Cops should not shoot unarmed teenagers. That'd be a good first step.

kypade for Mayor of Ferguson!

Kypade for mayor of earth.

The attempts by the state patrol or the local police to subdue protests seemed to have provoked even more unnecessary confrontations. And the way the local police handled the investigation of the shooting including the timing and the selective-ness of release of information only reinforced the perception that the police were not impartial in their judgment.

My suggestions:

The police should try a hands-off approach to the protests. Let the crowds proceed. Only observe and videorecord them. The protesters should at the same time film the protests or even broadcast live on the web. Hopefully we should see both sides exercising restraint when everything is under the sunlight.

And to restore public trust, the city's elected officials can appoint a civilian body that reports only to the mayor or the city council to monitor and review the police investigation of the shooting.

What about looting? How do the protesters self-police criminality. I don't really care about property damage (if allowing it provides public safety), but there have been dangerous situations involving reckless shooting and Molotov cocktails, exacerbated by the military presence and heavy handedness of the local police force-Ferguson and St. Louis Co. I wish Gov. Nixon, Holder, and Obama had been on the same page a week ago when it was obvious that the local leadership was stonewalling and in over their heads in their ability to handle the situation.

I am amazed at how the vast majority have handled this situation with relative calm when the police have at times been very belligerent and even thuggish at times in their responses to media and protesters. When I was 20, I would not have handled seeing people I felt an affinity towards manhandled or assaulted by tear-gas and rubber bullets.

Is this an absolute or are there any conditions that would alter this blanket statement? According to the police, the victim Michael Brown allegedly was resisting police officer Wilson, went for his gun, and then attempted to flee. I have no idea how accurate that scenario is, because it seems to contract other eyewitness accounts. He was approximately 6'2" (one report 6'4" but I doubt it is correct) and between 290-295lbs. My readings of Supreme Court rulings allows the officer to fire in the police version if proven by subsequent facts. Do you think a single police officer should try to just subdue the suspect or allow him to leave on foot in this type of scenario. I am not trying to be sarcastic or judgmental, just what alternative you feel is justified or prudent.

http://youtu.be/LLh8NqhrFyw

Were you reading Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)? I would comment but I honestly haven't read the case in years and criminal procedure is not my specialty.

There is a 10 minute video that is much less inflammatory (still disturbing). The guy in this video at this point is just repeating what he heard (hearsay) which seems to be contradicted in some aspects by the autopsy released by the Brown family's M.E. Baden. In the longer video with the same guy giving his play-by-play, another person around the 6:20 mark, gives an alleged first hand account that seems to corroborate more with the autopsy and the police officer's rumored account. I am unaware of the official report actually being released by Ferg. P.D.

Yes, that seems to be the cornerstone giving seemingly carte blanch to deadly force in questionable (IMO) situations. From what I have read (I am not a lawyer) in legal blogs all subsequent cases have upheld that standard.

The media really should remember their primary function should be to inform and not entertain. Don't inflame the situation by trying to portray M. Brown or D. Wilson as saints or thugs. The are both human beings with faults and good qualities like all of us, but they don't deserve to be used for an agenda that ultimately harms race relations and can lead to others getting hurt.

I wrote this on another website. It is a law enforcement website, which is probably borderline authoritarian. I'll probably get banned or have this post deleted. What do KJ'ers think? Let me know if you have a criticism. Thanks.



-
Sorrell sky- This is not exactly a direct response to your post. It started as one, but it got away from me. I am using it as a springboard, because there have been many posts with similar thoughts expressed. Any time I use the word you, I am referring to the general reader, not you specifically, except in this section. Don't feel like you have to respond or that I expect one. Unless, you are really moved to reply, then feel free.

Everyone Else- If this is pretentious or you disagree, point your wrath at me. Leave Sorrel sky out of it. If there is anything that rings false or absurd let me know.

-



People are frustrated and don't feel like they are treated as American citizens but as second class in the country of their birth. A man was gunned down in the street and the LE seems to be dragging their feet on investigating it compared to if the roles were reversed. Then instead of using community policing, the LE act like an occupying force. It isn't this one shooting incident that is causing this reaction, it is just the latest in a series, the biggest one being the scarcity of jobs for 18-30 yo. It is the old straw that broke the camel's back cliche.

I have heard more than once in these threads "where are the MLK's" or "MLK must be rolling over in his grave." Well people are intimidated into not channeling their inner MLK or Ghandi, because they were assassinated for their beliefs. An entire vanguard of leadership was wiped out in the 1960s, when JFK, Macolm X, MLK, and RFK were assassinated. The civil rights and left have never really recovered from that loss of leadership. Jesse Jackson as far as I can tell was no more than a security presence for MLK at the time of the assassination. The status quo is perfectly happy with leaders like Sharpton and Jackson, because they are not very effective and can be bought off with bribes if they ever stumble onto an effective message or method to provoke change.

Then you have lottery winners like Oprah who uses most of her wealth to make more money and allots more of her charity to African causes than here in the US. Or Jay-Z, Beyonce, and Kenya who making a living by asking those without to live vicariously through their lyrics and exploits. Others like Russell Simmons preach taking care of their own when on MSNBC or Real-time w/Bill Maher, but has no problem promoting "credit" cards that ask poor people to pay 15-20% surcharges to use their own money to restore their credit. MSNBC gives the illusion of caring during a story like this or Trayvon Martin, but other than a media firestorm like this other than the odd poorly researched Chris Hayes report on shootings in Chicago or gentrification impacts in Brooklyn on poor brown kids (African-American and Hispanics), nary a peep out of Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews. Lawrence O'Donnell only cares about Kids in Africa, kids in Atlanta he couldn't be bothered unless there is a controversial shooting. The rest of the time they are arguing about the stupidest Republican, or which Tea Party leader is the biggest racist. Fox goes in the other direction and stokes the fears and resentments of older Americans. Bill O'Reilly is demonizing and practically begging for one of his "patriots" to take care of a late term abortion provider. While Sean Hannity is praising a tax cheat and a squatter like Cliven Bundy.

A brave intelligent man with limited resources doesn't play a game that is rigged against him. He either changes the game (revolution) or quits (suicide). Most of us aren't that brave or intelligent so we muddle through with rationalizations, like I am not personally a racist, I give to charity, or I vote, so I can't possibly be part of the problem.

Think of it on a personal level. If your own young adult child (19 years old) attempted suicide, because he/she could not figure out a better way to communicate his/her rage of being ignored, lost, and hopelessness, I would hope you would not berate their intelligence or ignore their mental health problems by telling them they have only themselves to blame. You would get them mental health professionals as soon as possible and do everything in your power to get them the resources necessary to lead a productive and happy life if possible. Why, because you provided them with half their genetic makeup and provided their environment that created this crisis. Even if your child made some some poor personal choices along the way and you felt like you were the best parent you could be, you would feel a responsibility for how their life has turned out so far.

Well, in the American experience African-American's have been dealt a pretty lousy hand. Slavery, Jim Crow, lynching, redlining, racial bias in LE, etc. have left a lingering impact that 50 some years of theoretical equality have not been able to eradicate. They have seen foreign waves of Irish, Italians, Chinese, Germans, etc., face a generation of harsh racism or bias, but be accepted into the American Melting Pot as full americans with standards of living and wealth comparable to white Americans that have been here for generations. Yet, african-americans get passed by these new ethnic group.

Yes there are success stories like Oprah or a great athlete that makes more money in a week or month, than most of us will in a lifetime. However, those are the exceptions, not the rule. Under that unrealistic standard, why aren't all white American's as rich as Warren Buffet or Bill Gates? That is an absurd standard, but some people hold african-americans to that standard if they complain about the current power structure.

When a large part of our fellow native born citizens feel like acting like child when on the national stage in the words of some posters, maybe we should start treating them as adults with full rights afforded by the Constitution. What we are doing now does not seem to be working.

In short, Bob Dylan said it much more powerfully and succinctly when he sang "When you ain't gotten nothin', you got nothin' to lose.

I find it quite hilarious how folks from the right will go to battle defending the 2nd Amendment... yet have no cares in the world for the 1st Amendment.

Magnus-Very good post

I think some of these are class issues wrapped in with the effects of racism.

I don't think legislation alone can change perceptions, but what I don't think many people realize is that along with the civil rights acts of the mid 1960s, the changes in welfare and food stamps helped move the level of african-americans living in poverty from something in the 40% range in 1960 to around 20% in the mid or late 1970s. There were other obstacles to poorer African-Americans transitioning into the mainstream, the biggest one in my opinion was the segregation of many into public housing that quite often had little or no access to any type of public transportation. What is the point of creating housing if the residents don't have a viable way to get to anywhere with job prospects. Crime was much higher than it is today, and it was blamed on the social changes of the past 10-20 years. Although, I think the evidence now is that the 2 crime waves of the 1960s through the 1990s were due to lead levels (there is much evidence it impedes impulse control) and a huge surge of teenagers (the baby boomers and the following generation) that altered the demographics of the country. "Those people" were just animals or lazy was whispered in private and code words were created to communicate it publicly "big buck" and "welfare queen." Then we lost our momentum in fighting poverty as Reagan used such code words to ride the resentment wave and public assistance funding was cut consistently over the next 30 years.

I mean, it took 100 years from slavery ending to the civil rights movement. And it's been about 50 years since then. Maybe in 25 years racism will be gone.

In terms of the militarization of police forces,

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2014/08/ ... io-in.html

...



From that same blog there is another post about forcing communities to spend all extra funds on community policing until they meet certain safety thresholds, before they can spend anything on surplus military gear. In addition, riot training would be required before those military purchases could be made. The basic idea in these proposals is to make the acquisition of this equipment prohibitive in these days of tight local and state budgets.

The problem with the 25 year timeframe is that many african-americans will still be suffering the repercussions of criminal records acquired now and in the next decade compared to the general population. There is not enough time to change the systemic racism and classism in the current legal system. There are too many glitches in policing and the judicial judgements to trip up african americans compared to their other ethnic peers giving them records that will become an albatross still in 25 years.

Examples? I am sure I have a much more expansive view of the First Amendment than you do. Same with the Second.

The vast majority of the posters at the website I previously mentioned don't think people in Ferguson should even be allowed to protest, and I would say most of them (the ones against protesting) if not the vast majority are gun nuts. They are perfectly happy with the way things are right now, other than everything wrong in the world is Obama's fault. I find it incoherent, but what do I know.

I would post examples from the other site, but it is against the TOS. I am probably in violation already for posting my comment.

They have every right to peaceful protest, which most are doing. And the media has every right to film it, which some are being prevented from doing.

I agree, I was just responding to Caius previous post, that there are people very pro-gun that anti-protest out there if not in this thread. The one complaint I find absurd is that they are criticized for not having an end-game or not all being on the same page. I never heard that complaint against Tea Party protestors from these types. Protests are messy and all protestors don't have to swear an allegiance to five bullet points.

I've heard the end game argument as well. "What are they trying to accomplish?"

Justice, they want justice. They want a proper investigation, and the protesting is making damn sure there's no funny business. Certainly, the issue goes far beyond that small step, but for an end game, it's an easily achievable goal. If they want to get 'crazy', they can even try for a prosecutor who's not so biased!

I find the complaints against the prosecutor very grating. He is an elected figure with over two decades of experience. The idea he should recuse himself because he has family ties to law enforcement is farcical. There is no direct conflict of interest. And there is no guarantee a subsequent special prosecutor would not have his or her own history the protestors might find distasteful.

He has to work with the Ferguson and other local police departments. If he is seen as going against the blue line they can make his life difficult. He needs their cooperation to proceed on prosecutions. They won't sabotage all his cases, but they might lose key evidence or drag their feet on the next high profile case.

His track record on these type cases is not good to put it mildly. For example, there was this case.



http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_P ... prosecutor)

In addition, his father was a police officer shot in the line of duty, not just he has family ties.

I still do not see a direct conflict of interest. Saying, "Oh, the area prosecutor has dealt closely with the area police in the past" goes without saying, and to impugn his competency or clarity because of his father's death is simply vile.