Ferguson conflict - What is the problem, and how to solve it?

[MigL]

There is the oppressors and the oppressed.

The oppressors don't realize or think that they are oppressors.

That makes two sides, does it not ?

 

Just as there are/were oppressors and oppressed in Northern Ireland and Israel/Palestine with the same mindset ( for different reasons, of course ).

So, exactly what are you going on about ?

 

And of course one of your witless lackeys gives you +1 for you 'deep' comment.

Why don't you re-read the Common/Jon Stewart quotes which I believe iNow posted; they all seem to get it.

After the Brown shooting, the whole country wanted a change in the way things were done. But as more time/violence goes by, and if this police shooting does turn out to be retaliatory, it'll give some people the excuse to claim "Look at the things they do, they deserve to be treated like that".

And the change never happens.

 

Is that what is in the best interest of American society?

Is that what we want ?

[overtone]

 

 

There is the oppressors and the oppressed.

The oppressors don't realize or think that they are oppressors.

That makes two sides, does it not ?

No, it doesn't. The oppressed are an entire population of people, not a "side" of political conflict. They are not collectively identifiable with each other, as being on the same "side" of some conflict and responsible for each other's behavior.

There is such a thing as the behavior of the Ferguson police toward black people, for example. There is no such thing as the behavior of black people toward the Ferguson police.

[zapatos]

There is such a thing as the behavior of the Ferguson police toward black people, for example. There is no such thing as the behavior of black people toward the Ferguson police.

Can you explain what you mean when you say there is no such thing as the behavior of black people toward the police?

Some of the police act in a certain way toward black people.

Some of the black people act in a certain way toward the police.

How do you determine that one is a 'behavior...toward', but the other is not?

[overtone]

Some of the police act in a certain way toward black people.

Some of the black people act in a certain way toward the police.

How do you determine that one is a 'behavior...toward', but the other is not?

The key determination is not whether the behavior is toward, but whether "some" represent a group.

 

"Some" black people do not represent or reflect on a group called "black people". Black people have no more accountability to each other than anyone else to anyone else. Black people have no responsibility to monitor and regulate other black people in particular.

 

"Some" police do represent the rest of the force, and their behavior reflects on the group. Police do have more accountability to each other, as members of a common group whose members's behavior does reflect on the rest - quite officially: that's what the uniform is for. The police do have a responsibility to monitor and regulate the behavior of their fellow policemen, in particular, and hold them to account as fellow members of their special group.

 

The police are on a side. Black people are just people, the general citizenry, on all kinds of different sides relative to the police.

Edited March 19, 2015 by overtone

[iNow]

"Some" black people do not represent or reflect on a group called "black people". <...> "Some" police do represent the rest of the force <...> The police are on a side. Black people are just people

This seems like a distinction without a difference. It makes no sense to suggest this IMO since police are "just people," too.

 

There are bad actors in both populations, and also trends of various sorts in both populations, but both populations are composed of individuals. The difference you suggest strains objectivity and seems baseless when considered outside the realm of personal ideology and preconception.

[Ten oz]

This seems like a distinction without a difference. It makes no sense to suggest this IMO since police are "just people," too.

There are bad actors in both populations, and also trends of various sorts in both populations, but both populations are composed of individuals. The difference you suggest strains objectivity and seems baseless when considered outside the realm of personal ideology and preconception.

There is a history of and modern examples of Police Departments having policy that specifically target/treat blacks differently. From Jim Crow laws just less 60 years ago to St Louis County having to disband departments because of racism. Thos are examples of organized groups of police acting collectively against the black community. There is not an equivalent to that in the black community acting against those Police. Not every Black person in Ferguson organizes and protests. Every Police officer in Ferguson does work for the same department and answer to the same bosses. There is a clear distinction.

[iNow]

We were speaking about individuals representing/not representing a larger group of which they are part, not of broader discriminatory policies or desires of those in leadership. Perhaps it was unintentional, but your post is a red herring / moving of the goalposts.

[Ten oz]

We were speaking about individuals representing/not representing a larger group of which they are part, not of broader discriminatory policies or desires of those in leadership. Perhaps it was unintentional, but your post is a red herring / moving of the goalposts.

Police make oaths and uniformly follow the same directives and policies. They do not operate as "individuals". Each is representative of a larger group. That is why following abuse or other rights violations departments, cities, and counties often end up with lawsuits. As individuals blacks do not represent anything beyond themselves. You can not take a specific community of blacks to court. Communities of blacks do not all make oaths or answer to the same superiors.

[overtone]

There are bad actors in both populations, and also trends of various sorts in both populations, but both populations are composed of individuals.

Individual police are responsible for each other's behavior while acting as police, as members of that defined group. They are issued uniforms, symbols of that membership and collective responsibility. They are collectively guilty of established patterns of bad behavior by some of them, unless they actively discourage and curb and punish such behavior whenever it is known or should be known. They must go out of their way to do so, or they incur guilt, collectively.

 

A police department is responsible for the behavior of its members, collectively. A policeman is in turn accountable to his department, its members and policies and official oversight, as a collective; that department is accountable as a collective for the known and unprevented behaviors of any fraction of its members.

 

None of that is true of "black people". Assigning collective responsibility and guilt to a community of citizens for the behaviors of some of its members is a violation of basic ethical principles of governance ( the Germans did that to the French during the Occupation of WWII, and the responsible officials were convicted of war crimes). Assigning "black people" collective responsibility for the monitoring and control of each other's behavior on the basis of their shared "race", and collective guilt for their lapses in doing so, is racial oppression. Identifying the bad behavior of individual citizens toward the police as representative of some racial group assigned to them is racial bigotry, pure and simple.

 

In sane reality there is no such thing as "black people's behavior" toward the police, in Ferguson or anywhere else. The concept is a delusion, and a symptom - and like many symptoms, it's the aspect of the disease that does the damage.

Edited March 19, 2015 by overtone

[iNow]

They do not operate as "individuals".

Of course they do. Two people in the same situation can make vastly different decisions and take vastly different actions, regardless of what oaths they took or what their uniform represents more broadly.

 

As individuals blacks do not represent anything beyond themselves. You can not take a specific community of blacks to court.

I'm not suggesting there's an equivalence in the way you're arguing. I'm reminding everyone that police continue to be individuals and their occupation in no way negates that no matter how forcefully you or overtone argue otherwise.

.

 

Identifying the bad behavior of individual citizens toward the police as representative of some racial group assigned to them is racial bigotry, pure and simple.

And yet that's precisely what you're doing toward police. Pot. Kettle. Black.

[zapatos]

I don't think anyone here is arguing that there is such a thing as 'black people's behavior' toward police. But it sounds as if you are assigning collective guilt to all policemen because they belong to a formal group. If so I don't accept that. I also never accepted that I was born with sin because I belonged to the Catholic group.


If you are not assigning collective guilt, then I don't understand where you are trying to go with this. All the things you say about what attributes the police department have may be true, but how is that germane? If you are going to color the department bad because of their racism, then it seems the department should also be colored good because of the fairness and helpfulness to the black community.
Both racism and fairness are true of some members of the police; neither is true of all.

To me you are muddying the waters. The oppressed know who they are, just like the oppressors know who they are. They are two separate groups, and they are at odds with each other. The oppressed often view all police in the same way, and the oppressors often view all blacks in the same way. That doesn't make it true. A policeman is not racist simply because of his job.

[Ten oz]

Of course they do. Two people in the same situation can make vastly different decisions and take vastly different actions, regardless of what oaths they took or what their uniform represents more broadly.

Rodney King was awarded 3.8 million dollars by the city of Los Angeles because the officers that beat him were representing themselves? The point of uniformidy and officer codes and conduct is to limit "vastly different actions" from officer to officer. There is a difference between arguing that the system isnt perfect vs there is not a system at all. Police do represent more than themselves individually. Some do a better job than others but that doesn't make them equivalent to the completely unorganized civilian population they serve.

[zapatos]

Rodney King was awarded 3.8 million dollars by the city of Los Angeles because the officers that beat him were representing themselves?

No, because Los Angeles shared legal liability.

 

There is a difference between arguing that the system isnt perfect vs there is not a system at all.

Who is arguing there is not a system at all?

 

Police do represent more than themselves individually.

Who said they didn't?

 

Some do a better job than others but that doesn't make them equivalent to the completely unorganized civilian population they serve.

You cannot think of one organization in the civilian population?

[Ten oz]

No, because Los Angeles shared legal liability.

They shared legal liability because there is an understanding that police represent more than themselves individually. That is the point I was looking to make.

 

Who is arguing there is not a system at all?

No one is arguing that there is not a system but the argument is being made that individuality in this debate is more relevant than group organizational uniformed representation. An argument I read as forget about the system; people are people and make mistakes.

So while the system is not being denied it is sort of being ignored.

I'm reminding everyone that police continue to be individuals and their occupation in no way negates that no matter how forcefully you or overtone argue otherwise..And yet that's precisely what you're doing toward police. Pot. Kettle. Black.

Who said they didn't?

What's been implied is that Police are no more representative of their group than blacks are of their group. Police are sworn officers of specific organizations while blacks have nothing else to do with each other than race. Individually blacks have behavior but collectively they do not.

Can you explain what you mean when you say there is no such thing as the behavior of black people toward the police?Some of the police act in a certain way toward black people.Some of the black people act in a certain way toward the police.How do you determine that one is a 'behavior...toward', but the other is not?

You cannot think of one organization in the civilian population?

I posted "unorganized" civilian population. I did not say that civilians were unable to organize or that they never have. In the context of this conversation in Ferguson or more broadly throughout the country all Black people not organization. Some Blacks are part of various organizations but the two are the same. Edited March 19, 2015 by Ten oz

[overtone]

Identifying the bad behavior of individual citizens toward the police as representative of some racial group assigned to them is racial bigotry, pure and simple.

And yet that's precisely what you're doing toward police.

What?

 

I am identifying behavior of individual policemen that is both known and not actively prevented by their fellow policemen as "police behavior". That is because policemen in a given department are, collectively, responsible for each other's behavior as police officers in that department. So the behavior they allow, or fail in their responsibility to prevent, does in fact display that group's tolerance and that failure, and does in fact represent that group, that police department. They have the option, for example, of evicting the badly behaved from their group - not only the option, but the responsibility.

 

Black people are not responsible for each other's behavior as black people. They have no duty or obligation to monitor each other and actively prevent each other's bad behavior. There are no policies adopted by black people for how black people have agreed to behave. They cannot even evict the misbehaving from their group. So individual black people do not in fact represent other black people, or black people as a group.

 

It's not a theoretical matter, featuring the abstract and inevitable existence of "two sides".

 

 

 

 

Both racism and fairness are true of some members of the police; neither is true of all.

A police department in which racist behavior is tolerated, known and not discouraged or curbed or prevented, is thereby a racist police department, regardless of how many of its officers actually engage in the behavior. A police department in which only some officers are fair and honest is not therefore a fair and honest police department - quite the opposite.

 

 

 

 

The oppressed know who they are, just like the oppressors know who they are. They are two separate groups, and they are at odds with each other.

The oppressed here are not "a group". They have no group identity, no group structure, no group policies, and no common way of being "at odds" with the oppressor.

Edited March 20, 2015 by overtone

[iNow]

Many of these points are valid. There are relevant differences between the populations that need to be considered, and I'd be a fool to argue otherwise. For clarity, my intended message (regardless of how inartfully I previously presented it and how the discussion deteriorated as a result) is that we must be cautious to avoid double standards and to avoid dehumanizing or stereotyping the police officers themselves.

 

Yes, in Ferguson the police department has a nauseating history of asymmetric treatment of the black community and a vile tendency of using their authority to levy informal unlegislated taxes in often cruel ways. Yes, there are activities taking place in black communities that are unlawful and attacks being made on residents and officers alike that don't accurately represent the will or desires of the larger population or majority. Yes, there are different standards and expectations and experiences within these groups, and the standards are different for those charged with protecting communities and enforcing the law.

 

These officers are still individuals, though. They are still human, part of families, sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, moms and dads trying to navigate the vagaries of life and the challenges of survival just like you and me. That doesn't vanish when they take an oath or button up a uniform.

 

I say this because I think we can be more productive in these types of discussions. I suggest that more progress will be made if we focus on individual acts and specific opportunities for improvement instead of painting "the police" or "the blacks" with some broad myopic brush as if the members within these groups are part of some monolithic unvarying unified faceless bloc.

 

It would not surprise me at all to learn that all of us engaged here in this thread (whether posting actively or reading passively) probably agree on at least 80-90% of the components involved in these issues, What's acceptable and what's not...so let's nurture and foster that instead of continually stoking and adding fuel to the barely visible embers of disagreement and the ephemeral mind sucks of misunderstanding and miscommunication. Less conflict, more collaboration. Fair?

Edited March 20, 2015 by iNow

[zapatos]

Many of these points are valid. There are relevant differences between the populations that need to be considered, and I'd be a fool to argue otherwise. For clarity, my intended message (regardless of how inartfully I previously presented it and how the discussion deteriorated as a result) is that we must be cautious to avoid double standards and to avoid dehumanizing or stereotyping the police officers themselves.

 

Yes, in Ferguson the police department has a nauseating history of asymmetric treatment of the black community and a vile tendency of using their authority to levy informal unlegislated taxes in often cruel ways. Yes, there are activities taking place in black communities that are unlawful and attacks being made on residents and officers alike that don't accurately represent the will or desires of the larger population or majority. Yes, there are different standards and expectations and experiences within these groups, and the standards are different for those charged with protecting communities and enforcing the law.

 

These officers are still individuals, though. They are still human, part of families, sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, moms and dads trying to navigate the vagaries of life and the challenges of survival just like you and me. That does vanish when they take an oath or button up a uniform.

 

I say this because I think we can be more productive in these types of discussions. I suggest that more progress will be made if we focus on individual acts and specific opportunities for improvement instead of painting "the police" or "the blacks" with some broad myopic brush as if the members within these groups are part of some monolithic unvarying unified faceless bloc.

 

It would not surprise me at all to learn that all of us engaged here in this thread (whether posting actively or reading passively) probably agree on at least 80-90% of the components involved in these issues, What's acceptable and what's not...so let's nurture and foster that instead of continually stoking and adding fuel to the barely visible embers of disagreement and the ephemeral mind sucks of misunderstanding and miscommunication. Less conflict, more collaboration. Fair?

Agreed. Very well said.

[overtone]

Yes, in Ferguson the police department has a nauseating history of asymmetric treatment of the black community and a vile tendency of using their authority to levy informal unlegislated taxes in often cruel ways. Yes, there are activities taking place in black communities that are unlawful and attacks being made on residents and officers alike that don't accurately represent the will or desires of the larger population or majority.

The bad behavior of the badly behaving policemen in Ferguson does represent the will of "the police" of Ferguson. The bad behavior of the badly behaving black people in Ferguson does not represent the will of "the black people" in Ferguson. This is an important, central, distinction.

 

 

 

 

we must be cautious to avoid double standards

No. We must be cautious to avoid single standards. It's a double situation.

 

 

 

 

These officers are still individuals, though. They are still human, part of families, trying to navigate the vagaries of life and the challenges of survival just like you and me.

If you or me "navigated the vagaries of life" by treating people like that, we would be in jail. The people who fought back against us would be exonerated on grounds of self defense. These officers will still be individuals, humans and parts of families, just like you and me, when their special privileges as police officers have been revoked for misuse.

 

 

 

I suggest that more progress will be made if we focus on individual acts and specific opportunities for improvement instead of painting "the police" or "the blacks" with some broad myopic brush

We have a specific opportunity for at least potential improvement of the police force in Ferguson: we can replace every officer in it with an individual who has no record of racial oppression and bigotry. That might improve the police forces in more than just Ferguson, even.

Edited March 20, 2015 by overtone

[Ten oz]

@ iNow, your post was well written and clearly done with effort to view bothsides. However you still imply there is responsibility both ways. That somehow if everyone just made better choices all would be fine.

If a Black person in Ferguson or anywhere else commits a crime they are rightfully arrested. The man who endangered protesters around him and almost killed two cops has been caught and will be prosecuted. As individuals blacks pay for their behavior. Pay for making bad choices. On the otherside of this nuanced debate prosecuting those Officers who get caught beating or killing people on camera doesn't address the problem. The problem is institutional. The problem is in how laws are written and enforced. There are proceedures that need to be changed. The personal behavior of police is not the reason why the United States leads the worlds incareration rate. Personal behavior is not why police in the United States shoot at and kill at a significantly higher rate.

I agree it is fair to treat Blacks civilians as individuals. That is what they are. I disagree Police should be viewed as individuals. They are part of an organization. This is not a double standard. If a Black person were part of a gang/club that had an ongoning history of specific behavior I would feel the same way about all members collectively. I would view the collective as something to be dealt with and not focus on each members individual behavior.

[zapatos]

I agree it is fair to treat Blacks civilians as individuals. That is what they are. I disagree Police should be viewed as individuals.

Can you tell me how you think that would play out in practical terms? For example, if Wilson had been punished, either through jail/suspension/etc., should the rest of the force also be punished? Or since none of the other officers were accused of wrongdoing in the Michael Brown shooting, should Wilson not be singled out for punishment?

If an officer gets a promotion due to hard work and dedication, should the rest of the force get a promotion? Or do you not give anyone a promotion, because not everyone is deserving?

[iNow]

We have a specific opportunity for at least potential improvement of the police force in Ferguson: we can replace every officer in it with an individual who has no record of racial oppression and bigotry.

Why not just replace the officers with a record of racial oppression and bigotry? There's no need to replace "every officer" here. Why should the good ones who have done nothing wrong be punished?

.

iNow, your post was well written and clearly done with effort to view bothsides. However you still imply there is responsibility both ways. That somehow if everyone just made better choices all would be fine.

What more is there out there that we can make better other than individual choices? Even the broader more systemic issues you cite can each be traced back to individual choices at different levels in the hierarchy and layers in the organization.

 

That's largely the point. To fix things, a collection of individual choices is all we ultimately have at our disposal, no matter what perspective you take or from what level you view the situation.

[Ten oz]

Can you tell me how you think that would play out in practical terms? For example, if Wilson had been punished, either through jail/suspension/etc., should the rest of the force also be punished? Or since none of the other officers were accused of wrongdoing in the Michael Brown shooting, should Wilson not be singled out for punishment?If an officer gets a promotion due to hard work and dedication, should the rest of the force get a promotion? Or do you not give anyone a promotion, because not everyone is deserving?

The way it plays out practically is through government. We acknowledge that current policies and standards don't work and change them. We recognize that the system has errors. We don't just put it off on individual choices made by individual police officers.

[zapatos]

The way it plays out practically is through government. We acknowledge that current policies and standards don't work and change them. We recognize that the system has errors. We don't just put it off on individual choices made by individual police officers.

If someone does something good or bad on the job, are they treated as individuals?

[Ten oz]

If someone does something good or bad on the job, are they treated as individuals?

When multiple people with the same job make the same mistake it becomes clear there is a bigger problem.

[zapatos]

When multiple people with the same job make the same mistake it becomes clear there is a bigger problem.

Oh, FFS.