Michael Brown Shooting and Aftermath

[Nice Squirrel]

Did I say that?

If they are traveling on a fun vacation why not wander over to Salzburg and spin amongst the buttercups?

 

[Sabine Grant]

It shows his parents acted in an irresponsible way. Also, having teenage parents is not exactly conducive to proper upbringing.
Is it any wonder Michael Brown struggled in school (mother admitted he barely graduated) and engaged in strongarm robbery?

Since you have no insights as to whether his teen parents received adequate and nurturing support from their elder relatives, I am not sure how you can conclude that being teen parents can only lead to being " not exactly conducive to proper upbringing". Further your speculation regarding teen parents assumes that adults are somehow "conducive to proper upbringing". From my personal experience of being the parent of 3 and further having socialized with numerous adult parents, it is clear to me that adult does not guarantee "conducive to proper upbringing".

Because no charges have been filed against her. An investigation is ongoing which is not to be confused for meaning that she was charged with armed robbery.

So why isn't she being charged yet? The case seems pretty clear-cut. Unlike the case against Wilson, who is not travelling abroad while his case is being deliberated by the grand jury. Imagine the outrage if he was travelling to Switzerland!

You have absolutely NO access to any pieces of evidence current investigators are gathering. You produced ONE article and then now somehow feel that you have the necessary knowledge and investigative skills to conclude "the case seems pretty clear-cut". I hope you are not assuming that anyone is to take your assessment seriously.

http://www.ushrnetwork.org/our-work/project/cat-convention-against-torture

This link doesn't explain to me why a shooting of a criminal suspect who is accused of also attacking the police comes under the purview of UN anti-torture treaties.
By the way, this organization is a smorgasbord of all sorts of left-wing organizations, including Coalition against Keystone XL pipeline.

I provided that link because it actually provides the ENTIRE title of the convention rather the shortened "Convention Against Torture" While I also made sure to mention it in the same paragraph :

the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or
Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

To support the ACTUAL entire title rather than the shortened one to "torture" which left out the rest,

http://legal.un.org/avl/ha/catcidtp/catcidtp.html

The Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (the “Torture Convention”) was adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 10 December 1984 (resolution 39/46). The Convention entered into force on 26 June 1987 after it had been ratified by 20 States.

The Torture Convention was the result of many years’ work, initiated soon after the adoption of the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Being Subjected to Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (the “Torture Declaration”) by the General Assembly on 9 December 1975 (resolution 3452 (XXX)).

Do you have now any rationally constructed argumentation to deny the actual entire title to the Convention? Are you going to pursue to ignore that entire title and more importantly its significance? Because if you do, of course, you will continue to believe that the sole purpose of that convention is to address cases when an individual was tortured and...nothing else. Clear enough?

FYI, a grassroot movement in Chicago is also heading to that Convention regarding Police Brutality in Chicago.

Human rights of Chicagoans are much more endangered by violent crime than by so-called "police brutality".

The parents of Michael Brown are going to a United Nations meeting in Switzerland to speak against civil rights violations, racial profiling and police violence in the United States, according to a St. Louis University assistant law professor who is helping organize the trip....

I.e. what I was saying - badmouth the US. And what does make them "experts" on these issues anyway?

To an individual who has no issues with the repeated incidence of questionable fatal shootings by US law enforcement personnel, who has no issues with the incidences of use of disproportionate force by US law enforcement bodies (known as police brutality), I can see how such individual would conclude that it is "about bad mouthing". But to people who do not sweep under the carpet those incidences and are alarmed by those incidences especially when occurring in a leading First World Nation, we consider it an issue which must be addressed and justifiably. Clear enough?

Your whimpering about " bad mouthing" can only denote a trend to being part of the individuals who sweep all those incidences under the carpet.

Saint Louis University Law professor Justin Hansford co-wrote the brief. He said they are hoping for a global movement against excessive force by law enforcement and international recognition that police violated human rights in their interactions with protesters.

How was the police supposed to act toward violent rioters? Remember that a QuickTrip was looted and torched on the very first day of these "protests". The subsequent heavy-handed police presence is a direct consequence of the early violence by the protesters. And the violence is still going on:
Man beaten at Ferguson protest strategy meeting
Ferguson protester throws beer at motorcyclist causing accident

There is plenty of supported documentation from first hand observers regarding the military style intervention of the police depart. To include the use of military equipment. To include instances of cops demanding that protesters "keep walking" and duly observed by millions when a CNN reporter on sight was in fact intimidated and with physical contact by a cop demanding he "keeps walking" when he was stationary, on camera, and directly reporting. You may not be aware that such actions violate the right of the people to assembly. Like it or not but the so called "greatest democracy" with the alternate title of "greatest nation" is not to be immune from being placed under scrutiny for violating civil and human rights. That to include police brutality. That to include any symptoms of racially based profiling leading to any law enforcement body in this "greatest democracy" to specifically target members of ethnic minorities. Clear enough?

“We cross our fingers that it’ll be something that will influence decision-makers to take a more peaceful, more preventative approach as opposed to a more militarized approach to responding to peaceful protests. So it could save some lives,” Hansford said. He added that the issue is especially important right now because more protests are expected when the grand jury announces whether it will indict Darren Wilson in the death of Michael Brown.

When there is violence coming from the protesters the police must respond forcefully. Peaceful policing doesn't work against violent subjects. What this professor wants is police to show restraint even while he expects protesters to get much more violent if Wilson doesn't get indicted.
And this is all about protests, not the shooting itself. Which makes me wonder about what the parents are doing there.

Had you paid attention to which role and duties the UN is to assume ( I posted a link clearly detailing all of them), you would not be asking such question. Not only you neglected from the get go to do your own search to answer your questions but now you are NOT paying attention to what is being documented for you and answers your questions. In fact, you seem to be more interested in engaging in rants rather than paying attention to those answers.

It also appears that you have missed Hansford's point of contention which to me seems clear enough as stated that it should not lead to the disconnected reply you provided. He stated :

“We cross our fingers that it’ll be something that will influence decision-makers to take a more peaceful, more preventative approach as opposed to a more militarized approach to responding to peaceful protests. So it could save some lives

"a more peaceful, more preventative approach as opposed to a more militarized approach". Key words being " as opposed to a more militarized approach". Again, supported documentation and viewed by millions clearly showed a militarization of and reliance on military equipment from the said law enforcement body. There was NO discernment made between violent protesters and peaceful ones. To the point of cops being caught on camera threatening with their weapons peaceful protesters while engaging in verbal threats of harm towards those peaceful protesters. That such style of police interventions be placed under scrutiny is totally justified.

I guess another search would have informed you as to the role of the UN regarding Human Rights :

http://www.un.org/rights/dpi1774e.htm

Oh yes, the UN Human Rights Council which passed almost half of its resolutions against Israel and passed a resolution against blasphemy.
What exactly in this link do you think applies to this police shooting anyway?

You asked in a one liner what the UN has to do with it. I gave you the link detailing the role and duties assumed by the UN regarding its overseeing Human Rights. The Convention is a sub branch of those roles and duties, and intended to cover (once more) :

The Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

"and OTHER Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment".

You seem to not be able to connect the dots with the Degrading Treatment of peaceful protesters and the questionable fatal shooting of Michael Brown ( among other incidences of questionable fatal shootings by law enforcement officers and abuse of force or police brutality and at a national level).

Further, let me strongly suggest you abstain from any attempt to drag in any hobby horses by baiting anyone into a discussion regarding Israel in view of this comment :

Oh yes, the UN Human Rights Council which passed almost half of its resolutions against Israel and passed a resolution against blasphemy

If you wish to discuss the value or lack of value of such resolutions, start your own separate thread.

Private donations collected by the party who is sponsoring their trip. Note the specific of donations indicating that you need not to worry about public funds or tax payer contributions being used to support their trip.

I.e. the radical left wing "human rights" group you linked to above.

. Non. Again you paying close attention to the content of the links provided to you would have informed you that it is Law Assistant Professor Hansford who is organizing and sponsoring their trip to Geneva, that a website not related to the group you referred to was set up to collect those donations made by private citizens.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

I hope they follow through on this: Racially-charged tweet on Ferguson shooting to get Texas teacher fired

Yes, I believe she is getting fired. So?

 

[laughing dog]

1. Believing the death was wrongful
2. ???
3. Going to the UN
There seems to be a logical step missing.

The UN conference is looking at police brutality in the US (among other things). The parents are part of delegation from the US. All of this is public information in this thread. So the logical step that is missing is in your argument.

If you think a death of a loved one is wrongful, you can file a wrongful death suit.

And they have time to do so. Most people wait for the investigation to finish. Are you under the impression they must file now?

You can await the criminal proceedings.

Which they (and many other people) are still awaiting.

But I do not see how grandstanding at the UN is in any way helpful.

If one believed the local or federal investigating authorities were either untrustworthy or lollygagging, then attempting to get the UN involved might seem helpful. Certainly it is more logical and helpful to one's cause than engaging in nasty and heartless disparagement of grieving parents.

 

[Derec]

The UN conference is looking at police brutality in the US (among other things).

When are they going to look at Putin's Russia? Or Islamic theocracy of Iran?

The parents are part of delegation from the US.

Not part of any official US delegation. Rather, a bunch of radical groups opposed to US.

And they have time to do so. Most people wait for the investigation to finish. Are you under the impression they must file now?

Of course. But why must they grandstand now? UN going somewhere?

Which they (and many other people) are still awaiting.

With bated breath. Of course, they threaten violence if it doesn't go their way.

If one believed the local or federal investigating authorities were either untrustworthy or lollygagging, then attempting to get the UN involved might seem helpful.

UN has no jurisdiction anyway. All this will do is give some questionable rhetorical ammunition to people like Putin and Khamenei when they are actually oppressing their people.

 

[laughing dog]

When are they going to look at Putin's Russia? Or Islamic theocracy of Iran?

Not part of any official US delegation. Rather, a bunch of radical groups opposed to US.

There seems to be a number of logical steps missing in order to make either response remotely relevant to the actual discussion. Are you under the delusion that any group must investigate perceived misbehavior by everyone in order to investigate the perceived misbehavior of someone in particular?

Of course. But why must they grandstand now? UN going somewhere?

I think a possible answer was contained later in the response. Perhaps if you read the entire post before you responded, we might avoid these embarrassing redundant exchanges.

With bated breath. Of course, they threaten violence if it doesn't go their way.

Who is threatening violence if it doesn't go their way? I know for a fact there a plenty of people who are not threatening violence regardless of the outcome.

UN has no jurisdiction anyway.

The reason you feel this is remotely relevant is......? The UN has the power of persuasion and publicity. If one believes that UN action might help matters along, it makes sense to approach the UN.

All this will do is give some questionable rhetorical ammunition to people like Putin and Khamenei when they are actually oppressing their people.

This is an opinion of dubious value.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

When are they going to look at Putin's Russia? Or Islamic theocracy of Iran?

I assume you've looked at all their proceedings over time and come to this well-informed conclusion.

:laughing-smiley-014 :laughing-smiley-014

 

[Sarpedon]

All this will do is give some questionable rhetorical ammunition to people like Putin and Khamenei when they are actually oppressing their people.

Why not turn it around, and say that brutal actions like those undertaken by the Ferguson police and mayor undermine our foreign policy goals by showing our internal hypocrisy. Therefore, people responsible for these actions should be prosecuted and removed from authority, as they are a threat to our international interests.

But no, you'd rather blame a woman who's child has just been shot. Because that is the sort of person you are.

 

[Toni]

When are they going to look at Putin's Russia? Or Islamic theocracy of Iran?

The parents are part of delegation from the US.

Not part of any official US delegation. Rather, a bunch of radical groups opposed to US.

And they have time to do so. Most people wait for the investigation to finish. Are you under the impression they must file now?

Of course. But why must they grandstand now? UN going somewhere?

Which they (and many other people) are still awaiting.

With bated breath. Of course, they threaten violence if it doesn't go their way.

If one believed the local or federal investigating authorities were either untrustworthy or lollygagging, then attempting to get the UN involved might seem helpful.

UN has no jurisdiction anyway. All this will do is give some questionable rhetorical ammunition to people like Putin and Khamenei when they are actually oppressing their people.

You are making a mistake that is all too common among conservatives and well, humanity: The fact that the behavior of other countries/peoples/individuals is worse than what is being criticized now is not relevant to whether the current behavior under discussion is wrong or not.

I am ashamed to believe that any American would think that injustice and brutality in the U.S. should not be discussed and rectified because Iran and Russia or any other nation--indeed if it were EVERY single nation in the world is worse.

The fact that there are unpunished murderers and rapists does not give me license to steal or commit any other criminal act.

 

[EricK]

When are they going to look at Putin's Russia? Or Islamic theocracy of Iran?


Not part of any official US delegation. Rather, a bunch of radical groups opposed to US.

And they have time to do so. Most people wait for the investigation to finish. Are you under the impression they must file now?

Of course. But why must they grandstand now? UN going somewhere?

Which they (and many other people) are still awaiting.

With bated breath. Of course, they threaten violence if it doesn't go their way.

If one believed the local or federal investigating authorities were either untrustworthy or lollygagging, then attempting to get the UN involved might seem helpful.

UN has no jurisdiction anyway. All this will do is give some questionable rhetorical ammunition to people like Putin and Khamenei when they are actually oppressing their people.

You are making a mistake that is all too common among conservatives and well, humanity: The fact that the behavior of other countries/peoples/individuals is worse than what is being criticized now is not relevant to whether the current behavior under discussion is wrong or not.

I am ashamed to believe that any American would think that injustice and brutality in the U.S. should not be discussed and rectified because Iran and Russia or any other nation--indeed if it were EVERY single nation in the world is worse.

The fact that there are unpunished murderers and rapists does not give me license to steal or commit any other criminal act.

Both acts might be wrong, but if, say, there was a serial rapist loose in your town, and also a serial shoplifter, and if the police had limited resources, I think we would both hope they would put those resources into catching the former criminal rather than the latter.

So it is often justified to point out worse actions than the ones being criticized because the very fact that they are worse means it would be better to get them sorted out first.

 

[Toni]

When are they going to look at Putin's Russia? Or Islamic theocracy of Iran?


Not part of any official US delegation. Rather, a bunch of radical groups opposed to US.

And they have time to do so. Most people wait for the investigation to finish. Are you under the impression they must file now?

Of course. But why must they grandstand now? UN going somewhere?

Which they (and many other people) are still awaiting.

With bated breath. Of course, they threaten violence if it doesn't go their way.

If one believed the local or federal investigating authorities were either untrustworthy or lollygagging, then attempting to get the UN involved might seem helpful.

UN has no jurisdiction anyway. All this will do is give some questionable rhetorical ammunition to people like Putin and Khamenei when they are actually oppressing their people.

You are making a mistake that is all too common among conservatives and well, humanity: The fact that the behavior of other countries/peoples/individuals is worse than what is being criticized now is not relevant to whether the current behavior under discussion is wrong or not.

I am ashamed to believe that any American would think that injustice and brutality in the U.S. should not be discussed and rectified because Iran and Russia or any other nation--indeed if it were EVERY single nation in the world is worse.

The fact that there are unpunished murderers and rapists does not give me license to steal or commit any other criminal act.

Both acts might be wrong, but if, say, there was a serial rapist loose in your town, and also a serial shoplifter, and if the police had limited resources, I think we would both hope they would put those resources into catching the former criminal rather than the latter.

So it is often justified to point out worse actions than the ones being criticized because the very fact that they are worse means it would be better to get them sorted out first.

For the purpose of this discussion, bringing up misdeeds of other countries does not add productively to the discussion of unarmed people being shot by police.

Nor does insisting that the age of parents at the conception of the victim of such a shooting or subsequent accusations about the supposed misdeeds of the parents after the shooting serve as distractions and red herrings: the plain fact is that police shoot and kill a lot of unarmed people and in fact the exact numbers of such shootings are not known because such stats are not officially kept. But it's not rare.

 

[Jayjay]

To put things in perspective, the Browns are going to be a part of a delegation of more than 70 people who will discuss other topics such as extradition, Guantanomo bay and whatnot. So in fact ferguson is just one item in a laundry list of various issues pertaining to US adherence towards treaty against torture, some of which are more valid than others. While I do agree that the connection between Ferguson and the anti-torture UN forum is tenous at best, it'll be only a minute part of it and I'm not too concerned about the "ammunition" their presence might give to Khamenei and Putin.

Nobody outside the US really gives a shit about Ferguson. We've got bigger problems of our own.

 

[blastula]

Getting a free trip to Switzerland because your thug son got shot by police is a good deal, all things considered.

The proportion of parents who would consider such a tradeoff a good deal is probably very very small.

I agree. Which raises the question of why his parents are doing it.

What is this supposed to mean? You're asking why they arranged for their son to be shot so they could go to Switzerland. Or you're asking why they should go on with their lives now that their son is dead.

I've got a question. When will you stop asking stupid questions?

 

[Derec]

For the purpose of this discussion, bringing up misdeeds of other countries does not add productively to the discussion of unarmed people being shot by police.

This part of the discussion is specifically about the parents going to the UN torture conference. In that context the biases and behavior of UN bodies are definitely relevant.

Nor does insisting that the age of parents at the conception of the victim of such a shooting or subsequent accusations about the supposed misdeeds of the parents after the shooting serve as distractions and red herrings: the plain fact is that police shoot and kill a lot of unarmed people and in fact the exact numbers of such shootings are not known because such stats are not officially kept. But it's not rare.

I am sure there are many cases when police shoot unarmed people. Sometimes that is justified, sometimes it is not. Unarmed doesn't necessarily mean that the person is not a danger to the police or others. This case is really an ambiguous one - on the one hand Brown robbed a store and probably attacked the police officer, but on the other
As far as talking about things like the mother being accused of robbing the grandmother, that firmly fits under the "and aftermath" part of the thread title, don't you think?

 

[Derec]

What is this supposed to mean? You're asking why they arranged for their son to be shot so they could go to Switzerland.

No, but they seem to be milking the situation for what it's worth. Involvement of such publicity hogs as Al Sharpton or Benjamin Crump doesn't help matters either.

Or you're asking why they should go on with their lives now that their son is dead.

But they are not really "going on with their lives".

 

[Derec]

You are making a mistake that is all too common among conservatives and well, humanity: The fact that the behavior of other countries/peoples/individuals is worse than what is being criticized now is not relevant to whether the current behavior under discussion is wrong or not.

That, as far as it goes, is of course true.
However, when you have a body that points the finger way too often at your (and your smaller, weaker buddy's) relatively minor misdeeds while mostly ignoring the real bad apples then there is a big problem with that body.

I am ashamed to believe that any American would think that injustice and brutality in the U.S. should not be discussed and rectified because Iran and Russia or any other nation--indeed if it were EVERY single nation in the world is worse.

Whatever injustice and brutality there exists should be addressed - although there are legitimate disagreements as to the nature and extent of these things - but a UN forum is not really a good way to do it.

The fact that there are unpunished murderers and rapists does not give me license to steal or commit any other criminal act.

No, but a legal system that ignores murders and rapes committed by some while punishing you for the slightest infraction is an evil system.
In other words: do you really think almost half of all human rights abuses in the world are done by Israel?

 

[RavenSky]

Hmmm... If my kid was murdered, and I saw someone making money off of my kids death without permission from me, I think I'd be a bit pissed off as well. That doesn't justify beating the guy and taking his stuff, but then what other option do they have, call the cops? Don't think that would be considered a good idea there.

crjq.

 

[laughing dog]

But they are not really "going on with their lives".

On what basis do you arrive at the pronouncement?

 

[RavenSky]

Has anyone here known Derec from the early 1980's?

I'm just curious what his opinion was of John Walsh. Did it mirror the vile crap he spews about the parents of Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin and every other young black male killed?

 

[Sabine Grant]

This part of the discussion is specifically about the parents going to the UN torture conference. In that context the biases and behavior of UN bodies are definitely relevant.

Interesting that you still refer to the " UN torture conference" when I detailed for you the actual title and purpose of the Convention and in which context several groups from the US will be attending it :

http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...ng-and-Aftermath&p=85838&viewfull=1#post85838

To note that you did not address the details and information I provided in my post linked to above.

Nor does insisting that the age of parents at the conception of the victim of such a shooting or subsequent accusations about the supposed misdeeds of the parents after the shooting serve as distractions and red herrings: the plain fact is that police shoot and kill a lot of unarmed people and in fact the exact numbers of such shootings are not known because such stats are not officially kept. But it's not rare.

I am sure there are many cases when police shoot unarmed people. Sometimes that is justified, sometimes it is not. Unarmed doesn't necessarily mean that the person is not a danger to the police or others. This case is really an ambiguous one - on the one hand Brown robbed a store and probably attacked the police officer, but on the other
As far as talking about things like the mother being accused of robbing the grandmother, that firmly fits under the "and aftermath" part of the thread title, don't you think?

You are still missing the point that this Convention deals with not just torture but other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Ratified in 1984 and the US being one of the signatories. The fact that so many recurring incidents of police brutality and questionable fatal shootings by law enforcement officers in the US suffices for such events to be placed under scrutiny under the category of Degrading, or Cruel or Inhuman Treatment or Punishment.

I had detailed in the post linked to above which treatments of the protesters are justifiably to be placed under scrutiny and why. Either you did not read that post or you did and dismissed it while you could pursue to formulate further opinions and ask further questions as if you were given no information in this thread addressing your opinions and questions.

As to what "firmly fits under the aftermath part of the thread", I will remind you (once more) that your attempting to place bait questions or/and comments regarding what other countries do or do not do and how the UN addresses it can only hijack this discussion away from the intended topic. I had already previously asked you to start your own thread if you wish to discuss whether UN resolutions regarding Israel have any value. You now (again) place another hijacking bait question with this :

In other words: do you really think almost half of all human rights abuses in the world are done by Israel?

I will urge other participants to not run with that derailing question by fueling it with replies. You, Derec, can start your own thread with an Op leading a discussion towards which nations commit human rights abuse and what the percentage of those abuses are per nation. Clear enough?