actively looking for DUIs and underage drinking because they don't want to bother the rich white frat boys? Wow, totally inaccurate, but okay, yeah, keep thinking that...

2) I work in an area that is high crime and almost 100% African-American in population demographics. Have I seen people on their porch with a beer, sipping and relaxing? Sure, all the time. Do I bother them? Nope, cause you have every right to sit on your own property drinking what you please. Have I ever seen another cop hassle someone for sitting on their own property drinking? Absolutely not.

Has it happened in the past? Of course, I'm sure.

But I can tell you I don't know any cop or any supervisor who would do anything other than roll their eyes and say "are you kidding me" if another cop said "I stopped this guy cause he was sitting on his own front porch drinking an alcoholic beverage".... what? are you kidding me?

Any supervisor I know would be like "Um, you graduated the academy?"

lol

 

[Howlett]

Yes, but Darren Wilson is alive and a millionaire

Source that he's a millionaire?

and people aren't actively attempting to dehumanize him and describe him as some kind of demon.

Right, they're just threatening to kill him and his family. And all cops. And burning their neighbors and their own town down. Such brilliant humanists at work here.

 

[Tempest]

I'd like to go back and discuss a few of the posts, but I'm curious how many people who are angry about police shootings have actually watched more than the few videos that have been released due to high profile crimes.

I don't know if people truly understand or appreciate just how dangerous a job being a police officer is, and why they are allowed to use force, even deadly force, to deal with certain situations.

Again, please understand that I am not justifying every use of force by an officer. I am merely trying to see if there's a true balance in the perspective of people who get really angry every time they hear that someone who is unarmed gets shot. There's a reason, and it's not usually because an officer is inept or wants to kill, or that they've decided someone doesn't deserve to live because of the color of their skin.

 

[Howlett]

I'd like to go back and discuss a few of the posts, but I'm curious how many people who are angry about police shootings have actually watched more than the few videos that have been released due to high profile crimes.

I don't know if people truly understand or appreciate just how dangerous a job being a police officer is, and why they are allowed to use force, even deadly force, to deal with certain situations.

Again, please understand that I am not justifying every use of force by an officer. I am merely trying to see if there's a true balance in the perspective of people who get really angry every time they hear that someone who is unarmed gets shot. There's a reason, and it's not usually because an officer is inept or wants to kill, or that they've decided someone doesn't deserve to live because of the color of their skin.

It's because those stories get more ratings on the news. Ratings = money

Here's a story.
Police Officer William Stacy
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/alabama...els-blessed-by-william-stacey-cops-good-deed/

She said was 50 cents short the amount of money it took to buy a dozen eggs, so she thought if she just stole three, she could feed them.
"I had no idea anybody was watching me," Johnson continued. "I thought I was smooth as a criminal, and so I put three eggs in my jacket pocket."
After she was caught and Tarrant Police Officer William Stacey arrived, he told her to wait in the parking lot, and she thought she was going to jail for trying to feed her grandkids.
Instead, he returned with a dozen eggs for her.
"She tried to give me all the money she had," Stacy said. "It was about $1.25. I told her the best way to pay me back was to never do something like that again."
When the store agreed not to press charges, Stacy decided to pay for the eggs.
"He did something he didn't have to do. He just bought me eggs," Johnson said. "Any time you see the police, you're always afraid you've done something wrong, and they're after you and they're about to get you."
The gesture made her feel "blessed" and "more than happy, and the kids were more than happy."
Officer Stacey's act of kindness has benefitted more than just Johnson's family. WIAT reports people from all over the country have been calling the Tarrant Police Department, asking to donate either directly to Johnson or to the fire department's annual toy and food drive.
Johnson said she's inspired to pay it forward.
"This man -- he pushed my world in the right direction," she said. "And I will never forget it."


Now she has donations pouring in.


This is one of MANY stories you don't hear about.

 

[Thundercrack85]

I'd like to go back and discuss a few of the posts, but I'm curious how many people who are angry about police shootings have actually watched more than the few videos that have been released due to high profile crimes.

I don't know if people truly understand or appreciate just how dangerous a job being a police officer is, and why they are allowed to use force, even deadly force, to deal with certain situations.

Again, please understand that I am not justifying every use of force by an officer. I am merely trying to see if there's a true balance in the perspective of people who get really angry every time they hear that someone who is unarmed gets shot. There's a reason, and it's not usually because an officer is inept or wants to kill, or that they've decided someone doesn't deserve to live because of the color of their skin.

I was a delivery driver in college. My job was more dangerous. People need to stop acting like cops are soldiers patrolling Baghdad circa 2006. It's not even one of the top ten most dangerous job categories.

 

[The Question]

Source that he's a millionaire?

Supporters donated over 500,000 dollars to him, and he was payed an additional 500,000 dollars for a news interview on TV. It's why he resigned from the police force. This is publicly available information. It's why he resigned from the police force.

Right, they're just threatening to kill him and his family.

Which is absolutely horrible. I never said it wasn't.

And all cops. And burning their neighbors and their own town down. Such brilliant humanists at work here.

A chant at a march isn't a threat. Come on now, you know better than that.

 

[Tempest]

I was a delivery driver in college. My job was more dangerous. People need to stop acting like cops are soldiers patrolling Baghdad circa 2006. It's not even one of the top ten most dangerous job categories.

I notice you didn't actually answer the question. You just deflected.

 

[Schlosser85]

Frankly, Brown's father should have been arrested for inciting violence when he shouted "burn it down", along with all the protesters chanting about dead cops.

Way to shoot yourselves in the foot and eliminate any legitimacy your protests might have possessed.

 

[The Question]

Frankly, Brown's father should have been arrested for inciting violence when he shouted "burn it down", along with all the protesters chanting about dead cops.

Way to shoot yourselves in the foot and eliminate any legitimacy your protests might have possessed.

They would only be guilty of inciting violence if their words and actions caused violence, which did not happen. It's pretty clear that the violence that did occur at the Ferguson protests was the result of the police escalating the situation and was thoroughly one sided. And there was no violence of any kind associated with the folks chanting about dead cops.

And no, they didn't eliminate the legitimacy of their protest. Regardless of wether or not they chose the appropriate rhetoric, the problem that they are protesting against is still a problem that needs to be solved. Bad PR moves does not make the cause illegitimate.

 

[Thundercrack85]

I notice you didn't actually answer the question. You just deflected.

I have watched a lot of these videos, and a pattern emerges.

There is no denying that police in America have a problem using excessive and disproportionate force and the system that is supposed to stop that from happening is clearly broken. There is also no arguing that there isn't a serious race issue at play.

Ironically, I am unsure if that's the case here. I.e. the Michael Brown case. Michael Brown was by all accounts a violent criminal in the making, and Wilson's response may have been justifiable.

But that doesn't change the issue that there are some serious problems, and the violent (and nonviolent) protests in Missouri aren't the result of one isolated incident.

 

[Schlosser85]

It's pretty clear that the violence that did occur at the Ferguson protests was the result of the police escalating the situation and was thoroughly one sided.

Thoroughly one-sided? So no responsibility lays with those who were rioting and looting?

 

[Schlosser85]

I have watched a lot of these videos, and a pattern emerges.

There is no denying that police in America have a problem using excessive and disproportionate force and the system that is supposed to stop that from happening is clearly broken. There is also no arguing that there isn't a serious race issue at play.

Ironically, I am unsure if that's the case here. I.e. the Michael Brown case. Michael Brown was by all accounts a violent criminal in the making, and Wilson's response may have been justifiable.

But that doesn't change the issue that there are some serious problems, and the violent (and nonviolent) protests in Missouri aren't the result of one isolated incident.

This is my whole issue with making Michael Brown the poster child.

I don't deny there is a problem with police brutality/corruption and with African-Americans being disproportionately targeted.

The problem is, I think it hurts your legitimacy when you try to distort the Brown case into a clear-cut story of the police brutality you're protesting.

The protesters are just hitching their wagons to the wrong pseudo martyr.

 

[The Question]

Thoroughly one-sided? So no responsibility lays with those who were rioting and looting?

1: They didn't escalate the situation to outright violence. And really, most of the rioting and looting happened after the police escalated the situation with their extreme and violent response to the initial protests.

2: By one sided, I meant that the vast majority of the violence was being dealt out by the police, who were decked out with armor and military grade weapons, and not the protestors, who had empty plastic water bottles and small rocks.

 

[The Question]

This is my whole issue with making Michael Brown the poster child.

I don't deny there is a problem with police brutality/corruption and with African-Americans being disproportionately targeted.

The problem is, I think it hurts your legitimacy when you try to distort the Brown case into a clear-cut story of the police brutality you're protesting.

The protesters are just hitching their wagons to the wrong pseudo martyr.

So what? If that's true, why do you care? A problem is a problem, it doesn't matter who or what sparks the movement to try and fix that problem.

I have watched a lot of these videos, and a pattern emerges.

There is no denying that police in America have a problem using excessive and disproportionate force and the system that is supposed to stop that from happening is clearly broken. There is also no arguing that there isn't a serious race issue at play.

Ironically, I am unsure if that's the case here. I.e. the Michael Brown case. Michael Brown was by all accounts a violent criminal in the making, and Wilson's response may have been justifiable.

But that doesn't change the issue that there are some serious problems, and the violent (and nonviolent) protests in Missouri aren't the result of one isolated incident.

The larger problem with the Michael Brown incident wasn't that Brown was a perfect angel or that we know with 100% certainly that Darren Wilson didn't legitimately need to shoot him. I have my doubts about that for a few reasons, but I also thing it's besides the point. Regardless, the police department and the DA's response to the incident was absolutely horrendous and betrays an enormous bias in favor of the police and against the African American community within the criminal justice system.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Well, assuming you want your movement to have any credibility, it would be wise to stop.

 

[Schlosser85]

But glorifying a hoodlum, and rioting and burning and looting like animals, makes people less inclined to sympathize with or listen to you.

 

[The Question]

Well, assuming you want your movement to have any credibility, it would be wise to stop.

The movement has credibility, because the problem it is trying to address is real and horrible. The movement only lacks credibility in the eyes of people who would never support it regardless of what case they use as a rallying point.

 

[Ilikecomics123]

Thoroughly one-sided? So no responsibility lays with those who were rioting and looting?

Agree

I watched all cable news stations, was logged into Facebook, looking at twitter, browsing YouTube, and posting on instagram and the night of the no-indictment announcement it didn't look at all like the police did anything wrong. The looters and rioters were planning on burning down Ferguson no matter what.

On a side-note, you may have noticed I played devils advocate here and did what I've noticed a lot of people doing (not here on this forum, but in general)...... being connected to social media does not mean you are all knowledgeable and know all the facts of a story.... 99% of social media posts are devoid of facts and are just opinions....

 

[Howlett]

Supporters donated over 500,000 dollars to him, and he was payed an additional 500,000 dollars for a news interview on TV. It's why he resigned from the police force. This is publicly available information. It's why he resigned from the police force.



Which is absolutely horrible. I never said it wasn't.



A chant at a march isn't a threat. Come on now, you know better than that.

Are you kidding me? It's a threat, along with the multiple other death threats to specific police.

 

[The Question]

But glorifying a hoodlum, and rioting and burning and looting like animals, makes people less inclined to sympathize with or listen to you.

1: If anyone is less inclined to sympathize and listen to people who are protesting racism within the criminal justice system that leads to people of color being murdered because of those things, then I doubt that they would sympathize with the protestors regardless, because they clearly don't care very much about the problem to begin with.

2: The point isn't to gain sympathy. The movement has about as much sympathy as it is likely ever to get. The point is to prove that protestors can and will shut down business as usual is these problems are not addressed.

3: "Burning and looting like animals?" Really? For starters, "burning and looting" makes up such a small percentage of the protests that the focus on it is rather bizarre, and calling people "animals" for acting out against an oppressive system that has murdered their friends and neighbors is kind of messed up. Maybe they are misdirecting their anger, but the anger is completely justified.