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

[Willie71]

Don't worry, Russia will protect the blacks.

 

 

The same was in Ukraine. Russia organised the revolt. Now it protects the rebels.

Empty Siberia waits for them.

I was going to ignore this, but how the hell does criticizing propoganda in the US equate with Russia being better? This is the type of crap that one would see in a cheap b rated spy film. It's a ludicrous straw man argument. This is just trolling, lol!!!

Good. I couldn't agree more. And in the case of Brown/Wilson, that is exactly what happened. But given the controversy of their decision that just highlights the fact that a system that pleases everyone is unlikely. I don't agree that it should be a requirement. I suspect that if police cannot use lethal force then we will end up with a lot of dead police.If you fear for your life and that is deemed a reasonable fear, then yes you may kill them.I don't think he said "equivalent". But yes, Brown also has some kind of responsibility to defuse the situation. What is bizarre to me is the number of people who absolve others of personal responsibility. Wilson may have been completely in the wrong and on his way to prison, and Brown completely in the right. but Brown is still dead. Whether or not he thought he should have been expected to act differently, it was in Brown's power to act in a way that would likely have resulted in him being alive today.

According to the majority of the witnesses, Brown was surrendering, stunned, and in a daze. What could reasonably be expected of him that would decrease his chances of being shot? Working in mental health for two decades, and as an assault response trainer, I do not see what Brown was capable of doing differently. He reacted exactly as we would expect someone in his situation to. Wilson, on the other hand violated practically every principle a trained professional has at their disposal to peacefully resolve a situation. Everything Wilson did could be criticized based on the training I used to provide (training is now centralized, rather than departmental.)

 

Your fear of a lot of dead police isn't supported by the stats in other nations who use less militarized police strategies.

[DimaMazin]

The gunmen attack in Paris proves that police should have and apply weapon.

[zapatos]

According to the majority of the witnesses, Brown was surrendering, stunned, and in a daze. What could reasonably be expected of him that would decrease his chances of being shot?

Getting on the sidewalk when asked. Saying 'yes sir'. Not struggling. Not running. Not arguing.

 

While I could be wrong, I don't think that Wilson saw Brown and decided before the confrontation began that he was going to kill him.

 

Your fear of a lot of dead police isn't supported by the stats in other nations who use less militarized police strategies.

Can you please tell me what those nations are and whether or not their populace is armed like they are in the US?

[iNow]

Can you please tell me what those nations are and whether or not their populace is armed like they are in the US?

Switzerland would be a decent place to start your research given your curiosity on the point.

 

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/switzerland

 

 

Edit to add: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland

 

http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2013/12/04/guns-policies-and-politics-around-the-world-new-fareed-zakaria-special-debuts-sunday-dec-8/

Edited January 7, 2015 by iNow

[DimaMazin]

Can you please tell me what those nations are and whether or not their populace is armed like they are in the US?

The question has no sense after today's attack of gunmen in Paris.

[zapatos]

Switzerland would be a decent place to start your research given your curiosity on the point.

Is it your opinion that barring the use of lethal force by police in the US will not lead to a lot of dead police?

The question has no sense after today's attack of gunmen in Paris.

Why?

[iNow]

Is it your opinion that barring the use of lethal force by police in the US will not lead to a lot of dead police?

Correct, especially given how many amazing and powerful nonlethal options have become available in recent years and how well other nations seem to do with policing without having to resort to employees of the justice system murdering their citizens.

 

Also, to be clear, I stipulate there will be times when an officer will justifiably need to kill someone, but argue that our numbers of deaths from police shootings should be as close to zero as absolutely possible, that ANY death caused by a police officer be an extreme marginal rarity, and that we need to stand up to change and drastically reduce the ridiculously high numbers as we're seeing to today.

[zapatos]

Correct, especially given how many amazing and powerful nonlethal options have become available in recent years and how well other nations seem to do with policing without having to resort to employees of the justice system murdering their citizens.

Since the Brown shooting there were two instances of men pulling guns on police in St. Louis. In both cases the police killed the person who pulled the gun. I suspect that in those two instances that had the police not been prepared to use lethal force that they might very well be dead now. It is for that reason that I don't share your optimism that we would not see a lot of dead police if they are barred from using lethal force.

 

Also, to be clear, I stipulate there will be times when an officer will justifiably need to kill someone, but argue that our numbers of deaths from police shootings should be as close to zero as absolutely possible, that ANY death caused by a police officer be an extreme marginal rarity, and that we need to stand up to change and drastically reduce the ridiculously high numbers as we're seeing to today.

I completely agree. Police should use the absolute minimal force necessary. They are policing their fellow citizens after all. They are not the military.

[DimaMazin]

Why?

Armed terrorists can be everywhere (even where is no weapon). Policemen should have a chance to kill them.

[iNow]

They are policing their fellow citizens after all. They are not the military.

Except, they are:

 

http://www.policemag.com/channel/careers-training/articles/2014/01/military-vets-joining-law-enforcement.aspx

So it's natural that many military veterans seek employment in police ranks when they rejoin the civilian workforce. That's what is happening right now in numbers unseen since the closing days of the Vietnam War. The result is a job market flooded with well-qualified police officer candidates who served in Iraq and Afghanistan.

http://billmoyers.com/2014/08/13/not-just-ferguson-11-eye-opening-facts-about-americas-militarized-police-forces/

A recent New York Times article by Matt Apuzzo reported that in the Obama era, “police departments have received tens of thousands of machine guns; nearly 200,000 ammunition magazines; thousands of pieces of camouflage and night-vision equipment; and hundreds of silencers, armored cars and aircraft.” The result is that police agencies around the nation possess military-grade equipment, turning officers who are supposed to fight crime and protect communities into what looks like an invading army. And military-style police raids have increased in recent years, with one count putting the number at 80,000 such raids last year.

<snip>

The “war on terror” is fueling militarization. A growing number of agencies have taken advantage of the Department of Defense’s “1033” program, which is passed every year as part of the National Defense Authorization Act. The number of police agencies obtaining military equipment like mine-resistant ambush protected vehicles (MRAPs) has increased since 2009, according to USA Today, which notes that this “surplus military equipment” is “left over from U.S. military campaigns in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.” This equipment is largely cost-free for the police agencies that receive them.

 

In addition to the Pentagon budget provision, another agency created in the aftermath of 9/11 is helping militarize the police. The Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) grants funnel military-style equipment to local police departments nationwide. According to a 2011 Center for Investigative Reporting story published by The Daily Beast, at least $34 billion in DHS grants have gone to police agencies to buy military-style equipment. This money has gone to purchase drones, tactical vests, bomb-disarming robots, tanks and more.

And this is a bit one-sided, but has some excellent data (summary of findings on pages 5-6): https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/jus14-warcomeshome-report-web-rel1.pdf

[zapatos]

Except, they are:

 

http://www.policemag.com/channel/careers-training/articles/2014/01/military-vets-joining-law-enforcement.aspx

 

http://billmoyers.com/2014/08/13/not-just-ferguson-11-eye-opening-facts-about-americas-militarized-police-forces/

 

And this is a bit one-sided, but has some excellent data (summary of findings on pages 5-6): https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/jus14-warcomeshome-report-web-rel1.pdf

Well, that's all rather disquieting. Asking men who were trained to use the maximum force necessary in the military, to now use the minimum force necessary is looking for trouble.

 

I was previously not very worried about the 'militarization' of the police as I was basing that primarily on my view of the events in Ferguson, which is when that topic really started hitting the press. The fact that police showed up in MRAPs or APCs, maybe wearing camo, didn't bother me as they were not rolling over cars or launching mortars into the protesters. But as the report by the ACLU showed, it is not just the equipment that has changed, but the tactics as well. Combine that with the fact that more and more of our police were actually trained in those tactics and with that equipment while in the military, I can see that as another major problem that needs to be addressed.

[imatfaal]

Well, that's all rather disquieting. Asking men who were trained to use the maximum force necessary in the military, to now use the minimum force necessary is looking for trouble.

I could cast a different light on that - those who have seen active service more often have a "calmness under fire" that is missing in those of us lucky enough to have never been in longterm life-threatening situations (especially in a situation in which guidance and leadership is still available). Many of the arguments put forward in this thread and in other discussion have been that policemen have been unable to distinguish life-threatening situations from mere peer-group posturing and street-behaviour - their fear for their life has been subjectively genuine but is objectively mis-placed.

 

I walk past armed Soldiers and armed Police everyday (which is unusual for the UK) - the police strike me as ill at ease and overcompensating for this through swagger - the soldiers seem to have the confidence of the expert at home in the situation

[overtone]

But yes, Brown also has some kind of responsibility to defuse the situation. What is bizarre to me is the number of people who absolve others of personal responsibility. Wilson may have been completely in the wrong and on his way to prison, and Brown completely in the right. but Brown is still dead. Whether or not he thought he should have been expected to act differently, it was in Brown's power to act in a way that would likely have resulted in him being alive today.

And yet when I post that people are prone to blaming the victim here, I am asked for examples.

 

It doesn't make a damn bit of difference whether Brown could have avoided getting shot there. There are a dozen possibilities, including not being such a fat slob that he couldn't keep running - Wilson having demonstrated that his marksmanship was inadequate to the task of bringing him down from behind. That has nothing to do with Wilson's responsibility. Wilson was the guy with the firearm.

 

 

 

You convince a jury of your peers that your fear was reasonable, by describing the circumstances, and they acquit you of wrongdoing.

 

You don't have to prove that you were in fear. You have to prove that your fears and reactions were reasonable - in the case of a police officer, in line with your training and the expectations of your job.

 

You are not allowed to kill people just because you are afraid of them, right?

Good. I couldn't agree more. And in the case of Brown/Wilson, that is exactly what happened.

No, it isn't. It is exactly what did not happen, and therein lies the riot and trouble.

 

Wilson never faced trial. He never faced a jury of his peers, never faced cross-examination, was never faced with the necessity of defending his claimed fears or acknowledging his apparent reactions, never even had to come up with a story that agreed with the physical evidence we all have in the public record.

 

 

 

Getting on the sidewalk when asked. Saying 'yes sir'. Not struggling. Not running. Not arguing.

So running (at first), arguing, not saying "yes sir" to the officer, and (if we take Wilson's word over all the other witnesses) not immediately dropping to the sidewalk when "asked": is that your idea of a good reason for a police officer to put six bullets into an unarmed teenager? Edited January 7, 2015 by overtone

[zapatos]

So running (at first), arguing, not saying "yes sir" to the officer, and (if we take Wilson's word over all the other witnesses) not immediately dropping to the sidewalk when "asked": is that your idea of a good reason for a police officer to put six bullets into an unarmed teenager?

Yes, that is it exactly. Isn't it obvious that is what I've been saying all along?

 

I'm happy to see that you've been able to keep your emotions in check and carry on a rational discussion without resorting to hyperbole or purposely misconstruing whatever is said by anyone who has the nerve to not agree with you.

[iNow]

it is not just the equipment that has changed, but the tactics as well. Combine that with the fact that more and more of our police were actually trained in those tactics and with that equipment while in the military, I can see that as another major problem that needs to be addressed.

There are a lot of layers on this onion, for sure. Agree that's definitely one of them.

Far too oversimplified (and hence not entirely accurate), but perhaps it can be summed up as a soldier is there for war while an officer is there for peace.

[overtone]

I'm happy to see that you've been able to keep your emotions in check and carry on a rational discussion without resorting to hyperbole or purposely misconstruing whatever is said by anyone who has the nerve to not agree with you.

What you posted is that Brown had a degree of personal responsibility to behave better in order to avoid getting shot by the police .

 

Not that Brown had a personal responsibility to behave better, in general and in life and in dealing with policemen. You posted that he bore a degree of personal responsibility for getting shot by Wilson, that specifically; because he ran, argued, etc., and if he hadn't Wilson probably wouldn't have shot him.

 

This makes no more sense than claiming Brown would have been partly responsible if Wilson had chosen to deliberately hit him with the police car for walking in the street.

 

 

Yes, that is it exactly. Isn't it obvious that is what I've been saying all along?

Yep. Is that what you want to say?

 

 

 

Far too oversimplified (and hence not entirely accurate), but perhaps it can be summed up as a soldier is there for war while an officer is there for peace.

A soldier's job is to break the law with impunity - to remove the law and its enforcers, and replace them with dominating brute force under the soldier's absolute and unchallengeable control. Most of a soldier's training is devoted to inculcating the behaviors and attitudes necessary for unhesitant violation of the laws and customs of civil society.

 

Just a couple of decades ago, the big noise was the threat to Posse Comitatus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act), white Republican America's last line of defense against tyranny. Now all that is forgotten, and we are Federally militarizing the police and trampling all over Posse Comitatus to set them up as white Republican America's last line of defense against - - against - - best not be too specific there.

Edited January 8, 2015 by overtone

[Willie71]

Armed terrorists can be everywhere (even where is no weapon). Policemen should have a chance to kill them.

 

I'm going to get my tinfoil hat. Do you watch Fox News by any chance?

 

You are more likely to be killed by lightning than a terrorist. Get a grip.

[DimaMazin]

There are a lot of layers on this onion, for sure. Agree that's definitely one of them.

Far too oversimplified (and hence not entirely accurate), but perhaps it can be summed up as a soldier is there for war while an officer is there for peace.

Then who should make war against criminals? Scientists?

 

I'm going to get my tinfoil hat. Do you watch Fox News by any chance?

 

You are more likely to be killed by lightning than a terrorist. Get a grip.

You suggest to not detain people for road crimes.Then death rate on roads will be like in Russia. It is more than quantity of people killed by police.Your idea is a way to increase of criminality.

[Willie71]

Then who should make war against criminals? Scientists?

You suggest to not detain people for road crimes.Then death rate on roads will be like in Russia. It is more than quantity of people killed by police.Your idea is a way to increase of criminality.

Shooting people for J-Walking is imbecilic.

[DimaMazin]

Shooting people for J-Walking is imbecilic.

Policeman solves what is imbecilic. Then court solves what is infringement of laws.

[swansont]

Then who should make war against criminals? Scientists?

 

Nobody should "make war" on criminals. The police and the military are not supposed to be the same thing. One of the many issues involved here is that the police will make mistakes, and deadly force is not something you can reverse. Most potentially violent situations can be defused, and do not require that the cops come loping in like Rambo without a jockstrap.

[DimaMazin]

 

Nobody should "make war" on criminals. The police and the military are not supposed to be the same thing. One of the many issues involved here is that the police will make mistakes, and deadly force is not something you can reverse. Most potentially violent situations can be defused, and do not require that the cops come loping in like Rambo without a jockstrap.

Do you suggest that police shouldn't have weapon? Or do you suggest that police should have weapon but shouldn't apply it?When you have weapon then you should protect it. Maybe you could be good policeman but you don't work there. Mistakes may be in any case.

[iNow]

I have nothing new to add to this discussion, but did find this map fascinating and want to share it. Race and ethnicity in St. Louis.

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/5559878519/in/set-72157626354149574/

 

Race and ethnicity 2010: St. Louis

 

Maps of racial and ethnic divisions in US cities, inspired by Bill Rankin's map of Chicago, updated for Census 2010.

Red is White, Blue is Black, Green is Asian, Orange is Hispanic, Yellow is Other, and each dot is 25 residents. Data from Census 2010.

[MigL]

Why is the East side of any city always the most disadvantaged or run-down ?

Has anyone else noted this correlation ?

[CharonY]

Hmm, is there data available? Cannot say that I have noticed that (based on small personal sample size).