Racist Police Response to Ferguson Protests

[bono_212]

If I see one more person post on Facebook about how little attention the news media gives to a white cop being murdered by black men, I'm going to go on a Facebook flameout.

Are people just being willfully dense? There's an obvious difference: The black men went to jail for it.

[U217]

Originally Posted by bono_212

If I see one more person post on Facebook about how little attention the news media gives to a white cop being murdered by black men, I'm going to go on a Facebook flameout.

Are people just being willfully dense? There's an obvious difference: The black men went to jail for it.

THIS!

It's cognitive dissonance. It's been painful to see how many people simply do not understand the inequality in the American justice system.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by bono_212

If I see one more person post on Facebook about how little attention the news media gives to a white cop being murdered by black men, I'm going to go on a Facebook flameout.

Are people just being willfully dense? There's an obvious difference: The black men went to jail for it.

It's truly infuriating. But it's getting worst, the tea party websites seem to now just be focusing on "black on white" crime even with no cop involved.

Some are willfully dense, and some are flat out racist.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[Diemen]

There's a huge thread on metafilter.com about Ferguson, and this was a great post about the results:

The so-called "facts" are not clear at all. That is why you have a trial, to establish the facts.

1. For months, the police chief has stated that Wilson was not aware of the robbery. Suddenly, that story has changed. Why? We will never know.

2. For months, the police chief has stated that Wilson stopped Brown for jaywalking. It had nothing to do with robbery suspects. That story has changed. Why? We will never know.

3. If Wilson believed they were robbery suspects, why did he just tell them to get out of the street. There was no attempt to detain them. Why? We will never know.

4. For months, the police chief has said that Wilson called for backup after the confrontation. Now we hear that he called before the confrontation. Or was it between shots in the confrontation. Why the discrepancies? We will never know.

5. The forensics person testified that they didn't take pictures of the crime scene because of a camera battery. They also testified they didn't take any crime scene measurements. Bloggers have reconstructed the scene from on site videos and goggle maps and determined that Brown died at least 120 feet from Wilson's car. How does that fit into Wilson's theory of eminent threat? We will never know.

6. There is conflicting testimony about the nature of the physical altercation. There will be no trial to test those witnesses.

7. There is conflicting testimony about whether Brown had his hands up or fists up. There will be no trial to test those witnesses.

8. There is conflicting testimony about whether Brown was surrendering or charging Wilson. There will be no trial to test those witnesses.

So with a such uncertainty about crucial elements of the crime, why no trial? The purpose of a trial is to establish the facts. What are claimed to be "facts" are not facts, because they haven't been subjected to trial.

A grand jury proceeding in which you simply dump all of these conflicting "facts" on a jury with no advocacy to test and distinguish them is a sham trial. The strategy of the prosecutor in this case was to simply generate reasonable doubt, which is not the prosecutor's job.

[Diemen]

Also, there's this, which doesn't exactly speak well of McCullough's ability to remain impartial and fair.

In 1997, an employee of the St. Louis County Economic Council named Russ Signorino contacted the FBI to report what he said was improper behavior by a member of the county executive’s cabinet. He also sent reporters an anonymous fax from a Kinko’s in Creve Coeur, Mo. Claiming that the fax contained a threat, McCulloch gave a grand jury subpoena to the county police, who then used it to obtain security footage from Kinko’s showing that Signorino had sent the message.

The only hitch? McCulloch never told the grand jury what he was doing, and he later admitted that Signorino had never issued a threat or committed a crime. No matter: Signorino was forced to resign anyway. According to the Post-Dispatch, McCulloch denied “that he had abused the grand jury process to identify a whistleblower who was acting lawfully.”

And this gem:

In 2001, McCulloch convened another grand jury after a pair of undercover drug officers shot and killed two men, a suspect and his passenger, outside a Jack in the Box in Berkeley, Mo. The officers told the jurors that they had fired only after the suspect tried to run them over with his car, and in his public statements about the secret proceedings, McCulloch himself repeatedly insisted that “every witness” had corroborated the officers’ version of events.

But a subsequent report by the Post-Dispatch revealed that McCulloch had lied. Only three of the 13 detectives who testified said the suspect's car had moved forward. Two of them were the shooters themselves; the third was "a detective who McCulloch later said he considered charging with perjury because his account was so at odds with the facts." According to the grand jury tapes, “four other detectives testified that they never saw the suspect’s car travel toward the officers.” A collision expert working for the Justice Department also determined that the suspect's car had remained in reverse throughout the incident. But McCulloch never brought any of this evidence before the grand jury — and, as a result, the jurors determined that the officers were right to fear for their safety. The case didn't go to trial.

When activists protested, McCulloch snapped back. “These guys were bums,” he said of the suspects. “The print media and self-anointed activists have been portraying the two gentlemen as folk heroes and have been vilifying the police. I think it is important for the public to know that these two and others like them for years have spread destruction in the community dealing crack cocaine and heroin.”

You hear that, society? If you're a bad guy, you don't deserve a fair trial, your family doesn't deserve a fair trial, and instead of being concerned with abuse of power, sham trials and cops getting away with murder, everyone should be thankful there are less thugs on the street.

[Diemen]

Oh, and as for the grand jury and respecting the legal outcome, here's a doozy:

Ferguson DA's office gave grand jurors outdated, unconstitutional law to rely on - Chicago liberal | Examiner.com

Just before Darren Wilson testified to the grand jury investigating his killing of Michael Brown, the assistant district attorney, Ms. Alizadeh, handling the case, said this to the grand jurors, 'I'm going to pass out to you, you all are going to receive a copy of a statute. It is Section 543.046, and it is, it says law enforcement officers use of force in making an arrest. And it is the law on what is permissible, what force is permissible and when in making an arrest by a police officer.' The Assistant District Attorney, Alizadeh, then handed the grand jury a copy of a 1979 Missouri law that was ruled unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court in 1985. She was handing them something that had not been law in Missouri during her entire legal career. But it was very helpful to Officer Darren Wilson that the Assistant District Attorney handed the grand jury an old, unconstitutional law which said incorrectly that it is legal to shoot fleeing suspects simply because they are fleeing.

But the assistant DA apparently caught her error, but wasn't exactly convincing in setting the record straight:

"Previously in the very beginning of this process I printed out a statute for you that was, the statute in Missouri for the use of force to effect an arrest. So if you all want to get those out, what we have discovered, and we have been going along with this, doing our research, is that the statute in the State of Missouri does not comply with the case law . . . and so the statute for the use of force to effect an arrest in the State of Missouri does not comply with Missouri Supreme, I'm sorry, United States Supreme Court cases. So the statute I gave you, if you want to fold that in half just so that you know don't necessarily rely on that because there is a portion of that that doesn't comply with the law."

Notice she didn't even state which part of the Missouri statute was no longer in compliance with federal law!

When a juror asked whether the Supreme Court law overrules Missouri statutes, the only appropriate answer is YES. Instead she said:

"As far as you need to know, just don't worry about that."

And another assistant DA added

"We don't want to get into a law class."

So basically they introduce completely incorrect legal advice, then take it back saying that part of the old statute isn't correct, but without actually saying which part it is. A truly mind boggling fuck up.

[bono_212]

Originally Posted by BVS

It's truly infuriating. But it's getting worst, the tea party websites seem to now just be focusing on "black on white" crime even with no cop involved.

Some are willfully dense, and some are flat out racist.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

I try not to get involved in Facebook crap, because I try to be neutral with people I care about, but...it's tempting. I don't like to see people being dense like that and not try to at least add a little spice to the conversation.

Originally Posted by Diemen

There's a huge thread on metafilter.com about Ferguson, and this was a great post about the results:

I've said my piece on #5 already, but the rest of it is compelling enough reason for a trial. It's ridiculous.

Originally Posted by Diemen

Oh, and as for the grand jury and respecting the legal outcome, here's a doozy:

Ferguson DA's office gave grand jurors outdated, unconstitutional law to rely on - Chicago liberal | Examiner.com



But the assistant DA apparently caught her error, but wasn't exactly convincing in setting the record straight:



Notice she didn't even state which part of the Missouri statute was no longer in compliance with federal law!

When a juror asked whether the Supreme Court law overrules Missouri statutes, the only appropriate answer is YES. Instead she said:



And another assistant DA added



So basically they introduce completely incorrect legal advice, then take it back saying that part of the old statute isn't correct, but without actually saying which part it is. A truly mind boggling fuck up.

I didn't get as far into the material as I wanted to, but they talk to the jury like that fairly frequently. Pushing some questions until the appropriate witness is on the stand. Sometimes, it's like, are they curbing to move away from that topic, or because they're supposed to? This whole thing makes it very easy to be suspicious.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto

Trayvon confronted the security guard because he was following him...

George Zimmerman is many things, but a security guard he is not.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by bono_212

If I see one more person post on Facebook about how little attention the news media gives to a white cop being murdered by black men, I'm going to go on a Facebook flameout.

Are people just being willfully dense? There's an obvious difference: The black men went to jail for it.

Facebook is a great way to find out which of your friends are racists.

[BigMacPhisto]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

George Zimmerman is many things, but a security guard he is not.

Yeah, I guess deranged weirdo on an un-paid patrol is a more fitting description of that guy.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto

Yeah, I guess deranged weirdo on an un-paid patrol is a more fitting description of that guy.

armed, too. but the rest is 100% accurate.

[bobsaget77]

Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto

Most of these cases, (Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin, Oscar Grant) all involve the victim being needlessly confrontational. Granted, all three men that killed them should have at least faced manslaughter charges, but most of the time the victim actually did fight back. Trayvon confronted the security guard because he was following him...Oscar Grant kept arguing and yelling and made the situation more heated...Michael Brown assaulted a cop inside of his car. And if you believe otherwise you're crazy...no way did Mr. Wilson manage to pull a three hundred pound man into his vehicle while sitting in his seat...nor was Brown the type not prone to such encounters given we see him commit a strongarm robbery and physically intimidate someone mere minutes before he's murdered out in the street.

Ultimately, I don't even get why this becomes a political issue. We don't know all the facts about what Michael Brown did and the grand jury could have pressed charges if they wanted to on Mr. Wilson. They chose not too and the law needs to be followed in that regard.

I also found it highly disturbing if you look at the protest of Ferguson on the night of the announcement that literally all of the main protesters cutting off traffic are white and that there was hardly anybody protesting in front of the police station after the announcement...literally the rest of the black community was burning their city to the ground or hilariously looting a dollar store for cupcakes as seen on one video featuring a lot of teenage hoodlums.

You make some good points here.
I would add, though, that I don't understand why Michael Brown, Eric Garner, etc are treated like heroes. They were committing crimes (multiple charges would've been assessed for each). Yet, our cops across the country are being blasted. Men who risk their lives every day to uphold the law. Obviously, there are some bad ones. The cop in the Eric Garner case absolutely should've been charged with manslaughter at least. But the man was resisting arrest and illegally selling cigarettes. It's sad, mainly because he had a family and they would've been misdemeanors, but in no way is he a soldier fighting for his life or a hero.
I really hate seeing this vile language for our nation's cops while criminals are treated like they were soldiers.
I don't say this to offend anyone or at all stir the pot. I'm just really sick and tired of this nonsense. The Michael Brown case is very tough to know exactly what happened because the details are so blurry. But the Eric Garner case was on camera fergodsakes, the cop should've absolutely been charged. I really wish this wasn't made such a race issue, though. I don't think this is a race issue. Racism exists on all sides and colors in this country, but there's no point in adding fuel to the fire by inserting it in everything.
This is a sad phase in our nation's history and I hope and pray that it will end soon. We can't continue to be divided as a nation because of race, etc. when there are other real threats to this nation's protection.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[bono_212]

When I am reminded that all Garner was going was selling cigarettes, I want to vomit over how unnecessary it all was.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by bobsaget77

You make some good points here.
I would add, though, that I don't understand why Michael Brown, Eric Garner, etc are treated like heroes. They were committing crimes (multiple charges would've been assessed for each). Yet, our cops across the country are being blasted. Men who risk their lives every day to uphold the law. Obviously, there are some bad ones. The cop in the Eric Garner case absolutely should've been charged with manslaughter at least. But the man was resisting arrest and illegally selling cigarettes. It's sad, mainly because he had a family and they would've been misdemeanors, but in no way is he a soldier fighting for his life or a hero.
I really hate seeing this vile language for our nation's cops while criminals are treated like they were soldiers.
I don't say this to offend anyone or at all stir the pot. I'm just really sick and tired of this nonsense. The Michael Brown case is very tough to know exactly what happened because the details are so blurry. But the Eric Garner case was on camera fergodsakes, the cop should've absolutely been charged. I really wish this wasn't made such a race issue, though. I don't think this is a race issue. Racism exists on all sides and colors in this country, but there's no point in adding fuel to the fire by inserting it in everything.
This is a sad phase in our nation's history and I hope and pray that it will end soon. We can't continue to be divided as a nation because of race, etc. when there are other real threats to this nation's protection.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

1. He wasn't selling at the time of arrest.

2. You can mourn the loss of someone who shouldn't have died, and you can speak out against police brutality without making someone a hero. I've seen very little "hero" or "soldier" talk.

[bobsaget77]

Originally Posted by bono_212

When I am reminded that all Garner was going was selling cigarettes, I want to vomit over how unnecessary it all was.

Yeah. I agree. Way over the top would be a massive understatement.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[Caleb8844]

Originally Posted by bobsaget77

Yet, our cops across the country are being blasted. Men who risk their lives every day to uphold the law.

Using 2013 statistics, around 0.3 cops out of every 100,000 get murdered by criminals. Up to 0.03 Americans out of every 100,000 get murdered by cops. Fuck the entire idea that modern police should be deified for risking their lives every day; fuck the phrase civil servants. Policeman are policeman for one reason: they like being policeman. And there's nothing wrong with that. I like being an engineer. But I don't expect to be judged from a different code of conduct because of it.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[BVS]

Originally Posted by Caleb8844

Using 2013 statistics, around 0.3 cops out of every 100,000 get murdered by criminals. Up to 0.03 Americans out of every 100,000 get murdered by cops. Fuck the entire idea that modern police should be deified for risking their lives every day; fuck the phrase civil servants. Policeman are policeman for one reason: they like being policeman. And there's nothing wrong with that. I like being an engineer. But I don't expect to be judged from a different code of conduct because of it.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

This makes about zero sense. You don't think cops should be judged by a different code of conduct? Different compared to who?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[Caleb8844]

Compared to any other citizen who used lethal force in a situation where they could not reasonably consider their life to be in danger. Really, I don't think that was that hard to understand.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[BVS]

Originally Posted by Caleb8844

Compared to any other citizen who used lethal force in a situation where they could not reasonably consider their life to be in danger. Really, I don't think that was that hard to understand.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

If you thought any of those cops thought their life in danger with Garner than you are either a sheep or you think very little of the police.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[bono_212]

I don't think he thought that, BVS, I think you're misreading.