As a lifelong St. Louisan and a PhD student currently writing a dissertation on radicalism and race relations in the Midwest, I thought I'd offer my services (also looking for any way to procrastinate) on understanding the situation in Ferguson. This seems relevant especially now that riots/protests have continued for more than a week, a curfew is in place, the National Guard was called in, and Amnesty International has sent representatives to observe the protests (an unprecedented move). For those of you who are not familiar with the situation, I honestly don't know where to start. I guess, simply put, a week ago, an 18-year old man named Michael Brown was shot to death in Ferguson by a white police officer. Circumstances surrounding his death are still under investigation (I don't want to go into that here, we need to wait for more information from a federal investigation). Protests, lootings, break-ins, and general public displays of dissatisfaction have been continuing for the past week, receiving international attention.
Now, for someone not familiar with St. Louis or the U.S., these events out of context might seem very confusing. I am here (and invite any others to join in) to answer questions about St. Louis, Ferguson, protests, radicalism, African Americans in St. Louis, and Midwestern history. I am by no means an expert, but I hope to help.
For starters, Ferguson is not in St. Louis City. Ferguson is in St. Louis County, in the North. The city and county are separated, since 1876 when the blooming city decided it didn't want to support the still mostly rural county. White flight, restrictive housing practices, and economic depression left St. Louis City depopulated with a mostly black population by the mid-20th century. Many urban blacks moved to the county suburbs, like Ferguson, to escape urban poverty and crime, in turn, pushing most whites further out of the county. From a NY Times article (written by former Missouri politician who was convicted of election fraud, but that's not too important):
"Ferguson’s demographics have shifted rapidly: in 1990, it was 74 percent white and 25 percent black; in 2000, 52 percent black and 45 percent white; by 2010, 67 percent black and 29 percent white."
So formerly white suburbs of the county were increasingly growing in black populations However, as the article mentions, the elected representatives, the police force, and city elites, in general, are still white. Yes, there are many issues that led to this, concerning elections and trouble with minority recruitment on the force. But, many blacks in Ferguson do not perceive these officials are representatives of the community.
As a historian of radicalism, I am in general not surprised as this response. This reminds me of Malcolm X's activism in the early 1960s. Malcolm X recognized that many black communities did not have black representation, and therefore argued for a self-segregation, which sought to empower local black business, politicians, and community leaders. Later, in the late 1960s, Huey Newton and Bobby Seale witnessed similar lack of community representation in Oakland, California, where they started the Black Panther Party and community patrols (groups that would follow local white police officers to discourage police violence). I can talk more about the successes/failures of Malcolm X and the Black Panthers, if you want, but, I just want to show that the ideas of a police force and city that doesn't represent the actual city population is not a new phenomenon in American history.
Hope this helps in understanding a very complicated situation. I really don't want this to turn into a cluster of misinformation, links to Huffington Post articles, or "I heard that..." posts. This is a mostly academic and historical conversation, and I encourage respectful discussion and debate (that I know this community is capable of).
edit: holy run-on sentences
edit 2: For a humorous, but poignant take, here's "Last Week Tonight with John Oliver".
As a lifelong St. Louisan and a PhD student currently writing a dissertation on radicalism and race relations in the Midwest, I thought I'd offer my services (also looking for any way to procrastinate) on understanding the situation in Ferguson. This seems relevant especially now that riots/protests have continued for more than a week, a curfew is in place, the National Guard was called in, and Amnesty International has sent representatives to observe the protests (an unprecedented move). For those of you who are not familiar with the situation, I honestly don't know where to start. I guess, simply put, a week ago, an 18-year old man named Michael Brown was shot to death in Ferguson by a white police officer. Circumstances surrounding his death are still under investigation (I don't want to go into that here, we need to wait for more information from a federal investigation). Protests, lootings, break-ins, and general public displays of dissatisfaction have been continuing for the past week, receiving international attention.
Now, for someone not familiar with St. Louis or the U.S., these events out of context might seem very confusing. I am here (and invite any others to join in) to answer questions about St. Louis, Ferguson, protests, radicalism, African Americans in St. Louis, and Midwestern history. I am by no means an expert, but I hope to help.
For starters, Ferguson is not in St. Louis City. Ferguson is in St. Louis County, in the North. The city and county are separated, since 1876 when the blooming city decided it didn't want to support the still mostly rural county. White flight, restrictive housing practices, and economic depression left St. Louis City depopulated with a mostly black population by the mid-20th century. Many urban blacks moved to the county suburbs, like Ferguson, to escape urban poverty and crime, in turn, pushing most whites further out of the county. From [url=http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/18/opinion/in-ferguson-black-town-white-power.html?_r=1]a NY Times article[/url] (written by former Missouri politician who was convicted of election fraud, but that's not too important):
"Ferguson’s demographics have shifted rapidly: in 1990, it was 74 percent white and 25 percent black; in 2000, 52 percent black and 45 percent white; by 2010, 67 percent black and 29 percent white."
So formerly white suburbs of the county were increasingly growing in black populations However, as the article mentions, the elected representatives, the police force, and city elites, in general, are still white. Yes, there are many issues that led to this, concerning elections and trouble with minority recruitment on the force. But, many blacks in Ferguson do not perceive these officials are representatives of the community.
As a historian of radicalism, I am in general not surprised as this response. This reminds me of Malcolm X's activism in the early 1960s. Malcolm X recognized that many black communities did not have black representation, and therefore argued for a self-segregation, which sought to empower local black business, politicians, and community leaders. Later, in the late 1960s, Huey Newton and Bobby Seale witnessed similar lack of community representation in Oakland, California, where they started the Black Panther Party and community patrols (groups that would follow local white police officers to discourage police violence). I can talk more about the successes/failures of Malcolm X and the Black Panthers, if you want, but, I just want to show that the ideas of a police force and city that doesn't represent the actual city population is not a new phenomenon in American history.
Hope this helps in understanding a very complicated situation. I really don't want this to turn into a cluster of misinformation, links to Huffington Post articles, or "I heard that..." posts. This is a mostly academic and historical conversation, and I encourage respectful discussion and debate (that I know this community is capable of).
edit: holy run-on sentences
edit 2: For a humorous, but poignant take, here's "[url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUdHIatS36A&feature=youtu.be]Last Week Tonight with John Oliver[/url]".
"race relations"
smh
read this: http://www.amazon.com/Racecraft-Soul-Inequality-American-Life-ebook/dp/B007LCYZCE?tag=teamfortresst-20
aatje"race relations"
smh
read this: http://www.amazon.com/Racecraft-Soul-Inequality-American-Life-ebook/dp/B007LCYZCE
I'm using "race" here as a historical term, something that has been socialized into our everyday vernacular. I'm not sure what your critique here is.
[quote=aatje]"race relations"
smh
read this: http://www.amazon.com/Racecraft-Soul-Inequality-American-Life-ebook/dp/B007LCYZCE?tag=teamfortresst-20[/quote]
I'm using "race" here as a historical term, something that has been socialized into our everyday vernacular. I'm not sure what your critique here is.
I've seen some people throw around the idea of having chest cameras on officers, which apparently worked out pretty well in certain cities that have tried.
As for race, I dunno, that topic is and always will be very touchy. On one hand, if a white officer (or just a white person at all) beats up / kills another white person, it's just considered fucked up. On the other hand, if a white officer (or just a white person at all) beats up / kills a black person, I think it's automatically marked as a racist hate crime (and also fucked up). Could it actually be a racist hate crime? Sure, it's very possible, but it's instantly marked as such 99% of the time.
Having something like another Black Panther Party to follow around officers in Ferguson would just cause a shitload of tension, so I hope no one thinks of that. Plus, people would definitely cry "wow, that's so racist" if we had a party of white people following around black officers.
The whole topic about white politicians and officers are kind of irrelevant to me. People really have no right to complain about white people being in office of power when a black person could also be in that same spot. After all, you can vote (see: Obama). In fact, Obama captured an overwhelming majority of the black votes. And to basically force out the white people in office just so blacks could have "black representation" is... I don't even know how I feel about that, but that seems kind of silly to me. We don't need segregation all over again.
A lot of this is trying to counter racism by using racism. I might make dumb jokes here and there, but I fucking hate racism.
To me, this entire topic is just a debate that no one can possibly win at without being considered racist or heartless, and it's such a shame.
I've seen some people throw around the idea of having chest cameras on officers, which apparently worked out pretty well in certain cities that have tried.
As for race, I dunno, that topic is and always will be very touchy. On one hand, if a white officer (or just a white person at all) beats up / kills another white person, it's just considered fucked up. On the other hand, if a white officer (or just a white person at all) beats up / kills a black person, I think it's automatically marked as a racist hate crime (and also fucked up). Could it actually be a racist hate crime? Sure, it's very possible, but it's instantly marked as such 99% of the time.
Having something like another Black Panther Party to follow around officers in Ferguson would just cause a shitload of tension, so I hope no one thinks of that. Plus, people would definitely cry "wow, that's so racist" if we had a party of white people following around black officers.
The whole topic about white politicians and officers are kind of irrelevant to me. People really have no right to complain about white people being in office of power when a black person could also be in that same spot. After all, you can vote (see: Obama). In fact, Obama captured an overwhelming majority of the black votes. And to basically force out the white people in office just so blacks could have "black representation" is... I don't even know how I feel about that, but that seems kind of silly to me. We don't need segregation all over again.
A lot of this is trying to counter racism by using racism. I might make dumb jokes here and there, but I fucking hate racism.
To me, this entire topic is just a debate that no one can possibly win at without being considered racist or heartless, and it's such a shame.
TheFragileI've seen some people throw around the idea of having chest cameras on officers, which apparently worked out pretty well in certain cities that have tried.
As for race, I dunno, that topic is and always will be very touchy. On one hand, if a white officer (or just a white person at all) beats up / kills another white person, it's just considered fucked up. On the other hand, if a white officer (or just a white person at all) beats up / kills a black person, I think it's automatically marked as a racist hate crime (and also fucked up). Could it actually be a racist hate crime? Sure, it's very possible, but it's instantly marked as such 99% of the time.
Having something like another Black Panther Party to follow around officers in Ferguson would just cause a shitload of tension, so I hope no one thinks of that. Plus, people would definitely cry "wow, that's so racist" if we had a party of white people following around black officers.
The whole topic about white politicians and officers are kind of irrelevant to me. People really have no right to complain about white people being in office of power when a black person could also be in that same spot. After all, you can vote (see: Obama). And to basically force out the white people in office just so blacks could have "black representation" is... I don't even know how I feel about that, but that seems kind of silly to me. We don't need segregation all over again.
Great thoughts, thanks! I think what's important to realize is that no one is advocating kicking out white politicians and placing unqualified African Americans in position. I think the argument to get better community representation is to provide resources that would educate, train, and allow blacks to pursue representation in institutions. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch had an editorial that advocated for better public education.
I agree that anything to do with racism (or perceived racism) and violence is touchy and needs to be handled carefully. I also think that taking into consideration the community's opinions is most important, and if Ferguson residents feel that they, as a black population, are being unfairly targeted by white police officers, that sentiment at least needs to be acknowledged. I don't think another Black Panther Party or similar radical group is the best option for Ferguson residents, as history has shown violence only leads to more violence. But I do think treating Ferguson residents as adults with legitimate concerns rather than children who are complaining is essential.
As for elected representatives who are white and don't represent their constituents, I think the issue lies with how quickly the Ferguson population went from being majority white to majority black. Electoral politics just simply can't operate at that speed, as politicians are individuals who usually must present community and financial backing along with years of experience to be elected. Members who do represent the local community just simply haven't had the time to develop that sort of political experience. This is not blaming anyone- this is just explaining the situation.
[quote=TheFragile]I've seen some people throw around the idea of having chest cameras on officers, which apparently worked out pretty well in certain cities that have tried.
As for race, I dunno, that topic is and always will be very touchy. On one hand, if a white officer (or just a white person at all) beats up / kills another white person, it's just considered fucked up. On the other hand, if a white officer (or just a white person at all) beats up / kills a black person, I think it's automatically marked as a racist hate crime (and also fucked up). Could it actually be a racist hate crime? Sure, it's very possible, but it's instantly marked as such 99% of the time.
Having something like another Black Panther Party to follow around officers in Ferguson would just cause a shitload of tension, so I hope no one thinks of that. Plus, people would definitely cry "wow, that's so racist" if we had a party of white people following around black officers.
The whole topic about white politicians and officers are kind of irrelevant to me. People really have no right to complain about white people being in office of power when a black person could also be in that same spot. After all, you can vote (see: Obama). And to basically force out the white people in office just so blacks could have "black representation" is... I don't even know how I feel about that, but that seems kind of silly to me. We don't need segregation all over again.
[/quote]
Great thoughts, thanks! I think what's important to realize is that no one is advocating kicking out white politicians and placing unqualified African Americans in position. I think the argument to get better community representation is to provide resources that would educate, train, and allow blacks to pursue representation in institutions. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch had an [url=http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinion/columns/the-platform/editorial-answer-the-unheard-with-an-investment-in-their-education/article_dd61caa5-174b-57ed-8e6c-5a4153a3b3bb.html]editorial[/url] that advocated for better public education.
I agree that anything to do with racism (or perceived racism) and violence is touchy and needs to be handled carefully. I also think that taking into consideration the community's opinions is most important, and if Ferguson residents feel that they, as a black population, are being unfairly targeted by white police officers, that sentiment at least needs to be acknowledged. I don't think another Black Panther Party or similar radical group is the best option for Ferguson residents, as history has shown violence only leads to more violence. But I do think treating Ferguson residents as adults with legitimate concerns rather than children who are complaining is essential.
As for elected representatives who are white and don't represent their constituents, I think the issue lies with how quickly the Ferguson population went from being majority white to majority black. Electoral politics just simply can't operate at that speed, as politicians are individuals who usually must present community and financial backing along with years of experience to be elected. Members who do represent the local community just simply haven't had the time to develop that sort of political experience. This is not blaming anyone- this is just explaining the situation.
KipGreat thoughts, thanks! I think what's important to realize is that no one is advocating kicking out white politicians and placing unqualified African Americans in position. I think the argument to get better community representation is to provide resources that would educate, train, and allow blacks to pursue representation in institutions.
Oh yeah, I agree. It would be ridiculous if there happened to be a movement to kick white politicians out of office just because they aren't black. I'm all for the idea of providing those resources to blacks (and anyone else) to help make them more able to be in such positions.
[quote=Kip]Great thoughts, thanks! I think what's important to realize is that no one is advocating kicking out white politicians and placing unqualified African Americans in position. I think the argument to get better community representation is to provide resources that would educate, train, and allow blacks to pursue representation in institutions.[/quote]
Oh yeah, I agree. It would be ridiculous if there happened to be a movement to kick white politicians out of office just because they aren't black. I'm all for the idea of providing those resources to blacks (and anyone else) to help make them more able to be in such positions.
The issue is that we, as Americans, are afraid to discuss racism. It is such a no-no that people are actually afraid of being labeled racist for referring to someone as black. (I was at a college orientation a week ago, and this one girl said "the professor was a black woman, but I'm not like a racist or anything") Calling an African-American black isn't racist, but the PC media says it is, despite many African-Americans not being offended by the term black.
Also, many Americans refuse to acknowledge that slavery and segregation are still recent things. A black person with gray hair will most likely remember a time when they couldn't poop in the same place. There are people who say slavery was 300 years ago when it is just not 150 years ago. People need to accept that America fucked up in the past without having to make excuses about how it was "de-facto" or anything. We fucked up, we need to stop fucking up.
The issue is that we, as Americans, are afraid to discuss racism. It is such a no-no that people are actually afraid of being labeled racist for referring to someone as black. (I was at a college orientation a week ago, and this one girl said "the professor was a black woman, but I'm not like a racist or anything") Calling an African-American black isn't racist, but the PC media says it is, despite many African-Americans not being offended by the term black.
Also, many Americans refuse to acknowledge that slavery and segregation are still recent things. A black person with gray hair will most likely remember a time when they couldn't poop in the same place. There are people who say slavery was 300 years ago when it is just not 150 years ago. People need to accept that America fucked up in the past without having to make excuses about how it was "de-facto" or anything. We fucked up, we need to stop fucking up.
People of various ethnicities are gunned down by police (and other people) under dubiously legal circumstances all the time, so what makes this particular instance any different?
In particular, there is a growing consciousness that the way policing is done in the US has grown to be overly heavy-handed. The prevalence of recording equipment in civilian hands, and the speed in which those images can be shared is unprecedented. When The Onion can start making jokes about the militarization of police forces, and the video taping of them, you know it's such a pervasive phenomena that it's something folks are generally aware of (otherwise the jokes wouldn't make sense and their articles wouldn't get clicks). Whenever legal proceedings begin against the police officer responsible in this case, I'm sure cellphone video (which exists) will basically be the main piece of evidence. In particular, the fact that the victim in this particular instance, at least according to witnesses, surrendered, and then was shot six times (including being shot in the head) is what touched off the protests, while in other cases police shootings have not.
There's also the added fact that desperate poverty has grown substantially since 2008 and is not abating. The average life expectancy of a person in Ferguson is markedly below that of the surrounding areas according to a some Adj. Professor they had on NPR this morning. For a clearer example from my own state of Indiana - 1 in 8 persons is receiving "emergency" food aid on a weekly basis. It's in part related to the long-term unemployment problem in the country right now, mixed with the fact that real wages are falling to stagnant, while prices have risen substantially. The unemployment rate amongst blacks is generally worse than it is for their white counter-parts, and wages are typically lower - so they're squeezed tighter still.
Of course there's also the elephant in the room that racism is still a thing, that what I like to call "wink-wink-nudge-nudge" segregation is also still very real. Communities like Fergus highlight the issue, but basically anybody who lives in an area where nonwhites live know of the rough existence of racial enclaves - which exist just as much because of work/pay inequalities as their underlying racial factors. Hell, in Indiana you can even find white racial enclaves based on who was or was not Irish, who was or was not an arrival in the 1930's from Appalachia (all generally poorer and less represented, politically, than their German descended counter-parts).
You can also see how bad things are by how the character of any civil action has changed (this is primarily in reference to the riots in Fergus). I've been to numerous protests after I became politically active in the 0's. Before 2008 protests were mainly just big parties with lots of hippies. Granted, the hippies are still there, but much more militant currents are showing up just about everywhere. At OWS I would characterize the current as "iLeftist." Where you had your general lot of hippies, and then another group of wealthy folks who I marked out for their various mac-gear who were pretty wishy-washy and limp, who more or less claimed to be the leading organizers of the OWS movements. Such iLeftists were present in Baltimore as well, but the character of OWS Baltimore was - different, mainly because Baltimore had already fallen on much harder times (and it was broken up much more violently than OWS NY was). Even a simple pro-Palestine rally I attended in Indianapolis recently was markedly different from the one I attended in 08, and again in 12'.
People of various ethnicities are gunned down by police (and other people) under dubiously legal circumstances all the time, so what makes this particular instance any different?
In particular, there is a growing consciousness that the way policing is done in the US has grown to be overly heavy-handed. The prevalence of recording equipment in civilian hands, and the speed in which those images can be shared is unprecedented. When The Onion can start making jokes about the militarization of police forces, and the video taping of them, you know it's such a pervasive phenomena that it's something folks are generally aware of (otherwise the jokes wouldn't make sense and their articles wouldn't get clicks). Whenever legal proceedings begin against the police officer responsible in this case, I'm sure cellphone video (which exists) will basically be the main piece of evidence. In particular, the fact that the victim in this particular instance, at least according to witnesses, surrendered, and then was shot six times (including being shot in the head) is what touched off the protests, while in other cases police shootings have not.
There's also the added fact that desperate poverty has grown substantially since 2008 and is not abating. The average life expectancy of a person in Ferguson is markedly below that of the surrounding areas according to a some Adj. Professor they had on NPR this morning. For a clearer example from my own state of Indiana - 1 in 8 persons is receiving "emergency" food aid on a weekly basis. It's in part related to the long-term unemployment problem in the country right now, mixed with the fact that real wages are falling to stagnant, while prices have risen substantially. The unemployment rate amongst blacks is generally worse than it is for their white counter-parts, and wages are typically lower - so they're squeezed tighter still.
Of course there's also the elephant in the room that racism is still a thing, that what I like to call "wink-wink-nudge-nudge" segregation is also still very real. Communities like Fergus highlight the issue, but basically anybody who lives in an area where nonwhites live know of the rough existence of racial enclaves - which exist just as much because of work/pay inequalities as their underlying racial factors. Hell, in Indiana you can even find white racial enclaves based on who was or was not Irish, who was or was not an arrival in the 1930's from Appalachia (all generally poorer and less represented, politically, than their German descended counter-parts).
You can also see how bad things are by how the character of any civil action has changed (this is primarily in reference to the riots in Fergus). I've been to numerous protests after I became politically active in the 0's. Before 2008 protests were mainly just big parties with lots of hippies. Granted, the hippies are still there, but much more militant currents are showing up just about everywhere. At OWS I would characterize the current as "iLeftist." Where you had your general lot of hippies, and then another group of wealthy folks who I marked out for their various mac-gear who were pretty wishy-washy and limp, who more or less claimed to be the leading organizers of the OWS movements. Such iLeftists were present in Baltimore as well, but the character of OWS Baltimore was - different, mainly because Baltimore had already fallen on much harder times (and it was broken up much more violently than OWS NY was). Even a simple pro-Palestine rally I attended in Indianapolis recently was markedly different from the one I attended in 08, and again in 12'.
I'm not sure if you guys have read this, but there was an update today regarding Brown's autopsy, which showed no signs of struggle.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/michael-brown-shooting-chaos-erupts-on-the-streets-of-ferguson-after-autopsy-report-shows-teenager-was-shot-six-times--twice-in-the-head-9675118.html
serieuxI'm not sure if you guys have read this, but there was an update today regarding Brown's autopsy, which showed no signs of struggle.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/michael-brown-shooting-chaos-erupts-on-the-streets-of-ferguson-after-autopsy-report-shows-teenager-was-shot-six-times--twice-in-the-head-9675118.html
you see, clearly the first thing we must figure out about this is whether or not that guy performing the autopsy was black or white.
[quote=serieux]I'm not sure if you guys have read this, but there was an update today regarding Brown's autopsy, which showed no signs of struggle.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/michael-brown-shooting-chaos-erupts-on-the-streets-of-ferguson-after-autopsy-report-shows-teenager-was-shot-six-times--twice-in-the-head-9675118.html[/quote]
you see, [i]clearly[/i] the first thing we must figure out about this is whether or not that guy performing the autopsy was black or white.
I'm surprised this hasn't been mentioned in this thread yet, but apparently the guy fit the description of a strong-arm robbery that took place prior.
Anyways, people need to calm their tits and look at the rational, actionable items we should take away from this:
1) Yes, racism still exists in the 21st century (especially in the deep south). Was this a racist crime? Maybe. Do we know? No.
2) Police militarization is a real and growing threat to the rights of Americans. What happened to reading your Miranda rights and innocent until proven guilty? Now we have SWAT units with tanks busting down your door and people getting shot in the face on arrests.
3) Looting and riots is not the solution to anything and we sure as shit don't need another version of 60s race riots and neo-Black Panthers. We need to close the racial divide not exacerbate it.
I'm surprised this hasn't been mentioned in this thread yet, but apparently the guy fit the description of a strong-arm robbery that took place prior.
Anyways, people need to calm their tits and look at the rational, actionable items we should take away from this:
1) Yes, racism still exists in the 21st century (especially in the deep south). Was this a racist crime? Maybe. Do we know? No.
2) Police militarization is a real and growing threat to the rights of Americans. What happened to reading your Miranda rights and innocent until proven guilty? Now we have SWAT units with tanks busting down your door and people getting shot in the face on arrests.
3) Looting and riots is not the solution to anything and we sure as shit don't need another version of 60s race riots and neo-Black Panthers. We need to close the racial divide not exacerbate it.
MasterKuniI'm surprised this hasn't been mentioned in this thread yet, but apparently the guy fit the description of a strong-arm robbery that took place prior.
"Police Chief Thomas Jackson said the officer did not know the teen was a robbery suspect at the time of the shooting and stopped Michael Brown and a companion ‘‘because they were walking down the middle of the street blocking traffic.’’"
Also, as noted above, the officer shot him six times, twice in the head. Brown was unarmed.
[quote=MasterKuni]I'm surprised this hasn't been mentioned in this thread yet, but apparently the guy fit the description of a strong-arm robbery that took place prior.
[/quote]
"Police Chief Thomas Jackson said the officer did not know the teen was a robbery suspect at the time of the shooting and stopped Michael Brown and a companion ‘‘because they were walking down the middle of the street blocking traffic.’’"
Also, as noted above, the officer shot him six times, twice in the head. Brown was unarmed.
GetawhaleMasterKuniI'm surprised this hasn't been mentioned in this thread yet, but apparently the guy fit the description of a strong-arm robbery that took place prior.
"Police Chief Thomas Jackson said the officer did not know the teen was a robbery suspect at the time of the shooting..."
Important to note, but that doesn't make that point any less relevant.
Brown was 6'3" and 250lbs. Had he committed a robbery and was subsequently confronted by an officer, he may well have been in a state of belligerence which led to the conflict, which would corroborate with at least one eyewitness' account of things.
Note that I'm only playing the same game of hypotheticals that everyone else (including the media) is at the moment. It's the media's job to provide you with the most sensationalist rendition of events, and that currently is the storyline of "innocent defenseless minority murdered in cold blood by racist cop". Sure, this could be entirely true, but they both don't know and don't care.
[quote=Getawhale][quote=MasterKuni]I'm surprised this hasn't been mentioned in this thread yet, but apparently the guy fit the description of a strong-arm robbery that took place prior.
[/quote]
"Police Chief Thomas Jackson said the officer did not know the teen was a robbery suspect at the time of the shooting..."[/quote]
Important to note, but that doesn't make that point any less relevant.
Brown was 6'3" and 250lbs. Had he committed a robbery and was subsequently confronted by an officer, he may well have been in a state of belligerence which led to the conflict, which would corroborate with at least one eyewitness' account of things.
Note that I'm only playing the same game of hypotheticals that everyone else (including the media) is at the moment. It's the media's job to provide you with the most sensationalist rendition of events, and that currently is the storyline of "innocent defenseless minority murdered in cold blood by racist cop". Sure, this could be entirely true, but they both don't know and don't care.
TheFragileI've seen some people throw around the idea of having chest cameras on officers, which apparently worked out pretty well in certain cities that have tried.
Mounted video cameras do deter unjust police violence, but that's a given. If I had a camera watching me here at work, I'd sure as hell do a lot more work.
Even this would be a huge step in stopping misinformation and hearsay w/r/t police encounters that turn violent. It's surveillance, sure, but surveillance isn't exactly going away, and I wouldn't mind having it working for me (the public).
Drug arrests (usually for marijuana) are also thrown around for being disproportionately and overwhelmingly affecting blacks above every other racial group. Profiling also isn't something you can catch on camera, unless the PO basically outs himself as doing so.
There are many ways to disenfranchise racial groups, however, and police brutality is the tip of the iceberg. Gerrymandering is basically a given in the U.S., every state in the union does it. Blatantly drawing district lines that harm the opposite party, and the regions that are split into the most districts are usually ones that have a high non-white population. To me, this is a blatant and absurd abuse of power, but it's been the status quo for this country for almost 200 years now.
Racism is ingrained into the very fiber of this country, and it almost seems like every government service, from law enforcement to voting and choosing a representative, is aligned to disenfranchise non-whites.
[quote=TheFragile]I've seen some people throw around the idea of having chest cameras on officers, which apparently worked out pretty well in certain cities that have tried.[/quote]
Mounted video cameras do deter unjust police violence, but that's a given. If I had a camera watching me here at work, I'd sure as hell do a lot more work.
Even this would be a huge step in stopping misinformation and hearsay w/r/t police encounters that turn violent. It's surveillance, sure, but surveillance isn't exactly going away, and I wouldn't mind having it working for me (the public).
Drug arrests (usually for marijuana) are also thrown around for being disproportionately and overwhelmingly affecting blacks above every other racial group. Profiling also isn't something you can catch on camera, unless the PO basically outs himself as doing so.
There are many ways to disenfranchise racial groups, however, and police brutality is the tip of the iceberg. Gerrymandering is basically a given in the U.S., every state in the union does it. Blatantly drawing district lines that harm the opposite party, and the regions that are split into the most districts are usually ones that have a high non-white population. To me, this is a blatant and absurd abuse of power, but it's been the status quo for this country for almost 200 years now.
Racism is ingrained into the very fiber of this country, and it almost seems like every government service, from law enforcement to voting and choosing a representative, is aligned to disenfranchise non-whites.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pr1oE34bIM[/youtube]
needed a dictionary to read all of this, lots of big words here
needed a dictionary to read all of this, lots of big words here
Mr_Harvardneeded a dictionary to read all of this, lots of big words here
It's more funny cause your name is "Mr_Harvard"
[quote=Mr_Harvard]needed a dictionary to read all of this, lots of big words here[/quote]
It's more funny cause your name is "Mr_Harvard"
As far as I know, the police offer in question had no knowledge of the robbery committed by Brown. So in this case, bringing up the robbery is somewhat of a distraction. Being African American, I can easily see why people of my ethnicity can be compelled to view this a racially motivated crime, as we have dealt and felt racism almost daily, whether it be on the internet, or feeling strangely singled out when a police car drives down a street. If the killing is racially compelled, we do not know, and we may never know.
Psychologically, African-Americans are more likely to feel that this was racially compelled because as you can guess, when there is an overwhelming majority, and an extreme minority, the minority tends to feel together, similar, and responsible for the other members of their group.(Hence the odd outrage of the trayvon martin case). This is why I strongly feel that would should stop trying to find racism, but to confront it when it is clear and obvious, so that every ethnicity can agree that this is wrong and we should stop it.
Putting all that aside, I still do feel that the people in Ferguson should peacefully protest, as opposed to the minority or rioting looters in their midst.
As far as I know, the police offer in question had no knowledge of the robbery committed by Brown. So in this case, bringing up the robbery is somewhat of a distraction. Being African American, I can easily see why people of my ethnicity can be compelled to view this a racially motivated crime, as we have dealt and felt racism almost daily, whether it be on the internet, or feeling strangely singled out when a police car drives down a street. If the killing is racially compelled, we do not know, and we may never know.
Psychologically, African-Americans are more likely to feel that this was racially compelled because as you can guess, when there is an overwhelming majority, and an extreme minority, the minority tends to feel together, similar, and responsible for the other members of their group.(Hence the odd outrage of the trayvon martin case). This is why I strongly feel that would should stop trying to [b]find[/b] racism, but to confront it when it is clear and obvious, so that every ethnicity can agree that this is wrong and we should stop it.
Putting all that aside, I still do feel that the people in Ferguson should peacefully protest, as opposed to the minority or rioting looters in their midst.
if cops are forced to wear cameras their behavior won't change as much as people think. there will simply be more "camera malfunctions," and footage being outright "lost." so while the people being wrongfully arrested/detained/whatever will have a better shot at getting the case thrown out, there will still be no punishment/deterrent for officers to change behavior.
if cops are forced to wear cameras their behavior won't change as much as people think. there will simply be more "camera malfunctions," and footage being outright "lost." so while the people being wrongfully arrested/detained/whatever will have a better shot at getting the case thrown out, there will still be no punishment/deterrent for officers to change behavior.
marmadukeGRYLLSif cops are forced to wear cameras their behavior won't change as much as people think. there will simply be more "camera malfunctions," and footage being outright "lost." so while the people being wrongfully arrested/detained/whatever will have a better shot at getting the case thrown out, there will still be no punishment/deterrent for officers to change behavior.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/08/07/world/07kitty.jpg
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/07/world/asia/07cnd-thai.html
It is the pink armband of shame for wayward police officers, as cute as can be with a Hello Kitty face and a pair of linked hearts.
No matter how many ribbons for valor a Thai officer may wear, if he parks in the wrong place, or shows up late for work, or is seen dropping a bit of litter on the sidewalk, he can be ordered to wear the insignia.
I vote for this for a start
[quote=marmadukeGRYLLS]if cops are forced to wear cameras their behavior won't change as much as people think. there will simply be more "camera malfunctions," and footage being outright "lost." so while the people being wrongfully arrested/detained/whatever will have a better shot at getting the case thrown out, there will still be no punishment/deterrent for officers to change behavior.[/quote]
[img]http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/08/07/world/07kitty.jpg[/img]
[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/07/world/asia/07cnd-thai.html[/url]
[quote]
It is the pink armband of shame for wayward police officers, as cute as can be with a Hello Kitty face and a pair of linked hearts.
No matter how many ribbons for valor a Thai officer may wear, if he parks in the wrong place, or shows up late for work, or is seen dropping a bit of litter on the sidewalk, he can be ordered to wear the insignia.
[/quote]
I vote for this for a start
shit's fucked man. there's a tension building in this country and the stockpiling of old military weapons to local police forces is just a reassurance of that.
let's all take a second to REALLY recognize that local PD with no training are getting military grade equipment/weapons/vehicles. I can sorta understand the need for some heavy firepower in places like LA/NYC/etc because shit can go the fuck down in those cities but holy shit, why does sheriff bob in east bumblefuck need assault rifles for him and his 30 officers?
the time to bail is now my children.
shit's fucked man. there's a tension building in this country and the stockpiling of old military weapons to local police forces is just a reassurance of that.
let's all take a second to REALLY recognize that local PD with no training are getting military grade equipment/weapons/vehicles. I can sorta understand the need for some heavy firepower in places like LA/NYC/etc because shit can go the fuck down in those cities but holy shit, why does sheriff bob in east bumblefuck need assault rifles for him and his 30 officers?
the time to bail is now my children.
Particularly in response to the piece Kip posted from John Oliver - states were issued anti-terrorism money and it was divided by the state - my rural county, rather than buy, say a tank, purchased a gator (from John Deer) to fight terrorism, because one of the local commissioners is an elderly fellow, and it's hard for him to check out the parks and stuff he's supposed to be keeping an eye on lol. Although it's not going to ever fight terrorism, and they tried to give the money back, the ol' guy prolly appreciates his state owned golf-cart/atv. It has made for some great jokes about him patrolling looking for Al-Queda in the woods.
As for the assault rifles - the thing is, assault rifles are incredibly easy to acquire now. Granted you can't actually purchase a fully functional full-auto ak-47 without taking some gun safety courses and submitting to random ATF searches, but that doesn't mean random Joe can't buy a legal ak-47 (in my state with no background check of any kind other than a phone call to make sure you're not a felon) and look up on the internet how to make it fully automatic again. There *could* arise a situation where they may need a military grade assault weapon. But to show them at a protest? I don't see how they thought that wouldn't exacerbate the situation. I've protested *at* military bases before and the MPs guarding the gates did have their m4's on them but they were *never* pointed at us, they were shouldered throughout.
Particularly in response to the piece Kip posted from John Oliver - states were issued anti-terrorism money and it was divided by the state - my rural county, rather than buy, say a tank, purchased a gator (from John Deer) to fight terrorism, because one of the local commissioners is an elderly fellow, and it's hard for him to check out the parks and stuff he's supposed to be keeping an eye on lol. Although it's not going to ever fight terrorism, and they tried to give the money back, the ol' guy prolly appreciates his state owned golf-cart/atv. It has made for some great jokes about him patrolling looking for Al-Queda in the woods.
As for the assault rifles - the thing is, assault rifles are incredibly easy to acquire now. Granted you can't actually purchase a fully functional full-auto ak-47 without taking some gun safety courses and submitting to random ATF searches, but that doesn't mean random Joe can't buy a legal ak-47 (in my state with no background check of any kind other than a phone call to make sure you're not a felon) and look up on the internet how to make it fully automatic again. There *could* arise a situation where they may need a military grade assault weapon. But to show them at a protest? I don't see how they thought that wouldn't exacerbate the situation. I've protested *at* military bases before and the MPs guarding the gates did have their m4's on them but they were *never* pointed at us, they were shouldered throughout.
marmadukeGRYLLSif cops are forced to wear cameras their behavior won't change as much as people think. there will simply be more "camera malfunctions," and footage being outright "lost." so while the people being wrongfully arrested/detained/whatever will have a better shot at getting the case thrown out, there will still be no punishment/deterrent for officers to change behavior.
California police use of body cameras cuts violence and complaints
"But Rialto's randomised controlled study has seized attention because it offers scientific – and encouraging – findings: after cameras were introduced in February 2012, public complaints against officers plunged 88% compared with the previous 12 months. Officers' use of force fell by 60%."
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/04/california-police-body-cameras-cuts-violence-complaints-rialto
[quote=marmadukeGRYLLS]if cops are forced to wear cameras their behavior won't change as much as people think. there will simply be more "camera malfunctions," and footage being outright "lost." so while the people being wrongfully arrested/detained/whatever will have a better shot at getting the case thrown out, there will still be no punishment/deterrent for officers to change behavior.[/quote]
California police use of body cameras cuts violence and complaints
"But Rialto's randomised controlled study has seized attention because it offers scientific – and encouraging – findings: after cameras were introduced in February 2012, public complaints against officers plunged 88% compared with the previous 12 months. Officers' use of force fell by 60%."
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/04/california-police-body-cameras-cuts-violence-complaints-rialto
vtablestats n shit
rialto is only 100,000 people and it's only a bit above average as far as crime rates go, and that's with a very very small police force/presence by comparison to other places. study needs to be done somewhere like oakland or nyc.
rialto had fucking 95 police officers in 2012. so those juicy percentages that they get to post as evidence of it working is basically 10 cops being told hey fuckers you're being recorded cut the shit. now deal with a police force of 10k+ in high crime neighborhoods and see if you get those same numbers.
[quote=vtable]
stats n shit[/quote]
rialto is only 100,000 people and it's only a bit above average as far as crime rates go, and that's with a very very small police force/presence by comparison to other places. study needs to be done somewhere like oakland or nyc.
rialto had fucking 95 police officers in 2012. so those juicy percentages that they get to post as evidence of it working is basically 10 cops being told hey fuckers you're being recorded cut the shit. now deal with a police force of 10k+ in high crime neighborhoods and see if you get those same numbers.
This whole situation is terribly simple to understand and CNN provided the footage. A black woman was being interviewed and she said (yelled) "All we want is the truth, why can't we have the truth...."
Simple fact is, that once it was a white cop that killed a black guy, there was no real "truth" to provide her at all. She made up her mind about everything and was just on the warpath afterwards. New facts, forensics, video's, etc will NEVER matter to her. The same is likely true about 99% of the protesters.
Everyone always talks about it and would love to believe and live in a fairy tale world where racism is a 2 way street. Please wakeup, in this country it only goes 1 direction. This whole story is being covered from 1 side, media coverage across the board is 1 sided.
For myself, I will wait for when the media can repeatedly report on the same outrage when a black person kills a white person. When was the last time you seen that reported on international news and had the president involved? Take your time to look it up, I am not going to hold my breath. Maybe its because we don't use every incident like this to riot.
This whole situation is terribly simple to understand and CNN provided the footage. A black woman was being interviewed and she said (yelled) "All we want is the truth, why can't we have the truth...."
Simple fact is, that once it was a [b]white cop that killed a black guy[/b], there was no real "truth" to provide her at all. She made up her mind about everything and was just on the warpath afterwards. New facts, forensics, video's, etc will NEVER matter to her. The same is likely true about 99% of the protesters.
Everyone always talks about it and would love to believe and live in a fairy tale world where racism is a 2 way street. Please wakeup, in this country it only goes 1 direction. This whole story is being covered from 1 side, media coverage across the board is 1 sided.
For myself, I will wait for when the media can repeatedly report on the same outrage when a black person kills a white person. When was the last time you seen that reported on international news and had the president involved? Take your time to look it up, I am not going to hold my breath. Maybe its because we don't use every incident like this to riot.
Though I won't really comment on whats happening in Ferguson. I will like to just say that too often people make cops out to be the villain. When many are just people working a job, like those in the military, and often just wanna get through it by the end of the day.
These are men and women which often have to deal with the most violent and ass backwards parts of society. They are also underpaid with little recognition for all the good they do, and they put their lives at risk with criminals and disasters.
People need to understand that police are people that do plenty of good things while protecting their communities, regardless of race or creed, all while receiving little pay and having themselves being called racists or "pigs" just by association.
There are two sides to every story, and to use Hanlon's razor: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
Though I won't really comment on whats happening in Ferguson. I will like to just say that too often people make cops out to be the villain. When many are just people working a job, like those in the military, and often just wanna get through it by the end of the day.
These are men and women which often have to deal with the most violent and ass backwards parts of society. They are also underpaid with little recognition for all the good they do, and they put their lives at risk with criminals and disasters.
People need to understand that police are people that do plenty of good things while protecting their communities, regardless of race or creed, all while receiving little pay and having themselves being called racists or "pigs" just by association.
There are two sides to every story, and to use Hanlon's razor: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
I swear this is all Daryl Gates' fault.
He invented SWAT teams, he was responsible for not doing anything after the Rodney King Beating, he invented D.A.R.E. He was a lunatic who thought militarizing the police was a good idea. He thinks that being a police chief is the same as being a general. He says that drug users should be shot.
He has done nothing good for the US.
I swear this is all Daryl Gates' fault.
He invented SWAT teams, he was responsible for not doing anything after the Rodney King Beating, he invented D.A.R.E. He was a lunatic who thought militarizing the police was a good idea. He thinks that being a police chief is the [u]same[/u] as being a general. He says that drug users should be shot.
He has done nothing good for the US.
TurinI swear this is all Daryl Gates' fault.
He invented SWAT teams, he was responsible for not doing anything after the Rodney King Beating, he invented D.A.R.E. He was a lunatic who thought militarizing the police was a good idea. He thinks that being a police chief is the same as being a general. He says that drug users should be shot.
He has done nothing good for the US.
Right, and when someone goes crazy is running around with a assault rifle and body armor killing everyone, you would likely be the first person to say "Why didn't the police have anything to stop this maniac before he killed so many people". Keep throwing stones without understanding.
Gates was a visionary and he acted when others did nothing.
[quote=Turin]I swear this is all Daryl Gates' fault.
He invented SWAT teams, he was responsible for not doing anything after the Rodney King Beating, he invented D.A.R.E. He was a lunatic who thought militarizing the police was a good idea. He thinks that being a police chief is the [u]same[/u] as being a general. He says that drug users should be shot.
He has done nothing good for the US.[/quote]
Right, and when someone goes crazy is running around with a assault rifle and body armor killing everyone, you would likely be the first person to say "Why didn't the police have anything to stop this maniac before he killed so many people". Keep throwing stones without understanding.
Gates was a visionary and he acted when others did nothing.
SWAT teams should exist, but only at a regional level. My small town doesn't need a SWAT team but we have one. It's used for things that don't even need more than a few cars. They were called on one of our local school parking lots because a kid had a few ounces of weed.
Also, DARE was useless and his point of view on drugs is very dumb.
SWAT teams should exist, but only at a regional level. My small town doesn't need a SWAT team but we have one. It's used for things that don't even need more than a few cars. They were called on one of our local school parking lots because a kid had a few ounces of weed.
Also, DARE was useless and his point of view on drugs is very dumb.
Just because your local police force "supposedly" called SWAT out incorrectly does not mean there should be no SWAT teams at all.
Just because your local police force "supposedly" called SWAT out incorrectly does not mean there should be no SWAT teams at all.