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

[Ten oz]

Part of the problem is that in our society we accept as basic standard that some people should be killed. So after the police kill someone we go about trying to decide if the person killed deserved to die; as a matter of character and or action. We are a country that supports the death penalty and the use of drones to autonomously kill people we suspect are doing things we disapprove of. As a basic principle our society is okay with killing people. As a culture that needs to change in order to properly address the various racial and bias elements involved with who winds up dead as a result of our fast and loose view of killing as a standard conflict resolution tool.

[MigL]

Its a shame its gotten to this point.

And I'm not sure this is happening, just an impression I get since none of us are actually looking at the case details.

That after so many years ( generations ) of abuse and killings of black Americans by police, we all think its a good idea if justice is bent the opposite way.

We are all willing to see this cop prosecuted 'extra vigorously' ( whatever that means ) without even knowing the facts regarding this case.

Is the state ( DA's office ) simply implementing the citizens' 'lynch mob' mentality because they are afraid of the repercussions ?

 

I hope the scales of justice aren't being weighed on the opposite side to make up for past ( and continuing ) injustice against black Americans.

 

I really don't think the equivalent of affirmative action should apply to justice

[StringJunky]

Its a shame its gotten to this point.

And I'm not sure this is happening, just an impression I get since none of us are actually looking at the case details.

That after so many years ( generations ) of abuse and killings of black Americans by police, we all think its a good idea if justice is bent the opposite way.

We are all willing to see this cop prosecuted 'extra vigorously' ( whatever that means ) without even knowing the facts regarding this case.

Is the state ( DA's office ) simply implementing the citizens' 'lynch mob' mentality because they are afraid of the repercussions ?

 

I hope the scales of justice aren't being weighed on the opposite side to make up for past ( and continuing ) injustice against black Americans.

 

I really don't think the equivalent of affirmative action should apply to justice

Part of the problem is that white policeman don't have enough black peers/colleagues to help them understand the nuances of black American subculture from a law enforcement perspective.

Edited March 6, 2016 by StringJunky

[Willie71]

Its a shame its gotten to this point.

And I'm not sure this is happening, just an impression I get since none of us are actually looking at the case details.

That after so many years ( generations ) of abuse and killings of black Americans by police, we all think its a good idea if justice is bent the opposite way.

We are all willing to see this cop prosecuted 'extra vigorously' ( whatever that means ) without even knowing the facts regarding this case.

Is the state ( DA's office ) simply implementing the citizens' 'lynch mob' mentality because they are afraid of the repercussions ?

 

I hope the scales of justice aren't being weighed on the opposite side to make up for past ( and continuing ) injustice against black Americans.

 

I really don't think the equivalent of affirmative action should apply to justice

Unless a rash of cops suddenly get the death penalty in questionable cases, we are no where near swinging to the other extreme. Putting cops in jail for breaking the law isn't a knee jerk reaction. It happens too infrequently, and too many get away with outright murder.

[imatfaal]

Its a shame its gotten to this point.

And I'm not sure this is happening, just an impression I get since none of us are actually looking at the case details.

That after so many years ( generations ) of abuse and killings of black Americans by police, we all think its a good idea if justice is bent the opposite way.

We are all willing to see this cop prosecuted 'extra vigorously' ( whatever that means ) without even knowing the facts regarding this case.

Is the state ( DA's office ) simply implementing the citizens' 'lynch mob' mentality because they are afraid of the repercussions ?

 

I hope the scales of justice aren't being weighed on the opposite side to make up for past ( and continuing ) injustice against black Americans.

 

I really don't think the equivalent of affirmative action should apply to justice

 

Has someone taken over your account? You are posting reactionary rubbish recently.

 

Who said 'extra vigorously' - it is in quotes so I presume someone other than you typed it first?

 

The closest is in my post "We hope that Alabama will prepare the case for the Grand Jury with a bit more vigour and rigour than Missouri did".

 

As this was a thread about Ferguson and the grand jury presentation by the Missouri state prosecutor was roundly condemned as both slipshod and clearly hopeful for no indictment - then a call for 'a bit more vigour and rigour' is merely asking for a decent job to be done. And yes I have looked at the sparse facts available and even more I realise what a grand jury is for - perhaps you don't; and I am serious peeved about being accused of having a lynch mob mentality merely for wanting a criminal trial (with all its procedural safeguards) to establish the truth of the matter.

 

 

FFS - what on earth makes you think that the following is even close to happening?

"I hope the scales of justice aren't being weighed on the opposite side to make up for past ( and continuing ) injustice against black Americans."

[MigL]

Sorry if I miscommunicated my intent, Imatfaal, I assure you it wasn't directed at your previous post.

 

I am offended at your calling it 'reactionary rubbish' though.

I realize the issue of discussion in any mayor's office, of a city where someone is killed by a police officer, should be the unfortunate death of a citizen.

But don't you think, in a case where its a black citizen that's been killed, discussions between the mayor and DA's office turn to " How can we avoid a riot " ?

 

And, if everyone argued the same side, there would be no discussion, would there ?

[zapatos]

Its a shame its gotten to this point.

And I'm not sure this is happening, just an impression I get since none of us are actually looking at the case details.

That after so many years ( generations ) of abuse and killings of black Americans by police, we all think its a good idea if justice is bent the opposite way.

We are all willing to see this cop prosecuted 'extra vigorously' ( whatever that means ) without even knowing the facts regarding this case.

Is the state ( DA's office ) simply implementing the citizens' 'lynch mob' mentality because they are afraid of the repercussions ?

 

I hope the scales of justice aren't being weighed on the opposite side to make up for past ( and continuing ) injustice against black Americans.

 

I really don't think the equivalent of affirmative action should apply to justice

 

I generally agree. In the Michael Brown case there were people on this site implying the officer was guilty long before the evidence was in. There were protests in the streets demanding his indictment and prosecution. While those voices seemingly didn't have much of an influence on the workings of the justice system, I agree that there is the appearance that many people want a vigorous approach to these cases that goes beyond what is objectively even handed.

 

We talked for 30 pages about how to treat minorities fairly, I don't think it is unreasonable to spend a small amount of time to ensure that we remember to treat everyone fairly.

[iNow]

We talked for 30 pages about how to treat minorities fairly, I don't think it is unreasonable to spend a small amount of time to ensure that we remember to treat everyone fairly.

Hard to disagree with this sentiment, though IMO it misses important context.

 

Much like #blacklivesmatter is not a suggestion that somehow all lives don't, here the suggestion that police should face prosecution when appropriate is also not to suggest or advocate that justice be in any way applied asymmetrically. Quite the reverse, really.

 

We say #blacklivesmatter because there is an issue that needs to be specifically highlighted. Black lives are the ones being killed and jailed and kept in poverty disproportionately, often by police.

 

Likewise, we say police should face justice because that's an issue that needs to be specifically highlighted. They're getting away with murder time and again and decade after decade in city after city and town after town with deplorable consistency. Then, even when wrong was clearly done and video evidence is available in support, these same police are not even facing disciplinary action at work. The idea is to call out and highlight how these cops are grossly failing to live up to the objective of protecting and serving and that the issue is happening disproportionately, not to suggest that everyone should not be treated fairly.

 

When people say that smoking causes cancer, it's not simultaneously a suggestion that other things don't cause cancer. If I support breast cancer research, that shouldn't be conflated into the suggestion that I don't find prostate cancer and lung cancer research important. It's about highlighting a particular issue or problem, not about ignoring others.

 

There are far too many police going way too far over the line and killing far too many people who are merely more darkly complected. It's an issue so rampant that it's gained international attention, and that's the context of such comments about police being charged. It's not about starting a witchhunt for cops or hating the police, and people who suggest it is are trying to distract from the core issue.

 

Of course everyone should be treated fairly, but isn't that exactly what is being called for with these police, that they no longer be allowed to get away with these things as if they're somehow above and exempt from the law?

[zapatos]

Hard to disagree with this sentiment, though IMO it misses important context.

I don't really think it misses that context though. It seems to me the previous 30 pages ARE that important context. I am not suggesting that efforts like #blacklivesmatter are anything more than an honest effort to ensure long missing equal treatment. What I am suggesting is that we be on guard for efforts that go beyond equal treatment and, whether intentional or not, result in unfair treatment of police.

 

When we look at the sentiments of whites versus blacks in cases where blacks are killed by police, there is a clear divide between the two on whether or not deadly force was justified. If everyone involved were able to review the facts objectively there should not be such a difference of opinion. The sentiment of biased whites in these cases is a major reason why we have found ourselves in the mess we are in today. What I am suggesting is that we be on guard against allowing the sentiments of those who are biased or emotionally invested to let the pendulum swing past center and create more of what we are trying eliminate in the first place.

 

Of course everyone should be treated fairly, but isn't that exactly what is being called for with these police, that they no longer be allowed to get away with these things as if they're somehow above and exempt from the law?

 

In most cases yes. What I am trying to address is those instances where people are not as fair as you are being now. There are plenty of voices speaking with anger, and anger limits our ability to make good decisions.

[iNow]

What I am trying to address is those instances where people are not as fair as you are being now. There are plenty of voices speaking with anger, and anger limits our ability to make good decisions.

Point taken, and I feel we're largely aligned. I suspect perhaps I'm a bit more understanding of that anger, feel that some of it is required to encourage the changes we need, and find that in many/most cases it's entirely justified and appropriate, but I don't want it to lead to bad decisions and like you don't want it taken too far where more harm than good is ultimately done.

[MigL]

Sooooo...

Am I forgiven Imatfaal ?

Or are you still pi**ed at me ?

[imatfaal]

Sooooo...

Am I forgiven Imatfaal ?

Or are you still pi**ed at me ?

 

You are still a running dog lackey of the capitalist-imperialist oppressors; but then most of my best friends fall into that category :-D

 

It was just that I thought you were posting views that were markedly more right wing than normal; I thought then and I think now that a bit of your motivation was to provide a balance to the overwhelmingly left-leaning posts in politics. The "right" (and not just the hard right) do not need help - their message is broadcast load and clear, and their agenda has been almost fulfilled.

 

No-one in their right mind would call for kangeroo courts or draconian punishments for policemen in these situations - no one who thinks about it should even contemplate anything less than a textbook case with all the amazing procedural safeguards (these safeguards are for the defendant by the way), the evidential scrutiny, and the judgment of one's peers. The problem with Missouri is that a clear executive decision was made to present an underwhelming, poorly researched, potentially biased, and terrifically misdirected case to a grand jury. This was wrong on so many levels - firstly the grand jury is not a properly instituted arbiter of guilt or innocence, and secondly administrative arbitrary action should be taken or not taken - but if it is taken then it should be done properly; ie make the choice whether to go to a grand jury or not (that is the DA's choice) but once you go to a grand jury you must put a required amount of effort in and treat all cases with the same level of expertise and care

 

and - yes; for one thing the site would be much poorer without you

[MigL]

Good to know.

I value your ( and quite a few others' ) opinion.

[overtone]

 

 

We talked for 30 pages about how to treat minorities fairly, I don't think it is unreasonable to spend a small amount of time to ensure that we remember to treat everyone fairly.

Uh, that point of view has been very well represented throughout -

 

to the point that the Ferguson travesty of special treatment was defended as "fair", to avoid even the suggestion of a minority receiving undue favor.

[zapatos]

Uh, that point of view has been very well represented throughout -

 

to the point that the Ferguson travesty of special treatment was defended as "fair", to avoid even the suggestion of a minority receiving undue favor.

 

Funny you should be the one to take issue with my post as you are the person I most had in mind as being a threat to fairness and equality.

Edited March 10, 2016 by zapatos

[overtone]

Funny you should be the one to take issue with my post as you are the person I most had in mind as being a threat to fairness and equality.

My first post was 104, made after much of the relevant physical situation was known, and was not on the topic of the officer's guilt.

 

It was completely factual, and evidence based. So were all my subsequent posts.

 

By that time you had posted a half dozen times on the subject of being "fair" to the officer, and presented various hypothetical rationalizations for the event of varying plausibility including ridiculous, while in possession of none of the relevant facts of the shooting and in denial of the obvious racial situation in Ferguson (you posted that the racial segregation in Ferguson is "voluntary", and similar nonsense common to white racial bigotry).

 

Your very first post, for example, was on the topic of being fair to the police, and included the following paragraph of falsehoods attacking those who observed blatant racism and attempts at dissimulation from the officials of Ferguson:

 

 

I found the John Oliver skit to be representative of much of the reporting on this issue. People cherry pick which items to discuss and present their own interpretation of events. Take the first item in the video. The police said that the victim was shot at least twice but not many more than that. John Oliver decided the police were trying to minimize the situation. Someone else could just as easily say that the police were not going to speak in specifics until the autopsy was complete. In the second item in the video John Oliver complains that the video of the victim robbing a store was an attempt by the police to distract. What he left out was that the police were required to release the video due a Freedom of Information Act request. Too much of what the media does is determined by television ratings.

 

Just to be clear:

your idea that "not many more than that" was a reasonable way to say the police don't know how many times the guy was shot was ridiculously offensive, and that deafness on the part of the official is exactly what was being mocked;

and police were not required to release that video at all, neither was it relevant to the shooting - so the obvious motive was the bad one, and your attempts to excuse that kind of behavior by the police were consistent with all your subsequent posting here. Oliver was being completely fair and accurate. You were not.

 

In addition to your more or less stereotypical racial bigotry and excuse mongering, there were at least three reasonable posters offering hypothetical but plausible defense of the police in Ferguson and Wilson's behavior in the first few pages and from then on. There are also at least three posts from me, later on, offering explanations of the racially biased police stats in the area that partly excuse the police and assign some responsibility to the black people in the area.

 

So that's what the very first pages of this thirty page thread were full of - a hundred posts or more before mine began. Your claim that we have thirty pages of nothing but "trying to be fair to minorities" is not evidence based, and certainly does not describe your posting here over those thirty pages.

Edited March 17, 2016 by overtone

[zapatos]

Calling me a racist makes you no less a threat to fairness and equality. Perhaps if your posting style contained more facts and fewer unsupported suppositions you wouldn't come across as you do.

[overtone]

Calling me a racist makes you no less a threat to fairness and equality. Perhaps if your posting style contained more facts and fewer unsupported suppositions - - -

I said your posting over the first thirty pages exhibited stereotypical racial bigotry and excuse mongering for the police. There was nothing unfair about that - it does. The facts behind that would involve me quoting the relevant posts, as apparently you need more than simply the one paragraph I lifted from your very first post - how much do you need?

 

Here, for example, after thirty pages for you to think things over:

 

 

In the Michael Brown case there were people on this site implying the officer was guilty long before the evidence was in

That isn't actually true. My posting, for example, which you have stated you had in mind, contained nothing about the officer's "guilt" until after a great deal of evidence was available, all of it physical and supported ever since. Your posting, on the other hand, was full of speculation about the facts of the shooting before you had any idea what had actually happened (the location of the brass, say). So what was going through your mind when you posted that?

Edited March 17, 2016 by overtone

[zapatos]

You do realize that knocking me down is not the same thing as lifting you up, right? You can analyze what I've said over my entire life if you'd like. Despite the litany of my many character flaws that you've pointed out, I stand by my statement that you appear to be a threat to fairness and equality.

 

If you want to say that I talk like a racist, speculate about the facts, excuse monger for the police, my mental ability is lacking, am ridiculous and nonsensical, a liar, offensive, 'stereotypical racial bigot and excuse mongerer' (probably my favorite portrayal of me), etc., then knock yourself out. I don't intend to enter into a debate with you about the quality (or lack thereof) of my character and integrity.

[overtone]

 

 

You do realize that knocking me down is not the same thing as lifting you up, right?

I'm not interested in lifting me up. I'm interested in knocking the kind of posting you decorated this thread with flat into the garbage, and pissing on it.

 

 

If you want to say that I talk like a racist, speculate about the facts, excuse monger for the police, - - -

Yes, and backed up with as many quotes from this thread as may be required.

 

my mental ability is lacking, am ridiculous and nonsensical, a liar,

nothing like that appears in my posts.

 

offensive, 'stereotypical racial bigot and excuse mongerer' (probably my favorite portrayal of me),

No portrayal of you appears (you have altered my posting, misleadingly). The description is of your posting, which is here for verification and example.

 

then knock yourself out.

The point was not to denigrate your posting here, much as it should be denigrated and must be if fairness and so forth is desired.

 

The point was that when you said the first thirty pages here were all about "fairness to minorities" you were wrong. There is no need for a counterbalance to thirty pages of extending "fairness to minorities", because it does not exist.

[zapatos]

Now where did I ever get the idea you might not always be fair?

 

You've beaten me into submission. I withdraw.

[MigL]

I still think Overtone has at some time run for political office and been soundly trounced.

He seems bitter about every politician and politics in general.

 

You should have kissed a few more babies Overtone

[overtone]

I still think Overtone has at some time run for political office and been soundly trounced.

One of the benefits of not posting personal info here is that when some authoritarian - and it's always someone arguing an authoritarian position, for some reason - invokes some feature of my person or circumstances as an argument or explanation for something, they get it wrong.

 

Always. Way more than chance would anticipate - I've recommended to the more persistent ones they flip coins, to improve their odds.

 

And never to any point. Politics? My guess is that somewhere in the recesses of the stereotypificationist's closet, there is a reflex that requires political stance to be invoked in these matters so that the "both sides" meme can be brought into play - that being how one gets to "fairness" in all matters political.

 

Fairness to the Ferguson police requires that they be given the benefit of the doubt in all their claims and motivations, apparently - including doubt created out of no evidence or reason, for the purpose of giving them the benefit of it. I don't see the point. If fairness is wanted, why not be fair to basic principles of justice and common sense?

Edited March 18, 2016 by overtone

[MigL]

Doesn't anyone have a sense of humor here ?

 

And maybe if you don't like people making assumptions about you, based solely on what you post, maybe you should refrain from making assumptions about others.

Me ? Authoritarian ?

I just like arguing both sides of an issue.

Its usually helpful if you can see the other person's point of view.

It leads to understanding !

[overtone]

Doesn't anyone have a sense of humor here ?

Poe's Law.

 

I don't get to make jokes, so nobody quoting me does either.

 

 

Me ? Authoritarian ?

I just like arguing both sides of an issue.

See what I mean? That's a joke. But it wasn't, was it.

Its usually helpful if you can see the other person's point of view.

It leads to understanding !

When it takes two or three tries to get a couple of simple declarative sentences read with comprehension - say: "Nixon is responsible for the Chinese economic assault on America" and "Nixon did not open up China to US trade", neither one of which says "Nixon opened up US trade with China" - the goal of having one's point of view seen is impossibly distant and not a realistic concern.

Edited March 18, 2016 by overtone