Big City USA Protesters

[Jack]

I firmly believe individuals have to be held accountable for their actions, so the individuals associated with the cases that are making the headlines today should absolutely be held accountable within the current court system. I consider that a given.

Unfortunately, the grand juries in at least two of the cases (so far) don't agree that police officers should be held accountable for their actions. And that, in and of itself, is another symptom of the larger problem.

You could also take a look at how the authorities have reacted to these incidents: from the character assassination of Michael Brown (as shown by Paul der Krake's statement I quoted previously) to the further victimization of the victims' relatives, to setting up a bogus no-fly zone to stop the media from reporting on further police abuses, to demanding apologies from "uppity" celebrities who had the audacity to sympathize with the victims, everything about the police's actions clearly illustrates the contempt they have for the black community (or hell, maybe even the community in general -- if they think they can act with that much impunity, I know that I, as a white person, don't feel safe from them either)!

The real question is whether the systems are flawed and rigged. Looking at individual cases won't and can't answer those questions. I know one of the challenges that I've seen around data about police shootings is that there isn't much. There doesn't seem to be a good source of numbers of people shot by police within areas of the country.

Yes, isn't it funny how the government can collect data on all sorts of things (including data it has no right to collect), but somehow can't seem to figure out that? It's almost as if somebody doesn't want to know...

Are there dirty cops? Sure. Are there good cops? You bet.

Indeed there are good cops... but look what happens to them!

Do I think the cops today have an itchier trigger finger than 20, 30, or 40 years ago? Anecdotally, not at all.

40 years ago, SWAT teams didn't exist.* No-knock raids didn't exist. Civil forfeiture didn't exist. Police using military-surplus weapons and equipment didn't exist.

(*okay, I'm taking a little poetic license there -- they had existed for a few years, but only in LA)

[Gin1984]

Does anyone know of a good site that has a lot of facts on this issue? One of the challenges I see with the current situation (and I'm not horribly informed on the facts of the situation) is that people appear to be protesting a variety of things including prejudice against minorities, police violence/brutality, the justice system, and perhaps more. While these may be very real issues, I haven't been able to find an unbiased source of facts for these issues. As an example, people talk about there being racial issues at work here, and that minorities are being singled out. I've heard numbers thrown around that sound shocking (X% of police-related homicides are associated with Y race), but these numbers seem like they can be, and are, taken out of context. For racial issues specifically, the question is to identify whether there is a disproportionate number of issues occurring. The same can be said for the other potential issues. I think people have a tendency to pick up on examples and use those to base broad assumptions on an issue. Sometimes this works out to create an accurate assumption and sometimes it doesn't.

I'm a analytical guy, and I feel like I'm not seeing all the numbers. Does anyone have any links that they can send out?

I have #s and an anecdote.  Non-whites are three times as likely to be pulled over compared to white and twice as likely to have force used against them by cops.  Now for the anecdote, I lived in SJ, Ca for most of my life and did not see the racism (being a white girl) until I spent some time with Hispanic friends on the east side.  We'd get in trouble for things my friends who lived on west side did all the time.  The best example, however, was from when I was an adult.  In the year before I moved with my DF to buffalo, he was pulled over four times when I was in the car.  In the six years we have been in buffalo, where most people think he is white, not once.  Same driver, same car, same everything but people in Ca know he is Hispanic and people here don't.

[Gin1984]

My only perspective on this is my best friend who's been an LAPD officer for over 20 years.    He indicates to me that the last thing an officer wants to do is fire his weapon.    The process involved over a spent shell casing is enormous and hardly something any officer wants to go through.  He has indicated that shooting a suspect changes your life for the worse and has dealt with officers who needed serious counseling.   My point is, most cops are good people who have been elected to protect the citizens of their community.   

Since none of us are not officers I think it's a little unfair to say police brutality is a problem in the US.    Furthermore,  the cases in St Loius and the 12 year old are about the worst examples to bring the issue to light.    One guy was assaulting an officer after robbing a liquor store and the 12 year old was walking around with a BB gun (let's call it a pistol because that's what it is).     

These communities are very violent and the people who live in them are living under another culture with its own set of rules and values.     Believe it or not,  to many members of these communities,  these 2 examples were just "boys being boys".     What they were doing were almost normal behavior for a young adolescent.......So when one of them is shot for doing something that will get you killed...its claimed to be police brutality.   

When people are being assaulted, against the regs, without cause, yes, we the citizens can say ENOUGH!  I don't have to be a cop to know assaulting someone who can't fight back is wrong.

[Gin1984]

Hmmm...... I seriously doubt officers are trained to pull up to a "Person With a Gun" call and spend the extra time determine if a gun is real or not.  LOL!

The fact that I'm inclined to agree with you is a sad commentary on just how far out of control our uniformed gangsters in blue really are. We are living in a fascist police state, and half of you schmucks don't even realize it (or worse, are okay with it)!

Some of us are as concerned as you are, but think you need better examples to make your point. There's no need for name calling.

People have good reasons to be upset about excessive police force, but using some punk kid in Missouri who had just robbed a store as a poster boy for a cause isn't exactly smart. Or one who reaches for his fake gun after being told to put his hands up.

Ok, what about Eric Garner, who was put in a chokehold that had been banned, did not fight back and was killed.  And his murderer, let go.  The cops are not going to be trusted if that is what they get away with.  Or how about throwing a  grenade into a house, incorrectly, without warning and having it land in a infant's bed.  And then running in and not letting the mother see her dying infant, in fact lying to her about her child.  Oh, and they were there for a person who was not even there, who later surrendered peacefully.  And they were consider no liable, even though again, what they did not within procedure.  This is epidemic, yes some of the people who get caught in this are not perfect little angels, but hell, I was not angel growing up and I doubt everyone here was either.  Treating one group differently, and killing them for their race is wrong.  How can that be such a hard concept? 

[MDM]

People have good reasons to be upset about excessive police force, but using some punk kid in Missouri who had just robbed a store as a poster boy for a cause isn't exactly smart.

If you believe the murder of Michael Brown had anything whatsoever to do with the robbery, you really are a schmuck!

Well, or a racist bigot -- one or the other.

Or maybe someone who prefers to get first person testimony rather than various forms of hearsay.  E.g., http://nola.dev.advance.net/news/ferguson/interview-po-darren-wilson.pdf - see the top of page 4.  Of course some people (on either side of an issue) start with preconceived notions and don't let facts get in the way of what they think is a good story.

[Undecided]

People have good reasons to be upset about excessive police force, but using some punk kid in Missouri who had just robbed a store as a poster boy for a cause isn't exactly smart.

If you believe the murder of Michael Brown had anything whatsoever to do with the robbery, you really are a schmuck!

Well, or a racist bigot -- one or the other.

Or maybe someone who prefers to get first person testimony rather than various forms of hearsay.  E.g., http://nola.dev.advance.net/news/ferguson/interview-po-darren-wilson.pdf - see the top of page 4.  Of course some people (on either side of an issue) start with preconceived notions and don't let facts get in the way of what they think is a good story.

Just need to locate Michael Brown's testimony to get the other side of the story, right?

[MDM]

Just need to locate Michael Brown's testimony to get the other side of the story, right?

Sarcasm noted. 

It is doubtful that anyone participating in this forum knows what happened in this case.  We all bring some amount of bias to how we judge the conflicting testimony and the autopsy findings.  Some are more willing than others to consider possibilities different from what they think the truth "should" be.

[Gin1984]

Just need to locate Michael Brown's testimony to get the other side of the story, right?

Sarcasm noted. 

It is doubtful that anyone participating in this forum knows what happened in this case.  We all bring some amount of bias to how we judge the conflicting testimony and the autopsy findings.  Some are more willing than others to consider possibilities different from what they think the truth "should" be.

However, we do know that how it was handled was not consistent with normal procedures.  For example, the cop did not follow normal procedures after he killed Brown, nor did the prosecutor during the grand jury.  We also know that the other members of the police force did illegal things like attack and arrest journalists for doing their job. 
All together we can see this as a systemic problem of the police and DA office even if Brown should have been arrested (which at this point we don't know).

[RichMoose]

I wish there was a MMM police officer on these boards.   You will definitely get a different perspective on the situation

I was a police officer for several years, but in Canada so I would say the mentality is a bit different. I would be interested to know how they were dispatched to the call because that's definitely not how we are trained to approach a call of a "teenager in park with a pistol".

That being said, the biggest problem with the U.S., and to a somewhat lesser extent Canada, is the number of guns in public circulation. Many European countries have far fewer officer-involved shootings, but the fact that they have far fewer guns has a lot to do with it. In the U.S. it would a given that officers are trained to respond in a military-like manner to many calls.

[Jack]

That being said, the biggest problem with the U.S., and to a somewhat lesser extent Canada, is the number of guns in public circulation. Many European countries have far fewer officer-involved shootings, but the fact that they have far fewer guns has a lot to do with it. In the U.S. it would a given that officers are trained to respond in a military-like manner to many calls.

The problem with that reasoning is that the United States has always had a lot of guns, but has not always had police responding to everything in a "military-like manner."

(The other problem with that reasoning, of course, is that even the military itself has better rules of engagement at this point! There have been soldiers who have commented on these shootings by saying things like "if I had treated people in Iraq like that, I'd be in Leavenworth [military prison] right now.")

[RichMoose]

The problem with that reasoning is that the United States has always had a lot of guns, but has not always had police responding to everything in a "military-like manner."

(The other problem with that reasoning, of course, is that even the military itself has better rules of engagement at this point! There have been soldiers who have commented on these shootings by saying things like "if I had treated people in Iraq like that, I'd be in Leavenworth [military prison] right now.")

I understand that my comments just scratch the surface of much bigger issues, but I would say its very short-sighted thinking if you don't believe the gun problem meant changes to police behaviour which, in turn, results in citizen deaths that are very questionable. Officer safety is probably one of the most emphasized parts of police training and has been for a long time. Along with this came a movement to military-like tactics in the general policing world, but there are obviously some exceptions (ie. the 12 year old kid).

You're right, the U.S. has always had a lot of guns. That's why in the 1920's and 1930's there were around 250 - 300 officers being killed on duty every year. If that was adjusted to today's population, it would mean between 750 - 1000 officers killed every year at work. In a big part because of changes in police training and response, today between 100 - 150 officers are killed each year.

I don't know what the number of citizens killed by police is, but I don't think I would be far off to say that if it were adjusted by population its probably less today than it was at its peak. I also don't think its declined as much as officer deaths have.

Either way, it's obvious that things need to change. My personal gut says it will take form through a change in gun controls, a different approach to controlled substances, a better system for mentally ill people, a more diverse police service, and a reduction in "layers" of law enforcement.

[Gimesalot]

I just want to add my two or three cents into the topic:

First, I am completely appaled but not surprised by the killing of young black men by police.  I am glad it is getting a lot more attention now, than it has in the past.

Two, my husband and I have both been the target of racist cops, even though he is white and I am hispanic.  Here's the story... We were driving in a "black person" car, Dogde Charger with blacked out windows.  We were pulled over for no reason.  As soon as my husband rolled down the window, the police officer changed his tone and appologized for pulling us over.  He then stated that we shouldn't go one mile over the speed limit to make sure we didn't get pulled over.

Third, about people being complainypants and not being able to express themselves in front of a camera.  Really?  Have you had to give an interview?  You are outside freezing, with your heart racing, with a blinding light in your eyes, being asked to condense your point into 10 seconds.  Most people can't do it well.  My performance is acceptable, even after years of training and interviews.  It's not easy.  Give people a break!

[Undecided]

Just need to locate Michael Brown's testimony to get the other side of the story, right?

Sarcasm noted. 

It is doubtful that anyone participating in this forum knows what happened in this case.  We all bring some amount of bias to how we judge the conflicting testimony and the autopsy findings.  Some are more willing than others to consider possibilities different from what they think the truth "should" be.

But my sarcasm isn't without a point, right? Your further response is certainly true, but it's hard to credit any assertion of the officer's own testimony alone (which is what you did) as being about identifying truth in a reasonably unbiased way.

I'm not troubled by that grand jury's decision, other than to think it would have been wiser for the court to force a more typical proceeding. I generally think the standards of review that are applied to police actions are appropriate, and that where we fail (in that regard) is in not recognizing that the relative leniency of those standards demands a higher minimum bar for who is allowed to serve as a police officer. That would be expensive, though, and people who are largely unaffected by police abuse don't seem willing to pay for it. That's evidence of the broader societal issues that these protests are really about, in my opinion.

[Forcus]

The problem is you cannot trust anything you read...

On the contrary: you can't trust everything you read, but you can trust some things. Or perhaps a better way to say it is that some things can be proven without requiring you to trust.

There are facts which can be relied on, in the form of pictures, audio, video, crime scene measurements, forensic evidence, etc. There are logical arguments which can be constructed using these facts, which you can use your own reasoning to evaluate.

I believe what was written in the article I previously linked not because I trust the author, but because his argument fits the evidence and makes logical sense.

The problem with that argument is that (1) facts do not equal truth and (2) once you've introduced "logic" in to the process, you've introduced the point of divergence for an individual's viewpoint. The simple reason is that logic is not a universal in its application. One person's version of logic does not equal another.

For instance, there was a police shooting close to where I used to live, a guy with a knife charged officers and was shot. He was shot at a distance of around 15 feet (fact). He was shot in the chest and died (fact). Family members and others spent a great amount of time arguing that he was not a threat at 15 feet (their logical conclusion) and further that they could have dispatched any threat with a non-lethal shot to an extremity (their logical conclusion). On the face of it, I really cannot argue with their logic - 15 feet seems like a long enough distance to react without shooting, and certainly in the movies a "hand shot" seems possible. But there have been studies that have timed a subject moving at running speed with a knife, and 15 feet takes less than 1 second to cover for someone running at full speed over a short distance. And a hand shot, especially in a changing situation, is near impossible to execute. That's why if a cop uses his gun, it's to center mass, and the intent is to kill. That's their training. So in that situation their logical conclusion is homicide, mine is a justified shooting (Note: this has no relation to my opinion on the Ferguson / other shootings).

I wouldn't normally post something like the above simply because I do not debate with someone unless there is a fair and open-minded discussion but I felt it was pertinent. My $.02.

[Jack]

I understand that my comments just scratch the surface of much bigger issues, but I would say its very short-sighted thinking if you don't believe the gun problem meant changes to police behaviour which, in turn, results in citizen deaths that are very questionable. Officer safety is probably one of the most emphasized parts of police training and has been for a long time. Along with this came a movement to military-like tactics in the general policing world, but there are obviously some exceptions (ie. the 12 year old kid).

And that is wrong! The mission of the police is to protect and serve the public, not to control and oppress it!

If the safety of officers is now prioritized over safety of the public (including the safety of suspects!), then the police are dangerously out of control and need to be completely reformed.

I'm not troubled by that grand jury's decision, other than to think it would have been wiser for the court to force a more typical proceeding. I generally think the standards of review that are applied to police actions are appropriate, and that where we fail (in that regard) is in not recognizing that the relative leniency of those standards demands a higher minimum bar for who is allowed to serve as a police officer. That would be expensive, though, and people who are largely unaffected by police abuse don't seem willing to pay for it. That's evidence of the broader societal issues that these protests are really about, in my opinion.

First, the grand jury process was an appalling travesty. The prosecutor's job is to seek out and present all the evidence that could possibly justify a trial; instead, he suppressed all that and called in the defendant (who isn't even supposed to be part of that process!) to give the grand jury every excuse to avoid the trial. It was absolutely willful dereliction of duty.

Remember, the grand jury is not a trial court. Their job is not to decide whether guilt was established within a reasonable doubt. No, their job was to decide whether there might be the slightest thing fishy enough about the circumstances to warrant investigating further. It should have been blatantly obvious that a trial was warranted, except for the fact that they the prosecutor made them ignore everything that would have shown it.

Second, the standards of review that are applied to police actions ought to be stricter than for the general public, not more lenient! Police officers are supposed to be trained to respond correctly in stressful situations, and should be expected to behave better than some random citizen. Moreover, they are empowered with the public's trust, so when they screw up they not only break the same law as a civilian would have doing the same thing, they also violate that public trust. For both of those reasons, punishments for police officers should be much harsher than they are for the general public.

[Undecided]

I understand that my comments just scratch the surface of much bigger issues, but I would say its very short-sighted thinking if you don't believe the gun problem meant changes to police behaviour which, in turn, results in citizen deaths that are very questionable. Officer safety is probably one of the most emphasized parts of police training and has been for a long time. Along with this came a movement to military-like tactics in the general policing world, but there are obviously some exceptions (ie. the 12 year old kid).

And that is wrong! The mission of the police is to protect and serve the public, not to control and oppress it!

If the safety of officers is now prioritized over safety of the public (including the safety of suspects!), then the police are dangerously out of control and need to be completely reformed.

I'm not troubled by that grand jury's decision, other than to think it would have been wiser for the court to force a more typical proceeding. I generally think the standards of review that are applied to police actions are appropriate, and that where we fail (in that regard) is in not recognizing that the relative leniency of those standards demands a higher minimum bar for who is allowed to serve as a police officer. That would be expensive, though, and people who are largely unaffected by police abuse don't seem willing to pay for it. That's evidence of the broader societal issues that these protests are really about, in my opinion.

First, the grand jury process was an appalling travesty. The prosecutor's job is to seek out and present all the evidence that could possibly justify a trial; instead, he suppressed all that and called in the defendant (who isn't even supposed to be part of that process!) to give the grand jury every excuse to avoid the trial. It was absolutely willful dereliction of duty.

Remember, the grand jury is not a trial court. Their job is not to decide whether guilt was established within a reasonable doubt. No, their job was to decide whether there might be the slightest thing fishy enough about the circumstances to warrant investigating further. It should have been blatantly obvious that a trial was warranted, except for the fact that they the prosecutor made them ignore everything that would have shown it.

Second, the standards of review that are applied to police actions ought to be stricter than for the general public, not more lenient! Police officers are supposed to be trained to respond correctly in stressful situations, and should be expected to behave better than some random citizen. Moreover, they are empowered with the public's trust, so when they screw up they not only break the same law as a civilian would have doing the same thing, they also violate that public trust. For both of those reasons, punishments for police officers should be much harsher than they are for the general public.

Your second point in response to me makes me reconsider how I phrased what I wrote. I agree with you that police conduct should be reviewed strictly against the applicable standards, but I think those standards need to give the police latitude to make decisions that may in retrospect prove to be wrong.

[MDM]

But my sarcasm isn't without a point, right? Your further response is certainly true, but it's hard to credit any assertion of the officer's own testimony alone (which is what you did) as being about identifying truth in a reasonably unbiased way.

You are absolutely correct that one should not blindly accept opinions from only one side of a story - and that includes the officer's testimony.

What I did (or, at least, attempted to do) was to balance Jack's view that "If you believe the murder of Michael Brown had anything whatsoever to do with the robbery, you really are a schmuck!  Well, or a racist bigot -- one or the other."  That quote also seems to have little to do with identifying truth in a reasonably unbiased way.

I have my own opinions, based on what I've heard from the autopsy and forensic analyses, of the various eyewitness accounts - but wasn't there so won't pretend to know what really happened.

[seattlecyclone]

First, the grand jury process was an appalling travesty. The prosecutor's job is to seek out and present all the evidence that could possibly justify a trial; instead, he suppressed all that and called in the defendant (who isn't even supposed to be part of that process!) to give the grand jury every excuse to avoid the trial. It was absolutely willful dereliction of duty.

Remember, the grand jury is not a trial court. Their job is not to decide whether guilt was established within a reasonable doubt. No, their job was to decide whether there might be the slightest thing fishy enough about the circumstances to warrant investigating further. It should have been blatantly obvious that a trial was warranted, except for the fact that they the prosecutor made them ignore everything that would have shown it.

This point cannot be overstated. In theory, the same laws apply to the police as the rest of us. In practice, that is not the case.

If I shot an unarmed man in front of that many witnesses, a prosecutor would not hesitate to charge me with murder and a grand jury would approve the indictment without a second thought. At the trial, the prosecutor would establish the facts of the case and my defense attorney would try to establish that I was acting in self-defense. A jury would then have to weigh the facts against the self-defense argument and come to a verdict.

In the case of Michael Brown, the fact that Officer Wilson shot an unarmed man dead is not in question. This alone should be ample probable cause to have a trial. Wilson's lawyers should have to prove self-defense in front of a jury. I think there's a reasonable argument to be made that this was a legitimate case of self-defense and he should be judged not guilty at a trial. The fact that there will not be a trial at all is an affront to the rule of law. It reinforces the idea that the laws really don't apply to police officers, and that a "shoot first, ask questions later" mentality is not going to be punished in any court.

The case of Eric Garner is even more egregious. An officer was caught choking a man to death on camera, a man who was not even shown to be doing anything wrong at the time the officers stopped him, and the officer responsible was not charged with any crime. This is unacceptable, and the local citizens are right to protest.

[MDM]

First, the grand jury process was an appalling travesty. The prosecutor's job is to seek out and present all the evidence that could possibly justify a trial; instead, he suppressed all that and called in the defendant (who isn't even supposed to be part of that process!) to give the grand jury every excuse to avoid the trial. It was absolutely willful dereliction of duty.

Remember, the grand jury is not a trial court. Their job is not to decide whether guilt was established within a reasonable doubt. No, their job was to decide whether there might be the slightest thing fishy enough about the circumstances to warrant investigating further. It should have been blatantly obvious that a trial was warranted, except for the fact that they the prosecutor made them ignore everything that would have shown it.

This point cannot be overstated. In theory, the same laws apply to the police as the rest of us. In practice, that is not the case.

If I shot an unarmed man in front of that many witnesses, a prosecutor would not hesitate to charge me with murder and a grand jury would approve the indictment without a second thought. At the trial, the prosecutor would establish the facts of the case and my defense attorney would try to establish that I was acting in self-defense. A jury would then have to weigh the facts against the self-defense argument and come to a verdict.

In the case of Michael Brown, the fact that Officer Wilson shot an unarmed man dead is not in question. This alone should be ample probable cause to have a trial. Wilson's lawyers should have to prove self-defense in front of a jury. I think there's a reasonable argument to be made that this was a legitimate case of self-defense and he should be judged not guilty at a trial. The fact that there will not be a trial at all is an affront to the rule of law. It reinforces the idea that the laws really don't apply to police officers, and that a "shoot first, ask questions later" mentality is not going to be punished in any court.

seattlecyclone gets it more correct than Jack (see highlights above).  E.g. see this generic description of grand juries in which "probable cause" is mentioned: http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/how-does-a-grand-jury-work.html

Even this misleadingly-titled piece (note: the quotes from Scalia were made 22 years ago), http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/11/26/3597322/justice-scalia-explains-what-was-wrong-with-the-ferguson-grand-jury/, states

the prosecutors told the Ferguson grand jury before they started their deliberations:
And you must find probable cause to believe that Darren Wilson did not act in lawful self-defense and you must find probable cause to believe that Darren Wilson did not use lawful force in making an arrest.

Perhaps the best (as in presenting arguments for both "sides") article I've found is http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/11/cases-and-controversies-not-your-typical-grand-jury-investigation/.  It makes a good case that a prosecutor's job is (or at least should be) more about finding the likely truth than prosecuting anything one could possibly justify:

So maybe this is a case about prosecutorial or institutional bias in which Wilson was treated far too well, or – maybe – it is a case about reviving a much more robust role for the grand jury, so that others get the same legal process on display this week.

[xocotl]

Do I think the cops today have an itchier trigger finger than 20, 30, or 40 years ago? Anecdotally, not at all.

Although the data isn't particularly good, you don't have to rely entirely on anecdote for this. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf) the rate of "justifiable homicide of felons by police" didn't really change all that much from 1980-2008. It's been bouncing around between 300-500 a year. One might argue that over that span of time violent crime in general has gone down significantly so one would expect police killings to go down as well, and they haven't, but there is at least some evidence that they haven't really gone up, and may just be getting more media attention.

That being said, even the BJS admits that this is a rather inaccurate underestimate of the number of people killed by police -- not only does it exclude killings that weren't deemed justifiable (those are lumped in with murder without distinguishing which were by police) but it is calculated based on self reporting from police precincts, and there are some entire states that just don't bother reporting any numbers.

Given that the information you linked indicated that 43 cops were shot to death in 2014, in an interaction between police and a citizen it's at least 10 times more likely that the police will shoot the citizen than the other way around.

[Jack]

What I did (or, at least, attempted to do) was to balance Jack's view that "If you believe the murder of Michael Brown had anything whatsoever to do with the robbery, you really are a schmuck!  Well, or a racist bigot -- one or the other."  That quote also seems to have little to do with identifying truth in a reasonably unbiased way.

WTF? The claim that the robbery and the shooting were unrelated isn't my "view" or opinion, it's a fact! I cited an article where the first damn sentence said so, explicitly: "Ferguson Police Chief Tom Jackson said Friday the initial contact between 18-year-old Michael Brown and police officer Darren Wilson was not related to a convenience store robbery." If you can read that and then just completely ignore it because it doesn't fit your Michael-Brown-as-criminal-thug preconception, you cannot possibly be unbiased.

Responding to the truth by claiming a lie is not "balance," and complaining that someone is not being "balanced" because they fail to lend the same credibility to lies that they give the truth is not a valid complaint.

[MDM]

Jack, do you think there is any chance that Tom Jackson might have been wrong when he said that?

[Jack]

Jack, do you think there is any chance that Tom Jackson might have been wrong when he said that?

Absolutely not, for two reasons:

• His department had released the convenience store robbery video and created the implication in the first place. His statement that the robbery and shooting were unrelated was an admission that he was wrong before. That's an embarrassing thing to have to do; nobody does it unless they're damn sure they have no other choice. In other words, if there were any chance it were wrong he would have used it as an excuse not to say it.
• The only way Wilson could have found out about the robbery would have been from the 911 dispatcher, so if it happened it would have been recorded. Lying about it is pointless because you can just go check the records.

[MDM]

Jack, do you think there is any chance that Tom Jackson might have been wrong when he said that?

Absolutely not, for two reasons:

• His department had released the convenience store robbery video and created the implication in the first place. His statement that the robbery and shooting were unrelated was an admission that he was wrong before. That's an embarrassing thing to have to do; nobody does it unless they're damn sure they have no other choice. In other words, if there were any chance it were wrong he would have used it as an excuse not to say it.
• The only way Wilson could have found out about the robbery would have been from the 911 dispatcher, so if it happened it would have been recorded. Lying about it is pointless because you can just go check the records.

Then was Jackson doubly embarrassed when, as MSNBC says,

At the time police released the surveillance video, Ferguson Police Chief Thomas Jackson first suggested that Wilson’s initial encounter with Brown had nothing to do with the alleged robbery. Later that same day, Jackson backtracked, saying the first contact was made once Wilson “saw cigars in Brown’s hand and realized he might be the robber.

?

Also, do you believe Wilson was clairvoyant when he said on Aug. 10 that he heard about the robbery over the radio and saw Brown carrying cigarillos - considering the surveillance tape wasn't released until Aug. 15?  I suppose it is possible that between the Aug. 9 shooting and the Aug. 10 interview with Wilson, the Ferguson PD found the tape and coached Wilson on what to say...but not probable.

In sum, do you still believe "If you believe the murder of Michael Brown had anything whatsoever to do with the robbery, you really are a schmuck!  Well, or a racist bigot -- one or the other."

[Gin1984]

Jack, do you think there is any chance that Tom Jackson might have been wrong when he said that?

Absolutely not, for two reasons:

• His department had released the convenience store robbery video and created the implication in the first place. His statement that the robbery and shooting were unrelated was an admission that he was wrong before. That's an embarrassing thing to have to do; nobody does it unless they're damn sure they have no other choice. In other words, if there were any chance it were wrong he would have used it as an excuse not to say it.
• The only way Wilson could have found out about the robbery would have been from the 911 dispatcher, so if it happened it would have been recorded. Lying about it is pointless because you can just go check the records.

Then was Jackson doubly embarrassed when, as MSNBC says,

At the time police released the surveillance video, Ferguson Police Chief Thomas Jackson first suggested that Wilson’s initial encounter with Brown had nothing to do with the alleged robbery. Later that same day, Jackson backtracked, saying the first contact was made once Wilson “saw cigars in Brown’s hand and realized he might be the robber.

?

Also, do you believe Wilson was clairvoyant when he said on Aug. 10 that he heard about the robbery over the radio and saw Brown carrying cigarillos - considering the surveillance tape wasn't released until Aug. 15?  I suppose it is possible that between the Aug. 9 shooting and the Aug. 10 interview with Wilson, the Ferguson PD found the tape and coached Wilson on what to say...but not probable.

In sum, do you still believe "If you believe the murder of Michael Brown had anything whatsoever to do with the robbery, you really are a schmuck!  Well, or a racist bigot -- one or the other."

Why do you say it is not probable?  Given the other actions of the PD I'd say that behavior is well within likely behavior.

[Jack]

Then was Jackson doubly embarrassed when, as MSNBC says,

At the time police released the surveillance video, Ferguson Police Chief Thomas Jackson first suggested that Wilson’s initial encounter with Brown had nothing to do with the alleged robbery. Later that same day, Jackson backtracked, saying the first contact was made once Wilson “saw cigars in Brown’s hand and realized he might be the robber.

?

I'd call that more of a "clarification" than a "backtrack," since according to this (linked from the MSNBC article), Jackson actually was right the second time:

Sources have told the Post-Dispatch that Wilson has told authorities that before the radio call he had stopped to tell Brown and his friend, Dorian Johnson, 22, to quit walking down the middle of the street. They kept walking, and he then realized that Brown matched the description
of the suspect in the stealing call

Apparently it's still consistent that the initial encounter really was about jaywalking, but then the second encounter was about the robbery.

In sum, do you still believe "If you believe the murder of Michael Brown had anything whatsoever to do with the robbery, you really are a schmuck!  Well, or a racist bigot -- one or the other."

Nope. Also, I apologize. (Who's the schmuck now? I am!) : (

However, that still doesn't excuse, among other things:

• Wilson's alleged disrespectful tone in the initial (jaywalking) encounter
• The use of deadly force against a fleeing suspect
• The actions of the Ferguson (and/or other St. Louis area) PDs in the aftermath (e.g. the anti-media no-fly zone)

[MissGina]

Hmmm...... I seriously doubt officers are trained to pull up to a "Person With a Gun" call and spend the extra time determine if a gun is real or not.  LOL!

The fact that I'm inclined to agree with you is a sad commentary on just how far out of control our uniformed gangsters in blue really are. We are living in a fascist police state, and half of you schmucks don't even realize it (or worse, are okay with it)!

Some of us are as concerned as you are, but think you need better examples to make your point. There's no need for name calling.

People have good reasons to be upset about excessive police force, but using some punk kid in Missouri who had just robbed a store as a poster boy for a cause isn't exactly smart. Or one who reaches for his fake gun after being told to put his hands up.

Ok, what about Eric Garner, who was put in a chokehold that had been banned, did not fight back and was killed.  And his murderer, let go.  The cops are not going to be trusted if that is what they get away with.  Or how about throwing a  grenade into a house, incorrectly, without warning and having it land in a infant's bed.  And then running in and not letting the mother see her dying infant, in fact lying to her about her child.  Oh, and they were there for a person who was not even there, who later surrendered peacefully.  And they were consider no liable, even though again, what they did not within procedure.  This is epidemic, yes some of the people who get caught in this are not perfect little angels, but hell, I was not angel growing up and I doubt everyone here was either.  Treating one group differently, and killing them for their race is wrong.  How can that be such a hard concept?

"Treating one group differently, and killing them for their race is wrong"

I think some folks are in denial that the bolded part is actually happening. Just as there is a race of people that are poorer than others because of systematic racism. All of which is documented, but like the Eric Garner case, nothing happens to the ones that commit the crimes even with video evidence.

[MDM]

I suppose it is possible that between the Aug. 9 shooting and the Aug. 10 interview with Wilson, the Ferguson PD found the tape and coached Wilson on what to say...but not probable.

Why do you say it is not probable?  Given the other actions of the PD I'd say that behavior is well within likely behavior.

What I consider "not probable" is this combination:
  - Wilson did not hear the message broadcast on the police radio about the Ferguson Market robbery, and
  - Other officers did hear about it, realized that Michael Brown was caught on tape, and told Wilson about it so Wilson would have an excuse for stopping Brown.

The simpler explanation:
  - someone called 911 to report the robbery (this is not in question),
  - the police dispatcher radioed a message to that effect, and
  - Wilson heard it.

"When you hear hoof beats, think of horses not zebras." 

[MDM]

However, that still doesn't excuse, among other things:

• Wilson's alleged disrespectful tone in the initial (jaywalking) encounter
• The use of deadly force against a fleeing suspect
• The actions of the Ferguson (and/or other St. Louis area) PDs in the aftermath (e.g. the anti-media no-fly zone)

1.  If the allegation is true I agree with you.
2.  That's the $64K question, isn't it: was Brown fleeing or charging?  If fleeing, the shooting was wrong.  If charging, it was self-defense.  I don't know which is true.
3.  Yes, that wasn't handled well.

Thanks for the discussion.

[peppermint]

In response to the original question:

I work a full-time job as a research scientist. I consider myself frugal and Mustachian. I have been to a couple of Black Lives Matter protests, just as I have sporatically taken part in other protests about social issues that I feel strongly about over the years. But I don't publicize or seek out arguments with others about my choice to do so.

I read a lot of news from online versions of major newspapers and recently read an interesting book, The New Jim Crow, which is written by a professor of law and provides a compelling case [not airtight I'm sure, but put together with a lot more sources than I could drum up for an internet argument] examining how tough-on-crime and the war on drugs have influenced the way the police interact with minority populations, that mass incarceration has increased over the past few years and how that has hurt low-income communities. These protests are not just about what happened to these individuals, that's been the present spark but it is about more than that. There is a lot of thought-provoking reading on these topics out there if you are interested in looking.

I've also lived in both St. Louis and Durham. These places have violent crime but these are not war zones. Keep some perspective, the mass media won't do it for you.

[Gin1984]

However, that still doesn't excuse, among other things:

• Wilson's alleged disrespectful tone in the initial (jaywalking) encounter
• The use of deadly force against a fleeing suspect
• The actions of the Ferguson (and/or other St. Louis area) PDs in the aftermath (e.g. the anti-media no-fly zone)

1.  If the allegation is true I agree with you.
2.  That's the $64K question, isn't it: was Brown fleeing or charging?  If fleeing, the shooting was wrong.  If charging, it was self-defense.  I don't know which is true.
3.  Yes, that wasn't handled well.

Thanks for the discussion.

Which is why there should have been a trial which was not done because of the DA making a mockery of the grand jury process.

[Stlbroke]

I wish there was a protest for the other 150 murders so far this year in the city of St. Louis. But nobody cares about them.  Or so it seems. 

[justajane]

I wish there was a protest for the other 150 murders so far this year in the city of St. Louis. But nobody cares about them.  Or so it seems.

This is such a silly argument. First off, what makes you think there hasn't been discussion and/or rallies regarding the violence? I watch the local St. Louis news and recall numerous times that community leaders in North County have gotten together to discuss the violence. Just because you aren't aware of it doesn't mean that concern and action don't exist. Also, people have the remarkable ability to concern themselves with more than one problem at once. Just because people are concerned about police violence doesn't mean that they aren't concerned about black on black crime as well. I assure you that parents concern themselves with those sobering statistics too.

Also, how many times does it has to be said that this isn't just about Michael Brown anymore? His death was a catalyst, but the protests are about far more than his death.

[Kyle Schuant]

How does causing an inconvenience to every day commuters (who had nothing to do with the outcome of either of these cases they're "protesting" against) make the world a better place?

Historically, while political change can be effected by means of voting, etc, if you want protests to effect change, then you quite literally need to stop traffic. If the physical bodies of protesters shut down a city centre for a month or so, either the government sends in the troops (Tianamen Square) or it falls (Colour Revolutions in Georgia, Ukraine, etc). Usually it doesn't even take a month (took only 4 days before Morsi was out in Egypt).

That is, shutting down a city (or university, or large factory, etc) creates public pressure on the government to resolve the situation. They resolve it either with violence (cf Kent State shootings, and bayonetting in New Mexico shortly after) or with concessions. The violence sometimes ends the problem for the government (as it did with Tianamen Square in China, or Rabaa Square in Egypt) or makes it worse (as it did with Kent State). Sometimes the security forces refuse the orders for violence and either topple the government (Egypt under Mubarak) or let it fall (East Germany in 1989). But it all brings the issue to a resolution either way.

If protestors want political change from their protests, they need to stop traffic. It is indeed terribly inconvenient. But the American Revolution was inconvenient, the American Civil War was inconvenient, desegregation was inconvenient. Change is inconvenient. Bummer, really, but there it is.

[thepokercab]

In America, it is your god-given right to own a gun.  In America, cops need to be able to respond with force if they feel they are in a "dangerous situation"; which might include running into one of those Americans with their deity approved firearm. 

Of course, data is scant on these situations because no one really knows how many people are killed by law enforcement.  Why doesn't government know?  Hell, they know what I gchatted to my buddy earlier. They don't know because at least until now, they've chosen not to.  Maybe its because groups like the NRA try to cut off the nuts of any elected official or government bureaucrat who supports research and analysis into gun related death in America, law enforcement or otherwise.  Gotta keep the gun sales humming. 

So not only do people need tons of guns, but cops need to be able to shoot people with guns for feeling threatened by the people with guns; all while making sure we're as dumb as possible about when guns are used and how often.   

Its almost funny.   

[RichMoose]

In America, it is your god-given right to own a gun.  In America, cops need to be able to respond with force if they feel they are in a "dangerous situation"; which might include running into one of those Americans with their deity approved firearm. 

Of course, data is scant on these situations because no one really knows how many people are killed by law enforcement.  Why doesn't government know?  Hell, they know what I gchatted to my buddy earlier. They don't know because at least until now, they've chosen not to.  Maybe its because groups like the NRA try to cut off the nuts of any elected official or government bureaucrat who supports research and analysis into gun related death in America, law enforcement or otherwise.  Gotta keep the gun sales humming. 

So not only do people need tons of guns, but cops need to be able to shoot people with guns for feeling threatened by the people with guns; all while making sure we're as dumb as possible about when guns are used and how often.   

Its almost funny.

This is pretty much what it boils down to. There's also the fact that the court system in many American states somehow allows any citizen, not just police, to gun down any person they feel is a threat to their safety (like the Florida thing a couple years ago). Considering all this, a lot of things have to work together to make any significant reduction in gun-related deaths, by citizens and police.

On the issue of law enforcement deaths, the number is actually out there because every agency does investigations into deaths that happen in the course of investigations, especially "in custody" deaths. The quality of these investigations is another story, but the data is out there. The problem is the data is not amalgamated or compiled. So when there's thousands of different police services and law enforcement agencies out there that all do things in different ways and play by different rules, its difficult to compile accurate data over the last say 10 years.

Fortunately in Canada its quite a bit better from that perspective. Almost every province has an independent investigation service that investigates every police-related death. They, together with the prosecution, determine whether or not charges should be laid based on a reasonable likelihood of conviction (the same standard for citizens). Once completed, whether by way of trial or because there were no grounds to lay charges, the file becomes accessible to the public through an information request. Generally news agencies and civil liberties associations request information on every case and publish what they care to publish. The nice part about this system is the data goes through each province and is collected centrally, so to obtain information about police related deaths in a given year one only needs to make 13 phone calls instead of thousands. Another bonus is the information is easy to access by the public so the investigations are generally well done and thorough in their reasoning.

[BlueMR2]

The general question is are these people you're regular every day complainypants?

Getting back to this original question...  I dunno.  I've always just operated under the assumption that living in a big city causes brain damage.  I can't think of any other way to account for the general stupid stuff that seems to be part and parcel of living in a big city.  Probably yet another artifact of modern living that our bodies have not completely adapted to yet.

[MoneyCat]

Most of the protesters in NYC are just trust fund hippies from NYU who just want attention.  It is really pissing people off that they can't get home from work because they are blocking the trains and roads.  Even on the best of days, NYC commutes are hellish and now it's beyond a nightmare.

[zoltani]

It has now been proven that some witnesses were not even near the scene, and their testimony was crucial in the grand jury decision.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/dec/19/ferguson-prosecutor-witnesses-darren-wilson-michael-brown

How in the world they would let such an obvious TROLL testify is beyond me.

 

[Gin1984]

It has now been proven that some witnesses were not even near the scene, and their testimony was crucial in the grand jury decision.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/dec/19/ferguson-prosecutor-witnesses-darren-wilson-michael-brown

How in the world they would let such an obvious TROLL testify is beyond me.

Because the prosecuter wanted the grand jury not to indict.  He made a total mockery of the grand jury and people wonder why others are upset.

[zoltani]

Yes, it certainly seems that way.

[MDM]

It has now been proven that some witnesses were not even near the scene, and their testimony was crucial in the grand jury decision.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/dec/19/ferguson-prosecutor-witnesses-darren-wilson-michael-brown

How in the world they would let such an obvious TROLL testify is beyond me.

Because the prosecuter wanted the grand jury not to indict.  He made a total mockery of the grand jury and people wonder why others are upset.

http://benswann.com/smoking-gun-investigation-finds-multiple-witnesses-on-both-sides-lied-to-ferguson-grand-jury/

That's both sides.  Sounds more like the prosecutor wanted to avoid the charge that he cherry-picked the people testifying, and instead went overboard to allow anyone.  One is free to conclude whether that is mocking the grand jury or trusting the grand jury.

[zoltani]

Doesn't matter which side the witnesses were on, if the grand jury based a decision on false testimony then wouldn't that be a mistrial (or whatever is equivalent in a grand jury)?

[MDM]

Doesn't matter which side the witnesses were on, if the grand jury based a decision on false testimony then wouldn't that be a mistrial (or whatever is equivalent in a grand jury)?

If new evidence seems to prove beyond a reasonable doubt Wilson's guilt he could still be charged.  As he has not been charged, tried and acquitted, double jeopardy would not apply.

It seems the physical evidence was given the most weight in judging what (if anything) to believe about any individual's testimony.

[Gin1984]

It has now been proven that some witnesses were not even near the scene, and their testimony was crucial in the grand jury decision.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/dec/19/ferguson-prosecutor-witnesses-darren-wilson-michael-brown

How in the world they would let such an obvious TROLL testify is beyond me.

Because the prosecuter wanted the grand jury not to indict.  He made a total mockery of the grand jury and people wonder why others are upset.

http://benswann.com/smoking-gun-investigation-finds-multiple-witnesses-on-both-sides-lied-to-ferguson-grand-jury/

That's both sides.  Sounds more like the prosecutor wanted to avoid the charge that he cherry-picked the people testifying, and instead went overboard to allow anyone.  One is free to conclude whether that is mocking the grand jury or trusting the grand jury.

Except that EVERY lawyer, including a defense attorney in that state were livid at it, I trust their judgements.  It did not follow the normal procedures and because of that did not do what it was designed to accomplish.  He completely ceded his role in the entire thing.  If he was incapable of acting as was proper for his office he should have remove himself rather than do this.

[viper155]

One thing the protesters are correct about is police use of force.   I heard a piece on NPR where one midsized city went to requiring that police wear body cameras.   In the first year the rate of physical police incidents was cut in half and complaints against the police went down by 80%.   

So yes,  Police should be required to wear body cameras.

The rates went down because the scumbags in the street knew there would be evidence against them, not the other way around. These "protestors" are the same idiots that were "occupiers". Yes, I said idiots and scumbags.

[MDM]

Except that EVERY lawyer, including a defense attorney in that state were livid at it, I trust their judgements.

Every?  Really?

It did not follow the normal procedures

Already acknowledged:

Perhaps the best (as in presenting arguments for both "sides") article I've found is http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/11/cases-and-controversies-not-your-typical-grand-jury-investigation/.  It makes a good case that a prosecutor's job is (or at least should be) more about finding the likely truth than prosecuting anything one could possibly justify:

So maybe this is a case about prosecutorial or institutional bias in which Wilson was treated far too well, or – maybe – it is a case about reviving a much more robust role for the grand jury, so that others get the same legal process on display this week.

and because of that did not do what it was designed to accomplish.

And what exactly was it (the grand jury process) designed to accomplish?

[Gin1984]

Except that EVERY lawyer, including a defense attorney in that state were livid at it, I trust their judgements.

Every?  Really?

It did not follow the normal procedures

Already acknowledged:

Perhaps the best (as in presenting arguments for both "sides") article I've found is http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/11/cases-and-controversies-not-your-typical-grand-jury-investigation/.  It makes a good case that a prosecutor's job is (or at least should be) more about finding the likely truth than prosecuting anything one could possibly justify:

So maybe this is a case about prosecutorial or institutional bias in which Wilson was treated far too well, or – maybe – it is a case about reviving a much more robust role for the grand jury, so that others get the same legal process on display this week.

and because of that did not do what it was designed to accomplish.

And what exactly was it (the grand jury process) designed to accomplish?

Yes, really.  Granted the lawyers are liberals (my group is liberal) but even the lawyers in Assistant DA positions are angry.   It is suppose to be showing the there is enough evidence/ probable cause that a jury should hear the case.  This person allowed his personal opinions to taint the court.

[MDM]

Yes, really.  Granted the lawyers are liberals (my group is liberal) but even the lawyers in Assistant DA positions are angry.   It is suppose to be showing the there is enough evidence/ probable cause that a jury should hear the case.  This person allowed his personal opinions to taint the court.

Ok, thanks for clarifying that it is every lawyer you know - originally I thought you meant every lawyer in Missouri. ;)

From http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/11/26/3597322/justice-scalia-explains-what-was-wrong-with-the-ferguson-grand-jury/:

the prosecutors told the Ferguson grand jury before they started their deliberations:
And you must find probable cause to believe that Darren Wilson did not act in lawful self-defense and you must find probable cause to believe that Darren Wilson did not use lawful force in making an arrest.

Seems the grand jury was instructed appropriately.  One can still debate whether they had enough information to arrive at their conclusion, but if anything some suggest they received too much....

One can find summaries like this: http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/opinion/3633573-national-view-grand-jury-result-ferguson-was-just

The result has been a parlor game of sorts where biased observers [from both sides] point to the testimony of one eyewitness or another to support their argument of whether there should have been an indictment.

But even if eyewitness accounts are read to support an indictment, the physical evidence suggested otherwise. Paul G. Cassell, a criminal law professor at the S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah, who writes for the Volokh Conspiracy, pored through that evidence and wrote last week in the Post: “The physical evidence is important because, unlike witness testimony, it doesn’t lie and can’t be accused of bias (such as racism). As the cliche goes, the physical evidence is what it is.

His conclusion? That the powder burns, DNA, bullet trajectory, blood evidence and shell casings all support Wilson’s account.”

For the raw material, see http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/11/25/us/evidence-released-in-michael-brown-case.html?_r=0.  If anyone cares to review all of that and publish conclusions I would be interested.  Otherwise, the grand jury did hear all of that so I'll trust their conclusion.

Of course, the OJ criminal trial jury also heard everything so maybe....

[KBecks2]

Sometimes the police are right to shoot, sometimes they are not.  It's very difficult and emotional. 

I had not heard about the baby who was injured during the home raid. That is so sad.

Toy guns and guns that are replicas make things difficult!   I prefer my kids play with the bright orange, now way this looks like a weapon, nerf gun thing.  Or, maybe when they are teens they can paintball (at a paintball place).  There is a real risk to carrying a lookalike gun.  It is very dangerous!   

I feel that the rookie officer who killed the 12 year old made a bad, bad, bad mistake, just as the police who raided the wrong home.
I believe that police forces will take these events seriously and work on their training and handling and preparation so that these errors are not repeated. 

In Milwaukee we have Dontre Hamilton a, man struggling with mental illness.  The question is the circumstances of the shooting, was it self defense?  Was there a scuffle between the officer and the suspect?  It sounds to me like there was a real threat to the officer, but I only have a brief understanding of what happened.  An officer should shoot in self defense, IMO.  I feel that you threaten an officer and that is crossing the line from where they protect you to they protect themselves. 

Last year I invested in a company that makes video chips, like in the Go Pro cameras.  I was skeptical that these tiny cameras would have a lot of uses, but I guess I am wrong.   It is sad, but -- cameras should probably be welcomed by both the police and the communities.  They can be used for training, and for sorting out the truth in these sad cases.

Police will kill people sometimes it is a heavy responsibility that is part of their job, and sometimes it is their duty to protect themselves and the community through use of force.  It is very sad when things go wrong. 

Protesters in Milwaukee have been blocking the freeways, and they are arrested.  It is appropriate to arrest people who are endangering themselves and the public by going on the freeways.  Peaceful protests in the city are important.  I support everyone's right to gather and raise their issues. 

The government wants to maintain peace.  I hope that everyone is safe as people raise the issues, because no one wants more people to be put in dangerous situations.