Michael Brown Case

[Skarekrow]

What do you think of this?

[video=youtube;6EH99m8ImHI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=6EH99m8ImHI[/video]

 

[dogman6126]

I understand you're trying to come at it from my point of view, and I appreciate the effort, but the way you've phrased it comes across as condescending. Just as I think you and your opinions deserve my respect, I should hope my person and my opinions deserve yours.



Yes, I know and believe me, I did take all that into consideration. But you must understand that my issue is not that Officer Wilson did not have the right to protect himself or even that he drew his gun. My issue is that he did not give himself any other option because he had no other option. I elaborate on it below.



I'm glad you think all of that. I do as well.



Actually, there was no trial. There was only a grand jury. That is not the same thing as a trial. A grand jury is a lot less formal than even a preliminary hearing; it has no judge, no lawyers. There is only a prosecutor and the jury that is selected by a judge. All a grand jury does is decide whether or not there is enough probable evidence to issue an indictment. It's considered a strategy for prosecutors to shoo in a case to court for two reasons: a. it is held in private, unlike a preliminary hearing wherein they have to publicly prove to a judge that they have enough evidence to secure a conviction and thus also give the opposition a preview of their case while at it, and b. it is considered stupidly easy to secure an indictment because people who lack legal training usually don't know what to do with the evidence and simply follow the prosecutor’s lead. This is where the old joke comes from: 'a grand jury could indict a sandwich.'

Now, the reason why this whole thing is so controversial is that it is incredibly rare for a grand jury to decline an indictment, but not so rare for a jury to decline to indict a law enforcement official. The other thing that is making people twitch is the fact the prosecutor deviated from the norm in putting the defense on the stand and allowed him to speak without questioning his credibility for over four hours. This, coupled with the fact that this case has become something of a poster child for people's mistrust for the law enforcement and the belief that the system protects them, couldn't have made the no-indictment verdict any more unfortunate.

Many people see the way that this whole thing played out as unquestionable evidence that the system does indeed favour law enforcement officials. Many others look at the ratio of black to white jurors and the divide between black and white opinions in social media and see this whole scenario as proof that institutionalized racism exists. Because its seen as representing these issues, the no-indictment verdict feels like a slap in the face. That Michael Brown didn't even deserve the dignity of a proper trial. That they, by extension, don't deserve the dignity of a trial when going up against a white officer. No matter what, the white officer always wins.

But really, this whole case was handled terribly from the very beginning. There's a lot conflicting information spreading through social media like wild fire that has been further propagated by the efforts of mainstream media, lack of proper police procedure and the irregular 'leaks' of information that have all gotten lost in a mass vortex of social issues and personal feelings. It has very much become about race because people have made it about race and it continues to be sensationalized.

As far as my opinion goes on the subject and the people involved, I don’t think Michael Brown was innocent. I think that a lot of the responsibility for what happened does rest on his shoulders. Robbing a store. Talking back to a cop. Assaulting a cop in his car. Angrily turning back around to charge a cop. However, his guilt in those matters does not mean that we cannot look at what Darren Wilson could have done differently as a trained officer of the law. There is human life involved here. It does appall me that people dismiss it as ‘kid was a punk, attacked an officer, officer has gun and he must use it. The end.’ I think the case could be treated with a bit more respect and scrutiny (ie. a trial), even if a thorough investigation only proves that Darren Wilson did everything he could.

I know you and a lot of people will disagree with me, and that's fine, but I still maintain that police officers have the advantage of formal training and should at least have options available to them that will allow them to diffuse a tense situation, if need be, rather than immediately resorting to lethal force. Officer Darren Wilson stated that he has been trained to use a taser, but does not carry one on his person because they are ‘uncomfortable.’ The only means of self defense, then, is the gun in his holster. In my opinion, that immediately raises the stakes in any confrontation he might have when he goes out into the field. There is no non-lethal option because he’s taken it out of the equation altogether. He knows all he’s got is the gun.

The other thing that personally gets me is that I’ve compared Darren Wilson’s account of what happened with the photographs of the injuries he’s sustained and I cannot help but observe that these things don’t line up and seem vastly exaggerated. Furthermore, his comments about how Brown taunted him, called him ‘too pussy to shoot,’ and the way he recounted the whole scenario also sends my whiskers twitching. We don’t know what caused Brown to turn around and charge Wilson after walking away, but the circumstances and the violence of this situation gives me the impression that desperation to save his own life isn’t the only possible scenario here. The other possibility is that Darren Wilson might have called something out to provoke Brown. That perhaps what guided Wilson’s hand in this situation was not just pure desperation to save his own life, but anger and injured pride.

Obviously, no one is an expert here and there are likely things that you or I are not considering because we might not even know to look for them. However, this forensic pathologist’s opinion on the autopsy report on the gunshot wounds suggests that there are other possibilities, other ways to look at this. Indeed, the reactions across the country further underscore that this case isn’t as obviously open-and-shut as a lot of people in this thread are making it out to be.

All we have right now is Darren Wilson’s testimony of what has happened. But it is just a testimony. No one has cross-examined him or any of the witnesses in court and Michael Brown is, of course, dead.

If there is one thing that I hope most people will agree is that this case needs to go to trial.

TDHT I have to apologize to you. I meant to acknowledge this comment, but I got very busy in school and had to basically stop logging in here, lol. As such you have convinced me to a point. I hesitate to conclude that anything could have been done differently, but I must accept a fair measure of error in my judgment at this point. I'm inclined to agree with the grand jury on that part because of my limitation of knowledge on the incident. While I think that Wilson is not guilty and should not go to jail, I understand and could agree with your final point that I bolded. I feel that the outcome would be the same, but I can agree that something this controversial should go to trial. I agree that police are generally more trusted than the offender, but I question the extent to which that is effected by some form of unfair stereotyping, prejudice, or discrimination. It would naturally be the case that police tell the truth more than criminals, and would know better in a situation than the average citizen. I think there are other cases that are far more shady than the Michael Brown incident that should be better investigated than this case has.
All that being said, I think your argument of it should at least go to trial is the best point I've heard that counters the arguments for officer Wilson and the decision of the Grand Jury. Thank you for pointing it out.

 

[dogman6126]

I agree.
I agree with the cameras for cops, and I agree this isn’t Mike Brown.
I think Mike Brown maybe could have done those things that the officer that shot him said he could have.

The problem is there is still enough of a problem with cops mistreating blacks or just racially profiling them at all (obviously if the suspect is a certain race it applies).
The public perception of cops in certain areas is not very good at all…especially in the african american communities…because the cops do harass them, they do mistreat them, they do get convicted of crimes they didn’t commit based on eye-witness testimony because they were black.
Racism is still rampant throughout the country…just look at the people freaking out about amnesty for Mexicans…good lord.

The cops are getting more violent.
I can post statistical information, though I don’t know if anyone reads it.
In almost every case there is no good reason why the local swat team needs two tanks.

This is where I find the disconnect between the Fox news crowd and the liberal view.
How come the right wing isn’t crying out about the militarization of the police? They WILL be the one’s who take your guns if anyone is going to do it…but too bad, because now they have a couple of tanks and are better armed than you are.
Where is the wailing?
lol

I posted statistics earlier, but I fear it was ignored as you suggested it would by your post . I for one would be interested in statistical information and how it was derived.

However I do want to say there is a major difference between a tank and an APC or other armored vehicle. The United States tank is the M1-Abrhams and can be seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams
The vehicles being given to police agencies are armored mine resistant personal carriers and can be read about here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_MaxxPro

For a better list of the different types of military armored vehicles you can look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_currently_active_United_States_military_land_vehicles


The truth is, it is incorrect to say they are being given tanks. A mine resistant vehicle like a MRAP can be adapted for advanced armored personal transport. A tank is far more sever and cannot be adapted in such a way. I do not argue that this justifies them getting vehicles even of this type, however they are certainly not tanks.
As for your comment about the difference between political view points. I cannot say anything to that. I don't even know what side I fall on. One time a friend who knows far more about politics than me asked me a bunch of policy questions, and he said I'm fairly all over the place, lol. He said I'm mostly in the middle. However I hesitate to blame any single group for such a problem. In any group of that size there will be those of both opinions, therefore I think it unfair to blame the entire group. This point probably amounts to little more than semantics and my own discomfort about broad generalizations to rout causes

 

[Skarekrow]

I posted statistics earlier, but I fear it was ignored as you suggested it would by your post . I for one would be interested in statistical information and how it was derived.

However I do want to say there is a major difference between a tank and an APC or other armored vehicle. The United States tank is the M1-Abrhams and can be seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams
The vehicles being given to police agencies are armored mine resistant personal carriers and can be read about here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_MaxxPro

For a better list of the different types of military armored vehicles you can look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_currently_active_United_States_military_land_vehicles


The truth is, it is incorrect to say they are being given tanks. A mine resistant vehicle like a MRAP can be adapted for advanced armored personal transport. A tank is far more sever and cannot be adapted in such a way. I do not argue that this justifies them getting vehicles even of this type, however they are certainly not tanks.
As for your comment about the difference between political view points. I cannot say anything to that. I don't even know what side I fall on. One time a friend who knows far more about politics than me asked me a bunch of policy questions, and he said I'm fairly all over the place, lol. He said I'm mostly in the middle. However I hesitate to blame any single group for such a problem. In any group of that size there will be those of both opinions, therefore I think it unfair to blame the entire group. This point probably amounts to little more than semantics and my own discomfort about broad generalizations to rout causes

The point being that small-town USA doesn’t need MRAPs. It’s a pretty visual example of overreach by these police departments and those selling them these (APCs, MRAPs, whatever you wish to call it.)
My point also being….when they come to take the guns of the conservatives…it’s going to be in these vehicles which can stop anything a “well-regulated” militia can hit it with.
As for statistics…this article is FULL of them.

Allegations of the use of excessive force by police departments in America continue to generate media headlines, more than two decades after the 1992 Los Angeles riots brought the issue to mass public attention and prompted law enforcement reforms.

In Ferguson, Mo., a St. Louis suburb, the fatal shooting of teenager Michael Brown by a police officer, Darren Wilson, in August 2014 and a grand jury’s decision not to indict Wilson, has continued to trigger unrest and protests.

In New York, the July death of Eric Garner because of the apparent use of a “chokehold” by an officer has also sparked outrage.
This follows other recent incidents and controversies, including: an April 2014 finding by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), following a two-year investigation, that the Albuquerque, N.M., police department “engages in a pattern or practice of use of excessive force, including deadly force, in violation of the Fourth Amendment”; and a similar DOJ finding in December 2014 with regard to the Cleveland police department.

Surveys in recent years with minority groups – Latinos and African-Americans, in particular – suggest that confidence in law enforcement is relatively low, and large portions of these communities believe police are likely to use excessive force on suspects.

A 2014 Pew Research Center survey confirms stark racial divisions in response to the Ferguson police shooting, as well, while Gallup provides insights on historical patterns of distrust.

According to a Pew/USA Today poll conducted in August 2014, Americans of all races collectively “give relatively low marks to police departments around the country for holding officers accountable for misconduct, using the appropriate amount of force, and treating racial and ethnic groups equally.”

Still, from a police perspective, law enforcement in the United States continues to be dangerous work – America has a relatively higher homicide rate compared to other developed nations, and has many more guns per capita.

Citizens seldom learn of the countless incidents where officers choose to hold fire and display restraint under extreme stress.
Some research has shown that even well-trained officers are not consistently able to fire their weapon in time before a suspect holding a gun can raise it and fire first; this makes split-second judgments, even under “ideal” circumstances, exceptionally difficult.

But as the FBI points out, police departments and officers sometimes do not handle the aftermath of incidents well in terms of transparency and clarity, even when force was reasonably applied, fueling public confusion and anger.

In 2013, 49,851 officers were assaulted in the line of duty, with an injury rate of 29.2 percent, according to the FBI.
Twenty-seven were murdered that year.

How common are such incidents, both lethal and non-lethal, in the United States?
Has there been progress in America? Without a doubt, training for police has become more standardized and professionalized in recent decades.

A 2008 paper in the Northwestern University Law Review provides useful background on the evolving legal and policy history relating to the use of force by police and the “reasonableness” standard by which officers are judged.

Related jurisprudence is still being defined, most recently in the 2007 Scott v. Harris decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. But inadequate data and reporting – and the challenge of uniformly defining excessive versus justified force – make objective understanding of trends difficult.

For perhaps the best overall summary of police use-of-force issues, see “A Multi-method Evaluation of Police Use of Force Outcomes: Final Report to the National Institute of Justice,” a 2010 study conducted by some of the nation’s leading criminal justice scholars.

Statistics and background

The Justice Department releases statistics on this and related issues, though these datasets are only periodically updated: It found that in 2008, among people who had contact with police, “an estimated 1.4% had force used or threatened against them during their most recent contact, which was not statistically different from the percentages in 2002 (1.5%) and 2005 (1.6%).” In terms of the volume of citizen complaints, the Justice Department also found that there were 26,556 complaints lodged in 2002; this translates to “33 complaints per agency and 6.6 complaints per 100 full-time sworn officers.”

However, “overall rates were higher among large municipal police departments, with 45 complaints per agency, and 9.5 complaints per 100 full-time sworn officers.”

In 2011, about 62.9 million people had contact with the police.
In terms of the use of lethal force, aggregate statistics on incidents of all types are difficult to obtain from official sources.

Some journalists are trying to rectify this; and some data journalists question what few official national statistics are available.
The Sunlight Foundation explains some of the data problems, while also highlighting databases maintained by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC).

The available data, which does not paint a complete national picture, nevertheless raise serious questions, Sunlight notes:

[A]ccording to the CDC, in Oklahoma the rate at which black people are killed per capita by law enforcement is greater than anywhere else in the country. That statistic is taken from data collected for the years 1999-2011. During that same time period, Oklahoma’s rate for all people killed by law enforcement, including all races, is second only to New Mexico. However, Oklahoma, the District of Columbia, Nevada and Oregon are all tied for the rate at which people are killed. (The CDC treats the District of Columbia as a state when collecting and displaying statistics.) In Missouri, where Mike Brown lived and died, black people are killed by law enforcement twice as frequently as white people. Nationwide, the rate at which black people are killed by law enforcement is 3 times higher than that of white people.

​

The FBI publishes statistics on “justifiable homicide” by law enforcement officers: The data show that there have been about 400 such incidents nationwide each year.

However, FiveThirtyEight, among other journalism outlets, has examined the potential problems with these figures.
News investigations suggest that the rates of deadly force usage are far from uniform.

For example, Los Angeles saw an increase in such incidents in 2011, while Massachusetts saw more officers firing their weapon over the period 2009-2013.

Academic estimates

A 2008 study from Matthew J. Hickman of Seattle University, Alex R. Piquero of the University of Maryland and Joel H. Garner of the Joint Centers for Justice Studies reviewed some of the best studies and data sources available to come up with a more precise national estimate for incidents of non-lethal force.

They note that among 36 different studies published since the 1980s, the rates of force asserted vary wildly, from a high of more than 30% to rates in the low single digits.

The researchers analyze Police-Public Contact Survey (PPCS) data and Bureau of Justice Statistics Survey of Inmates in Local Jails (SILJ) data and conclude that an estimated 1.7% of all contacts result in police threats or use of force, while 20% of arrests do.

Researchers continue to refine analytical procedures in order to make more accurate estimates based on police reports and other data.

Characteristics of suspects

A widely publicized report in October 2014 by ProPublica, a leading investigative and data journalism outlet, concluded that young black males are 21 times more likely to be shot by police than their white counterparts: “The 1,217 deadly police shootings from 2010 to 2012 captured in the federal data show that blacks, age 15 to 19, were killed at a rate of 31.17 per million, while just 1.47 per million white males in that age range died at the hands of police.”

Research has definitively established that “racial profiling” by law enforcement exists – that persons of color are more likely to be stopped by police.
But while the cases of Rodney King in 1991 and Amadou Diallo in 1999 heightened the country’s awareness of race and policing, research has not uniformly corroborated the contention that minorities are more likely, on average, to be subject to acts of police force than are whites.

A 2010 paper published in the Southwestern Journal of Criminal Justice reviewed more than a decade’s worth of peer-reviewed studies and found that while many studies established a correlation between minority status and police use of force, many other studies did not – and some showed mixed results.

Of note in this research literature is a 2003 paper, “Neighborhood Context and Police Use of Force,” that suggests police are more likely to employ force in higher-crime neighborhoods generally, complicating any easy interpretation of race as the decisive factor in explaining police forcefulness.

The researchers, William Terrill of Northeastern University and Michael D. Reisig of Michigan State University, found that “officers are significantly more likely to use higher levels of force when encountering criminal suspects in high crime areas and neighborhoods with high levels of concentrated disadvantage independent of suspect behavior and other statistical controls.”

Terrill and Reisig explore several hypothetical explanations and ultimately conclude:
Embedded within each of these potential explanations is the influence of key sociodemographic variables such as race, class, gender, and age.

As the results show, when these factors are considered at the encounter level, they are significant.
However, the race (i.e., minority) effect is mediated by neighborhood context. Perhaps officers do not simply label minority suspects according to what Skolnick (1994) termed “symbolic assailants,” as much as they label distressed socioeconomic neighborhoods as potential sources of conflict.

In studying the Seattle and Miami police departments, the authors of the 2010 National Institute of Justice report also conclude that “non-white suspects were less likely to be injured than white suspects … where suspect race was available as a variable for analysis.

Although we cannot speculate as to the cause of this finding, or whether it is merely spurious, it is encouraging that minority suspects were not more likely to be injured than whites.”

Use of Tasers and other weapons

A 2011 report from the National Institute of Justice, “Police Use of Force, Tasers and Other Less-Lethal Weapons,” examines the effectiveness and health outcomes of incidents involving CEDs (conducted energy devices), the most common of which is the Taser.

The report finds that:
(1) Injury rates vary widely when officers use force in general, ranging from 17% to 64% for citizens and 10% to 20% for officers;
(2) Use of Tasers and other CEDs can reduce the statistical rate of injury to suspects and officers who might otherwise be involved in more direct, physical conflict – an analysis of 12 agencies and more than 24,000 use-of-force cases “showed the odds of suspect injury decreased by almost 60% when a CED was used”; and
(3) A review of fatal Taser incidents found that many involved multiple uses of the device against the suspect in question.

Other recent research has documented trends in the use of non-lethal force by officers in recent years, concluding that CED use has indeed been on the rise, while the use of hands and batons has declined.

Further reading:

The coverage of such incidents by mass media has been studied by researchers, some of whom have concluded that the press has often distorted and helped justify questionable uses of force.

A 2012 study in the Criminal Justice Policy Review analyzed the patterns of behavior of one large police department – more than 1,000 officers – and found that a “small proportion of officers are responsible for a large proportion of force incidents, and that officers who frequently use force differ in important and significant ways from officers who use force less often (or not at all).”

Other research also finds that officers with more experience and education may be less likely to use force, while a review of case studies suggests that specific training programs and accountability structures can lower the use of violence by police departments.

Finally, survey data continue to confirm the existence of undercurrents of racism and bias in America, despite demonstrable social progress; a 2014 Stanford study shows how awareness of higher levels of black incarceration can prompt greater support among whites for tougher policing and prison programs.

- See more at: http://journalistsresource.org/stud...search-review-statistics#sthash.vfLO0MXC.dpuf

 

[Eventhorizon]

The point being that small-town USA doesn’t need MRAPs. It’s a pretty visual example of overreach by these police departments and those selling them these (APCs, MRAPs, whatever you wish to call it.)
My point also being….when they come to take the guns of the conservatives…it’s going to be in these vehicles which can stop anything a “well-regulated” militia can hit it with.
As for statistics…this article is FULL of them.

Interesting how militias are considered a threat. In all reality no one in their right mind would be part of one. If it comes to war with those who choose the ignore the constitution of the United States ie people like Obama and most if the democratic party its not the militias the traitors will have to be most concerned with. Also do not think for a minute that the point in time guns start bieng confiscated the Constitution has nit already been thrown completely out the window and they will have absolutely no issue using the military on American soil to achieve their end game.
If it comes to that we are talking all out civil war and when its done, the America we knew will not exist anymore.

Oh and I like that "Guns from the conservatives". As if gun ownership is primarily a conservative ideal.

 

[Skarekrow]

Interesting how militias are considered a threat. In all reality no one in their right mind would be part of one. If it comes to war with those who choose the ignore the constitution of the United States ie people like Obama and most if the democratic party its not the militias the traitors will have to be most concerned with. Also do not think for a minute that the point in time guns start bieng confiscated the Constitution has nit already been thrown completely out the window and they will have absolutely no issue using the military on American soil to achieve their end game.
If it comes to that we are talking all out civil war and when its done, the America we knew will not exist anymore.

Oh and I like that "Guns from the conservatives". As if gun ownership is primarily a conservative ideal.

It was meant to poke you in the chest.
Because it’s the crazy vocal conservative gun owners who are actually doing the most damage to the idea of “open carry” by heading down to Chili’s with their AR’s.
These are the most vocal of the social gun conservatives and yet…they have no problem with the militarization of the police, because currently the weapons and vehicles aren’t being used on them. But that can change in a split second is what I was getting at.

 

[Eventhorizon]

[MENTION=5045]Skarekrow[/MENTION]
Things can be used for good and bad and whats considered good and bad changes with the times.
I think too many people look at a single side of something. In this instance what you call the militarization of the police.

I see the need for police. I see what police are up against. Gangs that have more firepower than they do etc. If you recognize the need for police (and hopefully at this point you do) you should also recognize its not fair or reasonable to send them out to fight crime with suits and a pen. Give them what they need so they can make it home to their families at night.

I am not a lover of authority. I do not consider police authority. I do however recognize that for society to work laws must be in place to allow that to happen. I do not agree with the vast majority of laws. HOV lanes that are in place primarily to bring in revenue to the state etc... ticket quotas...
These things need to change but police will always be needed regardless. Give them the tools they need. Not bb guns and a positive attitude.

The police I know are all about gun ownership for the public. They believe as I do the more people are armed, the less crime there is.

Let the government do something very stupid and start confiscating guns and let them see just how big of a mistake they have made when they do it. They simply have no idea. Dont poke the sleeping lion.

 

[Skarekrow]

@Skarekrow
Things can be used for good and bad and whats considered good and bad changes with the times.
I think too many people look at a single side of something. In this instance what you call the militarization of the police.

I see the need for police. I see what police are up against. Gangs that have more firepower than they do etc. If you recognize the need for police (and hopefully at this point you do) you should also recognize its not fair or reasonable to send them out to fight crime with suits and a pen. Give them what they need so they can make it home to their families at night.

I am not a lover of authority. I do not consider police authority. I do however recognize that for society to work laws must be in place to allow that to happen. I do not agree with the vast majority of laws. HOV lanes that are in place primarily to bring in revenue to the state etc... ticket quotas...
These things need to change but police will always be needed regardless. Give them the tools they need. Not bb guns and a positive attitude.

The police I know are all about gun ownership for the public. They believe as I do the more people are armed, the less crime there is.

Let the government do something very stupid and start confiscating guns and let them see just how big of a mistake they have made when they do it. They simply have no idea. Dont poke the sleeping lion.

Don’t assume that I am against the police or the laws that they are there to enforce.
That being said…many are abusing the authority given to them, mostly in cases involving minorities.
I was pointing out the hypocrisy that some dumbass can go eat at Chili’s with his AR, when a 12 year old playing with a (granted all black) cap gun in the park gets shot dead.
This kind of racism does still remain.

 

[ThomasJ79]

People are other people's worst enemy and we live in a trigger happy world.

Sometimes evolution cannot work quick enough.

 

[Eventhorizon]

Don’t assume that I am against the police or the laws that they are there to enforce.
That being said…many are abusing the authority given to them, mostly in cases involving minorities.
I was pointing out the hypocrisy that some dumbass can go eat at Chili’s with his AR, when a 12 year old playing with a (granted all black) cap gun in the park gets shot dead.
This kind of racism does still remain.

How did a conversation about the militarization of police and confiscation of guns turn to rasicism other than its taking place in a Michael Brown thread? Michael Brown is dead because he assaulted an officer and did not do as told.

That said, yes I agree there is clearly a serious issue where people who are supposed to be protecting the public should never be allowed to have a weapon in their hand. This is what needs to be addressed. The mental health of those who are and would be law enforcement. Rasicism is hardly as big an issue as the underlying mental health of some who should never be allowed to hold a position as a police officer.

 

[Eventhorizon]

People are other people's worst enemy and we live in a trigger happy world.

Sometimes evolution cannot work quick enough.

People are absolutely the underlying problem. Do not put weapons in the hands of mentally unstable people ans release them to keep the public safe.

 

[ThomasJ79]

How did a conversation about the militarization of police and confiscation of guns turn to rasicism other than its taking place in a Michael Brown thread? Michael Brown is dead because he assaulted an officer and did not do as told.

That said, yes I agree there is clearly a serious issue where people who are supposed to be protecting the public should never be allowed to have a weapon in their hand. This is what needs to be addressed. The mental health of those who are and would be law enforcement. Rasicism is hardly as big an issue as the underlying mental health of some who should never be allowed to hold a position as a police officer.

I find it counterproductive to struggle or resist with an officer. For one, there is no way in hell I could even hope to physically out maneuver a cop. Secondly, I would much rather make an articulated argument in court, where my odds of receiving justice are much higher, assuming I've been wronged. As soon as you resist, you're chances of the latter are essentially blown.

 

[Skarekrow]

How did a conversation about the militarization of police and confiscation of guns turn to rasicism other than its taking place in a Michael Brown thread? Michael Brown is dead because he assaulted an officer and did not do as told.

That said, yes I agree there is clearly a serious issue where people who are supposed to be protecting the public should never be allowed to have a weapon in their hand. This is what needs to be addressed. The mental health of those who are and would be law enforcement. Rasicism is hardly as big an issue as the underlying mental health of some who should never be allowed to hold a position as a police officer.

Actually I think that racism is a far worse problem than the underlying mental health of the police force.
There is a huge disconnect.
Clearly the mental state of the police officer is taken into account since day one of someone wanting to become a police officer.
And those with attitudes that would be detrimental to upholding the laws that they are swore to protect will get weeded out.
But racism can exist throughout the whole police force of a city for decades and it will not get weeded out until something like this happens.
More than race, it’s socio-economics that are keeping the people down.
Call it what you will.

 

[Eventhorizon]

Actually I think that racism is a far worse problem than the underlying mental health of the police force.
There is a huge disconnect.
Clearly the mental state of the police officer is taken into account since day one of someone wanting to become a police officer.
And those with attitudes that would be detrimental to upholding the laws that they are swore to protect will get weeded out.
But racism can exist throughout the whole police force of a city for decades and it will not get weeded out until something like this happens.
More than race, it’s socio-economics that are keeping the people down.
Call it what you will.

A debate I cannot win. I think the problem is a two sided coin and people choose to look at the side tbat most appeals to them never looking at the other. Both sides have to be addressed to find a real life solution.

 

[sprinkles]

The point being that small-town USA doesn’t need MRAPs. It’s a pretty visual example of overreach by these police departments and those selling them these (APCs, MRAPs, whatever you wish to call it.)
My point also being….when they come to take the guns of the conservatives…it’s going to be in these vehicles which can stop anything a “well-regulated” militia can hit it with.
As for statistics…this article is FULL of them.

What bugs me about the MRAPs is that we already have ubiquitous security vans used by banks and secure transport companies. They could repaint a van from Brinks security or something and it would be less threatening to the public but be nearly as effective - I highly doubt anyone is going to regularly encounter explosives designed to destroy police vehicles any time soon.

If the main thing they want is the armor, we already have it laying around. I don't think it's a bad idea to have some armor so we don't have repeats of the Norco bank robbery or the North Hollywood shootout. However at the same time, converted military vehicles can look too aggressive and I think that if a simple armored limo is good enough for the fucking President of The United States of America then maybe SWAT could do with rolling refurbished bank trucks instead of these crazy things designed to take land mines and RPGs.

 

[Angora]

Actually I think that racism is a far worse problem than the underlying mental health of the police force.
There is a huge disconnect.
Clearly the mental state of the police officer is taken into account since day one of someone wanting to become a police officer.
And those with attitudes that would be detrimental to upholding the laws that they are swore to protect will get weeded out.
But racism can exist throughout the whole police force of a city for decades and it will not get weeded out until something like this happens.
More than race, it’s socio-economics that are keeping the people down.
Call it what you will.

Just wanted to give you props for this comment, you explained the situation perfectly. Racism is a difficult problem to fix because it happens almost unknowingly with whites and at such a massive scale. Oftentimes black employment/conviction statistics are the only proof of it, which does also go back to socio-economics.

 

[dogman6126]

Just wanted to give you props for this comment, you explained the situation perfectly. Racism is a difficult problem to fix because it happens almost unknowingly with whites and at such a massive scale. Oftentimes black employment/conviction statistics are the only proof of it, which does also go back to socio-economics.

I just wanted to add that racism applies to all people, not just "whites". I'm sure you meant that, but I get a mental itch when I read things like that, lol. However, there's a lot more evidence of racism than just employment/conviction statistics. Social psychology has and is thoroughly exploring the topic. There are plenty of tests that show implicit racism in many forms.

 

[Eventhorizon]

I just wanted to add that racism applies to all people, not just "whites". I'm sure you meant that, but I get a mental itch when I read things like that, lol. However, there's a lot more evidence of racism than just employment/conviction statistics. Social psychology has and is thoroughly exploring the topic. There are plenty of tests that show implicit racism in many forms.

Yeah absolutely no doubt of that. We have a racist President but that topic is funnily avoided by most media outlets.

 

[Skarekrow]

A debate I cannot win. I think the problem is a two sided coin and people choose to look at the side tbat most appeals to them never looking at the other. Both sides have to be addressed to find a real life solution.

If you really want to dig deeply into things then you would know that you could literally shove the proof that is against their own up their ass, having it been verified by a jury of their own peers and choosing…and people would call them lies…not because they have read about and studied what they are talking about, but they are reiterating what they heard on their favorite media station. We all know too well what happens when we play that game where you whisper a phrase to the next person and then see what you end up with…the message is wrong, but in too many cases here in the US the message has been opinionated by people who feel the need to tell everyone why they are so smart…what we end up with is a big steamy pile of bullshit.

What bugs me about the MRAPs is that we already have ubiquitous security vans used by banks and secure transport companies. They could repaint a van from Brinks security or something and it would be less threatening to the public but be nearly as effective - I highly doubt anyone is going to regularly encounter explosives designed to destroy police vehicles any time soon.

If the main thing they want is the armor, we already have it laying around. I don't think it's a bad idea to have some armor so we don't have repeats of the Norco bank robbery or the North Hollywood shootout. However at the same time, converted military vehicles can look too aggressive and I think that if a simple armored limo is good enough for the fucking President of The United States of America then maybe SWAT could do with rolling refurbished bank trucks instead of these crazy things designed to take land mines and RPGs.

Kind of like the School District Police force that bought one….I love the paint job…lolololol.

So if we paint “search and rescue” on the side it’s still not fucking ridiculous?

Just wanted to give you props for this comment, you explained the situation perfectly. Racism is a difficult problem to fix because it happens almost unknowingly with whites and at such a massive scale. Oftentimes black employment/conviction statistics are the only proof of it, which does also go back to socio-economics.

We built this country on the backs of slave labor, not some idealistic vision of hardworking Americans and the sweat of their brows and all that….
We used slaves….this squashed all competition around the world…can you imagine how profitable it would be so own slaves?
My God. And even now…there is a difference in the amount of justice that a young black male can get vs everyone else.
The poor in the country are being pushed to the edges…they are being marginalized…especially if you are of color…the problem is, they are marginalizing millions of people. They are redistricting voting regions, and changing voting laws to disenfranchise whom? African americans. Who sees their benefits that they deserve and pay into as working citizens of the United States always on the chopping block in Congress first - the poor, most of whom are not Caucasian.
The group of people who feel disenfranchised IMO is getting too big for it to be contained…hence the riots we are seeing from people feeling there is no justice for them.

 

[Dohavior]

People are right to be afraid. When the criminals are so morally bankrupt stewing in their own bullshit that they mimic innocence. Surrender is an act of belligerence that truly defines all that is wrong. Civilized people never surrender their desires for they can talk it out and find what they require.

Slavery is only personal to the master not any one group. That is a reverse victimizing diversion to dull the simple minded. It has been decentralized as "Equality" the slavery 2.0, mitigated yet not negated.