Michael Brown Shooting: A Bitterly Divided Nation

[Seli]

I think it's interesting how people on opposite ends of the political spectrum are applying completely different standards in the Wilson/Brown thread than the Cosby thread on the issue of a person's prior bad acts.

...

People seem to be consistent. Some people who are distrustful of those in groups who have a history of getting away with their criminal behaviour (rapists, police), and more prone to believe those who are most likely to truly be victims. Some others seem to be more comfortable hiding behind the authority of formal legal results, ignoring all the problems the legal systems and society have. [yes I am biased there]

[Jslay427]

TP, is there any scenario by which Wilson's actions could be justified?

I happen to think there is a good chance that Wilson was in the wrong, but like everyone but Wilson, I'll never know. You seem to count Wilson's actions as fact.

[Fragile Bird]

Yet in the Cosby thread, many otherwise liberal posters have explicitly take the position that "where there's smoke, there's fire." And that evidence of prior bad acts against Cosby (numerous prior rape allegations) are sufficient in and of themselves to prove the occurrence of any one of (or all of) those individual allegations.

Nestor, I think part of the reason is the familiarity people have with both Cosby and with the police. Michael Brown was a total stranger to us, a kid walking down the street, unarmed, who gets shot and killed by police. People look at the story and say, that could have been me at one point in my life, that could be one of my friends or relatives or the son of a workplace colleague. Or they know of similar shootings in their own cities, or have seen other unfair police tactics. We all have police forces in our communities, we all see wrongs that they do, even if the police force is overall a very good police force. The same question comes up time and again - why did they have to kill the person involved in the incident, and the same answer comes up, as far as I can tell, that if the police are in a situation where they must shoot they are going to shoot to kill. There are inevitable questions, like why did they have to shoot, and why are they always, always found to be justified when they shoot.

Bill Cosby, on the other hand, is someone many of us thought we knew well, because we let him into our houses every week when we watched his television series, or when we played his comedy albums, or when we saw him giggle over jello. Of course we didn't really 'know' him, but we all develop opinions about the people who show up on our television sets, whether they are politicians, entertainers or the latest 15-minutes-of-fame personality. One or two stories could be dismissed, and were dismissed in the past, but after you hear all these stories you think about the man you (figuratively) let into your house, the man you trusted, and you feel shocked and betrayed. This is a friend you thought you knew, and a friend's betrayal is the worst kind of betrayal. You can forgive friends if they give you an explanation, if they can answer the stories you've heard about them, but Cosby is not giving any kind of reasonable response. If he could say, I never met that woman, or, I never spent any time in her company, or, she didn't come to my office, or, no I never made jokes about drugging women in my comedy sketches, did I? something a person could reasonably believe, things would be different.

[Roose Seal]

TP, is there any scenario by which Wilson's actions could be justified?

I happen to think there is a good chance that Wilson was in the wrong, but like everyone but Wilson, I'll never know. You seem to count Wilson's actions as fact.

When serial murderers, rapists, spree shooters, Sadam fucking Hussein, are taken in alive, I can't begin to imagine a scenario that could justifiy the FATAL shooting of an unarmed teenager.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

People seem to be consistent. Some people who are distrustful of those in groups who have a history of getting away with their criminal behaviour (rapists, police), and more prone to believe those who are most likely to truly be victims. Some others seem to be more comfortable hiding behind the authority of formal legal results, ignoring all the problems the legal systems and society have. [yes I am biased there]

All you're saying is that the reason for the inconsistency with how people treat the relevance of allegations of prior bad acts (ie: character evidence) is ideology - which is what I've been saying all along. It's not about the evidence or the facts of the individual case - it's about conservatives supporting certain people over others because it fits their ideology and liberals supporting certain people over others because it fits their ideology. I mean, you even admit as much. You just whip out your divining rod, tune it to the "true victims" and you've figured it all out!

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

When serial murderers, rapists, spree shooters, Sadam fucking Hussein, are taken in alive, I can't begin to imagine a scenario that could justifiy the FATAL shooting of an unarmed teenager.

Really? I think we've got a pretty good scenario - an unarmed teenager is charging towards someone that they previously attacked and tried to steal the service weapon of, and the unarmed teenager has about sixty or seventy pounds on the other person. If the unarmed teenager overpowers him and takes his service weapon, the person being attacked can reasonably fear that they will be killed. That's a pretty good reason to shoot an unarmed teenager in my book - provided it's a true story.

Saddam Hussein, on the other hand, for all his horrible acts, didn't resist arrest. He was found, unarmed, hiding at the bottom of a hole. He allegedly announced his identity when found and didn't put up any fight.

[Jslay427]

When serial murderers, rapists, spree shooters, Sadam fucking Hussein, are taken in alive, I can't begin to imagine a scenario that could justifiy the FATAL shooting of an unarmed teenager.

If your examples did what Brown allegedly did they would have been shot and killed also.

[Seli]

All you're saying is that the reason for the inconsistency with how people treat the relevance of allegations of prior bad acts (ie: character evidence) is ideology - which is what I've been saying all along. It's not about the evidence or the facts of the individual case - it's about conservatives supporting certain people over others because it fits their ideology and liberals supporting certain people over others because it fits their ideology. I mean, you even admit as much. You just whip out your divining rod, tune it to the "true victims" and you've figured it all out!

Not really. It seems to be an effect of how ideology effects the way one looks at the world (or vv, it is probably complicated).

Progressives seem to start with a fact and probability based approach which focusses on the victims, ie rape allegations are likely to be true, police are likely to get away with violence. This is mixes with an ought to approach, which is a bit more ideological, such as a responsibility of police to de-escalate and protect everyone in society (including those who transgress).

Conservatives seem to start with the existing power structure, assume (as some level of wishful thinking) it is good, and start from there.

It is not a divining rod, it is looking at the way society works, at who are more likely to be victims, at the way we would like society to work and start from there.

[Commodore]

When serial murderers, rapists, spree shooters, Sadam fucking Hussein, are taken in alive, I can't begin to imagine a scenario that could justifiy the FATAL shooting of an unarmed teenager.

You seem to think characterizing him as a teenager makes him less of a threat. Young males are more violent than the rest of the population. This is not a harmless person.

I don't understand why people want to go to the mat for Brown after seeing that picture. He was a violent bully and a thief. Worse things happen to far better people than him.

And calling him unarmed, when he was incredibly large and powerful, and fighting with a police officer to try and take his gun (i.e. arm himself), is disingenuous.

[Jslay427]

Commodore, according to TerraPrime what happened in the store is still up for debate. Perhaps Brown was trying to straighten the clerks collar when he grabbed him and forcefully shoved him. After Brown does that he tries to make the clerk flinch by feigning another attack, I mean collar straightening.

[Lord Mord]

Nestor,

I think, more to the point, your point muddles up the cases for consideration.

If Bill Cosby had been fatally shot in the street by police and people wanted to say, "But he was a rapist! We have statements and video!", I think liberals would say, "Bullshit. He never had a trial, that opportunity was denied us when NYPD shot him dead." That would be consistent with what they're saying of Brown.

Likewise, if Brown were not yet arrested, and had a trail of complainants following him accusing him of past crimes, yes, liberals would probably want to see him arrested and may wish that the statute on at least one of the allegations had not yet run out, like with Cosby.

Your comparison equates liberal desire that Cosby should be tryable with conservative framing that killing Brown was justified, but it just isn't there, on at least a couple of levels.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

This is not a harmless person.

I don't understand why people want to go to the mat for Brown after seeing that picture.

Because he was shot down in the street like a dog. Nothing about that picture suggests that killing this young man was justified. Calling him unarmed is a fact. Stating that he tried to grab Wilson's weapon is hearsay.

[Lord Mord]

Jslay,

Commodore, according to TerraPrime what happened in the store is still up for debate. Perhaps Brown was trying to straighten the clerks collar when he grabbed him and forcefully shoved him. After Brown does that he tries to make the clerk flinch by feigning another attack, I mean collar straightening.

Gosh, if only sorting that out had been left to a jury of Mr. Brown's peers! Then we'd probably all be in total agreement about what he'd done. But, how about, since the use of the word criminal is bound to confuse people who may be looking for a reason to let his killer off the hook, we refrain from employing such prejudicial terms in the meantime?

[Jslay427]

I use criminal when describing Brown because I have seen video of him clearly commuting a crime. Again, he didnt deserve to die for that.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

Nestor,

I think, more to the point, your point muddles up the cases for consideration.

If Bill Cosby had been fatally shot in the street by police and people wanted to say, "But he was a rapist! We have statements and video!", I think liberals would say, "Bullshit. He never had a trial, that opportunity was denied us when NYPD shot him dead." That would be consistent with what they're saying of Brown.

Likewise, if Brown were not yet arrested, and had a trail of complainants following him accusing him of past crimes, yes, liberals would probably want to see him arrested and may wish that the statute on at least one of the allegations had not yet run out, like with Cosby.

Your comparison equates liberal desire that Cosby should be tryable with conservative framing that killing Brown was justified, but it just isn't there, on at least a couple of levels.

My comparison equates nothing of the sort. I am not equating "liberal desire that Cosby should be tryable" because that's not what I'm discussing at all. I'm discussing the manner in which certain people seem willing to jump on or refuse to consider character evidence of prior bad acts in the Brown case vs. the Cosby case. The hard line being held by supporters of Brown is that evidence of Brown's criminality and/or physical aggression and violence are irrelevant to the determination of whether Wilson was justifiable in using lethal force against him. Conversely, in the Cosby case, several posters have said explicitly that the sheer number of allegations of of sexual assault against Cosby, in and of themselves, are sufficient for people to conclude that he's guilty of any of the specific acts alleged.

[mormont]

I don't understand why people want to go to the mat for Brown after seeing that picture. He was a violent bully and a thief. Worse things happen to far better people than him.

First off, I think it would be (to say the least) unwise to look at Brown's behaviour in the store, one incident in his life, and say 'this is what that person was'. We've all done some bad things in our lives. Are we all bad people? I've been critical of Wilson: I think he panicked, overreacted and is now trying to cover up for himself. But I'm not saying 'Wilson is a liar and a fool, why is anyone going to the mat for him?' There's more to him than this one incident.

Secondly, what does this have to do with anything? Either an injustice has happened here or it hasn't. Either way, it has nothing to do with the character of the person it happened to. Bad things happen to good people and bad people alike. They're still bad things and we can still be upset about them.

This particular case, to me, isn't about whether Brown was a good kid or Wilson is a bad person. It's about whether the police in the US deal fairly with black people. It's about whether there is a culture in US police forces, or in the US generally, that leads to people (in particular black people) dying unnecessarily. These things are immeasurably more important than whether Brown was a particularly nice human being.

And calling him unarmed, when he was incredibly large and powerful, and fighting with a police officer to try and take his gun (i.e. arm himself), is disingenuous.

No, it isn't. It's a perfectly accurate description. And it's a bit difficult to criticise that as disingenuous when at the same time stating that Brown was trying to take Wilson's gun as if it were a fact - when it is an allegation made by Wilson, unsupported by any other evidence.

[Roose Seal]

If your examples did what Brown allegedly did they would have been shot and killed also.

...what?

James Eagan Holmes killed 12 people and injured 70, he was allowed to surrender and is being allowed a trial. Brown alledgedly stealed some cigares, alledgedly tried to take an officer's gun, alledgedly charged at him and was shot multiples times.

Are you saying what Brown did was worse than what Holmes did? If not, how do you justify one being shot dead, and the other being allowed to surrender?

You seem to think characterizing him as a teenager makes him less of a threat. Young males are more violent than the rest of the population. This is not a harmless person.

I don't understand why people want to go to the mat for Brown after seeing that picture. He was a violent bully and a thief. Worse things happen to far better people than him.

And calling him unarmed, when he was incredibly large and powerful, and fighting with a police officer to try and take his gun (i.e. arm himself), is disingenuous.

So he deserved to die for alledgedly stealing a few bucks worth of things and alledgedly assaulting a clerk who did not even call the police?

Did he have a weapon at the time of his death? If not, he was unarmed.

But like many said, he was considered armed just by virtue of being tall, heavy and Black.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

My comparison equates nothing of the sort. I am not equating "liberal desire that Cosby should be tryable" because that's not what I'm discussing at all. I'm discussing the manner in which certain people seem willing to jump on or refuse to consider character evidence of prior bad acts in the Brown case vs. the Cosby case. The hard line being held by supporters of Brown is that evidence of Brown's criminality and/or physical aggression and violence are irrelevant to the determination of whether Wilson was justifiable in using lethal force against him. Conversely, in the Cosby case, several posters have said explicitly that the sheer number of allegations of of sexual assault against Cosby, in and of themselves, are sufficient for people to conclude that he's guilty of any of the specific acts alleged.

The fact that Brown was a thief (and I think the evidence for a casual conclusion on this is enough), does not relate to Wilson being justified in using lethal force against him in the same way the evidence that Cosby is a rapist (where, again I think the evidence for a casual conclusion is enough) relates to believing that Cosby committed any of the specific alleged rapes.

For Brown it's connecting a petty crime (theft) to a much more egregious crime (assaulting an officer to the point of threatening his life), for Cosby it's connecting a pattern of accusations of rape to specific accusations of rape.

[Jslay427]

Brown also assaulted the clerk.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

Brown also assaulted the clerk.

Shoving the clerk is at worst a minor assault. It is not the same degree of assault as the alleged life-threatening assault on a police officer. Legally it is not the same.

In common sense it is not remotely the same. Any reasonable person should acknowledge that the difference between shoving a clerk and the attack Wilson alleges took place is absolutely enormous.