| The Justice Department reports that its investigation into law enforcement in Ferguson, Mo., found that the police and courts meted out illegal and unduly harsh treatment, particularly to black people. One of the reports released Wednesday, "Investigation of the Ferguson Police Department," says the mistreatment is due to discrimination, and a primary focus on maximizing city revenue through citations, not to keeping the peace. |
| Ferguson's Municipal Court, which is actually run by the chief of police, is part of the city's revenue-raising machinery, the report found, with court officials routinely levying excessive fines and fees, and violating people's rights. |
| Black people in Ferguson regularly report racial epithets being used against them by police officers, but a search of city e-mail accounts by the Justice Department also showed many racist remarks casually traded by police supervisors and court officials. |
| The Justice Department also found that officers regularly exceed their authority and mistreat people. |
If you think this isn't status quo anywhere besides some backward part of Missouri, don't know what to tell you.
The Ferguson Police Department: The Justice Department Report, Annotated - (
New Window )
And, I agree - didn't take long for the thread to veer off course and it will undoubtedly self-destruct or at the least, be unproductive.
And the idea of municipalities running their own courts fraught with peril. Yes these are traffic infractions, but when failing to appear on a traffic charge becomes a criminal charge the two aren't exactly distinct. I remember the lengthy piece on the subject of Ferguson and other local jurisdictions and their traffic courts; even allowing for the exaggerations of interested parties it was still upsetting.
[quote] In comment 12164606 bc4life said:
Quote:
Yeah, I have no problem with municipalities benefiting from fines. But, when it becomes their primary reason for existence - no good can come of it.
And, I agree - didn't take long for the thread to veer off course and it will undoubtedly self-destruct or at the least, be unproductive.
Because your opinion avails itself to a productive discussion?
Bill2 - I can agree with that. I can also see what Eric meant in his post. Whatever... it's not worth the aggravation.
This post was/is merely an opportunity to start a shit storm. If the OP had been interested in serious discussion of facts he would have covered the report in it's entirety.
This sheer idiocy is a good bit of why police end up alienated from the communities they serve. You inveigh on things you know nothing about and gleefully sacrifice the reputation (just as you would have gleefully sacrificed the liberty) of a public servant to the "greater good." You're a moron.
So when can he come out of hiding?
This post was/is merely an opportunity to start a shit storm. If the OP had been interested in serious discussion of facts he would have covered the report in it's entirety.
I really don't want to get involved in this thread too much but IMO it's not accurate to say the 'hands up, don't shoot' movement is bogus. Perhaps the situation that started that movement turned out to be misapplied (the Wilson-Brown incident) but that doesn't negate the thousand of other times when it can be correctly applied. Just my opinion.
Quote:
had selectively posted on those parts of the Justice Department report covering Darren Wilson (where does he go to get his reputation back?) and the fact that "hand up, don't shoot" was pure and utter fiction.
This post was/is merely an opportunity to start a shit storm. If the OP had been interested in serious discussion of facts he would have covered the report in it's entirety.
I really don't want to get involved in this thread too much but IMO it's not accurate to say the 'hands up, don't shoot' movement is bogus. Perhaps the situation that started that movement turned out to be misapplied (the Wilson-Brown incident) but that doesn't negate the thousand of other times when it can be correctly applied. Just my opinion.
T-Bone, just saw you and wanted to say hi. I hope you are well.
Quote:
had selectively posted on those parts of the Justice Department report covering Darren Wilson (where does he go to get his reputation back?) and the fact that "hand up, don't shoot" was pure and utter fiction.
This post was/is merely an opportunity to start a shit storm. If the OP had been interested in serious discussion of facts he would have covered the report in it's entirety.
I really don't want to get involved in this thread too much but IMO it's not accurate to say the 'hands up, don't shoot' movement is bogus. Perhaps the situation that started that movement turned out to be misapplied (the Wilson-Brown incident) but that doesn't negate the thousand of other times when it can be correctly applied. Just my opinion.
T-Bone - Just to clarify, my comment was only directed to this specific incident.
Moondawg - hey buddy! Things are going great! Thanks for asking. Hope everything is well with you and your family.
njm - Gotcha!
This post was/is merely an opportunity to start a shit storm. If the OP had been interested in serious discussion of facts he would have covered the report in it's entirety.
It's sad that you are missing the forest for the trees. I don't always agree with you, but you seem to be an intelligent guy that is always willing to have honest discussions and is willing to actually listen and learn from them.
So, Nitro's excellent trolling history aside (in a good way, BTW- he's much better than the wanna be mouth breathers that we usually have around here- for one, most of the time it goes unrecognized) let me explain what I mean:
Think back to when this came out and before any official evidence was revealed. One of the arguments being thrown around was example after example of other unarmed folks being shot and killed by police followed by the question, "why isn't this a big deal?" (many times it was a poor oppressed white guy trying to say that the black folks are being racist because white folks get shot too and nobody riots.) What those idiots failed to take into account is the fact that the folk in Ferguson weren't rioting specifically for Brown- Brown was a representation of how corrupt and racist the local law enforcement there is/was. I think it has been established that yeah, Brown was no Rosa Parks (which BTW was staged- did that make what she stood for any less real? - yeah I know- some folks are going to take that analogy way too literal and miss the meaning, but whatever) but in the beginning what came out through word of mouth and social media was absolutely exactly what those folks saw as the 'final straw' and it quickly became a rallying point for them to stand up and do something.
Of course, destruction and damage isn't such a great way to go about making your point- but it absolutely can be effective if not morally sound.
So back to the point- the takeaway from this isn't that the officer was justified (which had pretty much already been established). The takeaway is the answer to the question the scared white guys were asking back then. Why the uproar about this and not other instances?
Of course that answer is because the people yelling "Hands up, don't shoot" had one part absolutely correct- there is a corrupt gov't/police force in Ferguson. The problem is based on race. Something does need to be done to correct the problem.
That's the forest. It's a shame that some folks (not you, njm) will use the fact that the Brown shooting wasn't a good example of that to continue to ignore the very real problem and continue to place the blame on the victims of that problem.
You're of course correct.
I'm never nearly as clear as I would like to be. I was speaking more of the motivation for the riots, and instead ended up poorly justifying them.
The racial aspect is completely abhorrent in 2015.
The racial aspect is completely abhorrent in 2015.
That's a nice thing to say, and a nice thing to believe.
But it is just as 'interesting' as being shocked that there's a town that raises revenue via tickets, IMO.
Please don't take that as an attack- I can't tell if you were trying to express shock that racism is still alive and well in plenty of places. Unless of course you were expressing shock that racism is alive and well in plenty of places.
I will say though that '2015' isn't all that far removed from segregation. I was born just a few years after separate but equal was made illegal. It's no surprise that folks are still dying and fighting to be rid of a hidden, yet just as sinister form of it today.
Moondawg - hey buddy! Things are going great! Thanks for asking. Hope everything is well with you and your family.
njm - Gotcha!
It is going well, thanks!
Following Dune and Cam's thoughts, I do find it personally hard to navigate when false stories are contrived and run with by opportunists and self-congratulatory, strident hotheads (e.g., Duke Lacrosse), when there are real underlying issues to confront (e.g., sexual abuses on campus that are vastly under reported.
I get upset when the self-righteous brigade wash over their uncritical destruction of innocents with statements like "well, the important thing here is our concern to protect women." I find it infuriating and immoral. And in any case, the truth matters, as does having the guts to be honest even if it's not easy.
At the same time, attention must be given, as rightly noted above, to the underground currents of oppression or marginalization which seize on these trigger points. One can do justice to both concerns, though it is hard in a culture where there is a rush on all sides to divvy up the good and bad guys and start swinging immediately.
Mostly banal and obvious, I know.
Quote:
Darren Wilson's reputation was made in a system that was corrupt and ethically depraved as noted in the report. Since its being dismantled, he will have to start from scratch, which is a greater good.
This sheer idiocy is a good bit of why police end up alienated from the communities they serve. You inveigh on things you know nothing about and gleefully sacrifice the reputation (just as you would have gleefully sacrificed the liberty) of a public servant to the "greater good." You're a moron.
Whether you are pro police or anti-police, IMO, it's hard not to be disgusted by what the Ferguson PD has done. We can debate whether aggressive policing tactics and profiling are necessary to prevent violent crime and reasonable minds can disagree on that, but when racist emails are commonly sent on police listserves and black motorists in traffic are searched at a much higher rate than white motorists (despite searches on white motorists yielding illegal items more often), not to mention the myriad of other problematic actions by this police department, it's hard for me to see how anyone could argue that heads don't need to roll here and that this police department needs to be overhauled from the ground up.
To begin, I'm well aware that Rosa Parks was a "plant". She was also a very disciplined and non-violent plant. I don't think I denied the legitimacy of any and all protest, and I don't think she's relevant here. In addition, she was a hell of a lot more effective.
As far as missing the forest for the trees, I'd counter by saying that the point I was trying to make is that you should look at the entire forest. The OP selectively picked out limited portions of the report essentially, IMHO, so he could rub shit in the faces of a select group of people. He amplified that in a way came within an eyelash of stating that all cops are racists. My reply was essentially an attempt to say "Not so fast, Kemosabe".
The report clearly shows that racism exists in the Ferguson PD. In fact, my understanding is that some of the specific perpetrators have been suspended or fired. I'm not sure whether that came before or after the report (and I don't know if it was released early to the FPD). However, I disagree with you on one point, I believe the rioting was related to Brown. A tense atmosphere existed before hand, but things would have been peaceful but for the shooting.
And what about Wilson? The fact that he's essentially in hiding tells me that for a long time there was no takeaway that the shooting was justified. "Where do I go to get my reputation back" - Ray Donovan certainly applies here. And what about the hustlers who poured gasoline on the fire? This probably taints my perspective, but I've watched Sharpton in action for a quarter century. Back during the Tawana Brawley case I was spending a day or two each month in Poughkeepsie on business. I saw what that hoax did to a community. I was working in Manhattan when 5 or 6 innocent people died in Freddy's. If we need to confront the racism in the Ferguson PD don't we also need to confront the racism of the race hustlers who made a bad situation worse?
And let's recognize that while racism is clearly an issue, economics also play a role. My perspective on that one may be tainted as well, having paid $79. last fall (with the promise of no points) for "not coming to a full stop before making a right hand turn at a red light". Lets also look at the make-up of the Ferguson PD. Predominately white. But so was the town 15-20 years ago. Now I will admit ignorance regarding police unions in Missouri, but back East if someone floated the idea of firing white police officers to hire more black officers you'd have major union issues notwithstanding possible civil rights litigation. The makeup of the PD simply can't be adjusted as fast as the town changed. What's needed is outreach and time for the natural attrition (retirement) to occur.
So I think if anyone has ignored things it was the OP and his filtered results.
I interpret this to mean that just because something didn't happen, doesn't mean we shouldn't pre-judge and ruin innocent people's lives to promote an agenda.
Wtf don't you understand about what these people are saying.
Is there corruption? Most likely. However, like or understand it not, but the spot light was shifted away from that by the rioting & looting.
To expand on this, what the report says is that African Americans are disproportionately cited for infractions (sometimes absurdly so, with very nearly all of the citations for specific infractions being written against African Americans). But to explain the why they turn to racist emails, as though that proves a Fourteenth Amendment violation. To say that's tendentious is an understatement.
Quote:
as interesting was that on morning Joe this morning, they were shocked that there is a town that pads their budgets with traffic fines and ticket quotas. Well no shit.
The racial aspect is completely abhorrent in 2015.
That's a nice thing to say, and a nice thing to believe.
But it is just as 'interesting' as being shocked that there's a town that raises revenue via tickets, IMO.
Please don't take that as an attack- I can't tell if you were trying to express shock that racism is still alive and well in plenty of places. Unless of course you were expressing shock that racism is alive and well in plenty of places.
I will say though that '2015' isn't all that far removed from segregation. I was born just a few years after separate but equal was made illegal. It's no surprise that folks are still dying and fighting to be rid of a hidden, yet just as sinister form of it today.
I was born while it still was. So no, I wasn't shocked at racial component. Just think it's abhorrent in this day and age. Years ago I actually was going to do a capstone on the difficulties of finding qualified minorities for the fire service and by association, law enforcement. I don't mind research, but after about a week, my head was spinning. Did a simple 10 year plan for the department I worked for. That was pre log in on BBI and had some good discussions on the subject on the board.
I was shocked that the talking heads were shocked that there still are speed trap towns in existence. Hell, AAA has them listed by state and route as do other resources.
We have famous ones in Florida.
While I'm not surprised your conclusion differs from mine, I give you credit, you are easily the most ardent, consistent 'nothing is wrong' reactionary we have here. Some day we'll find something that is worthy of change, but this apparently isn't the topic. Something, something forest.
Cam, good posts.
'A sundown town is a town, city, or neighborhood in the United States that was purposely all-white. The term came from signs that were posted stating that people of color had to leave the town by sundown.'
If you think it was just 'economic'.
page 76 - ( New Window )
They came of age 50 years ago? So the police leadership, the patrol captains, are 65 or 70 years old? IDK what law enforcement you hang out with.
But in all seriousness, the report credits history, racist emails and nepotism as the reasons why the disparate impact is intentionally discriminatory. To me that's a stretch. There is a lot in there that troubles me, as I've already pointed out, but I also think they tried to split the proverbial baby, clearing Darren Wilson while indicting the department and the town.
What percent of people learned nothing in 55 years?
kind of a missing link of certainty we all agreed others need to label as "imho" instead of calling all others warped WITH PRE- PROGRAMMED CODE by the SOFTWARE DEVELOPER.
Quote:
So back to the point- the takeaway from this isn't that the officer was justified (which had pretty much already been established). The takeaway is the answer to the question the scared white guys were asking back then. Why the uproar about this and not other instances?
Of course that answer is because the people yelling "Hands up, don't shoot" had one part absolutely correct- there is a corrupt gov't/police force in Ferguson. The problem is based on race. Something does need to be done to correct the problem.
That's the forest. It's a shame that some folks (not you, njm) will use the fact that the Brown shooting wasn't a good example of that to continue to ignore the very real problem and continue to place the blame on the victims of that problem.
Good stuff, Cam. But the takeaway is more nuanced than you portray. The findings of the Federal investigation on the shooting, and that of the State Grand Jury (which itself was both procedurally and substantively compromised so as to further erode confidence in its integrity by the community most directly affected (though who fear for their lives, upon any interaction with police) was this:
The evidence was insufficient to prove the shooting was NOT justified.
That does NOT mean that the evidence was sufficient to prove that the shooting WAS justified.
The difference is important because it goes to the continuing and unremedied dissonance in perception by members of the African American communities surrounding St. Louis and that of white community members in the same area. (And similar dissonances throughout the US.)
As a matter of actual fact, which will never be settled, the shooting may well have NOT been justified, but there is insufficient evidence to establish that. The lack of evidence is attributable to two factors: 1) Michael Brown's first hand testimony is unavailable because he is dead, and 2) the standard for justification, as noted in the Federal Report, is subjective. All that was required is for Wilson to have "felt afraid."
There is no lie detector test or chemical analysis for "fear hormone" to possibly confirm or refute Darren Wilson's "feelings."
Perhaps an objective standard under the law would yield a different result: That if one had the means of escaping the confrontation (Hit the gas and book) and possessed a firearm while the other individual had neither, then no "REASONABLE Person" would feel scared.
It is the mushiness of the Subjective Standard, combined with the fact that Wilson came to the confrontation with two things Brown didn't have -- a car and firearm -- that buttresses the sense of justification among those who think Wilson deserves to have his reputation trashed, to lose his job, and every other bad thing that happens to him.
They feel that way because (obviously) they *don't believe* Wilson when he says he was afraid or that he had any basis for feeling afraid, beyond his own racist assumptions and the arrogance afforded by his badge, or that he didn't needlessly bring upon himself.
Also, the constant reference to the rioting is itself disingenuous. The vast majority of the protesters did not riot, and the protests went on for months. The local community sought to hold protests during daylight hours, to keep people safe and avoid trouble. In fact the vast majority of the protesters sought to prevent and stop any rioting. The most incidents occurred at night, after the organizers and their law abiding marchers had gone home. Local resident protesters also organized regular clean up efforts.
Of course the efforts by LOCAL organizers and their political representatives to prevent, stop and clean up after the rioting received next to no media coverage. It simply isn't as exciting as things on fire. So you can blame the media for that distorted perception -- but only in part.
There are all too many people who are happy to cite the rioting in order to confirm the racist stereotypes that they already harbor. You can tell who these folks are because they speak of the rioting as if it was the only response the local African American residents had, and there is no attempt to parse who was rioting and who was not. It's an across-the-board, undifferentiated collective responsibility that altogether excuses the proponent from having any sympathy for the protesters and their grievances.
And it's not as if such proponents are incapable of parsing varieties of bad behavior and responsibility, because there are, doing exactly that with respect to the overwhelmingly white police.
It's interesting to see how any police misconduct is attributed to "a few bad apples," while selective blindness is directed at the very real incidents of police rioting -- assaulting and pointing weapons not only at protesters but at journalists covering the events; shooting poison gas not only at protesters, which was NOT okay, but also into local residential areas, where people were not even protesting.
Some folks do that because they are racists, expressly and overtly devoted to sabotaging and destroying the efforts of the protesters and to suppressing their cause. Anonymous members repeatedly exposed Ku Klux Klan attempts to sabotage the the protests and outed Klan members in Ferguson and other St. Louis-area police departments and local governments. There was also video of white guys starting fires, which, of course, went nowhere.
These were the same groups and people who engaged in the same activities during Dr. King's campaigns. Only back then they were actually among the federal officials (Cointelpro). Now the Klan has its members within the State organizations. So the "bad apple" theory does not wash.
This is the land of Dred Scott. There are deep, historical Klan roots in the part of the country. These people are hellbent on reducing the protests to nothing more than riots.
Other people lump all protesters with the rioters because the status quo doesn't really affect them one way or another, and so long as they can rationalize being detached, they do. It's an excuse not to care and is so insidious that in some ways it's worse than the Klan. It's what enables the Klan to keep doing what they do because opposing and fighting them is "the black people's problem." It's being a part of the problem.
And it's not as if such proponents are incapable of parsing varieties of bad behavior and responsibility, because there are, doing exactly that with respect to the overwhelmingly white police.
Thanks.
My mother was yanked out of public school in New Jersey because they started busing. That her parents made a decision that most of us find abhorrent fifty years ago has not left a discernible imprint on her character.
Klan involvement was steadily documented throughout the riots. Look up what Anonymous was doing. They doxed and identified many Klan members on police forces in the St. Louise are and elsewhere in the US.
And no, I don't live in NYC. I grew up in Western NY and am living there now. And by Western NY, I don't mean Poughkeepsie.
You're mischaracterizing what I wrote. Read it again.
What I said was that the vast majority of protesters were NOT among the looters. Yet they get smeared and their legitimate grievances get discounted.
One Klan affiliate was that woman who was shown to have lied about being present when Michael Brown was killed. Many media sources showed that her account could not possibly have been true. If you think that bona fide racists and klan members weren't doing their part to undermine the protests...or weren't among those who lionized Wilson, then you're not paying attention.
There are opportunists on all sides.
REPLACE:
"One Klan affiliate was that woman who was shown to have lied TO THE GRAND JURY about being present when Michael Brown was killed."
What I said was that the vast majority of protesters were NOT among the looters. Yet they get smeared and their legitimate grievances get discounted.
One Klan affiliate was that woman who was shown to have lied about being present when Michael Brown was killed. Many media sources showed that her account could not possibly have been true. If you think that bona fide racists and klan members weren't doing their part to undermine the protests...or weren't among those who lionized Wilson, then you're not paying attention.
There are opportunists on all sides.
Yes but I don't claim to know. As you point out, it is very convenient for those who suppose nothing is wrong to say "look at those horrible people, they're burning their own town down." And it is equally convenient for those who want to find racists hiding behind every rock and bush to say "these were all provocateurs and opportunists from out of town. The locals were the ones marching peacefully by day." Why should either agenda-driven narrative be deemed credible?
What makes you assume I was referring only to "blacks"? Let alone "Southern Blacks"?
Those are interesting assumptions you make.
As Bill said, plenty of things have changed since the 60s. I remember the civil rights riots, the busing. I also remember girls sitting out school until they were allowed to wear pants to school (this was public school) and all sorts of things that seem ridiculous today. To say that people are imprinted when they are teenagers and never change is ridiculous.
What makes you assume I was referring only to "blacks"? Let alone "Southern Blacks"?
Those are interesting assumptions you make.
I was speaking more to your characterization of what the local African American community wanted and did regarding protesting and rioting than about that. Psychology is a poor word choice to describe it, but my point that you can't accurately divine their motivations any better than I can still stands.