Words of Wisdom for Ferguson and America

[Phatscotty]

Aside from (systemically shitty) policing, here's what bothers me about the Michael Brown incident:

(1) The initial confrontation. The officer (of course) tells the court that he was responding to a reported theft of cigarillos. He sees two people and tells them (politely, ha!) to walk on the sidewalk. The two don't comply, so officer (dick) throws his car in reverse and cuts into the street at angle in order to block them. He then tells them to walk on the sidewalk.

That's just asking for a fight. The confrontation is unnecessary, and it hardly doesn't matter if they're walking on the side of the street. I'd expect the officer to have a history of being unnecessarily confrontational. That's not the proper role of a cop.

Wait, you are serious about this! At first glance I thought it was perhaps sarcasm. No way is that, telling them to get out of the middle of the street, looking for a fight. First of all, it's just common sense. Second, it is a matter of safety, and if anything, the cop asking the men to get out of the middle of the street actually sound more like the 'peace' officers of yesterday. 3rd, I would bet a decent sum of money it's illegal. I don't know what the exact law is in Ferguson or Missouri concerning pedestrians, but I do know you can get a ticket for walking in the middle of most intersections cross-walks all across America if you are being flagrant about it, much less the middle of the road.

And there are a lot of other things that are important about this opening conversation as well. We can't know for sure what was said by any of the people involved and if that is the truth or not, but I do wonder why it is you opine that a police officer can just be doing their job in such an example, and be told (presumably) to 'f*ck off'.....and you expect a police officer to just take that blatant disrespect and move along?? Because that would indicate all kinds of things. One of those things would be an understanding that this particular community has no respect for police, does not listen to police, and in fact regularly throws it in police officers faces....that says a few things about the police department as well as a few things about the community it polices. Such as, you may understand that if the police show it's okay to ignore them, the police can expect to be ignored more and more. Yet these lines are all heading in the complete opposite direction of the 'racist' narrative that has been repeatedly highlighted as factual. But there are problems with your excusing the other way as well, as if when a community knows they don't have to listen to police officers and think they are cool for dissin cops, they are going to think it's cool next time, and the time after that. You can easily see how eventually a police officer will be at the point of drawing their gun for one reason or another, and people in the community out of habit do not listen and disrespect at times like say....when we call the police to pry armed burglars out of our homes or businesses, when life/death may be on the line. In short, any authority that allows their authority to be challenged, or as in this supposed case, allows their authority to be besmirched, disgraced and outright rudely and profanely overruled is only likely going to lead to more lawlessness as well as more confrontations. Being honest you should be able to see how the police allowing people to blow them off and leave the impression 'the police can't do/won't do shit' only set's the stage later on for people to commit crimes they might not have otherwise as well as treat police as if the police aren't gonna do shit. And that is a real possibility of why Browne may have charged the officer in the first place, Browne may have been convinced 'the police won't do shit'. To big people used to pushing others around and using fear to manipulate others to get what they want, they view 'they won't do shit' as a green light to oppress others, because that's who large cowardly bullies pick on and harass and steal from the most...the one's they believe will not fight back.

[BigBallinStalin]

Aside from (systemically shitty) policing, here's what bothers me about the Michael Brown incident:

(1) The initial confrontation. The officer (of course) tells the court that he was responding to a reported theft of cigarillos. He sees two people and tells them (politely, ha!) to walk on the sidewalk. The two don't comply, so officer (dick) throws his car in reverse and cuts into the street at angle in order to block them. He then tells them to walk on the sidewalk.

That's just asking for a fight. The confrontation is unnecessary, and it hardly doesn't matter if they're walking on the side of the street. I'd expect the officer to have a history of being unnecessarily confrontational. That's not the proper role of a cop.

Wait, you are serious about this! At first glance I thought it was perhaps sarcasm. No way is that, telling them to get out of the middle of the street, looking for a fight. First of all, it's just common sense. Second, it is a matter of safety, and if anything, the cop asking the men to get out of the middle of the street actually sound more like the 'peace' officers of yesterday. 3rd, I would bet a decent sum of money it's illegal. I don't know what the exact law is in Ferguson or Missouri concerning pedestrians, but I do know you can get a ticket for walking in the middle of most intersections cross-walks all across America if you are being flagrant about it, much less the middle of the road.

And there are a lot of other things that are important about this opening conversation as well. We can't know for sure what was said by any of the people involved and if that is the truth or not, but I do wonder why it is you opine that a police officer can just be doing their job in such an example, and be told (presumably) to 'f*ck off'.....and you expect a police officer to just take that blatant disrespect and move along?? Because that would indicate all kinds of things. One of those things would be an understanding that this particular community has no respect for police, does not listen to police, and in fact regularly throws it in police officers faces....that says a few things about the police department as well as a few things about the community it polices. Such as, you may understand that if the police show it's okay to ignore them, the police can expect to be ignored more and more. Yet these lines are all heading in the complete opposite direction of the 'racist' narrative that has been repeatedly highlighted as factual. But there are problems with your excusing the other way as well, as if when a community knows they don't have to listen to police officers and think they are cool for dissin cops, they are going to think it's cool next time, and the time after that. You can easily see how eventually a police officer will be at the point of drawing their gun for one reason or another, and people in the community out of habit do not listen and disrespect at times like say....when we call the police to pry armed burglars out of our homes or businesses, when life/death may be on the line. In short, any authority that allows their authority to be challenged, or as in this supposed case, allows their authority to be besmirched, disgraced and outright rudely and profanely overruled is only likely going to lead to more lawlessness as well as more confrontations. Being honest you should be able to see how the police allowing people to blow them off and leave the impression 'the police can't do/won't do shit' only set's the stage later on for people to commit crimes they might not have otherwise as well as treat police as if the police aren't gonna do shit. And that is a real possibility of why Browne may have charged the officer in the first place, Browne may have been convinced 'the police won't do shit'. To big people used to pushing others around and using fear to manipulate others to get what they want, they view 'they won't do shit' as a green light to oppress others, because that's who large cowardly bullies pick on and harass and steal fr]

You're another prejudiced moron who thinks police in poor black neighborhoods are the nicest people in the world.

[_sabotage_]

Agreed, except for moron.

[thegreekdog]

Aside from (systemically shitty) policing, here's what bothers me about the Michael Brown incident:

(1) The initial confrontation. The officer (of course) tells the court that he was responding to a reported theft of cigarillos. He sees two people and tells them (politely, ha!) to walk on the sidewalk. The two don't comply, so officer (dick) throws his car in reverse and cuts into the street at angle in order to block them. He then tells them to walk on the sidewalk.

That's just asking for a fight. The confrontation is unnecessary, and it hardly doesn't matter if they're walking on the side of the street. I'd expect the officer to have a history of being unnecessarily confrontational. That's not the proper role of a cop.

Wait, you are serious about this! At first glance I thought it was perhaps sarcasm. No way is that, telling them to get out of the middle of the street, looking for a fight. First of all, it's just common sense. Second, it is a matter of safety, and if anything, the cop asking the men to get out of the middle of the street actually sound more like the 'peace' officers of yesterday. 3rd, I would bet a decent sum of money it's illegal. I don't know what the exact law is in Ferguson or Missouri concerning pedestrians, but I do know you can get a ticket for walking in the middle of most intersections cross-walks all across America if you are being flagrant about it, much less the middle of the road.

And there are a lot of other things that are important about this opening conversation as well. We can't know for sure what was said by any of the people involved and if that is the truth or not, but I do wonder why it is you opine that a police officer can just be doing their job in such an example, and be told (presumably) to 'f*ck off'.....and you expect a police officer to just take that blatant disrespect and move along?? Because that would indicate all kinds of things. One of those things would be an understanding that this particular community has no respect for police, does not listen to police, and in fact regularly throws it in police officers faces....that says a few things about the police department as well as a few things about the community it polices. Such as, you may understand that if the police show it's okay to ignore them, the police can expect to be ignored more and more. Yet these lines are all heading in the complete opposite direction of the 'racist' narrative that has been repeatedly highlighted as factual. But there are problems with your excusing the other way as well, as if when a community knows they don't have to listen to police officers and think they are cool for dissin cops, they are going to think it's cool next time, and the time after that. You can easily see how eventually a police officer will be at the point of drawing their gun for one reason or another, and people in the community out of habit do not listen and disrespect at times like say....when we call the police to pry armed burglars out of our homes or businesses, when life/death may be on the line. In short, any authority that allows their authority to be challenged, or as in this supposed case, allows their authority to be besmirched, disgraced and outright rudely and profanely overruled is only likely going to lead to more lawlessness as well as more confrontations. Being honest you should be able to see how the police allowing people to blow them off and leave the impression 'the police can't do/won't do shit' only set's the stage later on for people to commit crimes they might not have otherwise as well as treat police as if the police aren't gonna do shit. And that is a real possibility of why Browne may have charged the officer in the first place, Browne may have been convinced 'the police won't do shit'. To big people used to pushing others around and using fear to manipulate others to get what they want, they view 'they won't do shit' as a green light to oppress others, because that's who large cowardly bullies pick on and harass and steal fr]

You're another prejudiced moron who thinks police in poor black neighborhoods are the nicest people in the world.

I think he ignored my post wherein I pointed out that his stated position and his posts do not mesh.

[Phatscotty]

Aside from (systemically shitty) policing, here's what bothers me about the Michael Brown incident:

(1) The initial confrontation. The officer (of course) tells the court that he was responding to a reported theft of cigarillos. He sees two people and tells them (politely, ha!) to walk on the sidewalk. The two don't comply, so officer (dick) throws his car in reverse and cuts into the street at angle in order to block them. He then tells them to walk on the sidewalk.

That's just asking for a fight. The confrontation is unnecessary, and it hardly doesn't matter if they're walking on the side of the street. I'd expect the officer to have a history of being unnecessarily confrontational. That's not the proper role of a cop.

Wait, you are serious about this! At first glance I thought it was perhaps sarcasm. No way is that, telling them to get out of the middle of the street, looking for a fight. First of all, it's just common sense. Second, it is a matter of safety, and if anything, the cop asking the men to get out of the middle of the street actually sound more like the 'peace' officers of yesterday. 3rd, I would bet a decent sum of money it's illegal. I don't know what the exact law is in Ferguson or Missouri concerning pedestrians, but I do know you can get a ticket for walking in the middle of most intersections cross-walks all across America if you are being flagrant about it, much less the middle of the road.

And there are a lot of other things that are important about this opening conversation as well. We can't know for sure what was said by any of the people involved and if that is the truth or not, but I do wonder why it is you opine that a police officer can just be doing their job in such an example, and be told (presumably) to 'f*ck off'.....and you expect a police officer to just take that blatant disrespect and move along?? Because that would indicate all kinds of things. One of those things would be an understanding that this particular community has no respect for police, does not listen to police, and in fact regularly throws it in police officers faces....that says a few things about the police department as well as a few things about the community it polices. Such as, you may understand that if the police show it's okay to ignore them, the police can expect to be ignored more and more. Yet these lines are all heading in the complete opposite direction of the 'racist' narrative that has been repeatedly highlighted as factual. But there are problems with your excusing the other way as well, as if when a community knows they don't have to listen to police officers and think they are cool for dissin cops, they are going to think it's cool next time, and the time after that. You can easily see how eventually a police officer will be at the point of drawing their gun for one reason or another, and people in the community out of habit do not listen and disrespect at times like say....when we call the police to pry armed burglars out of our homes or businesses, when life/death may be on the line. In short, any authority that allows their authority to be challenged, or as in this supposed case, allows their authority to be besmirched, disgraced and outright rudely and profanely overruled is only likely going to lead to more lawlessness as well as more confrontations. Being honest you should be able to see how the police allowing people to blow them off and leave the impression 'the police can't do/won't do shit' only set's the stage later on for people to commit crimes they might not have otherwise as well as treat police as if the police aren't gonna do shit. And that is a real possibility of why Browne may have charged the officer in the first place, Browne may have been convinced 'the police won't do shit'. To big people used to pushing others around and using fear to manipulate others to get what they want, they view 'they won't do shit' as a green light to oppress others, because that's who large cowardly bullies pick on and harass and steal from]

You're another prejudiced moron who thinks police in poor black neighborhoods are the nicest people in the world.

I happen to firmly believe police officers in black neighborhoods are the furthest thing from the nicest people in the world, and for good reason. Just as your thoughtless conclusion and name calling is the furthest thing from an intelligent thought in the world.

Perhaps it's your own prejudice that led you to conclude 100% inaccurate?

[Metsfanmax]

I happen to firmly believe police officers in black neighborhoods are the furthest thing from the nicest people in the world, and for good reason.

Can we just be clear about what the reason is, that police officers should be meaner in black neighborhoods? Is it because the tiny fraction of black people that commit violent crimes is higher than the tiny fraction of white people that commit violent crimes?

[Phatscotty]

Agreed, except for moron.

Hey, you like to converse...

poke as many holes as you like sir! If you would be so kind as to speak somewhat to where I am wrong, where I could be wrong, maybe even where I am right with that long post?

[Phatscotty]

I happen to firmly believe police officers in black neighborhoods are the furthest thing from the nicest people in the world, and for good reason.

Can we just be clear about what the reason is, that police officers should be meaner in black neighborhoods? Is it because the tiny fraction of black people that commit violent crimes is higher than the tiny fraction of white people that commit violent crimes?

No, that is not the reason.

So a question back to you on just how tiny things are... how would you describe the fraction of people who commit violent crimes in schools?

[Phatscotty]

I'm not supporting the state and it's killing of these people at all Greeky, I asked what made the Ferguson shooting a race issue. If you are referring to a different comment, by all means, throw it at me. Both deaths are nothing but sad and tragic.

Good. Except...

Hmm, oppressor? violate rights of citizens? Tell me who is the oppressor, who is violating other's rights here....



LOL I'm not demanding anything, I'm challenging the narrative. And since you didn't even address the question and instead turned it all about the person asking it, I'm pretty sure I know why nobody can answer it.

The two posts don't seem to interact cohesively.

What the first post says to me is "Phatscotty believes police have too much power and that the deaths are sad and tragic."
What the second post says to me is "Phatscotty thinks it's okay that this particular person was killed because he committed a crime."

Oh, found it Greeky, and I wasn't ignoring it.

Answer: The two posts don't seem to interact cohesively because they are separate posts. #1 is about the 'facts' about the Browne shooting and it's alleged relation to race as well as calling out a dodge. #2 is just me being curious if Mets could be honest enough to admit that Browne was an oppressor and violated other people's rights.

And one more thing on your takeaway from #2 post that might explain your confusion as to what seems cohesive and what does not. Not only did I ever in any way think or say Browne should have been killed while I have spoken to the contrary about the sadness and tragedy of the situation, the issue raised with Mets and the picture I showed do not seem to be the reason why Browne was stopped and told to get out of the middle of the road, nor have I heard anyone make the case that Browne was murdered for strong-arm robber he committed just minutes before. The cop says he shot Browne because he went for the cops gun. Maybe he did, maybe he did not. But the majority of witnesses do agree on one thing even as they differ on others, and that was that Browne was walking/rushing towards the police officer, also a factor on why this particular person was killed.

I think you are grasping at straws trying to make the case that me asking a specific question to Mets about Michael Browne per the robbery in relation to something Mets said prior somehow auto-implies I think he deserved to be killed, as I do not believe he deserved to be killed, not even 1%.

[Metsfanmax]

I happen to firmly believe police officers in black neighborhoods are the furthest thing from the nicest people in the world, and for good reason.

Can we just be clear about what the reason is, that police officers should be meaner in black neighborhoods? Is it because the tiny fraction of black people that commit violent crimes is higher than the tiny fraction of white people that commit violent crimes?

No, that is not the reason.

Then what is it?

So a question back to you on just how tiny things are... how would you describe the fraction of people who commit violent crimes in schools?

Miniscule. As a back of the envelope calculation using the easiest things I could find on Google in 30 seconds: the CDC estimates that no more than 1-2% of homicides of school-age children occur on school grounds. According to the Child Trends Data Bank (no idea who that is, but Google), the homicide rate for teens age 15-19 is on the order of 10 deaths per 100,000 every year. That means your chance of being killed in a school is something like 1 in a million every year, and correspondingly that's about how many people there are who kill others in schools. And this is an upper limit that doesn't account for the fact that some school killings are shooting sprees, which would bring down the number even more.

(We could expand this to talk about violent crimes other than homicide of course, but it's 5 AM and I'm too lazy right now.)

I think you are grasping at straws trying to make the case that me asking a specific question to Mets about Michael Browne per the robbery in relation to something Mets said prior somehow auto-implies I think he should have been killed because of the robbery.

No, we think that it implies that you are unwilling to answer a straight question about the police and racism, because you would rather interrogate us and our reasoning for asking said straight question. (And then you go on about how we are the ones who don't answer straight questions, when you pose your own unrelated questions.) This isn't academic -- you are constantly posting things like "no BBS you misinterpreted me" instead of just saying what the f*ck it is you actually think so that we can all just move on.

[Phatscotty]

I happen to firmly believe police officers in black neighborhoods are the furthest thing from the nicest people in the world, and for good reason.

Can we just be clear about what the reason is, that police officers should be meaner in black neighborhoods? Is it because the tiny fraction of black people that commit violent crimes is higher than the tiny fraction of white people that commit violent crimes?

No, that is not the reason.

Then what is it?

So a question back to you on just how tiny things are... how would you describe the fraction of people who commit violent crimes in schools?

Miniscule. As a back of the envelope calculation using the easiest things I could find on Google in 30 seconds: the CDC estimates that no more than 1-2% of homicides of school-age children occur on school grounds. According to the Child Trends Data Bank (no idea who that is, but Google), the homicide rate for teens age 15-19 is on the order of 10 deaths per 100,000 every year. That means your chance of being killed in a school is something like 1 in a million every year, and correspondingly that's about how many people there are who kill others in schools. And this is an upper limit that doesn't account for the fact that some school killings are shooting sprees, which would bring down the number even more.

(We could expand this to talk about violent crimes other than homicide of course, but it's 5 AM and I'm too lazy right now.)

I think you are grasping at straws trying to make the case that me asking a specific question to Mets about Michael Browne per the robbery in relation to something Mets said prior somehow auto-implies I think he should have been killed because of the robbery.

No, we think that it implies that you are unwilling to answer a straight question about the police and racism, because you would rather interrogate us and our reasoning for asking said straight question. (And then you go on about how we are the ones who don't answer straight questions, when you pose your own unrelated questions.) This isn't academic -- you are constantly posting things like "no BBS you misinterpreted me" instead of just saying what the f*ck it is you actually think so that we can all just move on.

No Mets. I asked you something about Michael Browne, you dodged it, and then demand answers to your question afterwards about something that was not even said to you. I treat you the way you treat me, for you to sit here and demand otherwise is severely hypocritical. and nice try summing up my post to someone who is not Mets about my holding the complete opposite opinion of another person totally inaccurate and negativity laced naive conclusion, and trying the shrug that off as me saying he misinterpreted me, as I said with numerous paragraphs exactly what I think. One thing I can agree with you on though Mets, I can see why you want to put this all behind you. It's the exact same reason I would like very much to press forward, which happens to be the same reason you dodge questions, as well as the reason I have already responded to any who ask of me to do so as long as they are not dodgers themselves who then demand not to be dodged. And that reason is because the shooting of Michel Browne being generalized and repeated and reported and responded to all the way up to the president as racially motivated is a bogus narrative

[_sabotage_]

Agreed, except for moron.

Hey, you like to converse...

poke as many holes as you like sir! If you would be so kind as to speak somewhat to where I am wrong, where I could be wrong, maybe even where I am right with that long post?

I can't stand it, I know they planned it. Got to set it straight, this watergate.

Your stance is based on a presumption. Many presumptions could be made, but yours presumes that: the hood has no respect for the police. If you mean, they don't admire and look up to the police, then fair enough. Your implication of respect in this context seems to be that they don't adhere to police authority.

Welcome to most of the world. You know, those places with less crime, less prison, less wasted resources, less people offended. Police authority, or as I take your meaning, fear of the police based on the vast authority that has been allowed them through the courts, is not the product of a healthy society, it is that of a police state.

It's also a very American mentality: we know what's good for you and if you don't listen to us, we're going to make you know it. Crossing the street is dangerous. Two shots. Told ya.

My wife with my kid:

Kid bothers her, she doesn't say a damn thing or indicate it in any way. Kid keeps bothering her. Wife reacts at a 8 on a ten scale. Kid scared as f*ck.

If her intention is to scare the f*ck out of our son, then well done. If her intention is to teach our kid what to do, then it's a terrible reaction. A minor infraction should be met with a minor response, or he will never know what is minor and what is major.

If a guy is jaywalking and you treat him like a terrorist, he might as well act like a terrorist to make the treatment more relevant. No, send him a fine in the mail, or better yet, don't because the police wouldn't bother most people for jaywalking anyways.

Freedom is not freedom to do exactly what the police tell you, freedom is the police need to show a justifiable reason for taking your freedom away. It's freedom to expect a measured response, not a minimum of an 8 when you are engaged in a 1 action.

But why I agree with the prejudice statement by BBS, is that I don't think you'd be happy if you were jaywalking and the police showed you who was boss. You personally wouldn't like it, or respect the police(admire the act), but you are happy for others to be expected to. I have stated several times that I don't think it's racism, but that racism helps make the situation. You have implied several times that due to the dangers posed by black people, the police should use different methods of enforcement.

Different methods of enforcement is unfair and unjust and prejudiced. Just as freedom of speech protects the things we don't want said, freedom against unwarranted search and seizure, against loss of freedom, should protect those most likely to be harmed by it. Taking that freedom from those worse hit by the authorities paves a slippery slope for the loss of that freedom for society as a whole.

Protecting the rights of everyone, is to protect your own rights. Denying rights is to deny your own.

[thegreekdog]

I'm not supporting the state and it's killing of these people at all Greeky, I asked what made the Ferguson shooting a race issue. If you are referring to a different comment, by all means, throw it at me. Both deaths are nothing but sad and tragic.

Good. Except...

Hmm, oppressor? violate rights of citizens? Tell me who is the oppressor, who is violating other's rights here....



LOL I'm not demanding anything, I'm challenging the narrative. And since you didn't even address the question and instead turned it all about the person asking it, I'm pretty sure I know why nobody can answer it.

The two posts don't seem to interact cohesively.

What the first post says to me is "Phatscotty believes police have too much power and that the deaths are sad and tragic."
What the second post says to me is "Phatscotty thinks it's okay that this particular person was killed because he committed a crime."

Oh, found it Greeky, and I wasn't ignoring it.

Answer: The two posts don't seem to interact cohesively because they are separate posts. #1 is about the 'facts' about the Browne shooting and it's alleged relation to race as well as calling out a dodge. #2 is just me being curious if Mets could be honest enough to admit that Browne was an oppressor and violated other people's rights.

And one more thing on your takeaway from #2 post that might explain your confusion as to what seems cohesive and what does not. Not only did I ever in any way think or say Browne should have been killed while I have spoken to the contrary about the sadness and tragedy of the situation, the issue raised with Mets and the picture I showed do not seem to be the reason why Browne was stopped and told to get out of the middle of the road, nor have I heard anyone make the case that Browne was murdered for strong-arm robber he committed just minutes before. The cop says he shot Browne because he went for the cops gun. Maybe he did, maybe he did not. But the majority of witnesses do agree on one thing even as they differ on others, and that was that Browne was walking/rushing towards the police officer, also a factor on why this particular person was killed.

I think you are grasping at straws trying to make the case that me asking a specific question to Mets about Michael Browne per the robbery in relation to something Mets said prior somehow auto-implies I think he deserved to be killed, as I do not believe he deserved to be killed, not even 1%.

I'm not grasping at straws. I'm trying to figure out why someone who is supposedly ardently opposed to police violence (against anyone) would take such apparent care (and, at least to me, glee) in arguing that Brown should have been killed. I am appreciative inasmuch as you're making my point to Mets from earlier in this thread.

[Metsfanmax]

No Mets. I asked you something about Michael Browne, you dodged it

I did not dodge it. I answered your question, you just conveniently forgot to acknowledge this.

I have no problem with saying that Michael Brown did a bad thing by robbing a convenience store of some cigars. If you want to call that "oppressing" someone, go ahead. There, you win whatever argument you were trying to make.

So then, since I have indeed answered your question,

can we get back to whether Michael Brown should have been killed? The real question here is, despite everything you have said about how police officers have way too much power, whether you're still willing to give Darren Wilson the benefit of the doubt, simply because you don't like the political agenda of social justice warriors.

I treat you the way you treat me

Wonderful! I answered your question directly, so I expect a response in kind.

[Metsfanmax]

Also, Michael Brown serves as a crappy poster child for fighting injustice. TGD WINS!!!

Yes, but TGD is asking the wrong question. The reason Michael Brown got national outrage and Eric Garner didn't, even though Eric Garner was killed before Michael Brown, is precisely because of the ambiguity in the case that allows partisan beliefs to get in the way. See, e.g., Slate Star Codex's The Toxoplasma of Rage:

I propose that the Michael Brown case went viral – rather than the Eric Garner case or any of the hundreds of others – because of the PETA Principle. It was controversial. A bunch of people said it was an outrage. A bunch of other people said Brown totally started it, and the officer involved was a victim of a liberal media that was hungry to paint his desperate self-defense as racist, and so the people calling it an outrage were themselves an outrage. Everyone got a great opportunity to signal allegiance to their own political tribe and discuss how the opposing political tribe were vile racists / evil race-hustlers. There was a steady stream of potentially triggering articles to share on Facebook to provoke your friends and enemies to counter-share articles that would trigger you.

The point here is that while he is pissed that we can't focus on a case more like Eric Garner's, it is the very fact that Michael Brown's case wasn't like Eric Garner's that we are talking about it so stridently in the first place. This isn't unique to civil rights -- that's why Scott here is calling it the "PETA principle." It is just that the PETA principle struck on something TGD strongly cares about. Well, as someone who cares passionately about the injustices inflicted on non-human animals, all I can say is -- welcome to my world, pal.

[Phatscotty]

I'm not supporting the state and it's killing of these people at all Greeky, I asked what made the Ferguson shooting a race issue. If you are referring to a different comment, by all means, throw it at me. Both deaths are nothing but sad and tragic.

Good. Except...

Hmm, oppressor? violate rights of citizens? Tell me who is the oppressor, who is violating other's rights here....



LOL I'm not demanding anything, I'm challenging the narrative. And since you didn't even address the question and instead turned it all about the person asking it, I'm pretty sure I know why nobody can answer it.

The two posts don't seem to interact cohesively.

What the first post says to me is "Phatscotty believes police have too much power and that the deaths are sad and tragic."
What the second post says to me is "Phatscotty thinks it's okay that this particular person was killed because he committed a crime."

Oh, found it Greeky, and I wasn't ignoring it.

Answer: The two posts don't seem to interact cohesively because they are separate posts. #1 is about the 'facts' about the Browne shooting and it's alleged relation to race as well as calling out a dodge. #2 is just me being curious if Mets could be honest enough to admit that Browne was an oppressor and violated other people's rights.

And one more thing on your takeaway from #2 post that might explain your confusion as to what seems cohesive and what does not. Not only did I ever in any way think or say Browne should have been killed while I have spoken to the contrary about the sadness and tragedy of the situation, the issue raised with Mets and the picture I showed do not seem to be the reason why Browne was stopped and told to get out of the middle of the road, nor have I heard anyone make the case that Browne was murdered for strong-arm robber he committed just minutes before. The cop says he shot Browne because he went for the cops gun. Maybe he did, maybe he did not. But the majority of witnesses do agree on one thing even as they differ on others, and that was that Browne was walking/rushing towards the police officer, also a factor on why this particular person was killed.

I think you are grasping at straws trying to make the case that me asking a specific question to Mets about Michael Browne per the robbery in relation to something Mets said prior somehow auto-implies I think he deserved to be killed, as I do not believe he deserved to be killed, not even 1%.

I'm not grasping at straws. I'm trying to figure out why someone who is supposedly ardently opposed to police violence (against anyone) would take such apparent care (and, at least to me, glee) in arguing that Brown should have been killed. I am appreciative inasmuch as you're making my point to Mets from earlier in this thread.

Well, I never argued he should have been killed. Upon the specific issue what happens when you charge at a cop or refuse to freeze, you're gonna have a bad time. That is not an argument, that is an observation of any reality that is going to have a police force/authority. What I will argue; Browne could/should have been tazed for charging a police officer, if that is what he did. Trying to take a cops gun, if that is what he did, yeah, that is going to get you shot. That doesn't mean I support the shooting, but it's what I would expect fully from even an ordinary citizen who has a firearm on them if someone were to try to take it away from them....which obviously goes for police as well. To say the same thing another way, just for you and all else, I don't expect police officers to take the position 'well, sure he tried to grab my gun...but, he didn't get it....so....oh well, live n let live right?'

[Metsfanmax]

Trying to take a cops gun, if that is what he did, yeah, that is going to get you shot. That doesn't mean I support the shooting, but it's what I would expect fully from even an ordinary citizen who has a firearm on them if someone were to try to take it away from them....which obviously goes for police as well. To say the same thing another way, just for you and all else, I don't expect police officers to take the position 'well, sure he tried to grab my gun...but, he didn't get it....so....oh well, live n let live right?'

This all raises the question that I have been repeatedly asking and which I don't believe you have yet answered: since the only person that I am aware of who has testified that Brown tried to grab the gun is Darren Wilson, why do you believe this narrative bears any resemblance to reality?

[BigBallinStalin]

Also, Michael Brown serves as a crappy poster child for fighting injustice. TGD WINS!!!

Yes, but TGD is asking the wrong question. The reason Michael Brown got national outrage and Eric Garner didn't, even though Eric Garner was killed before Michael Brown, is precisely because of the ambiguity in the case that allows partisan beliefs to get in the way. See, e.g., Slate Star Codex's The Toxoplasma of Rage:

I propose that the Michael Brown case went viral – rather than the Eric Garner case or any of the hundreds of others – because of the PETA Principle. It was controversial. A bunch of people said it was an outrage. A bunch of other people said Brown totally started it, and the officer involved was a victim of a liberal media that was hungry to paint his desperate self-defense as racist, and so the people calling it an outrage were themselves an outrage. Everyone got a great opportunity to signal allegiance to their own political tribe and discuss how the opposing political tribe were vile racists / evil race-hustlers. There was a steady stream of potentially triggering articles to share on Facebook to provoke your friends and enemies to counter-share articles that would trigger you.

The point here is that while he is pissed that we can't focus on a case more like Eric Garner's, it is the very fact that Michael Brown's case wasn't like Eric Garner's that we are talking about it so stridently in the first place. This isn't unique to civil rights -- that's why Scott here is calling it the "PETA principle." It is just that the PETA principle struck on something TGD strongly cares about. Well, as someone who cares passionately about the injustices inflicted on non-human animals, all I can say is -- welcome to my world, pal.

I agree, but holding all else constant, Michael Brown serves as a crappy poster child for fighting injustice. TGD WINS!!!--ceteris paribus

[Metsfanmax]

I think ceteris paribus is the only reason economists still have jobs.

[Phatscotty]

Trying to take a cops gun, if that is what he did, yeah, that is going to get you shot. That doesn't mean I support the shooting, but it's what I would expect fully from even an ordinary citizen who has a firearm on them if someone were to try to take it away from them....which obviously goes for police as well. To say the same thing another way, just for you and all else, I don't expect police officers to take the position 'well, sure he tried to grab my gun...but, he didn't get it....so....oh well, live n let live right?'

This all raises the question that I have been repeatedly asking and which I don't believe you have yet answered: since the only person that I am aware of who has testified that Brown tried to grab the gun is Darren Wilson, why do you believe this narrative bears any resemblance to reality?

Trying to take a cops gun, if that is what he did, yeah, that is going to get you shot. That doesn't mean I support the shooting, but it's what I would expect fully from even an ordinary citizen who has a firearm on them if someone were to try to take it away from them....which obviously goes for police as well. To say the same thing another way, just for you and all else, I don't expect police officers to take the position 'well, sure he tried to grab my gun...but, he didn't get it....so....oh well, live n let live right?'

[mrswdk]

And what if he didn't try to grab the cop's gun?

[Phatscotty]

can we get back to whether Michael Brown should have been killed? The real question here is, despite everything you have said about how police officers have way too much power, whether you're still willing to give Darren Wilson the benefit of the doubt, simply because you don't like the political agenda of social justice warriors.

It's unfortunate there is nothing else besides Darren Wilson's testimony.

What is it you are basing your opinion on? You seem to take the position that Browne did not go for the officer's gun? based on what?

[Phatscotty]

And what if he didn't try to grab the cop's gun?

and what if he would have simply said 'okay, I'll get out of the middle of the street'?

[mrswdk]

And what if Darren Wilson worked for McDonald's one summer during his youth?

[Phatscotty]

And what if Darren Wilson worked for McDonald's one summer during his youth?

...lest I should need to point out yet again, we may never know what happened. That goes for me, as well as all 'hands up, don't shoot' protesters. They are acting on their assumptions, accusing an entire race and an entire country of being racist. This time they overplayed the race card and it blew up in their faces. And now we know something about them as well; their (media, the President et al, education system, protesters, forum participants) hijacking of the narrative to suit their own agenda has driven some guy to randomly execute two police officers. And this isn't your BS 'Sarah Palin used targets on political opponents which caused Jared Loughner, a Tea Party member, to shoot a congresswoman' Looking at that now we can see just how low and how evil these people are. They murder libel innocent people with bogus stories and narratives and sweep the truth under the rug while they play puppet master. We shouldn't expect anything different when it comes to a narrative they want to hijack to advance their own causes as when it comes to a narrative that harms their opponents causes.