Michael Brown shooting II

[jimbob]

I'll add this too

'The City has been aware for years of concerns about the impact its focus on revenue has had on lawful police action and the fair administration of justice in Ferguson. It has disregarded those concerns—even concerns raised from within the City government—to avoid disturbing the court’s ability to optimize revenue generation. In 2012, a Ferguson City Councilmember wrote to other City officials in opposition to Judge Brockmeyer’s reappointment, stating that “[the Judge] does not listen to the testimony, does not review the reports or the criminal history of defendants, and doesn’t let all the pertinent witnesses testify before rendering a verdict.” The Councilmember then addressed the concern that “switching judges would/could lead to loss of revenue,” arguing that even if such a switch did “lead to a slight loss, I think it’s more important that cases are being handled properly and fairly.”The City Manager acknowledged mixed reviews of the Judge’s work but urged that the Judge be reappointed, noting that “(i)t goes without saying the City cannot afford to lose any efficiency in our Courts, nor experience any decrease in our Fines and Forfeitures. ”'


​

 

[luchog]

But they have also made decisions that have enabled crimes, such as this shooting.

The protestors "enabled" the police by keeping the police stationary where they could be easily shot at? You're really going to claim that?

Are you also going to insist that the two police officers shot and killed while sitting in a parked car in Seattle "enabled" their own murder by being stationary where they could be easily shot at?

Trying to put the onus for this shooting on the protestors is ridiculous. The fact is we have no clue why these police were shot, or even who did it. The fact that it was done from such long range greatly reduces the chances that they were protestors, and not just a disturbed individual who happened to choose that particular time and place at random. We have no clue why they were shot, and speculation at this time is pointless. Trying to assign the blame to anyone else is beyond stupid.

As for the other violence, well, that's unfortunately. However, that does not mean that the protestors were in any way involved. There are small cadres of people who seem to consider it their life's work to stir up violence and trouble regardless of the nature or purpose of the protest. Whether they're just kitchen-sink anarchists, or agents provocateur, they seem to show up to any and every major protest for the sole purpose of causing trouble for everyone involved. Not saying that's the case in here, but I've certainly seen it happen where I live.

I'd tend to agree that the protestors should take a break; but more to let things shake out and see what is going to happen, than because they're tainted with evil.

 

[tyr_13]

The protestors "enabled" the police by keeping the police stationary where they could be easily shot at? You're really going to claim that?

That's why the police were stationary in the open in this case. Yes, that enabled this attack.

Are you also going to insist that the two police officers shot and killed while sitting in a parked car in Seattle "enabled" their own murder by being stationary where they could be easily shot at?

Yes. Why is that even a question?

Trying to put the onus for this shooting on the protestors is ridiculous. The fact is we have no clue why these police were shot, or even who did it. The fact that it was done from such long range greatly reduces the chances that they were protestors, and not just a disturbed individual who happened to choose that particular time and place at random. We have no clue why they were shot, and speculation at this time is pointless. Trying to assign the blame to anyone else is beyond stupid.

You can call it anything you like. I'd evaluate the speculation that this shooting had no relation to the protests and were simply a random event that happened to happen right then as having an extremely low probability. I can't say if they were or were not protestors themselves.

As for the other violence, well, that's unfortunately. However, that does not mean that the protestors were in any way involved. There are small cadres of people who seem to consider it their life's work to stir up violence and trouble regardless of the nature or purpose of the protest. Whether they're just kitchen-sink anarchists, or agents provocateur, they seem to show up to any and every major protest for the sole purpose of causing trouble for everyone involved. Not saying that's the case in here, but I've certainly seen it happen where I live.

I'd tend to agree that the protestors should take a break; but more to let things shake out and see what is going to happen, than because they're tainted with evil.

Now I'll call the hand waving that protestors were involved in other violence ridiculous. Not all the rioters and looters were protestors, but some of the protestors were inevitably rioters and looters. Other protestors actively tried to stop the rioters and looters, while others had a depraved indifference to them. These are things that happened, and as I said earlier, the protestors don't exactly have a lot of recourse because anyone can come protest, and thus be a 'protestor'.

Don't fall into the trap that giving an inch means giving the 'enemy' the point that all the protestors are violent or evil, or whatever. That's exactly the same thing that keeps them from admitting any of the problems of the police force. Black and white thinking isn't helpful.

 

[Upchurch]

Yes. Why is that even a question?

Because it is an strange usage of the word, verging on blaming the victim. Would you say women who wear skimpy clothes "enable" rape? Would you say that this usage of the word "enable" would also apply to the gun manufacturer?

If not, why not?

You can call it anything you like. I'd evaluate the speculation that this shooting had no relation to the protests and were simply a random event that happened to happen right then as having an extremely low probability. I can't say if they were or were not protestors themselves.

I don't think anyone is saying it was a random event. I also think it's fair to say that the shooter(s) used the protest as a distraction in order to take the shots. What I don't think is fair to say is that the protest was a cause of the shooting nor that the protest is responsible for the shooting. That burden lies solely on the shooter(s) and any accomplices.

 

[dudalb]

I'm sure restricting people's right to peacefully assemble to daylight hours only would be a major Constitutional violation. Can anyone cite the part of the first amendment that provides for that? The same thing applies to someone who commits an act of violence during a demonstration. That's an individual act. The people protesting peacefully still have the Constitutional right to assemble to protest against the government.

This has always been an issue with any protest when there's a violent act. The people who are opposed to the aims of the demonstrators in principle always use the violent act as a rationale to stop the protests.

Never heard of "Curfews" have you?
That Goverments have a right to restrict protests in certain circumstances has been upheld in court time and time again.

 

[luchog]

That's why the police were stationary in the open in this case. Yes, that enabled this attack.

Yes. Why is that even a question?

That is just patently ridiculous blame-the-victim nonsense. You could just as easily say that women who dress provocatively or drink too much "enable" rapists. Or that by crossing a road legally, I'm "enabling" getting hit by an idiot running a red light. Or that by going outside my house with money in my pocket I'm "enabling" robbers. Or by owning a house with stuff in it I'm "enabling" burglars. Or by voting to keep the city from turning a public park into a commercial development, I'm "enabling" the people who go there to bash GLBTs.

Do you see how stupid that sounds?

Don't fall into the trap that giving an inch means giving the 'enemy' the point that all the protestors are violent or evil, or whatever. That's exactly the same thing that keeps them from admitting any of the problems of the police force. Black and white thinking isn't helpful.

Neither is broad-brush painting. There are plenty of people who are not protestors, who have no interest in the issues being protested, who go to protests for the sole purpose of causing this sort of trouble. Do some protestors become violent as part of their protests? Of course, but they're far in the minority. I know by personal experience that there are plenty that will use the cover of any protest to commit vandalism and violence just because that's what they do. And there have been plenty of documented examples of agents provocateurs being sent to masquerade as protestors to discredit them.

But there are too many here in the thread who claim that all the protestors are "tainted with evil" because of the actions of a few who may not even have been part of the protest to begin with. It's just more attempts to shift blame away from the real problem here, and demonize those who are trying to bring attention to it and do something about it.

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

And this is not a woo board that accepts logical fallacies lightly.

This was good for a belly laugh.

 

[Upchurch]

This was good for a belly laugh.

I meant the overall board, rather than this specific sub-board. However, I feel critical thinking ought to be possible even in politics.

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

I meant the overall board, rather than this specific sub-board.

In that case you just ruined a good belly laugh.

However, I feel critical thinking ought to be possible even in politics.

It is in some circles, just does not seem to be in evidence in this sub forum.

 

[newyorkguy]

I'm surprised no one has commented more specifically on the sniper attack on police during a demonstration outside Ferguson Police HQ early today. The two officers were not seriously injured -- neither was a Ferguson officer -- and both were treated and released at a local hospital. President Obama and Attorney General Holder have condemned the shooting in strong terms.

No arrests have been made though police stormed a nearby house and took several people into custody. Apparently they were not arrested and the hunt for the shooter continues. St. Louis County police chief Jon Belmar said the shooter -- apparently armed with a hand gun -- was among the crowd of demonstrators. Demonstrators said the shots did come from within the crowd. But further away.

Apparently there are no plans to curtail further demonstrations. If there are protests tonight, officials said, St. Louis County police and officers from the Missouri State Police will take over security from local officers.

Reuters news link

 

[WildCat]

Putting it crudely - the police were acting as an extortion racket

The police don't set up the system designed to generate revenue for city coffers, the elected politicians do that. The police simply work in the framework they're given.

Everyone blaming the police are completely missing the point.

As is everyone outraged by that report who aren't 100% behind completely ending the "war on drugs". This type of thing is an inevitable result of that war.

I've never met a cop who signed up to write traffic tickets and parking violations, they'd much rather be solving burglaries and murders and robberies. But politicians see them as revenue generators and demand they fill that role.

 

[WildCat]

I'm sure restricting people's right to peacefully assemble to daylight hours only would be a major Constitutional violation.

It's well settled law that time, place, and manner restrictions are allowed. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Time,+Place,+and+Manner+Restrictions

 

[Upchurch]

Everyone blaming the police are completely missing the point.

Are you sure? Were all of these the fault of elected officials?

 

[Mumbles]

I'm surprised no one has commented more specifically on the sniper attack on police during a demonstration outside Ferguson Police HQ early today. The two officers were not seriously injured -- neither was a Ferguson officer -- and both were treated and released at a local hospital. President Obama and Attorney General Holder have condemned the shooting in strong terms.

Let's be clear, this is something terrible.

But let's also be clear that this is the clapback. The police attacked the community, and this was one person's response to that.

 

[Upchurch]

Let's be clear, this is something terrible.

But let's also be clear that this is the clapback. The police attacked the community, and this was one person's response to that.

I'll admit it: I had to look it up. While it is probably a safe guess, we don't know who took the shots or why.

Despite what some people apparently believe *coughdudalbcough*, I don't think anyone in this thread thinks the shooting was appropriate, moral, or deserved. Ferguson's justice system has failed on all levels, from the judges down to the beat cops. That needs to be corrected and those who participated in illegal and unconstitutional acts deserve punishment, but there is no room for vigilantism in this.

The shooter(s) were wrong and they also must be brought to justice. But the responsibility of their actions are entirely on the ones who committed the crime. Blaming the protesters who did not contribute to the planning or execution of the shooting is nonsensical.

So far, the only rationalization for laying blame on the protesters is that the "enabled" it by poviding cover. (Arguably, from the reports, they provided a distraction. The shooter was reportedly 125 to 220 yards away.) This argument completely falls apart when it is applied equally. Nearby trees and buildings would also be to blame for providing cover. The gun is to blame because it enabled the shooter a means to shoot. The cops are to blame because they enabled the shooter by providing a target to shoot at.

Clearly, there are people in this thread who don't like the protesters or what they have to say, but laying the blame for this event on them is irrational.

 

[Upchurch]

Ferguson Protesters to Police: Shooter Was Not One of Us

Rice says after seven months of protesting in front of the police department, officers know the regulars from the instigators. "We don't even walk that far up on Tiffin (Avenue, where the shots came from.) We don't even walk up there, and we've been here seven months."

 

[rwguinn]

Let's be clear, this is something terrible.

But let's also be clear that this is the clapback. The police attacked the community, and this was one person's response to that.

The is no possible justification for any of the injuries and property damage.

 

[jimbob]

The police don't set up the system designed to generate revenue for city coffers, the elected politicians do that. The police simply work in the framework they're given.

Everyone blaming the police are completely missing the point.

Why? The management of the FPD were on board with that. The captain of the patrol division made it quite clear:

' “[f]or those officers who are not keeping up an acceptable level of productivity and they have already been addressed at least once if not multiple times, take it to the next level.” He continued: “As we have discussed already, regardless of the seniority and experience take the officer out of the cover car position and assign them to prisoner pick up and bank runs. . . . Failure to perform can result in disciplinary action not just a bad evaluation.” '​

As is everyone outraged by that report who aren't 100% behind completely ending the "war on drugs". This type of thing is an inevitable result of that war.

I agree that the war on drugs is a waste of resources, but I don't think it can be blamed for Ferguson PD.

If it was, why was the arrest rate lower in the group with the higher contraband hit rate? I am making a slight leap to assuming that most "contraband" would be drugs, and probably marijuana.

I've never met a cop who signed up to write traffic tickets and parking violations, they'd much rather be solving burglaries and murders and robberies. But politicians see them as revenue generators and demand they fill that role.

What has that got to do with anything? They *did* write a lot of citations with the aim of generating revenue. In 2014, it was more than one per head of population.

Whist you are in this discussion - do you now agree that there is evidence of racial bias in the search and arrest rate for FPD?

This part of your post in the other thread:

All the things documented are hardly unique to Ferguson, and I'm just not seeing evidence that the policies are aimed at blacks or other minorities. Go to all-white areas in other parts of the country and you'll find the same crap. I've always been concerned with excessive fines, the charging of court fees to contest a case that exceed the fine, civil forfeiture laws, and all the other abuses of power. But fixing this in Ferguson only would be perverse, while other cities from Maine to California are doing the same thing. It reeks of scapegoating and grandstanding for purely political reasons..

 

[jimbob]

The is no possible justification for any of the injuries and property damage.

True, but I like to hold public servants to higher standards than criminals.

 

[Ammonitida]

Are you sure? Were all of these the fault of elected officials?

The Michael Brown case was a horror story too, until Wilson was exonerated.