Words of Wisdom for Ferguson and America

[Phatscotty]

Don't put out fires with gasoline! Awesome word to the wise!

It certainly did so something for the attackers...it made them feel better. And as we all have seen, how people feel is all that matters.

I "feel" better that Reginald Denny thinks mostly with his "soul" then with his anger. He could have said some really nasty things in that video, and he came across as forgiving and just wanting to put everything behind him. Even Rodney King said "Can't we all just get along?"...in this video, Denny basically says the same thing...in a different way.

I believe the Garner issue is a much more convoluted problem.

It came so soon after the Ferguson Thingy, and the public has access to the actual video.

Did Garner resist? Yes, but he wasn't being violent about it.

Perhaps he was not violent. Curious though how it is we know that or not.

Did the police officer commit homicide? Yes, the coroner said so by the evidence. Did the officer mean to kill Mr. Garner? No. Was there negligence in handling the situation and when Garner was clearly telling the officers that he couldn't breath because of a collapsed trachea? I believe so (as do many others, both conservative and liberal).

Not only do you have the coroner evidence, but you have clear video taped evidence; and yet there is still no indictment by a Grand Jury. It befuddles my mind, because one of the arguments in the Brown case was that there was no video evidence of what some of the witnesses were saying. Yet here we have both forensic evidence and video evidence, but the Grand Jury in NYC still comes up with no indictment.

Just wondering, how much do you blame the health of Garner? Certainly, the same outcome could be possible had someone ordered him to walk up 3 flights of stairs. I'm not defending the cop or the choke hold, but I do find it possible that the choke may have added pressure based on what another officer was doing with Garner's arm, or Garner's leg, or the position Garner's head was being pushed to the ground.

You are right (even though I am sure you are being quite sarcastic), we indeed tend to put our "feelings" first. That's really what matters, right? That's how you judge the world around you, right? With feelings?

I really try not to. I have difficulty here sometimes when it comes to love/relationships/family, but at least that is not projecting my feelings/my business onto every else in the world who is not involved. If feelings are all that is important, then the mind is likely to have already been wasted. And a mind is a terrible thing to waste.

[Phatscotty]

How can you arrest someone for selling loosies?

Because, the government isn't getting it's precious tax dollars. Dude was 'stealing' from the government and from all the people that money is supposed to be redistributed to.

I get that. Let me make an example. In Portugal, I don't know if it has changed since, but they decriminalized up to an ounce of hash/weed. This effectively makes it legal because the first layer of investigation is to arrest a buyer, put the scare into him and get him to turn on his dealer. The police take the witness statement to the judge who authorizes a warrant. They use the warrant and get further evidence of criminal activity and whatever they turn up is then used against the person at trial. But without the first arrest, the whole chain breaks down.

In selling loosies, there is no way to get a witness to testify. There is no way to get a warrant except with an exhaustive investigation that would cost excessive amounts of money that would not be approved. So the only way to actually arrest this guy would be to get him to self-incriminate. They go up to him and say, are you selling loosies and he says, yeah. As the video shows, he quite clearly didn't confess, he asked the police to leave him alone and maintained his innocence. There is then no reason for the police to search him, arrest him or further bother him.

By following the law, there is nothing that the police can do to prosecute Garner. As such, if your job as a police officer is to arrest loosie sellers, you are required to violate the law to do so.

My question isn't why you would arrest someone for selling loosies, but how is it legally possible?

You nailed it there.

My take... our system 'today'....that is police, courts, city administrations etc. know that 90% of people do not challenge the system/stand up for/practice their rights. These 'offenders' are mostly concerned with 'creating' as little fuss as possible because for working people at least as it just messes with their life even more (missing work to be in court/mediations) and for non-workers the tab they already owe to the city/state just grows larger and prevents them from having a dirvers license amongst other things.

In general, the goal of the system is to end up with some of their money, mostly by way of fines, and if they don't get the fine/guilty plea from ya, they still stick you with court costs (trust me I know here). Granted, paying $20/30 for 'court'/administrative costs is much preferable to having something on your record, paying the full fine, and likely being put on probation. However, paying the fine say of $200 usually totals out to something around $350, at least in my state. Every ticket comes with a bunch of one time fees, $80 or so for libraries, 40$ or so for police funding, $20 for traffic funding etc,p and if you get put on probation you also get stuck with the bill for that. Not sure what it is in my state now, but a few years ago a co-worker I hired mentioned it was $400/year, so basically you are forced to 'hire' someone from the state to babysit you, and if you get into trouble again you can expect even more time wasted standing in lines, being put on hold on the phone, and writing checks.

My point here is these 90% of 'offenders' get slammed into the system, and these offenders who range all the way from having a bonfire without a permit to DWI to selling loosies regularly take it up the ass which essentially allows the city/state/federal gov't to get away with it, and the ticket writers thrive on this. Result: more snowballing into an exponentially growing list of things you can be ticketed for, to the point you can get in trouble and summonsed to court simply for giving a homeless person some food to eat.

So, in conclusion, I doubt this incident in NY was really about 'putting someone in jail' as it was about getting them enrolled in the 'f*ck you pay me' system. The fact that Garner was not being cooperative along with his extreme size very likely are the sole reasons he was arrested as opposed to simply being processed and ticketed with a future court date.

[Phatscotty]

Why is group x 8 times more likely to murder than group y? What does it mean in practice that by far most of the drug arrests are urban black folks (men)? Late night police raids, stop and search, fear of snitches, fear of police, low expectations, fatherless children, few opportunities, likelihood of arrest.

There are reasons, who can know them all and how much of a reason they are and which is more/less valid? As marriage (just something on a piece of paper) has been debased and is clearly no longer about anything to do with raising children or at least so much more to do with benefits in the tax system, you may very well expect that I would offer up broken families/born out of wedlock/no father as a major reason and the government subsidization of it, gang banging, materialism, spiritual emptiness/lack of value or understanding of life ie. lack of religion, lack of education, the drug war and it's relevance where unemployment is high or people simply find it much easier to rob/burgle a couple times a month rather than wake up early every single morning to deal with everyone else's shit for 10/hour. It's just a simple truth that dealing drugs, while sure it's risky, still it's much easier and can be highly profitable and you don't need to be educated at all to do it, all you really need is to prove that you 'don't give a shit about anything/not afraid to kill someone who disses/not afraid of prison' to get the fear/respect you need to get yer serve on. I surmise THAT is where a great majority of the murders committed stem from.



There are many other reasons, only God could know them all.

[DaGip]

Don't put out fires with gasoline! Awesome word to the wise!

It certainly did so something for the attackers...it made them feel better. And as we all have seen, how people feel is all that matters.

I "feel" better that Reginald Denny thinks mostly with his "soul" then with his anger. He could have said some really nasty things in that video, and he came across as forgiving and just wanting to put everything behind him. Even Rodney King said "Can't we all just get along?"...in this video, Denny basically says the same thing...in a different way.

I believe the Garner issue is a much more convoluted problem.

It came so soon after the Ferguson Thingy, and the public has access to the actual video.

Did Garner resist? Yes, but he wasn't being violent about it.

Perhaps he was not violent. Curious though how it is we know that or not.

Well, I watched the video. He looked nonviolent to me. For God's sake, before the loose cigarette incident the man had just broken up a fight outside the store. My feeling is he was a nonviolent person.

Did the police officer commit homicide? Yes, the coroner said so by the evidence. Did the officer mean to kill Mr. Garner? No. Was there negligence in handling the situation and when Garner was clearly telling the officers that he couldn't breath because of a collapsed trachea? I believe so (as do many others, both conservative and liberal).

Not only do you have the coroner evidence, but you have clear video taped evidence; and yet there is still no indictment by a Grand Jury. It befuddles my mind, because one of the arguments in the Brown case was that there was no video evidence of what some of the witnesses were saying. Yet here we have both forensic evidence and video evidence, but the Grand Jury in NYC still comes up with no indictment.

Just wondering, how much do you blame the health of Garner? Certainly, the same outcome could be possible had someone ordered him to walk up 3 flights of stairs. I'm not defending the cop or the choke hold, but I do find it possible that the choke may have added pressure based on what another officer was doing with Garner's arm, or Garner's leg, or the position Garner's head was being pushed to the ground.

I blame the choke and the knee to the back of the skull (pushing Garner's head into his chest) for causing his death. This was indeed the cause of homicide according to the NYC coroner. The asthma and coronary were contributing factors but not the initiating one.

You are right (even though I am sure you are being quite sarcastic), we indeed tend to put our "feelings" first. That's really what matters, right? That's how you judge the world around you, right? With feelings?

I really try not to. I have difficulty here sometimes when it comes to love/relationships/family, but at least that is not projecting my feelings/my business onto every else in the world who is not involved. If feelings are all that is important, then the mind is likely to have already been wasted. And a mind is a terrible thing to waste.

You're lying to yourself if you really believe you truly don't put your feelings first, it's just a matter of judging which "feelings" of ours is more important. When it comes to family and relationships, you may think you are putting your feelings aside; but only to store up positive feelings for the future (most likely to keep your spouse around for sex and status).

[Phatscotty]

Don't put out fires with gasoline! Awesome word to the wise!

It certainly did so something for the attackers...it made them feel better. And as we all have seen, how people feel is all that matters.

I "feel" better that Reginald Denny thinks mostly with his "soul" then with his anger. He could have said some really nasty things in that video, and he came across as forgiving and just wanting to put everything behind him. Even Rodney King said "Can't we all just get along?"...in this video, Denny basically says the same thing...in a different way.

I believe the Garner issue is a much more convoluted problem.

It came so soon after the Ferguson Thingy, and the public has access to the actual video.

Did Garner resist? Yes, but he wasn't being violent about it.

Perhaps he was not violent. Curious though how it is we know that or not.

Well, I watched the video. He looked nonviolent to me. For God's sake, before the loose cigarette incident the man had just broken up a fight outside the store. My feeling is he was a nonviolent person.

Surely I agree. He was non-violent. I only point out that the video does not show Eric Garner in the events that led up to 6-7 additional officers being called in to aid the arrest. Neither of us know, but I do know virtually all of the time if you are not uncooperative, police do not call in 7 backup officers to arrest you. As I tout, save the arguments for the courtroom. And I also know how big people are used to acting, throwing their weight around. Not saying that is what Garner did.

Did the police officer commit homicide? Yes, the coroner said so by the evidence. Did the officer mean to kill Mr. Garner? No. Was there negligence in handling the situation and when Garner was clearly telling the officers that he couldn't breath because of a collapsed trachea? I believe so (as do many others, both conservative and liberal).

Not only do you have the coroner evidence, but you have clear video taped evidence; and yet there is still no indictment by a Grand Jury. It befuddles my mind, because one of the arguments in the Brown case was that there was no video evidence of what some of the witnesses were saying. Yet here we have both forensic evidence and video evidence, but the Grand Jury in NYC still comes up with no indictment.

Just wondering, how much do you blame the health of Garner? Certainly, the same outcome could be possible had someone ordered him to walk up 3 flights of stairs. I'm not defending the cop or the choke hold, but I do find it possible that the choke may have added pressure based on what another officer was doing with Garner's arm, or Garner's leg, or the position Garner's head was being pushed to the ground.

I blame the choke and the knee to the back of the skull (pushing Garner's head into his chest) for causing his death. This was indeed the cause of homicide according to the NYC coroner. The asthma and coronary were contributing factors but not the initiating one.

K, so you agree, while not excusing the officers by any means, if Garner were 5'9 and 180, he would very likely still be alive today?

You are right (even though I am sure you are being quite sarcastic), we indeed tend to put our "feelings" first. That's really what matters, right? That's how you judge the world around you, right? With feelings?

I really try not to. I have difficulty here sometimes when it comes to love/relationships/family, but at least that is not projecting my feelings/my business onto every else in the world who is not involved. If feelings are all that is important, then the mind is likely to have already been wasted. And a mind is a terrible thing to waste.

You're lying to yourself if you really believe you truly don't put your feelings first, it's just a matter of judging which "feelings" of ours is more important. When it comes to family and relationships, you may think you are putting your feelings aside; but only to store up positive feelings for the future (most likely to keep your spouse around for sex and status).

I didn't say I don't do that, I even offered up the times I might fail. I said I TRY not to. I try to be objective, and I have lived that way for quite some time now. With all that experience it comes a bit easier sure. I am by no means perfect, neither are police, neither is anyone, neither is justice.

[_sabotage_]

The video shows cops coming back to a guy who refused to move because there was no reason to. They probably were just a pair and came back with all their bodies, intent on showing him that he better respect the police.

The guy who chokes him is guns ho from the get go, probably keen on showing his pals what a badass he is. He goes straight for the stranglehold, no doubt his favorite move.

Regardless of Garners health, the cops were just showing who's boss. Which is exactly what they aren't allowed to do. Chilling on the sidewalk in New York has been happening before they had sidewalks. They could have said loitering but picked loosies. For real, how much money can you get from loosies? A pack of smokes here costs $16 and no one is selling loosies, how much less when a pack is so much cheaper there. edit: wtf $14 a pack in NY?

That's bullshit. That's exactly what we don't want from cops, going around showing people their authority must be respected regardless of your conduct. And that's when we expect our justice system to lay the smack down. It's not a racial issue, it's the rule of law being meted out unequally highlighted through race.

[Phatscotty]

The video shows cops coming back to a guy who refused to move because there was no reason to. They probably were just a pair and came back with all their bodies, intent on showing him that he better respect the police.

The guy who chokes him is guns ho from the get go, probably keen on showing his pals what a badass he is. He goes straight for the stranglehold, no doubt his favorite move.

Regardless of Garners health, the cops were just showing who's boss. Which is exactly what they aren't allowed to do. Chilling on the sidewalk in New York has been happening before they had sidewalks. They could have said loitering but picked loosies. For real, how much money can you get from loosies? A pack of smokes here costs $16 and no one is selling loosies, how much less when a pack is so much cheaper there. edit: wtf $14 a pack in NY?

That's bullshit. That's exactly what we don't want from cops, going around showing people their authority must be respected regardless of your conduct. And that's when we expect our justice system to lay the smack down. It's not a racial issue, it's the rule of law being meted out unequally highlighted through race.

Hey now, you know I'm all about letting people keep their money and cutting taxes, I agree the law is ridiculous. However, I understand how government operates. It's as simple as THE GOVERNMENT WANT'S THEIR MONEY! If you are not familiar with the 'f*ck you PAY ME' quip I already dropped on the topic, you can catch up here.


However, the dumbest law passed by a government in the world and the understanding the government that passed it is going to enforce it is what is going to happen everytime. Yet 'for no reason' is not the same thing as 'for the dumbest reason...selling loose cigarettes...which IS a crime because it deprives the government of THEIR money they charge on top of the cost of what cigarettes would actually cost. I don't say this in support of that. I guess it's a small part of the 'social contract' nobody can seem to remember ever signing.

[_sabotage_]

Texas has or had a law saying that if you catch your spouse cheating in your home, you can kill them both. When you come home and find your wife reading the paper on the sofa, shoot her and then go looking for the guy and see how that works for you.

He had no cigarettes on him. Do you think that the police made it up? They were there to teach him a lesson and the lesson went too far and they said he was selling loosies as an excuse to have harassed him. It was too public to sprinkle crack on him.

That is the point. For certain people, it doesn't matter, the cops can do whatever they want and then excuse it however they want and that is what people are mad about. And if they keep getting away with it, they will keep doing it.

[DoomYoshi]

[thegreekdog]

Seriously Mets... what are you 10? Can you really be that naive?

If you're going to pick a martyr for your cause pick someone who didn't commit a robbery and an assault.

Alleged robbery and assault. Was Garner ever convicted of these crimes?

No. Does the media care? Do the police care? Does the general public care? The media, police, and general public are all groups that protestors are trying to win over. Picking someone who committed a crime (whether alleged or not) is a bad idea.

There are plenty of better people to pick as poster children for this cause. And it's an important cause to be championed. By picking this guy, you're letting the deniers invalidate the cause.

Indeed. We should only be standing up for the rights of clean, wholesome black men. Petty criminals deserve to be choked to death by the police.

Pick a different petty criminal. There are many.

As a supporter of civil rights, it makes me angry that this criminal

MLK was a criminal too.

Really? Did he allegedly intimidate and steal tobacco and then attack a police officer?

is the person I now have to support to make sure civil rights violations are noticed.

You don't have to "support" him. You just have to support the notion that selling untaxed cigarettes does not warrant a death sentence administered by a police officer on the street.

Incorrect and naive. I do have to support him. Because right now the fight against police brutality and the fight for civil rights is all about Ferguson. So if I fight police brutality and fight for civil rights, I'm immediately invalidated by a large percentage of my target audience because of the support for this particular individual.

I seriously couldn't be more upset about this situation. It's well documented on CC that I'm a proponent of the maximum restrictions available on police and the maximum civil rights attainable. The best way to win people over is to show the police brutality and civil rights violations that happen to non-violent criminals or non-criminals. I mean non-criminals alone should provide adequate support.

[Metsfanmax]

Seriously Mets... what are you 10? Can you really be that naive?

In both the cases of Eric Garner and Michael Brown, very few people are actually focusing on the criminal records of these individuals. (I mean, even Bill O'Reilly has come out against what happened to Eric Garner, and Garner had a much longer criminal record than Brown did.) There are very few people who are focusing on that criminal history, and it is mainly white supremacists and other individuals who weren't going to be won over anyway, who are using arguments such as this. You're literally imagining into existence a problem that doesn't exist, simply because it could.

No. Does the media care? Do the police care? Does the general public care? The media, police, and general public are all groups that protestors are trying to win over. Picking someone who committed a crime (whether alleged or not) is a bad idea.

Is it a bad idea? Who are the people really talking about Michael Brown and the robbery? Are they people that could have been won over, but weren't because of it? I doubt it. What Officer Wilson did wasn't because of the robbery, and so bringing it up is just a way to besmirch Michael Brown in an irrelevant manner. And if people were doing it, that'd be important. But they're not, because there's much more important issues to focus on in this case.

is the person I now have to support to make sure civil rights violations are noticed.

You don't have to "support" him. You just have to support the notion that selling untaxed cigarettes does not warrant a death sentence administered by a police officer on the street.

Incorrect and naive. I do have to support him. Because right now the fight against police brutality and the fight for civil rights is all about Ferguson. So if I fight police brutality and fight for civil rights, I'm immediately invalidated by a large percentage of my target audience because of the support for this particular individual.

No, you missed the point. I didn't say that you can ignore what happened in Ferguson. I said that what has happened in Ferguson is not about Michael Brown. It is a symbol for the countless times that a police officer killed an unarmed black person, and this happens much more than it happens to white people. What happened to Michael Brown is unfortunate, and undeserved, whether or not he was a "criminal," and the same is true for all of the other victims. This movement isn't about saying that Michael Brown is a saint -- it is saying that black lives matter, and if you take someone's life, you should see a day in court for it.

I seriously couldn't be more upset about this situation. It's well documented on CC that I'm a proponent of the maximum restrictions available on police and the maximum civil rights attainable. The best way to win people over is to show the police brutality and civil rights violations that happen to non-violent criminals or non-criminals. I mean non-criminals alone should provide adequate support.

Your view on this is simplistic and absurd, because it ignores the realities of what it is to be a black person in this country. Something like 1/3 of black people are either in prison, on parole or on probation in this country. That is precisely because of our lingering history of racism. So of course when this happens, there's a good chance it's going to happen to a "criminal." That is the problem itself. But again, it doesn't matter because the people who need to be won over are the people on the fence and who know about racism in this country but aren't talking about it, not the Fox News types who will defend white privilege regardless of circumstance.

[thegreekdog]

Seriously Mets... what are you 10? Can you really be that naive?

In both the cases of Eric Garner and Michael Brown, very few people are actually focusing on the criminal records of these individuals. (I mean, even Bill O'Reilly has come out against what happened to Eric Garner, and Garner had a much longer criminal record than Brown did.) There are very few people who are focusing on that criminal history, and it is mainly white supremacists and other individuals who weren't going to be won over anyway, who are using arguments such as this. You're literally imagining into existence a problem that doesn't exist, simply because it could.

No. Does the media care? Do the police care? Does the general public care? The media, police, and general public are all groups that protestors are trying to win over. Picking someone who committed a crime (whether alleged or not) is a bad idea.

Is it a bad idea? Who are the people really talking about Michael Brown and the robbery? Are they people that could have been won over, but weren't because of it? I doubt it. What Officer Wilson did wasn't because of the robbery, and so bringing it up is just a way to besmirch Michael Brown in an irrelevant manner. And if people were doing it, that'd be important. But they're not, because there's much more important issues to focus on in this case.

is the person I now have to support to make sure civil rights violations are noticed.

You don't have to "support" him. You just have to support the notion that selling untaxed cigarettes does not warrant a death sentence administered by a police officer on the street.

Incorrect and naive. I do have to support him. Because right now the fight against police brutality and the fight for civil rights is all about Ferguson. So if I fight police brutality and fight for civil rights, I'm immediately invalidated by a large percentage of my target audience because of the support for this particular individual.

No, you missed the point. I didn't say that you can ignore what happened in Ferguson. I said that what has happened in Ferguson is not about Michael Brown. It is a symbol for the countless times that a police officer killed an unarmed black person, and this happens much more than it happens to white people. What happened to Michael Brown is unfortunate, and undeserved, whether or not he was a "criminal," and the same is true for all of the other victims. This movement isn't about saying that Michael Brown is a saint -- it is saying that black lives matter, and if you take someone's life, you should see a day in court for it.

I seriously couldn't be more upset about this situation. It's well documented on CC that I'm a proponent of the maximum restrictions available on police and the maximum civil rights attainable. The best way to win people over is to show the police brutality and civil rights violations that happen to non-violent criminals or non-criminals. I mean non-criminals alone should provide adequate support.

Your view on this is simplistic and absurd, because it ignores the realities of what it is to be a black person in this country. Something like 1/3 of black people are either in prison, on parole or on probation in this country. That is precisely because of our lingering history of racism. So of course when this happens, there's a good chance it's going to happen to a "criminal." That is the problem itself. But again, it doesn't matter because the people who need to be won over are the people on the fence and who know about racism in this country but aren't talking about it, not the Fox News types who will defend white privilege regardless of circumstance.

My view is realistic, not absurd. It may be simplistic, but that happens to be a benefit in this particular circumstance. I'll come to that in a second, but wanted to dispose of your more ridiculous arguments.

While I appreciate that Michael Brown is part of the conversation, the conversation, storyline, and titles remain about Ferguson Missouri. Everything is "Ferguson." As a quick example, Profootballtalk.com has a story about a "die-in" at the Eagles-Seahawks game because of, not Eric Garner, but Ferguson. Profootballtalk is read by people who probably don't watch CNN and have no idea who Eric Garner is. And those are the people that are going to help with this problem (see below).

If you believe that no one is taking up the cause of "criminals are bad people to have as martyrs" I point you to the following (which I found after a quick Google search and the first link listed):

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the ... never-was/

We've written before about why the Garner case hasn't split the country along racial and party lines like Ferguson has. Basically, the political and racial disagreement in Ferguson was all about the still-unclear sequence of events that preceded the death of unarmed black teenager Michael Brown; it actually had little to do with politics, per se. In the Garner case, there is a video, leading to less debate about the particulars of precisely what happened.

What the Post does not note is that a large percentage of eyewitnesses in Ferguson said that Brown attacked the police officer. While I think attacking a police officer, while unarmed, is not grounds for execution, there are many people who do think it's grounds for self-defense.

Eric Garner is a much better poster child for police brutality and the racism rampant in police departments.

And you should care who the poster child is. Right now, the only people who care about civil liberties are forward thinking white Americans, black Americans, and libertarians. Those people are marginalized by everyone else (either separately or together). Forward thinking white Americans are "too liberal." Black Americans "only care about the race of the individuals involved." Libertarians "are whackjobs who only want to smoke pot." So the people we have to convince aren't forward thinking liberals, black Americans, and libertarians. The people we need to convince are the mainstream Democrats (the teachers, the workers) and mainstream Republicans (the Rockefeller Republicans). We're never going to convince hardcore conservatives.

So I wish the media and the protestors would stop referring to Ferguson. Start referring to something else, whether that is Eric Garner or not.

P.S. - The title of this thread contains the word "Ferguson." It does not contain the word "Garner." So before you come in here at me with a holier-than-thou attitude, keep that in mind (in addition to keeping in mind that I'm one of those crazy libertarians who actually thinks the Constitution should protect people from the police).

[_sabotage_]

There wouldn't be as much media into it if they choose a less controversial subject. Got to have the great national debate and then the great national relinquishing of rights to "solve" the convoluted issue.

[thegreekdog]

There wouldn't be as much media into it if they choose a less controversial subject. Got to have the great national debate and then the great national relinquishing of rights to "solve" the convoluted issue.

That's sort of related to what I was saying. I don't know how the Ferguson riots began, so I can't comment on the media's involvement, but they definitely love shit like this. Frankly, I would like national media types to start picking up more local stories of police overagression and brutality (hell, I'd like the national media to start picking up more local stories of cops pulling people over for DWB).

[_sabotage_]

Some good local news.

[thegreekdog]

Some good local news.

The awesomeness of Conan notwithstanding, the Philadelphia local news is dominated by murder, shootings, and police shootings.

[Metsfanmax]

While I appreciate that Michael Brown is part of the conversation, the conversation, storyline, and titles remain about Ferguson Missouri. Everything is "Ferguson."

This is precisely my point. This is a much larger discussion than just Michael Brown. It is a symbol for the racial tension which haunts Ferguson, Missouri, which itself is a symbol for the racial tension that haunts America. So to comment on Michael Brown's robbery is to miss the meaning of the discussion.

If you believe that no one is taking up the cause of "criminals are bad people to have as martyrs" I point you to the following (which I found after a quick Google search and the first link listed):

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the ... never-was/

We've written before about why the Garner case hasn't split the country along racial and party lines like Ferguson has. Basically, the political and racial disagreement in Ferguson was all about the still-unclear sequence of events that preceded the death of unarmed black teenager Michael Brown; it actually had little to do with politics, per se. In the Garner case, there is a video, leading to less debate about the particulars of precisely what happened.

Come on man, read the thing you posted. The point WaPo is making here has to do with the fact that there's ambiguity in what actually happened when Wilson killed Brown, it has nothing to do with Brown's prior criminal record or whether he is a good person, which is the thing you are trying to discuss. As they correctly point out, it's the actual circumstances of the killing that make the Garner case so much more clear-cut and horrifying to basically everyone.

What the Post does not note is that a large percentage of eyewitnesses in Ferguson said that Brown attacked the police officer. While I think attacking a police officer, while unarmed, is not grounds for execution, there are many people who do think it's grounds for self-defense.

Yes, but since we didn't have a trial, we didn't get a full discussion of the relevant facts of the case. Maybe those eyewitnesses are wrong, or maybe they are right. The protests occurred because Michael Brown's killer didn't even have to face a jury of his peers on the matter, something that happens in virtually every violent death, except when it's a police officer.

Eric Garner is a much better poster child for police brutality and the racism rampant in police departments.

Now you're not even being consistent. Garner was reported to have a very long arrest record and multiple run-ins with the law. As criminals go, there's no doubt that he was a bigger one. Yet you think he's the one our poster child should be? If that's true, it has nothing to do with him being a criminal and everything to do with the wrongful circumstances of his death.

And you should care who the poster child is. Right now, the only people who care about civil liberties are forward thinking white Americans, black Americans, and libertarians. Those people are marginalized by everyone else (either separately or together). Forward thinking white Americans are "too liberal." Black Americans "only care about the race of the individuals involved." Libertarians "are whackjobs who only want to smoke pot." So the people we have to convince aren't forward thinking liberals, black Americans, and libertarians. The people we need to convince are the mainstream Democrats (the teachers, the workers) and mainstream Republicans (the Rockefeller Republicans). We're never going to convince hardcore conservatives.

I literally said the same thing, I just disagreed with your ultimate conclusion that it really matters who the "poster child" is. That is not what matters in either of these cases.

[thegreekdog]

In a fantasy world, the poster child does not matter. In real life the poster child very much matters. Whether the poster child should matter or not is irrelevant. If the establishment against whom one is railing can point out enough flaws in the poster child to scare other members of the establishment from joining in the cause, the cause is negatively effected. It also matters what the poster child was doing when he or she was killed or otherwise assaulted by the cops, and less so what the poster child did in prior iterations.

While Ferguson is a symbol for racial tension, the discussion (to me anyway) is more about racial tension in a specific area of society: how the police interact with black people (not for, for example, how black people interact with white business ownership, or any other racial tensions you can think of).

The specific issue is this: Are black people treated differently by the police because of skin color? The answer is yes. When the poster child for the cause arguably commits an assault on an officer who arguably was using self defense (I say arguably because the officer was in his car and because the officer shot the poor kid 6 times), many people will say, with some evidence to support them, "Hey, the black person was not treated differently because of his skin color because the officer was acting in self defense when the black person attacked him." Do I think that is a ridiculous statement? Of course. Does the general public think this is a ridiculous statement? Um... as far as I can tell, most people (other than white liberals, crazy libertarians, and black people (other than Charles Barkley)) think this is a reasonable statement and a reasonable conclusion.

Think of it this way... most people (other than those I've mentioend... let's call them "interested parties") do not pay attention to police brutality on a regular basis. So, Jane Doe (a most people representative) is watching American Idol and sees a news break wherein there is rioting in Ferguson in support of someone who was killed by the police. Jane says "Woah, that's horrible" (she may be referring to the rioting or she may be referring to the police shooting). So she tunes in to the news and sees that a black guy was killed by a police officer and she's like "That's horrible. They should punish that police officer." Then she sees more news on the rioting in Ferguson. She watches football and sees a bunch of St. Louis Rams players protesting the shooting. She is in favor of punishing the police officer. Then the grand jury indictment comes out and she learns that the person who was shot allegedly (12 of 15 eye witness accounts say he did) assaulted the officer and that's why the officer shot him and she says "Oh. Well I still feel sorry for the guy who got shot, but this seems like something that the police officer was justified in doing." Then she goes about her daily life and forgets about Ferguson.

Jane Doe is the person that the interested parties have to convince. Using Ferguson as the poster child will not convince Jane Doe. By the way, Jane Doe is pretty much mrs. thegreekdog except that I had a discussion with her to keep her interested, but I have no doubt she will eventually become uninterested.

[thegreekdog]

Now you're not even being consistent. Garner was reported to have a very long arrest record and multiple run-ins with the law. As criminals go, there's no doubt that he was a bigger one. Yet you think he's the one our poster child should be? If that's true, it has nothing to do with him being a criminal and everything to do with the wrongful circumstances of his death.

By the way, this is weak. You clearly know that I'm arguing that the specific circumstances are different, not whether Garner had a long arrest record. I don't give a f*ck if Garner killed 30 people two years ago, the specific circumstance surrounding what he was doing (criminally) when he was assaulted is relevant (which is why he's different than Ferguson). If you're going to have this discussion, at least stop making up what points I'm making.

[Metsfanmax]

Think of it this way... most people (other than those I've mentioend... let's call them "interested parties") do not pay attention to police brutality on a regular basis. So, Jane Doe (a most people representative) is watching American Idol and sees a news break wherein there is rioting in Ferguson in support of someone who was killed by the police. Jane says "Woah, that's horrible" (she may be referring to the rioting or she may be referring to the police shooting). So she tunes in to the news and sees that a black guy was killed by a police officer and she's like "That's horrible. They should punish that police officer." Then she sees more news on the rioting in Ferguson. She watches football and sees a bunch of St. Louis Rams players protesting the shooting. She is in favor of punishing the police officer. Then the grand jury indictment comes out and she learns that the person who was shot allegedly (12 of 15 eye witness accounts say he did) assaulted the officer and that's why the officer shot him and she says "Oh. Well I still feel sorry for the guy who got shot, but this seems like something that the police officer was justified in doing." Then she goes about her daily life and forgets about Ferguson.

Your argument is sadly missing the point. If the reasonable thing had happened, and the officer actually went to trial, then the protests would not have happened. The protests are about the fact that he did not go to trial, and the fact that now Jane Does everywhere do have an excuse to not care about police brutality. Suggesting that people should just give up and not care about this means that we won't even have a chance to change perceptions. You can damn well bet that if this happens again in Ferguson, the police officer is going to trial. If the protests hadn't occurred, then maybe the system itself wouldn't have changed, independent of individual perceptions of it. Since the fight against racism is a process and isn't won overnight, there are gains to be made here even if we don't convince every Jane Doe.

If your reasoning is correct, it wouldn't matter if it was Eric Garner we were fighting for, because Jane Doe will see that the police officer got let off and she will conclude that he must have been justified.

By the way, this is weak. You clearly know that I'm arguing that the specific circumstances are different, not whether Garner had a long arrest record. I don't give a f*ck if Garner killed 30 people two years ago, the specific circumstance surrounding what he was doing (criminally) when he was assaulted is relevant (which is why he's different than Ferguson). If you're going to have this discussion, at least stop making up what points I'm making.

We happen to live in a world where I can make arguments against your perspective that you did not consider, and they are not incorrect simply because you didn't consider them. You started off with the statement that the poster child matters -- so it's up to you to then prove that being arrested 30 times in the past doesn't matter.

[Phatscotty]

given that over 75% of people shot an killed by police in America are white, I find it 'progressively' interesting how the issue can be solely a black thing. Only in America, and from the head of an American University of higher learning at that..

Smith college president apologizes for email saying 'ALL lives matter' Why how dare she!

“It minimizes the anti-blackness of this the current situation; yes, all lives matter, but not all lives are being targeted for police brutality,” one student said

great, a know it all college student doesn't even know the most basic statistics on which to make her false claims, but no matter what is said or what the truth is, that student will still spend hours talking about how blacks are targeted more , I'm sure she would say more than anyone else.

www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/dec/9 ... z3ODLjnJt1

the truth doesn't matter, all that matters is that social justice is marching forward with it's officially hijacked story which curiously has not changed a single bit since the first night Ferguson made the news up until today. Funny how they got it so right without knowing any of the information. But really they didn't get the narrative right, they created the narrative, and made it right, to suit their own ends.

Honest question that would appreciate an honest answer. What is the evidence that Darren Wilson is a racist, or was motivated by racism?

[codeblue1018]

Mets, the execution of Michael Brown? Did you read the case report regarding this incident including witness statements and the evidence provided to the grand jury? No, you didn't. The Garner case leaves a sour taste in my mouth, however, Michael Brown? Ha! Not in the least. Everyone keeps their focus on the "unarmed black man"; the fact that he was unarmed is completely irrelevant; "the gentle giant" tried on multiple occasions to disarm Officer Wilson. Was this to take his gun home and keep it as a souvenir? No, it wasn't it; it was so that he could kill Officer Wilson. The evidence proves this theory as well from the struggle within the patrol car. Bottom line Is this: to all the critics out there - simply put on a uniform and do the job before judging what it is officers do and the decisions that they make. Decisions are made in a split second in situations such as these and 99% of the time, the decisions are correct; for the 1% that aren't, prosecute them. Officers don't have the luxury of retreating especially in the Brown case. Not only did the "gentle giant" commit a robbery but now he assaulted and attempted to disarm a police officer for the sole intent on killing Officer Wilson. If this pos would have done what he was told to do, Brown would still be breathing. Officer Wilson was doomed from the minute he pulled the trigger. No one wants to hear the truth in this case. Wilson was guilty based in the court of public opinion when no one, I repeat, no one knew the facts. What's a shame is the fact that Officer Wilsons life will never be the same even though he did his job correctly that day.

[_sabotage_]

A very American point of view Codeblue.

Did you know that other countries have criminals too? I know that the US is the only country in the world with freedom, cuz a native told me so, but do you find it strange that in other countries the police have the requisite training to use the tools available to take down a criminal without shooting them to death? I don't remember Bruce Lee pulling out a gun to shoot Kareem.

Are American cops more bloodthirsty or does the fact that they are never punished have something to do with it?

The Experiment was based on a real experiment using post-graduate students at Stanford I believe. The experiment was cut short because the psychology students who knew they were in an experiment became too violent. Do you think this has anything to do with the state of affairs, that criminals are seen as them not as us?

[thegreekdog]

Who are you and what have you done with Metsfanmax? Are you not reading what I type or are you merely ignoring it so that you can type high level, unrealistic, fantasy-land mumbo-jumbo? I thought you were a reasoned individual.

Think of it this way... most people (other than those I've mentioend... let's call them "interested parties") do not pay attention to police brutality on a regular basis. So, Jane Doe (a most people representative) is watching American Idol and sees a news break wherein there is rioting in Ferguson in support of someone who was killed by the police. Jane says "Woah, that's horrible" (she may be referring to the rioting or she may be referring to the police shooting). So she tunes in to the news and sees that a black guy was killed by a police officer and she's like "That's horrible. They should punish that police officer." Then she sees more news on the rioting in Ferguson. She watches football and sees a bunch of St. Louis Rams players protesting the shooting. She is in favor of punishing the police officer. Then the grand jury indictment comes out and she learns that the person who was shot allegedly (12 of 15 eye witness accounts say he did) assaulted the officer and that's why the officer shot him and she says "Oh. Well I still feel sorry for the guy who got shot, but this seems like something that the police officer was justified in doing." Then she goes about her daily life and forgets about Ferguson.

Your argument is sadly missing the point. If the reasonable thing had happened, and the officer actually went to trial, then the protests would not have happened. The protests are about the fact that he did not go to trial, and the fact that now Jane Does everywhere do have an excuse to not care about police brutality. Suggesting that people should just give up and not care about this means that we won't even have a chance to change perceptions. You can damn well bet that if this happens again in Ferguson, the police officer is going to trial. If the protests hadn't occurred, then maybe the system itself wouldn't have changed, independent of individual perceptions of it. Since the fight against racism is a process and isn't won overnight, there are gains to be made here even if we don't convince every Jane Doe.

If your reasoning is correct, it wouldn't matter if it was Eric Garner we were fighting for, because Jane Doe will see that the police officer got let off and she will conclude that he must have been justified.

(1) I am not suggesting that Jane Doe has an excuse not to care about police brutality because the case did not go to trial. I have not suggested that and will not suggest that.
(2) I am not suggesting that people should give up on this. I'm strongly suggesting people in the United States from every walk of life should very much care about this and do everything in their power to fix the problem of police brutality and police accountability. Nowhere have I suggested otherwise in this thread. What I am suggesting is that there is a better method to fight this than to protest or riot or break windows in support of a person who the general public thinks committed a crime that resulted in the police officer engaging in self-defense (no matter that the general public is mistaken).
(3) It would matter a lot more if it was Eric Garner we were fighting for because that person is completely innocent, both figuratively and literally.

By the way, this is weak. You clearly know that I'm arguing that the specific circumstances are different, not whether Garner had a long arrest record. I don't give a f*ck if Garner killed 30 people two years ago, the specific circumstance surrounding what he was doing (criminally) when he was assaulted is relevant (which is why he's different than Ferguson). If you're going to have this discussion, at least stop making up what points I'm making.

We happen to live in a world where I can make arguments against your perspective that you did not consider, and they are not incorrect simply because you didn't consider them. You started off with the statement that the poster child matters -- so it's up to you to then prove that being arrested 30 times in the past doesn't matter.[/quote]

It was clear from my post that I was not referring to whether or not Eric Garner had a criminal history. I was referring to the specific acts engaged in by him that led the police to do to him what they did. What is your fault is ascribing points of view to me that I simply do not hold.

[thegreekdog]

Mets, the execution of Michael Brown? Did you read the case report regarding this incident including witness statements and the evidence provided to the grand jury? No, you didn't. The Garner case leaves a sour taste in my mouth, however, Michael Brown? Ha! Not in the least. Everyone keeps their focus on the "unarmed black man"; the fact that he was unarmed is completely irrelevant; "the gentle giant" tried on multiple occasions to disarm Officer Wilson. Was this to take his gun home and keep it as a souvenir? No, it wasn't it; it was so that he could kill Officer Wilson. The evidence proves this theory as well from the struggle within the patrol car. Bottom line Is this: to all the critics out there - simply put on a uniform and do the job before judging what it is officers do and the decisions that they make. Decisions are made in a split second in situations such as these and 99% of the time, the decisions are correct; for the 1% that aren't, prosecute them. Officers don't have the luxury of retreating especially in the Brown case. Not only did the "gentle giant" commit a robbery but now he assaulted and attempted to disarm a police officer for the sole intent on killing Officer Wilson. If this pos would have done what he was told to do, Brown would still be breathing. Officer Wilson was doomed from the minute he pulled the trigger. No one wants to hear the truth in this case. Wilson was guilty based in the court of public opinion when no one, I repeat, no one knew the facts. What's a shame is the fact that Officer Wilsons life will never be the same even though he did his job correctly that day.

Mets - I give you my Exhibit A. Is codeblue off base about Michael Brown? Sure. But note that the Garner leaves a sour taste in his mouth while the Brown case does not. While you can certainly shake your fist at codeblue (and you have every right to do so) the intelligent thing for this particular cause is to focus on Garner, not defend Brown. Make Garner your poster child, not Brown.