DOJ: Ferguson PD descrimination against blacks is routine

[jimbob]

Here's WildCat demonstrating just how much he despises violations of Constitional rights by the police:

No, but there is a Constitutional right to film the police, the activity for which Wilson explicitly threatened to incarcerate Arman.

Do you need the video linked again so you can hear Wilson make that threat?

Do you need links to the various courts that have ruled filming the police is protected by the First Amendment?

Do you need a link to the First Amendment?

Because I'm honestly not sure what you're arguing.

I'd like a link to, well, anything that says it's illegal for police to threaten arrest for taking pictures. They can't actually follow through on the threats, and Wilson didn't do that, did he? Nor did he erase the video on the camera, even though there was certainly opportunity to do so.

You can clearly see how concerned he is with the police abusing their authority.

Thank you WildCat for being a True Champion of Constitional Rights and teaching us all an important lesson about selective outrage.

For background here is the report's analysis of the legal situation:

FPD officers also routinely infringe on the public’s First Amendment rights by preventing people from recording their activities. The First Amendment “prohibit the government from limiting the stock of information from which members of the public may draw.” First Nat’l Bank v. Belloti, 435 U.S. 765, 783 (1978). Applying this principle, the federal courts of appeal have held that the First Amendment “unambiguously” establishes a constitutional right to videotape police activities. Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78, 82 (1st Cir. 2011); see also ACLU v. Alvarez, 679 F.3d 583, 600 (7th Cir. 2012) (issuing a preliminary injunction against the use of a state eavesdropping statute to prevent the recording of public police activities); Fordyce v. City of Seattle, 55 F.3d 436, 439 (9th Cir. 1995) (recognizing a First Amendment right to film police carrying out their public duties); Smith v. City of Cumming, 212 F.3d 1332, 1333 (11th Cir. 2000) (recognizing a First Amendment right “to photograph or videotape police conduct”). Indeed, as the ability to record police activity has become more widespread, the role it can play in capturing questionable police activity, and ensuring that the activity is investigated and subject to broad public debate, has become clear. Protecting civilian recording of police activity is thus at the core of speech the First Amendment is intended to protect. Cf. Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 681 (1972) (First Amendment protects “news gathering”); Mills v. Alabama, 384 U.S. 214, 218 (1966) (news gathering enhances “free discussion of governmental affairs”). “In a democracy, public officials have no general privilege to avoid publicity and embarrassment by preventing public scrutiny of their actions.” Walker v. City of Pine Bluff, 414 F.3d 989, 992 (8th Cir. 2005).

followed by examples where an officer has deleted video:

In June 2014, an African-American couple who had taken their children to play at the park allowed their small children to urinate in the bushes next to their parked car. An officer stopped them, threatened to cite them for allowing the children to “expose themselves,” and checked the father for warrants. When the mother asked if the officer had to detain the father in front of the children, the officer turned to the father and said, “you’re going to jail because your wife keeps running her mouth.” The mother then began recording the officer on her cell phone. The officer became irate, declaring, “you don’t videotape me!” As the officer drove away with the father in custody for “parental neglect,” the mother drove after them, continuing to record. The officer then pulled over and arrested her for traffic violations. When the father asked the officer to show mercy, he responded, “no more mercy, since she wanted to videotape,” and declared “nobody videotapes me.” The officer then took the phone, which the couple’s daughter was holding. After posting bond, the couple found that the video had been deleted.

A month later, the same officer pulled over a truck hauling a trailer that did not have operating tail lights. The officer asked for identification from all three people inside, including a 54-year-old white man in the passenger seat who asked why. “You have to have a reason. This is a violation of my Fourth Amendment rights,” he asserted. The officer, who characterized the man’s reaction as “suspicious,” responded, “the reason is, if you don’t hand it to me, I’ll arrest you.” The man provided his identification. The officer then asked the man to move his cell phone from his lap to the dashboard, “for my safety.” The man said, “okay, but I’m going to record this.” Due to nervousness, he could not open the recording application and quickly placed the phone on the dash. The officer then announced that the man was under arrest for Failure to Comply. At the end of the traffic stop, the officer gave the driver a traffic citation, indicated at the other man, and said, “you’re getting this ticket because of him.” Upon bringing that man to the jail, someone asked the officer what offense the man had committed. The officer responded, “he’s one of those guys who watches CNBC too much about his rights.” The man did not say anything else, fearing what else the officer might be capable of doing. He later told us, “I never dreamed I could end up in jail for this. I’m scared of driving through Ferguson now.”

 

[Mike!]

The make up of the 6 member Ferguson City Counsel has changed. There are now 3 black counsel members and 3 white. Before there was only one black member. The news is reporting the largest voter turnout in city history.

 

[Monketi Ghost]

The make up of the 6 member Ferguson City Counsel has changed. There are now 3 black counsel members and 3 white. Before there was only one black member. The news is reporting the largest voter turnout in city history.

That's excellent!

 

[Upchurch]

Great!

Everything all fixed?

Now what?

 

[Upchurch]

Former Ferguson City Court Clerk who sent racist emails speaks out

I'm having trouble watching the video, but there is some quotes in the article:

“Funny as in humor wise? Yes. Not because it was racist or biased, just funny because it was just funny jokewise,” Twitty said. “I feel bad because that's not, I don't want people to look at me and say ‘she sent those racist jokes out because she's racist or biased.' I am not.”

Twitty said she was simply doing what others in Ferguson's government were doing.

“It took me a while to get over the feeling of being raped and being thrown under the bus,” Twitty said. “I'm human, I meant nothing bad by it.”

 

[Checkmite]

Racist jokes aren't "funny" unless you're racist. You need to believe in the underlying "truth" beneath the satire, otherwise the humorous effect is not achieved.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Racist jokes aren't "funny" unless you're racist.

Thus we have all the Obama jokes.

 

[jimbob]

Former Ferguson City Court Clerk who sent racist emails speaks out

I'm having trouble watching the video, but there is some quotes in the article:


[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_49053960998eaa84.jpg[/qimg]

The lack of self awareness in that is astonishing. I think she genuinely doesn't recognise that she is racist

 

[Upchurch]

The lack of self awareness in that is astonishing. I think she genuinely doesn't recognise that she is racist

I've seen the some of the emails from KatieG's link. Most of them came from Ms. Twitty.

But that's not her only problems.

The Justice Department’s report also identified Ferguson’s court clerk as the most prolific of a group of white officials who were caught fixing citations and fines incurred by colleagues and associates. City spokespeople did not respond to requests to confirm the clerk was Twitty. Calls to a number listed for Twitty were not answered on Friday.

The federal investigators found that in March 2014, a friend of a relative of the clerk emailed her with a scanned copy of a ticket and asked “if there was anything she could do to help”. The clerk responded: “Your ticket of $200 has magically disappeared!”, the report said. The clerk had at least one more ticket dismissed for the same person three months later.

I guess it's true that she didn't set fines. She re-set them to zero.

 

[jimbob]

I've seen the some of the emails from KatieG's link. Most of them came from Ms. Twitty.

But that's not her only problems.


I guess it's true that she didn't set fines. She re-set them to zero.

Yes I had just been searching through the document looking for the word "clerk" because I wanted to be sure before posting those...

The bit before that paragraph in the report is intentionally ironic.

c. Evidence of Racial Stereotyping
Several Ferguson officials told us during our investigation that it is a lack of “personal responsibility” among African-American members of the Ferguson community that causes African Americans to experience disproportionate harm under Ferguson’s approach to law enforcement. Our investigation suggests that this explanation is at odd with the facts. While there are people of all races who may lack personal responsibility, the harm of Ferguson’s approach to law enforcement is largely due to the myriad systemic deficiencies discussed above. Our investigation revealed African Americans making extraordinary efforts to pay off expensive tickets for minor, often unfairly charged, violations, despite systemic obstacles to resolving those tickets. While our investigation did not indicate that African Americans are disproportionately irresponsible, it did reveal that, as the above emails reflect, some Ferguson decision makers hold negative stereotypes about African Americans, and lack of personal responsibility is one of them. Application of this stereotype furthers the disproportionate impact of Ferguson’s police and court practices. It causes court and police decision makers to discredit African Americans’ explanations for not being able to pay tickets and allows officials to disown the harms of Ferguson’s law enforcement practices.
The common practice among Ferguson officials of writing off tickets further evidences a double standard grounded in racial stereotyping. Even as Ferguson City officials maintain the harmful stereotype that black individuals lack personal responsibility—and continue to cite this lack of personal responsibility as the cause of the disparate impact of Ferguson’s practices—white City officials condone a striking lack of personal responsibility among themselves and their friends. Court records and emails show City officials, including the Municipal Judge, the Court Clerk, and FPD supervisors assisting friends, colleagues, acquaintances, and themselves in eliminating citations, fines, and fees. For example:

 

[mgidm86]

Racist jokes aren't "funny" unless you're racist. You need to believe in the underlying "truth" beneath the satire, otherwise the humorous effect is not achieved.

I'm not sure I've heard the term "racist humor" before.

Are you noting a distinction between racial humor and racist humor? I just want to be sure I'm understanding this correctly.

I think Chris Rock says some hilarious things about white people, and there are other comedians who say funny things about every other race. Hell, Rock makes jokes about black people too. That is racial humor.

If there is a thing called racist humor then that would, I assume, describe humor that is far more distasteful then what most comedians would say. Both types of humor would require people to note differences, perceived or real, between different races and cultures.

If you are against all racial humor than that would make most comedians, if not most people in general, racist, which I would disagree with.

 

[jimbob]

I'm not sure I've heard the term "racist humor" before.

Are you noting a distinction between racial humor and racist humor? I just want to be sure I'm understanding this correctly.

I think Chris Rock says some hilarious things about white people, and there are other comedians who say funny things about every other race. Hell, Rock makes jokes about black people too. That is racial humor.

If there is a thing called racist humor then that would, I assume, describe humor that is far more distasteful then what most comedians would say. Both types of humor would require people to note differences, perceived or real, between different races and cultures.

If you are against all racial humor than that would make most comedians, if not most people in general, racist, which I would disagree with.

A joke saying that planned parenthood got a donation from crimstoppers to set up shop in a black area is a racist joke.

ETA: It's hardly the same type of thing as Woody Allen making a joke about his Jewish Grandmother. Or Goodness Gracious Me and their sketch about "Going for an English"

 

[Checkmite]

I'm not sure I've heard the term "racist humor" before.

Racist humor would be humor that affirmatively evokes negative race stereotypes. For instance, one of the jokes shared among Ferguson city officials involved a quip about black women who have gotten abortions being given cash rewards by crime prevention organizations afterwards. This joke is a reference to the negative stereotype that being a criminal is something endemic and inevitable about being an African American. Unless you believe in the truth of that stereotype, there's no humorous exaggeration in the joke to laugh at - it's just nonsense.

 

[ehcks]

I'm not sure I've heard the term "racist humor" before..

Racial humor is satirical humor based on stereotypes.

Racist humor is being racist then claiming you were joking when called out on it.

 

[WildCat]

So as we clean up everywhere at once why bother trying to clean up anywhere?

Because justice intentionally unevenly applied is as bad or worse than no justice at all.

Some constitutional amendments are more important than others.

The Fifth Amendment is more important than the Eleventh, for example.

The 27th Amendment is hardly as vital to a civil society as the First Amendment.

Many other countries manage to function as democratic societies without the Second Amendment. They couldn't function as democratic societies without a free press and justice that follows due process.

​

That doesn't mean that one should "trample" on them - however if by "trample", you mean "challenge an interpretation of them in court", then that is different.

The Obama administration, and many of the liberals on this board, are openly hostile to the 1st and 2nd Amendments, as well as the 4th and 5th Amendments in certain cases.

And you have far more in common with the powers that be in Ferguson than I do, since you both have decided that you can pick and choose which civil rights are important and which can be ignored.

 

[Mumbles]

Racist humor would be humor that affirmatively evokes negative race stereotypes. For instance, one of the jokes shared among Ferguson city officials involved a quip about black women who have gotten abortions being given cash rewards by crime prevention organizations afterwards. This joke is a reference to the negative stereotype that being a criminal is something endemic and inevitable about being an African American. Unless you believe in the truth of that stereotype, there's no humorous exaggeration in the joke to laugh at - it's just nonsense.

Basically, a *racial* joke is Chris Rock saying "Black people didn't advance, white people just got less crazy." or Louis CK saying "And I'm white, which...*whoo* I love that!!" A *Racist* joke is showing a bunch of black people running away from a job center. The former plays off of stereotypes in order to expose actual truths, the latter is simply parroting century-old stereotypes (turns out black slaves didn't want to work very hard for nothing in return).

 

[KatieG]

Because justice intentionally unevenly applied is as bad or worse than no justice at all.


The Obama administration, and many of the liberals on this board, are openly hostile to the 1st and 2nd Amendments, as well as the 4th and 5th Amendments in certain cases.

And you have far more in common with the powers that be in Ferguson than I do, since you both have decided that you can pick and choose which civil rights are important and which can be ignored.

Evidence, please. Be very specific and name names. Most liberals on this board are constantly being mocked as SJW. The very suggestion that a SJW is against the 1st is ridiculous in the extreme.

 

[Mumbles]

Evidence, please. Be very specific and name names. Most liberals on this board are constantly being mocked as SJW. The very suggestion that a SJW is against the 1st is ridiculous in the extreme.

And in fact, many so-called 'SJWs" would prefer the biased to say so as quickly as possible. Much better to know from the start, than to have them suddenly spring it on you after you let your guard down.

 

[WildCat]

Evidence, please. Be very specific and name names. Most liberals on this board are constantly being mocked as SJW. The very suggestion that a SJW is against the 1st is ridiculous in the extreme.

There has been much hostility expressed by the SJWs on this forum to the Citizens United decision, and Obama called out the SCOTUS in a SOTU address for deciding in favor of the 1st Amendment in that case.

How about you Katie, were you disappointed that the government was told they were not allowed to ban a movie about Hillary Clinton in the months before an election?

 

[Skeptic Tank]

Racist jokes aren't "funny" unless you're racist. You need to believe in the underlying "truth" beneath the satire, otherwise the humorous effect is not achieved.

I agree and disagree.

I found racist jokes funny, and occasionally made them, decades before I moved into thought patterns, political beliefs, opinions on biological differences etc. which 99% of people would say make me a racist (and I don't really have any interest in debating it, the shoe probably fits though I do think the label has issues and is clouded by a lot of emotion.)

I used to delight in making such jokes with my brother (who remains as leftist as they come to this day) or my friends (ditto for them) when I was a teenager, or in my 20's, because it was a taboo. That was sufficient. It was the rush of saying something you shouldn't say. It's the same reason people make any sort of offensive joke, be it a rape joke, a murder joke, whatever. If you'd asked us why it was funny back then we'd have said the racial jokes were funny because we were essentially parodying racists, saying things we of course didn't believe, but which were funny because of how over the top they were. If you'd dug at us, we probably would've admitted a "grain of truth" in them.

People get a rush from hearing things come out of their mouth, and the mouths of those close to them, which they know are forbidden. A 10 year old boy may satisfy himself with just repeating curse words. A 17 year old may have moved on to racist jokes.

If someone was making them constantly, that might be another matter. But once in a blue moon? I don't think you can read as much into that.

And yet, I find your point here interesting:

You need to believe in the underlying "truth" beneath the satire, otherwise the humorous effect is not achieved.

... because if that's true, it essentially means that an absolutely enormous percentage of white liberals are dormant racists underneath the surface. I think you'd be shocked at how common these sorts of jokes are among the most supposedly non-racist/anti-racist when they are in private with those they trust.

It would mean that many people in my life who are now shocked at me "having become a racist" are really racists themselves, too. This is something I suspect is true and for a similar reason to what you're getting at.

I think a lot of these understandings of group differences are absolutely present in most peoples' minds. I think there's a mighty struggle within themselves to be in denial about it. It's what's done. It's what you think and say to be a "good person" and a "tolerant person" nowadays.

But the actions of people often betray the reality. White flight is a big one. Whites still want to live with whites, marry whites, send their kids to overwhelmingly white schools, etc. in very high majority percentages. There are a lot of people out there mouthing the correct things on racial issues who don't truly believe it deep down.

So it's an interesting discussion, to be sure. Since my "awakening" on these issues I have often remarked and felt that it was able to be as rapid for me as it was because so many of the necessary understandings and observations were already locked away in my mind, accumulating for my whole life, and just waiting for the key to finally be turned.

This is why I think you'll see an absolute explosion of "white racism" as the demographics shift in Europe, America, and other western nations. I think a lot of people are going to be very surprised at how fast that can happen in themselves and in others, when their group interests and homelands are threatened in ways which can no longer be swept under the rug or pretended away.