Ferguson

[useless]

Can cops do no wrong in your eyes?

 

[Kaitzilla]

Lots of pessimism going around now.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...e_indicted_for_killing_michael_brown_our.html

The first Ferguson protests had two slogans: “Hands up, don’t shoot”—referring to Michael Brown’s final actions before he was killed—and “Justice for Michael Brown.” And when you asked protesters what they meant by “justice,” they replied with a plea for accountability. In their minds, justice could only come with an indictment of Darren Wilson, the police officer who shot him. No, he probaby wouldn’t go to prison. But if nothing else, an indictment would show that Brown’s life mattered. That the lives of people like Brown matter. And that their communities deserve answers and explanations for police violence...


...The truth is that the law gives wide berth to the police’s use of deadly force. Just two months before Brown was killed, the Supreme Court gave its ruling in Plumhoff v. Rickard, where the plaintiffs were suing after police officers ended a high speed chase by shooting 15 rounds into the car, killing the driver and a passenger. The court held that this wasn’t “excessive force” in violation of the Constitution, affirming years of deference to police departments. “It stands to reason,” wrote the justices in a 9–0 opinion, “that if police officers are justified in firing at a suspect in order to end a severe threat to public safety, the officers need not stop shooting until the threat has ended.”

Beyond this, there are the general standards for use of deadly force by police, which give wide latitude to officers who use their weapons. The Supreme Court allows police to use their weapons in two circumstances: To defend their lives and to stop an escaped felon. If Wilson believed that Brown was a felon—or committed a felonious offense—then he was justified under existing law. And if Wilson believed he was in danger of losing his life—a belief that only has to be “objectively reasonable,” not likely or even possible—then, again, he was justified under existing law.

When you add this climate of legal deference to the particular circumstances of the grand jury trial—including McCullough’s reputation for supporting police officers, and his decision to avoid a recommendation for charges—the non-indictment was almost inevitable. Barring something extraordinary, Wilson was going to walk free. The judicial system as we’ve constructed it just isn’t equipped—or even willing—to hold officers accountable for shootings and other offenses. Or put differently, the simple fact is that the police can kill for almost any reason with little fear of criminal charges.

Which is to say this: It would have been powerful to see charges filed against Darren Wilson. At the same time, actual justice for Michael Brown—a world in which young men like Michael Brown can’t be gunned down without consequences—won’t come from the criminal justice system. Our courts and juries aren’t impartial arbiters—they exist inside society, not outside of it—and they can only provide as much justice as society is willing to give.

 

[EgonSpengler]

Lots of pessimism going around now.

I can hardly feel otherwise. It's not just Ferguson. When was the last time a cop did time for killing someone in the line of duty? That officer who was raping women in Oklahoma City is going away, but right now it sure seems like killing black people can be waved off simply by saying "he went for my gun" or "oops." A grand jury in New York is close to issuing a decision on whether to indict a police officer in the killing of Eric Garner. We'll see, but I'm not holding my breath. (Sorry, bad pun.)

 

[warpus]

Okay, so it seems to me that yesterday's verdict was incredibly just.

Are people defending the riots because they don't want to seem racist?

 

[Angst]

I mentioned this in another thread, but it deserves repeating given your comment here. The absolute worst police beating I ever personally saw was by the German Polizei. Just sayin.

American police is internationally renowned for being overtly violent, killing suspects etc. German Polizei isn't. Your personal experience is completely irrelevant and you should not rely on it. Else you shroud yourself with idiocy. 'Just sayin.'

 

[useless]

Remember Rodney King's beating? They had evidence, video footage of his beating and cops still got off so this is nothing new.

 

[luiz]

Remember Rodney King's beating? They had evidence, video footage of his beating and cops still got off so this is nothing new.

Two cops were later sentenced to 32 months in prison by a Federal court for violating King's civil rights, and King was awarded a total of $5.5 million. And remember, King did indeed provoke the whole situation, even though he was beaten far more than needed.

 

[Phrossack]

Okay, so it seems to me that yesterday's verdict was incredibly just.

Are people defending the riots because they don't want to seem racist?

Agreed on both counts.

The jurors followed the letter of the law based on the evidence they were presented. If people object to the results, they should object to the laws, not the grand jury or the Wal-Mart or the auto store. So there needs to be a well-organized nationwide effort to change the laws, a rethinking of the police, and ideally a drive to greatly increase black and minority representation in the police force.

 

[Wolfbeckett]

Okay, so it seems to me that yesterday's verdict was incredibly just.

Are people defending the riots because they don't want to seem racist?

Pretty much. This country has gone insane with this kind of thing now. Because there have been some instances in the past of the police shooting young black men unjustly and getting away with it (and that has happened, make no mistake), a certain segment of the population now seems to assume that every incident of an officer shooting a minority is driven by racism. I haven't looked at the evidence in this case specifically to say that's what is happening this time, but you see the same song and dance every time a case like this comes up.

Something bad happens, some people feel justifiably upset over it, then the media gets wind of it and sees a story they can sell, so they swoop in. People like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton who make their living by ensuring that everyone sees racist boogeymen in their closets get involved, and before you know it its a full blown race war hate crime issue no matter what actually happened. In cases like this its especially absurd because the evidence couldn't even be seen by the public until after the grand jury did their thing, so everyone was lining up and taking sides based on... what, gut instinct? That isn't good enough. Maybe wait to get outraged until the evidence is released is all I'm saying, if the evidence is examined and it does look like the cop got away with murder, then feel free to go crazy with the outrage. I'd be right there with you.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

When the prosecutor comes out directly saying 'well I'm not going to do my job in the usual fashion here' it seems unlikely that people would then look at the result and say 'okay, justice was done'. Yet so many of you are. Why is that?

I make no claim that Officer Wilson did something wrong. But it's pretty clear that a fair number of people in Ferguson saw no reason to think their police would investigate whether he did or didn't. It's also clear that a fair number of people in Ferguson saw no reason to think that their county prosecutor would make any effort to properly determine whether he did or didn't. Neither the police nor the prosecutor has shown anything to make me think those people's concerns aren't entirely justified.

It seems to me that a fair number of people are really desperate to grab any straw that will make it possible to go on living as if the cops are guardian angels in blue, even if that straw requires them to renounce actual knowledge of how the grand jury system is supposed to work.

 

[bhsup]

Can cops do no wrong in your eyes?

bhsup note: I bolded the word cops (that was in plural form) because it is very, very relevant to my reply.

No, of course not, and I have never said anything on this forum that even comes close to suggesting that I believe cops can do no wrong.

Your reply to my post, though, is very telling in what it very strongly implies. You wrote cops (plural) rather than this cop (singular) in regards to the situation. It seems to me that you, and many others, apparently want this cop (singular) punished for the sins of cops (plural) that have occurred over all recorded history, regardless of what the facts of this individual case were.

The grand jury was concerned only with, and rightly so, the specific incident between this cop (singular) and the large man who assaulted him. Any historic actions taken by other cops should have had, and indeed did not have, any bearing on their decision at all.

The riots, as well, are clearly about this one incident and not about historic actions. That is abundantly clear because they didn't suddenly start torching a city until the grand jury handed down its verdict. This means the rioters, like you, clearly wanted this cop punished for past misdeeds no matter what. Y'all want your pound of flesh and guilt or innocence are playing no part in your reasoning.

 

[Commodore]

Cops; the real victims here.

Question: Have you actually looked at the evidence that was presented to the grand jury? Or are you still operating on the wild and, quite frankly, irresponsible speculation and fact-twisting of the major media outlets?

Because if you haven't even at least given the actual evidence a cursory look-through, then your opinion in this matter means precisely nothing.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The riots, as well, are clearly about this one incident and not about historic actions. That is abundantly clear because they didn't suddenly start torching a city until the grand jury handed down its verdict. This means the rioters, like you, clearly wanted this cop punished for past misdeeds no matter what. Y'all want your pound of flesh and guilt or innocence are playing no part in your reasoning.

So, if it isn't context that sets Ferguson apart, what is it?

I mean, there have been a fair number of cops shooting unarmed people since this one, but Ferguson is the only city in flames. What makes them so different, in your opinion?

 

[bhsup]

Eric Holder, Rev. Sharpton, President Obama, swooping in and all but saying from day one he was shot because he was black? Hrm...

 

[Commodore]

Eric Holder, Rev. Sharpton, President Obama, swooping in and all but saying from day one he was shot because he was black? Hrm...

And CNN coming right out and saying he was shot because he was black.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

So you guys are really contending that the media picked this one. They didn't cover other places where police shot unarmed people the same way, just because they have it in for Ferguson Missouri. That's your answer, really. I want to be sure because before I demonstrate any further just how ridiculous that is I want to be sure I'm really getting this right.

 

[bhsup]

Frankly, I don't know and I really don't care. That's irrelevant. The rioting exploded last night only after the grand jury verdict was announced. Do you think the same thing would have happened if they had indicted? No? Then it is clearly happening because of this one incident. How can you argue otherwise?

 

[Commodore]

Frankly, I don't know and I really don't care. That's irrelevant. The rioting exploded last night only after the grand jury verdict was announced. Do you think the same thing would have happened if they had indicted? No? Then it is clearly happening because of this one incident. How can you argue otherwise?

I actually think there would have still been a riot if they had indicted him. It would have been a sort of "celebratory riot". From what I saw last night, it was clear a large number of the protestors present were looking for a fight no matter what.

 

[bhsup]

Huh. Well either way, it would have been rioting triggered only by the grand jury announcement. They weren't rioting the night before (to my knowledge.)

 

[Commodore]

Huh. Well either way, it would have been rioting triggered only by the grand jury announcement. They weren't rioting the night before (to my knowledge.)

They weren't rioting the night before or in the numerous protests that took place after the initial round of rioting in August. That tells me that last night the actual protestors weren't out there and it was mostly the troublemakers and thugs.