Jump to content

Michael Brown Shooting and Civil Unrest II


Relic

Recommended Posts

Sturn, it's very hard to figure out what your opinion is, actually, because you often conflate your views with the polices. For instance, you don't say that you think he was a fleeing felon but you don't otherwise say what you think happened either. You say both sides are implausible but you don't say what specifically makes them so.

Without any actual declarative statements we are left to infer what you think. And that ends up sounding a lot like what someone who thinks the police are not at fault.

It might be more productive if you state what your opinion actually is.

Fair enough.

Here is where I stood 6 days ago:

I'm going to wait for some more information before passing judgement either way.

Being a cop, I'm still of the sort that would like to wait until the end of the investigation to say what I think happened. But, if a decision were demanded today based on what we know so far (with my reasoning included or just skip to the bold if skimming):

Facts that are important to me include a small number of witnesses, most credible, one who would be biased. They together say Brown was shot while he was not a threat. We are missing a detailed account of what the police officer claims happened other then an infraction being commited (jaywalking, he didn't yet know about the theft), struggle, going for his gun. Both witnesses and police agree Brown was shot multiple times while unarmed. They also agree that Brown ended up a fair distance (35 feet?) from the police car where the police say the incident first got out of hand. The most telling part for me regarding the police account is the gap of what happened between the struggle in the car and Brown ending up dead 35 feet away with multiple gunshot wounds unarmed. With the information we have, I can't imagine anything sensible that explains that result without the police officer being horribly wrong.

That is why on day one I speculated a cover-up may result in use of the Fleeing Felon Rule (while never once saying it was moraly justified). It could be a shoe string defense theory that fits within what the police have said thus far. As I also said on day one, if someone battered the officer, tried but failed to get his gun, then resisted arrest, the officer should have resorted to non-lethal force, never a gun.

@Queen: I beg you man if you wish to actually have me respond to your posts please do your best not to misrepresent what I just said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I totally agree that you're being unfairly piled on in this topic by a few people, regardless of who agrees with you on what, that comparison is really, really flawed.

extremely. and fucking offensive.

What is wrong with the logic comparison? Ramsay was saying it was ok to hate ALL police, even the good ones, for what the bad police do. How is that not directly compareable to the stereotyping done by racist cops? I agree that race stereotyping is much, much, much worse then career stereotyping, but the wrongful logic to justify the stereotyping IS the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is wrong with the logic comparison? Ramsay was saying it was ok to hate ALL police, even the good ones, for what the bad police do. How is that not directly compareable to the stereotyping done by racist cops? I agree that race stereotyping is much, much, much worse then career stereotyping, but the wrongful logic to justify the stereotyping IS the same.

The logic isn't the same, because you choose to be a police officer. This is important for at least two reasons, off the top of my head- the first is that you can choose not to be police, and the second is that when you do sign up to law enforcement, you're accepting responsibility for upholding the law, no matter who's breaking it. Which includes at least some measure of responsibility for the actions of other officers.

Now, I do agree that lumping every police officer together and expecting them to be responsible for every other officer is unfair, but it's a different prospect to doing so for all black people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Furthermore, I dug into you on FF because you are an officer and the fact that you were misinterpreting it is really important. It's not a justifiable use of deadly force to shoot at a wounded, unarmed fleeing suspect unless the suspect presents an immediate threat of deadly or damaging force. There is no way to look at these events, as currently being reported, and argue deadly force was justifiable or that MB imposed an immediate threat to those around him. I'm not trying to berate you, although I have. I'm trying to get that into your head so if you're ever in that situation you make the right decision.

I agree with the bold. That is why I never said it was justifiable from day one. What I did say is the law as stated did have some legal reasoning that could be used in an unfair cover up. I've pointed you to my post on what I said several times now. You must admit that your accusing me of being wrong on the fleeing felon LAW was not correct (the part about a felony conviction being needed).

If you are saying you inferred by my posts I thought it was completely justified for the cop to have shot Brown using FFR, then I'm wrong for not being more clear. But, I think you must also share some of the blame for not re-reading what I said when I asked you to and thus keep firing your guns my way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK. What in my last post did you have a problem with?

I was not referring to your last post, but to the trend lately of drawing wrong conclusions or misrepresenting what I actually said (which I just posted we both shared the blame on).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, I do agree that lumping every police officer together and expecting them to be responsible for every other officer is unfair, but it's a different prospect to doing so for all black people.

I agree. I was comparing the wrongful logic of the stereotyping. Stereotyping can apply to race, age, sex, religion, hair color, geographical location, yada yada, AND career even if career is far down at the bottom of the ladder. It's still unfair and shares the same wrongful logic by the stereotypers even if the pain it causes is not in the same ballpark.

Edit: Three replies in a row, sorry, will leave and cool off for a bit. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, sturn. That helps, and also happens to largely be in line with my thinking - which is that the info as we have it points strongly to a wrongful death.

That it has been exacerbated by some of the worst crowd control, pr and communication blunders by a police force since commandant lasarde received a bj under the podium makes it significantly worse. If - and this is a big if - the police aren't covering their own asses, they are doing as much as possible to make it seem like they are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow this thread is awful. Most of you should be ashamed of yourselves.



Based on the information currently available I believe that Brown was wrongfully killed (though I reserve the right to change that opinion if and when more information is presented). It disgusts me that the people in this thread who share my opinion are also, by and large, the most closed-minded assholes in the thread. The prevailing sentement that the police are the bad guys is disturbing. Are some cops bad guys? Without a doubt. Are all cops bad guys? Not by a long margine. For every Micheal Brown incident there are thousands of instances in which the police do their job properly, and keep us all safe; instances which go unreported on, and largely unnoticed. I have lived in courties where police corruption was the norm; I've lived in countries where the police could not be counted on to protect or serve. Those of you who haven't have no idea how much you rely on the safety net that our police forces provide. Do not mistake this for me saying that cops should not be held accountable for their actions, or for me saying that the Ferguon police have acted appropriately in this case.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

*mod hat* OK, folks, please chill out. Personal attacks are not tolerated here. As has been mentioned most of the other Mods are at Worldcon and I've been on vacation elsewise this would never have gone unaddressed as long. I'm going to go back through and try to sort out who stepped over the line. In the meantime, please stop the flaming. */modhat*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Umm name three people who said that, please.

I can't. That's why I said prevailing sentiment rather than stated opinion. I can however name one person who said exactly that, and two others who jumped all over the one guy who dared to refute the idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...