• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Michael Brown Shooting and Aftermath

There seems to be a very coordinated effort to prevent reporters from covering the Ferguson protests. Two reporters were arrested (& immediately released without charges once they got to the precinct) from that McDonald's. News helicopters are being forbidden to fly over the area. Other reporters are being ordered out for no reason.

If we needed a display of the over-militarization of our police forces, I think we are getting it in Ferguson.

Quite a different scene here compared to the Bundy ranch, isn't it.

The Huffington Post reported that state Sen. Maria Chapelle Nadal (D), who criticized the police response in an MSNBC interview on Tuesday night, was taken into custody.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/08/...test-show-cops-treating-city-like-a-war-zone/
 
So, turns out police forces are a power system just as much as anything else. I just hate the fact that police violence happens at all.

If you're going to pay someone to carry a gun and give them a right to use it, make sure stuff like this doesn't happen, and if it does charge them like you would any other person.
 
I think I know why this force does not have dash cams. If they are forcibly removing reporters from McDonalds, they obviously do not want their actions recorded.
 
Michael Brown was an 18 year old recent high school graduate who was about to start his tech college program in HVAC.
As you said, he was about to start a HVAC program at Vatterott.
Yet many accounts omit the "HVAC" part making it sound that he was about to start at an actual university. I do not think that is accidental.
Then there is his mother who let it slip that she had a hard time getting him to stay in school and graduate. Were his problems merely academic or also disciplinary?

I think that the background of the police officer who shot Brown is at least as relevant. More so, actually.
Obviously both are relevant. However, some people deny that the "shootee's" background is ever relevant which is ridiculous.
Any history of violence would be particularly interesting. Did the officer have a history of excessive use of force? That would make Brown's buddy's story more credible. Did Brown have any problems with the law or in school disciplinary problems, particularly involving violence? That would make the police officer's story more credible.
I think it is important to determine what actually happened to the best of our ability and not just sacrifice the police officer to appease the rioters (like what happened with the Rodney King situation).
 
Last edited:
So, one way to handle this situation would be to look it up in Wikipedia, ask a question about the reference or simply not comment on the reference. None of those options is insulting and the first two have the side benefit of potentially gaining information.
Sure. But as I said what I wanted to point out in my comment is the casual assumption that Mookie and others would be known to general public by name. Which is hardly the case.

I never watched Seinfeld. But I know who Jerry, Kramer and Elaine are.
That's exactly my point. Even people who haven't seen the show still recognize the characters. It points to cultural penetration of that show. Very few movies or TV shows have that kind of ubiquitous recognition, even fewer retain it 2-3 decades hence.

Just because you are not familiar with characters from films doesn't mean that those character names are not household names in the U.S. as a whole.
Just because you are familiar with them doesn't mean they are household names.
I reckon that if you did a poll among Americans and asked them if they recognized the names of Star Wars (a bit older than DTRT), Seinfeld (a bit newer than DTRT) and DTRT itself anywhere between 10-100 x as many people would recognize where characters from the first two come from compared to the third.

Rather than simply being a cult film (surely it left 'cult film' status 20 years ago), it not only received an academy award (they show the awards on tv) but is well regarded by most film critics, appearing on the best film lists of many main stream media including NYT and Variety.
DTRT didn't win an Oscar but was nominated. It lost to Denzel Washington and Dead Poets Society (how's that for a coincidence - RIP Robin Williams) respectively.
That said, critical acclaim doesn't necessarily to widespread recognition.

I wasn't referring to you as a fool in the least. And still am not, although you are clinging to the notion that Do the Right Thing is a niche film. Personally I find it foolish of me if I don't bother to check out references I might not understand or ask questions to help me understand--and go ahead and shine a big light on the fact that I am too lazy to make that much effort. But as I said: that's me and how I do things.
You are assuming I did not look it up - in fact I did right after making my comment. As I said, my comment was regarding the assumption that most people would be familiar with the names of the characters.
One thing I found out while researching DTRT is this:
tumblr_lfcwk3Pk681qe010xo1_500.jpg

I wonder if including this graffito means that Spike Lee actually believes it. If so, that would make him a very gullible fool indeed.

But I guess we've ventured off topic long enough.
 
Last edited:
Gee, I control Daily Kos and local state reps!!! damn I'm fucking powerful!
"Your side" in this case means the side you belong to, not the side you control.
In any case, I brought those two up to show you what real "jumping to conclusions" means. It is definitely not "let's wait for the results of the investigation and let's look at all the facts including the backgrounds of the participants".
Now if only I was powerful enough to make Derec stop posting stupid shit.
No need to get personal!
Bottom line, Derec - you absolutely are the one who ALWAyS jumps to immediate conclusions, always on the basis of gender and/or race.
Nope. Even as far back as Duke Lacrosse I said we should not be jumping to the conclusions while many posters thought that the "privileged white males" were obviously guilty of raping the "poor black woman" (and "poor" my ass - she was making several hundreds dollars a night dancing!)
The ONLY reason you want to wait for more information in this case is that you haven't yet found some right-wing rag publishing enough made up crap about Michael Brown for you to *conclude* Michael Brown was a thug who deserved to die.
I do not think he "deserved" to die in any case. But I do think we need to look at all the facts before concluding whether the shooting was justified or not. Those facts would be autopsy results, physical evidence (there are reports that the police officer sustained injuries in the confrontation with Brown), witness statements (acknowledging possible witness bias) but also the background of the participants.

But it's coming... everyone here knows it. So until then, don't try to pretend otherwise because it makes you look ridiculous.
Why are you so certain that anything negative about Brown to come out would be "made up crap"? Sounds suspiciously like "jumping to conclusions" to me. :)
 
\Michael Brown's background is immaterial to what happened unless there is some actual disinterested evidence that Mr. Brown and the police officer had some prior history that is relevant.
Nonsense. If the cop had history of use of excessive force that would be relevant even if Brown and he never crossed paths before.
Same goes if Brown himself had a history of violent behavior.

Which would mean you should also what to know the police officer's background. Funny, how that did not crop up in your posts. Hmmm.
Perhaps because I know that that part is not the controversial one around here so I do not need to be arguing it. Obviously both parties' backgrounds are relevant.
 
Nonsense. If the cop had history of use of excessive force that would be relevant even if Brown and he never crossed paths before.
Same goes if Brown himself had a history of violent behavior.

Which would mean you should also what to know the police officer's background. Funny, how that did not crop up in your posts. Hmmm.
Perhaps because I know that that part is not the controversial one around here so I do not need to be arguing it. Obviously both parties' backgrounds are relevant.


No, Derec it is not obvious. It is particularly not obvious coming from you.
 
doesn't disprove it either. And those number do indicate something besides basic police work and chance is at work. And then of course there is that pesky little thing called history. Gosh darn it.
It's not like we are dealing with random things.
now that is true.
When they find whites in drug territory it's usually an easy bust, they'll see the buy and then scoop up the buyer. Basically 100% chance of contraband. There's no corresponding easy bust for blacks.
are you saying black people aren't being busted for drugs?
And *WHY* are they arrested?
Loren that is the point of contention. Do try to keep up.
How many are for outstanding warrants?

you tell us.

I heard about a similar report this morning for the state of IL, claiming higher search rates yet lower found-drug "hit" rates for blacks than whites. At first, I thought that seem rather damning, but then I realized that factors like suspicious behavior and shitty/abusive initial attitudes towards the cops are major determinants of whether a traffic stop leads to a search.
if black people didn't have bad attitudes , cops wouldn't have to kill us. But bad attitudes are a high crime and deserving of capital punishment. the police, the trained professional who are supposed to be well versed in de-escalation technique have no power of the force of the black bad attitude and must therefore shoot and kill.

And what do black people have to feel out of sorts about? Not like there has ever been anything any police officer has ever done to any black person, past or present, that should make a black person guarded or even a teensy bit anxious. And since all black people know cops have guns and will shot them, heaven forbid they don't just acquiesce and be happy, smiling ... Citizens.

Questioning public servants when you have done nothing wrong or asserting the rights of citizens not to be harassed, that's not for black people. Nor is the right to have a bad day or a bad attitude. That's for other people.

None of this has any relevance to what I said or to the issue of why blacks are searched more often during stops. If a person bad mouths or hassles a cop who asks for licence and registration, they are going to be far more likely to get searched, no matter what color they are. Whether this is appropriate by the cop is irrelevant to how it related to differential search rates. If blacks who get stopped are more likely to have such a reaction, then they will be more likely to be searched, not because they are black but because of such a reaction. Why they engage in the reaction is also not relevant to the search in question. If they are upset about 500 years of oppression and suspect racism by the cop (whether justified or not) and this makes them have such a reaction, then they will be more likely to get searched, and again that search will not be triggered by their race but by their reaction. Notice that about 90% of blacks who are stopped do not get search. They are all black, so being black is not why those that get searched are searched. The individual person's reaction to the cops is one factor that could play a role, but the whole point of my post is that even without this speculative but plausible factor that could create different search rates, the actual data posted provide more than enough direct evidence of differences that more than warrant to greater search rates without race having anything to do with it.



The data in this table add even more reason to doubt that the discrepancy in searches and arrests is racial profiling. First, "contraband" includes merely having a joint or an empty beer can in the back seat or even a 6 pack in the trunk if the driver is under 21. But contraband also includes having a weapon or stolen property. If we exclude the drug/alcohol category of "contraband", then blacks who are pulled over are twice as likely as whites to have weapons or stolen property. Then there is the age difference. 40% of the whites that are stopped are over the age of 40, whereas only 27% of blacks stopped are that old.
Then there is the reason for the stop. Whites are more likely to be stopped for a specific traffic or equipment violation, whereas blacks are about twice as likely than whites to be stopped due to the car not having a proper licence/registration or as part of investigating a suspected crime (more on that in minute). Then we come to outstanding warrants. Blacks in a traffic stop are 4 times as likely to have an outstanding warrant, which accounts for far more arrests than all other reasons combined. Not only do the warrants fully account for the higher arrest rates during a stop, but they also would contribute greatly to the car/person being searched.

In sum, the data show plenty of justified non-racial profiling reasons why blacks would be more likely to be searched and arrested once pulled over. The only thing that remains "suspicious" is why blacks are more likely to be pulled over for non-traffic "investigation" reasons. More detail from the police reports is needed to determine that, especially specifics about what parts of town the stops are being made in. Given that in almost every town or city blacks drive more often in the areas where the most ongoing criminal activity is being reported and investigated, it isn't surprising that they would be more likely to be pulled over while cops are in these areas investigated reported robberies, shooting, drug deals, etc..

Are there racist cops in America targeting blacks? Very likely. Is this data evidence of that? No.
Actually they are. You could argue the numbers are not conclusive, but not that they are not evidence.

They are not just inconclusive, they are not at all suggestive of racial profiling in terms of the differential search and arrest rates. Yes, they are "evidence", but evidence strongly in favor of the opposing theory that the cops are justified in their greater searches and arrests based solely upon outstanding warrants for prior crimes and the double odds of a weapon or stolen property in the vehicle. As soon as they run the license, they know there is a warrant and for what prior crime. They are required to arrest those with warrants and searches will be part of that process given that the warrant will likely give more than enough probable cause.
So, there is no room for discretion there in which the racism of the cop can play a role. So, we (rationally) should (which means you will not) subtract the incidents where their is an outstanding warrant and thus and arrest and search is essentially mandated. When we do that, we find that white people without warrants are searched 5% of the time, while black people without warrants are only searched 4% of the time. IOW, if the "evidence" suggests anything, it suggests racism-motivated searches against white drivers.

why are black folk being pulled over to begin with?

I addressed that along with the clear evidence showing non-race motivated searches and arrests that you completely ignored and somehow pretend is still in favor of your preferred hypothesis.
First, warrants come up when a plate is run and can be the cause of the stop to begin with. So, the fact that blacks are much more likely to have a warrant makes them more likely to get pulled over, searched, and arrested. IT alone accounts for it all without even having to consider the added fact of more probable gun and stolen property possession or their reaction to being pulled over, or the difference in where they are driving, their younger age, etc.. But all of these other factors could easily add to their likelihood of being pulled over without the cops factoring in their race. Heck I didn't even mention the number of passengers or the hours at which they are driving, both of which are generally related to age (younger drivers having more passengers cruising late at night), and thus likely related to race since the stats show that the biggest discrepancy is among drivers 18-29 years old.


And why is Michael Brown dead?


Clearly for reasons unrelated to the stats in question, since they show the discrepancy is entirely due to higher warrant rates and prior criminal behavior by black drivers, and Brown had no warrants and wasn't driving. Perhaps racism was a part of his death, but your desire to "prove" that is making you point to data that lend zero support for that belief and if anything undermine it. At minimum, Brown's deliberate refusal to cooperate and resist detention (which was admitted to by his friend that was walking with him) was a major contributor to his death. Given the admitted refusal to cooperate, it lends credence to the cops claim of a physical altercation. The cop also says that struggle inside his cruiser led to an initial gun shot inside the cruiser. That should be easy to verify and hard to account for without such a struggle, unless the cop thought to fire a shot inside his car after-the-fact in some kind of very clever cover story. Did the cop act unreasonably and too aggressively at the start or any other point? Maybe, we have no data in it. Even if true, is that evidence of racism. Not unless cops never act overly aggressive with with people who resist detention. Was the cop racist? Maybe, but if so it isn't evidence that the vehicle search numbers are anything other than a rational analysis shows them to be, which is cops responding to outstanding warrants.

this is what I read when I read you.

Racism could exist (we don't know that for a fact, but it could) but nothing so far can prove it. Nothing so far ever has.

So, it is clear you have basic problems comprehending the meaning of statistics (even those you put forth as "evidence" for your claims), and trouble grasping written prose as well. Nothing I have said implies the stance you attribute to me. I very much acknowledge the existence of racism, and of empirical evidence for it, including the sadly few well controlled studies that have demonstrated it at work. Also, both statistical odds and specific case examples say that it definitely exists among some cops and impacts their actions. I have said all this in various threads about racism.

And as long as there is another reason or rationalization available,
IOW, you view clear evidence of a variable like outststanding warrants that we know does (and must by law) directly impact arrests as a mere "rationalization" for why one person with a warrant is arrested and another without a warrant is arrested.

reasonable people must dismiss racism,
No, reasonable people would not do what you just did and dismiss a well established alternative cause as a "rationalization". It has nothing to do with beliefs about racism in general, at least not for reasonable people, because the question is about whether racism is a major cause of a specific act (Brown's shooting) or narrow subset of acts (searching and arresting of drivers in that town), which may or may not be the case regardless of the general existence of racism.
I believe that smoking causes lung cancer and thus death. But every time someone dies, I don't blindly assume it was smoking even if the person was a smoker. You do the equivalent of assuming every smoker who dies does so due to smoking, even when they clearly have a bullet wound to the head. Ironically, what your approach is the application of a generalized stereotype to inferring what must be true in specific cases.

Your comments really highlight the source of your unreason and total refusal to honestly consider empirical data relevant to the specific actions in question that arise in this and other threads. You allow your general beliefs about racism to completely determine your beliefs about the causal factors of any specific act where a black person is negatively treated, not only when there is no evidence of it in that case but even when there is clear evidence in favor of non-racist causal factors, as in the case of the greater searches and arrests of black drivers, even though this only exists for black drivers with warrants against them. Your sole tool in your toolbox is an anti-racism hammer, so everywhere you look, you see racist nails.
 
Nonsense. If the cop had history of use of excessive force that would be relevant even if Brown and he never crossed paths before.
Same goes if Brown himself had a history of violent behavior.

Which would mean you should also what to know the police officer's background. Funny, how that did not crop up in your posts. Hmmm.
Perhaps because I know that that part is not the controversial one around here so I do not need to be arguing it. Obviously both parties' backgrounds are relevant.

The problem currently is that it looks like some sort of physical "arm wrestling" took place near the car, but Brown was shot in the back 20 ft away from the officer. Past violent behavior would indicate that Brown would have stayed to fight and not try to get away.
 
The problem currently is that it looks like some sort of physical "arm wrestling" took place near the car, but Brown was shot in the back 20 ft away from the officer. Past violent behavior would indicate that Brown would have stayed to fight and not try to get away.
I doubt you could describe what happened as "arm wrestling". And a shot person can stagger 20 ft before collapsing. That's why the autopsy is vital to determine what approximate distance each of the shots that hit him were made from.
 
The problem currently is that it looks like some sort of physical "arm wrestling" took place near the car, but Brown was shot in the back 20 ft away from the officer. Past violent behavior would indicate that Brown would have stayed to fight and not try to get away.
I doubt you could describe what happened as "arm wrestling". And a shot person can stagger 20 ft before collapsing. That's why the autopsy is vital to determine what approximate distance each of the shots that hit him were made from.
I am using an eyewitnesses words, hence why it is in quotes. Anyway, it would have to be a slow moving bullet since three eyewitnesses put the shots after Brown had disengaged and was 20ft away. Also, the lack of dashboard cameras might be a factor in officer behavior-departmental culture, especially after the Washington Post reporter non-arrest-detainment in jail.
 
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/08/...ps-fire-tear-gas-and-bean-bags-at-news-crews/

Holy Shit! Watch as Ferguson Cops Fire Tear Gas and Bean Bags at News Crews

Yep. They are pretty amped up. And that becomes the a big problem with riot police, they think they are at war. I have no problem with tear gas to disperse rioters throwing rocks and Molitov cocktails, but just don't feed the beast.

And by the way, where are all the Soverun' Patriots? This is your revolution!
 
doesn't disprove it either. And those number do indicate something besides basic police work and chance is at work. And then of course there is that pesky little thing called history. Gosh darn it.
It's not like we are dealing with random things.
now that is true.
When they find whites in drug territory it's usually an easy bust, they'll see the buy and then scoop up the buyer. Basically 100% chance of contraband. There's no corresponding easy bust for blacks.
are you saying black people aren't being busted for drugs?
And *WHY* are they arrested?
Loren that is the point of contention. Do try to keep up.
How many are for outstanding warrants?

you tell us.

I heard about a similar report this morning for the state of IL, claiming higher search rates yet lower found-drug "hit" rates for blacks than whites. At first, I thought that seem rather damning, but then I realized that factors like suspicious behavior and shitty/abusive initial attitudes towards the cops are major determinants of whether a traffic stop leads to a search.
if black people didn't have bad attitudes , cops wouldn't have to kill us. But bad attitudes are a high crime and deserving of capital punishment. the police, the trained professional who are supposed to be well versed in de-escalation technique have no power of the force of the black bad attitude and must therefore shoot and kill.

And what do black people have to feel out of sorts about? Not like there has ever been anything any police officer has ever done to any black person, past or present, that should make a black person guarded or even a teensy bit anxious. And since all black people know cops have guns and will shot them, heaven forbid they don't just acquiesce and be happy, smiling ... Citizens.

Questioning public servants when you have done nothing wrong or asserting the rights of citizens not to be harassed, that's not for black people. Nor is the right to have a bad day or a bad attitude. That's for other people.

None of this has any relevance to what I said or to the issue of why blacks are searched more often during stops. If a person bad mouths or hassles a cop who asks for licence and registration, they are going to be far more likely to get searched, no matter what color they are. Whether this is appropriate by the cop is irrelevant to how it related to differential search rates. If blacks who get stopped are more likely to have such a reaction, then they will be more likely to be searched, not because they are black but because of such a reaction. Why they engage in the reaction is also not relevant to the search in question. If they are upset about 500 years of oppression and suspect racism by the cop (whether justified or not) and this makes them have such a reaction, then they will be more likely to get searched, and again that search will not be triggered by their race but by their reaction. Notice that about 90% of blacks who are stopped do not get search. They are all black, so being black is not why those that get searched are searched. The individual person's reaction to the cops is one factor that could play a role, but the whole point of my post is that even without this speculative but plausible factor that could create different search rates, the actual data posted provide more than enough direct evidence of differences that more than warrant to greater search rates without race having anything to do with it.



The data in this table add even more reason to doubt that the discrepancy in searches and arrests is racial profiling. First, "contraband" includes merely having a joint or an empty beer can in the back seat or even a 6 pack in the trunk if the driver is under 21. But contraband also includes having a weapon or stolen property. If we exclude the drug/alcohol category of "contraband", then blacks who are pulled over are twice as likely as whites to have weapons or stolen property. Then there is the age difference. 40% of the whites that are stopped are over the age of 40, whereas only 27% of blacks stopped are that old.
Then there is the reason for the stop. Whites are more likely to be stopped for a specific traffic or equipment violation, whereas blacks are about twice as likely than whites to be stopped due to the car not having a proper licence/registration or as part of investigating a suspected crime (more on that in minute). Then we come to outstanding warrants. Blacks in a traffic stop are 4 times as likely to have an outstanding warrant, which accounts for far more arrests than all other reasons combined. Not only do the warrants fully account for the higher arrest rates during a stop, but they also would contribute greatly to the car/person being searched.

In sum, the data show plenty of justified non-racial profiling reasons why blacks would be more likely to be searched and arrested once pulled over. The only thing that remains "suspicious" is why blacks are more likely to be pulled over for non-traffic "investigation" reasons. More detail from the police reports is needed to determine that, especially specifics about what parts of town the stops are being made in. Given that in almost every town or city blacks drive more often in the areas where the most ongoing criminal activity is being reported and investigated, it isn't surprising that they would be more likely to be pulled over while cops are in these areas investigated reported robberies, shooting, drug deals, etc..

Are there racist cops in America targeting blacks? Very likely. Is this data evidence of that? No.
Actually they are. You could argue the numbers are not conclusive, but not that they are not evidence.

They are not just inconclusive, they are not at all suggestive of racial profiling in terms of the differential search and arrest rates. Yes, they are "evidence", but evidence strongly in favor of the opposing theory that the cops are justified in their greater searches and arrests based solely upon outstanding warrants for prior crimes and the double odds of a weapon or stolen property in the vehicle. As soon as they run the license, they know there is a warrant and for what prior crime. They are required to arrest those with warrants and searches will be part of that process given that the warrant will likely give more than enough probable cause.
So, there is no room for discretion there in which the racism of the cop can play a role. So, we (rationally) should (which means you will not) subtract the incidents where their is an outstanding warrant and thus and arrest and search is essentially mandated. When we do that, we find that white people without warrants are searched 5% of the time, while black people without warrants are only searched 4% of the time. IOW, if the "evidence" suggests anything, it suggests racism-motivated searches against white drivers.

why are black folk being pulled over to begin with?

I addressed that along with the clear evidence showing non-race motivated searches and arrests that you completely ignored and somehow pretend is still in favor of your preferred hypothesis.
First, warrants come up when a plate is run and can be the cause of the stop to begin with. So, the fact that blacks are much more likely to have a warrant makes them more likely to get pulled over, searched, and arrested. IT alone accounts for it all without even having to consider the added fact of more probable gun and stolen property possession or their reaction to being pulled over, or the difference in where they are driving, their younger age, etc.. But all of these other factors could easily add to their likelihood of being pulled over without the cops factoring in their race. Heck I didn't even mention the number of passengers or the hours at which they are driving, both of which are generally related to age (younger drivers having more passengers cruising late at night), and thus likely related to race since the stats show that the biggest discrepancy is among drivers 18-29 years old.


And why is Michael Brown dead?


Clearly for reasons unrelated to the stats in question, since they show the discrepancy is entirely due to higher warrant rates and prior criminal behavior by black drivers, and Brown had no warrants and wasn't driving. Perhaps racism was a part of his death, but your desire to "prove" that is making you point to data that lend zero support for that belief and if anything undermine it. At minimum, Brown's deliberate refusal to cooperate and resist detention (which was admitted to by his friend that was walking with him) was a major contributor to his death. Given the admitted refusal to cooperate, it lends credence to the cops claim of a physical altercation. The cop also says that struggle inside his cruiser led to an initial gun shot inside the cruiser. That should be easy to verify and hard to account for without such a struggle, unless the cop thought to fire a shot inside his car after-the-fact in some kind of very clever cover story. Did the cop act unreasonably and too aggressively at the start or any other point? Maybe, we have no data in it. Even if true, is that evidence of racism. Not unless cops never act overly aggressive with with people who resist detention. Was the cop racist? Maybe, but if so it isn't evidence that the vehicle search numbers are anything other than a rational analysis shows them to be, which is cops responding to outstanding warrants.

this is what I read when I read you.

Racism could exist (we don't know that for a fact, but it could) but nothing so far can prove it. Nothing so far ever has.

So, it is clear you have basic problems comprehending the meaning of statistics (even those you put forth as "evidence" for your claims), and trouble grasping written prose as well. Nothing I have said implies the stance you attribute to me. I very much acknowledge the existence of racism, and of empirical evidence for it, including the sadly few well controlled studies that have demonstrated it at work. Also, both statistical odds and specific case examples say that it definitely exists among some cops and impacts their actions. I have said all this in various threads about racism.

And as long as there is another reason or rationalization available,
IOW, you view clear evidence of a variable like outststanding warrants that we know does (and must by law) directly impact arrests as a mere "rationalization" for why one person with a warrant is arrested and another without a warrant is arrested.

reasonable people must dismiss racism,
No, reasonable people would not do what you just did and dismiss a well established alternative cause as a "rationalization". It has nothing to do with beliefs about racism in general, at least not for reasonable people, because the question is about whether racism is a major cause of a specific act (Brown's shooting) or narrow subset of acts (searching and arresting of drivers in that town), which may or may not be the case regardless of the general existence of racism.
I believe that smoking causes lung cancer and thus death. But every time someone dies, I don't blindly assume it was smoking even if the person was a smoker. You do the equivalent of assuming every smoker who dies does so due to smoking, even when they clearly have a bullet wound to the head. Ironically, what your approach is the application of a generalized stereotype to inferring what must be true in specific cases.

Your comments really highlight the source of your unreason and total refusal to honestly consider empirical data relevant to the specific actions in question that arise in this and other threads. You allow your general beliefs about racism to completely determine your beliefs about the causal factors of any specific act where a black person is negatively treated, not only when there is no evidence of it in that case but even when there is clear evidence in favor of non-racist causal factors, as in the case of the greater searches and arrests of black drivers, even though this only exists for black drivers with warrants against them. Your sole tool in your toolbox is an anti-racism hammer, so everywhere you look, you see racist nails.

ok

can you provide an example of your posting here or in the archives where you plead the case that racism is a viable cause of a racially charged situation?
 
Anonymous says that the officer is named: Bryan P. Willman

https://twitter.com/TheAnonMessage

huh, one of the comments to that "news" is:

"He worked as a COMMUNICATIONS officer of St. Ann's PD, how was he suddenly a PATROL OFFICER for Ferguson?"
 
I doubt you could describe what happened as "arm wrestling". And a shot person can stagger 20 ft before collapsing. That's why the autopsy is vital to determine what approximate distance each of the shots that hit him were made from.
I am using an eyewitnesses words, hence why it is in quotes. Anyway, it would have to be a slow moving bullet since three eyewitnesses put the shots after Brown had disengaged and was 20ft away.
Which makes it a perfect opportunity to verify or impeach the testimony of the witnesses that claim that. If autopsy determines that no gunshot wounds on Brown's body came from that far away it would mean the witnesses that claim he was shot at that distance are either mistaken or lying. If on the other hand the police officer claims he only shot him at short distance but autopsy proves otherwise it would impeach his testimony.
In any case physical evidence is important.
Also, the lack of dashboard cameras might be a factor in officer behavior-departmental culture, especially after the Washington Post reporter non-arrest-detainment in jail.
I agree with you about the lack of dashboard cameras. Those should be mandatory equipment on all US police vehicles and also include a rear facing camera on the rear shelf.
The situation with McD reporters is more complicated as the police are handling a rather difficult situation with rioting, looting and arson.
 
Back
Top Bottom