We've gotten several submissions about the unrest here today of various sorts, but I couldn't bring myself to publish any of them. I live in St. Louis, not particularly near to the conflict zones, but not so far that they're foreign territory. I have close friends who posted pictures of the StL Metropolitain Police Department's "Civil Disobedience Squad" from their apartment windows and others who got gassed while taking shelter in a coffee shop. My first steady-girlfriend from way back when now lives in Ferguson itself where she and her husband have spent months putting their children back to sleep when circling choppers wake them in the night. I have been to the Canfield Green Apartments, spoken with parents there, and played with their children.
The mood here today is uneasy, as we get the gamut of reactions from our friends, family, and co-workers: head-in-the-sand, outrage, fear, reactionary griping, sadness, hope, and exhaustion. Some want things to go back to normal, for others that is an intolerable proposition. No one knows what will happen next.
So, why talk about this here? What angle does SoylentNews have to offer? For one, feel free to take this as an ask-me-anything about St. Louis and its history. I've lived here most of my life, and have worked jobs from tech to broadcasting to music to cab driving. I know this town and its people. For another, I want to hear what folks far afield have to say about this; especially observations from folk from other regions and countries. Finally, we are uniquely suited to dig into the tech-side of this, streaming, KKK vs Anonymous, drones, etc. than many traditional reporting sources.
-LaminatorX
Related Stories
Controversy has surrounded the shooting of Michael Brown from the moment it happened. SoylentNews did not escape this controversy. There was fierce debate early on, before all of the evidence had been thoroughly considered. Later on, after the grand jury's findings were presented, there was more volatile discussion.
Some of the earliest SoylentNews discussion about this controversial incident happened nearly six months ago. As we approach this important milestone, we must look back on this discussion, how it developed, and how it has shaped our community here at SoylentNews.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by VLM on Tuesday November 25 2014, @10:41PM
Finally, we are uniquely suited to dig into the tech-side of this
Well, don't leave us in suspense. Anyone onsite report anything technologically innovative?
On the military / cop side, MITM wifi, drones, cameras/bugs, strange police scanner activity, robots, jammers in all kinds of frequency bands, sonic weapons ...
On the civilian side, they might be up to some RF jamming. I would. Maybe if the cops own social media, there would be workarounds using older tech, CB radio maybe. I suppose it depends how organized they are.
I suppose the tech story might be there is no tech story. Maybe its just old fashioned police and military infantry tactics.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday November 25 2014, @11:01PM
The only onsite report I could find (non-technological innovative): RT coverage [rt.com].
Seems like either the Egyptians were more technically savvy about 4 years ago or there's a "de facto" censorship system at work in US that smothers Ferguson coverage.
Maybe the editor is trying to use SN as a (maybe novel) way to let some info get out?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 25 2014, @11:16PM
How is the coverage "smothered" in the US? It has been all over the place, in all of the major media outlets, in all possible formats.
In fact, the coverage has been decidedly imbalanced in favor of Brown. If any censorship is going on, it is that the media has restrained its portrayal of Brown and the rioters, even in the face of damning evidence showing them to be, well, rather bad people.
There's more than enough video and photographic evidence showing these people acting in very harmful and criminal ways, yet we see comparatively little of this in the mainstream media.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by edIII on Tuesday November 25 2014, @11:53PM
Exactly. What info is being suppressed at all?
I've already read excerpts [cnn.com] from the grand jury report [cnn.com] in volume 5 [documentcloud.org]:
Brown was at fault. Almost completely. If Officer Wilson was guilty of *anything*, it was that he was inexperienced, ill equipped, and even though not entirely his fault, alone. I say this as somebody that lost a dear friend with a bullet in the head and chest fired from an officer that *did* need to be off the force, even though my friend was pretty much at fault for his own mortality in the incident. The officer was, and is, a complete and utter asshole who was most certainly at fault for provoking my friend. It was a small town, and they had history, and they didn't like each other. This did not excuse my friend though when he decided to fight this officer while he was on duty, and in the course of his lawful duty. He got shot and killed, and it was a travesty for everyone involved and the community.
The arguments are now about whether Officer Wilson had any real cause to interact with Brown, other than Brown being guilty of being black as the saying goes. Did Officer Wilson act like an asshole and decide to give Brown a hard time that day, or was Brown really and truly needing Officer Wilson's attentions that day?
Officer Wilson:
There seems to be plenty of information coming from the government right now, even from grand jury deliberations that are apparently private in most cases. They opened these up though and wanted *everyone* to hear *exactly* what was said during the grand jury deliberations and testimony.
Last I heard there was a video, many videos, and that the grand jury has seen everything. They decided, with "3 black people" on the jury, that Wilson didn't have much of a choice. Brown made it clear that he was going to beat the shit out of Wilson if he could, and that can result in death.
I wouldn't sit there and let a man beat on me, not even a woman. Officer Wilson acted out self defense and more than a little fear. He was outmatched, beat up, and just scared. At this point I'm not rationally sure that he was arrogant, aggressive, and just out to hurt someone that day.
If we wan't to get all upset about that..... I know a poor (white) boy that got beat to death over the course of 10 minutes by multiple officers, all while being mentally challenged, crying, and calling for his parents to save him. He cried out in pain for his father to save him.
Ferguson doesn't have anything to do with Brown/Wilson right now. It's just a vehicle for us to argue about everything else that happens that is a lot more wrong and heinous than what happened that day. Now the people left behind are rioting with a martyr not really fit to be the martyr we need. We don't need Brown or Rodney King to make the arguments for police brutality. We have sober people, not acting in anger, being victims of shockingly violent physical assaults by multiple well equipped police officers using government resources.
My heart goes out to the Brown family. They had an 18 year old young man about to be an adult in the world. Unfortunately, he let his anger control him and he decided to fight an officer. He lost. Everything.
I know the feeling well. RIP Bill.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 26 2014, @05:39AM
> Brown was at fault. Almost completely. If Officer Wilson was guilty of *anything*, it was that he was inexperienced,
Might want to read what Dorian Johnson had to say about the events. [vox.com] Sounds like standard "respect my authoritay" escalation.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 26 2014, @12:47PM
LOL! Of all of the witness testimony, you've chosen to refer to the witness that can be trusted the least in this whole ordeal! Great work!
(Score: 4, Interesting) by LaminatorX on Wednesday November 26 2014, @12:19AM
I'd say that the media coverage of the protests/protesters has been sensationalizing the worst events while ignoring the constant thrum of non-violent actions and low-intensity confrontations. There have been people on the streets in Ferguson almost every night for the past three months. There have only been a handful of nights where rioting broke out, but you wouldn't get that impression from the footage and photos that get used. There have been groups speaking at public meetings and disrupting events in non-violent ways that have received almost no coverage. Even in the last 24 hours, the coverage is all fires and broken windows, while largely ignoring the multiple non-violent highway closures and marches that took place around town.
Even on the the nights that there has been violence, the story I've gotten from both activists and police is that it ends up being a relatively small handful of hooligans, crooks, and extremists (and some white guys spotted in a pickup last night who were probably KKK) who start throwing things at police and smashing windows that spark a confrontation. The more organized protesters have been trying to stop these people within their own ranks, but some will not be deterred. Sadly, once the trouble reaches a certain point, the police have all too often (though not all ways) come down hard on everyone. People have been teargassed in their back yards, rubber bullets fired on people kneeling in the street with their hands up, and so on. Some of the fires last night were ignited by the incendiary smoke and gas canisters the police launched igniting trash and leaves.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 26 2014, @01:36AM
Why should the media focus on people who aren't breaking the law? There shouldn't be anything newsworthy about that.
(Score: 2) by LaminatorX on Wednesday November 26 2014, @04:17AM
You have a very odd concept of newsworthiness.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 26 2014, @04:24AM
How's that? Why should it be considered remarkable when people don't act like criminals?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by janrinok on Wednesday November 26 2014, @09:32AM
I believe that the media should provide balanced reporting. True, it is the riots that make the story, but when the rioters are a minority, or whites looking to stir up trouble, then that also should be reported. From here in Europe, looking at the various US news reporting being provided to our own news media sites it appears that everyone is rioting whereas that true picture is quite different. Many of the protesters are peaceful but wish to have their views noted - they are not all breaking windows or torching buildings and cars This is a common failure of our media worldwide. Pointing out that 99% (made-up WAG* figure) are peaceful is as equally important as focussing on the 1% who are causing the damage.
WAG - Wild-Assed Guess.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 26 2014, @04:26PM
The rioters and looters are physically hurting other people, lighting fires, smashing windows, stealing things from frightened shopkeepers, flipping over cars and confronting law enforcement in the most public way imaginable. They may not always represent the majority of the people who want to be heard, but given the threat they pose to public and private property, not to mention public safety, they're going to get the most attention, and they should. I agree, the coverage gives the mistaken impression that the whole country is ablaze, but it still needs to be covered. This is the first time I can remember ever seeing such a universal reaction (overreaction?) nationwide, and it's been going on for two days now. Like it or not, that's gonna be all over the news, and get more attention than somebody lighting a candle in a park somewhere and singing Give Peace a Chance.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Wednesday November 26 2014, @06:44PM
I was not suggesting that the riots should not be reported, only that the reporting should put it all into perspective i.e. the reporting should be balanced. Other than that, I agree with what you have written.
Fortunately, I have access to many different news sources and can make my own assessment as to the extent of the rioting and the number of people involved. An interesting coincidence, maybe, is that today the BBC was discussing the riots that took place in London in 2011. The official estimates are that the rioters numbered 1500 people - who caused millions of pounds worth of damage. The reporting at the time of the riots gave a similar misleading impression to the reporting (here in Europe) of Ferguson today. I accept that the demonstrations are spreading but the rioting, which I think is entirely different to peaceful demonstrations, is - as far as I can tell - limited to Ferguson and Oakland at the time I write this.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 26 2014, @04:24PM
You honestly think if people are peacefully protesting, that's not worth any news coverage?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 26 2014, @10:50PM
Not in this case. There's nothing to protest. Brown physically attacked a police officer. The police officer defended himself, as is perfectly reasonable and acceptable to do when attacked in such a way.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 26 2014, @12:38PM
Why should the media focus on people who aren't breaking the law? There shouldn't be anything newsworthy about that.
People demonstrating peacefully against perceived injustice is absolutely newsworthy. Peaceful protests are supposed to be a way to draw the attention of journalists and the public at large to look more deeply at a topic, to understand the complete context in which an event happens, and to think about ways to improve the situation.
Unfortunately, the US doesn't have much journalism anymore. There's no money in it. What we have now is mass-market clickbait and spammers desperate to condense 180 pages of grand jury testimony into 125 characters + "#furgeson #CNN"
Unfortunately, it's up to us people to demand better of our media, and most of us would rather either watch the righteous protesters getting stomped by militarized security forces or watch the brave law enforcement officers defend our property and peace from misguided zealots.
(Score: 2) by Kromagv0 on Wednesday November 26 2014, @02:44PM
You are forgetting one of the rules of journalism:
If it bleeds it leads.
T-Shirts and bumper stickers [zazzle.com] to offend someone
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 26 2014, @11:08PM
So clearly your ways aren't working.
You need to be breaking more laws as a large group.
Then you'll be on the news and get stuff changed.
You seem to logically mention that conclusion yet act as if there's another way.
(Score: 1) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 26 2014, @12:13AM
A grand jury in Missouri is composed of 12 people.
It takes a 9 concurring votes to reach a decision.
The grand jury in this case was composed of 9 white people and 3 black people.
Ferguson's population is 65 percent black.
No one outside the jury room can know what the final demographics of the decision was, but I'd be willing to bet that it was split was along racial lines.
...and, if the prosecutor *wanted* an indictment, there would have **been** an indictment.
The Ferguson prosecuter's father was a white cop killed by a black guy.
He should have recused himself--but he instead insisted on getting the result he desired.
-- gewg_
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 26 2014, @01:01AM
The worst part for me isn't the fact that it happened, but the sheer number of oxygen deficient brains to come along that will not only accept it without critical thought, but viciously and personally defend it against any rebuke.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 26 2014, @01:39AM
Give it up, gewg_. You were wrong. Brown was responsible for this, and Wilson didn't do anything wrong. All of the evidence and testimony points to that being the reality. You're just going to have to accept it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 26 2014, @03:02AM
> Brown was responsible for this
Don't be that geek who only understands black and white and can't grasp the concept of proportionality.
What matters is if what he did meant he deserved to die.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 26 2014, @04:10AM
Brown physically attacked an on-duty police officer, for crying out loud. You know, a police officer with a gun! That's an extraordinarily dumb thing to do. It should have been obvious to Brown that such an attack would result in the police officer defending himself with said gun. Death is a common side effect of gunshot wounds.
Really, who's the autist here? I only see two: a person dumb enough to attack an armed police officer, and another person dumb enough to defend the idiot who attacked an armed police officer.
(Score: 3, Informative) by LaminatorX on Wednesday November 26 2014, @01:01AM
A big deal is the prevalence of live-streaming, particularly with instant uploading/archiving apps such that confiscating someone's phone does not allow the opportunity to destroy/suppress the footage.
Here's one now: http://www.ustream.tv/channel/bassemmasri [ustream.tv]
(Score: 2) by zafiro17 on Wednesday November 26 2014, @02:11PM
I can guarantee you that this paid-up, star-carrying Soylentil doesn't drop by this site to read about this kind of news.
Dad always thought laughter was the best medicine, which I guess is why several of us died of tuberculosis - Jack Handey
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Thursday November 27 2014, @12:13AM
I do. Hearing nerds discuss violence is awesome. Actually, violence is awesome. It solves a lot more problems than it gets credit for.
(Score: 2) by LaminatorX on Thursday November 27 2014, @04:59AM
This is something in which we as a community are divided. Some of us want stories more focused on sci-tech subjects. Others enjoy a broader range of material. One of the challenges we face as Editors is to neither overly annoy the former group nor overly deprive the latter.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 25 2014, @10:47PM
> feel free to take this as an ask-me-anything about St. Louis and it's history
What's the historical reason that St. Louis has such a large Jewish population?
(Score: 5, Informative) by LaminatorX on Tuesday November 25 2014, @11:28PM
In the 19th Century, STL was the major center of banking and commerce for the middle of the continent, even more than Chicago is today. Here, those traditionally Jew-friendly professions it was not dominated by the same sort of WASP old money that perpetuated much of the upper-class anti-Semitism found in the East. This environment of opportunity was amplified by Washington University, which while not a Jewish-college as such, has traditionally been friendly to them in a way that the Ivy League was not.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Wednesday November 26 2014, @12:08AM
Why? We aren't Slashdot.
This is an entirely new site that only started out as a refuge when our other clubhouse got taken over by assholes. Please don't be so limited in the journalism on this site. I for one think it's entirely appropriate for us to be talking about many different things here. Make a new category if you want.
We don't have to be Reddit, Tumblr, or anything else. What we can still be though are ordinary professionals that attempt to intelligently discuss the news and events of our world. Just because most of us are very technical people that may be called nerds, doesn't mean we all fit the stereotype.
While I love technology, I'm also quite passionate about intellectual property, sociology, etc. and other topics that just don't fit here entirely and rub some people the wrong way.
My two cents, sir. I've got no complaints here other than I can't pay you yet.
Just be the best journalist that you can be WRT to the quality of the submissions
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Yog-Yogguth on Wednesday November 26 2014, @07:43PM
Just wanted to voice my agreement.
However it might also be a good idea to do just as has been done when there are multiple submissions; I clicked on this one because there was no overt bias.
We all know lots of people already disagree with each other on lots of different aspects on all of it and maybe that kind of introduction as LaminatorX made is helpful in getting people to take at least half a step backwards and think in broader terms.
I've just spent all my moderation points undoing misuse of troll moderations on posts I don't necessarily agree with so maybe I should post my own opinions as well, tucked away here because I don't feel like I have much to add or discuss (okay it got a lot longer than intended but what the heck, guess I'm just ranting to myself):
- The stuff from the grand jury explains the decision. I certainly would shoot and shoot to kill in such a situation, hell I would double tap him after he hit the ground in such a situation just in case. One can wonder if the grand jury information reflects what actually happened or not. But even though there's still plenty of room for doubt there also seems to be an awful lot of different things that all have to be false or lies in order to not side in favor of the cop in this specific case.
- I don't expect the family of the deceased to be able to see it in any other way than that their son was a good and kind person and so on. Parents will often defend their children far beyond anything resembling rationality and maybe even more so if they know they're wrong.
- I can perfectly well understand and support demonstrations against police abuse and violence, there can't be much doubt the US has many severe problems with its various police forces (and not even predominantly against blacks, that's a red herring). The issues affect everybody.
- The later and recent use of police and national guard in Ferguson is ludicrous in its abusive overreaction. I would think that it is done to intentionally to stoke the flames.
- I can also (likely controversially) perfectly see and understand and somewhat agree with those who point out that some American blacks have serious cultural issues. And no, no matter what the KKK or others like them (like black racists) might say I don't believe it's a black against white thing, instead it's “a few blacks” against everybody else thing (like burning down your own community). They and Brown would get into trouble with any police force in Africa as well, or anywhere else, perhaps more so, and Brown would likely die a violent death just about anywhere if those were his actions.
- To me it's strange that this incident is held up as an example when there has recently been far better examples of completely innocent people being killed by police. Like the father picking up a stylized “evil-looking” BB gun in Walmart while talking on the phone: a completely indefensible death. If it matters that he was black then yeah he was black too but it really shouldn't be the focus.
I do wonder if it's by accident that people end up rallying around doubtful stories instead overwhelmingly obvious ones. Is it manufactured? It happens again and again and not just in the US (London anyone? Both the drug dealer and the small riot). If I wanted to disenfranchise the idea of injustice that's exactly what I would do: get all the frustrated people (of which I am one) to jump the gun in favour of some criminal slimeball instead of an innocent person and then let them antagonize and estrange everyone that is not as equally frustrated or as quick to object. Make it into a thing about a smaller percentage of the population and let it collapse as more information becomes available, driving the frustrated ones even further astray and fueling the fire.
It's impressive that people in general still care but even so maybe the cycle ought to be broken because it sure doesn't seem to help improve anything.
In Ferguson there's no side I could support. Not even the Anonymous OpWhatever.
Sorry for the rant.
Bite harder Ouroboros, bite! tails.boum.org/ linux USB CD secure desktop IRC *crypt tor (not endorsements (XKeyScore))
(Score: 2) by edIII on Wednesday November 26 2014, @08:19PM
The very reason why I'm so disappointed today in my fellow Americans that are looting and protesting. Everyone one of them could have been doing this *exact* reaction over that poor father essentially murdered in a store. He was forgotten for some reason.
At the same time this is happening, I also wish Americans would remember the cops are also human. Two cops (the nice ones) were shot to death eating pizza in Las Vegas. Our police are unappreciated, underpaid, under equipped (why did Wilson not have a tazer), under supported (Wilson was alone in a bad area), and faced with violence and crime on a daily basis.
The "us" versus "them" mentality really has to stop. It exacerbates the problem to no end when the police officers feel they are under attack constantly, and yet bad police officers overreact and the police don't stop themselves. Not all police are bad, not all citizens are good.
Now we're speaking the same language.
I look at a fucking punk like Mike Brown and wonder how "we" (read Media) can forget about the poor father murdered in Wallmart, the Mayor with his dogs killed for sport by the cops, and things like:
- The Patriot Act being extended. Again.
- The TPP treaty negotiations that are more scary than Skynet for the future of our peoples.
- Net Neutrality
- CIA torturing people. Not waterboarding, but real torture.
- The NSA costing the American public billions in lost opportunities, technical contracts, etc.
- The NSA burning security to the ground worldwide so they could have their backdoors
- The FBI making HUGE waves about encryption providing road blocks to their activities, and how *everything* must and *WILL* be brought under the FBI surveillance network via CALEA and cooperation with manufacturers and large corporations.
Yeah. Let's keep talking about some violent punk who we need to feel sorry for, even though we would have "voted his ass off the island" years ago as the weakest link. If we want to riot over the police specifically, today, there are amazingly better selections for martyrs across all demographics, religions, and cultures.
You're probably dead on. This is just a massive manipulation of the American public.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 25 2014, @10:53PM
Just over two months ago, the topic of the Ferguson incident was discussed here at SoylentNews [soylentnews.org].
It was a very heated discussion. But in hindsight, we can now see that some people were correct, and some people were wrong.
Those who defended Brown were clearly in the wrong. The physical and testimonial evidence presented to the Missouri grand jury proves this.
Based on what was said during the recent announcement regarding the grand jury's findings, Brown did rob the convenience store. Brown was walking down the center of a street, disrupting traffic. Brown did attack the armed police officer, who obviously had to defend himself against this brutal attack.
It is important for us, as members of the SoylentNews community, to revisit our past discussion about this issue. This is how we will learn and grow.
Those who questioned Brown's innocence in this matter have been proven to have been correct.
Those who defended Brown, including notable SoylentNews members such as mcgrew, Tork, Phoenix666, and Thexalon, have been proven to have been wrong.
We should not fault them for being wrong in this case. Naïvety and an inability to face painful truths can affect us all.
But we should never forget how badly some SoylentNews members were treated merely because they dared express the truthful nature of this sad incident. They were admonished and ridiculed; they were incorrectly labeled as "racists". Yet these victims of disdain and rampant downmodding were absolutely correct in their analysis of Brown's role and Wilson's role in this incident.
It is a shameful day when those who are in the right, and so obviously so, are treated with such disrespect. Let us hope that never again happens here.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 25 2014, @11:01PM
I don't really agree with what the parent wrote, and it might be controversial, but that comment surely isn't trolling. Can somebody with mod points please do the right thing and mod it up, so we can discuss it, instead of it just being censored?
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 25 2014, @11:20PM
> that comment surely isn't trolling.
it is a cut-n-paste post that has been made in many non-ferguson stories over the last couple of days.
Perhaps now that it is finally on-topic, it isn't trolling. On the other hand the poster hasn't learned anything from the responses he's already received. So seems more of a tribal gloat than an honest discussion.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 26 2014, @10:53PM
I don't think it's gloating. I've looked at the thread it links to, and some of the pro-Browners are pretty repulsive in their accusations. I think it's good name names, too. I'll think twice any time I see a comment from those particular people in the future. Clearly their thought processes were badly flawed in this particular case. It could be the same in others, too.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 27 2014, @01:48AM
Wish more people thought like you.....
Name names.
When *I* do wrong *my* name is spread in the papers,media,news, and otherwise.
When others do wrong to me, I'm supposed to be nice and just sweet it up and under the rug? I think not.
I wish more people had the balls to stand up and tell others their mind. I've recently stopped holding myself back and I speak my mind freely. Feels so much better.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 25 2014, @11:04PM
Since when the grand jury institution proves anything?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 25 2014, @11:09PM
How is Brown "innocent" when there is indisputable footage of him abusing a store cashier, and so much physical evidence and testimony suggesting that he did in fact also physically attack the police officer at a very close range?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Tuesday November 25 2014, @11:56PM
How is Brown "innocent" when there is indisputable footage of him abusing a store cashier, and so much physical evidence and testimony suggesting that he did in fact also physically attack the police officer at a very close range?
I think that's not the real issue here. I think the real questions are, "Does *any* unarmed person deserve to be shot down like a dog in the street?" and "Regardless of any attack on a police officer, does someone (again, unarmed) deserve to be shot while running away?" Since if they're running away, they are clearly not a mortal threat to the police, regardless of any assault prior to that.
If the answer is yes, then how is it justified to take someone's life without due process? If the answer is no, what alternative actions should the police have taken under these circumstances?
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 1, Informative) by jmorris on Wednesday November 26 2014, @12:50AM
deserve to be shot while running away?
I love it. Lies never die, which is why the Dark Team loves them so. Nobody with a clue has believed Brown was shot in the back since the first week when the autopsy was released showing all shots were in the front. But this myth is essential to keeping this story's outrage meter in RIOT mode so it lives like Jason.... no matter how many ways you kill it you just know it is coming back.
I used to think the Proggies who decide which stories become teachable moments, become inflamed until they get a riot were just idiots. I mean look at the cases they pick. Rodney King, Travvon 'St. Skittles' Martin and now Mike Gentle Giant' Brown. But no, not stupid, evil. There is method to their madness and it is right out of Community Organizing 101. Find the fracture lines, all the barely scabbed over wounds in a community and then grind salt on em, rub the wounds raw, rip off the scabs. They pick these stories because they already KNOW they will fall apart when they decide to launch em into the national spotlight.
Consider what would have happened if Rodney King really had been beaten for no reason, St. Skittles an innocent murdered by a nut and Brown a gentle giant gunned down in broad daylight by a racist maniac. No story. Perp goes to jail to condemnation of all, the system worked and everybody is happy. Who is going to sit on the con position chair to argue the issue on shouting head theater (cable news)? Now consider what actually happens. The SJWs, the Party Media and the black community all believe (or profess to) the initial 'hate crime' narrative right through the falling apart of the initial version. Most still even believe OJ Simpson is innocent! Everyone else, as they realize the truth that an innocent is about to be devoured rally, even in the face of knowing they will be accused of being everything up to and often including a Nazi. In the end the blacks are even more certain that 'the system' is rigged against them and whites are outraged by the obvious attempt to throw an innocent to a mob.
Everyone is outraged, which is exactly the goal of 'Community Organizing.' But don't believe me, do read the official manual on the subject; Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals. I have one of the older copies, complete with the dedication to the first Community Organizer Himself, Lucifer.
(Score: 1) by NotSanguine on Wednesday November 26 2014, @01:56AM
Okay. let's leave aside the "running away" bit. I don't believe that invalidates the questions I asked, or makes the questions as asked, irrelevant outside of the Brown case.
No comment on the other 94% of my post?
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2, Insightful) by jmorris on Wednesday November 26 2014, @02:53AM
Nothing else in your post requires an answer since it all depends on that one central lie, that Brown was an innocent gunned down for no other reason than being black. If that element is removed everying else becomes an ordinary day in law enforcement. Brown was on dope. Brown had just robbed a liquor store. A BOLO call had went out describing Brown. Wilson spotted Brown walking in the middle of the street, ordered him to the sidewalk, then noticed he matched the description of the robbery suspect that had just went out and moved to make an arrest. Brown, realized the game was over decided to make a gangster move instead and attacked. He lost. End of story. A sad story but one repeated all too often in our declining civilization to worry overly much about yet another wasted life. Nobody really gives a damn, certainly not enough to actually attack the actual causes.
(Score: 1) by NotSanguine on Wednesday November 26 2014, @03:42AM
I will point out that I was speaking in more general terms, rather than just about Michael Brown. Since I did point that out and you ignored that, I'll do so one more time:
[Emphasis added]
Yes, this thread is ostensibly about Ferguson and Michael Brown, but there's no reason not to address the issues there in a broader sense. If you don't want to participate in that, then don't.
So feel free to ignore the actual questions posed. However, responding as if I'm *specifically* referring to Michael Brown even after I've explicitly stated otherwise is disingenuous at best and quite trollish at worst. As such, I'll stop feeding you now.
Toodles!
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday November 26 2014, @04:47AM
Second, it is a complete waste of time to discuss a "broader sense" that no one has disagreement or concern about. It's just a straw man of ludicrously inflammatory nature. Your little detour doesn't add anything to this discussion. Nobody is going start shooting lots of random people in the back just because. Finally, I find it embarrassing that there is all this difficulty in making such a bone headed easy argument. That straw man should ignite just by looking at it cross eyed.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 26 2014, @07:10AM
I'll answer your question without snark and in very plain, simple, and blunt language.
Q1: Does *any* unarmed person deserve to be shot down like a dog in the street?
Q2: Regardless of any attack on a police officer, does someone (again, unarmed) deserve to be shot while running away?"
First, Q2. As already discussed, Brown wasn't running away. He attacked a police officer. That is not 'regardless'. It is quite significant.
Q1 - Yes, *any* unarmed person that physically attacks an officer of the law, deserves to be shot down like a dog in the street. Brown was an asshole, an idiot, and a criminal. He got what he deserved.
Who isn't getting what they deserve? The people that are having their homes and businesses and live ripped apart by asshole, idiot, criminal rioters. They all deserve to be shot down like dogs in the street too.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 26 2014, @01:42AM
Please go review the evidence and testimony. Then come back, and apologize for posting such an idiotic comment. Thanks.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 25 2014, @11:07PM
I for one do not take the grand juries findings at face value. It seemed the grand juries findings were based primarily on the officers testimony, and that is a serious issue and casts doubt on the findings in general.
Don't get me wrong, I believe Brown robbed the store, and I believe he was being confrontational. I just don't believe every word the officer said.
Oh and trying to name and shame is as childish as the lack of respect you claim you were subjected to.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 25 2014, @11:20PM
Even if we completely ignore the officer's testimony, there's still a huge amount of evidence and other testimony suggesting that events transpired as the officer claimed they did.
When taking an impartial look at the evidence and testimony, there really is only one possible conclusion that can be reached, and it's not in Brown's favor at all. Brown robbed a store. Brown then disruptively walked down the middle of a street. Brown attacked an armed police officer when confronted. The officer defended himself with very reasonable force, given the situation. Unfortunately for Brown, he died as a result of this attack that he provoked.
(Score: 1) by NotSanguine on Wednesday November 26 2014, @01:18AM
Even if we completely ignore the officer's testimony, there's still a huge amount of evidence and other testimony suggesting that events transpired as the officer claimed they did.
I'm not trolling here, just (apparently) ignorant. My understanding is that grand jury testimony and evidence is secret. As such, what is the source of the evidence and testimony you refer to?
Again, I'm confused here. Were the grand jury transcripts released? If so, where can I find them?
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday November 26 2014, @01:35AM
Seems like they were. One place is here [nytimes.com], another one [cnn.com]. Some interesting excerpts here [motherjones.com].
More if you care to use google [google.com]
Of course, wikipedia [wikipedia.org]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by NotSanguine on Wednesday November 26 2014, @01:49AM
Thank you! Apparently, I was confused. I was pretty sure I read a news article stating that the proceedings (testimony, etc.) were secret. My mistake.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 26 2014, @03:11AM
You did not misread the article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2014/11/23/court-ferguson-grand-jury-documents-wont-be-public-immediately/ [washingtonpost.com]
(Score: 2) by mrchew1982 on Wednesday November 26 2014, @11:37AM
During the proceedings they are indeed secret, but once the decision has been finalized *then* everything used in the trial is committed to public record and thus becomes freely available. There are exceptions of course, for example juvenile crimes usually at least have the minor's name changed or redacted.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by gman003 on Wednesday November 26 2014, @12:06AM
As I see it, there were two criminals that day: one a petty robber and thug, the other a murderer (at *best*, that was manslaughter - he was unarmed).
Why should one get an on-the-spot death penalty, and the other get off scot free? Because one was a poor black man, and the other a white man with a badge?
You don't have to think that he was completely innocent to think that shooting him was unjustified. Or are we just shooting people for any minor infraction now?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 26 2014, @12:53AM
Do you think there was actually enough evidence that could be used to find the cop guilty of manslaughter? I don't. I wish there was more evidence, but there isn't and nobody will truly know the exact events that happened.
I severely distrust cops and I would have liked this to have been another example of cops doing something horrible that would result in a reduction of their power.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 26 2014, @01:04AM
> Do you think there was actually enough evidence that could be used to find the cop guilty of manslaughter? I don't.
Given the nearly impossible to disprove standard for police of "objectively reasonable" [vox.com] belief that Brown was a threat, you are correct.
But that's actually an indictment of the police, they can get away with brutal murder and absent extraordinary proof they won't ever be convicted. In the view of the average citizen that privilege makes everything the police do automatically suspect. When the people in charge of enforcing the law are held to a lower standard instead of a higher standard abuse is inevitable.
(Score: 2) by gman003 on Wednesday November 26 2014, @02:49AM
Yes. Absolutely.
Brown was *unarmed*. The only way he could have been a threat who could be justifiably shot was if he actively had his hands around Wilson's throat. That was demonstrably NOT the case - the "injuries" shown as evidence show that. Even if you buy the story of Brown attempting to seize Wilson's pistol, that was not when Brown was shot - by Wilson's *own* *testimony*, he shot him while giving chase after Brown fled.
This is not Soviet Russia, we do not shoot criminals on sight. We have rules restricting the police's use of force - they may only use deadly force when they or a bystander are threatened with deadly force. We have rules for what is considered "threatened with deadly force" - a gun is deadly force, a knife or other bladed weapon is deadly force within a certain distance. I do not know the specific rules for unarmed assailants, but I very much doubt that Brown was somehow so dangerous that even without a weapon, he was an immediate deadly threat. Even if he did, he was shot multiple times while on the ground - no longer an immediate threat. Shooting him there was no different than shooting him in a jail cell, and was nothing short of police murder.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 26 2014, @03:21AM
> Even if he did, he was shot multiple times while on the ground
You should double-check your source for that. I am pretty sure it is incorrect, not even the strongest witnesses against the officer have said that. The autopsy evidence indicates that Brown was most likely bending over when the last shot was fired into his head.
(Score: 2) by PapayaSF on Wednesday November 26 2014, @09:55AM
You are correct. The three autopsies did not support the idea that Brown was shot in the back, with his hands up, or while he was on the ground. All but the first wound (to his hand, during the struggle for the gun in the car) happened while Brown was charging Wilson, with what was probably the last and fatal wound in the top of his head, as he was falling down.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 26 2014, @04:42AM
The cop's testimony is what we have to go with when it comes to whether or not Brown was a perceived deadly threat. The cop said he feared for his life and there isn't any particularly damning evidence to suggest otherwise. I have not seen any convincing evidence that Brown was "shot multiple times while on the ground".
Don't pretend that Brown would be incapable of killing the cop. He wouldn't have to choke him if he could overpower the cop and get the gun.
The cop would not be found guilty of manslaughter unless he admitted it or some new evidence contradicts his testimony.
The cop was an asshole that harassed some black guy walking in the road and eventually killed him. I hope everyone the cop interacts with in the future treats him like the piece of shit that he is and he stops being an asshole or kills himself.
(Score: 1) by jmorris on Wednesday November 26 2014, @05:22AM
Brown was *unarmed*. The only way he could have been a threat who could be justifiably shot
Wrong. There is no possible way to maintain a civilization and the idea that an law enforcement officer is duty bound to simply sit in his cruiser and take a beating because a random wannabe gangster doesn't also have a gun to make it some sort of 'fair fight.' Sorry but if you start a fistfight with a LEO and start to win you simply must expect the logical response to be that you are about to lose the ensuing gunfight.
Protip: Don't punch police officers. It isn't safe. It shouldn't be.
Uncertainty killed Mr. Brown. Fifty years ago he would have KNOWN the consequences of such a rash action so implicitly that even high on drugs he would have realized it was a bad idea, much worse than just taking the collar for robbery. He thought the police were 'pussies' (his word) and wouldn't shoot. He was wrong. People like YOU created this uncertainty. So in a very real sense you killed Mike Brown.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 26 2014, @05:45AM
> Sorry but if you start a fistfight with a LEO and start to win you simply must expect the logical response to be that you are about to lose the ensuing gunfight.
According to Dorian Johnson's testimony, [vox.com] not only did the LEO start the fist-fight, he first tried to clip Brown with this SUV.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 26 2014, @12:50PM
LOL! Referring to the least-reliable and least-trustworthy of all of the witnesses in this ordeal isn't the way to make a convincing argument.
(Score: 2) by gman003 on Wednesday November 26 2014, @05:53AM
False dilemma - I never said he had to "sit there and take a beating", I'm saying that he should have responded with reasonable force. How many less-lethal weapons was Wilson carrying? He definitely had pepper spray and a baton, probably had a taser, and worst-case still had his own fists. I will concede that, if you believe the "Brown tried to grab Wilson's gun" theory, that shooting him DURING that fight would be justifiable. But even Wilson's own testimony says that Brown ran once shots were fired during that supposed scuffle, then turned and charged back at him, and only then did Wilson shoot.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 26 2014, @12:55PM
The evidence and testimony shows that Brown had just robbed a store, physically attacked the clerk, disrupted traffic, physically attacked a police officer, and tried to take that police officer's gun to use it against the officer.
What was the police officer supposed to do at that point, let a serial criminal like that go free? Let him walk away? Of course not! A repeat offender like that should be apprehended for the safety of the public at large.
If Brown had done the sensible thing and given up at that point, then he would still be alive. But all the evidence shows that he made a dumb decision to yet again attack a police officer, one he knows was armed with a gun.
This whole incident is clearly Brown's fault, from beginning to end.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 26 2014, @04:49PM
Did the police officer know that he just robbed a store and attacked the clerk? If not, that fact is irrelevant to the judgement of the officer's behaviour.
If I kill some random man I meet on the street whom I don't know, and afterwards it turns out the man was a serial killer and the world is a better place for him being killed, this still doesn't change that the act of killing him was plain murder.
Disrupting traffic is certainly not a crime that deserves death.
Now we come into the territory of things that matter. Was he physically attacking the police officer at the time of shooting?
At the time of shooting?
Immobilize him and then arrest him.
(Score: 2) by metamonkey on Wednesday November 26 2014, @03:17PM
Okay, if a 300 pound man who's already punched you in the head twice charges at you, you should put away your gun and have a sporting boxing match with the fellow. Gotcha.
Okay 3, 2, 1, let's jam.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday November 26 2014, @03:39PM
How many less-lethal weapons was Wilson carrying?
Something no one is debating, so its probably true, is from first sight till the thug was dead was less than 90 seconds. Most people can hold their breath as long as the entire interaction took. Most football plays are longer than the actual fight, which was only a small fraction of the total 90 seconds.
This was not some ten minute long slowly reasoned gradual tension build up hollywood western shootout. Under those conditions, if you have a minute to make sure the handgun they'd been fighting over, and had been fired, was safe to holster, then safe it and holster it securely, then make sure perp #2 who hid behind a car wasn't sneaking up behind then, then pull the taser and verify its ready to fire, then be prepared to die if the taser doesn't work because the perp had already beaten him and tried to take his gun so he's going to do it again if the taser misses, or his buddy will jump you after firing the taser, beat/kill you and take your handgun... Naaw thats just stupid. My advice to the cop would have been hold onto the gun and if he lunges at you shoot him before perp #2 can sneak up behind you. In fact if perp 1 lunges at you its probably because perp 2 is lunging at you from behind so fire on perp #1 at the earliest opportunity and then look for perp #2 who's probably midair about to impact you. And put perp #1 out of the fight yet save some rounds because you might be fighting perp #2 less than a second after perp #1 is shot.
Hard to say if perp #2 was smart in staying out of the fight or dumb. If perp #2 would have had perp #1's back, the cop would be dead now and they'd have the cops gun. Or maybe the cop would have shot them both instead of just the overly aggressive one in which case perp #2 was smart to abandon his friend.
(Score: 2) by PapayaSF on Wednesday November 26 2014, @09:52AM
False. Wilson's testimony and the autopsy report show that the first two shots were fired in the car, during the struggle for Wilson's pistol. One of those shots grazed Brown's hand. The remaining shots were fired when Brown charged at Wilson. Again, the autopsy supports that story, as did some (but not all) of the witnesses.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 26 2014, @07:33PM
...the other a murderer (at *best*, that was manslaughter - he was unarmed).
At worst it could have been cold blooded murder. But at best, it was self-defence. Of course, having a gun in the equation make a deadly outcome vastly more likely. But going by the officer's testimony in this case (and while I'm not sure of its accuracy, at least the objective evidence that I've heard didn't conflict with it, and since this is "at *best*"...), his gun was out and had already been fired, a bigger stronger man who had already attacked him once, was coming towards him again. If I was personally in that situation, I would have assumed letting the guy get into physical contact with me (i.e. not shooting at him), would most likely end up with me dead with my own gun. In fact, given the ranges and time to think about it (e.g. people often keep fighting for minutes after receiving critical injuries; it's very easy to miss even at close ranges; in this event, Mr Brown received multiple gun shots before stopping), there is a fairly good chance of my death or injury even if I shot at him.
(Score: 5, Informative) by c0lo on Tuesday November 25 2014, @10:54PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Interesting) by fliptop on Tuesday November 25 2014, @11:06PM
Why should it do anything mentioned? The grand jury decided not to indict, based on the evidence of eyewitnesses who said Brown charged the cop. This shouldn't turn into a magnifying lens that focuses on more political correctness being inserted into cities, towns, etc. across America.
The events should be a wake-up call to the looters and vandals inflicting violence on innocent people and small business owners. My hope is the National Guard rounds them all up and they're charged accordingly, demonstrating justice works both ways.
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday November 25 2014, @11:13PM
Why not? Is it like the police are innocent white lambs well loved by the community they serve?
Would Brown shooting be just a single case of police overreaction, do you think it would still trigger rioting in Ferguson?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 25 2014, @11:26PM
The real discussion here should be why the black community in general experiences so much conflict with the police, regardless of where we look in America.
This is true even in areas where the majority of police officers themselves are black!
It's not an issue of race. It's one of culture. Modern black American culture promotes "values" that are harmful. Drugs, violence, theft, gangsterism, a rejection of education, and a lack of self-sufficiency, to name just a few.
The modern white American culture of tolerance of misbehavior and a fear of being labeled as a "racist" doesn't help either. It prevents us from having a real discussion about these issues.
Instead, all we get are comments like yours, which try to start some sort of a two-sided blame game, when the reality is so much more complex.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 25 2014, @11:36PM
> This is true even in areas where the majority of police officers themselves are black!
That's pretty well understood as a problem with police culture - when you are the odd-man-out, there is enormous pressure to fit in. Blacks on the force end up adopting the norms of the rest police.
> It's not an issue of race. It's one of culture.
You are correct, but not in the way you think. The problem is a culture of oppression. When blacks and whites use drugs at equal rates but blacks go to prison for drug crimes 10x-100x more frequently than whites something is wrong with the national culture that endorses that. When so many states prevent felons from voting that disenfranchises black people from literally having a vote on their own governance.
> Instead, all we get are comments like yours, which try to start some sort of a two-sided blame game, when the reality is so much more complex.
Seems like your definition of "complex" is absurdly one-sided.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday November 25 2014, @11:55PM
Sorry, where I live, the black community is less likely to cause troubles than the "white trash". And the level of police brutality is much lower than US.
So, in that complex reality of yours, how come the black community didn't quite get to buy into the American dream?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 26 2014, @01:07AM
Racism, stereotypes, gender roles, nationalism, etc. are not limited to just white men.
Take a look at the resume/CV studies where they only change the names to fit a particular group and you will see that women and minorities are not immune to prejudice.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by edIII on Wednesday November 26 2014, @12:02AM
An excellent point. We know Brown was guilty, and yet this makes no functional difference in *any* of the arguments we have about police brutality and their tendencies to overstep their social mandate and violate the Constitution.
Brown was guilty, but this does not take away or support any of the proponents or opponents of law enforcement. When Brown may have been innocent, he was the poster boy. Now we need to take down the poster, but not stop the battle towards bringing law enforcement back in line with its purposes.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Wednesday November 26 2014, @12:14AM
Ummm....guilty of what?
I'm sorry but when you think in that kind of "obviously he was guilty" way, without saying guilty of what, it doesn't justify anything, and is not subject to any real world test. It's more like religion than fact.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 26 2014, @12:33AM
According to the cop (and Brown's companion agrees), the encounter started because the kid was walking on the blacktop and not on the sidewalk.
So, apparently, in Missouri, jaywalking will get you summary execution.
The white dude has no business being a law enforcement official.
He has no sense of proportionality.
He is simply a bully (as long as he has a firearm, apparently).
-- gewg_
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 26 2014, @04:16AM
Oh, gewg_. You're always misrepresenting reality in such a silly manner! At least your comments are good for a laugh.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 26 2014, @04:47AM
"So, apparently, in Missouri, jaywalking will get you summary execution."
No. Hyperbole is not necessary.
All of your other points are fine from what I know of the case.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Wednesday November 26 2014, @09:11AM
Come on now, don't play games.
Unless there is a conspiracy, the evidence shows a 18 year old violent brute who refused to respect multiple laws and assaulted multiple people (cigars and store). He's not the precious little angel. Little angels need not be told to get out of traffic, or please don't hit the officer, or please don't go for weapons, or need 12 arguments to stop moving towards the armed officer.
My other comment summarizes and links the jury report. No religion needed, just reading comprehension.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 26 2014, @01:10PM
Please stop bringing facts into this discussion. They're racist!
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday November 26 2014, @02:26PM
It's worth mentioning that being "in traffic" is incredibly common in black neighborhoods and not indicative of not being "little angels" in any way. You can drive along Eastern Parkway in Brooklyn and there will invariably be at least half a dozen people jaywalking across that 4-lane, high-speed road at night while dressed all in black. Is it irritating for drivers? Yes. Is it dangerous for the jaywalkers? Yes. Does it mean they're bad or evil? No, absolutely not. And furthermore, as much as I would personally like for the cops to write each and every one of them a fat ticket, they don't. So any cop who regularly patrols such neighborhoods would certainly not see jaywalking as anything out of the utterly ordinary and absolutely not as a casus belli.
Just sayin'
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Wednesday November 26 2014, @07:01PM
It's just one point, in a long line of points.
Your point is also fairly taken. My ultimate goal is not to attempt to make light of the police brutality in this country at all. Just point out that Mike Brown was a juvenile delinquent still at 18, and as Chris Rock says, "That nigga just got shot".
I've read the testimony of Brown's friend too, as suggested by someone else here. Brown is still a just an ignorant brutish bully. I quite frankly don't give a flat fuck what anyone wants to say about that boy. I saw EVERYTHING I needed when that quite big gentleman (I'm bigger) grabbeed that small Indian clerk by the throat. The clerk was holding on with TWO FUCKING HANDS to his ONE ARM hoping Brown didn't STRANGLE him.
I can kill people in less than 10 seconds. Less than that if I get my hands on you right from the start. I'm deadly. As a big man, I was taught pretty early on that if I wanted to physically grab someone and manhandle them that it was "nothing but a thang". Being an intellectual though, my response was to be very *careful* goofing off with people and to never ever hit someone as hard as I could no matter how angry I was. I taught myself to fear myself, and this was the logical response. I've even flat out stood there while another man planted his palm across my face like a Sumo wrestler. I didn't have to hit him back. I just stared, and although my ego was screaming, I just stared still. He was a big man too, but I've found that when you don't react it's a lot scarier.
Why I am like that, and why is it important? Because I'm not a punk like Mike Brown, and most kids aren't as bad as he was, and a large population of men mature past violence. We're the normal ones. Brown had his actions catch up with him when he met Darren Wilson, a man his own size. For whatever reason that day, Brown met a man not willing to put up with his shit.
What would have happened if Wilson never bothered and "oppressed" Mike Brown? Most likely more store clerks getting strangled by an ignorant brutish Sasquatch. I wish more people would remember that. Brown's future was most likely a court room, a judge, and a prison sentence regardless.
I'm not impressed, and I'm not going to give any energy towards Mike Brown when we have genuinely good kids (of all backgrounds) who are not violent being assaulted by police officers. Maybe we should create a list. It might be useful to compare our proposed martyr against other candidates?
I myself refuse to make that little shit a martyr. Seriously, if we didn't riot over Martin Luther King, I'm sure as hell not going insane over somebody not fit to shine that man's shoes.
Police corruption and brutality is *REAL*. So are the Mike Browns of the world that plague their community. So are the truly innocent victims we can hold vigils for instead.
Just sayin'
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Wednesday November 26 2014, @07:34PM
And FWIW, several posts up I wasn't implying
a) that grade school kids who engage in petty theft are "little angels" (where did that come from?)
or
b) that there weren't grounds for arresting him.
I was implying, and have previously stated, that I don't believe that there were any grounds for murdering him, and that petty theft certainly isn't an example.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Wednesday November 26 2014, @08:50PM
An 18 year old 6'3" three-hundred-pound adult male holding a clerk by the throat after ripping off merchandise is NOT:
a) A "grade school kid"
b) Petty theft. Cigars are less than $950 most likely, but assault is verbal. This punk made it battery as well.
As for the little angels, you were implying (to me) that this was just a poor boy, barely a man, that was hardly guilty of anything. The little tyke just wanted to go home and play board games with his friends.
Treat this man for what he is. A very large man and very clearly guilty of robbery. Video evidence and the testimony of his own friend. His own friend, dude.
Utter bullshit. He did everything but post on Twitter that he was a violent and brutish man needing law enforcement that day.
You act as if Wilson wasn't responding to the assault and battery, as well as the robbery, and that Mike Brown is truly and completely innocent. We know better. You know better.
This was certainly not just a boy walking down the street with his childhood friend. It was a criminal walking down the street with a nervous accomplice that wasn't really down for the party to begin with, and just hanging out with the wrong crowd. Mike Brown was the wrong crowd.
That's simply inflammatory and wholly untrue. What we have to go on is the testimony of his friend, the testimony of Wilson, the testimony of the State (forensics and facts), and the testimony of witnesses.
All of the factual evidence (unless proven to be manufactured) points towards Wilson's innocence of murder at the very least. The absolute very worst that Wilson could be guilty of is provoking Brown and acting unprofessional. This doesn't excuse any of Brown's actions though.
PLENTY of people are terribly abused by LEO and they just get on the ground. It's a lawsuit afterwards, but they survive. There is no reasonable grounds for engaging in a violent or abusive confrontation with an officer, unless it's for the express purposes of citizens arrest. Even then, you need to remember that's a trained fellow citizen armed with weapons. You might want to be smarter about it, but then again, Mike Brown was just a violent punk.
Finally, if you want a real situation you can sink your teeth into where I can't even being to argue for the police, look no further:
Kelly Thomas [wikipedia.org]
You don't need Brown. He was a worthless punk not deserving of your energies. Give them to Kelly Thomas instead. He deserves them far more. So many good honest people abused by law enforcement each day and you choose him? You don't have to man.
In case it really needs to be a racial issue, you can use this:
John Crawford III [thefreethoughtproject.com]
Literally murdered by officers wholly unwilling to perform their duties. Instead, they shot first and *thought* it was going to turn out to be a Mike Brown. John didn't yell at the officers. Didn't punch anyone. Didn't steal anything. John Crawford III was just an ordinary consumer looking for a children's toy in a store.
We're on the same side, but I won't be supporting Mike Brown anytime soon.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 26 2014, @10:55PM
It doesn't matter if it's "common" in black neighborhoods. All sorts of crimes are common in such areas. They're still crimes, and those who perpetrate such crimes are still criminals!
(Score: 1) by NotSanguine on Wednesday November 26 2014, @03:06PM
Brown was guilty
Really? Was there some sort of posthumous trial where here was convicted of some crime? Or has there been some act of Congress or court ruling that supercedes the relevant case law [wikipedia.org] regarding presumption of innocence [wikipedia.org]?
N.B. IANAL
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by edIII on Wednesday November 26 2014, @07:31PM
Yeah.... Brown's dead.
So do I need a "presumption of innocence" as much as I need to perform simple historical work like forensics?
Brown isn't here to defend himself.... but there were TWO other witnesses INCLUDING VIDEO SURVEILLANCE... INCLUDING HIS OWN FRIEND... that say he committed robbery.
Everybody wants to get butthurt over this boy, but what I don't see is people providing any evidence that this was a non violent young man simply minding his own business. I was silent for quite a long time and didn't want to make any statements about the boy or incident itself. I waited to hear more evidence.
We have a grand jury report, testimony from the friend, video evidence, all pointing towards a violent and aggressive youth that was shot in an altercation following the perpetration of his crimes.
Damn right, the boy is guilty.
If you feel differently, then please (seriously) cogently explain your own arguments of why the evidence isn't factual, Brown cannot be placed at the scene, the video surveillance was misinterpreted, etc.
Paint me a picture of his innocence, or at least work away at the evidence showing his penchant for robbery and assault.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 1) by NotSanguine on Wednesday November 26 2014, @08:45PM
Everybody wants to get butthurt over this boy, but what I don't see is people providing any evidence that this was a non violent young man simply minding his own business.
I'm not any more butthurt over this case than any other case of a dead young person. So much wasted potential. It's sad.
I never said anything about Michael Brown being either non-violent or "minding his own business."
Saying someone is "guilty" has specific connotations WRT the legal system.
Did the young man commit robbery? The video seems to indicate it. If so, then he was the perpetrator. But he's not "guilty" until a judge or jury says he is. Maybe that's splitting semantic hairs. If you think so (and you appear to), you've called me on it. Fair enough.
Was he responsible for his own shooting death? The grand jury testimony indicates that may be the case. However, unlike a trial, the grand jury only sees the evidence that the prosecution sees fit to present.
Does the prosecutor's office have an axe to grind and something to gain by not presenting evidence that might induce an indictment? I don't know. We can hope not, but prosecutors often rely on police for investigative work and in bolstering their cases. Which implies a potential conflict of interest, so it can't be rejected out of hand IMHO.
Again, my quibble is with the term "guilty." If you disagree, more power to you. I don't have all the facts (and neither do you, unless you're on a legal team involved) and, as such, don't have the knowledge to say for sure one way or the other.
I think the old saw, "There's a difference between what you know, and what you can prove." applies here.
Have a lovely day!
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by edIII on Wednesday November 26 2014, @09:16PM
Your point is well taken, but I simply don't know how to disambiguate the meaning of the word when referencing essentially history. Mike Brown has been relegated to history now. In this case I will admit that my capacity for language may simply be inadequate.
I thought the video evidence and the testimony of his friend and the clerk provided enough factual evidence to reasonably conclude a state of guilt WRT the crimes of robbery, assault and battery. In my mind, this establishes a character for Mike Brown and sets the stage for the ensuing conflict with Wilson. Whether white or not, Wilson is still a police officer and I must reasonably give his story more credit than that of established criminals (which may be unfair to the friend).
For now, Mike Brown is a worthless piece of crap that has wasted our time. In the future we will see the results of an independent federal investigation into Ferguson encompassing the entire police force and their recent history with the community. We may be receiving new information and facts soon, and it may well change both our minds about the police in Ferguson, and/or Brown.
Have a great Thanksgiving! (if you celebrate it)
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 1) by NotSanguine on Wednesday November 26 2014, @10:00PM
I thought the video evidence and the testimony of his friend and the clerk provided enough factual evidence to reasonably conclude a state of guilt WRT the crimes of robbery, assault and battery. In my mind, this establishes a character for Mike Brown and sets the stage for the ensuing conflict with Wilson. Whether white or not, Wilson is still a police officer and I must reasonably give his story more credit than that of established criminals (which may be unfair to the friend).
Given my lack of familiarity with the evidence, I will take your word for it. The only thing I would change is to portray Mr. Brown as the perpetrator, rather than "guilty."
For now, Mike Brown is a worthless piece of crap that has wasted our time.
It's unclear to me that Mr. Brown was (as he isn't any more), as you say, "a worthless piece of crap." As has been well documented, brain development continues well into a person's twenties, that development includes important increases in impulse control and complex decision-making. As such, to write off someone whose brain is still developing is a bit short-sighted, IMHO.
That's not to say that I necessarily think that given a few more years, Mr. Brown would have become the next Gandhi, Mandela or Mother Theresa. He may well have become a career criminal. Or he may have ended up a productive member of society. But we'll never know that.
I think that's sad. Not because I have any special feelings about Mr. Brown, but when any young life is snuffed out, there's always the question of what might have been.
Have a great Thanksgiving! (if you celebrate it)
I do. And thank you! All the best to you and those important to you this holiday.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 26 2014, @03:32AM
Grand Jury for Police should be run by the those who were wronged. Not by the politically lawers that have to work WITH and DEPEND on the police every day. They have no reason to get to the "truth" for the indictment.
The best thing about grand jury not inditing, is double jeopardy not in place. He can site be tried, since he has not. Maybe a grand jury made up of the community, which 70% black instead of 75% white will be better to review the facts.
Anyone remember the Rodney King trails? OJ trails? Race plays an important role in Justice.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 25 2014, @11:26PM
This shouldn't turn into a magnifying lens that focuses on more political correctness being inserted into cities, towns, etc. across America.
This is why it should [theatlantic.com] turn into a magnifying lens.
The hardest thing in life is to figure out what are your own personal unknown unknowns. Start there.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 26 2014, @01:09PM
The grand jury decided not to indict, based on the evidence of eyewitnesses who said Brown charged the cop. This shouldn't turn into a magnifying lens that focuses on more political correctness being inserted into cities, towns, etc. across America.
Grand juries are charged with determining whether there is enough evidence to hold an open, public trial. Their decision not to indict does not just mean that they believe the officer's version of events; it means they think, based on the evidence that the prosecutor decided to show them, that there is not even a reason to question the officer's version. That the bits of conflicting evidence and testimony were so incredible as to dismiss out of hand.
More importantly, the protests are not just about Michael Brown. The protests are about the perception, by the people of Ferguson, that the police are out to get them. 20% of the city's budget - 80% of police pay - is from traffic citations.There are 50% more outstanding arrest warrants (mostly for unpaid citations) in Ferguson than there are residents of Ferguson.
This isn't about "political correctness." This is about a public-police relationship that has deteriorated from a partnership to maintain order into "keeping people in line." That's not quite a jailor-inmate relationship, but it is certainly not a healthy way for public servants to interact with their community. If you want to live in a community where you can trust the police - in a community where the police represent the interests of the people - then you should be very interested in understanding what has gone wrong in Ferguson and in how you can prevent it from happening in your own town.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 25 2014, @11:07PM
What about the brutality that Brown subjected the shop keeper to? This was caught on video, even. There's nothing to dispute here.
What about the brutality that Brown apparently subjected the police officer to? There is ample physical evidence and testimony available now to indicate that Brown did physically attack Wilson.
While police do sometimes act in a way that can cause harm, or even death, to others, we can't forget that it's a two way street. They're often facing extreme danger from whoever they are confronting.
It's inaccurate to make accusations of police brutality, while ignoring the brutality that thugs like Brown have so obviously engaged in, especially when these thugs are directing their brutality at police officers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 25 2014, @11:42PM
> What about the brutality that Brown subjected the shop keeper to? This was caught on video, even. There's nothing to dispute here.
There is plenty to dispute there. For one thing, the shop keeper did not report a crime.
The argument has been made that the shop keeper was falsely accusing Brown of stealing when he had in fact paid (as shown on the video).
You might dispute whether or not Brown both paid for some cigarettes and also stole cigarettes. But that would be a dispute.
> There is ample physical evidence and testimony available now to indicate that Brown did physically attack Wilson.
Being a cop typically means you can get away with being an asshole. Sometimes there are consequences.
But regardless, the job of the police is to uphold the law. Shooting someone who is no longer a threat is against the law.
There is plenty of evidence to indicate that the fatal shot was fired when Brown was no longer a threat.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 26 2014, @01:21AM
"ignoring the brutality that thugs"
When does the justice system do this? I can only think of examples of rich/famous people that would actually get away with assault/battery.
There are plenty of examples of cops getting away with illegal activities and they should also be held to a higher standard so it isn't unfair to have additional focus on police brutality vs. the general public.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by tizan on Tuesday November 25 2014, @11:03PM
Why pull a gun when there is no gun involved. Unnecessary killings here in Albuquerque just because cops have a power trip with their guns...they have killed several homeless or mentally erratic without guns in the past years...
Cops in UK use their batons or bare hands...in such cases. Here the cops don't know how to fight in close encounter when there is no guns it seems !! Or may be they are cowards who has to hide behind their guns.
Forgetting legality or theft or what not ...worst case should have been this kid to be arrested without involvement of a gun.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 25 2014, @11:11PM
The grand jury evidence and testimony suggests that Brown went for the officer's gun while the officer was still in his vehicle. So that means that it was Brown himself who brought a firearm into the dispute.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 25 2014, @11:26PM
No just the officers testimony says that. The evidence only shows the gun was fired inside the vehicle.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 25 2014, @11:31PM
It went off in the vehicle because Brown grabbed at it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 25 2014, @11:44PM
No just the officers testimony says that. The evidence only shows the gun was fired inside the vehicle.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 26 2014, @01:48AM
Because Brown grabbed at the gun.
(Score: 2) by gringer on Wednesday November 26 2014, @02:22AM
"They both reached for the gun, for the gun"
http://www.metrolyrics.com/we-both-reached-for-the-gun-lyrics-chicago-the-musical.html [metrolyrics.com]
Ask me about Sequencing DNA in front of Linus Torvalds [youtube.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 26 2014, @02:59AM
No just the officer's testimony says that. The evidence only shows the gun was fired inside the vehicle.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 26 2014, @01:06PM
The gun was fired because Brown grabbed for it.
(Score: 2) by hoochiecoochieman on Wednesday November 26 2014, @11:10AM
Bullshit. Guns have to be cocked before they're shot. And guns have security to prevent them to shoot when not gripped properly. If the gun went off, it was because someone had already cocked it and was grabbing it ready to shoot.
(Score: 2) by Kromagv0 on Wednesday November 26 2014, @03:09PM
Depends on the firearm but seems unlikely in this situation.
Given that the firearm was a police officers one and the number of shots fired it was likely something like a Glock 17 [wikipedia.org] or other 9mm Glock. With Glocks the slide is held open when the magazine is empty and still in the gun. When a new clip is loaded you press a button on the side and the slide slams shut loading a round in the chamber. Also the safety on Glocks isn't a lever or switch on the side like on a lot of firearms but is a protruding switch from the trigger [wikimedia.org] so that the trigger can't move unless someone actually has their finger on the trigger. Given this it seems likely that the gun would have been loaded and ready to fire even while in the holster. I would also highly doubt that a police officer would not have a round in the chamber of their sidearm given that if they did need it in an emergency situation fucking around with the slide to chamber a round wastes precious time they need.
T-Shirts and bumper stickers [zazzle.com] to offend someone
(Score: 2) by metamonkey on Wednesday November 26 2014, @03:21PM
I don't think you know much about firearms...
Okay 3, 2, 1, let's jam.
(Score: 2) by hoochiecoochieman on Wednesday November 26 2014, @03:45PM
Ok, I concede.
There aren't many where I live. It takes a Kafkian process to get a permit, and only for small 6.35 pistols. A police 9mm is a whole different league, I see.
(Score: 1, Troll) by fliptop on Tuesday November 25 2014, @11:13PM
Which may have happened had he not attacked the cop [go.com].
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday November 25 2014, @11:22PM
And the policeman had nothing better to do that fatally shoot him, rather than shoot to disable (you know, like shooting him in the leg for a start).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 25 2014, @11:29PM
Before you discuss this further, can you please go and research the evidence and testimony for this case?
Once you do that, you'll see how your comment is nonsense.
How was Wilson supposed to shoot Brown "in the leg" when Wilson was seated in his vehicle, Brown was outside reaching in through the window hitting the officer and then grabbing for the officer's gun, and the vehicle door was between them?
We can't have a proper discussion of this matter as long as you're going out of your way to ignore the facts.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday November 25 2014, @11:50PM
Here's what I read [wikipedia.org]:
I see no car playing a role during the fatal shooting, I only see what seems to be a police officer determined to kill Brown rather than to stop him [bbc.com]
(Brown shot in the arm 4 times, one or two may have been from the car incident, then twice in the head. Why not shoot the leg, the attack intensity is very likely to drop to a manageable level, the attacker can't hold his balance as easy, and the attacked can escape by only a short run and still manage the situation).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday November 26 2014, @10:06AM
Your link points to an image containg a large number of non-lethal bullet wounds. That evidence does not support your claim, and to be honest, contradicts it.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by Kromagv0 on Wednesday November 26 2014, @03:16PM
For police and military they are trained to shoot for center of mass. It is a large target that should be easy to hit and moves slower than smaller things like legs and arms. Basically the ideal shot would be right in the sternum. This also provides the benefit that if the target is farther away than what the firearm is zeroed at a body shot is still likely but instead will be lower on the torso.
T-Shirts and bumper stickers [zazzle.com] to offend someone
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 25 2014, @11:46PM
Life isn't like it is in the movies. Cops typically don't try to shoot the gun out of the person's hand, and they don't try to shoot to disable because you don't get too many chances and you don't waste them trying to hit moving limbs. You don't try to shoot their hats off of their heads, or quarters or tin cans that have been tossed in the air, you aim for the easiest target which is the torso. You don't even purposely go for the head, you go for a hit. Only snipers sighting up unaware targets get the chance to pick and choose what part of the body they want to hit.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday November 26 2014, @01:51AM
Seriously? Because the distribution of wounds would suggest that the shooter whas deliberately targeting the hand, until it realized that this will do nothing good.
Some excepts here from Wilson's testimony [motherjones.com] concur:
What I read describes a panicked person, reacting on adrenaline rush. If this is not a clear indication that indeed at least that policeman needed better training, I don't know what else is.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by LaminatorX on Wednesday November 26 2014, @03:51AM
In particular, these little towns in North County tend to have the worst police. The workload is heavy and the pay is weak, so they mostly get the dregs who couldn't get a better gig on a nicer force, either in a nicer town in the County or on the St. Louis Metro PD in the City of St. Louis if they want to work hard but be professional about it and have a decent union behind them.
Wilson is a prime example of this. He was formerly a member of the city of Jennings police department, right up the road from Ferguson. Jennings PD was so corrupt and abusive, that the entire department was shut down and stripped of it's charter by the State of Missouri. But hey, no problem for Officer Wilson. Ferguson PD was hiring, and they needed somebody who knows Jennings since they're going to be patrolling part of Jennings now.
(Score: 1) by modecx on Wednesday November 26 2014, @06:25AM
I just read the autopsy, and am currently perusing the Grand Jury report, in part to help understand what happened for myself, you know...without all of the bias, or at least as much as can be avoided.
For instance, did you know that Michael Brown was 290lbs and 6'4" tall?
What I read describes a panicked person, reacting on adrenaline rush.
Well... Yeah. Imagine that.
Why don't you let a guy like that punch you in the face a couple times. Then we'll have you describe what you're seeing. I couldn't imagine any reason why you'd ever be looking out for his next right hook, since your vicarious experience with fist fights from dozens, if not hundreds of movies would indicate the protagonist always wins, despite being involved in knock-down-drag-out fights lasting the better part of a commercial break, all while receiving several round house punches and uppercut kicks. Why...fists are basically naught but meaty pillows... Amirite?
Let's go a step further and strap a gun on your hip. Maybe while you bring up the VATS console and take the time to line up "shoot to disable" shot, as you put it earlier, you can simultaneously contemplate the morality of using lethal force against an 'unarmed assailant', who obviously can't cause you mortal injury, because the Al Sharpton and those desk-jockeys with the nice hair and perfect complexion at ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, BBC even the trusted anchor at Al Jazeera imply that's the way it works. Surely, they have experience in these things. After all, they report.....on the news.
Besides, your +15 Small Guns perk grants you a VATS accuracy 95% while targeting a leg at 100 meters, and the opinionated anatomy experts at Mother Jones say it's perfectly safe to disable a person by shooting them in the leg with your hollow-point duty ammo. Hit the femoral artery? Pshh! Give the kiddo (that's what we call 6'4" tall 300 pound 18 year old males with demonstrated history of aggression these days) a lolly and pat on the butt. He'll be just fine!
Regarding the autopsy, here's some highlights I found particularly amusing:
I had a job once, in another lifetime, where we might describe this kind of thing as a dynamic situation.
Indeed. I have a feeling a lot of people on this board literally cannot imagine.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday November 26 2014, @07:19AM
(and you call this approach unbiased, eh?).
Mate, to be clear: the reaction of panic is understandable for any non-trained person (e.g. like me, which you try to push).
What is not understandable (from my point of view, at least), why isn't police trained to handle better such situations?
Not to mention that the fatal shot was delivered after the fight in the car which had Brown fleeing (thus Wilson have had some time to consider his options before deciding "I'ma gonna chase him" - no immediate danger).
I'll let you reach the point in Wilson testimony where he says he shot the fatal bullets when Brown got about 8 to 10 feet from him (in metric: between 2.4 and 3 meters). The info's only a few lines down in my short post, but maybe you are a fast typer and slow reader.
Well, when you do internalize the info, switch into thinking how much relevance your estimated 95% accuracy at 100 m have.
I also imagine a 6'4" tall person has legs a bit thicker than a simple twig.
Letting aside that the femoral artery is not that easy to hit, you reckon that an opened femoral artery kills you faster than a shot in the head, do you?
I'm afraid the "h"-es in your "Pshh" onomatopoeia may be quite many, it takes about 30 seconds for the person to lose consciousness from a sectioned femoral artery (after which s/he's no longer able to attack) and 3 minutes to lose enough blood to die (if the bleeding is not stopped before - first result [yahoo.com] for a google search. Some other info [m4carbine.net] on the same).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by modecx on Wednesday November 26 2014, @08:39AM
Mate, to be clear: the reaction of panic is understandable for any non-trained person
Mate, to be clear: the reaction of panic is understandable for any non-alpha tier special operator who isn't repeatedly and continually subjected to thousands of hours of high stress physiological conditioning. Adrenaline dump / tachypsychia is a well documented phenomenon (and one I have become acquainted with too many times), and it is non-realistic to expect every beat cop to have the level of control over his/her own body that they won't suffer the effects in a stressful situation. I use a level of hyperbole to illustrate that, and other related concepts, but apparently even that flew 100m over your head. Here, enjoy some more onomatopoeia. Zoom! Woosh! Foom! Zip! Splat.
The primary point is: even if one were able to successfully use lethal force (which each and every bullet is) to subdue a suspect with a shot to the leg it could be argued either here or in a court of law, a thousand and one times more successfully, that lethal force was simply not justified in the first place. The secondary point is: unless you have a medic right there to save the poor bastard's life within the 3-5 window for exsanguination from such a potential wound (an unreasonable expectation most places in the world, perhaps less so in your imaginary utopia) you might have just as well put one between the eyes with your exceptional marksmanship ability in the first place. 1) the threat warranting lethal force would have ended immediately, 2) the end result would be much the same, and arguably...more humane; if not for the guy who has to clean up the scene.
"I'ma gonna chase him" is in fact in the job description for cops. Even, if not especially those who have just been assaulted. The point of contention therefore is whether the officer was still under some mortal threat when the lethal shot was fired. The Grand Jury apparently believed he was reasonably justified. After skimming the opinion, I agree.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 26 2014, @05:27PM
If they do not have the training. DO NOT give them guns.
(Score: 1) by modecx on Wednesday November 26 2014, @06:40PM
So, you're arguing for the increased militarization of police in America? Every cop a SWAT officer? You expect that to net fewer fatalities? Or are you arguing for the absolute gutting of just about every local police force in the US, since a large portion of the population will never meet your arbitrary, uninformed, and indefinite skill requirement?
The world isn't represented by Mayberry, fella. I for one would feel less safe, if our cops didn't even have Barney's one bullet.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 26 2014, @12:55AM
He shot at the kid's back 4 times AND MISSED ALL 4 TIMES.
The fatal wound was a graze.
This is why they teach cops to shoot at THE LARGEST PART of the human target.
This is also 1 big reason that I think that, at a minimum, people who want to own a firearm should have to qualify yearly on a Dirty Harry-type combat range.
If you don't hit the target, you lose your privilege to have a gun.
If you shoot a good guy, you lose your privilege to have a gun.
-- gewg_
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 26 2014, @04:21AM
Yes, gewg_, we know. All the evidence shows that Brown wasn't shot in the back because he was rushing toward Wilson in a violent attack. That obviously means he was facing Wilson when he got shot.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 26 2014, @05:39AM
This is obvious from the distances from the cop car.
Now you are trying to convince people that someone who had a good chance to get away would NOT continue on that course.
So, why didn't the kid keep on running?
The answer is simple:
Someone was shooting at his back and he assumed that that would stop if he quit running away.
So he quits running away, puts his hands in the air, AND THE COP KEEPS SHOOTING.
Now we're supposed to believe that the kid then rushes at the guy who is STILL SHOOTING AT HIM.
The cop and the prosecutor are both lying racist slimeballs.
You accept the lies because you are also a racist slimeball.
You fail at logic.
You fail at being a human being.
-- gewg_
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 26 2014, @01:00PM
LOL, I hope you're just some random AC posting with gewg_'s signature. Then again, you may actually be the real gewg_, based on how silly your comment is.
Only in gewg_-land can a thug be shot multiple times in the front of his body while running toward an armed police officer in a violent attack, yet still be considered as having been "shot in the back" while "running away".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 26 2014, @01:09PM
It is possible to shoot *at* someone and not hit him.
As stated by me elsewhere in this thread, the cop isn't good at any part of his job, to include marksmanship.
-- gewg_
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 26 2014, @10:57PM
Oh, gewg_. Oh, gewg_, gewg_, gewg_. How can you say that Wilson "isn't good at marksmanship" when he's alive and Brown has been shot to death due to Brown physically attacking Wilson?
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday November 26 2014, @10:00AM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 25 2014, @11:31PM
The officer had a "serious" facial injury, that you cant even see in the photos.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 25 2014, @11:48PM
> Which may have happened had he not attacked the cop.
Regardless, the job of law enforcement is uphold the law.
That law says the police are not allowed to shoot someone who is not an immediate threat.
There are multiple witnesses who say he was no long a threat at the point where the officer fired the fatal shot.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 25 2014, @11:37PM
Funny about that boundary line. When one thinks an 18-year-old is a thug and lowlife, they are referred to as a "man." When you think he's innocent, he's a "kid."
(Score: 2) by Marand on Wednesday November 26 2014, @01:02AM
Funny about that boundary line. When one thinks an 18-year-old is a thug and lowlife, they are referred to as a "man." When you think he's innocent, he's a "kid."
It's not a boundary line, it's a psychological tactic; in fact, it's the same one that gets used every time "think of the children" gets trotted out as an excuse to pass some law, censor someone, etc. As a species we're wired, to some extent, to care for offspring, and we have a tendency to be protective, or think positively, of children, at least in the abstract. Maybe it works because when someone talks about "kids" and "children" people think about their own. It's especially useful with "kid" because it's vague enough to let people imagine toddlers and babies while referring to someone older, so you can elicit positive reactions from others disingenuously by doing it. It's manipulative wording, but it's possible the people doing it aren't even aware they're doing it. Might just be phrasing things in a way they know will subconsciously make their stance more agreeable.
It's funny that it works at all, considering how horrible children can be. All the bad parts of humanity without the learned limits of etiquette and morality to get in the way yet.
(Score: 1) by tizan on Wednesday November 26 2014, @04:33AM
Ok let me rephrase my statement...how come a trained cop of 28 could physically match an unarmed thug of 18 without the use of a gun....it is not just this case ...it is many cases close to where i live involving homeless and metally sick that physically abled cops cannot deal with without a gun and killing unarmed people.
There is something mentioned in the bill of rights called cruel punishment...similarly unnecessary force usage falls under this i believe.. ... as a cop you don't shoot a kid or thug that say fuck you.....just like you don't do it to your brat at home.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday November 26 2014, @10:08AM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday November 26 2014, @02:45PM
And when I was a kid growing up in a small town in the Rockies I studied kung fu where half of the masters were cops. They could definitely have handled a charging "hulk" like Michael Brown without resorting to gunfire.
Perhaps this is the inevitable outcome of the decades-long trend toward militarizing the police. I recall the first ramp up came in the 90's when cops started the widespread use of pepper spray and tasers. Then we started seeing military-grade weaponry and SWAT teams in the tiniest of hamlets. Why do the hard work of policing when you can haul out the AR-15 and lay down suppressing fire in a fantasy that you're fighting terrorists in Baghdad, and know that you will never be held accountable on any level?
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by c0lo on Tuesday November 25 2014, @11:32PM
Maybe it's an oversimplification, but what are they fearing the most: the rioters or the circling choppers? Is there an evolution of the fear sentiment?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Interesting) by LaminatorX on Tuesday November 25 2014, @11:55PM
That entirely stands on where you're sitting and who your friends are. For all the bad that has gone down we have neither seen widespread chaos nor authoritarian crackdowns to the extent that many had feared, at least so far.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday November 26 2014, @01:24AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by LaminatorX on Wednesday November 26 2014, @01:52AM
I'd say their top fear at the moment is out of control fires. They're sympathetic the protesters' cause in broad strokes, and aren't worried about being specifically targeted by anybody, but are afraid of living so close to a dangerous situation that they might get caught up in the flames if things go seriously wrong.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday November 26 2014, @03:07AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by dyingtolive on Wednesday November 26 2014, @12:37AM
St. Louis guy here, answering from my own point of view:
From most of my coworkers, it appears to be fear of the rioters. Despite working for a massive corporation in the financial sector, the individuals I call coworkers here seem to believe, in earnest, that "the black man" is going to "get them". There are people genuinely worried that bad things are going to happen to them, and they live on the far opposite corners of the city. I have a coworker that lives in Arnold, MO, who was talking about stocking up on ammo and maybe getting an AR-15 because of what's going on 30+ miles away in fucking Ferguson. It's like their brains melt and run out their ears or something.
Personally, I fear none of it. I live in St. Charles and drive 10 minutes in the opposite direction to work. It's a curiosity to me, and I enjoy watching the videos exemplifying the best and worst parts of human nature. If I had to pick something that I could claim to be afraid of, it would be fear for my friends who work along what's been previously posted as "possible protest areas". I don't even think anything bad could or would possibly happen, my level of "fear" is general concern, and preparation to offer sympathy for them if their car gets a brick through the window or scratched up or something.
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday November 26 2014, @03:20PM
because of what's going on 30+ miles away
Sure about that?
I'm not reacting, unlike your coworkers, but we had a peaceful (although loud and disruptive) protest parade go down the street right in front of where I work, then combine that with the news media pumping the whole thing up with continuous coverage of burning cars and a little fear sounds rational given that set of inputs.
Now ignore the infotainment agitprop, and realize it was a long march for the protestors from where they live to where I work, passing hundreds of juicier looting targets along the way, and the protestors are primarily burning down their local employers not some random office building miles away from where they live, and you can see why I'm not personally reacting.
It helps that I live a couple hundred miles north, the jury gave its non indictment during the end of a blizzard and its 12F outside per my thermometer so that kinda discourages rioters compared to 70 degrees and sunny when the shooting and initial protests happened.
There's really nothing good to loot nearby where I work, economically the neighborhood is worse off than Ferguson in general. That also helps.
(Score: 2) by dyingtolive on Wednesday November 26 2014, @03:36PM
I guess if you had to stare at it outside your window, I could see a difference in attitude. I'm really surprised to see this thing blowing up outside of the STL area.
I might be eating crow on my derision on the "30+ miles" bit by the time this is all over anyway. Apparently they made it to Brentwood last night, which is a good halfway there.
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 26 2014, @12:53AM
There are a number of recent events that have completely decimated US and western credibility. The out of control NSA surveillance and the sheer number of people who must be part of this dubious project and yet only one found it odd. The tepid response from society, and the inability to effect any change is looking increasingly absurd for a democracy.
The wall street bailout with zero prosecution in startling contradiction of loudly proclaimed values the US and the west used to put millions of people in other countries in real pain via the IMF and Worldbank. And the steady stream of high handedness towards black citizens which in themselves can be explained as isolated incidents with individual officers doing the wrong thing, but the army of apologists grasping for excuses is not so easily explained. Together they reflect a seriously dysfunctional society.
US individualism far from empowering has led to disenfranchised individuals disconnected from community and without any power of change. In place of a robust civilian response we see instead excuses, attempts to minimise the impact or draw attention to how awful things are elsewhere. But even apologists know the benefits flowing from soft power are all but squandered, that credibility is in disarray, and the force for good is exposed as something altogether more sinister.
(Score: 1) by Buck Feta on Wednesday November 26 2014, @01:58AM
I heard several relatively worldly people describe St. Louis as one of the most racially segregated places they've ever been. Do you agree, and if so, why do you think this is? Is the racial tension there greater than other parts of the US?
- fractious political commentary goes here -
(Score: 3, Insightful) by LaminatorX on Wednesday November 26 2014, @03:25AM
Your friends are correct. The de facto segregation that remains in place here long after its de jure repeal is quite extreme. These days it's not propped with lynchings or restrictive housing laws, but rather persists because of poverty, inertia, and informal racism.
Missouri was a slave state, even though it never quite managed to secede from the union. A hundred years ago there was a massive race riot in which whites streamed across to East St. Louis and massacred the blacks who were settling there as they migrated Northward. A baby was thrown into a fire, men were hanged from bridges, that sort of thing. That was our starting point.
That was followed by a series of housing laws that mandated segregation. These were eventually struck down by the Supreme Court. They were then replaced by redlining enshrined in homeowners association covenants and so on, which were also eventually ruled illegal. At that point people could at least in theory live where they wanted, though segregation in businesses and the comfort of familiarity made for many ethnic neighborhoods. Thing is though, whenever there was a highway or a stadium or whatever to be built, it always seemed to displace a black neighborhood especially on the South Side and through mid-town.
Destroying those communities again and again had the cumulative effect of undermining the development of healthy middle-class black neighborhoods. Nowadays things aren't so obvious, but if you look at where the subsidized housing for the poor tends to be available, you can see that there are still policy structures driving blacks north of Delmar Boulevard. Google "Delmar Divide" and you'll get a ton of articles and documentaries analyzing the situation. You also have this phenomenon of little tiny cities within the St. Louis County each with their own police forces running ticket mills on the backs of their mostly poor and black residents to make the city budget. This is what Jim Crow looks like in the 201st Century.
As we stand now, only areas of South City are racially integrated to any significant degree. Other than that you've got blacks up North, rich whites West, working-class whites South, and poor whites on the semi-rural periphery ("Hi," KKK).
As for tension, I have little else to compare it to, but I have had more than one friend-of-color move to Atlanta, NYC or New Orleans cite the pervasive racism as one of their reasons.
(Score: 1) by Buck Feta on Wednesday November 26 2014, @05:30AM
That was an extremely candid and thoughtful response. Thank you.
- fractious political commentary goes here -
(Score: 2) by Common Joe on Thursday November 27 2014, @10:22AM
Gads. I have some familiarity with Atlanta and New Orleans. I find both cities are racially divided. You're saying St Louis is worse? I feel for you and your friends...
(Score: 2) by bradley13 on Wednesday November 26 2014, @08:58AM
You asked for perspectives from outside the US, so here is one. Qualification: I used to live in the US, but that was more than 20 years ago.
From general impressions of the US, plus specific impressions of the Ferguson situation, this looks to me like a collision of two completely separate problems:
- First, police militarization and trigger-happiness. There are too many stories of police violently overstepping their authority, from SWAT raids for non-violent criminals to randomly shooting people's dogs. Add to this other extra-legal activities like asset forfeiture, and there appears to be a growing - and justified - distrust of the police by the society they are policing. This justified distrust is especially strong in poorer areas, for various reasons.
- Second, the urban black culture that has developed in the US. This culture denigrates education and work, encourages violence, and is just generally incompatible with civilization. It reminds me of certain Islamist regions in the Middle East, blaming their economic problems on everyone else, but totally unwilling to look inwards and accept responsibility for their own contributions to the problems. There is as yet no ISIS or Hezbollah for US blacks, but there could be, and wouldn't that be fun.
That last is pretty non-PC, but it is my impression of the situation. Ferguson is the collision of these two problems: An urban black ready to rough up a white cop, a cop who thinks reaching for his weapon is the right first response, and it all went downhill from there.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 26 2014, @01:03PM
When one makes an observation that may not be considered "politically correct", it's usually a very good indication that the observation is, indeed, absolutely correct.
(Score: 2) by metamonkey on Wednesday November 26 2014, @03:39PM
I would disagree with the part about "a cop who thinks reaching for his weapon is the right first response." The cop's first response was to ask the guy to stop. Then the 6'4", 300lb (~2m, 135kg) man punches the cop twice in the face. The fists of a man that large are deadly weapons. What should the cop have done? Had a sporting boxing match with the fellow?
You're right about the police militarization and corruption, and it's sad that this is "the big story." I blame the media. They freaking love to stir up racial conflict. Great ratings.
The SWAT team busting down doors and then throwing a flash bang in a baby's crib to serve a warrant? That's a systemic problem. There is a system in place that allows the police to use that extreme level of force. Barely a blip on the media radar.
The police who budget for asset seizures? Who use asset seizure as a shopping spree? Systemic problem. There's a problem with the system that allows for that kind of abuse. Barely a blip.
But here we have a one-off incident where a large, violent criminal who was physically attacking a police officer is shot during a confusing and stressful confrontation and it's all the media can talk about because the criminal was black and the cop white. Why is this the big story?
Okay 3, 2, 1, let's jam.
(Score: 1) by albert on Wednesday November 26 2014, @09:13AM
It is the only nuclear-qualified national guard in the country. It flies the B2 bomber. That ought to settle the unrest, no?