• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Michael Brown Shooting

Status
Not open for further replies.
Cain said:
One of the two times a cop ever reprimanded me was for starting to walk across a street when the hand light was flashing. I was seventeen, coming home from school. I had crossed that street hundreds of times. I even pointed out that in the course of our little conversation, the light was still green, and I would have certainly made it safely to the other side. He didn't care. In that moment, I knew in my heart that NWA was right.

[qimg]http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/18clq07c6uvvojpg/original.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

:D :D :D
 
Distracted1 said:
What kind of attitude is exhibited by not simply taking three steps to the sidewalk when asked to do so by a policeman?

If it were a civilian driving down that street instead of a patrolman, would they be required to slow to a crawl as they followed behind the two teens, after all, they were almost there.

I am sure no civilian would blow the horn and say anything like "get out of the damn street" to the likes of Mr. Brown.
Click to expand...

I agree with your sentiment, in general but I put forth a hypothesis based on personal experience. I don't think it's fair to assume that it is fact and then extrapolate character assumptions.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
See the picture, unless you think that cop car/suv is as long as a limo, we can see how wide the street is. The curves are in a different section and the yellow line only means it is an arteriole. The street in front of my house is a designated arteriole. That's another way of saying it's a through street. People walk in the street, no one cares and traffic isn't blocked.

I get it people want to excuse justify this cop's behavior. But at least be realistic about it, save the justifying for the shooting. Why would any cop waste his time telling them to get on the sidewalk?
Click to expand...
I would guess you have never been hassled by people strolling in the middle of the street, who slowly get out of the way and glare at you when you pass. Or in my wife's case verbally harass you. An early poster also mentioned this behavior. Maybe you live in a "nicer" neighborhood. Probably the police have received complaints about this before and that is why they ask people to walk on the sidewalk.
There is also the point that if someone was hit by a car there would probably be lawsuits about why the police allowed this activity.
 
I've been working in downtown St. Louis the past 2 months, never previously having been to MO. I've never seen a city where jaywalking is so routinely practiced, to the point where I've had several conversations about it. The other day there were a couple of cops standing at an intersection, and everyone still jaywalked.

Maybe someone who lives in the area can say -- is it like this when you get out of downtown?
 
I posted an anecdote much earlier in the thread about how its very common in other countries, India for one is a perfect example. Where i live and work it's fairly regularly enforced, partly due to the fact that it is quite dangerous. We have lots of room here and build wide streets, and that contributes to the drivers tendency to increase their speed. Most drivers here also do not expect pedestrians to be in the road, even in a residential neighborhood.
 
varwoche said:
I've been working in downtown St. Louis the past 2 months, never previously having been to MO. I've never seen a city where jaywalking is so routinely practiced, to the point where I've had several conversations about it. The other day there were a couple of cops standing at an intersection, and everyone still jaywalked.

Maybe someone who lives in the area can say -- is it like this when you get out of downtown?
Click to expand...

There was one spot in particular not too far south of downtown on Jefferson that I named "Natural Selection Road" when I first moved to the area. I've since gotten used to it and had forgotten about that until you asked.
 
varwoche said:
I've been working in downtown St. Louis the past 2 months, never previously having been to MO. I've never seen a city where jaywalking is so routinely practiced, to the point where I've had several conversations about it. The other day there were a couple of cops standing at an intersection, and everyone still jaywalked.

Maybe someone who lives in the area can say -- is it like this when you get out of downtown?
Click to expand...

I'm told that this varies a lot depending on where you are, in the US. It was pretty much routine in Boston, as one example - mostly because you'd never get where you're going in many neighborhoods trying to find a crosswalk, and it's much more important to watch the drivers than to depend on the walk sign. I'm told that it's *very* different in most west-coast cities. I've got no experience in St. Louis, though.
 
Skeptical Greg said:
Could someone ( Besides Ginger ) explain to me how the narrowness of a street is an argument in favor of pedestrian traffic?
Click to expand...

I don't know, but her range of 20-25ft on this "narrow street" encompasses a lane width greater than standard highway widths.
 
varwoche said:
I've been working in downtown St. Louis the past 2 months, never previously having been to MO. I've never seen a city where jaywalking is so routinely practiced, to the point where I've had several conversations about it. The other day there were a couple of cops standing at an intersection, and everyone still jaywalked.

Maybe someone who lives in the area can say -- is it like this when you get out of downtown?
Click to expand...

Yes. We also don't stop for pedestrians at crosswalks.

(Keeping in mind that walking down the middle of the street is not jaywalking)
 
That street looks plenty wide for a whole gang of punks to walk beside each other. I don't see what the officer was complaining about. Or Ginger either.
 
casebro said:
...snip...

Who owns a gas mask ? Why?
Click to expand...

I do. It comes in handy when I'm bleaching a toilet in a bathroom with no windows, using chemicals in my garage, or going near the litter box after my tabby drops a grunt.
 
Newtons Bit said:
I don't know, but her range of 20-25ft on this "narrow street" encompasses a lane width greater than standard highway widths.
Click to expand...

I was bored last night, and decided to look up the St Louis County vehicle codes, and came across this (rather technical) description on how roads are to be constructed, the widths involved, and other details. The standard width of a lane is supposed to be 12 feet on a highway, and in a residential street, the lane should be 10 feet. On some residential streets, there are simply lanes to park, and a lane down the middle for traffic to pass by. Canfield Drive wasn't one of those streets, and I still don't understand why they were walking in the street.
 
davefoc said:
I never heard the word arteriole before but I get the idea that in this context it's means some sort of a road that is designed to carry more traffic than a normal residential street and less than a highway.

OK, to use my newly learned word, that looks like an arteriole to me, yellow stripes and all. Around here normal suburban residential streets of the kind one might play some sort of sport on don't have yellow stripes except occasionally around sharp curves. So what's the point of this conversation? Was it reasonable for a cop to ask a couple of guys walking down the street to use the sidewalk? Looked like it to me, unless the street carried very little traffic and the cop was into hassling people for the hell of it.

The more important issue is how the cop handled asking the guys not to walk down the street. Was he confrontational? Was he polite? Was he antagonistic to the point that some kind of confrontation was likely? I doubt that the answers to these questions are knowable. The two people who know, Dorian Johnson and Wilson, both have strong reasons to tell the story in a particular way which makes what they say with regard to this suspect. I would lean to believing the cop instead of a criminal previously charged with lying to the police. But cops lie, so who knows?
Click to expand...
When was Johnson charged with lying to police?

And given Wilson was fired along with the whole department he worked for to address a severe racism problem, four Ferguson police withdrew their claims their uniforms were bled on when challenged to provide evidence, there is evidence of racism in nearby area police departments, and, most importantly we know the encounter was confrontational.

It's hard to see why the default position is here Brown and Johnson were solely responsible for that confrontational interaction.


As for the street, it's narrower than the one that runs in front of my house. The street in front of my house is a residential street that is designated an arteriole.
4HnV9FN.png


Those lane markers are yellow. People walk in that street. Some kid was riding a ride-on lawnmower in the street and my neighbor told a cop that was parked on the street for another reason. His answer was it wasn't something that needed addressing.


Was it reasonable for Wilson to ask? That depends. Has there been an issue on that street? Were cars having to drive around them? That has not been mentioned so it's unlikely.

Or, as there is evidence of, were the cops in Ferguson in the habit of hassling young black men in the area?

Was Wilson having a bad day? Was it his usual attitude to be a jerk whenever he approached young black men? We've all seen cops on videos overreacting to someone who dared challenge a cop's authority.

I don't understand why that version of events is so unlikely. Given the extensive history of racism among the police in the area, it seems to me it is just as likely Wilson was overly confrontational as it is these two young men were as belligerent as is being assumed.
 
Last edited:
newyorkguy said:
The same person was asking for a citation that the Innocence Project found police sometimes have coerced people into giving false statements. I have to prove that because someone challenges it? How about if I refer to Obama as President. Do I have to go get a cite for that if challenged? How about if I ask you to provide a cite for your statement that there are, "tens of thousands of JREF threads in which one person describes an event and a different person asks for a citation," do you have to spend the next ten hours compiling it? (Just in case you think I'm serious, please don't! I'm just trying to make a point.)

I asked someone demanding a cite four times if they thought the Innocence Project HADN'T found many persons wrongfully convicted in part because of coerced false statements. They never answered. Why should I provide a cite if it's only being requested as some kind of a tactic by someone who's obviously being hostile? The reason I gave for refusing to provide the cite was that once I provided the cite it would be ignored and they would never refer to this issue again. I really wasn't expecting them to react by saying, "Well what do you know you were right all along. Sincere apologies." (And if that person agrees with me don't respond. ;) )

In fact someone DID provide a cite (and for that I thank them).

This was posted almost 48 hours ago and, just as I predicted...

Crickets.

: (
Click to expand...

This sidebar started with the claim that false testimony was being suborned in Ferguson:
newyorkguy said:
Probably everyone who has been arrested in that area since Saturday has been asked:

  • Detective: You see the shooting the other day?
  • Perp: Huh?
  • Detective: You want to help yourself out?
  • Perp: Huh?
  • Detective: You see the black kid charge the police car?
  • Perp: What black kid?
  • Detective: You want to help yourself out?
  • Perp: Oh! You mean...Yeah I was there. Sure was.
  • Detective: Okay. You help us we help you.
  • Perp: Yeah that brother was acting all crazy man.

: D
Click to expand...

A request was made for evidence supporting the above scenario. It was met with a vague reference to Project Innocence. Repeated requests for an actual cite were met first with bluster, and finally with dismissal of the claim as "a joke".

Now the general case of police corruption, with specific instances documented by Project Innocence in places other than Ferguson, is being presented as the claim in dispute. I think we should return to the original claim: That specific suborning of testimony is probably happening in Ferguson. For that claim, no support--whether from Project Innocence or from any other source--has been presented.

Evidence of other instances in other places doesn't magically transform into evidence in this instance in this place.

The anecdote about the New York case in the 1960s is fascinating because the reporter has an actual source, on the record about that specific case. It's an anonymous source, but it's more than has been put forward in this case. An anonymous source, on the record with a reputable journalist, about similar police misconduct in Ferguson, would be similarly fascinating. But no such thing has been presented.

By the same token, the personal anecdotes about relatives with descriptions of how police departments operate would be fascinating and relevant, if they were from actual sources in Ferguson, either on the record and verifiable; or, if anonymous, at least through a well known and reputable news source.

So.

Is your claim still that police in Ferguson are probably suborning testimony, similarly to your scenario quoted above? If so, what is your evidence that this is probably occurring? Is it still the Project Innocence cite that someone else provided?

ETA: This thread is moving pretty fast, and I'm sure we all have lives, so I promise not to complain of crickets if it takes you a few days to reply to this post, or even if you happen to miss it altogether.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom