Are we witnessing "Racial Creep"?
“Education should not limit itself to seeking new methods for a mostly arid transmission of knowledge: its aim must be to give the necessary aid to human development.... If ‘the formation of man’ becomes the basis of education, then the coordination of all schools from infancy to maturity, from nursery to university, arises as a first necessity: for man is a unity, an individuality that passes through interdependent phases of development. Each preceding phase prepares the one that follows, forms its base, nurtures the energies that urge towards the succeeding period of life.” (From Childhood to Adolescence, p. 84)
“We then become witnesses to the development of the human soul; the emergence of the New Man, who will no longer be the victim of events but, thanks to his clarity of vision, will become able to direct and to mould the future of mankind.” (The Absorbent Mind, p. 8)Many black people who feel that they have attained something, think more highly of themselves than they ought. They forget... they eventually start feeling as if "their hard work" was the only culprit. But SOMEBODY ELSE, in every situation, said yes...
That animal is hiding from the black man and few there be, that unearth him...God helps those who know they cannot help themselves, much quicker. But his idea of successful has NOTHING to do with money.
People should really stop saying he helps those who help themselves. I bet that phrase was coined by one of the nose slope lookers. "God helps ME, not yo po lazy no good..."Okay, what do you two love birds know that the rest of of are just not getting?
Very Curious
Other questions:
1. Why are blacks being victimized by the police?
2. Is this unjust behavior increasing?
3. Why is this behavior increasing?
4. What in particular needs to be done about:
A. Racially motivated injustice
B. Employment
C. Education
D. Prejudice
5. Is the Obama administration addressing these issues?
6. What, if anything, should/could the president do to improve life for blacks in your opinion?1. A, B, C, D
Each reason applies. There are many more reasons that blacks are wanted by police. To be honest, I honestly believe that some cops are just having fun at the very high-priced expense of blacks. It costs money to get out of jail. It costs money to go...
2. No
The injustice is steady. Since our police began; they have had only a few "targets" and blacks have ALWAYS been on the list.
3. See 2.
4. A. Police officers need to be trained in how to deal with a multicultural population. They need to chant: Black people are beautiful. If I cut them, will they not bleed all over the ground?
Hiring applications should not include racial questions. No boxes to identify. Merit only...
Education should have one set of instruction for every American student. Each district should be afforded the SAME education and the same perks (teams and after-school activities should be implemented in all American schools). There should be American laws in place that strongly prohibit actions that discredit or degrade minority persons.
5. The Obama administration may only do what the real people who run the country, say.
The president inherited a mess in progress since they killed JFK. He adamantly opposed the powers who sought to tilt the country's financial wealth in the direction that it is currently in. The president is no longer the most powerful man in the country. I believe Bush sold a portion of the administration. He helped to build a powerful nation of oil havers here. And I often wonder which gas station will blow up first. They're putting up gas stations on every other corner, in poor neighborhoods... I would NOT doubt underground bombs just waiting to be engaged.
6. Absolutely nothing. He has instruction. And sniper crews just waiting to be deployed if he screws it up...
How's THAT for pessimism...???
* I wonder how much of this is accurate...You know, I hear that a lot and I believe that much of it is true, particularly, points 5 and 6. While it may be pessimistic there is more truth there than not... It is difficult for any president to be much more than a water carrier for the greedy financial/corporate structure that make all the rules. In comparison the president is a figurehead having no more relevance than a shoe-shine boy. The ugliness lies within the land of Oz with the guy just behind the curtain, that is pulling all the strings. The key is that they remain relatively invisible, they misdirect the 'rabble' so that no one may discover their role and its actual scope. Certain realities never seem to change regardless of what party or administration is in office. Keen observation, thanks CG.
Yep-yep.
The time is near for the New World "order" and a centralized government. Certain conditions need be...
America is losing her "appeal."Be very careful what you wish for, as the "New World Order" is hardly what you want. The New World Order in which the progressives are pushing for will never come to terms, as it requires one government for the entire world. Now, Obama is pushing us toward that direction to be in alignment with the UN, but who exactly is on the UN? China--they are a patient people that want to rule the world. They are the worst in environmental issues, and they will never give up their land and politics for the New World. Cuba--although small, dictatorships will not negotiate to the good of all. They want power and will attempt to keep it. If they are allowed to be in charge of the entire New World Order, they will be willing, but if not in charge, it won't happen. Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Syria--well if you have seen the news in the last year or two, they cannot get along at all with ISIS running a muck. Now if ISIS has it's way, the New World Order will be run by ISIS. So if you are a believer of Islam great--provided you are not female. If you are female and are a believer of anything but Islam, you are dead. Not my idea of a great system. Russia also would never allow the New World Order unless they are in charge.
So you want a New World Order without them? Still not a good idea. The intent of the New World Order is for only a very select few to get rich--those with the power. The rest have to pay for this. If you cannot pay, do not think there will be a welfare system--as there wont be. If anything, there will be long lines of people trying to get their food allotments. No free markets, no cars, no nothing. You live and die like obedient servants to the New World Masters. Think of the days when there were concentration camps--quite similar. You have no freedoms, and cannot think for yourself. Not a good thing when you think about it.Now I have been a citizen of the United States for my entire life. Not one time, has any President or Ambassador contacted me for my desires.
I have no desire for a NWO, but, to me, it seems to be pressing in that direction.
One of the World powers, seems to be going broke. The dollar is just not worth what it used to be.(unemployment being at record rates.)
If I was America, I would try another plan. Spiked petroleum prices and massive gold stockpiling seem clues to me. But I'm just genaea.
The East seems to be focal these days.Okay, but back to the matter at hand:
IF Obama had power, like a real president, (just pretend,) what would you want him to do in righting the wrongs of racism and causing it to cease... instead of creep?
What could be done?
Or are we far from a solution since we still haven't really identified the problem.
Starting over:
What is the problem?
1. Bad attitudes on the part of whites and particularly white cops toward blacks due to color or something else.
2. Whites are naturally arrogant and prejudiced and have a tendency toward nativism:
Nativism:
1 the policy of protecting the interests of native-born or established inhabitants against those of immigrants:
2 a return to or emphasis on traditional or local customs, in opposition to outside influences.
3. It is human nature to fear those who are different than you,
(are blacks are just as guilty as whites when it comes to prejudice?)
4. Blacks must constantly deal people are mean for no good reason.
5. Cops are not trained well enough.
6. The bible does not address racism directly.
7. The bible does not address drug abuse and trafficking directly.
8. Not enough people read the Bible.
9. More money needs to paid to poor blacks through Welfare.
10. Too much Welfare has caused problems of dependency and permissiveness, lack of self respect, lack of motivation, etc.
Possibilities:
1. Everything is fine, not perfect, but it will work itself out in time.
2. Everything is not fine and someone or something, laws etc. needs to step in to rectify the problem as soon as it is identified.That's great. I like where you are heading with this. But before you start listing solutions. You have to define the problem. The way I see it is, the problem is: What is the Root Cause of Racism? But before we can do that, we have to acknowledge racism is a problem in this country. (The Supreme Court has already ruled that Affirmative Action is no longer required because racism is no longer a problem.)
Then we define who are the stake holders? What are their rights and responsibilities and what harms and benefits come from those rights and responsibilities? We have to be able to answer these questions for each stake holder. It's called a stake holders analysis..
This can be done on many different levels, e.g...What is the root cause of black people not being able to pull themselves out of poverty? What is the root cause of police departments using excessive force? What is the root cause of looting during protests? What is the root cause of substandard education in black communities?...get the picture? It is a whole mosaic of factors before we can develop a true solution. Anybody want to play?Yeah, me!
Questionnaire by KLH
For those in the know:
Choose one or more of the following root causes. (Additional suggestions welcome.)
I. POVERTY exists for many blacks because:
A. Hiring Whites over Blacks is still prevalent by businesses companies, and corporations, (even though we have come a long way in legally establishing civil rights and equality.)
B. Blacks are not getting enough financial assistance through loans / banks.
C. Welfare handouts have caused problems of dependency and permissiveness, lack of self respect, lack of motivation, etc. (They are getting too much government assistance.)
II. EDUCATION is substandard in Black communities because:
A.. White and Black teachers are not helping enough to educate / teach in poor Black communities / schools.
B. Peace Corps-like programs are not being implemented to bring adequate / appropriate education into poor rural areas throughout the nation.
III. POLICE departments use excessive force against Blacks because:
A. Bad attitudes on the part of White cops toward Blacks due to color, culture or negative past experiences.
B. Bad attitudes on the part of Blacks and particularly Black cops toward Blacks due to high expectations of people in their own culture.
C. Cops are not trained well enough.
D. The government is militarizing the polices forces with tanks, military grade guns / weapons, etc..
E. Police forces hire ex-military men, recently back from middle east war zones.
IV. CHURCHES are not addressing / solving the problem of racism in society because:
A. The Bible does not address racism directly.
B. The Bible does not address drug abuse and trafficking directly.
C. Not enough people read / study the Bible after church on Sunday.
V. THE PRESIDENT is not making certain the laws in regards to civil rights or enforcing them because:
A. His hands are tied.
B. The Republicans fight him at every turn.
VI. PREJUDICE still exists because:
A. It is human nature to pre-judge / fear those who are different than oneself.
B. Nativism is human nature:
"Nativism:
1 the policy of protecting the interests of native-born or established inhabitants against those of immigrants:
2 a return to or emphasis on traditional or local customs, in opposition to outside influences."I am quite surprised at your poll. You seem to be convinced of the stereotypical; if only just beneath the surface.
To respond to it, would be quite like playing into the hands of elementary manipulation... again. I took a test yesterday. It seemed a bit biased. This one too.
A lot of the assessments of blacks are plain wrong. We are not a pathological people. Pathology was given; now reinforced.
Many overcome. Many do not.
Nature vs nurture makes a wonderful insert here.
We are never to judge the "waste of space" sitting next to us... who are we to do so?Too vague:
" We are never to judge the "waste of space" sitting next to us... who are we to do so?"
Who is 'we?'
Who / what is the
"waste of space" you refer to ?
Suddenly, I do not believe you are black...
at all.
PMCI cannot believe that an educator could be so ill-equipped in reading comprehension. Oh, you did say you work with black children...
"We" means, us... you; me; gmwilliams; sassy suzy; credence; and Don W.; and peoplepower. That's it. Just us 7. We are never to judge people who sit next to us.
Waste of space is the representive of the lazy, unworthy of life, sit on your hands, NOT hard-working blob of energy that we look down our nose-slopes to view.
Your belief on the matters of my race bear no weight. I am what I am. It's plain. Absolutely no hiding.
The President is not a king and cannot change the hearts of people. He, in his capacity as Chief Executive, could make certain the laws in regards to civil rights are enforced and not just winked at. He is the President of the United States of all the people and each one of us should be able to call on him to right wrongs. He is president and he just happens to be black not the other way around. I am interested in protecting him from criticism and embarrassment by his failing to consider this at all times.
Lol... Don W. I cannot figure Wally, the Beav, or both.
cute...
I just love that thing you do with your fingers.
Beautiful mind...To me, the American situation of poor race relations is caused by, the love of money; control.
When I think about it, I realize that one of the main institutions in life is family.
American Africans were stripped of theirs in large numbers.
Family provides: instruction, accumulated wealth, a moral compass, security, and a sense of belonging. Unfortunately, these men and women were not given the opportunity to have any of this. My family goes back to my great-grandfather; that's only three generations. And with the hodge-podge of "SOLD" records, with new names; it is unlikely that I can be accurately traced to ANYONE 4,5, or 6 generations ago. This isn't true for other races.
Every other family in America and abroad, is intact; making all others privy to the benefits of family ties.
This is important in that when Africans reached this land, there was NONE to call for help... exploitation of this fact alone, made these people victims. This has always been the case here.
Now, there are a few generations of family to call upon, but 9 out of 10 times, their situation is the same broken...Although I understand the pain you are feeling, the thought of being lost, your facts about other races are not necessarily true. It is your and possibly the African-American perception. You are seeing and describing what you see with blinders on. And this is why I say it:
The first people on this land were the Native Americans. The only Native American nation that had a written language was the Cherokee. All other nations were only of spoken language. In 1893, the Dawes Rolls were created to document all of the Five Nations people (the Five Nations included Cherokee, Choctaw, Creek, Chickasaw, and Seminole). No other Native American registry was made before that time. The Civil War was during 1861-1865, so the slavery records actually predate the Native American records.
Now, you discuss not knowing your family or your genealogy because of slavery. The Native Americans had something similar happen to them (as well as slavery). The Cherokee called it Nunna daul Isunyi--"The Trail Where They Cried". The US history calls it the "Trail of Tears" and the US Government called it the Indian Removal Act of 1830. All of the Five Nations were forced to walk 2200 miles from their homelands of the southeastern states to an Oklahoma Indian Reservation. Some of the Native Americans hid in the woods, in the mountains, and in the swamps to escape. There are no records of the ones that were forced to walk--just the ones that made it to the reservation. Thousands died along the way. This is not the first US genocide of Native Americans but it was close to the last (the last was in Wounded Knee in South Dakota on Christmas eve). So, if you think that the African Americans are the only to feel the pain, think again.
Some races do not have the same sob story, that is true. But pretty much all those that are here came here to escape or leave their home countries. We have had refugees that cannot trace their family history from Cambodia, Haiti, etc. We have had people that left famine in Ireland. We have had people that came here to "work" at almost slave labor to build railroads out west (Chinese mostly). The US is built on a history of people rebuilding their lives. Only those that are not from the US (like the UK, Europe, Asia, Africa, etc.) can you say with any degree of certainty that they can trace their roots far back many generations. Those that came to the US on their own accord, you could possibly say that. But these rich affluent people are not the majority of the US citizens. The majority are sitting in the same boat that you are, just of another color.
Your story is not yours and yours alone. We need to all stop feeling sorry for ourselves and work together to get through this. I know it is hard, and may seem impossible at a national level--especially considering that the mainstream media is constantly trying to stir more racial issues so they can broadcast the turmoil and get rich off the tensions. But as Americans, we can come together. You speak like you all are alone, but your feelings are the same as many others of different race. We all BLEED red.Laura, a MULTILLION applauses. Pity parties DON'T work but pride and hard work DOES!
Pride? In what???
Hard work? At what???
Please tell of your sucess; you have me really curious. And please do not leave out the long list of helpers. Or the one person who said yes. Motivation is also what they need. The hard work stories of others will paint a beautiful picture of hope for the lazy and do nothings.
Please let me say that if there is pain, it is not from my end. I'm an analyst today.
Fortunately, I am not bogged down with feelings of inferiority. I do not have the idea that I will never amount to anything. I have been blessed with all necessity, and many a desire. No one need pity me. thanks anyway.
However, I had a very responsible set of people at the helm. I had a marvelous childhood. My parents were married until my father died a few years ago. So were my grandparents. And great grandparents.
I am the only one of me, I know. And one cousin.
The Indians are home... the Africans are not...
Many African children were scattered forcefully with no record of their own name.
Why is this so hard...?But the Native Americans are not home. Home is living in the place of your roots. And living in the custom of your roots. The Native Americans cannot live like they did back then, as most of the area is now cities. They cannot return home as their home is now different. They were forced to live on reservations and were not allowed to leave. They were forced to speak a language not of their own, they were forced to cut their hair, forced to believe in a religion not of their own. In fact much of the "home" you speak of, is still ingrained in your African American roots. If a Native American was to go "home" right now, it possibly is in your neighborhood. And then would they be accepted or are they not "black" enough?
As a Native American, I know I cannot undo the past. I can learn about the past, and I can try to educate others about the past so it does not happen again. We can never undo what has been done. Sure, it does suck, but what is the point in constantly living in the past? Wishing for things that won't happen.
Sounds like you were blessed with a responsible family. You turned out okay after all. But the pain you speak of from your previous posts, state that you and others like you do feel pain--and the pain is like no one else has experienced. But I am trying to explain that the pain is VERY similar.
Home is where you put your roots. It may be not in the same place others in your past have put theirs, but it still can be home. Now to make it a fertile home, takes work and patience. It takes time and room for growth. You have the potential to be a beautiful and prosperous garden. But without that work and determination, you are merely a weed--and one that will be plucked from the ground and tossed aside. These thoughts are what gets me through to the next day, as my home is no longer the same.I understand what you mean. And now is not the time to play, "oh yeah...well that's nothing; listen to this..."
The Indian population is merely nonexistent in the outer circle. They seem to have another life, with another set of rules, somewhere across town. And they seem to be somewhat reclusive. The police hardly ever kill them...
They are fortress protected, from my view.
They have crazy stats too. I'll give them a few of my race cards.This is a great discourse had by all. We ALL LEARN something from each other here!
I haven't learned anything. I think that maybe I am more clear about the opinions and perception of others. But we have bigger fish...
What are the bigger fish to fry? We can handle it.
Or don't you think we can. We can! Out with it!
And if you could answer my questionnaire regarding root problems, it would help us/me understand your views…! No more vagueness!
KLHThe issue is not black and white, Miss Kathryn. It is grey.
There are many reasons for all of it. And they all do not fit into your questionnaire box...
"police hardly ever kill them..."
http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.c … lls-147948
http://www.historylink.org/index.cfm?Di … e_id=10296
http://www.daily-times.com/four_corners … s-shooting
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor … =129768325
http://colorlines.com/archives/2011/02/ … ified.html
*note: just a one second google check - think last story might be the end result of one previous story*Ok, you have 4-5 stories here. How many years span were these shootings?
The stories are of 2010-2014. The reason you do not hear of many stories is because of a few reasons. 1. Regular police cannot come onto the reservation. It is under Federal jurisdiction. Think of a reservation not as a fortress, as you called it, but the "projects in the middle of nowhere". The nearest hospital is usually a shack that has no beds, and a resident doctor that comes in twice a week.
2. Because it is in the middle of nowhere, there is no internet access, thus no social media. There is no cable, there is 2-3 channels if you count PBS as one. TVs are of the old school--where you must use rabbit antennas and use a whole lot of aluminum foil to make the picture come in at all.
3. Because it is on Federal land, new medias cannot gain access. No media, no problem to the rest of the nation.
4. Death by police occur when we venture outside of our boundaries for groceries, school, going to the post office, and pow wows. Death by federal government (FBI) is more common but you will never hear that in the media.Not a fortress? The feds do not protect Chicago reservations. I mean projects...
Sure they do. A fortress is a stronghold or a place that is fortified. Reservations are not fortified. At best they are shacks built in the 50s that resemble sharecropper's homes. Some do not even have running water. Feds are not protecting the reservation, they are policing it. Two different things. There is a tribal police doing the day to day things, but the feds come in for "investigations". Ever hear of the ATF come into a building to "investigate sales of guns or drugs" in Chicago? I am sure you have. Is the ATF "protecting" these Chicago projects? Hardly. ATF comes to reservations near you as well.
Reservations are very similar to projects, although in recent years some tribal nations have managed to open casinos (although then the Feds get a huge percentage of those profits as well). Not all the nations have been allowed to get into the casino business though. Only 1/3 of all the tribes have gambling and of that 1/3 only 5 are casinos--the rest are bingo.
Based on this deliberately confusing comment I shall never respond to you again. - just to let you know.
GOOD BYE.
Cgeanea wrote: " I cannot believe that an educator could be so ill-equipped in reading comprehension. Oh, you did say you work with black children…"When I said stake holders analysis, I didn't mean you ask a series of questions like a multiple choice quiz and there is only one right answer. A stake holders analysis looks at the problem from all angles and gives you a better understanding of the problem. As an example, let's look at excessive force used by police departments.
First we have to identify who are the stake holders? The police officers, the police department, the citizens, and the media. Let's look at the police officers. What are their rights and responsibilities. They have the right to do whatever is necessary to maintain peace as long as it is within the laws of the land. What are their responsibilities? The have a responsibility to the people to maintain peace and they have a responsibility to the department to follow the mandates of the department.
What are the harms of maintaining peace? Sometimes they can go overboard when they get into what they perceive as being life threatening situations and sometimes the mandates of the police department are not in the best interest of the people. What are the benefits of maintaining peace? That goes without saying.
What are the harms of being responsible? If they are responsible to a corrupt department and/or only themselves, then they will perform acts that are not within the law. What are the benefits of being responsible. They will be viewed by the public as being protectors of the law and maintaining peace.
So what are the conclusions that we can draw from this? Police officers may use excessive force when they feel they are in life threatening situations. Or they they themselves do not follow the law or work for corrupt departments.
Next, we will look at it from the citizen's view point. What are the citizen's rights, responsibilities and harms and benefits that can come when police officers use excessive force? I'm not going to do that right now. Someone else want to try? I have to go eat breakfast!There was no right answer.
I was looking for information.
I wrote:
" For those in the know:
Choose one or more of the following root causes. (Additional suggestions welcome.)"
There is no one in the know here. What was I thinking.
Have Fun.So yeah, this case is why
1. All officers should wear body cams
2. The media should be held accountable when they jump before investigating
3. People need to stop jumping to conclusions just because someone cries "racism"
"“And his hand is on his gun,” Jones told KPIX5. “He was crouched, he was low, and he was basically in a shooting stance. I’m pretty much thinking he’s going to shoot me.”
Even when Jones asked the officer to assure the kids that everything was OK and to let them lower their hands, the officer refused, insisting the trio not move for several minutes, Jones said."
He also coached his two boys to lie about the incident. The officer's body cam tells a completely different scenario.
"The video released by Oakland police does not support that description of events. Instead, it shows that, within the first minute of his arrival, the officer told the dispatcher to slow down other responding units and even tried to comfort the children, telling them, “Sorry about that.”
Includes an interview with the "victim" and the officer's body cam.
I just recently heard that landscapers who were there have video of a man asserting at the time of the shooting that the boy was shot with his hands in the air.
I think police should be held accountable for bringing their personal opinions to work. And I believe that cries of racism are still very valid in many situations.
But I have experience in that arena. Experience is key.
I cannot attest to the Lochness monster. But I can attest to racism alive and well in America. And I am not alone.Oakland. A new case of claims of racism. There's a lot of that going around.
After viewing the partial tape of this new case, I can only imagine two little white boys waiting for their dad, being ordered to put down the bag and keep your hands up...well, no I can't... I honestly believe the "procedure" would have gone a bit more relaxed, for the sake of these little boys.
"What are you little fellas doing?" Waits patiently with a smile for an answer... "Oh! Well where's your dad, little buddies? I just got a call about the doors being left open. Are you fellas alright? You need any money?" lol..."But there is two sides to every story here. Yeah, I am talking about the Oakland case where the Oakland fire department door was left open and a guy and his sons were in the area. The guy (who happened to be black) worked for that department and left his sons outside to check to make sure no one was in there. Yes, this man did nothing wrong here and neither did his sons. I saw the report of his sons claiming they were terrified, and the father claiming that it would not have happened if he was white. This man is claiming that he was targeted only because he was black. And he mentions that the police should have at least apologized to the family.
Okay, so this version of events is the only version that matters. Or is it? The cop in this case actually did have a body cam on. Now granted, it was not shown immediately to the media--as at the time it needed to be reviewed as it was part of an active case. But it has been released and the looks of this video shows that it was dark--both inside and outside the station. There are two kids with their hands up outside the door, audibly scared (as it is too dark to see their movements in the dimly lit area but you can hear them). There is a guy in the room and he is explaining why he is there. The police officer is rather polite, making sure he is unarmed before he allows him to reach into his back pocket. The cop is told that the guy's truck is right outside with firefighter plates. The cop dispatches in to ask about plates--who it is registered to. After getting the ID, he allows them all to put their hands down. He apologizes more than once. I do not see what the cop did wrong in this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9EYH72OMMI
I thought I heard, "put the bag down and put your hands up." more than once, to two "little" boys. I do not think the cop was "wrong". However, i do feel that if they were two white "little" boys, they would have been treated with "kid" gloves. They were treated as a threat. Now maybe I missed something and the cop was talking to the grown man. But asking little boys to put up their hands is not kosher.
About the darkness of the video... I know that video always shows much darker than the real-life lighting. My dad always needed "flood-lights" to capture clear images in an already well-lit room.
It is more than likely that a fire station is well lit..So two people watch the same video and see and hear two different things. Hmm.. does that speak to judgement based on perspective? I am white, you are black - so it must be impossible for us to see the same thing.
I understood the cop tell the kids to put the bag down too, but the repeated "Put your hands up!" was clearly an octave higher and urgent - and appeared to coincide with the man coming into the officer's view. And it was the man that spoke almost immediately after hearing the command. So my perception was that the cop was telling the man to put his hands up.
Nope, I see an officer doing his job correctly and safely. I don't see a race issue at all - a view I think is bolstered by the officer's ending apologies. Apparently you see it differently as a "wouldn't have happened if they were white" situation. Gee, whowouldathunkit.
Geesh... Proper conduct followed by an apology and you still see racism. Even to the point of trying to dispute the darkened conditions that surely would have attributed to the officer's uncertainty. Since we could clearly see the small print on the IDs inside the car - that must have been one hellava bright dome light in his car if the darkness you dispute really was a function of the camera's capabilities.
Oh well, I bet neither of us are surprised at these differing interpretations.
Just sayin'
GA
Exactly. Perspective.
You did notice that my disgust followed my interpretation of who the officer was speaking to. The kids? Not cool. I assumed that the man appeared upon possibly hearing the order spoken to the kids while he was inside.
Apologies? Yes. But why, he was just doing his job.
Why did he apologize? Did he say? I missed that too.What I noticed was your obvious and quick leap to the assumption this was just another case of a racist white cop.
He apologized "for the scare." Makes sense to me.
Maybe you should watch it again to see what else you might have missed. Like the camera's adequate performance under the lighting off an auto's interior dome light. It might alter you perception that it really wasn't too dark for the officer to see them clearly - so he was clearly treating them differently than he would white folks.
You might even have to grudging admit things just might have been as dark as the video showed - dark enough for him to be uncertain about race at all. Or not.
GA
- I will watch the video again without my glasses. I had read a bit and formed opinion before watching the vid. Take two will hopefully uncolor my view.
Regular experience with this sort of thing somewhat gives me a differing perspective and I am not afraid to admit the bias. I'm biased. Wow!!!!! Right at the end of the vid, the officer told the children that they could THEN put their hands down..... and now im angry.
The ids were CLEARLY seen. I bet the boys were too.
Some severe BS...
A nine and twelve year old..."put ur hands up!!!" And you could hear the LITTLE kid whine. Procedure huh???
We sure checked the story thoroughly before, "sorry for the scare" you LITTLE boys.
And no one sees any WRONG in asking the little kids to raise their hands over their heads and keep them there???
Correct procedure??? Hmph... ok... I guess you're right...I see nothing wrong with telling kids to put their hands up. We do not live in Mayberry anymore. We live in a time where kids (even little kids) can have weapons. Kids are not like they were in the 50s-80s. And I could care less what color they are. Kids in other countries have bombs strapped to their chests, so even if they look cute, they can kill just as much as an adult can. Furthermore at 1:41 of the video, is the first time the cop stated they could put their hands down. The incident was 4:29 min long. I hardly think that this inappropriate.
But since you are very much against the police, stating that they do not respect anyone that is black, what do you suggest that they do? What exactly would you like for them to "respect" you all more? What exactly needs to be done for you all to appreciate cops more? Now I understand that you live in Illinois and possibly even in the Chicago area. And I personally would not go to that area, as there is city corruption and therefore there is a good likelihood that this corruption goes through the police force as well. But not all areas in the US are mirrors of Chicago. In fact, most areas are massively different. So what would you want the police to do differently that is still safe for all the citizens on how they do things?
And I did notice that I was not the one wearing the glasses while watching the video. I got it right...
One, no two yesses.
One ABSOLUTELY NOT.
I will try to count through my state of flabbergasted.
This is far. Far. And I need just one white person to say that their 9yr-old was told to put their hands up and leave them there for 4 minutes... ever anywhere.
I hate the system that has created "dangerous" children.The video was 4 1/2 minutes long. But at 1:41 the cop stated to them that they could put their hands down. At the 5 sec mark, he told the kids to put their hands up. So they had their hands up for 1 min and 36 seconds. 45 seconds into the video, the cop states "it's all right" towards the kids. They at no time were made to have their hands up for 4 minutes.
I have held my hands up for a lot longer than 30 minutes when I was 7. And then I had to hold dictionaries in both hands because I forgot to do my spelling homework. It was grueling, but it sure as hell was not considered abusive.
The cop was in a dark place and was answering a call of a suspicious break in. What exactly would you rather him do? As soon as it was realized that they were safe and not a threat (and yes, kids can be threats), they were instructed to put their hands down.
The thing is, you will never see the way whites or any other race are treated. You will never see the abuses that go on, as it is not in the mainstream media's agenda. Black on white crime happens more than white on black, black cops treat whites, Asians, Hispanics, and Jews with the same scrutiny that you claim only happens to blacks with white cops or cops in general. But these things do happen. Unfortunately, the media does not report on these things.
And the system that created "dangerous" children was first seen in Vietnam. ISIS/Hamas is doing it now--by using children as shields and suicide bombers. And then kids realize they can be on TV by doing stupid stunts also are thrown into the occasion such as school shootings.
He answered a call to lock up the station because the crew forgot. He got there and went into protective stance after seeing two children standing there...? He saw suspicious activities when he got there. Would he have been so suspicious of the other persuasion? I really do doubt it. I would not ever get suspicious of two little black boys standing in a fire station. But, maybe that's just me.
Why did u assume he got a call about a suspicious break-in? Because of the gripping fear and protection from the whimpering child against the wall??? Must've been something bad, right?The initial news report about this incident stated that the police were responding to a suspicious break in alarm. Most buildings have an alarm system if someone opens doors. It is not something in my imagination. The initial report stated this.
Btw... you were being punished. These kids had done nothing wrong. No reason to treat them as suspects. "Sorry about the terror! Hardy-har-har..."
Now, how long do you think these children will remember their incident with the protectors and servers of their dad's workplace???You still have not answered the question. What do you want police to do in any situation seeing that in your opinion all they do is wrong? What would be the perfect world for you? Would there even be a perfect world? You obviously see differently from the rest of the colors of the world. So exactly what can the cops do to make you feel safer and more secure?
After they gathered some facts, the story obviously changed. By the time I got around to hearing the report it was simply; the station got an emergency call, left rushing, forgot to shut it down. Moments later they called the police to secure the premises. Employee dad got there first with his two children (little children). And no white person has admitted this EVER happened to their young kids. You came up with an instance but it was a cheat. Punishment by not the police is a foul play. The officer was an ass and i wish he had been given some form of punishment. That nine yr old is gonna remember that shit for a long time. Had he walked in and saw a white man with his children the ASSUMPTION/PROCEDURE would have been different..
Racism, judging all people by the color of their skin, is such a terrible thing. One day we may pass beyond such evils.
Perhaps, it would be a good first step if we stopped identifying our self by the color of our skin. I wonder if there is something more important? For starters, simply being an American is good. For our species, we could call ourselves sapiens or earthlings, but earthlings also identifies the rest of all living things on the planet. Personally, I like American, as a starter. I realize that this is a new and daring approach and may be controversial, but what do we have to loose, but division.
YES, INDEED. Racism is an extension of tribalism and tribalism has NO place in the postmodern, 21st century!
uhhhhh..... maybe you should check back on some of Wilderness' previous comments... just to make sure you read the direction of that last one right. (or maybe I am just giving him too much credit. Hmm...)
To see it in another light... What if all the details were the same - except the officer was black? Would you still hold the same opinions?
GAYes. Any officer instructing two little kids to put the bag down and raise your hands is ridiculous!!!
I feel that since I have encountered black men all my life, I cannot imagine him doing such a thing...
Put your hands up is for the threatening.
It's the same for little old ladies.
Say an elderly white woman was standing there, would she be ordered in such a way??? Or would she first be given an opportunity to explain???
I know what Wilderness meant. No need to reread his comments.
Race will be with us for a long time. However, Americans have a large number of mixed DNA. We are turning into a nation of who the hell knows what's in you? Lol...
While it is fully acknowledged that racism should not be; it should also be fully recognized that it is. And someone needs to do something about it.
Foreign aid my ass... we need aid domestically. The kind of aid that the forefathers received to bring in their belongings and fieldhands.I don't believe so. Those that haven't "bought" into the Civil Rights Act would believe that other ethnicity's don't get to enjoy the same rights as other citizens. What we are seeing is the perfect storm of disaster, this being: racist people finding there way into a position of power they can exert over another human, and then taking it to an extreme an endings the lives of innocent people. The are not just "pent up white people", for example: George Zimmerman? As big as a tragedy that everything we see on the news is, what is even worse is when we start generalizing to a whole group of people over extremist cases. That's true racism
This is no generalization. This man was minding his own business. As he pulled into a gas station, he removed his seat belt and this is what ensued.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBUUO_VFYMs
I, personally, have learned how the powers must spin their weaves to ensure "justice" remains on the RIGHT side. Thanks for the reminder, Sassy.
They will stop at nothing...Ferguson "No Indictment" press conference. (ps. start at 10:15 for explanation of events)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0FZZJzkivY
Investigations complete. Grand Jury pronouncement public
Sequence of events from physical evidence and witness testimony finds no reason to indict.
What say you now Cgenaea, Peoplepower73, (and others)?
Still a case of "White" justice? Or a case of jumping to desired conclusions?
GAWell, I was not on the, jury privy to information that only they would have. Therefore, I have no basis to say that the decision not to indict was improper. I believe in the jury system, even if the decisions do not always meet with my approval. Like you said, in an imperfect world...
But I still believe that the FPD needs an administrative shakedown, a review of procedures to preclude the possibility that the unfortunate way that this was handled will not happen again.On the surface it would seem logical that a more blended police force, representative of their community, might be a more equable policing agency.
On the surface it might seem the initial events, (investigative), might have been better handled.
But too many times what appears logical on the surface isn't what is factual. For instance; the controversy about how long the body was left in the street. Could this have been because the police, (understanding the volatility of the event), were trying extremely hard to make sure they did things right? If they had rushed the body out of sight would they have been accused of trying to hide something?
If they released their investigative results as the investigation, and the Grand Jury proceedings, were underway - would they have been accused of trying the case in public?
I don't know if the FPD needs a shakedown or not. But I do believe the investigation(s), the Grand Jury process, and the Prosecutor's efforts, all seemed to be doing all they could to "do the right thing."
Except for releasing the Grand Jury results at 9pm to a milling crowd that had been waiting 5 hours or more in the streets. Geesh, what a dumb decision.
GAYes, GA, your first paragraph is a good example of 1 point of needed reform.
The predominantly white police force in its fear of intimidation failed to serve the community properly. If you are afraid you cannot do your job.
As for administrative procedure, why didn't Wilson call an ambulance? The attempt to obtain medical attention may have well made the difference between life and death for this young man. His injuries may not have been mortal with the proper medical attention? I guess we can never really know that. Did Wilson bother to check for vitals signs after he shot the man? In their fear of mishandling things, a callousness was revealed that aggravated the circumstances.
You can't really do your job having an inordinate fear of the community you are supposed to serve and protect.Valid points. I know I always see the TV cops go to their victims and search for a pulse. Of course I don't recall seeing those TV cops portrayed in their dealing with the rise and crash of the human "fight or flight" emotional aftermath either. Hmm...
GA
Focusing on individual cases, whatever the outcome, will not change the underlying issue of race in Ferguson and many other communities across the country.
The fact that the Officer here was not indicated does not change the fact that 94% of the people policing that community are of a different race to the majority of people who live in the community.
It does not change the fact that black people were the subject of 92% of searches and 80% of car stops in Ferguson, even though 22% of black residents were found to be carrying contraband, compared to 34% of white residents.
It doesn't change the fact that nationally black children are excluded from school more often than white children for the same type of behaviour.
It does not change the fact that nationally black men are given 20% longer prison sentences than white men for the same crimes.
These are the issues that need to be addressed. They won't be. After the rioting is finished and Ferguson falls out of the news cycle, the media spotlight will move on to the next "story" and no real change will happen. I hope that prediction is wrong, but sadly I don't think it is. It is only a matter of time until the frustrations of these underlying issues are again poured into an individual case.This is not really directed at you, but this is profound and thought everyone involved with this thread should read it.
"At some point while I was playing or preparing to play Monday Night Football, the news broke about the Ferguson Decision. After trying to figure out how I felt, I decided to write it down. Here are my thoughts:
I'M ANGRY because the stories of injustice that have been passed down for generations seem to be continuing before our very eyes.
I'M FRUSTRATED, because pop culture, music and movies glorify these types of police citizen altercations and promote an invincible attitude that continues to get young men killed in real life, away from safety movie sets and music studios.
I'M FEARFUL because in the back of my mind I know that although I'm a law abiding citizen I could still be looked upon as a "threat" to those who don't know me. So I will continue to have to go the extra mile to earn the benefit of the doubt.
I'M EMBARRASSED because the looting, violent protests, and law breaking only confirm, and in the minds of many, validate, the stereotypes and thus the inferior treatment.
I'M SAD, because another young life was lost from his family, the racial divide has widened, a community is in shambles, accusations, insensitivity hurt and hatred are boiling over, and we may never know the truth about what happened that day.
I'M SYMPATHETIC, because I wasn't there so I don't know exactly what happened. Maybe Darren Wilson acted within his rights and duty as an officer of the law and killed Michael Brown in self defense like any of us would in the circumstance. Now he has to fear the backlash against himself and his loved ones when he was only doing his job. What a horrible thing to endure. OR maybe he provoked Michael and ignited the series of events that led to him eventually murdering the young man to prove a point.
I'M OFFENDED, because of the insulting comments I've seen that are not only insensitive but dismissive to the painful experiences of others.
I'M CONFUSED, because I don't know why it's so hard to obey a policeman. You will not win!!! And I don't know why some policeman abuse their power. Power is a responsibility, not a weapon to brandish and lord over the populace.
I'M INTROSPECTIVE, because sometimes I want to take "our" side without looking at the facts in situations like these. Sometimes I feel like it's us against them. Sometimes I'm just as prejudiced as people I point fingers at. And that's not right. How can I look at white skin and make assumptions but not want assumptions made about me? That's not right.
I'M HOPELESS, because I've lived long enough to expect things like this to continue to happen. I'm not surprised and at some point my little children are going to inherit the weight of being a minority and all that it entails.
I'M HOPEFUL, because I know that while we still have race issues in America, we enjoy a much different normal than those of our parents and grandparents. I see it in my personal relationships with teammates, friends and mentors. And it's a beautiful thing.
I'M ENCOURAGED, because ultimately the problem is not a SKIN problem, it is a SIN problem. SIN is the reason we rebel against authority. SIN is the reason we abuse our authority. SIN is the reason we are racist, prejudiced and lie to cover for our own. SIN is the reason we riot, loot and burn. BUT I'M ENCOURAGED because God has provided a solution for sin through the his son Jesus and with it, a transformed heart and mind. One that's capable of looking past the outward and seeing what's truly important in every human being. The cure for the Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin, Tamir Rice and Eric Garner tragedies is not education or exposure. It's the Gospel. So, finally, I'M ENCOURAGED because the Gospel gives mankind hope." - Benjamin Watson, NFL player
Even if you don't believe in God and wish to discount the last paragraph, there is awesomeness within it all.You are right. It was a good read. Thanks for posting it.
GASassy:
I've never thanked you for posting anything. But I do thank you from the bottom of my heart for posting this. You are right. It is profound and very well stated.
All very valid points. All problems that need solutions. But none address the topic of the thread regarding the Ferguson shooting being used as an example of "racial creep."
I think that secondary to the criticism of the OP's portrayal of the Ferguson event, was a strong opposition to his declaration of a continuing deterioration of race relations indicating growing racism.
I believe America has made tremendous strides in civil rights equalities and its efforts to discard old racial stereotypes and hatreds. They are not gone of course. And it is painfully obvious that there are still some pretty poor specimens of humanity in our white race, (certainly not exclusively of course), but....
We are on the journey, and we are making progress. I think the OP was wrong when it started, and I think it is wrong now.
GA
- ahorsebackposted 10 years ago
0Albeit useless to try this officer in a public forum , even if charges were in process , it should be known ,now that grand jury evidence is being released , that the officer was well within his rights to shoot Michael Brown . It was the officer who was attacked first ! About "racial creep" ; The only racial creep is in that those who chose to use race as a tool ! THAT , seems to be due new process of political correctness - the use of race as a tool ! Everyone throws the word around like a medicine ball at the big game .
But there is no need to try him here - he has already been tried in the minds of the mob and was found guilty. Why else burn the city if not to give proof they are stupid enough to give a verdict without evidence?
- ahorsebackposted 10 years ago0
Sad that we are a nation almost completely based upon Law , and of the due process of them ! Yet "race , race , race I" Is the battle cry today , we can't even see objectively anymore as a people !
Here is the grand jury testimony from Wilson.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/25/justice/f … index.html
Do you hold a police officer accountable if he has never fired his weapon before? Do you hold an officer accountable for miss-reading the conditions and firing ten shots, six of which entered Brown's body? Do you hold an officer accountable because he felt threatened to the point excessive force was required? But was it really required or did he just panic? We will never know the other side of the story, because dead men don't talk. Do we hold the crime scene investigators accountable for not following policy? They did not take pictures or any measurements which are standard operating procedure.
It doesn't do any good to riot, it will never change the grand juries outcome and officer Wilson will never be indicted.He was not proven guilty,
based on evidence.
It is not a racial issue.
Why all the protesting?Protesting is fine. They feel it wasn't a fair decision. Pre-arranged rioting in cities is not fine. No matter what and is terrorism. Not demonstrating. Not protesting. Terrorism.Mr. Head should have been arrested and charged on the spot when he yelled to the crowd "burn this bitch down" that is inciting to riot and is a crime.
OMG!
With all the physical evidence, and the witness testimonies that were corroborated by crime scene forensics...
You are still blaming the officer... the investigators, and everyone else because the truth isn't what you wanted it to be.
Geesh.
GA
- ahorsebackposted 10 years ago0
We can debate forever , yet here are a couple of facts to consider ! Michael Brown wasn't Medgar Evers, nor he is Martin Luther King , he was a six foot four , two hundred seventy pound rioter , looter and responsible for assaulting a store owner and a police officer ......Yes ,one that never had to use his weapon on the streets ! He was not even George Wallace or David Duke . He was a cop patrolling the streets .
Racism is another one of the enemy's hate forces. Even in biblical days, certain groups didn't like other groups of people. However, what everyone keeps forgetting is that we were all created in Christ's image, and though we are all different, everyone has something that God has purposed them to do in this world, for His will. Prayer is one of those things that we know works, people have just gotten out of touch with Jesus, less we make all of our prayers and petitions known unto Christ, trusting that He has the power to intervene in anything at anytime.
Ok, GA... I heard you call me the other day, but my ban had yet to be lifted.
I really believe this to have been "just ANOTHER case..." That kid was shot from some distance, so WHATEVER happened in the "struggle" only one perpetrator was in danger, and he is long dead.....
Unfortunately, we did not get the OJ coverage for this one, so there is still a lot that we don't know. But in my stubborn mind, we got some kind of "coverage".
No sweat. It happens every day, somewhere.
So who wins? The cop with the now, fat bank account??? I guess temporarily so...
See, the Lord knows what happened, and HE is not bound by legislation or secret juries. The rest is now in HIS capable hands.I don't think there are any winners in this. A young man is dead. A family has lost a son. A police officer has lost his career, and any possibility for a normal life for himself or his family. The community, the state, the nation... all lost something.
Of course the media are winners, but they don't count in your, (or my), expression of who wins.
GA
I did not hear that the officer lost his career, but it seems insane if we just cannot find that he was wrong. I did hear, however, that he got a lot of assistance in donations, if that's true, he can at least LIVE decently.
But you are right; no winners...IMHO, the protest is because the system looked at the situation under cover, then stamped, "approved". It does not seem fair, max... As you've pointed out, they knew that the interested parties would see it as unfair. But what weight does that carry???
We do not HAVE to "trust" a system set-up to throw rocks and hide hands. We may protest; as we've always done, with little difference made. Maybe one day, someone "important" will hear.- ahorsebackposted 10 years ago0
If you listen to the cop tell what happened , then there is no question at all that he did what he had to do ! Yet emotional hysteria in the interpretation of law - doesn't work . You or I don't get to re -design the justice system on a case by case issue, , generally speaking its the best system in the world . Perfect -no ,not by any means , effective though ,yes !
Here is how a grand jury is supposed to work.
http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-pr … -work.html
The purpose of the grand jury is to see if there is enough evidence to support an indictment. Indictment means that there would be a trial by jury with a judge. In Wilson's case there was not enough evidence brought forth by the prosecutor to support an indictment. The prosecutor in this case placed the evidence that he wanted in front of the jury and let them come to their own conclusion and take the heat for their conclusion. In other words, a prosecutor can load the deck by only presenting the evidence that will support his agenda. If the only tool in your toll box is a hammer, then the only solution is a nail.
There should have never been a grand jury and McCulloch should have never been the prosecutor. There should have been a trial by jury and judge. In either case, you are presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Here is why McCulloch should have never been given the case.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/background- … s-of-bias/You appear to still be struggling to find rationalizations to support your view of what happened.
Perhaps knowing exactly what evidence the grand jury heard - not just the "facts" you wanted to believe in the media, might help clear up your confusion.
Here is the full Ferguson Case Grand Jury Transcript
I think you will find there was no "cherry-picking" of what evidence to present.
GA
If you listen to MB's companion, or the nearby workers on that day, you would find question marks all over the place.
We rightfully take the word of who... the shooter???
Greatest justice system in the world for sure. It is most effective for the systems in place.
Just look at our history. Lincoln, JFK, King, four little girls, Emmet Till, and a host of nameless others, killed by the REAL "savages"... none of which were black...The first issue is that this case just has to be about racism now doesn't it ! One innocent black man killed by a honky racist cop ? Unfortunately for those of you who wish to wear rose colored glasses , the facts don't support that . The second issue , What about the fact that Brown was breaking laws in the process of pilfering a store owners property and bullying him and then , assaulting a police officer .AND It isn't like he was dragged out of bed and out the door and shot ! A 911call from the store alerted police to who he was . Do Not , compare Michael Brown to any of the above names ,....."M.L. King , the four little girls , Emit Till " , you do a huge disservice to real men and even little girls that died innocently while attending church or being real life activists'of moral causes ! After watching M.B.'s Mother and Step Father in their violent rants , one can only surmise that the apple didn't fall far from the tree . Michael brown was a bully , pure and simple .---- And No , bullies don't deserve to die, however when you try to bully a cop - You kinda get what you get. How can you or anyone begin to justify trying to punch out a cop in his own cruiser , as just a passing act of benevolence ? You really need to look at the statistics of inner city crimes , especially minority crime statistics , when you have done that , and you mature up a little , we can continue to debate !
Brown was a bully and did steal the cigars using excessive force. He was defiant when walking down the middle of the street. He was also a bully with Wilson in his police car and was a threat to Wilson.
However, once he was shot several times, could he still be a threat? I believe the adrenalin was pumping in both of them. Wilson panicked and Brown was in survival mode. He was not charging Wilson when he was bent over. He was wounded and was dying. Wilson then took careful aim and placed the kill shot in Brown's head
Did the situation warrant Brown being killed when he was no longer a threat? According to Wilson, he saw Brown place his hand inside his belt as if he had a gun. Dead men don't talk, so we don't know if that is true or not. If he did not, then Wilson is guilty. If he did, then Wilson is not guilty, but was acting in self-defense. But if Brown had a gun, it seems reasonable that he would use it to defend himself. The fact is, he didn't have a gun.
Wilson was supposed to have major injuries by brown when he attacked him in the police car. The fact is he had a very minor bruise and was released from the hospital rather quickly.
To me, all of this hinges on was Brown enough of a threat to Wilson to warrant killing him?
According to this article, they were 148 feet apart when Wilson fired the kill shot.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/11/2 … son-s-SUV#You state this: "However, once he was shot several times, could he still be a threat? I believe the adrenalin was pumping in both of them. Wilson panicked and Brown was in survival mode. He was not charging Wilson when he was bent over. He was wounded and was dying. Wilson then took careful aim and placed the kill shot in Brown's head
Did the situation warrant Brown being killed when he was no longer a threat? According to Wilson, he saw Brown place his hand inside his belt as if he had a gun. Dead men don't talk, so we don't know if that is true or not. If he did not, then Wilson is guilty. If he did, then Wilson is not guilty, but was acting in self-defense. But if Brown had a gun, it seems reasonable that he would use it to defend himself. The fact is, he didn't have a gun. "
But what you fail to realize is that every state is different and your state (California) is not Missouri. The penal code in Missouri is VERY different than your liberal state of California. Missouri has a Use of Force Doctrine. In the course of their duties, law enforcement personnel use force to subdue suspects. The use of force consists of two parts: the amount of force that may lawfully be used on a continuum that includes deadly force; and the circumstances under which it may be used, including the level of imminent threat reasonably perceived by the member of law enforcement and the concern that a fleeing felon may harm the public. In the event of death during a reasonable use of force, this may be legally considered a justifiable homicide.
So since Michael Brown charged the officer and there was DNA evidence in the vehicle that showed the assault took place, the only thing Michael Brown could have done to prevent dying is to actually put his hands up and state "don't shoot" while getting on his knees. However, several witnesses stated he did not do that and started charging him. His failure to do this, gave Wilson the legal right in Missouri to terminate his life.
Seems, from your post, that you have left the building." Lol... well thanks for your maturity. But I never get THAT mature. I can talk to whomever, bout whatever; agree or not.
So, to anyone still listening... There seems to be this idea, however subtle (or not so subtle) that Michael Brown was less than righteousness; therefore not a real loss to Ferguson.
Is anyone else getting that impression???
Seems the latest idea is, "Well he didn't deserve to die, but good riddance..."
At this point, I'm not considering race anymore. Still the dude who shot him, was w-r-o-n-g!!!
The blood got onto the gun during the struggle in the car. But Mike wasn't gunned down in the car... the dude who shot him had some TIME to think about that thing first.
All them bullets were most likely revenge for the obviously lost confrontation in the car. Who the hell knows what made that boy snap on an armed officer of the law. But he aint here to tell THAT part... we are taking the word of the dude who shot him from an OBVIOUS distance...
We do not have to argue the points. What is, is...
Lastly, Michael Brown was a human being. Even men on death row, (many of them raceless serial killers, not raceless tobacco thieves) are given their day in court. This big black (I mean raceless) monster should be HERE to tell HIS side of the story; no matter whose raceless face was badly bruised.
Though I would love a pic of exactly how the face looked IMMEDIATELY following the incident, though it makes no difference.
- ahorsebackposted 10 years ago0
If a grand jury made up of real people finds no need for charges then I believe them , why ? Because they use facts , they don't create those facts of evidence , they don't emote their way through a process , they don't imagine their way into a civil rights violation , they don't spite their weak emotionally origined opinions onto others , and they don't use Affirmative Action to create a fairy tale outcome of a tragic occurrence. "No Virginia" guess what , there is no Santa Clause in the courtroom . There are no fairy tales in the judges chambers ,
One of my next hubs is going to be about how inner city crime statistics go against all logic when it comes to the politically correct attitudes of racism in America .I live in Chicago. That's "inner" as any citt gets. I know what happens here... and I know what happened to me by the hands of inner city cops... I will not go into that stupid story again, but I do know that there have been a gazillion over-turns in the court systems since 1965. Know why??? (Hint: not because most inner city defendants are Black.)
- SassySue1963posted 10 years ago0
A two-year-old case involving the shooting death of an unarmed 18-year-old white man by a black police officer is gaining attention on social media in the wake of this week’s protests and rioting in Ferguson, Missouri.
Gilbert Collar, a white, unarmed 18-year-old under the influence of drugs was shot and killed Oct. 6, 2012, by Officer Trevis Austin, who is black, in Mobile, Alabama. Despite public pressure for an indictment, a Mobile County grand jury refused to bring charges against Officer Austin, concluding that the officer acted in self-defense.
The circumstances mirror those of the Aug. 9 shooting death of Michael Brown, a black unarmed 18-year-old under the influence of drugs by Officer Darren Wilson, who is white, in Ferguson.
A St. Louis County grand jury’s decision Monday not to indict the officer ignited violence and looting in Ferguson and days of protests nationwide against racial injustice.
The discrepancy in the reaction to and coverage of the two grand jury decisions has not been lost on social media, where critics are citing the Collar case to counter those who say Brown was the victim of racism in both law enforcement and judicial system.
On Thursday, the website Conservative Tribune headline trumpeted the case: “Unarmed White Teen Gunned Down by Black Cop … Where’s the Outrage?”
Former CNN host Piers Morgan blasted the police response in Mobile days after Collar was killed, saying he “didn’t deserve to die,” but otherwise the case has received little attention outside Alabama, prompting critics to accuse the national media of a “whiteout.”
Said Julie on Twitter: “Hello? Media? Two years, and still only crickets. Where’s Al Sharpton for #GilCollar?”
Critics also note there has been no rioting or sustained protest in Mobile, even though the slightly built Collar, unlike Brown, never touched the officer and, because he was naked when he was shot, was more obviously unarmed.
Both shooting victims were found with marijuana in their systems.
“There’s riots for #MikeBrown but none for #GilCollar,” said one commenter, @samstuff, in a Wednesday post on Twitter.
“Nobody burnt buildings to the ground for them,” said commenter Gomer Pyle on Twitter, referring to Collar and Dillon Taylor, a white 20-year-old shot Aug. 11 by a minority police officer in Utah. “You never even heard of them until now.”You are right, I had not heard of the Gilbert Collar case either, but after reading about it - wow, a black officer shot a naked white man inside the confines of a police station. With the availability of his baton, pepper spray, and other officers at hand. Yet no indictment.
I wonder if I should be outraged based solely on the facts related in the article, or should I delve deeper into the details? Hmm... Could a new descriptor be coined for this, like "going postal," maybe we could start using "Going Ferguson."
GAIt is possible that since these occurrences are so rare, the White community is still stunned. Give them a second. They may just "go Ferguson" after the shock wears off. Hey!!! They just might make some new laws... they have those resources available to them. They may not have to "go Ferguson" afterall.
It's been two years. No they aren't going to Go Ferguson.
That wasn't the point though. The point was yes, Virginia, there are unarmed white men shot by black officers too. More really but you don't hear about them.
And making Ferguson about race, which it was not, hides the real issue we should be discussing
why? are the officers that afraid all the time? are they not trained well enough? is it recruitment? is the wrong kind of person getting in? but no, let's just go with a narrative proven false - "hands up don't shoot" and look like idiots and criminals as Ferguson burns. That's helpful.Or maybe THAT'S it... you had to go two years back to find such an instance???
Looking like idiots is better than prey, I think. But we are in agreement that the city should not have to pay with precious buildings being burned to the ground over some life that was not WORTH living anyhow. There should be no outburst. Black people should know by now, that it does not work. They need to change/ make some laws... but wait...No I've been posting them everywhere within this thread but you are too blinded to have noticed them. Too wrapped up in the false narrative the media portrayed and continues to portray. That is exactly the point.
There are unarmed suspects dying, of all races, shot by officers of all races, at an alarmingly rising rate. It is not a race issue - it is an issue within law enforcement. In almost all cases they are not evil officers bent on killing someone or racists. So that is what we need to discuss - why is it happening? How can we curb it? Why are these men, many who have never even discharged their firearm in years of service, suddenly doing so?
At the same time perhaps we can stop holding up someone who robbed a store, grabbed an employee by the throat and attacked an officer of the law that asked him to move from the street like he was a choirboy. Did he deserve to die? No, he did not. But did Officer Wilson deserve to be attacked in his cruiser for asking them to move to the sidewalk? No he did not.
Michael Brown's death is a tragedy of his own making, brought about by his own actions and to act like it is anything else does not do anything to resolve the real problem.Did someone say, "you are to blinded...?" Yeah... I think it was you.
Unanswered questions, not necessarily for you, just throwing them out there:
1) If the police officer, as he testified during the grand jury, was punched in the face twice by a heavy set, 6ft 4 teenager, with such force that the officer believed the next punch would kill him, then why do the photos of the officer's face taken on the same day of the shooting show no apparent signs of injury other than a couple of red marks that are barely visible?
2) Why did the prosecutor in this case show all evidence (including evidence favourable to the defendant) to the grand jury, when it is common practice for a prosecutor to only show evidence that supports the case for indictment? (His job is to prosecute after all, not defend. The clue is in the title).
3) Why was the grand jury asked to consider the question of self-defense? That is not a grand jury's role. It's role is purely to determine that there is a basis for a criminal charge (accusatory) not to determine whether a defendant is guilty or innocent (adjudicatory). Adjudicating the guilt of innocence of a defendant is the purpose of a trail and the job of a trial jury alone.
4) Why was the police officer given the opportunity to testify in his own defence to a grand jury? Will that same standard be applied to other defendants who claim self-defense, but who are not white, and not police officers?
5) Is it correct procedure for an officer involved in a fatal shooting to drive himself (with his firearm) back to the station house and wash away evidence (blood on his hands)?
6) Why was the interview with the officer about the fatal shooting not recorded?
7) Why did the County Medical Examiner take no measurements at the scene of a fatal shooting?
There are lots of unanswered questions about the shooting, the aftermath and how this case has been handled from start to finish. I hope Brown's family, their supporters, and journalists will be insistent in trying to find out the answers to these and other questions.So I'm assuming that neither of you have even taken a peek at the actual evidence submitted to the Grand Jury. Nope, just plodding along like the media sheep they expect you to be.
1. Are you aware that under normal circumstances this case would have never even seen a Grand Jury? Why? Because typically Prosecutors only send cases to the Grand Jury that they are certain has enough evidence for an indictment. This one did not, but the Prosecutor was forced by the public nature of the incident to take it before a Grand Jury.
2. Are you aware that all Grand Jury's rarely indict officer's in on-duty shootings,regardless of the race of the officer or of the victim?
3. Certainly there are questions about the evidence trail for the washed hands, collecting his own gun, etc. but is he denying any of that? Is anyone? No. So what do you think the blood on his hands will show? What could it show? His weapon was discharged and ballistics show the weapon he turned in was the one that shot Michael Brown. So, what would it have shown otherwise if collected by another officer? That it wasn't the gun that shot Michael Brown? It's called blowing smoke to distort. That is precisely what you are doing here.
4. Have you ever been punched in your face? Seen someone who has been punched in their face immediately after the incident? I have and it is pretty much red marks unless it consisted of a broken nose which goes black pretty fast and blackens the eyes. I would have liked to see a picture over the next couple days when such things usually begin to show actual color and scale. That didn't happen.
It is actually more common than you are being led to believe by the media in police shootings for the officer to be offered a chance to testify. Again, regardless of race of those involved. It is also common to present all evidence, for both sides, in the case of on-duty shootings. Not just in this case. It is also extremely rare for Grand Juries to return an indictment for officer on-duty shootings. Again, regardless of race involved. You can argue that procedure but it is a universal procedure, not one followed in this one case like it is some conspiracy. Prosecutors and police work together in the framework of the judicial system on cases so in the case of on-duty shootings things are handled differently. But that is across the board.
Read the Grand Jury testimony, how so many changed their testimony of hands up don't shoot when faced with conflicting forensics. How even the ME hired by the Brown family came to the same conclusions. Read it - all the evidence is there to plainly see it backs up the officer's testimony that Brown's head was down when shot, actually very close to the officer, and did not have his hands raised. Sorry but as the TV show says "evidence doesn't lie, only people do".
Someone attacks you in your car, you get out, probably not to chase them because you are not a police officer, maybe just to yell at them. They turn and charge you. You have a weapon, but you are going to stand there and you know, see if it's that bad before you shoot. Wait to see and be certain they don't have a knife until it plunges into your gut. Yep perfectly logical.
Please.Well now my question is, how'd he get blood on his hands to wash off??? In the car, he punched Mike or busted HIS face??? Smeared some of the blood on the ground on the gun???
Head bowed means losing consciousness... or saluting, Japanese style. the head shots were last. How DID the blood get on the gun? And already washed hands??? What he washin his innocent, frightened hands off for anyway? Why is he breaking rules to drive his gun back to the station??? What was he washing off?
I really do not have a dog in the fight anymore. The verdict is in. I think forensics are interesting. Did you see the diagram of his bullet wounds? Looks way different from one who is charging.
We can go onto sonething else. I do not feel that anymore discussion will change you... or me... we just disagree.1. I'm sorry, but experience tells me that this is not the face of a man who has been punched in the face so hard that he reasonably believed the next punch would kill him (his statement) and it's ludicrous to suggest it is.
I am also certain that if the damage to his face was more severe later, it would have been photographed and provided to the grand jury along with the other evidence provided by the prosecutor.
2. The number of times police officers are indicted does not address the question, which is: why did the prosecutor in this particular case show evidence favourable to the defendant, to the grand jury? That is not his job, and it is not common practice among grand juries (there should not be one standard for police officers and one for everyone else). The prosecutor (as his title suggests) is there to prosecute the case. He is not there to mount a defense for the defendant.
And by the way, 6 police officers in Cleveland were indicted by grand jury in May for shooting two unarmed people in a car. 5 supervisors were also charged with dereliction of duty, so it happens. Just not in Ferguson apparently.
3. If you have information about the incident that us "media sheep" do not, then can you provide some insight as to why the grand jury were asked to consider the question of self-defense when that is not a grand jury's role. Adjudicating the guilt or of innocence of a defendant is the purpose of a trail and the job of a trial jury, not a grand jury.
4. If it is more common for police officers to be given the chance to testify to a grand jury, among cases where police are implicated in crimes, then that does not make it right. Either afford ordinary citizens the same opportunity (including giving the grand jury all the defense evidence) or stop doing it for police officers. There should not be a different standard for police officers.
5. It's irrelevant what I think the blood would have shown. It was evidence and it should have been preserved, at the very least photographed. That's basic policing. It may have shown something that helped the officer's case for all we know. If the local PD is unable to preserve evidence when there is a fatal shooting, then they are incompetent and something must be done about that. If they have demonstrated they are competent with other cases, then why did they not apply the same standard in this case, and who is responsible for not doing so?
6. Could you also apply your special insight to the question of why the interview with the police officer was not recorded? Is it also common practice when a police officer fatally shoots someone, not to record their interview? Again, if there are other cases where they have failed to record interviews, then they are incompetent and something must be done. If this has never happened in any other case, why did it happen in this case, and who was responsible?
7. Likewise, is it common practice for no measurements to be taken at the scene of a fatal shooting? If this is not an indication of incompetence, then what is it and who is responsible?
8. I have read the grand jury testimony. There were conflicting eyewitness statements. The fact the officers story was not corroborated fully is all the more reason it should have gone to trial. Then the officer would be tried by a jury of his peers, who would decide whether or not there was reasonable doubt. The fact that did not happen leaves serious questions to be answered. At the very least the local PD should be investigated for gross incompetence and failure to follow basic police procedures, and those responsible held accountable?All the information you need is provided in the Grand Jury testimony which is provided online. Every last word, every last witness, every shred of evidence. All there if you even bothered to look, which you obviously did not - hence, media sheep.
The diagrams and multiple ME testimonies explain the wounds, trajectory, etc.
oh I see now - oh I'm this color, creed or religion if you paint me with a broad brush you are a racists, bigot etc - but hey there were 5 bad cops in Cleveland - so obviously this one is too! Gotcha.
yep there are bad cops. there are bad bakers, lawyers, housewives, doctors and even kids. So they're all evil then right? That's what you're saying?
The evidence is there in this case. Period. Forensic evidence does not lie. period.If you wash it off, it cannot lie OR tell the truth...
you've yet to say what you think that blood would say. It obviously was not Officer Wilson's blood. What do you think it would prove? What? You're only harping on him washing his hands so you can justify calling foul instead of admitting all the evidence points to him being justified in the shooting, which btw does not infer that Micheal Brown deserved to die, only that his own actions placed him in that position.
Uh... well the possibilities are endless. But you seem so set to blame the boy for his death that the endless possibilities escape...
No punishment for ditching the process???
We do see that clearly around the board...now don't we?
The blood could have shown what REALLY happened. now, the world may never know...
I repeat, I have read a lot of the grand jury testimony. Eyewitnesses gave conflicting accounts, and there was some discrepancy as to the distance Mike Brown was from the officer when he was shot. All of that points to a trial, where witnesses and the defendant can testify and be subject to cross examination. Then the jury could decide if there was reasonable doubt or not. That's what trials are for.
Only you are suggesting that all cops are "bad". I am merely pointing out that police officers have in fact been indicted by grand jury, and fairly recently, so it does happen. But the frequency police officers are indicted by grand juries is irrelevant to whether or not this officer should have been indicted in this case. One has nothing to do with the other. If it's not common, that doesn't mean it shouldn't have happened here.
Forensic evidence? The police publicly stated in press conferences that Brown was 35ft away from the police officer when the officer killed him. Measurements taken by journalists based on photographic evidence, and actual physical measurements, indicate Brown was approximately 150 ft away when he was shot. This brings into question the officer's account of the incident, as do some of the eyewitness statements included in the evidence, which again points to the need for a trial. It also raises questions about why no measurements were taken at the scene of a fatal shooting, and why the police continually stated the distance as 35ft when it was in fact 148ft. As I said, serious questions remain unanswered.
Any prosecutor could have secured a prosecution based on the evidence available in my opinion. There was more than enough to go to trial. The prosecutor clearly did not want to prosecute this case. The question is why? Is it because he believed there was not enough evidence for a case, or is it because the defendant was being treated favourably because he is a police officer? The discrepancies and breaches of procedure by the local PD on the day of the incident and after, combined with the highly irregular use of a grand jury, all points to the latter. Personally I would want an independent review of the whole affair.It is only irregular use of a Grand Jury in your mind, colored by the fact that it would have never seen a Grand Jury at all due to lack of evidence to convict under normal circumstances.
And I do have to wonder if you've actually read the report or what the media is putting out - because I can tell you they are not the same thing.
Witnesses claiming the hands up don't shoot changed their testimony in the face of the forensic evidence and it doesn't even matter if they didn't. The forensic evidence - the real evidence - shows he did not have his hands up period. It doesn't matter what witnesses say because evidence does not lie and is completely non biased. It is what it is.
All those cases since 1965 that have been overturned you mentioned earlier - because they were based on two things - circumstantial evidence and EYE WITNESS TESTIMONY! Eye witness testimony has been proven unreliable at best.
I'm sorry - not one single eye witness overrides medical and forensic evidence. Period.Irregular only in my mind? Not quite . . .
"It looks like he wanted to create the appearance that there had been a public trial when in fact there hadn’t been" - Harvard Law School professor Noah Feldman
"McCulloch gave Wilson’s case special treatment. He turned it over to the grand jury, a rarity itself, and then used the investigation as a document dump, an approach that is virtually without precedent in the law of Missouri or anywhere else. - Lawyer and legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin.
"The National Bar Association is questioning how the Grand Jury, considering the evidence before them, could reach the conclusion that Darren Wilson should not be indicted and tried for the shooting death of Michael Brown." - National Bar Association Press Release
So no, it's not just irregular in my mind.
And witnesses did not all change their testimony in light of forensic evidence. That is factually incorrect. There is independent eyewitness testimony (given under oath in front of the jury) which is not contradicted by forensic evidence, but which does contradict the officer's account of the incident.
(W: witness, P: prosecutor):
The question of whether Michael Brown's hands were raised:
Witness X:
W: I saw him turn to his right, turned around, but as he was turning, I'm sorry, he was like this [indicating]. What I was saying was that I didn't see like a big all the way up there kind of thing, I just saw a turned around kind of right here [indicating].
P: kind of shoulder high, hands up?
W: yes.
P: But his palms were like facing the officer?
W: Yes
Witness Y:
P: Okay. And so from that View you said you saw that he had a hand across his body?
W: Uh, he had his left hand across his body.
P: Okay.
W: And his right hand was up in the air.
Witness Z:
P: What is Big Mike doing [after he turned to face the officer]?
W: At that time Big Mike's hands was up, but not so much up in the air because he had been struck already in this region somewhere on this. It was like this hands is up and this hand is kind of like down sort of.
So 3 independent witnesses testified that Mike Brown had his hand(s) up. You'll notice the agreement that one of his hands was lower than the other, which is consistent with testimony that he was hit by the first shot at the police vehicle, before running.
On the issue of Mike Brown "charging" the police officer:
Witness X
P: When you saw him falling down, did he appear to be at the same spot that he was when you saw him turn around?
W: In my recollection he was.
P: When he fell down, where was he?
W: Right around the same spot.
Witness Y:
P: Was he walking towards the officer as he was collapsing?
W: He couldn't get a step off like. When he was giving his second sentence, what he was going to say, it was like he was going to step close to the officer, but like I said, before he could even get that sentence out, the rest of the shots was hitting him and he was going down.
P: And was shots being fired as he was going down?
W: Shots was definitely fired while he was going down. The last shot he fired he was so close to the ground, it looked like to me he was already on the ground.
Again, different witnesses directly contradict the police officer's statement that Brown charged him after he turned around.
On the issue of whether Mike Brown reached into his waist:
Witness X:
P: Did he appear to be reaching for anything?
W: No, ma'am.
P: Did he touch his waist at all?
W: No.
Witness Y:
P: His hands were nowhere near his waist?
W: No, his hands never went down towards his waistline or anything, like he didn't have a belt on or anything.
Again this testimony directly contradicts the officer's statement that Mike Brown reached into his waist.
The issue of whether the officer fired on Brown as he was running away:
Witness X:
P: So when you saw the officer and he's moving away from you, could you tell was he firing a weapon as he was moving away from you?
W: Uh, the next shot I heard was after Michael Brown started running, the officer fired and I saw Michael Brown stagger and fling his arms out.
Witness Y:
W: Yeah, when Mr. Brown was running away from the officer, one shot was fired.
Witness Z:
W: I'm watching the officer, he's walking and Big Mike gets past the third car, the final car before the second shot was fired. It was the second shot fired, pow, the officer shot. I don't know if it hit, I wasn't that close to see that it struck Big Mike, but the manner that he jerked and just stopped in his track, I sense that he was hit again.
You'll notice these witnesses don't testify that Brown was definitely hit while he was running away, only that shots were fired. The officer testified that he did not fire at Brown (at all) while he was running away. Witnesses do not agree with that statement.
Do I need to go on? The point is that several witnesses made statements that contradict the police officer's account of what happened, and it is highly irregular that this case did not go to trial on that basis alone. In almost any other circumstance it would have.
The forensic evidence does not tell us what happened on that day. It can't. Darren Wilson has given his account, but he is one witness (with a vested interest) so cannot be relied upon. There is no reason to accept his account over any of the independent witnesses that testified. For that reason it should have been left to a jury of his peers to determine whether there was reasonable doubt under the proper conditions of a jury trial.
It is obvious to anyone with a brain that the only reason that didn't happen is because the defendant is a police officer. If it were an ordinary member of the public., it would have gone to trial. That's a double standard, and it's wrong. The police are there to uphold the law. They are not above it.Guess you skipped the testimony of Witness #10. How convenient for you since it was given 2 days after the shooting, recorded at the time, repeated for the Grand Jury, witness was an African American male, was harassed for testifying, the account matches up to all forensic evidence, matches the autopsy reports that had not been conducted at the time and the accounting of Officer Wilson - as do the majority of the eye witness accounts.
Your quotes are from the National Bar Association, which is a caucus of black attorneys - not the Federal Bar Association - no bias there at all.
No their accounts do not match forensic evidence and are clearly made irrelevant by the forensic evidence. It isn't difficult - the wounds do not match the "hands up don't shoot" narrative. Period. They do not.
"An autopsy conducted on Michael Brown, the unarmed 18-year-old fatally shot by Ferguson, Missouri, police officer Darren Wilson last Saturday, shows that Brown was shot at least six times, twice in the head and all in the front of the body."
NONE in the back so how is it that he was shot while running away?
You can trot out a million so-called witnesses - and it still does not matter. Evidence does not lie- people do.
Oh and don't know where you're getting X,Z and so forth as they had numbers.
edit: nvm about the letters - saw that some showed blanks, some numbers some letters. The actual direct copy has blanks.Of course some witness statements supported the officers account, and some directly contradicted his account and could not be dismissed by forensics. That's the point. There was probable cause to go to trial.
Yes the National Bar Association is a caucus of black attorneys. And? Are you suggesting it's automatically biased because it's members are black? Please explain what makes you think the qualified, professional legal representatives that make up the National Bar Association are more biased than the qualified, professional legal representatives that make up the Federal Bar Association? And did it enter your mind that perhaps the National Bar Association is questioning the grand jury decision because there is good reason to question it? Or should we automatically discount what this group of legal professionals have to say on the grounds that they happen to be black?
And the forensics do not contradict several witness testimonies. They said Brown had one hand up, the other slightly lower. That is consistent with completely independent testimony that Brown had already been hit by the shot fired near the vehicle, explaining why he could only raise one hand above his head. And the witnesses I quoted did not say Brown was shot in the back. They said Wilson fired while Brown was running. 12 shots were fired, Brown was hit 6 times. That means other shots were fired that missed. Unfortunately your "forensics" can't tell us when those shots were fired. Only, you know, actual people can tell us that. So it is entirely plausible that Wilson fired at Brown while he was running away, and after Brown stopped and turned, one hand raised, the other lower, Wilson unloaded the rest of his shots into him. In fact it's more than plausible, that is was several people testified.
Let me repeat, forensic evidence alone can never tell us what happened on that day. A million autopsies will still not tell you whether Darren Wilson used unlawful force. They can't. If they could there would have been no need for witnesses at all. Witnesses were called because it is the testimony of witnesses combined with forensic evidence that gives the fullest picture. The fact is that several testimonies that conflicted with Wilson's were not contradicted by the forensic evidence. Meaning there was probable cause that a crime had been committed. That is all the grand jury was their to consider. When there is probable cause, an indictment should be made. It's as simple as that. Which testimony was reliable would have been for a trial jury to decide, not for a grand jury. The only reason that happened is because Wilson was given preferential treatment because he is a police officer.
I used x, y, z to distinguish different testimonies. Who cares? It isn't important. What people say is more important than how we label them. That doesn't seem to be something you fully appreciate.Wow!!! The black attorney thing is very interesting. I wonder how that was meant, as well. The blacks are not as credible???
I think from the context, it was supposed to mean that the black attorneys are biased. But WOW!!! Why would that be assumed? Racism?
I guess one may not like those of their own persuasion, as well as any other. But this is also a huge issue within the black community... many BLACKS don't like blacks. And they make no bones about it... Yes it's funny, but if you think about it, some just feel BETTER when they FEEL better than others.
I know broke people who look down their noses on slightly broker people too. Lol...Yes they are biased, and pressured. Is it any different than you discounting the Grand Jury decision because "there were more white people" on it than minorities?
Or you make an assumption of the personal responsibility narrative offered earlier. Discounting it by saying those that have risen above the struggle look down on those still within the struggle.
More than any testimony of any person, or the opinion of any person, I am talking about the forensic evidence only. Evidence is color blind and unbiased. It is merely evidence. In the face of evidence that proves there were no hands up don't shoot, (this evidence is included in the Grand Jury testimony and clearly explained along with a diagram) that he was not shot while running away (no shots were in his back) not shot while already lying on the ground (again, no shots in his back) was not executed as some said "the officer stood over him while he was kneeling and shot him in the head at point blank range", no such close range shots took place, was not kneeling either, proven by the trajectory. What do you rely on? Testimony directly refuted by the evidence.
While we put angelic wings on Brown, and destroy ourselves and our neighborhoods, all we do is make any real struggle more difficult.
Take my comment any way you so choose, you will read into what you will anyway because it is obvious that facts mean little to you.I was against the grand jury trial before I knew the color of the jurors. I just found out that it was predominantly white (thanks). I'm shocked!
Those who have risen above the struggle actually do look down... Rarely back...
Forensic evidence that you do not care has been rinsed down the drain because the angelic wings put on the officer, must be fanning.
I too remember Mike being 35 ft from his murderer in the beginning, with 6 shots fired. We were battling the obviously obvious idea that he was "charging" (an officer with a gun) with his head down and was close enough (where's our ex cop???) to "git" the officer, which is why he feared for his life, remember? (I do) now, it is a much further distance??? Many more shots fired???
The officer still feared???
Seems he TRIED kinda hard, to hit Mike in the back, right??? 12 shots?????
Facts... ?
So what he washed his hands! So what he drove his gun back! So what some black lawyers think it's a farce! So what he wasn't tried in court for murder! So what that boy is dead, he brought it on himself!
I have NEVER heard the officer shot the boy point blank. I heard, "He was charging! And almost got him! And if it hadn't been for the itchy trigger finger of the officer, he could have been killed himself!!!" The ex officer and I spoke on it, at length.
It don't matter if the officer shot the boy while knitting a sweater with wingholes. There is doubt... and some seem happy to HELP sweep it under the rug.... makes me wonder...1) Can we settle this "forensic evidence" issue. The witnesses I quoted said Brown was shot at while running away, not that he was hit while running away. The forensic evidence available cannot tell us whether any shots that missed brown were fired while he was running away. It simply can't.
Also, please stop suggesting that the available forensic evidence proves Brown did not say "don't shoot". Again it doesn't, and it can't. Only witnesses can tell us what Brown said. According to testimony he said "don't shoot, I don't have a gun. Don't . . . [further shots fired]".
Also, the St. Louis city medical examiner Michael Graham reviewed the autopsy reports and said: "This report doesn’t fundamentally answer the question of whether at some point [Brown] had his hands up as witnesses have said, or whether he surrendered, or whether they were up in an aggressive posture. As you look at this [report], people are grabbing onto one thing, trying to make a whole case on this one finding. You can't do that."
That is the professional opinion of a qualified medical examiner.
Is there any way I can make it any clearer to you? The available forensic evidence:
does not determine whether Brown's hands were raised or not raised.
does not determine whether Brown said "don't shoot".
does not determine whether Brown reached for his waist (as testified by Wilson).
does not determine whether Brown punched Wilson twice in the face with force (although Wilson's own medical report shows no injury).
does not determine whether Brown charged Wilson, or staggered a few steps (witnesses have testified to both)
does not determine whether Brown tried to take Wilson's gun (forensics only show a hand wound consistent with a close range shot. That supports the eyewitness testimony that Wilson grabbed Brown by his shirt though his car window and Brown remonstrated with Wilson in an effort to get away when Wilson shot him through his open window)
Wilson's defense rests solely on his self-defense claim. That claim is contradicted by physical evidence (no injuries consistent with what he claimed happened) and eyewitness testimony.
All that adds up to one thing: Wilson may have used unlawful force when he killed Brown, which is a crime. That is probable cause. All that is needed for an indictment is probable cause.
2) I have repeatedly said I believe the prosecutor gave Darren Wilson preferential treatment because he is a police officer. If he were not, I think he would have been indicted based on the available evidence. Whether he would have been found guilty is a different question, but he would definitely have been indicted. So nothing to do with the color of the jury. My opinions are based on the evidence presented and what is typical of a grand jury. There is a possibility that racial bias is another factor, but that is not the overriding factor for me.
You and I would be indicted by a prosecutor based on probable cause. This officer was not. Are police officers above the law? Should the law be applied differently to police officers or, if there is probable cause, should they be held accountable and go to trial like the rest of us? That is the issue. Unfortunately you seem to have latched onto the forensic evidence in this case, and arrived at the mistaken conclusion that it exonerates Wilson. It simply doesn't, and no amount of you wanting it to will make it so. This was a bad decision and your's and other's defense of that bad decision will lead to more bad decisions just like it. Sending out the message that police officers are above the law, is not something that will be beneficial to social cohesion, now or in the future.So, attacking the police officer was not a bad decision? Robbing the store? Grabbing the employee by the throat? Not just moving to the sidewalk? Not just following the request of the officer? These are not bad decisions in your mind?
All you are doing is justifying lawlessness and a rebellious attitude in the face of a policeman.
Why have the police at all? Why not just let the criminals run around and do what they want then? Since in your mind the police should just sit there and be sitting ducks - only allowed to shoot once they've been shot and lie bleeding on the ground right? Oh he's reaching for something in his waistband - wait, not, just wait, might be a gun, might now - POW! Oh guess I can shoot now - I mean, if he's still breathing.White machete wielding idiot; apprehended.
Black steak knife wielding mental patient; shot dead where he stood...
What's the difference in treatment? Why is the black steak knife wielder dead, and the white machete wielder lives to wield again???
In both of these current cases, there was NO weapon. But we got two dead black dudes.Hold on. You have repeatedly claimed that forensic evidence proves that no shots were fired at Brown while he was running away, that Brown didn't have his hands up when he turned, and that he didn't say "don't shoot". In fact that has been your mantra throughout this discussion. But it is a categorical fact that the forensic evidence does not prove what you claim it does, and that is confirmed by the St. Louis city Medical Examiner. Now you want to skip that and instead talk about whether robbing a store is a bad decision? No. Either defend the claims you have made repeatedly and consistently throughout this thread, or acknowledge that you were mistaken about that aspect of the case. Simply put: do you still believe the forensic evidence proves all the things you have claimed it proves?
I have a thought or two about your questions. Particularly #2:
" Why did the prosecutor in this case show all evidence (including evidence favourable to the defendant) to the grand jury, when it is common practice for a prosecutor to only show evidence that supports the case for indictment? (His job is to prosecute after all, not defend. The clue is in the title)."
I think a reasonable explanation might be that the prosecutor did not think there was enough evidence of a crime to charge the officer from the beginning. He did have much more information than the media had. So perhaps he was trying to avoid the obviously foreseeable accusations of "cover-up," (which still came, even with publishing of all of the evidence - pro and con), and let "the citizens" decide - through the form of a Grand Jury. That seems logical to me. If he did not think a crime had been committed, why should he be expected to push for a prosecution? Just because the public was demanding a head on a platter?
GAProcecutors try cases of crimes they do not feel have been committed? Just to shush the public, they go through the motions???
Prosecutor: Will the court please listen to me for a few minutes so that I may come up with a way to try this obviously innocent person?
Defendant: Thank you prosecutor. I thought I was in trouble. ???Was that sarcasm intended to say you disagree with that possibility?
I don't think I got it, because I don't think prosecutors bring criminal charges if they don't think a crime has been committed. And I do think that may have been the Ferguson prosecutor's opinion - after seeing the evidence available to him, not just the media portrayal of the evidence.
Yes, I do think the prosecutor decided to go the Grand Jury route solely because the public, (in this case), needed more than just "his" word for it. Yep, to appease the public.
GABut it is dishonest, and I'm quite sure unethical to try/charge an innocent person. It wastes money and makes you have to lie your ass off in court. (The place where they make you promise not to do that) it would be a bigger mess if the public finds that the prosecutor hada secret yyearning to say that the officer was innocent. It's trickery at its worse. Deception...a stageplay. It pisses me off a little to think it.
But didn't presenting all the evidence to the Grand Jury, (regardless of how he might have spun it), shine sunlight on the decision - rather than the very foreseeable outrage if he had made the decision to not prosecute on his own?
I suppose it boils down to whether you believe the evidence presented. I think it was pretty convincing in favor of no indictment. I suppose if you think there were shady tactics and manipulation in its presentation you might believe otherwise.
The transcript was pretty clear to me. I really don't see it as stage play. Given the mood of the community, I think anything less would have been even more explosive than what occurred after the no-indictment verdict. It appears you are still the view process as suspicious.
Oh well.
GAYeah suspicion.
Oh well... no skin off of anyone's nose, what I (the public) think. Hmmm... what, again, was the prosecutor's motivation?
I have never seen a prosecutor in courts for MY kind, present evidence favorable to "hood-rats". But, oh well...they do it for whom they wish.
Part of the problem? Well, let's just think about it...
Don W., here are some of the answers I do know from your list of questions.
1) If the police officer, as he testified during the grand jury, was punched in the face twice by a heavy set, 6ft 4 teenager, with such force that the officer believed the next punch would kill him, then why do the photos of the officer's face taken on the same day of the shooting show no apparent signs of injury other than a couple of red marks that are barely visible?
Often the bruising and underlying injuries will not show on a photograph. I know when I was in a car wreck, you would have never guessed that my zygomatic arch (cheek bone) and my mandible (jaw bone) were broken in two places. Fact is, unless they show x-rays and MRI/CT scans, often you will not see swelling of the tissue unless the tissue is torn. And since lay people cannot "read" x-rays and MRI/CT scans, they do not show them. A 2-D picture does not ever tell the story. Furthermore, people's threshold of pain differ. Men often have a lower threshold than women (and why it is good that men cannot give birth to children). So if he said he felt his life was in danger this may be part of the reason. The other part of the reason may be that he felt if he blacked out, that Brown would get his gun--then obviously leading to death.
2) Why did the prosecutor in this case show all evidence (including evidence favourable to the defendant) to the grand jury, when it is common practice for a prosecutor to only show evidence that supports the case for indictment? (His job is to prosecute after all, not defend. The clue is in the title).
During high profile cases this is always done. Prosecutor must show all sides to the grand jury as it is private. The defense attorneys are not allowed in the procedure, so the prosecutor can try to hide the exculpatory evidence later if it goes to an actual trial.
3) Why was the grand jury asked to consider the question of self-defense? That is not a grand jury's role. It's role is purely to determine that there is a basis for a criminal charge (accusatory) not to determine whether a defendant is guilty or innocent (adjudicatory). Adjudicating the guilt of innocence of a defendant is the purpose of a trail and the job of a trial jury alone.
I am guessing this has to do with the Use of Force Doctrine that are applicable in Missouri and not in most other states. The use of force consists of two parts: the amount of force that may lawfully be used on a continuum that includes deadly force; and the circumstances under which it may be used, including the level of imminent threat reasonably perceived by the member of law enforcement and the concern that a fleeing felon may harm the public. Doctrines are intended to balance security needs with ethical concerns for the rights and well-being of intruders or suspects. In the event that members of the public are injured, this may give rise to issues of self-defense as a justification. In the event of death during a reasonable use of force, this may be legally considered a justifiable homicide. The application of excessive force is considered Police brutality.
4) Why was the police officer given the opportunity to testify in his own defence to a grand jury? Will that same standard be applied to other defendants who claim self-defense, but who are not white, and not police officers?
Because he was the only officer there at the time of the incident. Had he had a partner, his partner would have filled this role. The same standards often do apply to other defendants who claim self defense--regardless of race or occupation.
5) Is it correct procedure for an officer involved in a fatal shooting to drive himself (with his firearm) back to the station house and wash away evidence (blood on his hands)?
Correct procedure varies from state to state and often city to city. However, the most practiced procedure I have seen is that the firearm is removed by the commanding officer at the scene and then the police officer involved can either drive himself or have another drive him back to the station. But let's face it, the St. Louis police department dropped the ball on many things that night.
6) Why was the interview with the officer about the fatal shooting not recorded?
Police Union Reps will not allow the recording of officer shootings. Blame the unions on this one.
7) Why did the County Medical Examiner take no measurements at the scene of a fatal shooting?
The County Medical Examiner often never takes measurements that are not pertaining to the body itself. Measurements at the scene are taken by the Crime Scene Investigation unit which is a division within the police department. Then these findings are sent to the medical examiner after all is thoroughly recorded. And often these findings take 1-2 weeks to get on official report.We don;t need to be concerned with was is "often" the case. We know exactly what the is because we have Darren Wilson's medical record. So let's have a look . . .
He was examined the day after the incident. It says he was "atraumatic". That mans he had no symptoms of shock.
It says he had "no palpable pain, swelling, ecchymosis [bruising] or deformity in bilateral orbital bones [eye sockets]"
Of his skin, it says: "no bleeding, no laceration, no ecchymosis [bruising]"
Ah but perhaps the damage isn't showing, like you say. Well let's have a look at his X-Ray results then (four were taken). Wilson was supposedly punched on the right side of his jaw. His x-ray results are: "the mandible [jaw] appears intact without fracture or dislocation".
So in summary, doctors found nothing wrong with him, other than some slight reddening of the skin which is consistent with being involved in a tussle. Yet he testified that he was punched in the face (twice) by someone that felt like they had the strength of "hulk hogan". This is exactly the sort of thing that a good prosecutor would rip to pieces at a jury trial with the witness under cross-examination (unless of course you have a prosecutor who for some reason doesn't want to go to trial and was doing everything he could to avoid doing so).
The grand jury is controlled by the prosecutor. S/he can show whatever evidence s/he wants and is not obligated to show exculpatory evidence at all. Fact: attorneys prosecuted 162,000 federal cases in 2010. Of those, only 11 failed to achieve an indictment. That means it is beyond rare not to achieve an indictment. Yet in the last few weeks we've had two cases fail to achieve indictments. What's the common denominator? The defendants were police officers. Is their race also a factor? That's a distinct possibility.
The role of the grand jury is not to consider whether the defendant is guilty. That is the role of a trial jury. The role of a grand jury is to establish that there is probable cause to indict a criminal suspect. There was probable cause in this case. The independent witness statements that contradicted the officer's account, as well as the inconsistencies in the officer's account (see injuries above) is more than enough to serve as probable cause to indict a suspect. Judge Scalia (the favorite SCOTUS judge those with right-wing sensibilities) explains it very well:
"It is the grand jury’s function not ‘to enquire … upon what foundation [the charge may be] denied,’ or otherwise to try the suspect’s defenses, but only to examine ‘upon what foundation [the charge] is made’ by the prosecutor. Respublica v. Shaffer, 1 Dall. 236 (O. T. Phila. 1788); see also F. Wharton, Criminal Pleading and Practice § 360, pp. 248-249 (8th ed. 1880). As a consequence, neither in this country nor in England has the suspect under investigation by the grand jury ever been thought to have a right to testify or to have exculpatory evidence presented."
Wilson was allowed to testify for hours and the prosecutor provided every single piece of exculpatory evidence available. He was under no obligation to do so. So the prosecutor ignored how grand jury's historically work in order to reduce the likelihood of Wilson being indicted. The fact is that there are several witnesses that contradict Wilson's self-defense claim. The prosecutor could have (should have) presented that (which is probable cause) and received an indictment in days not months, then prosecuted the case robustly on behalf of the state. That is his job. It is Wilson's lawyers' job to offer a robust defense. That's how a grand jury works, and is the reason it is so rare to fail to get an indictment.
The same standard "regardless of race or occupation"? Remember those 162,000 cases of which 11 only failed to achieve indictment. In Dallas, grand juries reviewed 81 shootings involving police defendants between 2008 and 2012. Only 1 returned an indictment. What's the difference, the defendants were all police officers. Let's be clear, it's not that those police officers were tried and found not guilty. They were never even tried. That suggests there is one standard for police, another standard for everyone else.
Dropped the ball? Is that what you'd call it? I'd call it highly unusual and suspect. From the ME not being able to take photos because his camera "ran out of batteries", and not taking any measurements because what happened was "self-explanatory", to the interview with Wilson not being recorded! Really? An officer has just fatally shot someone and there is no record made of the interview? That's more than dropping the ball. A former Florida police chief described these events as "totally unorthodox and unusual". Is this common for Ferguson PD? If so then who is accountable and what is being done about it? If it's not common, why did these things happen with this case?
Wrong. The sergeant who first took a statement from Wilson testified under oath in front of the grand jury that he did not record the statements because . . . "Number one, I did not have a recorder. Number two, I didn't take notes because at that point in time I had multiple things going through my mind besides what Darren was telling me." Was he lying? If so he should be indicted for perjury.
Wrong again. The ME who attended the incident gave the following testimony (P: prosecutor, ME: Medical Examiner)
P: I thought I heard you say, or if you didn't, let me ask the question, did you take measurements of anything?
ME:Yes, we can if we need to, yes.
P: Did you in this case?
ME: No ma'am
P: Because you didn't need to?
ME: Correct.
P: Why not?
ME: I got there, it was self explanatory what happened. Somebody shot somebody.
Sorry, but this is utterly unprofessional, and no amount of blind defending can change that. The distance between the officer and Mike Brown was a crucial piece of information (the police said it was 35ft, it was actually 150ft) because it relates directly to Wilson's self-defense claim. So much for "self-explanatory".
At this juncture, most of what you've said is just plain wrong. It's not so much a list of things you know, as a list of things you thought you knew, or just generalised about. The evidence is there. Take some time to actually read it. This case should have gone to trial. I'm certain it would have if the roles were reversed and the defendant was Mike Brown. But more importantly the people of Ferguson feel certain of that too. Whether he would have been found guilty or not is irrelevant. There was probable cause, therefore it should have gone to trial. No one is above the law, and that includes police officers.
Several different standards, depending on the criminal.... oh! I mean the state!
How do we handle THIS case???
Well who's the accused...? Should not be the next question.Is this fellow's perspective wrong and if so how? He seems to be practicing what he preaches and has employed it in his life successfully. http://www.westernjournalism.com/black- … dmRUEG2.01
Personally, his ideas must be great for him. What I think people fail to realize is, driving a BMW as a Black man who has his own sh*t together (obviously, or why else...) and having no "issues" with police, is in no way indicative of the fact that, "a change has come."
People really do trip me out with that one. Lol...
There is no gang in CHICAGO that would respond to civil unrest. They ARE civil unrest. Chicago has a slew of issues within the Black community and the police are just one of them.
We must find a way to stop the killing among black males; but that does NOT mean that the police should be allowed carte blanche in that area. They are held to a standard of law. Unlike the GD's, the Brothers, and Latin kings.Holy Cow! That was a long rant.
Does the fact I believe he was right make me a racist or white supremest? Isn't this the same kind of dialogue Bill Cosby was vilified for - before his current crisis that is.
Isn't this the same message that Ben Carson was called an "Uncle Tom" for?
GAThey all have a lot of valid points. Agreement with the rant here, doesn't make one racist. To me, it just further confirms that once one "makes it" from the bottom of the barrel to the middle, they breathe a little freer and find the gall to thumb their noses at the ones left at the bottom.
Most of the muck-dwellers are hopeless in some way. They have learned that they cannot do better via the systems in place.
One knock down after another can be discouraging. They need healing of the mind first... but who's gonna pay for that??? The government has TONS of dollars to lock them up... but the funds are really very low when it comes to things like help, education and rehabilitation. (Unless WALL STREET-their own kind- is in trouble. Because come hell or high water, our nation will gather funds to help their own kind. And she always has)
One "charge" after another, nearly guarantees perpetuation of the hopelessness of these sad excuses for humanness.
It's a sad situation, but one that is prevalent among our society.
Nose-thumbers will be judged too...Perhaps it is unsurprising, but I did not get the impression that fellow was thumbing his nose at the non-achievers. I took at more as a "why don't you get your act together" lecture.
He may live in the valley and drive a BMW now - but do we know what he did to get to that point?
How do we know that he didn't rise out of some gang controlled project? If he is an example that proves good life decisions and ambition can succeed, then where is the rationality of the "yeah but... " explanation?
As for the government dollars needed to "help"... come on, the amount of money spent on the "war on poverty" is a well-worn topic. It is not a lack of money or effort that is drowning the poor black communities - it is the lack of personal responsibility and effort, because it is hard.
"Who's gonna pay for that?" isn't the right question. Why should anybody have to pay for it. The better question is why aren't they trying again after getting knocked down? Apparently this guy kept trying, and succeeded. So what is stopping others from doing the same - except excuses?
GAWell, in my opinion, it's like the velvet rope at the poshest of theAters. Once the quota of patrons is reached, the rope latches across again.
No, the money spent on the war on poverty is a funny, funny joke.
We have people who need help. Hopelessness is an infectious disease. "They" know... that's why they help their own come hell or high water.
- ahorsebackposted 10 years ago0
Moving back towards the original post, "Are we witnessing Racial Creep ?" No , or should I say , not in the direction you might believe ! In the last sixty - seventy years , racism has diminished , yes diminished considerably . lets all take a step back in time - Separate water fountains , "Do Not Drink Here "," Get to the back of the bus" , " separate lockdown cells in jails , Black military personnel could not be on the front lines !
And how about the great Hollywood ? Anyone remember No major roles for blacks in movies , the music industry - Some of the greatest musicians ,singers , songwriters , of all time couldn't be recognized publically , Johnny Hartmann , couldn't stay in the same major hotels that he even filled the aisles with when he sang !
What about sports celebrities , take a look at today vs- fifty years go , Tell me that NFL, MBA , celebs have it harder than they used to !
Let's look at politics too ,the house , senate , congress , come on folks lets look at real facts , they're called statistics ! Was there a Congressional Black Caucus fifty years ago ?
Anyone who is really objective and has even basically researched , knows that racism in America today is almost .......I say almost , non-existent in the same context's , as was even fourty years ago .
Do we have far to go ? Of course we do ! Have we progressed in leaps and bounds , YES, we have . Perhaps just perhaps we can blame the always willing multi- media of today for constantly and shamefully fanning the flames of not just all out racial discourse but racism and hatred as well ! And We can blame the Al Sharpton's and the Jesse Jackson's of belonging to this same fire brigade of hatred too ! Are we witnessing racial creep , Yes , it's creeping back to a world of non- existence where it belongs .The BLACK anything gets on my nerves... we don't have White anything! But I've been told that it is because they are the "standard" and they're running things. There is no way to be considered equal, if we have "Black" labels on anything, in my opinion.
Racism is not, in your face, anymore. But it DEFINITELY still lives and breathes.
No, they cannot hang a sign that says, "We do not serve Blacks!" But they can, they have, and will again, make the "wrong" patrons wish they had chosen another place to eat.A nice breath of reality that I can understand and agree with.
But, in agreeing with ahorseback's comment, and my original disagreement with the point of the OP that started this thread...
The number of people in our society that fit the "they" shoe in your comment is a lot smaller now then it was years ago. And I believe it gets smaller with each generation.
GAI'm the OP. I'll state this again "Creep" means very slow as in insidious. It's like mission creep where they add troops to a conflict very slowly and in time it becomes a full blown war. Yes the Supreme Court and many others can say that racism is over, because we no longer have slavery and hangings and ride in the back of the bus, segregated bath rooms and drinking fountains. But IN MY VIEW, it has just changed it's form. Now it's about black people getting put in jail for possessing marijuana and changing their lives. It's about the police and others using excessive force when it is not required. It's about having grand juries instead of trials with a jury of your peers, and no indictments for the police officers. It's about killing black people so they cannot tell their side of the story as a witness. Yes, there are those of you that can say the same thing happens to white people and you can even cite cases, but statistically, it is not the same and does not have the same profound effect on the community.
I have not been in this forum in while, because I'm reading the Ferguson grand jury transcript. It's 286 pages and I'm reading every word and noting the discrepancies. I found many statements that require further questions that were never asked or were just glossed over. I'll be back with my list.Yes, the problems are pervasive at the law-enforcement levels.
The cops like a certain, "Lay your face in the dirt until we get this sorted out with you" type of compliance from Black men. A temptation, "creeping" to deadly for the black man.
Case in point: The man killed by the police for selling cigarettes. They wanted his face in the ground just because. So much so, one of the officers held his entire body weight on the man's head, into the ground.
Why??? The man had enough nerve to speak??? Well, yes!!!
Then the news flashes to a white cop talking to a white man...
"Ok, I'm gonna cuff you for my safety, ok???" Now, turn around." In a calm and gently soothing tone...
B to the S emphatically.
Liberty and justice, for ALL!!! Thanks!
Eyes wide shut is also a contributor.
- ahorsebackposted 10 years ago0
So , I've been on Hubpages for over four years now and have learned more than once , NOT to involve my reasoning in these forums . So at the urging of common sense and of these latest entries , I'm bowing out of this one now . The negativisms of these mindless debates should be enough in themselves . , but to imply that I'm a racist , is a bit too much ! Goodbye .
If you feel the implication to have come from me, rest easy. I haven't pegged you racist. (You're a bit of a mix, right?
)
My entire last comments were in response to the "rant" of the young man driving the BMW through the hood (and those like him), thumbing his nose at the hopeless idiots who are not as good in his opinion, as his own self. But, better off, in mine...
I'm still a loving kind of gal (loving you always) bout 4 years, so far...
GA, you cannot sign your name (initials) anymore... you're breaking forum rules. I wonder if you can sign someone elses name. You want to use my old one? Im not really using it anymore.
Thanks for the heads-up. I had not heard of that (new) rule. Some dumb. I will try to find the rationalization for it.
XX (aka GA)Just checked out the "signature" rule. I don't read it as applying to plain-text initials. I hope I am not wrong. Or that at least HP team will warn me before exiling me to the metabunk forums.
GAI like the double X. It's very James Bond... who also cannot sign his name. Maybe you could sign your social.
- ahorsebackposted 10 years ago0
Its just more important , for some at least , to keep this about race ! Rather than open their minds and hearts to what is right or wrong by law or by common sense . Lets ignore all fact or the at least the facts that grand juries and judges are accessing more info about all these cases , and instead of trying to examine about the real whys of our cultural divides, lets simply fall back on the simplest ,the mot exploited and sensationalized , and the easiest reasoning of all - lets call it a race issue !
There is no amount of explaining possible , to the closed mind ! - ahorsebackposted 10 years ago0
Kathryn , We must always work towards the light of goodness , of understanding , of wisdom ! And I guess with patience and understanding for those who can't or won't . +
O.K I finished reading every word of the 286 pages of the grand jury transcript testimony. The following were questioned by the assistant prosecutors: (Names were left out in the transcript. Everyone except Darrin Wilson was identified by title.):
Darrin Willson's boss (sgt,) St. Louis County Case Detective (det), and Darrin Wilson (dw).
As I read the transcript, I took notes. There were many discrepancies, inconsistencies, and areas that raises further questions that I found between (sgt) and (det) testimony. Here are my notes: from sgt testimony:
1. Didn't takes notes when questioning DW.
2. No blood from Michael Brown (MB)
3. Did not check for MB life signs
4. Told DW to leave crime scene and go back to police dept.
5. Told no blood inside vehicle
6. DW did not know about cigarillos.
7. Incident report not filed, because St. Louis County handling crime scene investigation
8. MB had his arms up when charging DW.
9. DW was allowed to drive himself un-escorted back to the station
10. County did not arrive until 1.5 hours after chief called.
11. "You shoot to neutralize the threat."
Here are my notes for County det testimony.
1. Cursory interview with DW not taped.
2. Det. introduced to DW with DW attorney present (Attorney from Fraternal Order of Police)
3.DW's gun had already been made safe and packaged as evidence. This is not normal procedure.
4. No blood on DW, red mark , right and left side of jaw, cheek area slightly swollen
5. DW driven by sgt to hospital
6.Did not use video during interview of DW by Det because room was too small to accommodate all present.
I'm not going to detail DW's testimony, but if you want to read it. Here is the link to the transcript. His testimony starts on page 195. http://digg.com/2014/darren-wilson-testimony-transcript
After reading his testimony, I will say this. I believe everything he had to say. When the prosecutors brought forth the hospital photos of his injuries, he tried to point out how severe his injuries were, but the photos did not support that. When questioned about that, he said the lighting wasn’t right or the angles were not right to show the injuries. However, after his x rays were reviewed and the hospital released him.
What the media is saying about MB having his arms up and charging him, did not take place on the side walk. It took place while DW was still in his car after DW shot him through the door. After MB raised his arms, he lowered them and proceeding to hit DW in the face.
While DW was grappling with MB, he was thinking about The Use of Force Triangle. This is a process that officers are taught for when a suspect does not come into compliance. It has several levels of increased force that are used to bring the suspect into compliance. If the officer feels that his life or others are in danger, he or she can LAWFULLY use lethal force. There were several points at which DW could do this.
1. When MB turned DW’s gun against him and tried to control it by attempting to put his finger inside the trigger guard and put his hand over the slide, thus causing DW’s weapon to misfire twice
2. When MB was running down the street away from the scene. WD felt MB could be a lethal threat to not only himself but to others.
3. When MB turned around and charged DW. DW stated he developed tunnel vision when MB turned and grabbed his waistband. DW stated at that point the only thing he could see was MB’s hand on his waistband. So he shot again thinking that he may have a weapon.
My question is if MB had a weapon, wouldn’t he use it long before that time? So WD’s perceived threat becomes a point of controversy. When a police officer perceives that his life or others may be in danger, he can lawfully use lethal force. It then becomes a question of perception and interpretation at that moment in time. There have been many shootings where officers believed they or others were in imminent danger, but it turned, they were wrong.
I come away from this analysis with the following conclusion:
1. If you are approached by an officer, you better damn well do what they say, because if you don’t your life could be in jeopardy.
2. I think indictment of officers by a grand jury are very rare, because the officer does not have to talk to anybody until he talks to his attorney first. The attorney for officers are from the Fraternal Order of Police officers (FOP).
3. The use of force triangle was originated by the military for time of war and law enforcement adapted it to their needs.
4. I think DW would have done the same thing if it were an altercation with a white person.
5. The description of the use of force triangle should be a Public Service Announcement broadcast to the nation. I have attached a graphic of the procedure.The most interesting, and encouraging part of your response is in your "final analysis" regarding your personal determination that the officer would have done the same thing if the attacker/victim were white.
I agree with this, but that perspective is a drastic change from your original post using this episode as proof of "racial creep."
I too wish the officer had been able to determine that other actions may have been applicable, and a life saved, but understanding what I do of the event and evidence. I think he was just doing his job.
Given what seemed to be the primary evidence determining the choice of indictment, I don't see the problems you find with the investigation procedures to be significant. What would they have changed? Which of the most important pieces of evidence in the decision making process would have been affected by any change?
Welcome back.
GA
This is what I said: "This latest shooting in Ferguson Missouri has me wondering, are these pent-up tensions caused by whites who never bought into the Civil Rights Act?"
I didn't mean to use this episode as an exhaustive proof of racial creep. Racial creep in my view is a trend.
Ferguson is just one case, I should have said "pen-up tensions nationally." There are many more, that could be racially motivated, But I do understand now how law enforcement uses the Force Triangle to escalate force to bring about compliance. And in a split second a decision could bring about tragedy. I'm empathetic with their plight.
Your are right the problems I found are not significant in terms of indictment, except for one and that is DW knew that MB did not have the means to be a lethal threat to him or others as he was running towards DW. He was shot many times and was going down. In my view there was no way he could do harm to DW. Again, that's the perceived threat. I'm sure in DW's mind, he felt he had to "neutralize" the situation in the fastest way possible...so he took him out.This is what you get when you make criminals out to be angelic victims.
" Reaction to the fatal shooting of two New York City police officers on Saturday by a gunman who, according to authorities, announced online that he was planning to shoot two "pigs" in retaliation for the police chokehold death of Eric Garner.
"They were, quite simply, assassinated targeted for their uniform and for the responsibility they embraced to keep the people of this city safe."
Congratulations to the race baiting machine of this Administration and the media.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/reac … s-27742581Sassy: So now it's the Obama administration and the media that caused this guy to go to Baltimore, shoot his ex girl friend, then go to Brooklyn, kill two police officers and then kill himself? How about in order to perform all of those acts, he was mentally ill?
No, you would rather blame Obama and his administration and the media for being a "race baiting machine" then see it for what it really is. How do you know what was in his mind? Granted, the fact that he was getting even was brought about by the news of Brown and Garner, but something triggered in his mind and I don't believe it was "race baiting."
This is what happens when mentally ill people have guns. It's shoot 'em up time in the old west! Perhaps it we had better gun control laws, this guy wouldn't of even had a weapon.
http://news.yahoo.com/two-nypd-officers … 37751.htmlYes fall to the mentally ill argument. Outside of performing law enforcement duties don't you think anyone who kills someone is some kind of mentally ill? Because I certainly do.
Yes because he is such an upstanding law abiding citizen that a gun LAW would have stopped him. Such logic. Really? Laws only impede the law abiding, not the criminal.
It had nothing to do with the "what do we want? dead cops! " chants at the Al Sharpton arranged protests right? Even though the suspect posted his plans on FB and stated they were to avenge Garner & Brown right?
Yes with their political cowtowing to criminals killed by police officers in the line of duty - attending funerals like they are some kind of heroes, and their now understated response to the killing of these two officers - they have exasperated it and condoned it
They have thrown the police under the bus with their words and actions and this is the result of that poor judgement.Sassy: The problem when mentally ill shoot others is the public doesn't know they are mentally ill until they commit the crime. They are below the radar because they need help. Reagan took away the funding for mental institutions and it has never been replaced. Also HIPPA plays a big role in client/patient confidentiality. Today, if you seek therapy, you will have a therapist and a psychologist. The therapist will talk to you about your issues and a separate person, a psychologist will only administer drugs and could care less about your issues and the two shall never meet.
Mentally ill shooters are under the radar and they don't break the law until they perform their acts. If he was unable to obtain a gun, this would not have happened. We need better care for those who are mentally ill and better gun control laws. The mantra about laws only impede law abiding doesn't work. This guy was unstable way before Ferguson and the other shootings became big news. There should be laws and enforcement that make it difficult for people like him to obtain guns.
Read this: http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-nyp … story.html"If he was unable to obtain a gun...
"There should be laws and enforcement that make it difficult for people like him to obtain guns."
There are. According to your link, he did not get the gun legally - it was stolen. What new gun control law would you propose to control that? A total ban?
"Reagan took away the funding for mental institutions and it has never been replaced.
Really? You want to pin this on Reagan for not funding institutionalization to whatever degree you feel is necessary?
GAHe stole the gun. No law will prevent that, got it?
Reagan now? Bush argument got old huh? Sorry, you don't get to blame Reagan. Obama had 2 years of total control to "fix" anything he wanted. He chose to push Obamacare down the throats of unwilling Americans. Blame Obama.
Don't know where you live but mental health care is accessible, available and done on an income tier out here in the boondocks where I am.Well maybe if there were less guns on the street, he wouldn't have been able to steal one. Obama had no control and still doesn't. The GOP congress stopped his every move. We all know about the NRA and how powerful they are. I get to blame Reagan because I remember when he shutdown the mental institutions and put those people on the streets and there has not been anything done since then.. He did it to curtail what he called "big government spending." What does Obama care have to do with law enforcement and killings on the streets?
There was no GOP congress for Obama's first two years. Got it? Fact check it. None, nada, zip. Dems held both chambers of Congress.
Less guns on the street - no, criminals will get guns. Regardless. I don't know what part of someone willing to kill people will do whatever they have to do in order to get a gun. Period. Outlawing drugs - do criminals still get drugs? Outlawed prostitution. Are there still prostitutes? Are their services still sought? Same with guns.
You said there was no mental health care because of Reagan. Obamacare was what the President felt was more important than fixing all those things your side like to blame on Republican Presidents.More aftermath of the appeasement of this Administration. Now, police officers aren't even supposed to shoot when a young black man points a gun at them. Ridiculous.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world … 44442.htmlI'm sorry, but I read nothing in your article about the appeasement of this administration. Or that police officers are not supposed to shoot. Why didn't he shoot him someplace that would not have been lethal? He could have still stopped him by shooting him in the leg or other non-lethal spot.. I have stated this before. Let's not call them cops or police officers, they are the law enforcement agency. If you do not comply with their commands, then they will start using the Use of Force triangle that they have been trained to use. It is supposed to be an escalation of force to bring you to the point of compliance. However in this case, there was no escalation because this law enforcement agent felt that he was going to be killed. Why do the patrol car cameras only work when the lights are on and why wasn't his body camera turned on?
I'm beginning to think the whole country needs to go to charm school, including you Sassy.Tons of appeasement.
Holder attends funeral of criminal.
Obama says "stay the course" while they are burning, rioting and looting.
Sharpton's organized mobs chant "what do we want? dead cops! when do we want 'em? Now!"
Obama promptly invites race baiter Sharpton to WH.
Lots and lots of appeasement.
Have no idea what your charm school comment is meant to suggest because no, I'll not be using charm if someone attacks me or breaks into my house.
I think you need some good old common sense and taught right from wrong apparently. If you point a gun at a cop, you have a more than good chance of getting shot. And if you get shot, you have a decent chance of being dead. But the cop should have shot him elsewhere. Please. So now cops can't protect themselves? Just over the deep end. Two men in a car, one points a gun at him and you expect him to sit there and go "oh wait- let's see now - might hit an artery in the leg and he'll bleed to death so no, not there, etc. Ridiculous.
To you, a dead cop is alright. A dead criminal is a crime. Absurd.
I know, I know. But he was such a good boy. Expelled form school with 17 arrests already including weapons charges and armed robbery.
I guess you just glanced over the part about how they threw bricks and attacked officers after the shooting huh? That part? Which is what I meant. Now they can't shoot armed criminals or it's racist.
Done with you.
- ahorsebackposted 10 years ago0
Michael Browns case is as much about "Race " , as these posts are about getting "hits " , there ! How about that . And , the only" racial creep "is right here in conversations like this .......those of us who chose to continue the keep the black and white divide in America part of an every day conversation ! Here's a question for you , what about the Chinese , the Hispanic , the Canadians ? Can we give all races the same coverage in the media as African Americans are getting in the last two decades or so ? Or is this all about political correctness ?
You'll have to ask the media that question. A squeaky wheel gets no grease and those that scream the loudest get the most attention. Comparing the black plight to other races is a false equivalence. Each race has it's own culture and it's own life circumstances that helps form its value and belief system...even in America!
Each race does have its own cultural class system , its own values and apparently its own agenda for media coverage , as well as its social and cultural sense of right and wrong ,. As to "false equivalence" , there seems to be a far greater importance placed on the African American race than all others completely in the media of late ! I personally blame the media , you're right about the squeaky wheel though , as long as that wheel squeaks it will get the most coverage from the our media . I wonder , for instance , how much attention the Native American would get if it asked for as much .
Many of the Native American tribes that I know of lost the battles, but they won the war. Many of the tribes now have casinos!
Related Discussions
- 18
Tucson SWAT Shot U.S. Marine Over 60 Times in Front of Family
by Reality Bytes 13 years ago
This is a terrible incident on both sides. I do not know what to say. Do You?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkOXjOCkQfMEdit: title of thread is title of video
- 8
Why are there so many shootings by Police Officers? Would it help if they didn't
by Peeples 9 years ago
Why are there so many shootings by Police Officers? Would it help if they didn't have guns?In 2013 Iceland had it's first person killed by a police officer shooting. This is because they do not typically carry guns as POs. Their communities are pro guns for sport (hunting) and many people own them...
- 91
Is Ferguson Just a Ferguson Problem?
by Don W 9 years ago
The recent DOJ report said there was a 'pattern and practice of constitutional violations (that primarily target African Americans) in stopping people without reasonable suspicion, arresting them without probable cause, and using unreasonable force.'The report is a scathing indictment of the...
- 45
Wright Was Being Arrested For Choking And Robbing Woman At Gun Point
by Sharlee 3 years ago
The warrant Wright was being arrested for was choking and robbing a woman at gunpoint... https://www.insider.com/daunte-wright-d … ice-2021-4And now he is BLM latest HERO! And a 26 vet of the police department is being villainized for trying to arrest a wanted criminal. We have had...
- 44
Do you think Americans still have racial tensions and is having ...
by Renee S 13 years ago
an African American president made it worse or better in your opinion?
- 28
Police Brutality. A murder of an unarmed young black man.
by realtalk247 10 years ago
FERGUSON, Mo. (AP) reported — An unarmed18-year-old black man was shot and killed by a suburban St. Louis police officer was unarmed. Several protesters were angry that Brown's body remained on the street for hours after the killing. Brown was a 2014 Normandy High School graduate who was to...