American Riots, Michael Brown....is it justified ?

[Shallow]

Those things go more towards explaining the cops state of mind than anything else and supports the theory that he pulled the gun because he got scared.

 

Letting him go without any consequences was a bad choice. In the political sense, its a no win situation regardless, but some sort of disciplinary action would have made it  look less one sided.

 

Nah, disciplinary action means shooting Brown wasn't justified, which means he should be getting charged with murder but instead he's being sent to a seminar. Either the guys head falls off, or he walks off without as much as a slap on the wrist, ironically, anything else would look like injustice and preferential treatment.

[Hurlshort]

He will never work in law enforcement again. That is a consequence.

[BruceVC]

He will never work in law enforcement again. That is a consequence.

Hi Hurlshot

 

Nice to see you posting again, I am of the opinion that when someone of your reasonable temperament and equanimity decides to leave these forums its an indictment on certain levels around  the level of conversation

 

I'm am hoping others realized it?  So its good to hear from you again

[Valsuelm]

 

He will never work in law enforcement again. That is a consequence.

Hi Hurlshot

 

Nice to see you posting again, I am of the opinion that when someone of your reasonable temperament and equanimity decides to leave these forums its an indictment on certain levels around  the level of conversation

 

I'm am hoping others realized it?  So its good to hear from you again

 

 

You come off as so amazingly prissy. Do you realize that?

[Walsingham]

I'm entirely baffled by this. If the shooting was unjustified then sure why not punish the cop. But _if_ it WAS justified then why punish him?

 

I'm genuinely trying to understand the double standard here. If cops don't deserve justice what the **** is the plan for society in your sideways brains?

 

Maybe we the public get justice, cops get ennui, and lemurs get racing cars. Can we have some clarity?

[BruceVC]

 

 

He will never work in law enforcement again. That is a consequence.

Hi Hurlshot

 

Nice to see you posting again, I am of the opinion that when someone of your reasonable temperament and equanimity decides to leave these forums its an indictment on certain levels around  the level of conversation

 

I'm am hoping others realized it?  So its good to hear from you again

 

 

You come off as so amazingly prissy. Do you realize that?

 

 

Why do you say that? Because I'm recognising that if someone like Hurlshot leaves the forum its a loss, I thought you were all about the truth...but you seem to have  a problem when you hear it

[Gromnir]

I'm entirely baffled by this. If the shooting was unjustified then sure why not punish the cop. But _if_ it WAS justified then why punish him?

 

I'm genuinely trying to understand the double standard here. If cops don't deserve justice what the **** is the plan for society in your sideways brains?

 

Maybe we the public get justice, cops get ennui, and lemurs get racing cars. Can we have some clarity?

 

...

 

...

 

am trying to think o' a way to make a point w/o polarizing more than we already has.

 

...

 

am gonna fail, but try anyways.

 

first, a criminal trial is State v. citizen. we purposeful don't let victims or survivors decide whether or not a defendant will be prosecuted. however, like it or not, fair or not, there is some value to society in pursuing prosecutions that is doomed from the start. is arguable that justice is not needing to be just, and sometimes what is fair according to the law is not what society sees as fair. if you got a segment o' society that feels disenfranchised, and they see police officers "escaping justice," the folks in power gotta make a hard choice regarding pursuit of a criminal trial with near-zero chance o' success. 

 

Amadou Diallo

 

is a name worth searching. after the doomed trial, there were some criticism that there had been a rush to indict. nevertheless, is arguable that going to trial defused some o' the anger o' people in the community. at what point does a government conclude that the price the defendants must needs pay in enduring an otherwise pointless trial that will inevitably end in a not-guilty verdict is less than the cost to society in terms o' increased racial tensions and possibly even riots? is easy for Gromnir to say that the law should not knuckle under to whims o' the public, but we have the benefit o' being a private citizen and not an elected official. 

 

...

 

...

 

ok, there is also a practical reason for the survivors to be pushing hard for a criminal trial. survivors is often goaded by their lawyers to be public in their demands for a trial. am recalling an interview with the fiance o' amadou diallo wherein she stated that the State's failure to get a conviction o' the four officers involved in the shooting o' her fiance were not surprising given that for a not-guilty verdict, one need only show that the cops had some fear o' a possible threat to be using their weapons. the interviewer then asked about the $3 million settlement that the diallo family had been awarded as part o' the settlement o' the wrongful death case they brought against the city o' NY. fiance didn't wanna talk about the money.

 

see, the thing is, a criminal trial is extreme useful for those who subsequent pursue a civil case. is almost no defendant who walks away from a criminal case looking good. much o' the civil lawyer's future work is done for him by the criminal prosecutor, so for those looking forward to a civil wrongful death action, a criminal trial is a boon that cannot be overlooked.  the survivors don't deserve a criminal trial... they never deserve a criminal trial. criminal trials is not held for the benefit o' the survivors. there is all kinda victims rights groups and even some laws pertaining to victims rights, but we will never see a victim or survivor getting a right to a criminal trial. nevertheless, for those survivors looking forward to a civil case, they may be convinced by their lawyers that they deserve a criminal trial. get sympathetic survivors in front o' the camera as often as possible demanding their right to a criminal trial and eventually the state/government is gonna needs make some hard choices.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps ferguson were the non-stop topic at Gromnir's family thanksgiving. a few years ago we had a cousin who were shot by fed cops. our family saw much parallel 'tween mike brown and our deceased kin. Gromnir is recovering from an injury, so we played some da:i on a relative's pc for a bit, and then took pain pills and pretended we needed to rest due to discomfort... which also got us out of thanksgiving cooking duties for the first time in over a decade. is no way we wanted to again discuss how our cousin, who were killed after a car jacking, were a victim o' white cop prejudice. 

Edited November 29, 2014 by Gromnir

[Hurlshort]

Thanks Bruce, I took some time off from posting to relax a bit, it was nice.  

 

 

I'm entirely baffled by this. If the shooting was unjustified then sure why not punish the cop. But _if_ it WAS justified then why punish him?

 

I'm genuinely trying to understand the double standard here. If cops don't deserve justice what the **** is the plan for society in your sideways brains?

 

Maybe we the public get justice, cops get ennui, and lemurs get racing cars. Can we have some clarity?

 

I do get that there should be consequences here, but it is pretty obvious that it is the entire department that needs to change in this particular case.  The Ferguson PD basically put their officer in a bad position, from the lack of a partner to the lack of a taser, to a lack of proper procedures for handling multiple suspects.  This was glaringly obvious when the whole department was sidelined during the protests and they brought in the Highway Patrol.  

[Gromnir]

Thanks Bruce, I took some time off from posting to relax a bit, it was nice.  

 

 

I'm entirely baffled by this. If the shooting was unjustified then sure why not punish the cop. But _if_ it WAS justified then why punish him?

 

I'm genuinely trying to understand the double standard here. If cops don't deserve justice what the **** is the plan for society in your sideways brains?

 

Maybe we the public get justice, cops get ennui, and lemurs get racing cars. Can we have some clarity?

 

I do get that there should be consequences here, but it is pretty obvious that it is the entire department that needs to change in this particular case.  The Ferguson PD basically put their officer in a bad position, from the lack of a partner to the lack of a taser, to a lack of proper procedures for handling multiple suspects.  This was glaringly obvious when the whole department was sidelined during the protests and they brought in the Highway Patrol.  

some o' what is obvious to hurl isn't to us. in august we saw local and state police involved in quelling the riots. folks were angry with ferguson pd, so it kinda made sense to us that ferguson pd might not wanna be put at forefront of efforts to restore calm, yes?  there had Never been riots in the st. louis area, so no local police had any practical experience with riots. *chuckle* as a matter o' fact, review this thread. in august we saw much opinion in this thread, and from pundits, that the over-militarization of cops were part o' the problem in ferguson... were obvious to many. 'course it were obvious after the recent riots that what were needed were the National Guard, and immediate and heavy-handed suppression o' any sign o' violent action. obvious?  is also obvious that officers need body cams, no? is obvious to hurl that officer wilson being solo were a bad move by the police. well, what is the most obvious way for ferguson police to get the money to purchase body cams? fire folks is easiest way to free-up money.  hurl is a teacher, no? with recent economic downturn we suspect you know o' more than a few teachers who were let-go from their employment. same thing happened to cops and firemen, in spite o' the dangerous situation such firings caused. blame obama perhaps... or congress, or maybe former president bush?  

 

regardless, what is obvious to Gromnir is that a crescent wrench is a marvelously versatile tool, but it is horrible at driving nails. similarly, a criminal trial is also a useful tool, but it ain't the tool for bringing about most o' the changes we see folks desiring. a criminal trial might help defuse tensions, but a judge's gavel is not harry potter's wand. am genuine not sure what folks expect from a criminal trial. 

 

HA! Good Fun! 

[Hurlshort]

It's obvious Gromnir wasn't a fan of my usage of the word obvious.

 

 

 

To answer one question, I don't know any teachers that were let go due to the economic downturn.  Instead every school district in the area implemented furlough days, which is basically a small paycut for everyone.  We did cut back on new hires and ended up with larger class sizes, so that may be a good analogy to the Ferguson situation.  

[BruceVC]

Gromnir you do seem a little confused about this case, I have spent considerable time dissecting it and I have a fairly good understanding of the US legal system so let me know if there is anything you need clarity on

[Drowsy Emperor]

It is usually more politically opportune to let riots run their course and suppress them a "bit late". The risk for the people in power is that the police will kill someone else during suppression inadvertently and cause the situation to escalate even more. If the riots aren't organized well, led and externally funded then they usually die down and its back to business as usual. And the underclass is temporarily pacified.

Edited November 29, 2014 by Drowsy Emperor

[BruceVC]

Something else occurred to me highlighting just how misplaced these protests are, they are insisting people boycott certain chain stores as an act of defiance. But what has the likes of Macy's  got to do with the issue that the Police may be heavy handed when it comes to treatment of African Americans? So some supermarkets lose some  revenue for a few days , how exactly does this influence law enforcement policy?

 

I don't get the point or the connection?

[Walsingham]

Something else occurred to me highlighting just how misplaced these protests are, they are insisting people boycott certain chain stores as an act of defiance. But what has the likes of Macy's  got to do with the issue that the Police may be heavy handed when it comes to treatment of African Americans? So some supermarkets lose some  revenue for a few days , how exactly does this influence law enforcement policy?

 

I don't get the point or the connection?

 

I haven't seen that recently. But you clearly need reschooling in Martin Luther King. His final speech covered the importance of economic boycott. Plus it's possibly the most amazing speech I've ever heard. It starts slow, but is well worth sticking with. Like The Blues Brothers.

 

Make up your own minds whether MLK would support what is happening today.

 

 

CONSPIRACY NOTE: The full version of this speech, which mentions economic boycott _keeps being taken down from Youtube_ and replaced with the neutered version that is much shorter.

[Namutree]

 

Something else occurred to me highlighting just how misplaced these protests are, they are insisting people boycott certain chain stores as an act of defiance. But what has the likes of Macy's  got to do with the issue that the Police may be heavy handed when it comes to treatment of African Americans? So some supermarkets lose some  revenue for a few days , how exactly does this influence law enforcement policy?

 

I don't get the point or the connection?

 

I haven't seen that recently. But you clearly need reschooling in Martin Luther King. His final speech covered the importance of economic boycott. Plus it's possibly the most amazing speech I've ever heard. It starts slow, but is well worth sticking with. Like The Blues Brothers.

 

Make up your own minds whether MLK would support what is happening today.

 

 

CONSPIRACY NOTE: The full version of this speech, which mentions economic boycott _keeps being taken down from Youtube_ and replaced with the neutered version that is much shorter.

 

I don't think that Bruce is denying the validity of boycotting itself as much as he is wondering why Macy's is being targeted.

[Gromnir]

It's obvious Gromnir wasn't a fan of my usage of the word obvious.

 

 

 

To answer one question, I don't know any teachers that were let go due to the economic downturn.  Instead every school district in the area implemented furlough days, which is basically a small paycut for everyone.  We did cut back on new hires and ended up with larger class sizes, so that may be a good analogy to the Ferguson situation.  

it is difficult to tell when folks is being serious.

 

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=teacher+jobs+lost+economic+downturn

 

hurl honestly were unaware that teachers got fired during recent economic troubles? 

 

well, at least hurl learned something new today.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps walsh is correct that mlk speech starts slow, so the boycott stuff is as follows:

 

Now the other thing we'll have to do is this: Always anchor our external direct action with the power of economic withdrawal. Now, we are poor people. Individually, we are poor when you compare us with white society in America. We are poor. Never stop and forget that collectively -- that means all of us together -- collectively we are richer than all the nations in the world, with the exception of nine. Did you ever think about that? After you leave the United States, Soviet Russia, Great Britain, West Germany, France, and I could name the others, the American Negro collectively is richer than most nations of the world. We have an annual income of more than thirty billion dollars a year, which is more than all of the exports of the United States, and more than the national budget of Canada. Did you know that? That's power right there, if we know how to pool it.

 

We don't have to argue with anybody. We don't have to curse and go around acting bad with our words. We don't need any bricks and bottles. We don't need any Molotov ****tails. We just need to go around to these stores, and to these massive industries in our country, and say, "God sent us by here, to say to you that you're not treating his children right. And we've come by here to ask you to make the first item on your agenda fair treatment, where God's children are concerned. Now, if you are not prepared to do that, we do have an agenda that we must follow. And our agenda calls for withdrawing economic support from you."

 

And so, as a result of this, we are asking you tonight, to go out and tell your neighbors not to buy Coca-Cola in Memphis. Go by and tell them not to buy Sealtest milk. Tell them not to buy -- what is the other bread? -- Wonder Bread. And what is the other bread company, Jesse? Tell them not to buy Hart's bread. As Jesse Jackson has said, up to now, only the garbage men have been feeling pain; now we must kind of redistribute the pain. We are choosing these companies because they haven't been fair in their hiring policies; and we are choosing them because they can begin the process of saying they are going to support the needs and the rights of these men who are on strike. And then they can move on town -- downtown and tell Mayor Loeb to do what is right.

 

But not only that, we've got to strengthen black institutions. I call upon you to take your money out of the banks downtown and deposit your money in Tri-State Bank. We want a "bank-in" movement in Memphis. Go by the savings and loan association. I'm not asking you something that we don't do ourselves at SCLC. Judge Hooks and others will tell you that we have an account here in the savings and loan association from the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. We are telling you to follow what we are doing. Put your money there. You have six or seven black insurance companies here in the city of Memphis. Take out your insurance there. We want to have an "insurance-in."

 

Now these are some practical things that we can do. We begin the process of building a greater economic base. And at the same time, we are putting pressure where it really hurts. I ask you to follow through here.

 

*end quote*

Edited November 29, 2014 by Gromnir

[Valsuelm]

 

 

Something else occurred to me highlighting just how misplaced these protests are, they are insisting people boycott certain chain stores as an act of defiance. But what has the likes of Macy's  got to do with the issue that the Police may be heavy handed when it comes to treatment of African Americans? So some supermarkets lose some  revenue for a few days , how exactly does this influence law enforcement policy?

 

I don't get the point or the connection?

 

I haven't seen that recently. But you clearly need reschooling in Martin Luther King. His final speech covered the importance of economic boycott. Plus it's possibly the most amazing speech I've ever heard. It starts slow, but is well worth sticking with. Like The Blues Brothers.

 

Make up your own minds whether MLK would support what is happening today.

 

 

CONSPIRACY NOTE: The full version of this speech, which mentions economic boycott _keeps being taken down from Youtube_ and replaced with the neutered version that is much shorter.

 

I don't think that Bruce is denying the validity of boycotting itself as much as he is wondering why Macy's is being targeted.

 

 

Macy's and the others are being targeted because those businesses have something the rioting thugs want or it just happens to have the unfortunate luck of being in the path of the wandering zombies bent on destruction.

 

[obyknven]

 

Something else occurred to me highlighting just how misplaced these protests are, they are insisting people boycott certain chain stores as an act of defiance. But what has the likes of Macy's  got to do with the issue that the Police may be heavy handed when it comes to treatment of African Americans? So some supermarkets lose some  revenue for a few days , how exactly does this influence law enforcement policy?

 

I don't get the point or the connection?

 

I haven't seen that recently. But you clearly need reschooling in Martin Luther King. His final speech covered the importance of economic boycott. Plus it's possibly the most amazing speech I've ever heard. It starts slow, but is well worth sticking with. Like The Blues Brothers.

 

Make up your own minds whether MLK would support what is happening today.

 

 

CONSPIRACY NOTE: The full version of this speech, which mentions economic boycott _keeps being taken down from Youtube_ and replaced with the neutered version that is much shorter.

 

lol, not this Trojan horse again. 

In 60s-70s freedom fighters named such non-violent pacifists ( IRL government so like such submissive ones, their propaganda of harmless blah-blah instead of real fight for freedom pleased authorities so much) as "Uncles Tom's" and this is offensive nickname.

 

 

 

 

AS WE FIGHT FOR OUR OWN LIVES WE ARE FIGHTING FOR THE POSSIBILITY OF LIFE…

 

The dichotomy is always made between non-violence and violence and that’s a false dichotomy. The real difference is between living and death. Our community represents living.

If you do want freedom - conquer this by armed force (if you forgot Founding Fathers do it also). All other ways are illusionary traps created by Enslavers. 

 

P.S. Wals, how much pay for governmental propaganda now? I can do your work better than you.

[Drowsy Emperor]

If the Ferguson case was debatable the Eric Gardner one is despicable.

 

A non-violent man put in a choke hold by a cop resulting in his death. Anybody with a basic knowledge of martial arts knows that the choke hold is very dangerous because there is a chance that the person will not merely fall unconscious but die as the brain is starved of oxygen. This is completely out of control of the person applying the hold and is only really justified in extreme circumstances.

 

The man died and today it was decided that no charges would be filed against the cop. Even though this was all on filmed on camera. 

[Gfted1]

Don't let facts get in the way Boo.

 

He died because the choke hold exacerbated an existing asthma condition. He was not choked to death and a grand jury (which will indict a sandwich) found no grounds to proceed with a criminal trial.

[Drowsy Emperor]

I'm not saying his death wasn't an accident. But why was a choke hold applied in the first place? He wasn't violent, merely resisting. Did he really need to be choked?There was no attempt to calm the situation down, several cops just pushed him down on the ground... and he died.  If there are no grounds for a criminal trial then there must be some other way for a semblance of justice.

 

I've been choked in martial arts class and choked others - the experience isn't pretty and is possibly the worst way to try to defuse a situation. Once you start to be choked the first instinct is to fight and resist more rather than let go.

Edited December 4, 2014 by Drowsy Emperor

[aluminiumtrioxid]

He died because the choke hold exacerbated an existing asthma condition. He was not choked to death and a grand jury (which will indict a sandwich) found no grounds to proceed with a criminal trial.

 

"A city medical examiner found that the 43-year-old Garner was killed by neck compression from the chokehold along with “the compression of his chest and prone positioning during physical restraint by police”. Asthma, heart disease and obesity were contributing factors."

 

"The medical examiner said compression of the neck and chest, along with Garner's positioning on the ground while being restrained by police during the July 17 stop on Staten Island, caused his death.

Garner's acute and chronic bronchial asthma, obesity and hypertensive cardiovascular disease were contributing factors, the medical examiner determined."

 

It was a homicide, according to the medical examiner.

 

 

Edit: not to mention that the use of choke holds is against department policy, so there was absolutely no justification whatsoever to use it against a nonviolent (see video) person.

Edited December 4, 2014 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Valsuelm]

If the Ferguson case was debatable the Eric Gardner one is despicable.

 

A non-violent man put in a choke hold by a cop resulting in his death. Anybody with a basic knowledge of martial arts knows that the choke hold is very dangerous because there is a chance that the person will not merely fall unconscious but die as the brain is starved of oxygen. This is completely out of control of the person applying the hold and is only really justified in extreme circumstances.

 

The man died and today it was decided that no charges would be filed against the cop. Even though this was all on filmed on camera. 

 

Well yea...

 

One should ask themselves why the Michael Brown case was even made such a large national news.... heck, international news story, and the innumerable Eric Gardners out there don't.

 

Police brutality and murder is sadly and scarily not a rare thing. Even more unnerving is the fact that them getting away with it is commonplace. Yet the main stream media chose a case that wasn't actually either of those and pretended it was, yet routinely ignores cases where it clearly is one or both of those cases.

Edited December 4, 2014 by Valsuelm

[Elerond]

I must say that these cases have shown that I don't have any clue of what Grand juries job is in american legal system. Previously I though that they were body that decided do prosecutor have enough evidence that person that they accuse could be suspected to commit the crime they are accused and it is courts job then do decide if person is actually guilty and were there mitigating circumstance or circumstances that even justified person, that is accused, actions. But after these cases it seems that grand juries can judge were accused actions justified or not or they can decide that killing a person isn't a crime at all in US in come circumstances or if it is done by certain person or when target comes from certain background. Anyway it seems quite strange system where there is lots of power obscured behind closed doors that can produce quite unequal and hard to understand decision about legality of certain actions.

 

Riots are never justified, but they are always symptom of some issue in society, which can be deeply rooted and difficult to pinpoint. But one thing is certain that people will protest and riot when they feel that society oppress them and they don't have anything or little to lose. Kiev's protest and riots seem to get much more understanding here than these, even though in both primary cause is same people trust towards government and legal system has crumpled and they want change (even though they don't necessary agree or even know what that change should be).

 

Grand juries decision not to indict officers in question don't work as good reasoning for people that feel that legal system is corrupt and that society oppress them, but instead such arguments usually only add more fuel in the flames, because such arguments usually only manage make people's preconceptions even stronger, as when you justify that thing is so because governmental body that you feel is corrupt say so is usually best way to ensure that person who thinks so is even more against decision than what they previously were.

[Valsuelm]

I must say that these cases have shown that I don't have any clue of what Grand juries job is in american legal system.

 

You seem to have a decent idea of what the purpose of a grand jury is n the U.S. legal system.

 

Three things to keep in mind.

 

1. A jury, grand or not, is only looking at the evidence the District Attorney's office shows them. If the local DA's office is corrupt (which they often are) or inept (which they often are), the grand jury may never get to see crucial evidence of the case. It is rare to find a DA's office that will prosecute a police officer or anyone else working on 'their team' (for the same state as them) to the fullest extent of the law and to the best of their abilities.

 

2. Of slightly lesser import, is that juries, grand or not, generally are restricted (or at least told they are) by the judge overseeing the proceedings. Some judges attempt to influence the jury by telling them falsely that they cannot think outside the box that is shown to them. This is complex, and situational, but it's not too uncommon to have juries decide X (almost always in favor of the state) when they could have decided otherwise or thrown the charges out all together if they knew their legal rights better. [for more on this fairly complex issue, look up concepts and legality of 'jury nullification', though that isn't the only aspect of what I'm talking about.]

 

3. Juries, grand or not, have people on them that are prejudiced or brainwashed in manner X. In regards to criminal transgressions by the police, it's not uncommon to have people on juries that think the police cannot do wrong, as there are people who think this way everywhere in society these days. Theoretically they may admit the police can do wrong of course, but you could show them a cop murdering someone on film and they'd make up excuses in their mind that the cop is just doing his job. (Evidence of this is all over this and other forums, ie: Gifted1's post above justifying what's unjustifiable to anyone who really knows what a choke hold is, appreciates an individual's rights, their well being, and saw that video.)

 

 

All that said, from everything I've ever, seen, read, and experienced. #1 is by far the biggest problem.

Edited December 4, 2014 by Valsuelm