Michael Brown Case

[dogman6126]

We're not really talking about michael brown...

People are killed by the cops all the time but their stories don't receive this attention; this story is receiving attention because it is the spark that has ignited a tinder box that was waiting to go up

The tinderbox is public frustrations at police brutality and the spark has ignited in the black community who are often subject to police brutality

Micheal's story is just one in many

Regardless of the specifics of his case it is igniting tensions that were getting ready to light up anyway because the police are being militarised and are increasingly brutalising the public

Well now this is confirmation bias if ever ive seen one. There are plenty of alternative reasons why the furgeson incident might have taken place, and to say a conspiracy to start several events where this was was a trigger for the police brutality across America is completely ridiculous. An alternative is public sensitivity to racism. Or a local distrust of police. You say brutalizing the public, but what is your source? The media. News reports. Which of themselves have a natural bias to report things that are out of the ordinary and to gain public interest. Have you considered all the cases of where a police man was very kind or helpful or forgiving to the public? One time, one person who worked for my parents had his house caught on fire and he knew his family was home. He rushed home, going more than 90 mph, and got pulled over by a cop. When he told the cop, he said follow me, the cop switched on his lights, and he got him there fast. The officer ended up going slower than 90, but still faster than the speed limit. This is an example of the police helping the public. And this is but one. What about all the warnings police give for traffic violations, escorts, and protection. They do wonderful work, but the media doesn't show any of that. What happens is all you see is the negative, then because of the availability heuristic and your own confirmation bias muir, you don't know any different. It's easy for you to say that you know there are good cops, but it is a natural psychological phenomenon to not apply the same weight to good things as bad things. Some think because of evolutionary reasons, but it is more commonly known as the negativity bias

 

[dogman6126]

My issue with this whole Michael Brown thing...and don't get me wrong...it's terrible that a person has died here, but i hear about death a lot and what i'm really looking at is the backdrop to things

So the backdrop to the michael brown case is the public protests against police brutality that have followed in its wake but behind that is an even bigger backdrop and if you go back and look at my posts from the past you'll find i have been warning about government encroachment on public life and about the militarisation of the police and so on so for me michael brown is just another victim in a long line of victims i'm aware of and although the justice of his case is important for his family and community and the cop involved and so on from my perspective as someone sitting many miles away i am kinda more focussed on the justice of society at whole at the moment because i believe that a grave injustice is being done to all of us at the moment and that stories like michaels are simply the front line of a growing problem (michaels justice is of course linked to everyones justice as well)

Now you can sit around and talk about the specifics of michaels case but if you're smart you will realise that there are implications to all this that go way beyond the case of one man

It depends how you read reality....for me...i'm reading a bigger story here that is going to involve all of us...that does involve all of us

but when deciding whether to criminalize the officer, you must only consider the specifics of the case. Otherwise its unfair to the officer. Assuming there is a bigger picture, it would be unfair to charge him for the actions or intent of the bigger picture if he was not intending that. That turns his case into politics, and I firmly believe politics needs to stay out of justice.

If you want to focus on the justice of society as a whole, you need to stick to academia, perhaps more so philosophy. And I can tell you considering your past debates, you would do well by studying. Your logical fallacies can be daunting and your own bias doesn't allow you to see it or even consider the possibility. And I'm not the only one who has noticed it on this forum. You are smart muir, but you gotta become smart enough to consider that you might be wrong. Then you turn away from conspiracy theories and turn towards rational skeptic. Those are the people who are respected in academia who have similar perspectives to you.

 

[muir]

Well now this is confirmation bias if ever ive seen one. There are plenty of alternative reasons why the furgeson incident might have taken place, and to say a conspiracy to start several events where this was was a trigger for the police brutality across America is completely ridiculous. An alternative is public sensitivity to racism. Or a local distrust of police. You say brutalizing the public, but what is your source? The media. News reports. Which of themselves have a natural bias to report things that are out of the ordinary and to gain public interest. Have you considered all the cases of where a police man was very kind or helpful or forgiving to the public? One time, one person who worked for my parents had his house caught on fire and he knew his family was home. He rushed home, going more than 90 mph, and got pulled over by a cop. When he told the cop, he said follow me, the cop switched on his lights, and he got him there fast. The officer ended up going slower than 90, but still faster than the speed limit. This is an example of the police helping the public. And this is but one. What about all the warnings police give for traffic violations, escorts, and protection. They do wonderful work, but the media doesn't show any of that. What happens is all you see is the negative, then because of the availability heuristic and your own confirmation bias muir, you don't know any different. It's easy for you to say that you know there are good cops, but it is a natural psychological phenomenon to not apply the same weight to good things as bad things. Some think because of evolutionary reasons, but it is more commonly known as the negativity bias

I didn't say they were staged events i'm saying that if michael hadn't been shot that day someone somewhere else would have been the spark that caused public outrage

Seriously man the militarisation of the police is going to have increasingly negative implications for the public and that will include increased violence against them

That's not to say all police are bad, they're not, but the good guys will be discouraged and the bad guys will be encouraged through a number of means

Firstly recruitment will involve psyche evaluations where they will look for people who will be obediant to authority but who lack empathy

Then once people are in the organisation the training programme will discourage empathy and even help to brutlaise people

People exhibiting a lack of empathy will be promoted

On top of that a pervasive culture of the public as the enemy who must be crushed will be pushed out onto the force like an infection

Any people caught acting aggressively will not be reprimanded but rather protected enabling such behaviours to continue

 

[dogman6126]

I didn't say they were staged events i'm saying that if michael hadn't been shot that day someone somewhere else would have been the spark that caused public outrage

Seriously man the militarisation of the police is going to have increasingly negative implications for the public and that will include increased violence against them

That's not to say all police are bad, they're not, but the good guys will be discouraged and the bad guys will be encouraged through a number of means

Firstly recruitment will involve psyche evaluations where they will look for people who will be obediant to authority but who lack empathy

Then once people are in the organisation the training programme will discourage empathy and even help to brutlaise people

People exhibiting a lack of empathy will be promoted

On top of that a pervasive culture of the public as the enemy who must be crushed will be pushed out onto the force like an infection

Any people caught acting aggressively will not be reprimanded but rather protected enabling such behaviours to continue

First of all, your misunderstanding the difference between will and could. While most of your theories could be, that does NOT mean that they will be. You say that the police will choose low empathy high obedience people, but its more accurate to say that they could. Then you need to speak of the likelihood of such an eventuality coming about. That's how logic works.

Sure what your saying is possible, but there are plenty of eventualities that can very easily prevent such an outcome. That's the advantage of a checks and balances system of government. That's also the advantage of the internet and mass communication. That's also an advantage of a socially successful population. And that's to name but three.

 

[Lark]

The autopsy very much supported that brown did fight with the officer, that he did struggle for the gun, and that he was charging at the officer during the fatal head shots. The fact that the "witnesses" said that he was shot execution style is a perfect example of suggestibility, and I really hope that the jury does not fall for the false assumption that human declarative memory can be trusted. Therefore I expect and hope that he will be let off.

Suggestability and bias.

You got to go with the facts and the evidence.

 

[Lark]

First of all, your misunderstanding the difference between will and could. While most of your theories could be, that does NOT mean that they will be. You say that the police will choose low empathy high obedience people, but its more accurate to say that they could. Then you need to speak of the likelihood of such an eventuality coming about. That's how logic works.

Sure what your saying is possible, but there are plenty of eventualities that can very easily prevent such an outcome. That's the advantage of a checks and balances system of government. That's also the advantage of the internet and mass communication. That's also an advantage of a socially successful population. And that's to name but three.

There's also the question of possibility and likelihood, something could be possible or conceiveable but remain highly unlikely.

Simply because someone can do a thing or something could happen does not mean it will.

 

[muir]

First of all, your misunderstanding the difference between will and could. While most of your theories could be, that does NOT mean that they will be. You say that the police will choose low empathy high obedience people, but its more accurate to say that they could. Then you need to speak of the likelihood of such an eventuality coming about. That's how logic works.

Sure what your saying is possible, but there are plenty of eventualities that can very easily prevent such an outcome. That's the advantage of a checks and balances system of government. That's also the advantage of the internet and mass communication. That's also an advantage of a socially successful population. And that's to name but three.

No i'm saying i believe the police are alrady doing all of these things

Now look...there's a very good way in which you can check if what i'm saying is true...you will just need a little patience

Keep watching events unfold in your society and see if the militarisation of the police becomes an issue for example if it is used in increasingly draconian ways to control the public

Stay tuned...

 

[dogman6126]

No i'm saying i believe the police are alrady doing all of these things

Now look...there's a very good way in which you can check if what i'm saying is true...you will just need a little patience

Keep watching events unfold in your society and see if the militarisation of the police becomes an issue for example if it is used in increasingly draconian ways to control the public

Stay tuned...

And I will be as would any logical person. I don't deny the possibility, but as [MENTION=4115]Lark[/MENTION] said, it could "be possible or conceiveable but remain highly unlikely". Therefore a person should watch for the unlikely, but not spread fear over the unlikely.

You however need to watch not just for cases of increased militarization, but also cases of demilitarization. Not just cases of brutality, but also cases of kindness. That's how you will avoid your own confirmation bias.

 

[muir]

And I will be as would any logical person. I don't deny the possibility, but as @Lark said, it could "be possible or conceiveable but remain highly unlikely". Therefore a person should watch for the unlikely, but not spread fear over the unlikely.

You however need to watch not just for cases of increased militarization, but also cases of demilitarization. Not just cases of brutality, but also cases of kindness. That's how you will avoid your own confirmation bias.

Yeah but you are one of the most recent in a long line of people i've debated with who have called themsevles 'logical' whilst also saying that i'm wrong and yet everytime they do it events then occur which prove i was right and the 'logical' people then go quiet or dissapear

This has been going on for years now and if it keeps going on like this i'll begin to associate the word 'logical' with the word 'blind'

 

[dogman6126]

Yeah but you are one of the most recent in a long line of people i've debated with who have called themsevles 'logical' whilst also saying that i'm wrong and yet everytime they do it events then occur which prove i was right and the 'logical' people then go quiet or dissapear

This has been going on for years now and if it keeps going on like this i'll begin to associate the word 'logical' with the word 'blind'

And I would expect such an opinion from someone with your psychology. You are smart enough to rationalize just about any situation in such a way that you could perceive yourself as being right even if you where wrong or partially wrong. I could almost guarantee that the cases where you said you turned out right, you where also wrong in some or several respects. You rationalized because you where right in some respect and you clinged to that idea to protect your own self esteem. That's the natural result of someone who has confirmation bias like you do. Have you ever looked at the times when you where wrong? Or are you seriously going to try to tell me that you've never been wrong?

 

[muir]

And I would expect such an opinion from someone with your psychology. You are smart enough to rationalize just about any situation in such a way that you could perceive yourself as being right even if you where wrong or partially wrong. I could almost guarantee that the cases where you said you turned out right, you where also wrong in some or several respects. You rationalized because you where right in some respect and you clinged to that idea to protect your own self esteem. That's the natural result of someone who has confirmation bias like you do. Have you ever looked at the times when you where wrong? Or are you seriously going to try to tell me that you've never been wrong?

Wrongness is the state that the system puts you in

The game then becomes trying to evolve out of that so that you can be less wrong and more right

This is an ongoing process of evolving perceptions

It gets refined and fine tuned

 

[Lark]

And I will be as would any logical person. I don't deny the possibility, but as @Lark said, it could "be possible or conceiveable but remain highly unlikely". Therefore a person should watch for the unlikely, but not spread fear over the unlikely.

You however need to watch not just for cases of increased militarization, but also cases of demilitarization. Not just cases of brutality, but also cases of kindness. That's how you will avoid your own confirmation bias.

Exactly.

Erich Fromm wrote a book at the height of the cold war in aid to trying to defuse the nuclear war paranoia he actually privately thought would doom mankind and in it persuasively argued that the fact the USSR had the capacity to perform a nuclear strike did not make it a foregone conclusion as many pundits in the US were arguing at that time. Possible doesnt mean probable or as he phrased it likely.

The thing about militarisation of the police force is that things like riot gear and armoured vehicles arent sufficient to prove its happening, all it proves is that as an employer the police service has a duty of care to their employees and are doing things right, sometimes the military themselves are not so well equipped, or at least some of the newspapers in the UK said so during the first of the Bush co. deployments when soldiers did not have ballistic vests or body armour.

There are undercurrents of tension in society, which I dont think any right thinking person would approve of, such as racism, sectarianism, ethnic or cultural clashes, which lead to rioting and violence and when things kicks off people generally arent inclined to think "hell, the police look pretty militaristic", they are inclined to think its a good thing the lynch mob is being kept a bay.

 

[Lark]

And I would expect such an opinion from someone with your psychology. You are smart enough to rationalize just about any situation in such a way that you could perceive yourself as being right even if you where wrong or partially wrong. I could almost guarantee that the cases where you said you turned out right, you where also wrong in some or several respects. You rationalized because you where right in some respect and you clinged to that idea to protect your own self esteem. That's the natural result of someone who has confirmation bias like you do. Have you ever looked at the times when you where wrong? Or are you seriously going to try to tell me that you've never been wrong?

Ask him when the last time was he spoke to a police officer, I dare you, then ask him when the last time was he was given an ultimatum by a police officer, if its not been within the last month I call bullshit on his police oppressor stories.

 

[muir]

Exactly.

Erich Fromm wrote a book at the height of the cold war in aid to trying to defuse the nuclear war paranoia he actually privately thought would doom mankind and in it persuasively argued that the fact the USSR had the capacity to perform a nuclear strike did not make it a foregone conclusion as many pundits in the US were arguing at that time. Possible doesnt mean probable or as he phrased it likely.

The thing about militarisation of the police force is that things like riot gear and armoured vehicles arent sufficient to prove its happening, all it proves is that as an employer the police service has a duty of care to their employees and are doing things right, sometimes the military themselves are not so well equipped, or at least some of the newspapers in the UK said so during the first of the Bush co. deployments when soldiers did not have ballistic vests or body armour.

No the militarisation of the police is about the equiping of the police with military equipment they don't need, the increasing of SWAT raids on peoples houses, the passing of laws like the NDAA, the attempted disarming of the US public, the creation of FEMA camps, the economic sabotage of the US economy, the flying of drones over the US public, the PRISM spying programme on the US public, the massive transfer of wealth away from the US public to the top 0.001% and so on

The signs are all there and pretty clear for anyone who is not delusional, ignorant or slily trying to bury the truth from peoples vision because they are a new world order stooge

There are undercurrents of tension in society, which I dont think any right thinking person would approve of, such as racism, sectarianism, ethnic or cultural clashes, which lead to rioting and violence and when things kicks off people generally arent inclined to think "hell, the police look pretty militaristic", they are inclined to think its a good thing the lynch mob is being kept a bay.

No i think the people thinking that are the bankers who used the police to keep the middle class occupy and students protestors away. remember the pepper spraying of all those peaceful protesters?

The lynch mob isn't coming for the middle class so i don't know why you would say such a fear mongering thing

The lynch mob is coming for the fabian peadophiles and their sychophantic minions

 

[muir]

Ask him when the last time was he spoke to a police officer, I dare you, then ask him when the last time was he was given an ultimatum by a police officer, if its not been within the last month I call bullshit on his police oppressor stories.

 

[muir]

Retired colonel warns of militarisation of police

[video=youtube;Equc9A1pqQk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Equc9A1pqQk[/video]

 

[dogman6126]

Wrongness is the state that the system puts you in

The game then becomes trying to evolve out of that so that you can be less wrong and more right

This is an ongoing process of evolving perceptions

It gets refined and fine tuned

"Wrongness is the state that the system puts you in"
Oh my gosh I could almost swear you pulled that out of that Deepak Chopra random word generator, lol. I have no idea what that is supposed to mean.

 

[muir]

"Wrongness is the state that the system puts you in"
Oh my gosh I could almost swear you pulled that out of that Deepak Chopra random word generator, lol. I have no idea what that is supposed to mean.

No unfortunately you are not alone which is why all the crazyness in our world continues because people like yourself cannot see outside of the narrative woven for you by the mainstream media and the education system

 

[dogman6126]

No unfortunately you are not alone which is why all the crazyness in our world continues because people like yourself cannot see outside of the narrative woven for you by the mainstream media and the education system

Hardly, lol. Consider how most of my logical proofs I figured out for myself before I even came to school (because I lived in rural area, there was no such concept as philosophy) then I had it confirmed correct at school. If anything that lends credence to that which is being taught at school because an outside source came up with the same conclusions. Where as you are just kinda out there on your own with no objective precedent to compare and support with.

 

[muir]

Hardly, lol. Consider how most of my logical proofs I figured out for myself before I even came to school (because I lived in rural area, there was no such concept as philosophy) then I had it confirmed correct at school. If anything that lends credence to that which is being taught at school because an outside source came up with the same conclusions. Where as you are just kinda out there on your own with no objective precedent to compare and support with.

You're a smart guy but there's more to the human brain than the left hemisphere and hopefully in time you'll tap that side of your brain and see beyond the walls of academia