Racist Police Response to Ferguson Protests

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
You know - it may serve this forum better to have a more politically neutral mod. Unless the intention is for this forum to be a backslapping Liberal circle-jerk. If that IS the intention, you are succeeding quite well. That is also why it is dying a slow (but accelerating) death.

A few years back in FYM - debate across the political spectrum was encouraged (yet, it was never exactly equal - but this is a U2 website - so Left-leaning is expected). Now, it seems you've bullied/bored away any dissenting (i.e. - non-Liberal) opinions.


So being criticized for your opinions=bullying? Gotcha.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
DELETED - The story I was going to post does not have enough valid sources...
 
Please find the quote where I said that.

You posted a link about Michael Brown's music listening habits as if it was relevant information. A discussion went on for a couple of pages. Don't be disingenious.

My "homophobia" is limited to my inability to understand it. This lack of understanding does not mean that I "dislike" homosexuals - nor do I think they should be mistreated in any way.

"phobia" ˈfəʊbɪə Oxford English Dictionary: An extreme or irrational fear of or aversion to something.
 
You posted a link about Michael Brown's music listening habits as if it was relevant information. A discussion went on for a couple of pages. Don't be disingenious.

You are incorrect. I linked to the songs Michael Brown created and shared. That's not the same as "music listening habits."



"phobia" ˈfəʊbɪə Oxford English Dictionary: An extreme or irrational fear of or aversion to something.
The "phobia" was something attributed to me here and I now use it a bit sarcastically about myself. For the record - I do not consider myself homophobic. I simply do not understand it, and we've discussed that at great lengths in other threads.
 
It seems to you - and most here - that the people who do not agree with the liberals simply have not "seen the light" quite yet.

I don't personally think this way, but I can understand how the general vibe of the thread can come across this way.

Perhaps then it would be helpful if you acknowledged that more often when it occurs.

Again, unless I missed it - acknowledging that more often and in close proximity to the post would be very helpful. I am not looking for agreement, but a little acknowledgement for taking a perfect valid position would go a long way toward inviting opposing views.

This I will cop to and agree should happen more often.

That's fine. I thought the term "thug" was a more specific term (like "gangsta"). However, pointing out his own music page, tweets, fb posts, photos - is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. I am not a racist for doing so.

No you're not. But I think it's questionable to point to the kind of music a guy likes as indicative of his moral character. I enjoy a pretty wide variety of music, including a few bands/songs that have some pretty morally questionable lyrics. I don't think it would be fair for someone to say "oh, that song is pretty violent, so I bet you'd probably be more likely to get aggressive with a cop." I just don't see the correlation that directly. And there is a lot more to my character than the music I listen to or the photos I take with my friends.

No - we differ in that you seem to have a different requirement for "moving the debate" for liberals than for non-liberals and assert your own politics too often (my opinion). If you were a user, I'm all for it. But when you wear both hats interchangeably - I feel like I'm a playing an away baseball game against the opposing team AND the umpires. Does that make sense?

I understand where you're coming from. Like I said before, I agree that sometimes I may take too much of an active role in threads and will try to temper that. And while it does put you in a bit of an unfair, or at least, unequal position to be the sole representative of your argument, I feel like if you're the sole proponent of a stance, you should expect to have to explain yourself more thoroughly.


I would also like to see this notion that liberalism is automatically "right" attitude challenged by the mods/you more often. There is no way on this earth that one side of a controversial topic is ALWAYS right on every point.

Fair enough. :up:

Take this shooting as an example - if it turns out the forensics and numerous eyewitnesses PROVE Darren Wilson's innocence (hypothetical at this point)- there would still be a prevailing attitude that Darren Wilson murdered an innocent black teen. And there will be no call from the mods for the facts to justify such a position.

I don't think that's true. Granted, I think some people probably wouldn't buy it, but I think if an independent investigation proved Wilson's innocence, most people would accept it, but would still be perfectly valid in questioning why the police didn't operate more transparently, and would continue to question why the police response to protests was/is so overwhelmingly disproportional and antagonistic.

Yet - I've conceded, that if the forensics prove that Darren Wilson overreacted/murdered Michael Johnson, he should be punished accordingly.

If the facts from an independent investigation show beyond a reasonable doubt that Brown was charging Wilson at the time that Wilson killed him, I will be the first to acknowledge that. If the facts point to Wilson unlawfully using lethal force, I think whether or not Wilson would be punished accordingly is a whole other can of worms, and one that comes with a history that unfortunately doesn't appear to err on the side of victims of police brutality.

Diemen, all that being said - I do appreciate you and the volunteer work you do here. Thank you. These are just some of my opinions - take them for what they are worth. I think I've proven myself to be a man that can change his mind - and if I am completely off-base here, I can probably be convinced as such.

I appreciate that, Aeon. Both your acknowledgement and your ability to change your mind.
 
I don't personally think this way, but I can understand how the general vibe of the thread can come across this way.

This is probably my #1 pet peeve about the dismissive way people talk towards others with a different viewpoint in this forum, just fwiw.
 
This is probably my #1 pet peeve about the dismissive way people talk towards others with a different viewpoint in this forum, just fwiw.

There are times though when it is justified (not necessarily in this thread). Some of the things Indy said about LGBT people, for example, amounted to hate speech, if I'm being candid. Bigotry deserves to be called out - again, not saying it is happening in this thread - and should not be excused simply because it falls under the veil of "conservatism" or any other political umbrella. And again I would see this as symptomatic of a larger problem the right is facing: the rhetoric in some cases - and I have seen a lot of this first-hand - is becoming so extreme that it's pushing into territory where that rhetoric is demonstrably wrong.
 
There are times though when it is justified (not necessarily in this thread). Some of the things Indy said about LGBT people, for example, amounted to hate speech, if I'm being candid. Bigotry deserves to be called out - again, not saying it is happening in this thread - and should not be excused simply because it falls under the veil of "conservatism" or any other political umbrella. And again I would see this as symptomatic of a larger problem the right is facing: the rhetoric in some cases - and I have seen a lot of this first-hand - is becoming so extreme that it's pushing into territory where that rhetoric is demonstrably wrong.

I can agree that there are times when the language is suitable for the conversation, but it does appear to be used for every topic involving a conservative viewpoint. Even when I don't share those viewpoints (I really do try to stay in the middle of things, which is why I try to have a conversation on both sides of a topic when I can), it frequently rubs me the wrong way, just for the people it is aimed at.
 
I appreciate that, Aeon. Both your acknowledgement and your ability to change your mind.
Thank you for taking the time to respond to my grievances. You're a class act. Hopefully this leads to a little more tolerance from other members.
 
I can't tell if this is ignorant as fuck, deliberately incendiary or both:

Kansas City, Mo., cop under review after posting fake 'Michael Brown' picture to Facebook: report - NY Daily News

bpiyc6md9rxghs4g6i9r.jpg
 
I watched about half an hour's worth of the protests on CNN late last night, it is absolute chaos there right now. It was the first time I had watched any of it (couldn't sleep, channel surfing) but from what I hear it was one of the calmer, more peaceful nights of protesting recently.

What I saw was total chaos, and it was actually quite peaceful other than a lot of screaming and a few arrests. I can only imagine how insane it has been other nights though if that's "calm".
 
Why exactly are they protesting late late at night?

I could be wrong, but this doesn't seem like standard protesting behavior. Doesn't that usually stick to daylight hours?

A large group of people forming in a heated environment late at night would likely set me on edge, as a member of law enforcement, regardless of race. But of course, I can't know that for sure, not being in law enforcement.
 
Why exactly are they protesting late late at night?

I could be wrong, but this doesn't seem like standard protesting behavior. Doesn't that usually stick to daylight hours?

A large group of people forming in a heated environment late at night would likely set me on edge, as a member of law enforcement, regardless of race. But of course, I can't know that for sure, not being in law enforcement.


People work during the day?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
People work during the day?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

The peaceful protests have been taking place from 5 pm until about 10 pm (for the most part). It's been turning violent closer to midnight.
 
People work during the day?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

Didn't stop all those Occupy protests.

All I'm getting at is, I don't see what good it does at midnight. Otherwise, protest away. I love protests. Not violent ones and not ones that receive a violent response, I just love the concept of protests.
 
Didn't stop all those Occupy protests.

All I'm getting at is, I don't see what good it does at midnight. Otherwise, protest away. I love protests. Not violent ones and not ones that receive a violent response, I just love the concept of protests.

I think for the most part - the leaders of those protests - at least the ones I've seen interviewed - are trying to accomplish that and have been very critical of the few violent outbreaks.
 
I think for the most part - the leaders of those protests - at least the ones I've seen interviewed - are trying to accomplish that and have been very critical of the few violent outbreaks.

Once people started getting aggressive towards the police, and the line of cops in riot gear formed up across the street, those elements who were getting violent were very quickly shut down. There was at first a group that held hands to form a line between the two sides, which actually worked, and then after they left about 4 or 5 people who seemed to be leaders of some kind were speaking to the crowd and obviously were trying to calm the situation down. There was a small elderly gentleman who was talking to the protestors and actually pointed out someone for the police to go arrest (which they promptly did). It seems that the violent elements aren't really welcome there, which is fantastic. I just hope the numbers of people who go there looking for a riot don't increase to the point where they can't be controlled.
 
Didn't stop all those Occupy protests.

All I'm getting at is, I don't see what good it does at midnight. Otherwise, protest away. I love protests. Not violent ones and not ones that receive a violent response, I just love the concept of protests.


But take into consideration what Occupy was protesting; banks, corporations, etc what hours will you be most effective? While they're open.

The peaceful protestors don't have to protest during banking hours, and those that are waiting till after 10 aren't the real protestors.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
I didn't say banking hours, but it's summer, I think a lot could probably be accomplished during daylight, and even early night hours, as you're already suggesting. 10 PM makes sense as a reasonable cutoff point. But Dave seems to suggest that there was protesting of both types (Real protesting and whatever not real protesting would be) well beyond 10 PM.
 
There was a small elderly gentleman who was talking to the protestors and actually pointed out someone for the police to go arrest (which they promptly did)..


That is awesome. I wonder if he was a veteran of the MLK-led marches.
 
Also - I noticed the last couple of nights, that around 10 pm the ratio of reporter to "protester" becomes about 2:1 (in favor of reporters).

The freelance "reporters" from the small websites and personal blogs almost seem like paparazzi at this point.
 
Also - I noticed the last couple of nights, that around 10 pm the ratio of reporter to "protester" becomes about 2:1 (in favor of reporters).

The freelance "reporters" from the small websites and personal blogs almost seem like paparazzi at this point.

Another thing I forgot to mention, was that the media outnumbered the protesters at the front line by far, I would say at least 2 to 1. The cops were all on the sidewalk in a line (in riot gear) down one side of the street, and across on the other side the media took up at least 2/3rds of the sidewalk, with the protesters taking up only about the other third at most. There was another large group who looked mostly like people just standing around observing down about a block or two in a strip mall parking lot. After about half an hour once the main group dwindled and calmed down, the police moved down the street past the media and into the secondary group and got them out of the street. There was more shouting but the only pushing match I saw (guy started yelling at the cops and reached towards the police when the line got close, cop pushed him back) ended quickly when other protesters grabbed him and took him away, obviously trying to calm him down.

But the number of media was immense. The police had them shut off all their camera lights at one point before moving to clear the streets because the line couldn't see with the lights in their faces.
 
This story was floating around twitter yesterday. This is the second leak of this information:

Darren Wilson, the Ferguson, Mo., police officer whose fatal shooting of Michael Brown touched off more than a week of demonstrations, suffered severe facial injuries, including an orbital (eye socket) fracture, and was nearly beaten unconscious by Brown moments before firing his gun, a source close to the department's top brass told FoxNews.com.

Missouri cop was badly beaten before shooting Michael Brown, says source | Fox News

If this is true (I know it's foxnews, but it is starting to trickle it out it seems, and a battered face and broken eye-socket will be an easy thing to prove) - why aren't the police allowed to publicly release this information? Especially if it would help (possibly) ease the tension (which presumably started with the story that the officer shot Michael Brown execution style and unprovoked)? Does FOIA apply in this instance?
 
I, too, heard about the orbital fracture. One interesting point that's been made in response to this points to Brown's autopsy: his body showed no signs of a struggle/fight. One would expect that if you punched someone hard enough to break their eye socket, and especially if you nearly beat them to unconsciousness, your fists would bear some signs of that.

One theory I've seen regarding this also somewhat corroborates the witness accounts: if Wilson opened the door hard enough to bounce off of Brown come back again, could it have caught Wilson by surprise and caught him in the eye, causing the fracture?
 
.

One theory I've seen regarding this also somewhat corroborates the witness accounts: if Wilson opened the door hard enough to bounce off of Brown come back again, could it have caught Wilson by surprise and caught him in the eye, causing the fracture?

I agree, that does seem more plausible that the car door would cause this - more than a fist with no marks. However, I'm not sure a "bounce" off a body would cause the door to swing that violently though. That would need to be tested. It would seem more likely the car door would need to be slammed against the officer's face - which is consistent with his story.

I wish they would/could release more evidence of what happened at/in the police vehicle. Although - I'm not sure if any information (to the benefit or detriment of Darren Wilson's defense) would be of much use now (in quelling violence). The response to this incident has taken a life of its own.
 
I'm trying to picture what possible position a person could even be in, to have hit themselves in the eye with a car door :crack:
 
I wish they would/could release more evidence of what happened at/in the police vehicle.

Just think of how much more clear cut this whole thing could have been if the Ferguson police department used dash cams and personal recorders. (TBH, it boggles my mind that police departments wouldn't at the very least insist on installing dash cams)
 
Back
Top Bottom