Really tired of people who claim America is being destroyed.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-07-2015, 10:10 PM
RE: Really tired of people who claim America is being destroyed.
*sigh* I wasn't trying to say the word "swagger" or anything else was a racist word or slur, but that its use in a particular context was likely so.

For instance, the word "Dark" has no racist overtones... just means "not bright".

But if I say, "It's getting awfully dark around here" while looking around at all the black people in the restaurant, then I'm a racist, and using the word in a racist way.

Not words, but context.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-07-2015, 11:07 PM
RE: Really tired of people who claim America is being destroyed.
(15-07-2015 10:10 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  *sigh* I wasn't trying to say the word "swagger" or anything else was a racist word or slur, but that its use in a particular context was likely so.

(13-07-2015 10:24 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  And it's racist as fuck to say he "swaggered" down the street. He walked.

Sorry, that is not the way you came across in the post that drew my attention. Saying someone "swaggered" doesn't have any racial implications, which was my objection.

In this context, I think it's much more likely that the cop was trying to cover his own ass by portraying the victim as being overly bold, thereby justifying the cop's use of force, rather than using that word to express his racism. "It's racist as fuck to say he "swaggered"" puts the emphasis on the word, and not the context, which is really horseshit.

Racist connotations are added by usage, not by perceptions. When enough racists use a word enough times to delineate a particular ethnicity, then the word can take on racial overtones. But simply because a word is used to spin a story a certain way, that doesn't mean that that word is in and of itself a racially charged term.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-07-2015, 11:33 PM (This post was last modified: 15-07-2015 11:44 PM by RocketSurgeon76.)
RE: Really tired of people who claim America is being destroyed.
And my counter-point was, and is, that just like "dark" only becomes racist when used in a context of surrounding particular ideas, it was racist to describe him as "swaggering" down the street when the word comes in the middle of a string of descriptors of alleged bad (blame-the-victim) behaviors that ended in a dead black body... it spun the story and implied, as you say, "the victim being overly bold, thereby justifying the cop's use of force" (how does one "boldly walk" down a street prior to being accosted by the cop?), drawing a connection between an otherwise very ordinary action (walking) and a "suspicious behavior" that might potentially justify a "Point of Contact" stop.

(For those who don't know, PoC is when cops stop someone and give them orders, any orders, as a probe just to test compliance; the idea is that law abiding citizens will be docile and obey without complaint, while only criminals will be angered or defiant, making it a sort of roving stop-and-frisk by way of unnecessary and unwarranted command-issuance.)

Everyone keeps speaking of the word in a vacuum, saying it does not have inherent racial overtones. In that case, true.

But here, the term swagger was found in the middle of a string of behavior-descriptors, and thus attained a context that made it, in a way that is still clear enough to me to be surprising to me that it's still a point of discussion, racist as employed. Another context might be if you said:

"Well after all, she was walking alone in the wee-hours of the night, she wore a red short dress, and she was drunk."

That sentence is totally innocent and non-sexist by itself, but if it's in context as part of a discussion about someone who was raped-and-killed, then you have victim-blaming, and each of those three behavior-descriptors becomes intensely and horribly sexist. The same applies to saying that MB was rightfully stopped, ordered out of the street, and grabbed through the window of a car that pulled up alongside him by a cop (forget everything else that happened afterward-- or before, since the cop said he didn't know about the convenience store connection), when his behavior up to that point is no more odd than what I did (as a white, middle-class kid) on my own neighborhood residential streets, walking with my best friend down the street, EVERY SINGLE DAY OF MY TEENAGE YEARS. I cannot even imagine a cop grabbing me by the arm because I was walking down the street...unless I was swaggering, of course. His street even looks like my street, from my teen years.

[Image: 1408125736086_wps_1_michael_brown_cop_muzzed_.jpg]

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-07-2015, 11:49 PM
RE: Really tired of people who claim America is being destroyed.
Well, golly, no one is saying that race isn't at the bottom of the issue. But there was none of that nuance in your plain statement.

You don't seem to understand that attaching one descriptor to one person of one race doesn't make that word a racist thing. It's cool. I'm not going to waste any more time on this. OJ wore Bruno Maglis when he killed Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman. That doesn't make those shoes the shoes of murderers.

Describing Brown's behavior as "swaggering" is bias about behavior, not skin color.

You can have the last word; I'm not big on hitting brick walls, and that is clearly the case here. You have a good evening, now.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-07-2015, 04:53 AM (This post was last modified: 16-07-2015 08:12 AM by goodwithoutgod.)
RE: Really tired of people who claim America is being destroyed.
(15-07-2015 08:11 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  I'm disappointed that you deliberately misrepresented the laws of Missouri like that for your own purposes, given that I already linked you to the statutes that apply.

First-Degree Assault is a very specific crime. It essentially entails a murder attempt, as in firing a gun (etc) at them, and yes, it does carry the penalties you describe. You yourself started your description out with, "If the victim of an assault in the first degree is law enforcement officer", and then circled back around in your logic. It first must be established that an assault in the first degree, a very specific crime, was committed, then you establish other criteria, such as the nature of the victim (e.g. LEO). So what does it mean exactly? Well you left that part out, after you said:

"A person is guilty of assault in the first degree if he: attempts to kill another person, or knowingly causes or attempts to cause another person serious physical injury."

"knowingly causes or attempts to cause another person serious physical injury" is a very specific phrase in Missouri law. It is defined by statute. Ready?

"Serious physical injury, physical injury that creates a substantial risk of death or that causes serious disfigurement or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any part of the body; "
(bold emphasis and italics my own)

The situation remains as I initially described. Had MB actually pulled a gun and begun to fire at the officer, missing him, he would be guilty of the crime you have defined, badly, above, and which I had to clarify here. If he had hit him, he would be guilty of this AND of attempted murder. That's how Missouri charges this particular crime. (He would also get Armed Criminal Action, which enhances sentencing.)

You keep missing the word ATTEMPT, and again, a violation against protected classes of people gains an automatic elevation of criminal violation.

AT work, busy and too annoyed to break this down like dominoes to you in depth. But quickly, you said, "When the very large MB pulled away to break contact, it slammed the officer into his door-frame, damaging his eye-orbit/cheek. This enraged the officer, as did the derogatory comments the boys were doubtless slinging at the cop... and the rest was a downhill spiral. I think the ballistics and other forensics is unsupportive of the idea of a charging bull, as you seem to be implying. And even then, this kid would not represent a big enough threat to warrant a gunning-down unless he had a weapon or was in some other way an imminent danger of serious harm"

Slamming the officer against the door frame damaging his eye socket as active and aggressive resistance is an assault, and unlawful resistance with violence, and if he had knocked the police officer out, and gained complete access to his weapons who knows what could happen...this large, and aggressively violent man running around the neighborhood with the cop's Glock is not the recipe for a safe neighborhood, and that is the mentality we are trained to be aware of. Size does matter, not every cop can be 6 foot 5 and 300 lbs, so when a very large individual is handing you your ass, and you think you are in danger of being knocked out or killed, deadly force is authorized...fact. MB would be alive today if he had done what he was told. I know all of you anti cop anti authority people have a problem with law and order, rules, and authority figures, but there are laws and rules for a reason. Yes, contrary to your biased opinion, a 260-290 lb large man who has already demonstrated opportunity, capability, and intent with the assault at the car, who then runs, THEN turns back and recharges the cop is grounds for deadly force...do you think he intended to run up and give the cop a hug or an apology? NO, Intent was evident, deadly force was authorized and executed...legally.

Unlike the Bullshit lying fucking witnesses that claimed he had his hands up and was following directions, that has been solidly refuted by the autopsy report and forensics...yup, you can figure out by the angle of the entry wounds what the musculature was doing at the time of impact....i.e...hands down vice hands up, back turned or not etc.....big fucking surprise, unlike what the lying piece of shit "witness" who claimed on tv that poor MB was gunned down in the back while he stood still with his hands up. THAT individual should be in prison right now for lying. HANDS UP DONT SHOOT is the biggest BS race baiting racist agenda propaganda ever. He didnt have his fucking hands up...if he had he would be alive. That piece of shit witness lied to a grand jury about watching his friend get shot in the back multiple times...then they showed him pictures of the autopsy...oh shit, what do you know....no wounds in the back. There are enough dumbass criminal cops making the news who DID violate their oath, training, and the rights of a citizen, but this was not one of them. Of course the media LOVES this shit as they show the junior high school picture of instant saint dead black guy, with the title "WHITE COP SHOOTS UNARMED BLACK TEEN"....to maximize shock value and create more rage...thus viewers. People start flipping cars, looting tvs, and burning down buildings because of that...because you know, that fixes things. I admit I don't know Missouri law, I am an ex florida cop, but across the board in this country all crimes against cops are elevated due to their protected status, the same protected status given to the elderly, pregnant women etc. I usually avoid this subject for obvious reasons. But sometimes I get sick of all the uber popular, pro drug, pro criminal, anti governmental, non blame generational anti cop rhetoric created by ignorance of the law, and lack of any knowledge of the actual facts.

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-07-2015, 07:32 AM (This post was last modified: 16-07-2015 08:46 AM by goodwithoutgod.)
RE: Really tired of people who claim America is being destroyed.
(15-07-2015 07:42 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  
(15-07-2015 06:46 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Statistics tell me that 4 out of every 10 traffic stops between the hours of midnight and 4am will lead to a solid arrest on the "big 5": Outstanding warrant, illegal gun, drugs, paraphernalia, or DUI. That is why we look for reasons to pull you over during those hours...it isnt harassment, it is policing.

Well, looking for a reason to pull someone over when they aren't obviously being criminal doesn't strike me as good policing. Pretty sure there's no law against keeping odd hours. Basing your stops on statistics inherently dehumanizes your interactions,

(15-07-2015 06:46 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  It is our job to find the bad guys and get them off the street.

Your job is not just that. Your job is to find the bad guys and get them off the streets without infringing the rights of the other citizens.


(15-07-2015 06:46 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Dont want to get pulled over and checked between midnight and four in the morning and arrested for drugs? DOnt be out during that time with drugs in your car.

How do you know there are drugs in the cars before you stop it? That's right, you don't. And what that means is that, in your words, you're looking for a reason to pull people over. It's bullshit. Do your job without imputing your biases.

Do you ever wonder why even us law-abiding citizens don't trust you guys unless we know you? Reread your post from a civilian's perspective.

(15-07-2015 06:46 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  This continuous exposure subconsciously leads one to believe when interacting with a member of that small demographic group, in an arrest incident, that odds are they will be violent....further experience on the street reinforces this perspective. This leads the law enforcement officers to make assumptions, and in concern of their own safety, go up the ladder of levels of force much faster than if they were facing a different citizen. That is wrong, but a challenging thing to overcome based on the copious amount of exposure to the same type of interaction over and over. This of course leads to the mutual distrust between minorities and the police.

This is a fair point. But you're being paid to administer justice fairly. It is your job to address your own biases before they turn into Constitutional violations.

Explanations are not excuses.


(15-07-2015 06:46 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Are cops quicker to shoot a black man than a white? most likely...you know why? experience, statistics and fear.

Cold comfort to the bereaved family of the wrongly killed.

(15-07-2015 06:46 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Are blacks subject to longer sentences than whites with the same background and charged crime? Absolutely, and THAT is systemic institutionalized racism.

Even on your level, of addressing the problem on the street, that too is institutionalized, as you yourself have made plain by your appeal to statistics.

(15-07-2015 06:46 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  There are a lot of reasons why that is the reality. How does one avoid that then if one knows the system will stick it to you if you come through the turnstile? Don't fucking break the law.

Definite agreement. Being disadvantaged doesn't mean being destined to criminality.

(15-07-2015 06:46 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  By the way, in the police academy we practice that scenario you were calling bullshit bullshit bullshit on. They have a carseat and car door construct, they sit you in it with your batbelt on, the target is out the window to your left at about 5 feet., they tell you your right arm is injured or incapacitated, now draw your weapon with your other hand, chamber a round and shoot the target in 3 seconds....go. Lot harder than you think. So if you are grabbing for my gun, which by the way IS a felony, and I can fight myself free, you are taking a bullet. My life at that moment is more precious to me than yours. If after you try to disarm me, and run, then turn around and charge your big 260 lb ass back at me, I will drop you, as that cop dropped that piece of shit criminal, it was a clean shoot, the forensics backed him up, even in the face of all the lying ass RACIST "witnesses" who just wanted to see a cop go down for shooting Saint Michael Brown...and a grand jury upon review of the FACTS agreed. The trial by biased, uneducated in the law, uninformed of the facts public court of opinions was, and is, irrelevant.

Can you think of a nonlethal way to address this situation?

(15-07-2015 06:46 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Monday morning quarterbacking is all the rage in america right now.

You're an LEO. Part of your job is to have your actions reviewed by the citizenry for propriety. If you don't like it, turn in your badge.

Thump, it comes down to reactive policing versus proactive policing. Reactive policing is ineffective. From the local level, to the federal level, to the international level. Now the challenge for the criminal justice field is finding the right balance for each community of reactive to proactive policing. Another challenge is the right balance between individual right to privacy and to be free of illegal searches, and safety and security of the community. There is no law against driving around during the “witching hour” but it does significantly up your chance of getting pulled over…why? Statistics show us 4 out of 10 traffic stops lead to a solid arrest. You may think that is BS to establish probable cause and execute a traffic stop as a proactive policing technique, but it is very effective, neccessary…and legal. Probable Cause is very easy to get by the way, pretty much every car on the road has an equipment violation on it. For example, do you have a GPS mounted on the inside of your windshield? Illegal, it is a vision impairment device. Have fuzzy dice or a new car smelly tree dangling from your rear view mirror? Illegal. Tinted headlight/taillight covers, neon lights, any blue light, modified exhaust that does not meet O.E.M. specs for noise suppression, tint too dark, tint to low on windshield, etc etc...all illegal, all based on local, and state laws of course. In florida, it is like shooting ducks in a barrel trying to find probable cause for equipment violations. Just because you can buy it in the store, and stick it on your car doesn't make it legal to be on the public roads.

“Your job is to find the bad guys and get them off the streets without infringing the rights of the other citizens.”

Sounds great, now how do we do that in a proactive, not reactive manner? You really want LE to simply and purely be reactive? We just drive around listening to music awaiting the next call for service to come up on the screen? Really? Think about it…

“Do you ever wonder why even us law-abiding citizens don't trust you guys unless we know you? Reread your post from a civilian's perspective.”

I get it, truly. Now rethink your position from the LE perspective. BOOM, you are now the chief of police, congrats, Township blahville has an epic level of violent crime in relation to national averages…whatcha going to do chief? Be reactive? Citizens demand action……

“Explanations are not excuses.”

Absolutely, “us versus them” is a real human reaction from continual exposure to the shit of society day in and day out. Recognizing that, and putting into place training and self control is essential for the officer’s safety, as well as the citizen. I brought it up because I am a crim major, and criminology focuses on Causals of crime, profile of offenders and the reasons they perpetrate crime. Unfortunately, race has a correlation to crime statistically, not CAUSATION, and understanding that is part of the formula, however that makes us uncomfortable, understanding cultural norms, and the affects of sociological impact of offenders is a small key to unlocking a solution for some of this crime…

“Cold comfort to the bereaved family of the wrongly killed.”

I never implied it is, it is an inconvenient truth that has to be acknowledged. At some point the non-blame generation has to accept some of the responsibility and accountability for their own actions....and that includes the police.

“Being disadvantaged doesn't mean being destined to criminality.”

One would think wouldn’t one? Sadly the statistics don’t support that. Now, lets play analogy Chief.

As the new Chief of Police for township blahsville, you have a privileged upper middle class area up north where the sounds of a police siren only ever mean someone had a car wreck or a heart attack. Crime is an occasional shoplifting teen, or traffic violations.

Down south of your town is the section 8 housing area where murder, drugs, home invasion, robbery and rape are a daily occurrence. You can’t go an hour without hearing a police siren.

Where do you put your manning, equipment, efforts and time? Trying to solve teen Timmy who shoplifted a tootsie roll, or the back log of violent serious crime ongoing down south? Do some of those privileged class citizens have drugs on them? Yeah most likely, teens do drugs, perhaps designer drugs and weed is on a percentage of every high school student up north…but the violent crime rate isn’t there, and you don’t have an endless number of officers to track down and solve every violation of the law…so Chief, where do you put your time and energy? If you stop and frisk 20 young adults standing around up north outside the baskin robbins ice cream shop, you may find one has drugs on him, heck lets say two. Now go down south and stop and frisk 20 young adults in the hot zone, standing outside the 7-11, odds are at least 40% of them have drugs, guns or an outstanding warrant…so understanding those factual statistics…..what do you do Chief to lower crime in your city…come on now, the citizens are tired of it and demand action….you going to be reactive or proactive…

“Can you think of a nonlethal way to address this situation?”

Nope, MB made it a lethal situation when he banged the officer against the door jam and rushed at him after fighting with him. I am not putting my glock away to pull a tazer in a fast paced emergent assault on me by a 260-290 lb man who is going to be on me in one second and hope it works, nope, dropping him like the trash he is right there in the street. HE has already showed me he has the intent, opportunity and capability to harm me, and I will drop him. Put yourself in that situation…whatcha going to do officer Thump?

“Part of your job is to have your actions reviewed by the citizenry for propriety. If you don't like it, turn in your badge.”

That is true, and everything we do is second guessed, and that is a good checks and balance process, by a panel of educated and informed of the facts Police Incident Board which is usually manned by citizens ranging from lawyers to magistrates to various representatives of society. The key is the citizens shouldn’t be looting tvs, burning cop cars and rioting while the grand jury is reviewing the facts, trial by public ignorance isn’t the process. I did turn my badge in, I resigned when the Navy offered me a commission. I wouldn’t go back to being a cop for quadruple pay at this point.

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like goodwithoutgod's post
16-07-2015, 08:36 AM
RE: Really tired of people who claim America is being destroyed.
G w/o G -- I certainly can understand why you wouldn't want to be a cop these days. It's truly a thankless job.

The sad part --- is in areas where there's all sorts of "protestors" --- crime WILL go up ---

because the sensible cops, like yourself, know a no-win situation when they see one --- and get out, while the getting's good..


And the protestors will protest that, too.....

.......................................

The difference between prayer and masturbation - is when a guy is through masturbating - he has something to show for his efforts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like onlinebiker's post
16-07-2015, 08:44 AM (This post was last modified: 16-07-2015 08:52 AM by goodwithoutgod.)
RE: Really tired of people who claim America is being destroyed.
(16-07-2015 08:36 AM)onlinebiker Wrote:  G w/o G -- I certainly can understand why you wouldn't want to be a cop these days. It's truly a thankless job.

The sad part --- is in areas where there's all sorts of "protestors" --- crime WILL go up ---

because the sensible cops, like yourself, know a no-win situation when they see one --- and get out, while the getting's good..


And the protestors will protest that, too.....

It is a horrible dynamic, and the hardest job to have in my humble opinion. Never know when you go to work if today will be your last, never know when the guy standing in front of you is suddenly going to go ape shit on you, some of the individuals you arrest will file some trumped up BS complaint against you because they know it has to be investigated, and even if it is unfounded, remains in your record for tracking trends purposes, every move you make is triple guessed after the fact, and the politics are out of control. So you walk out the door facing a day of danger, contempt, and hate, with the added joy of complete lack of support from your chain of command.

There are shitty cops, bad cops and good cops, but I like to think the vast majority try to do the job to the best of their abilities with honor and courage, they don't make the news though. No thanks, had my fill, my life means to much to me, and so does my family. It is a lose-lose situation right now....and everyone is going to get a piece of that sadly.

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes goodwithoutgod's post
16-07-2015, 08:57 AM
RE: Really tired of people who claim America is being destroyed.
GwoG -

Yes, the "hands up don't shoot" story-line was entirely bullshit, based on the false testimony of that dredlocked idiot friend of his. In this case. But it was so believable, and able to tap into an anger that's simmering there in the entire populace, for a REASON. They defy the cops instead of a "we see no reason not to submit", white-people attitude, there for a reason.

I'm sorry your emotions about this prevent you from truly taking a close look at the ongoing history of racist police policies (as the government commission on the subject clearly found) there for generations. Yes, the "entirely shot in the back" original story was not backed up by the forensics. Little of it was. And yet neither is the "charging bull" scenario, which is another common tactic of slander used against black victims, preying upon generations of racist perspectives/propaganda saying that young black men are animalistic and more violent. Again, a lot of science has gone into studying how police and civilians alike perceive black bodies compared to white ones in identical situations, so I'm not asserting this in a vacuum. As for the killing of MB and its aftermath, I've carefully read those reports. The way the County District Attorney defensively presented the case and shaded the evidence was obvious and sad, and well- and properly-remarked-upon by other groups who examined the grand jury proceedings. On the other hand, as far as the reporters' sensationalist coverage, and the forensics/training issues, most of what you say I actually agree with. I wish you would stop saying I have a biased opinion. Not being biased pro-cop does not make me biased unless you believe I should be biased pro-cop to be "neutral", somehow.

A few points:

1. I use the term "attempted" because, under Missouri Law, an "attempt" to do something lowers the crime's category by one. For instance, car theft is called "Tampering with a Motor Vehicle", a C-Felony worth 7 yrs max. Attempted Tampering is lowered to a D-Felony, worth 4 yrs max.

2. The "protected" term you refer to has no meaning under Missouri Law except in certain types of civil cases. Police assaults are covered under a string of laws that deal specifically with the attack on an officer. It is part of Chapter 565, which covers a variety of assault types, from Murder/Manslaughter categories down to boxing match regulations. There are the levels of this, depending on circumstances spelled out in statutes:

To show I'm not hiding part of the code, here's the whole thing. Do a search for "Chapter 565", and it will list everything in the relevant chapter of the statutes, in order, even the repealed ones.
http://www.moga.mo.gov/htmlpages2/statut...earch.aspx

565.081. 1. A person commits the crime of assault of a law enforcement officer, corrections officer, emergency personnel, highway worker in a construction zone or work zone, utility worker, cable worker, or probation and parole officer in the first degree if such person attempts to kill or knowingly causes or attempts to cause serious physical injury to a law enforcement officer, corrections officer, emergency personnel, highway worker in a construction zone or work zone, utility worker, cable worker, or probation and parole officer. ... 7. Assault of a law enforcement officer, corrections officer, emergency personnel, highway worker in a construction zone or work zone, utility worker, cable worker, or probation and parole officer in the first degree is a class A felony.

565.082. 1. A person commits the crime of assault of a law enforcement officer, corrections officer, emergency personnel, highway worker in a construction zone or work zone, utility worker, cable worker, or probation and parole officer in the second degree if such person: Knowingly causes or attempts to cause physical injury to a law enforcement officer, corrections officer, emergency personnel, highway worker in a construction zone or work zone, utility worker, cable worker, or probation and parole officer by means of a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument; ... 7. Assault of a law enforcement officer, corrections officer, emergency personnel, highway worker in a construction zone or work zone, utility worker, cable worker, or probation and parole officer in the second degree is a class B felony unless committed pursuant to subdivision (2), (5), (6), or (7) of subsection 1 of this section in which case it is a class C felony.

565.083. 1. A person commits the crime of assault of a law enforcement officer, corrections officer, emergency personnel, highway worker in a construction zone or work zone, utility worker, cable worker, or probation and parole officer in the third degree if: Such person recklessly causes physical injury to a law enforcement officer, corrections officer, emergency personnel, highway worker in a construction zone or work zone, utility worker, cable worker, or probation and parole officer;
(blah blah blah, class A misdemeanor... part in boldface is what applies to the situation here, under Missouri law).

3. In order to establish that anything this officer did, it all goes back to the "assault" at the car. The only evidence we have backed up by all witnesses and the officer's testimony as well is that Officer Wilson grabbed Mike Brown's arm/wrist after pulling up next to MB in the squad car, through the window of the vehicle, in an aggressive "don't you walk away from me while I'm talking to you" kind of way. This point is not in serious contention. What is in contention is whether it constitutes as assault where Mike pulled his arm away (this is improper contact from the officer, anyway) to break the grip, and the officer hit his head on the doorframe (also confirmed by all testimony). What is not confirmed by other testimony, nor by logic if you stop to think about it, is the assertion that Mike then re-initiated contact by suddenly diving his huge-ass frame into that cop window to try to reach clear across the resisting officer to try to grab the gun. That's just crazy, like literally only an insane person would do that! It's the testimony of the officer, and only the officer, and it doesn't make sense-- either by experiment or by reason. There's just no logic to a sober person with no serious history of violence or mental illness to suddenly decide to punch an officer through his car window, then leap into that window to squeeze between him and the steering wheel to get at a gun on the far hip, probably under the seatbelt (our experiment assumed the SB was off, but I don't know the detail of that, one way or the other). You should be scoffing at the idea that a 17 year old kid would suddenly decide to go from walking down the street with his buddy and a freshly-appropriated (stolen) $3.27 pack of minicigars, to annoyed at an aggressive cop, to "let's kill this cop with the gun inside the car and clear across this guy, if I can fit between him and the steering wheel while he pummels me". It doesn't make sense in that context; it DOES make sense if it's a false testimony given as the standard defense crooked cops give for a shooting-- "he went for my gun and I was skeered, so skeered!" It's Ned from South Park, blasting surprised deer with an automatic rifle while yelling "He's comin' right for us!!!"

Without the gun-grab-attempt, there's just not a justification for escalating to gun-drawn hostility and gunfire, which is why we should so critically examine the claim that the kid went for the gun; it seems MUCH more plausible to note that this was a claim that the officer gave because it "covers a multitude of sins", and would mean that officials wouldn't look as closely at the shooting once the "I was in fear for my life" card was played. That's why this phrase is always seen in the report/record, even in cases of dirty cops who're clearly caught murdering suspects (as you mentioned). And because this is such a common false justification, and because most of the rest of the case hinges on this fact, it needs the highest level of scrutiny and skepticism... thus, for instance, my shop crew's physical experiment, which I continue to ask you to experimentally reproduce, too (you look closer to Mike's size/build, and likely have cop-equipment-owning friends who would be willing to bring their units by the house for such an experiment), as I'd be more than curious to hear your results. Peer review. Smile

And finally, 4. I didn't say "slamming him against the door frame" in the way you continue to shade it. Stop looking to blame this kid and/or buy the official story defending the cop and *look at the evidence*. Surely you're a martial artist as well, and you know how easily a body can be pulled forward under those circumstances. If you (who are at least 100 pounds larger than I am) grab me by the wrist through your car door and I try to jump or twist away, you will be propelled toward me if you continue to grab me. It's one of the first easy non-actual-throw things we learned to do in hapkido, semi-throwing an opponent who has grabbed your arm/wrist, and it doesn't take expertise to do (which is why you learn it first), just timing and an off-balance foe. This is especially true since, according to Wilson's own testimony, his first shot (through Brown's upraised palm, which is part of why people thought he had his "hands up") was at point blank range, through the car window, meaning he had his own gun out while MB was still close by the window (raising a hand to ward off a bullet, even though impossible, is of course a common psychological reaction). The only damage Wilson exhibited was a little redness around the forehead/upper eye socket, consistent with bumping his face on the door frame after MB pulled rapidly away (or perhaps later, while trying to exit the vehicle), not with being repeatedly assault-struck unless MB hits like a six year old kid. I know it is not part of your training to grab someone like that, through a car window, especially with a gun in hand! And we don't even know that MB's pull-away is what caused the doorframe impact (nor that that's what happened to cause the bruising), rather than MB pulling away from the grasp first, THEN officer Wilson smacking the door as he too-hastily tried to exit in pursuit, now that the scene had gone to a shooting. All I know from looking neutrally at it is that they're not consistent with damage from a fistfight/batter, but are consistent with an embarassing/enraging accidental collision of the face with a metal car part. I am talking about these factors in terms of how they changed his emotional state from one of calm assessment of factors by a trained officer into simply an angry/frightened/unthinking man with a gun... and why that man drew his gun inside the car in the first place. As I hope your training emphasized, it is easy for an emotional-slip like this to occur. The most likely scenario I see is that Brown was angered at being grabbed, pulled away his arm with enough strength to rattle Wilson and/or bang him into the doorframe, and Wilson drew his gun to gain Instant Compliance... the gun went off, hitting Brown in the hand. From there it was not surprising that the kid ran away a bit, then turned around when the officer demanded he do so, to receive several more shots from the frightened/hurt/enraged Wilson. This version is fairly plausible, and unfortunately, common... it is Wilson's version which requires a huge leap of imagination to gain justification for such a shooting, one that cop-supporters seem all too eager to make. Undecided

None of what I have seen justifies a shooting unless shaded at every point against the kid and in favor of the officer... which is why I criticize your language, where it tends to do that (while inadvertently copying old racist tropes that feed mythological fears about the "wild and dangerous black man"; I don't actually think you personally are racist, just unaware of these tropes and/or the history of how black men have been portrayed in order to justify what was being done to them, all across the south, for generations) to a fairly extreme degree. Ferguson and other MO police departments have many problems in this respect, as the official investigation (pdf) revealed.

From the summary, quote: "The Justice Department announced the findings of its two civil rights investigations related to Ferguson, Missouri, today. The Justice Department found that the Ferguson Police Department (FPD) engaged in a pattern or practice of conduct that violates the First, Fourth, and 14th Amendments of the Constitution. ... As detailed in our report, this investigation found a community that was deeply polarized, and where deep distrust and hostility often characterized interactions between police and area residents,” said Attorney General Eric Holder. “Our investigation showed that Ferguson police officers routinely violate the Fourth Amendment in stopping people without reasonable suspicion, arresting them without probable cause, and using unreasonable force against them." (Emphasis my own, of course.)

Routinely. As in, "this is the norm, rather than the exception".

This same report found that Officer Wilson on that day was not in violation of Mike Brown's civil rights, and was performing within his legally-authorized bounds. So it's not a biased, anti-cop report.

You think I am attacking police, and you react defensively. You think that most cops have a culture like yours, in which their oath means more to them than a longstanding culture of white supremacy and "protecting the good neighborhoods from encroachment by the darkies", which is an ongoing struggle in a lot of midwestern towns, and especially in St. Louis. When people point out the police issues, you defend the cop based on your own experiences as a cop, which do not apply to this particular region-- ironically because you're a decent human bein, not a racist-- and yet, you continue to copy language and descriptors used by racists, about which many books have been written on such bias. Without realizing it, you are attempting to counter what you perceive (in most cases, rightly) as media bias with counter-weighted bias of your own, and in doing so are actually resurrecting some dangerous ideas that I am trying to caution you about, and asking you to apply your usually-ferocious ability to neutrally analyze data from a scientific point of view. You're among the best of us at this, usually, but it is clear to me that your biases are preventing you from seeing this without an emotional lens. I assure you, despite how strongly I believe in this subject needing to be examined (and NOT only in MB's case), I have no emotional involvement here besides a love of argument over important social ideas/ideals.

In this case, it seems clear that the combination of pain, embarrassment, and hurled "F U, pig!" type insults by kids who belonged to a class of "all are potential/likely suspects", whether or not he was racist in the Klan sense, he believed (as you clearly do) should auto-submit instantly to his badge/orders, whom his training insisted were "suspect" simply because they were not obedient to the Point of Contact command-set (part of their training in a society that has been under the thumb of a demonstratably racist police force for so long that they have begun to resist at last, and are often punished for any such "uppidy" resistance) seems to have pushed this guy over the edge. I feel bad for him, in that regard, as the way he was trained and the society he was in led to a situation where, even though he was cleared by a corrupted system-- if you want to know how insanely corrupt Missouri's court system is, with all parties who're supposed to oversee/check one another completely in bed with one another, instead, I can talk about it for days-- that carefully arranged the data and how they were presented, must live with the life he took. He was within the bounds of what is permitted of American police by law, so no civil rights were violated based on the evidence at hand. There is certainly no evidence, as required for such charges against an officer, that Officer Wilson himself was racist, evil, or began the encounter with any racist intent. And no one in their right mind (emphasis on that!) argues that he was/did. Yet, even if justified in his actions by the loose regs and leeway America gives police compared to most countries, it is barely so unless one goes to great effort (as you do) to shade the chain of events entirely against the kid, and I remain FAR FAR FAR more skeptical of his self-defense claims than you or the Justice Department.

I applaud good and dedicated police officers who go to work to risk their lives in an attempt to make our lives better and more peaceful. Applaud! And I thank them for their service, as I do to military veterans who lay their lives on the line on behalf of my nation. But I do not give any of them a magical benefit of the doubt, which they too often receive, when investigating the actions of one potential bad actor in a place/situation where there's a pattern of bad behavior. The phrase "The Thin Blue Line", in which officers defend their fellow officers even when those fellows are the worst kinds of bad actors, tars you all with a brush you should not accept. If the good cops treated the bad cops as the same type of criminals you go after on the street, regardless of badge, and if civilians weren't treated as subjects-of-the-king, so to speak, especially in minority communities with a history of oppressive brutality by officials, you'd be in a lot less danger. That's not me talking, that's every study/report by the Justice Department, studies by university students/Criminal Justice professors, going back decades!

On a final note, I must issue a self-correction in my earlier posts. I previously asserted there was no stripe in the road, from low-angle images I had seen that showed none. There is in fact a center stripe on his residential neighborhood road, seen in higher-angle shots.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
16-07-2015, 09:41 AM
RE: Really tired of people who claim America is being destroyed.
GwoG, thanks for the thoughtful reply.

I don't think police work really can be proactive, except in the form of presence patrols in neighborhoods where troubles occur, because crimes can always happen faster than police can be there. Now, profiling can be a useful tool in helping to attack that problem, but the fact is that innocent folks can and do get caught up in profiling situations. And too often in the minds of bad cops, the profile becomes the enemy.

I'm not kneejerk anti-cop -- I've got two LEOs in my family -- but there are enough problems with policing in this country, particularly as it regards minorities and how they're treated -- that the current state of affairs is untenable. A justice system only works when the citizenry have faith that justice is being served. Your point about trial by media -- and the riots that ensue -- is apt, but look, riots are almost always an expression of frustration in people whose voices aren't being heard. Certainly it's counterproductive, stupid, and criminal. I'm not trying to justify those acts. But I am saying that they are symptomatic of a large feeling in black communities around the country that police are not policing fairly.

I'm sorry if I got a little strident in my earlier posts. I shouldn't have talked to you in such a manner; please accept my apology.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Thumpalumpacus's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: