Ferguson

[civman110]

This is an odd post. "It happens to white people too", followed by an argument that it doesn't happen to black people in the first place. Having your cake and eating it, there, no bonus points for sincerity of argument.

I simply didn't articulate what I was trying to say clearly.

What I meant by it happens to whites too, was that it happens to BOTH blacks and whites, but Michael Brown's death wasn't a case of police brutality according to the DOJ investigation, so lets not even bring that into this discussion.

It's only "pitting blacks against whites" so long as whites continue to identify with white killers over black victims.

^ This is the kind of hysteria and blanket statements that doesn't help anything.

Do you realize that we mostly agree, but instead of having an actual discussion with me you have placed us into two separate camps? and told me to pick a side, black & anti-police or white & pro-police?

 

[EgonSpengler]

No you haven't provided any examples.

You have provided generalized vague statements by the DOJ and one specific incidence from someone else's post. You certainly haven't provided any compelling evidence that would convince me that your claims are true.



You have not said anything that would prove so thus far.




This is my point. To you the larger picture is one big sweeping generalization.

What I am saying is that there are injustices in the police force, but lets not make it into a race issue unless we can prove that it is one. Also lets not smear the entire police force for the action of a few. Until people are willing to sit down and rationally examine the facts problems aren't going to be solved.

Dude, April Fool's was a week ago.

 

[civman110]

We aren't talking about two different incidents, because I'm not talking about any specific incident.

I'm talking about your casual commentary that "physical evidence proves" whatever you think it has proven.

The physical evidence proved that Michael brown could not of had his hands up when he was shot because of where the bullets entered his right arm.

The physical evidence also proved that Michael Brown was shot in the hand while he had his hand over the end of the cops gun because they found gunpowder reside on Brown's hand. There was also both Wilson's and Brown's blood as well as gunpowder reside in the patrol car, indicating that the gun was discharge in the patrol car and that a struggle took place there.

That evidence is critically important, so I don't understand why you would automatically discount it.

Dude, April Fool's was a week ago.

That's a really childish comment to make, especially when someone is trying to have a rational conversation with you. I have not said a single rude thing to you.

How about instead of insulting me you actually address what I said like an adult?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

That evidence is critically important, so I don't understand why you would automatically discount it.

Because I have no reason to have a shred of confidence in the people who collected it or the people who analyzed it. Do you?

 

[Traitorfish]

This is the kind of hysteria and blanket statements that doesn't help anything.

It's not, though. It's an observation of the fact that these debates are only racialised insofar as white people identify themselves with racist white cops and interpret criticism of racist white cops as criticisms of white people, generally. Very few black activists they're engaged in a struggle against white people, they think they're engaged in a struggle against white supremacy; if white people are so invested in white supremacy that they struggle to imagine an identity separate from it, that is not black people's fault.

Do you realize that we mostly agree, but instead of having an actual discussion with me you have placed us into two separate camps? and told me to pick a side, black & anti-police or white & pro-police?

I'm white, for the record.

 

[civman110]

Because I have no reason to have a shred of confidence in the people who collected it or the people who analyzed it. Do you?

Yes I do, unless you can definitively prove to me otherwise.

To assume that the evidence is fabricated you would have to believe that the FPD, DOJ, FBI, the independent forensic organizations, and Obama Administration tampered with the evidence. I'm not going to believe something like that unless I have evidence.

It's not, though. It's an observation of the fact that these debates are only racialised insofar as white people identify themselves with racist white cops and interpret criticism of racist white cops as criticisms of white people, generally.

That is your perception. I certainly don't identify myself with racist cops, you were the one who placed me into that camp.

I'm white, for the record.

It doesn't matter what colour you are. That should have absolutely no impact on this conversation.

 

[EgonSpengler]

That's a really childish comment to make, especially when someone is trying to have a rational conversation with you. I have not said a single rude thing to you.

How about instead of insulting me you actually address what I said like an adult?

You asked for one example, I gave you four, then you said I gave you no examples. You say I haven't "proven" my "claims", but I don't even know what claims you think I'm making. I'm not in the DOJ. I didn't conduct the investigation or write the report. If you have a problem with their methodology, fine, I'd be curious to hear what it is, but it sounds like you're just dismissing it out of hand. Read it, or don't, I don't care, but if you want me to spoon-feed you the entire thing, it isn't going to happen (also, I think your definition of "politicizing" is different from mine, I don't see any politics whatsoever in the report). And you say I gave you something from someone else's post? I don't even know what that means. Are you accusing me of plagiarism?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Yes I do, unless you can definitively prove to me otherwise.

To assume that the evidence is fabricated you would have to believe that the FPD, DOJ, FBI, the independent forensic organizations, and Obama Administration tampered with the evidence. I'm not going to believe something like that unless I have evidence.

All it actually takes is the cop on the scene tampering with the evidence, which he has ability, opportunity, and motive to do. Closing your eyes to that reality is your choice, and I'm fine with you doing that, but you shouldn't be surprised that other people lack the will to do so...especially people who have direct experience with US cops.

 

[civman110]

You asked for one example, I gave you four, then you said I gave you no examples.

You gave me 1 example that was someone else's example. Not yours.

I asked you because it appears to me that you haven't read the report, or only read the generalized vague statements that you posted and formed your opinion solely based on that - Which is not evidence proving anything.

If that's not the case I don't understand why you wouldn't provide me with more detailed information that lead you to form the opinion that you did.

If you have a problem with their methodology, fine, I'd be curious to hear what it is, but it sounds like you're just dismissing it out of hand.

I'm not dismissing it. I am asking WHY they made those statements in the report. What evidence is there that backs up those vague generalizations? When they presented this information was their methodology sound?

I'm trying to find out exactly what happened and since you believe this report to be accurate I am asking you to demonstrate WHY you came to that conclusion.

All it actually takes is the cop on the scene tampering with the evidence, which he has ability, opportunity, and motive to do. Closing your eyes to that reality is your choice, and I'm fine with you doing that, but you shouldn't be surprised that other people lack the will to do so...especially people who have direct experience with US cops.

1) Just because I don't believe the evidence was tampered with in this case doesn't mean I believe the police haven't tampered with evidence EVER. Can we please avoid blanket statements?

2) Considering all of the government agencies involved and the fact that Brown was killed in a residential neighbourhood surrounded by houses, and the legth of time the body laid in the street and the amount of eye witnesses I find it extremely hard to believe that the evidence was tampered with.

You would have to provide some sort of evidence to convince me of that.

I also forgot to mention that there were also other black eye witnesses that confirmed what the forensics said based on physical evidence. That Brown did not have his hands up and that there was a struggle with the police officer.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I'm trying to find out exactly what happened

Good luck with that. Two people have pretty good ideas about what happened. One is dead, and the other may have no interest whatsoever in sharing.

Then there are a bunch of people with vague ideas about what happened who have arrived at workable conclusions to put the situation to bed. They are going to inflate their apparent knowledge sufficiently to keep the issue abed.

Then there are a huge number of people who want to believe they know what happened and are willing to assign however much credibility to whoever spun their story of preference as they need it to have so they can sleep at night.

Then there are a few who acknowledge that what actually happened makes no difference, and will never really be known.

 

[EgonSpengler]

You gave me someone else's example. Not yours.

Of course they weren't mine. I was talking about the DOJ report.

I asked you because it appears to me that you haven't read the report, or only read the generalized vague statements that you posted and formed your opinion solely based on that - Which is not evidence proving anything.

I provided you four specific incidents cited in the report.

If that's not the case I don't understand why you wouldn't provide me with more detailed information that lead you to form the opinion that you did.

I provided you four specific incidents cited in the report.

I'm not dismissing it. I am asking WHY they made those vague statements in the report. What evidence is there that backs up those vague generalizations? When they presented this information was their methodology sound?

For the last time, I am not regurgitating the entire report for you. If you want to know what's in it, read it.

 

[civman110]

Good luck with that. Two people have pretty good ideas about what happened. One is dead, and the other may have no interest whatsoever in sharing.

Then there are a bunch of people with vague ideas about what happened who have arrived at workable conclusions to put the situation to bed. They are going to inflate their apparent knowledge sufficiently to keep the issue abed.

Then there are a huge number of people who want to believe they know what happened and are willing to assign however much credibility to whoever spun their story of preference as they need it to have so they can sleep at night.

Then there are a few who acknowledge that what actually happened makes no difference, and will never really be known.

Well I disagree with you, but you're entitled to your opinion.

I provided you four specific incidents cited in the report.

Ok, that was from an edited post, but I may have also missed it. I agree those 4 instances are injustices and the cops responsible should be punished.

How did the DOJ establish that there was a pattern of racism in the FPD?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Just because I don't believe the evidence was tampered with in this case doesn't mean I believe the police haven't tampered with evidence EVER. Can we please avoid blanket statements?

Just because I am still not talking about any specific case doesn't mean that I am making blanket statements. I have no opinion on whether the evidence in the Michael Brown case was tampered with, because I have absolutely no way of knowing if it was or wasn't.

I do know that in general cops are the best qualified people for getting away with murder, for all the reasons I went over earlier.

I also know that in general none of the people normally tasked with investigation and prosecution are really particularly interested in making a case against a cop, for all the reasons I went over earlier.

So I tend to fall more on the side of needing proof that a particular case has some extraordinary quality that differentiates it from the general case before I make a definitive statement like "the physical evidence proves the cop's story", rather than demanding proof that a particular case fits the general case.

 

[civman110]

So I tend to fall more on the side of needing proof that a particular case has some extraordinary quality that differentiates it from the general case before I make a definitive statement like "the physical evidence proves the cop's story", rather than demanding proof that a particular case fits the general case.

Well, I am of the opinion that due to all of the government agencies involved, the physical evidence, the high profile nature of the case, and eye witness claims from blacks in that community who's story also matched that physical evidence, that Michael Brown wasn't a case of police brutality.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Well, I am of the opinion that due to all of the government agencies involved, the physical evidence, the high profile nature of the case, and eye witness claims from blacks in that community who's story also matched that physical evidence, that Michael Brown wasn't a case of police brutality.

I think it was probably a case of an incredibly sloppy approach, coupled with a department wide belief that if sloppiness led to trouble it would always be okay to shoot your way out...which is not only what happened but was something that inevitably was going to happen sooner or later.

While I sympathize with Michael Brown's family I think his death was purely incidental in the grand scheme of things, and that whether the evidence was or wasn't tampered with doesn't even merit a footnote.

 

[Commodore]

Well, I am of the opinion that due to all of the government agencies involved, the physical evidence, the high profile nature of the case, and eye witness claims from blacks in that community who's story also matched that physical evidence, that Michael Brown wasn't a case of police brutality.

I agree. It's actually pretty clear there was no wrongdoing n the part of officer in the Michael Brown case. With that said, there are plenty of other cases of clear police brutality and wrongdoing.

In fact, considering how many cases are out there, it truly boggles my mind why the protest movement still centers itself around the Michael Brown case. I think the protestors are actually doing a disservice to the true victims of police brutality by focusing all of their effort rallying around a case that wasn't police brutality at all.

 

[civman110]

I think it was probably a case of an incredibly sloppy approach, coupled with a department wide belief that if sloppiness led to trouble it would always be okay to shoot your way out...

Respectfully, I think that is a ridiculous assumption. You would have to be one really racist [expletive] cop to take a viewpoint like that.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Respectfully, I think that is a ridiculous assumption. You would have to be one really racist [expletive] to take a viewpoint like that.

I'm not quite sure what you are talking about, but I usually expect anything that starts with respectfully to be bad news. Who exactly are you calling a racist [deleted] here? I don't see what you mean by 'assumption', so could you be more specific?

 

[civman110]

I'm not quite sure what you are talking about, but I usually expect anything that starts with respectfully to be bad news. Who exactly are you calling a racist [deleted] here? I don't see what you mean by 'assumption', so could you be more specific?

I wasn't taking about you. I was talking about the cops viewpoint. You replied before I had a chance to edit my post after I realized my response was unclear.

With that said, there are plenty of other cases of clear police brutality and wrongdoing.

I agree.

In fact, considering how many cases are out there, it truly boggles my mind why the protest movement still centers itself around the Michael Brown case. I think the protestors are actually doing a disservice to the true victims of police brutality by focusing all of their effort rallying around a case that wasn't police brutality at all.

It's because this case polarizes people into 2 separate camps and turns the whole debate into a political football. Once that happens the problem isn't going to get solved.

There is a huge problem in the US with the militarization of police. Both in their training and with the gear they are given. However, instead this gets made into a race issue and all of this is ignored due to rabid mud slinging and finger pointing.

More whites are killed by police each year than blacks. I don't know if blacks are killed in more disproportionate numbers, or not, but my point is that this is an issue that effects everyone. Not just blacks, but it has been made into a black & anti-cop vs. white & pro-cop issue. This is due to the kind of divisive media attention this case has gotten, the governments poor response, and how the black activists chose to handle it.

There is literally hundreds of cases of cut and dry examples of police brutality, but only the extremely convoluted and controversial cases make the news and are turned into a media circus.

 

[Traitorfish]

That is your perception. I certainly don't identify myself with racist cops, you were the one who placed me into that camp.

If you interpret criticism of racist cops with criticism of white people, if you think that anti-racism entails racial conflict, then you certainly do identify yourself with them. If criticism of racist white people is threatening to you, it is because you identify yourself with them; if you do not identify yourself with them, it will not trouble you.

It doesn't matter what colour you are. That should have absolutely no impact on this conversation.

Well, exactly, and that's why the claim that I'm presenting this as a case of "white/pro-cop" against "black/anti-cop" is absurd. It's a conflict of "racist/pro-cop" and "anti-racist/anti-cop"; if you confuse "racist" and "white", that says more about your own perceptions of white people and whiteness than anything else.