Police Power and Racial Tensions in Ferguson, Missouri

[Stoked]

I agree. That **** costs money though. Tax payer money. Furguson will be spending any extra cash they may have had, cutting departmental budgets, and maybe even bonding to clean up the city that these dumb *** morons destroyed, so don't get your hopes up for their PD getting cameras anytime soon.

Well the Ferguson PD bought dashboard cameras but had not installed them yet at the time of the shooting.

 

[One Brow]

The problem is that everything in the original narrative proposed by the press, protesters, and Brown's family turns out to be a lie. Everything.

You have a reason to believe Brown was armed? That he was a threat?

... trying to suppress the video from the cigar store.

Why is this video relevant at all, except to tarnish the victim?

But because he was Hispanic and not black:

Over the years, I've seen stories of all sorts of people who were involved in these police raids, and no one cared. No one cared about Michael Brown, either, until the riots started. The notion that it was a black victim that triggered the press coverage is ignorant and fantastical.

SO why wasn't anyone interested then?

No riots.

 

[One Brow]

So a cop with no complaints record has less credibility than a man who just robbed a store?

I don't know what Wilson is saying. I do know that police are now being trained in the justification of the use of lethal force, and that Wilson would respond to such training.

I don't want to hear that we don't know that it's him in that video. We know. Even his buddy has admitted that it was them.

I believe Johnson when he admits he and Brown robbed the store (he has something to lose by saying this), and I believe Johnson when he says Brown was standing with his hands raised (he has nothing to gain by saying this). You believe Johnson in the first case, but not the second. Hopefully, you'll appreciate why I find your position inconsistent in general, and convenient for you.

If this is true, does the cop not have every right to protect himself by eliminating the threat?

If this is true, sure. However, you asked which side I find more believable.

Michael Brown's credibility went right out the window as soon as the robbery video posted.

Irrelevant, since Michael Brown won't be testifying.

The cop may have been able to deescalate the situation without killing him,

The cop could have avoided escalating the situation at all. Again, I notice you don't have any compunction about judging Michael Brown, while being reluctant to judge the cop. That's very convenient.

but I'm not going to judge him on that because in situations like that you have little time to think.

What a shame Wilson had no training in the use of force to rely on in these situations. [/sarcasm]

It may also end up being decided that Wilson carries some blame. But even then I don't care.

Yes, you have made that perfectly clear.

 

[One Brow]

I also think that the authorities need to apprehend Michael Brown's accomplice on the charge of robbery, and put the squeeze on him and make him tell the truth.

What's the truth?

The crazy thing about something like this is, those people in Ferguson are fighting for a guy who is threat to them.

Gosh, he was a tall, strong, black man. What an obvious threat to everyone around him.[/sarcasm]

It's bizarre how messed up that type of thinking is.

Someone thinking here is bizarrely messed up.

 

[One Brow]

If he was really high at the time of the incident, it could have had an effect on his behavior.

If he was high, sure. There mere presence of marijuana does not mean he was high, and there are no other indications he was.

Depressants like pot and alcohol affect people differently.

Pot is not a depressant. I agree it does affect some people differently.

I agree they should be tried and arrested, but how do you do that when it will only incite more violence?

So far, there has been no protest or violence following the arrest of various looters. I don't worry about unicorns or giant blue oxen.

It has to do where the protest will have the most exposure to make a change. Why protest at all if you are advocating change? If you think your neighborhood, comprised mostly of blacks, is being oppressed and violated by the white police force, what neighborhood should be you be looting and vandalizing?

Protests tend to congregate around the location of the perceived injustice. It's part of human nature.

Who said anything about a peaceful protest? Actual peaceful protests are actually more difficult for the police to stop.

This is very naive on your part.

When the violence occurs it gives the police carte blance to shut it down to protect the safety of everyone.

In wealthier neighborhoods, they already have carte blanche. Plus, how would these protests get organized non-locally, without local approval or assistance? If these protesters move to Clayton or Maryland Heights, they become a mob in the eyes of the locals.

This is more or less the status quo of these protests. Poor people destroying their neighborhoods. And the outside world doesn't care too much.

Agreed.

 

[One Brow]

He is probably assuming he is being shook down because of the robbery.

Spoken like someone who doesn't get hassled by police on a regular basis, for no particular reason.

Which would explain why he would do anything to escape. In his mind, he is going to jail for a long time.

Over $10 worth of cigarellos?

 

[Stoked]

You have a reason to believe Brown was armed? That he was a threat?

Why is this video relevant at all, except to tarnish the victim?

Over the years, I've seen stories of all sorts of people who were involved in these police raids, and no one cared. No one cared about Michael Brown, either, until the riots started. The notion that it was a black victim that triggered the press coverage is ignorant and fantastical.

No riots.

Armed? No

A threat? possibly

The video is relevant because it shows that Brown would have been thinking about it. I disagree with them just releasing the video like they did though. It should have been shown in any court proceedings to establish Brown's character and frame of mind at the time.

I agree that the riots amped up the attention that this story was getting (dramatically so) but I would argue that it is the wrong kind of attention. It serves to indirectly tarnish Michael Brown even further as people start associating Brown to these riots. It also brings in people like Al Sharpton. IMO all he does is make more people shut down and ignore the problem. At least I know that I personally have no interest in anything he says.

Edit: Also the arrests made by police are further fueling the tension and violence. This is proven to me by the escalation in violence. Such as the use of molotov cocktails, shootings and rocks being thrown at police. Those taking part in the violence can say whatever they want about the reasons but they have 0 credibility in my eyes. They ruined businesses, lives, property, the peaceful protests, the public and police opinions about the protests and tarnished this case even further. Shameful

 

[One Brow]

Others have already commented with the same incredulity that I'm feeling, so I'll just save my comment. That being said, would you mind explaining to me how you come to your answer? I'm not trolling, I sincerely want to know if I've missed something huge.

Basically, do you believe the guy who acknowledged a prior bad act and has nothing to gain or lose by lying (Johnson), or do you believe the guy who has been trained in the justification of lethal force and has everything to lose (Wilson)? I'm not saying there is conclusive evidence, but I know where I put my chips on that one.

 

[One Brow]

How dare white guys have opinions. Or even talk about a case that involves anyone not white.

How dare anyone point out that white people's opinions on a matter are not completely trustworthy and clear.[/sarcasm]

Really, white men get so damn sensitive about people pointing out their ignorance. No one said you weren't allowed an opinion.

 

[One Brow]

If a black cop shoots a white dude in similar circumstances it is not national news.

It wasn't national news when the white cop shot the black guy in Ferguson, either; nor was it news when there was a protest. What made it news was rioting.

 

[JAZZGASM]

Basically, do you believe the guy who acknowledged a prior bad act and has nothing to gain or lose by lying (Johnson), or do you believe the guy who has been trained in the justification of lethal force and has everything to lose (Wilson)? I'm not saying there is conclusive evidence, but I know where I put my chips on that one.

If both Brown and Johnson cooperated with hands up, why did Wilson let Johnson live and shoot Brown then? If you are going to commit murder, why leave a key witness to your crime?

 

[One Brow]

To sum things up from having barely skimmed the last 10 ages, it now appears evident that the deceased did in fact rob some store with some other guy by the last name Brown, if my memory is correct. The deceased did in fact go after the cop, whether it was to bumrush him or get his gun which the officer may or may have not been drawing. Now, the lunger is dead.

Is this accurate?

Johnson (the witness) acknowledges the robbery, but to my knowledge, is still saying that Brown was standing still with arms raised by being shot.