Ferguson

[Blaxican]

I'm a bit confused here myself. When is self defense, self defense, if physical assault/battery doesn't count?

Course im of the opinion that waiting and seeing is the best course course action and to not let a juicy sounding story muddy waters. So my investment in speculative fanfiction of this persons death is pretty slim.

Self-defense is jsutified under those conditions (getting dat ass beat in a manfight), but the issue is more about proportionate response. Law Enforcement and armed Security guards are only allowed to use deadly force if it's as a response to the use or implication of deadly force- meaning, an individual has to be either actively using deadly force or there's reasonable suspicion that they're intending to use deadly force (i.e. reaching for what could be a weapon, brandishing a weapon etc). "Deadly force" is typically defined as using some kind of weapon, guns and knives being the most common examples. Beyond that, an officer isn't legally justified in using deadly force on someone. So in this case, even if it comes out to be true that Brown had assaulted the officer, if all he was using to do that assault was his fists, then the officer wasn't legally justified in using his gun. He should have instead used his tazer, baton, pepper spray or other forms of non-lethal force.

- - - - -

That aside, I've more or less come to the conclusion that:

• There is zero evidence to support the assertion that Brown was fleeing or surrendering to Wilson when he was shot. There are only eye-witness testimonies that support the proposition.
  
• There is zero evidence to support the assertion that Brown was confronting or assaulting Wilson when he was shot. There are only eye-witness testimonies that support the proposition.

The only facts I can find are:

• Mike Brown was killed after being shot six times- three times in the right arm, once in the right man-titty, once in the neck and once in the head.
• It's confirmed by the Police that Darren Wilson is the officer that killed him.
• The autopsy expert found no discharge residue on Brown's body, indicating that he was shot from a distance.
• The autopsy indicates that the shot to the head, which entered his skull from the top moving downwards to the jaw, was the last round to enter his body.
• No weapons were found on or near Brown's body.

Those are all the relevant facts I could dig up. What can we infer from them?

What I infer is that Brown was not shot out of self-defense- even if Brown had assaulted the officer, that he was shot from a distance implies that Wilson was no longer (if ever) under threat from him.

Even if it was proved that Brown had assaulted Wilson, and even if he had been shot up close, that Brown was not armed pretty much completely nullifies any possible justification for Wilson resorting to deadly force. The only circumstance that I could see in him being justified in using his gun is if Brown had overwhelmed him in a physical altercation, and his gun was the only weapon Wilson could reach. But there is no indication that that's the case and, for emphasis, it's more or less been determined that Brown wasn't shot up close soooo... that's a highly unlikely scenario.

There is no evidence to support the claim that racism, implicit or explicit, played a factor in this specific incident, and there is no evidence to say with certainty that Brown was or was not acting lawfully when he was killed- though we should always assume that a person is innocent until proven guilty.

So, at the very least, what we most definitely have here is a situation of gross misconduct on Wilson's part. None of the facts that we have about the incident lend credibility to the notion that he was justified in using deadly force. Based off we know so far, I think that being fired from the police force and a criminal negligence charge would be reasonable.

That's pretty much my final thoughts on the subject until more concrete information is released.

 

[TWD26]

Self-defense is jsutified under those conditions (getting dat ass beat in a manfight), but the issue is more about proportionate response. Law Enforcement and armed Security guards are only allowed to use deadly force if it's as a response to the use or implication of deadly force- meaning, an individual has to be either actively using deadly force or there's reasonable suspicion that they're intending to use deadly force (i.e. reaching for what could be a weapon, brandishing a weapon etc). "Deadly force" is typically defined as using some kind of weapon, guns and knives being the most common examples. Beyond that, an officer isn't legally justified in using deadly force on someone. So in this case, even if it comes out to be true that Brown had assaulted the officer, if all he was using to do that assault was his fists, then the officer wasn't legally justified in using his gun. He should have instead used his tazer, baton, pepper spray or other forms of non-lethal force.

- - - - -

That aside, I've more or less come to the conclusion that:

• There is zero evidence to support the assertion that Brown was fleeing or surrendering to Wilson when he was shot. There are only eye-witness testimonies that support the proposition.
  
• There is zero evidence to support the assertion that Brown was confronting or assaulting Wilson when he was shot. There are only eye-witness testimonies that support the proposition.

The only facts I can find are:

• Mike Brown was killed after being shot six times- three times in the right arm, once in the right man-titty, once in the neck and once in the head.
• It's confirmed by the Police that Darren Wilson is the officer that killed him.
• The autopsy expert found no discharge residue on Brown's body, indicating that he was shot from a distance.
• The autopsy indicates that the shot to the head, which entered his skull from the top moving downwards to the jaw, was the last round to enter his body.
• No weapons were found on or near Brown's body.

Those are all the relevant facts I could dig up. What can we infer from them?

What I infer is that Brown was not shot out of self-defense- even if Brown had assaulted the officer, that he was shot from a distance implies that Wilson was no longer (if ever) under threat from him.

Even if it was proved that Brown had assaulted Wilson, and even if he had been shot up close, that Brown was not armed pretty much completely nullifies any possible justification for Wilson resorting to deadly force. The only circumstance that I could see in him being justified in using his gun is if Brown had overwhelmed him in a physical altercation, and his gun was the only weapon Wilson could reach. But there is no indication that that's the case and, for emphasis, it's more or less been determined that Brown wasn't shot up close soooo... that's a highly unlikely scenario.

There is no evidence to support the claim that racism, implicit or explicit, played a factor in this specific incident, and there is no evidence to say with certainty that Brown was or was not acting lawfully when he was killed- though we should always assume that a person is innocent until proven guilty.

So, at the very least, what we most definitely have here is a situation of gross misconduct on Wilson's part. None of the facts that we have about the incident lend credibility to the notion that he was justified in using deadly force. Based off we know so far, I think that being fired from the police force and a criminal negligence charge would be reasonable.

That's pretty much my final thoughts on the subject until more concrete information is released.

Great Observation on your part, one of the more reasonable and sensible scenarios that I've read.

 

[Brandon Rhea]

There is no evidence to support the claim that racism, implicit or explicit, played a factor in this specific incident

You have a fairly well-reasoned post overall, but this is nonsense. I'm going to quote something a smart man named Jared Rhea said, since a) he's smarter about this than I am and b) he said it better than I could. Note that it's been lightly edited to remove some parts that were relevant to another person, but not to your post:

...when we fail to talk about how race affects a situation like this than what we are effectively doing is supporting the status quo; when the status quo is racism, then failing to talk about it hinders the advancement of anything resembling justice and equality. This is unequivocally an issue where racism is in play.

Racism is never just about individual prejudice, it is always about how prejudice plays into systems of power that privilege some based upon race... This situation has not occurred in a vacuum, it has occurred in a context where segregation has continued to the present, where black youth are targeted more frequently by police, where police militarization has affected the way that police operate. Failing to talk about race in this situation would remove so many of the reasons why this occurred from the discussion that the failure to include it in the discussion can't be seen as anything other than ideological. If justice and equality are shared values, then discussing them even if it means that we don't have anything 'to stand on', is necessary.

And you really can't escape the fact that this is a black vs. white thing. We may not want to hear this in America, but the kid was shot because he was black. White people walk around with guns all the time (see also: open carry assholes). White people get up in the faces of police officers, and get away with a warning. The Michael Brown situation began with jaywalking and ended with a bullet to the head.

Police aggression impacts white people too - it impacts all of us - but this consistently happens to black men more, and it's because of racism. It's not old school "I hate black people" racism though, and I think that's what trips people up in thinking about this. It's more insidious than that. It's a societal and systematic inclination to believe that a black person, regardless of circumstance and context, is potentially dangerous. I don't think white people are even consciously doing it either, but that's irrelevant. If a police officer, consciously or subconsciously, believes that a black person is more dangerous than a white person regardless of circumstance, then everything that that black person does is going to be seen by the police officer as a potentially dangerous move. That's why we keep seeing shootings like that. That is, I guarantee you, why this happened.

To once again quote:

...racism is never about expressions of individual prejudice but about how prejudice is given power systemically. The officer may or may not have based his actions on individual prejudice but his actions have, at a minimum, played into larger racist dynamics. The intent of the officer must be subordinated to the impact it has had. Otherwise, the effective result is the privileging of the maintenance of racist systems, in this case, privileging the police at the expense of the community that they are supposed to be beholden to. This community is without a doubt dealing with the effects of racism.

The police officer does not need to hate black people to have made a racist judgement or done something that was ultimately racist, especially in the St. Louis area which was a hive of white on black violence in the civil rights era.

 

[jpchewy01]

A professor at my university (and fellow frequent victim of police harassment), Jody Armour, said this, "As long as we continue to see racism as the wicked actions of evil men and not as a social health issue, we will continue to be in a rut."

 

[Brandon Rhea]

A professor at my university (and fellow frequent victim of police harassment), Jody Armour, said this, "As long as we continue to see racism as the wicked actions of evil men and not as a social health issue, we will continue to be in a rut."

Indeed. Like I said earlier in the thread, we need to stop this idea that these situations are caused by bad eggs, when really it's the system that's broken. Good people can be caught up in a bad system and do bad things as a result. The idea of bad egg cops also makes people more willing to accept that because police have risky jobs, excessive force is OK. It perpetuates the cult of compliance.

 

[Blaxican]

We may not want to hear this in America, but the kid was shot because he was black.

What is your evidence for this? Now we're guessing at Wilson's intentions and motivations here.

White people may not White people walk around with guns all the time (see also: open carry assholes). White people get up in the faces of police officers, and get away with a warning. The Michael Brown situation began with jaywalking and ended with a bullet to the head.

Police aggression impacts white people too - it impacts all of us - but this consistently happens to black men more, and it's because of racism. It's not old school "I hate black people" racism though, and I think that's what trips people up in thinking about this. It's more insidious than that. It's a societal and systematic inclination to believe that a black person, regardless of circumstance and context, is potentially dangerous. I don't think white people are even consciously doing it either, but that's irrelevant. If a police officer, consciously or subconsciously, believes that a black person is more dangerous than a white person regardless of circumstance, then everything that that black person does is going to be seen by the police officer as a potentially dangerous move. That's why we keep seeing shootings like that. That is, I guarantee you, why this happened.

The police officer does not need to hate black people to have made a racist judgement or done something that was ultimately racist, especially in the St. Louis area which was a hive of white on black violence in the civil rights era.

I think we're on different wave-lengths. That racism and racial-profiling are meta-problems in America is not something that's under contention here (at least to me), and is a separate topic. What is under contention is: were Wilson's actions motivated, either consciously or sub-consciously, by malice or racism? To that question, pointing to the rest of the World and saying "look at all the racism!" is not admissible evidence one way or the other.

Brown being pulled over for jaywalking isn't intrinsically indicative of racism- I've seen white people get harassed by police for minor issues like jay-walking or littering; cops are sometimes petty/bored assholes who **** with people. So while I have no doubt that African-Americans are especially susceptible to that pettiness, the fact that we aren't the sole victims of police pettiness pretty much relegates Wilson's cause for confronting Brown as being not-even-circumstantial evidence of racial motivation.

 

[Brandon Rhea]

I already answered those questions in my post.

By looking for smoking gun evidence, you're buying into this broken system. This situation does not exist in a vacuum. Wilson's motivations are subordinate to the fact that his actions existed in a racist system, and that his confrontation with Brown was almost assuredly motivated by - at the very least - subconscious notions about race.

 

[Cainhurst Crow]

...racism is never about expressions of individual prejudice but about how prejudice is given power systemically. The officer may or may not have based his actions on individual prejudice but his actions have, at a minimum, played into larger racist dynamics. The intent of the officer must be subordinated to the impact it has had. Otherwise, the effective result is the privileging of the maintenance of racist systems, in this case, privileging the police at the expense of the community that they are supposed to be beholden to. This community is without a doubt dealing with the effects of racism.

So what does it say when 13% of the population commits more then 50% of the violent crime, including homicides, in a country, and that a little over a third of all violent crime is committed against them?

Saying we need to talk about race and how society plays a part is all good and well, but what about how the story that gets talked about is never when a black person commits crime against another black person, but only when someone of another race is involved? How is it that when a white person shoots up a school, or when a white person shoots a black person, its a national news story that we need to talk about violence, race, and discrimination. But when drive by shootings at schools and even funerals being targeted for shootings in black on black crime, nobody bats an eye?

Why is it that when a person brings up these issues, unless they themselves are black, usually get blasted as being racist simply for acknowledging that there is a problem with violence in the black community, and an almost routine way of looking at it?

Everyone just treats it like its supposed to happen. As if black people are almost expected to be violent, so them being violent is no big deal.

I think its time we had a new frame to discuss this, not one of white people committing crimes against black people, but why a sect of society can do such horrible things to their own, and society collectively is not only okay with that, but doesn't want the issue ever brought up at all.

And then something like the furgeson police crack downs happen, and all of this gets swept under the rug for the easier to address and more accepted issue to talk about. Because honestly, I think society is a lot more comfortable approaching things as "racists being racist" then "there's a problem and we aught to look at it and fix it".

 

[Brandon Rhea]

Irrelevant. To quote:

It is a distraction here, the issue is the death of an unarmed black teen, named Mike Brown, and how that death fits into larger issues of systemic racism in the U.S.

The crime you are talking about is real (although it should be noted that white people commit most crimes in the United States), and it is a problem, but it is not the issue here. That's a distraction that, societally, is used to problematize blackness, and you're buying into that.

 

[jpchewy01]

The problem of black on black crime is a myth. The black-black crime rate is almost identical with the white-white crime rate. The real question we should be asking is why when, say, a white person shoots up a school, their mental health is pulled into question, their entire life history is turned up and put on display in a grotesque character study but when a black person commits a crime, it is chalked up to a culture of violence?

Crime is a product of poverty and poverty in America is a product of racism.

 

[Cainhurst Crow]

Irrelevant. To quote:



The crime you are talking about is real (although it should be noted that white people commit most crimes in the United States), and it is a problem, but it is not the issue here. That's a distraction that, societally, is used to problematize blackness, and you're buying into that.

Shouldn't we be focusing on mike browns murder then and not about what the police are doing with crowd control? Most of the issues brought up don't even seem to address the murder itself and just the reaction of police cracking down on crowds.

Also, white people committing the majority of crimes doesn't seem odd, seeing as how they make up 63.7 of the control. The fact that a section of the population not even close to half of that, is committing close to half of all the violent crime for the entire country, is a bit unnerving. I say its all a comfortable narrative set up and enforced by all, meant to keep black people down while making sure it can never get solved. But that's just my opinion.

As for the murder itself, I can't make a comment. Anything would be mere speculation, which could end up influencing how the final findings of the official investigation are seen. I don't feel much like betting, so I'll keep out of that particular gamble.

 

[Brandon Rhea]

Also, in 2012, 49.4% of murders were committed by black people, 48.2% of murders were committed by white people. 65% of rapes were committed by whites, 62.8% of aggravated assaults were committed by whites, 73.6% of arsons were committed by whites, 65.5% of other assaults were committed by whites, and even weapons charges were 58.2% for whites. This is all according to the FBI.

So other than the nearly-equal share of murders, your claim about black people committing over 50% of violent crimes is bullshit.

Shouldn't we be focusing on mike browns murder then and not about what the police are doing with crowd control? Most of the issues brought up don't even seem to address the murder itself and just the reaction of police cracking down on crowds.

No, because you can't separate the two. It's all part of a larger culture of racism.

Look at the Bundy ranch. A highly trained, armed white militia, one that ideologically was itching for the government to shoot them, showed up at the Bundy ranch in Nevada, and law enforcement retreated - RETREATED! People went out to protest an actual murder in Ferguson, and law enforcement brought out tanks and tear gas. What was law enforcement's justification? Oh, looting, and apparently some guy had a molotov cocktail (which, last week, there was no evidence of). Scary shit!

It's all tied together. Your arguments about crime, however, is irrelevant.

 

[Cainhurst Crow]

Crime is a product of poverty and poverty in America is a product of racism.

I agree, though I think its less an actively enforced status quo and more the lingering radiation from the toxic climate of the pre-90's era.

Hopefully, the more aware people get, the more the problem will begin to actually get addressed.

 

[Blaxican]

By looking for smoking gun evidence, you're buying into this broken system.

No, by looking for evidence I'm avoiding falling prey to confirmation bias and dissonance.

What you're basically saying is that simply by virtue of being white and/or a police officer who killed a black man, Wilson is intrinsically racist by association. Considering that profiling and stereotyping are often lauded as the greatest of evil obstacles for minorities, that line of thinking is hypocritical.

We live in a system where the individual is innocent until proven guilty. If you want to juxtapose this incident with the race debate, fair enough, but labeling the individuals involved by virtue of their status and association is nonsensical. Saying that Wilson's actions were racially motivated because he's apart of a racist system is logically equivalent to me saying that Brown was a thug because he's apart of a culture that glorifies violence and crime.

 

[jpchewy01]

It should also be noted that a counter protest held by a mostly white group of people was being held in Ferguson to support the actions of the police. They were supervised by around four bicycle cops.

 

[Brandon Rhea]

No, by looking for evidence I'm avoiding falling prey to confirmation bias and dissonance.

What you're basically saying is that simply by virtue of being white and/or a police officer who killed a black man, Wilson is intrinsically racist by association. Considering that profiling and stereotyping are often lauded as the greatest of evil obstacles for minorities, that line of thinking is hypocritical.

We live in a system where the individual is innocent until proven guilty. If you want to juxtapose this incident with the race debate, fair enough, but labeling the individuals involved by virtue of their status and association is nonsensical. Saying that Wilson's actions were racially motivated because he's apart of a racist system is logically equivalent to me saying that Brown was a thug because he's apart of a culture that glorifies violence and crime.

Again, as I've said, his motivations must be subordinate to what his actions caused and the system in which those actions took place.

I'm also willing to take what I know, make an assertion, and then revise as necessary if new information comes out. From what I've seen so far, it's pretty clear that perceptions of young African American men were at play, both because of how the officer reacted and because of common sense. If that miraculously is disproven, I am perfectly fine with saying I'm wrong, because it doesn't change the larger issues and problems at play here.

It should also be noted that a counter protest held by a mostly white group of people was being held in Ferguson to support the actions of the police. They were supervised by around four bicycle cops.

Dude, at least one of them wore a bike helmet.

That was dangerous shit.

 

[Cainhurst Crow]

Well I ain't weighing in on the murder until there's actually a finished report to go on, and not rampant speculation. So I'll just go **** off now.

 

[Brandon Rhea]

Well I ain't weighing in on the murder until there's actually a finished report to go on, and not rampant speculation. So I'll just go **** off now.

See, this is also a problematic post. Unless you're talking about an independent report, or a report from the Justice Department, then all you're saying is that you're going to wait to hear what the police have to say and then, probably, believe it. You're giving the police the benefit of the doubt, which simply buys into the cult of compliance. The police cannot be trusted to police themselves, they never have done that. So if I were you, I'd probably clarify which "finished report" you're referring to.

 

[jpchewy01]

I agree, though I think its less an actively enforced status quo and more the lingering radiation from the toxic climate of the pre-90's era.

Hopefully, the more aware people get, the more the problem will begin to actually get addressed.

It is actively enforced. Housing discrimination still exists and is codified. Look at California Proposition 13.

No, by looking for evidence I'm avoiding falling prey to confirmation bias and dissonance.

What you're basically saying is that simply by virtue of being white and/or a police officer who killed a black man, Wilson is intrinsically racist by association. Considering that profiling and stereotyping are often lauded as the greatest of evil obstacles for minorities, that line of thinking is hypocritical.

We live in a system where the individual is innocent until proven guilty. If you want to juxtapose this incident with the race debate, fair enough, but labeling the individuals involved by virtue of their status and association is nonsensical. Saying that Wilson's actions were racially motivated because he's apart of a racist system is logically equivalent to me saying that Brown was a thug because he's apart of a culture that glorifies violence and crime.

It's not the same because the fact that we exist in a racist system is just that, a fact. I'm racist. You're racist. We're all racist. The current system in America (and the human condition for that matter) has bred us all to hold certain views about people of certain skin colours. The motivations that drove Wilson to shoot Brown are the same ones that cause little black girls to like white Barbie dolls better. No one is immune.

 

[Brandon Rhea]

I'm racist.

No, JP, you're black. According to Bill O'Reilly, that makes you REVERSE racist.

Get your shit together. Jesus.