guys impeding traffic on the street won't be stopped? Like I said before, once you are confronted, the ship has sailed.
Profiling is a problem that must be resolved. But, so is the reaction to being stopped. People take personal offense.
While inconvenient, if you are stopped and let go, has there really been harm done? That's another problem. Christ, I know people who get stopped going 15 miles over the limit speeding and flip out as if the cop should have better things to do.
guys impeding traffic on the street won't be stopped? Like I said before, once you are confronted, the ship has sailed.
Profiling is a problem that must be resolved. But, so is the reaction to being stopped. People take personal offense.
While inconvenient, if you are stopped and let go, has there really been harm done? That's another problem. Christ, I know people who get stopped going 15 miles over the limit speeding and flip out as if the cop should have better things to do.
Hmmm...if I'm walking down the street with my family and get stopped for no reason...or if I'm just standing in front of my apartment and someone comes up to search me...sure some harm has been done. You make it seem like there's always a legitimate reason why people get stopped. No one is speeding, impeding traffic, or any other infractions. Some people are just being who they are...fitting a profile.
Taking the stance that complying will more often than not save your life, or at the very least make it a lot easier, regardless of the reason you've been stopped?
Or believing that it's realistic to hold police officers to such a high standard that they no longer become human, and can act completely void of emotion, and with computer like accuracy in deciphering a situation and reacting to it in seconds with 100% accuracy leaving any doubt into their actions?
One of those doesn't take much work or thought to start saving lives immediately, including the two individuals we've been talking about.
guys impeding traffic on the street won't be stopped? Like I said before, once you are confronted, the ship has sailed.
Profiling is a problem that must be resolved. But, so is the reaction to being stopped. People take personal offense.
While inconvenient, if you are stopped and let go, has there really been harm done? That's another problem. Christ, I know people who get stopped going 15 miles over the limit speeding and flip out as if the cop should have better things to do.
It's a really tough job being a police officer. That's why they give them weapons. They're going to be on the wrong end of bad behavior every single day.
But when the lives of unarmed citizens in particular is, literally, in their hands, the burden is always on them to be the better actor.
If the rest of us did the right thing all the time, we wouldn't need them.
So believing that people will be compliant 100% of the time is
If you agree that people aren't always going to comply, then you have to have some sort of standard for the amount of force used. And with that standard comes negative consequences for not following it. EXACTLY like there are negative consequences for not complying.
He told me the same thing. If you get stopped, just do what they tell you. White, black, male, female, doesn't matter.
Of course the issue is that black males will get stopped more often. Is it profiling? Yes. Everyone profiles everyone. It's just the way it is. Hopefully it will change. But there must be change on both sides. Cops have to stop profiling, but if you are stopped, don't post a threat to the cop or you will put yourself in danger. That goes for everyone.
is once people aren't compliant, the 100% chance they will remain unharmed plummets.
police deal with drunk and disorderly people all the time. Nightly. they also deal with aggressive people daily. The vast majority of those cases don't end up with a dead man. heck, the vast majority of officers getting punched don't end up with a dead man, they end with an arrest.
Compliance ensures safety. non-compliance brings chance into the mix.
Taking the stance that complying will more often than not save your life, or at the very least make it a lot easier, regardless of the reason you've been stopped?
Or believing that it's realistic to hold police officers to such a high standard that they no longer become human, and can act completely void of emotion, and with computer like accuracy in deciphering a situation and reacting to it in seconds with 100% accuracy leaving any doubt into their actions?
One of those doesn't take much work or thought to start saving lives immediately, including the two individuals we've been talking about.
You keep coming back to the portion of your argument that no one is arguing with.
Eric Garner got choked to death by police. Now he was also obese and asthmatic. So you could also make the argument if he was in better shape, the officer's choke-hold may not have killed him. If one's inclined to look at everything the victim could have/should have done differently, anyway.
I don't think the police have to be 100% perfect. Just 1% better than the people they're dealing with. If you're not holding the good guys to a higher standard than the bad guys, why make the distinction?
Taking the stance that complying will more often than not save your life, or at the very least make it a lot easier, regardless of the reason you've been stopped?
Or believing that it's realistic to hold police officers to such a high standard that they no longer become human, and can act completely void of emotion, and with computer like accuracy in deciphering a situation and reacting to it in seconds with 100% accuracy leaving any doubt into their actions?
One of those doesn't take much work or thought to start saving lives immediately, including the two individuals we've been talking about.
You keep coming back to the portion of your argument that no one is arguing with.
Eric Garner got choked to death by police. Now he was also obese and asthmatic. So you could also make the argument if he was in better shape, the officer's choke-hold may not have killed him. If one's inclined to look at everything the victim could have/should have done differently, anyway.
I don't think the police have to be 100% perfect. Just 1% better than the people they're dealing with. If you're not holding the good guys to a higher standard than the bad guys, why make the distinction?
is once people aren't compliant, the 100% chance they will remain unharmed plummets.
police deal with drunk and disorderly people all the time. Nightly. they also deal with aggressive people daily. The vast majority of those cases don't end up with a dead man. heck, the vast majority of officers getting punched don't end up with a dead man, they end with an arrest.
Compliance ensures safety. non-compliance brings chance into the mix.
I don't think anyone is actually arguing against that are they?
is once people aren't compliant, the 100% chance they will remain unharmed plummets.
police deal with drunk and disorderly people all the time. Nightly. they also deal with aggressive people daily. The vast majority of those cases don't end up with a dead man. heck, the vast majority of officers getting punched don't end up with a dead man, they end with an arrest.
Compliance ensures safety. non-compliance brings chance into the mix.
If people were 100% compliant, again, we wouldn't need police. The police already have the scales tipped in their favor by being armed with deadly force. It should be the very last resort. That doesn't appear to have been the case with Eric Garner. Ferguson, we'll see. But (let's say) a punch versus 6 bullets? Or a punch versus even one bullet? That's a disproportionate response, no?
is once people aren't compliant, the 100% chance they will remain unharmed plummets.
police deal with drunk and disorderly people all the time. Nightly. they also deal with aggressive people daily. The vast majority of those cases don't end up with a dead man. heck, the vast majority of officers getting punched don't end up with a dead man, they end with an arrest.
Compliance ensures safety. non-compliance brings chance into the mix.
I don't think anyone is actually arguing against that are they?
The ones putting all of the blame on the cops are pretty much doing just that.
of a man who became agitated when confronted by police and they didn't shoot him, but he ended up dead nonetheless.
Once an officer is forced to physically subdue somebody, the chances of getting harmed rise.
If you have a 300+pound man who is non-compliant, what means do you have to deal with him? I've heard they should have tasered him. what if he died from that?
Non-compliance is often a lose-lose for ALL parties. Do you think police want to arrest people?
If a cop responds with disproportionate force, he deserves every bit of blame, no?
In the case in the OP, it doesn't seem like they did.
With Michael Brown, it's starting to look like Wilson may have acted within the law. If it's found that he didn't, doesn't he deserve some blame for Brown's death?
I think when they take the job, they're pretty much aware it's going to come up. Some probably like it, yeah. Hopefully, a really, really small percentage.
Do you think people want to be killed? (Rhetorical.)
We're at the bottom of this hole. Have a good afternoon.
If I'm aggressive towards a police officer, I expect to get arrested if it is verbal and manhandled and cuffed if it is physical. Oh and yes, a chance I'd end up dead, too.
But don't you see the craziness in this statement? They make all the rules, so we should just shut our mouths and comply or else risk, arrest or even death?
Not saying I advocate mouthing off or getting physical with them, but to raise concern about the reason for such treatment is being sacrificed so that we won't get killed by the very people who have the duty to protect their fellow citizens?
I think what gets lost a lot in these discussions is the actual purpose of the police and of the law itself. IMO, there's a little bit of a trade-off and we look at the police officer as only an aggressor and never a protector. In reality his aggression to us is a consequence of the environment or times or history where some event occurred that is not desirable for repetition. It comes back to the security/freedom question and, with apologies to Franklin, we do all trade to some extent. I think part of the compliance and politeness even when you haven't done anything is part of that trade-off. Sure, it can go out of bounds and over the top, but it can go that way in both directions and if the police had done too little to challenge a person and a crime had resulted, then we would complain there too.
using disproportionate force deserves to be punished, but there are so many cases where it is difficult to determine that.
At face value, getting punched shouldn't mean unloading 6 shots in a guy, but if it a guy who is being punched by a 300 pound man, who has been aggressive an non-compliant and seems to still be a threat, some measure has to be taken. I would guess that Officer wilson questions what he did ever since the event happened. This will have changed his life forever, all for the way he responded. Believe me, every police man realizes this can happen. Like I said above, no officer looks to be violent, but once they are forced to, all bets are off.
sadly, wilson could have done everything he was supposed to do, especially if his gun was ever in threat of being compromised and he will still be seen as a villian in the eyes of a lot of people.
If people were 100% compliant, again, we wouldn't need police.
I'm exclusively talking about compliance when in direct contact with an officer of the law issuing a personal order to you.
Not compliance with the law in general.
I get the distinction. But I also make distinctions between armed and unarmed. And the behavior I expect from those inclined to break the law versus those entrusted to enforce it. I expect more from the former. You seem to weight them equally. I don't get that expectation. At this point, I'm not thinking that clarity is forthcoming, so we're wasting our time now. You have a (sincerely) good afternoon.
I think Melvin Santiago is a good, and relevant, counter example.
using disproportionate force deserves to be punished, but there are so many cases where it is difficult to determine that.
At face value, getting punched shouldn't mean unloading 6 shots in a guy, but if it a guy who is being punched by a 300 pound man, who has been aggressive an non-compliant and seems to still be a threat, some measure has to be taken. I would guess that Officer wilson questions what he did ever since the event happened. This will have changed his life forever, all for the way he responded. Believe me, every police man realizes this can happen. Like I said above, no officer looks to be violent, but once they are forced to, all bets are off.
sadly, wilson could have done everything he was supposed to do, especially if his gun was ever in threat of being compromised and he will still be seen as a villian in the eyes of a lot of people.
It's a shitty situation, for sure. And I do really hope Wilson did everything right.
using disproportionate force deserves to be punished, but there are so many cases where it is difficult to determine that.
At face value, getting punched shouldn't mean unloading 6 shots in a guy, but if it a guy who is being punched by a 300 pound man, who has been aggressive an non-compliant and seems to still be a threat, some measure has to be taken. I would guess that Officer wilson questions what he did ever since the event happened. This will have changed his life forever, all for the way he responded. Believe me, every police man realizes this can happen. Like I said above, no officer looks to be violent, but once they are forced to, all bets are off.
sadly, wilson could have done everything he was supposed to do, especially if his gun was ever in threat of being compromised and he will still be seen as a villian in the eyes of a lot of people.
Sadly for some people he likely would have had to have been killed by Brown in order for him to completely avoid any blame.
vibe, I doubt we're actually all that far apart in our beliefs.
that is very true. I don't think much of the opinion is all that different. It is a nuanced argument.
My wife is often accused by her sister as living in a world of rainbows and Care bears. Frankly, our lives have been relatively free from conflict, tragic or early death, or poor upbringings.
As a result, I tend to think that the vast majority of people want to do the right thing. That people working in a profession want to uphold the ideals of that profession. i give people the benefit of the doubt, in life, and in events like this. Hell, I spend a good portion of the football season on BBI defending players, coaches and FO guys that are routinely killed here for the most minor of infractions.
I recognize that not all share my optimism. To me, the biggest issue in this shooting isn't the event itself. It is that it could have been lessened in magnitude if people didn't immediately demand "justice" or retribution. A crime is a crime whether it is dealt with one day later or several days later, and not waiting to find out what happened just cost a lot of innocent people their livlihoods. That to me is the true issue.
And I think it was Eric Allen that when asked his views on this said something to the effect that it could have been anyone of his four boys who was gunned down and how wrong it was.
No mention by him of the strong armed robbery or alleged assault on the officer. If course nobody challenged him in any way by bringing any of those things up either and only thanked him for his thoughtful wise insight.
It is so obvious that many people will excuse Brown's behavior and blame the policeman to the extent that there really is nothing an officer can likely do in that situation that would satisfy some people.
The sad part is that this type of one sided thinking is broadcasted by networks. Even sports networks.
You also have people saying that because he robbed the store and has a picture floating around the internet of him giving a peace sign that he is a "savage" and a "thug" and deserved to be put down.
the assumption is that Brown was stopped simply for being black. Not because he was impeding traffic and was most likely causing a disturbance.
Everything else has built off of that faulty premise from the characterization of him being a "Gentle Giant" to the "Hands up, Don't shoot" rally like he was a meek kid gunned down as he peacefully surrendered. That's why I find the biggest issue to be the rush to judgement because it has perpetrated a host of myths.
You also have people saying that because he robbed the store and has a picture floating around the internet of him giving a peace sign that he is a "savage" and a "thug" and deserved to be put down.
That true and saying he deserved to die is wrong, but to tell you the truth I have seen any commentary saying that, although I am sure I missed some at least. I have seen all kinds of comments on major news networks all along the lines of claiming he was simply gunned down for stealing cigars and none of the other facts were brought up to bring in any perspective. Another example was yesterday I watched Spike Lee ranting about it yesterday and given a platform to say anything without any challenge or counter points being raised?
the assumption is that Brown was stopped simply for being black. Not because he was impeding traffic and was most likely causing a disturbance.
Everything else has built off of that faulty premise from the characterization of him being a "Gentle Giant" to the "Hands up, Don't shoot" rally like he was a meek kid gunned down as he peacefully surrendered. That's why I find the biggest issue to be the rush to judgement because it has perpetrated a host of myths.
Yes but when people are still saying these things on major networks as of yesterday and allowed to without any of the other facts being raised there is something horribly wrong.
which is why I really feel the Media has fueled this incident and incidents like it in recent history.
Their need to fill air space leads to meaningless interviews, questionable "expert" opinion, and an over reliance on biased information to keep the story "hot".
I was just reading an article about the media response and
It doesn't draw conclusions, but it's an interesting read. He'll , it doesn't even speak of content, just number of tweets and minutes of air time devoted.
I think you are spot on. Officers are making split second decisions about their own safety. One bad decision and they are dead or hurt very badly. Does that mean they all behave properly? No. But in the Brown case, it appears like this officer did the right thing.
I hope it gets Ben Crump and Daryl Parks out of the way permanently.They are evil men.
by the time you un-holster and fire, and that's if you are ready and the first shot is usually the least accurate. Police also have to be aware of their surroundings and people in harms way. A bad guy doesn't care if he shoots innocent by standards. Plus a bullet doesn't instantly kill somebody in most cases, like the shows suggest. With adrenaline, many people won't even feel too injured even if they are about to die.
should wait for all the facts a week ago are no longer waiting for all the facts.
While my opinion of the events have certainly changed since this all began and as more "testimony" and evidence came out, certainly there is much more to come... Yet nobody seems to be asking everyone to wait for all of the facts anymore?
I think many people are waiting for the facts. I only stepped into this discussion a few days in because of the constant Sonic Youth-like demonization of the cops.
Ultimately the truth will probably lie somewhere in between. A kid made some really poor choices and a cop killed him when other means might have been just as effective in stopping him.
Ultimately, the facts will probably say there is fault on both ends, but not criminal fault, just like in the Zimmerman case, especially so since Wilson is an officer and has to make a quick decision on how to handle the perpetrator.
The end result is that blacks are going to feel disenfranchised and cops are going to feel more and more threatened. It is a lose-lose for all of us, mainly because people jumped to convict a cop hours after an incident happened.
I think it is a lose-lose because of the rush to convict.
If this had been a black on black or a white on white killing, there might have been some local repurcussions, but it wouldn't have reached National status.
In fact, there had been at least 4 instances of unarmed people being killed by same race officers in July, all which seem to be treated as justifiable at this point. One month later, there is no furor over them.
One day after this event, we had people mischaracterizing both the victim and the cop and it continues when guys like Ben Crump keep calling it an execution or when hundreds of people chant "Hands Up, Don't Shoot" nightly.
If this had been a black on black or a white on white killing, there might have been some local repurcussions, but it wouldn't have reached National status.
In fact, there had been at least 4 instances of unarmed people being killed by same race officers in July, all which seem to be treated as justifiable at this point. One month later, there is no furor over them.
It's the circumstances of the incident.
I agree, the media has certainly played a part. But your example shows that it was the circumstances of this particular incident (white cop shoots unarmed black teen) that made it national news.
The other incidents as you have pointed out didn't incite the furor that this one has- not because of the media- because of the circumstances.
Did you read the pew link? Twitter had a hold of this before any news outlet. That wasn't 'the media'. That was twitter users. If anything, it was the 'outrage' of twitter users that attracted the media in the first place. To your point- yep, they didn't have all of the facts, but what they did have were the basic circumstances that made this a national story- the media didn't make that part up.
Let me ask you this. If George Zimmerman was named Jorge Gonzalez, would that incident have been a national story?
I highly doubt it. It made news because social Media INITIALLY took the stance that a white man gunned down a black kid.
That's also why later descriptions of Zimmerman called him a White Hispanic, not because it was some little-use Census categorization, but because they needed to keep the white on black angle going.
Let me ask you this. If George Zimmerman was named Jorge Gonzalez, would that incident have been a national story?
I highly doubt it. It made news because social Media INITIALLY took the stance that a white man gunned down a black kid.
That's also why later descriptions of Zimmerman called him a White Hispanic, not because it was some little-use Census categorization, but because they needed to keep the white on black angle going.
The basic facts were reported correctly in Ferguson and those are what lead to the rush in judgement and the (still) perceived injustice.
In the Zimmerman case, the basic facts were not initially correct- specifically the race of curious George. And the "rush to judgement" didn't really occur until after the 911 tapes were released.
There is a huge difference between the reaction of both the media and twitter users in these two cases (IMO because one involves a white Police Officer):
The two are about two different, although somewhat related things: White citizens mistrusting and mistreating innocent black kids (Martin) and Law Enforcement mistrusting and mistreating innocent black kids (Brown). There's a big distinction there. One speaks to institutional racism in a way, while the other doesn't.
And to answer your question, of course not. For whatever reasons that we probably shouldn't get into here, brown on brown crime doesn't make the headlines for the most part.
The basic facts were reported correctly in Ferguson and those are what lead to the rush in judgement and the (still) perceived injustice.
Like a black kid died at the hands of a white officer. Because many other details were wrong. The "Hands Up" mantra. That he was a gentle giant who never had any problems. That there was a peaceful surrender.
Frankly, it seems like a lot was misreported.
No. That an unarmed black kid was killed by a white cop.
The rest I agree added a bunch of fuel to the fire.
I think we mostly agree- I just think the media didn't create this issue. They helped to build it to where it got after 'regular people' had already started the outrage.
on misrepresentations of his race. I can think of cases in which black people were shot by white males that weren't remotely as well publicized. I bet most of BBI wouldn't recognize the names of Michael Dunn or Theodore Wafer. Their cases didn't get the same coverage because arrests were made relatively quickly and the families felt like justice was served. Both men were eventually convicted.
On the other side is the Sean Bell case. I don't think anger lessened over his death and the subsequent non-charges because 3 of the 4 officers involved were black or hispanic. Bell's fiancee didn't choose not to sue the city because of the race of the officers.
So if GZ's name was Jorge Gonzalez and everything else in the case was the same, I think it still would've been a major story.
Profiling is a problem that must be resolved. But, so is the reaction to being stopped. People take personal offense.
While inconvenient, if you are stopped and let go, has there really been harm done? That's another problem. Christ, I know people who get stopped going 15 miles over the limit speeding and flip out as if the cop should have better things to do.
Profiling is a problem that must be resolved. But, so is the reaction to being stopped. People take personal offense.
While inconvenient, if you are stopped and let go, has there really been harm done? That's another problem. Christ, I know people who get stopped going 15 miles over the limit speeding and flip out as if the cop should have better things to do.
Hmmm...if I'm walking down the street with my family and get stopped for no reason...or if I'm just standing in front of my apartment and someone comes up to search me...sure some harm has been done. You make it seem like there's always a legitimate reason why people get stopped. No one is speeding, impeding traffic, or any other infractions. Some people are just being who they are...fitting a profile.
Or believing that it's realistic to hold police officers to such a high standard that they no longer become human, and can act completely void of emotion, and with computer like accuracy in deciphering a situation and reacting to it in seconds with 100% accuracy leaving any doubt into their actions?
One of those doesn't take much work or thought to start saving lives immediately, including the two individuals we've been talking about.
Profiling is a problem that must be resolved. But, so is the reaction to being stopped. People take personal offense.
While inconvenient, if you are stopped and let go, has there really been harm done? That's another problem. Christ, I know people who get stopped going 15 miles over the limit speeding and flip out as if the cop should have better things to do.
It's a really tough job being a police officer. That's why they give them weapons. They're going to be on the wrong end of bad behavior every single day.
But when the lives of unarmed citizens in particular is, literally, in their hands, the burden is always on them to be the better actor.
If the rest of us did the right thing all the time, we wouldn't need them.
Because that's what's basically being said.
"Just comply, you'll be fine."
If you agree that people aren't always going to comply, then you have to have some sort of standard for the amount of force used. And with that standard comes negative consequences for not following it. EXACTLY like there are negative consequences for not complying.
Of course the issue is that black males will get stopped more often. Is it profiling? Yes. Everyone profiles everyone. It's just the way it is. Hopefully it will change. But there must be change on both sides. Cops have to stop profiling, but if you are stopped, don't post a threat to the cop or you will put yourself in danger. That goes for everyone.
police deal with drunk and disorderly people all the time. Nightly. they also deal with aggressive people daily. The vast majority of those cases don't end up with a dead man. heck, the vast majority of officers getting punched don't end up with a dead man, they end with an arrest.
Compliance ensures safety. non-compliance brings chance into the mix.
Or believing that it's realistic to hold police officers to such a high standard that they no longer become human, and can act completely void of emotion, and with computer like accuracy in deciphering a situation and reacting to it in seconds with 100% accuracy leaving any doubt into their actions?
One of those doesn't take much work or thought to start saving lives immediately, including the two individuals we've been talking about.
You keep coming back to the portion of your argument that no one is arguing with.
Eric Garner got choked to death by police. Now he was also obese and asthmatic. So you could also make the argument if he was in better shape, the officer's choke-hold may not have killed him. If one's inclined to look at everything the victim could have/should have done differently, anyway.
I don't think the police have to be 100% perfect. Just 1% better than the people they're dealing with. If you're not holding the good guys to a higher standard than the bad guys, why make the distinction?
Quote:
Taking the stance that complying will more often than not save your life, or at the very least make it a lot easier, regardless of the reason you've been stopped?
Or believing that it's realistic to hold police officers to such a high standard that they no longer become human, and can act completely void of emotion, and with computer like accuracy in deciphering a situation and reacting to it in seconds with 100% accuracy leaving any doubt into their actions?
One of those doesn't take much work or thought to start saving lives immediately, including the two individuals we've been talking about.
You keep coming back to the portion of your argument that no one is arguing with.
Eric Garner got choked to death by police. Now he was also obese and asthmatic. So you could also make the argument if he was in better shape, the officer's choke-hold may not have killed him. If one's inclined to look at everything the victim could have/should have done differently, anyway.
I don't think the police have to be 100% perfect. Just 1% better than the people they're dealing with. If you're not holding the good guys to a higher standard than the bad guys, why make the distinction?
No. He didn't.
police deal with drunk and disorderly people all the time. Nightly. they also deal with aggressive people daily. The vast majority of those cases don't end up with a dead man. heck, the vast majority of officers getting punched don't end up with a dead man, they end with an arrest.
Compliance ensures safety. non-compliance brings chance into the mix.
I don't think anyone is actually arguing against that are they?
police deal with drunk and disorderly people all the time. Nightly. they also deal with aggressive people daily. The vast majority of those cases don't end up with a dead man. heck, the vast majority of officers getting punched don't end up with a dead man, they end with an arrest.
Compliance ensures safety. non-compliance brings chance into the mix.
If people were 100% compliant, again, we wouldn't need police. The police already have the scales tipped in their favor by being armed with deadly force. It should be the very last resort. That doesn't appear to have been the case with Eric Garner. Ferguson, we'll see. But (let's say) a punch versus 6 bullets? Or a punch versus even one bullet? That's a disproportionate response, no?
Quote:
is once people aren't compliant, the 100% chance they will remain unharmed plummets.
police deal with drunk and disorderly people all the time. Nightly. they also deal with aggressive people daily. The vast majority of those cases don't end up with a dead man. heck, the vast majority of officers getting punched don't end up with a dead man, they end with an arrest.
Compliance ensures safety. non-compliance brings chance into the mix.
I don't think anyone is actually arguing against that are they?
The ones putting all of the blame on the cops are pretty much doing just that.
Once an officer is forced to physically subdue somebody, the chances of getting harmed rise.
If you have a 300+pound man who is non-compliant, what means do you have to deal with him? I've heard they should have tasered him. what if he died from that?
Non-compliance is often a lose-lose for ALL parties. Do you think police want to arrest people?
In the case in the OP, it doesn't seem like they did.
With Michael Brown, it's starting to look like Wilson may have acted within the law. If it's found that he didn't, doesn't he deserve some blame for Brown's death?
I'm exclusively talking about compliance when in direct contact with an officer of the law issuing a personal order to you.
Not compliance with the law in general.
Do you think people want to be killed? (Rhetorical.)
We're at the bottom of this hole. Have a good afternoon.
Quote:
If I'm aggressive towards a police officer, I expect to get arrested if it is verbal and manhandled and cuffed if it is physical. Oh and yes, a chance I'd end up dead, too.
But don't you see the craziness in this statement? They make all the rules, so we should just shut our mouths and comply or else risk, arrest or even death?
Not saying I advocate mouthing off or getting physical with them, but to raise concern about the reason for such treatment is being sacrificed so that we won't get killed by the very people who have the duty to protect their fellow citizens?
I think what gets lost a lot in these discussions is the actual purpose of the police and of the law itself. IMO, there's a little bit of a trade-off and we look at the police officer as only an aggressor and never a protector. In reality his aggression to us is a consequence of the environment or times or history where some event occurred that is not desirable for repetition. It comes back to the security/freedom question and, with apologies to Franklin, we do all trade to some extent. I think part of the compliance and politeness even when you haven't done anything is part of that trade-off. Sure, it can go out of bounds and over the top, but it can go that way in both directions and if the police had done too little to challenge a person and a crime had resulted, then we would complain there too.
At face value, getting punched shouldn't mean unloading 6 shots in a guy, but if it a guy who is being punched by a 300 pound man, who has been aggressive an non-compliant and seems to still be a threat, some measure has to be taken. I would guess that Officer wilson questions what he did ever since the event happened. This will have changed his life forever, all for the way he responded. Believe me, every police man realizes this can happen. Like I said above, no officer looks to be violent, but once they are forced to, all bets are off.
sadly, wilson could have done everything he was supposed to do, especially if his gun was ever in threat of being compromised and he will still be seen as a villian in the eyes of a lot of people.
Quote:
If people were 100% compliant, again, we wouldn't need police.
I'm exclusively talking about compliance when in direct contact with an officer of the law issuing a personal order to you.
Not compliance with the law in general.
I get the distinction. But I also make distinctions between armed and unarmed. And the behavior I expect from those inclined to break the law versus those entrusted to enforce it. I expect more from the former. You seem to weight them equally. I don't get that expectation. At this point, I'm not thinking that clarity is forthcoming, so we're wasting our time now. You have a (sincerely) good afternoon.
At face value, getting punched shouldn't mean unloading 6 shots in a guy, but if it a guy who is being punched by a 300 pound man, who has been aggressive an non-compliant and seems to still be a threat, some measure has to be taken. I would guess that Officer wilson questions what he did ever since the event happened. This will have changed his life forever, all for the way he responded. Believe me, every police man realizes this can happen. Like I said above, no officer looks to be violent, but once they are forced to, all bets are off.
sadly, wilson could have done everything he was supposed to do, especially if his gun was ever in threat of being compromised and he will still be seen as a villian in the eyes of a lot of people.
It's a shitty situation, for sure. And I do really hope Wilson did everything right.
At face value, getting punched shouldn't mean unloading 6 shots in a guy, but if it a guy who is being punched by a 300 pound man, who has been aggressive an non-compliant and seems to still be a threat, some measure has to be taken. I would guess that Officer wilson questions what he did ever since the event happened. This will have changed his life forever, all for the way he responded. Believe me, every police man realizes this can happen. Like I said above, no officer looks to be violent, but once they are forced to, all bets are off.
sadly, wilson could have done everything he was supposed to do, especially if his gun was ever in threat of being compromised and he will still be seen as a villian in the eyes of a lot of people.
Sadly for some people he likely would have had to have been killed by Brown in order for him to completely avoid any blame.
My wife is often accused by her sister as living in a world of rainbows and Care bears. Frankly, our lives have been relatively free from conflict, tragic or early death, or poor upbringings.
As a result, I tend to think that the vast majority of people want to do the right thing. That people working in a profession want to uphold the ideals of that profession. i give people the benefit of the doubt, in life, and in events like this. Hell, I spend a good portion of the football season on BBI defending players, coaches and FO guys that are routinely killed here for the most minor of infractions.
I recognize that not all share my optimism. To me, the biggest issue in this shooting isn't the event itself. It is that it could have been lessened in magnitude if people didn't immediately demand "justice" or retribution. A crime is a crime whether it is dealt with one day later or several days later, and not waiting to find out what happened just cost a lot of innocent people their livlihoods. That to me is the true issue.
No mention by him of the strong armed robbery or alleged assault on the officer. If course nobody challenged him in any way by bringing any of those things up either and only thanked him for his thoughtful wise insight.
It is so obvious that many people will excuse Brown's behavior and blame the policeman to the extent that there really is nothing an officer can likely do in that situation that would satisfy some people.
The sad part is that this type of one sided thinking is broadcasted by networks. Even sports networks.
Everything else has built off of that faulty premise from the characterization of him being a "Gentle Giant" to the "Hands up, Don't shoot" rally like he was a meek kid gunned down as he peacefully surrendered. That's why I find the biggest issue to be the rush to judgement because it has perpetrated a host of myths.
That true and saying he deserved to die is wrong, but to tell you the truth I have seen any commentary saying that, although I am sure I missed some at least. I have seen all kinds of comments on major news networks all along the lines of claiming he was simply gunned down for stealing cigars and none of the other facts were brought up to bring in any perspective. Another example was yesterday I watched Spike Lee ranting about it yesterday and given a platform to say anything without any challenge or counter points being raised?
Everything else has built off of that faulty premise from the characterization of him being a "Gentle Giant" to the "Hands up, Don't shoot" rally like he was a meek kid gunned down as he peacefully surrendered. That's why I find the biggest issue to be the rush to judgement because it has perpetrated a host of myths.
Yes but when people are still saying these things on major networks as of yesterday and allowed to without any of the other facts being raised there is something horribly wrong.
since when?
Their need to fill air space leads to meaningless interviews, questionable "expert" opinion, and an over reliance on biased information to keep the story "hot".
It compares twitter, MSNBC, CNN, andFox.
It doesn't draw conclusions, but it's an interesting read. He'll , it doesn't even speak of content, just number of tweets and minutes of air time devoted.
I'll see if I can find the link.
link - ( New Window )
I hope it gets Ben Crump and Daryl Parks out of the way permanently.They are evil men.
Fact: When the security cage is down, the entire neighborhood is in the store grabbing beer, cigs et.
The President has about as much in common with inner city America as W did.
He would wet his pants if he spent a night in the projects my wife grew up in, or the neighborhood that my family moved out of.
Inner city poor have a different sense of what is right and what is wrong then those with money.
While my opinion of the events have certainly changed since this all began and as more "testimony" and evidence came out, certainly there is much more to come... Yet nobody seems to be asking everyone to wait for all of the facts anymore?
I think many people are waiting for the facts. I only stepped into this discussion a few days in because of the constant Sonic Youth-like demonization of the cops.
Ultimately the truth will probably lie somewhere in between. A kid made some really poor choices and a cop killed him when other means might have been just as effective in stopping him.
Ultimately, the facts will probably say there is fault on both ends, but not criminal fault, just like in the Zimmerman case, especially so since Wilson is an officer and has to make a quick decision on how to handle the perpetrator.
The end result is that blacks are going to feel disenfranchised and cops are going to feel more and more threatened. It is a lose-lose for all of us, mainly because people jumped to convict a cop hours after an incident happened.
Hope the latter is true.
If this had been a black on black or a white on white killing, there might have been some local repurcussions, but it wouldn't have reached National status.
In fact, there had been at least 4 instances of unarmed people being killed by same race officers in July, all which seem to be treated as justifiable at this point. One month later, there is no furor over them.
One day after this event, we had people mischaracterizing both the victim and the cop and it continues when guys like Ben Crump keep calling it an execution or when hundreds of people chant "Hands Up, Don't Shoot" nightly.
In fact, there had been at least 4 instances of unarmed people being killed by same race officers in July, all which seem to be treated as justifiable at this point. One month later, there is no furor over them.
It's the circumstances of the incident.
I agree, the media has certainly played a part. But your example shows that it was the circumstances of this particular incident (white cop shoots unarmed black teen) that made it national news.
The other incidents as you have pointed out didn't incite the furor that this one has- not because of the media- because of the circumstances.
Did you read the pew link? Twitter had a hold of this before any news outlet. That wasn't 'the media'. That was twitter users. If anything, it was the 'outrage' of twitter users that attracted the media in the first place. To your point- yep, they didn't have all of the facts, but what they did have were the basic circumstances that made this a national story- the media didn't make that part up.
Let me ask you this. If George Zimmerman was named Jorge Gonzalez, would that incident have been a national story?
I highly doubt it. It made news because social Media INITIALLY took the stance that a white man gunned down a black kid.
That's also why later descriptions of Zimmerman called him a White Hispanic, not because it was some little-use Census categorization, but because they needed to keep the white on black angle going.
Let me ask you this. If George Zimmerman was named Jorge Gonzalez, would that incident have been a national story?
I highly doubt it. It made news because social Media INITIALLY took the stance that a white man gunned down a black kid.
That's also why later descriptions of Zimmerman called him a White Hispanic, not because it was some little-use Census categorization, but because they needed to keep the white on black angle going.
The basic facts were reported correctly in Ferguson and those are what lead to the rush in judgement and the (still) perceived injustice.
In the Zimmerman case, the basic facts were not initially correct- specifically the race of curious George. And the "rush to judgement" didn't really occur until after the 911 tapes were released.
There is a huge difference between the reaction of both the media and twitter users in these two cases (IMO because one involves a white Police Officer):
The two are about two different, although somewhat related things: White citizens mistrusting and mistreating innocent black kids (Martin) and Law Enforcement mistrusting and mistreating innocent black kids (Brown). There's a big distinction there. One speaks to institutional racism in a way, while the other doesn't.
And to answer your question, of course not. For whatever reasons that we probably shouldn't get into here, brown on brown crime doesn't make the headlines for the most part.
Like a black kid died at the hands of a white officer. Because many other details were wrong. The "Hands Up" mantra. That he was a gentle giant who never had any problems. That there was a peaceful surrender.
Frankly, it seems like a lot was misreported.
The rest I agree added a bunch of fuel to the fire.
I think we mostly agree- I just think the media didn't create this issue. They helped to build it to where it got after 'regular people' had already started the outrage.
On the other side is the Sean Bell case. I don't think anger lessened over his death and the subsequent non-charges because 3 of the 4 officers involved were black or hispanic. Bell's fiancee didn't choose not to sue the city because of the race of the officers.
So if GZ's name was Jorge Gonzalez and everything else in the case was the same, I think it still would've been a major story.