Michael Brown shooting II

[carlitos]

What in the world is that supposed to mean?

Mumbles is referring to countless other cases, without consideration as to whether we might know what those cases entail.

 

[Wolrab]

Originally posted by Skeptic Ginger

That association isn't exactly a minor thing.

Darren Wilson’s first job was on a troubled police force disbanded by authorities

So he's just the good cop on his second job in a racist department. It couldn't possibly have affected his work.

This is the second iteration of this forum. That must mean everyone that came to ISF from JREF were skeptics.

 

[WildCat]

May I take it that the moving goal posts means that you don't have any evidence that the riots and looting came first?

Not goalpost moving. Statements of fact, first came the burning and looting then came the police anti-riot response. Quite the opposite of what Mumbles claims.

I have said nothing of the sort. I never said any evidence should be withheld during the discovery phase of the trial. In fact, it never even got that far.

You are upset that exculpatory evidence was presented to the GJ, yes? Now you're trying to walk that back?

I have said over and over that if McCulloch didn't think there was a case, he shouldn't have taken it to the Grand Jury. He should not have used the Grand Jury as an excuse to avoid the blame for making an unpopular decision.

And you know that would have made things much worse. Even after the GJ cleared him we still have the yahoos saying there should be a trial.

The goal is to take as much fodder away from the lynch mob as possible while avoiding the miscarriage of justice the lynch mob demands.

 

[WildCat]

I thought I said long ago that I was done with the absurd argument that it's normal to jump out of your car ad chase someone down because you see them walking down the street.

Except there's no evidence that that ever happened. Once again you make stuff up and try to pass it off as fact.

 

[WildCat]

I said before that based on what I've read, Wilson probably isn't guilty. However police in many other countries have to deal with large, drugged up people and usually manage without lethal force. I think the protocols or training in the FPD seem to be inadequate.

That's the way it works in the USA too. Do you think every such incident ends up with the police shooting?

Pretend this is a skeptic's board.

 

[WildCat]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/17/darren-wilson-lock-your-ass_n_6170746.html

Here, he illegally arrests a citizen and lies about it.

What was illegal about the arrest? I bet you don't even know why he was arrested.

 

[Monketi Ghost]

That's the way it works in the USA too. Do you think every such incident ends up with the police shooting?

Pretend this is a skeptic's board.

I keep trying but that ship has sailed and sunk to the bottom of the harbor.

 

[HenryLee]

That's the way it works in the USA too. Do you think every such incident ends up with the police shooting?

Pretend this is a skeptic's board.

I think your mistake is in persisting to use the old, patriarchal, neo-colonialist definition of "skeptic". Words change you know. Now skepticism is properly understood as uncritically accepting any and all outrageous and literally unbelievable charges against privileged persons. Especially if they conform to what you've always known to be true in your heart but was afraid to speak out because they can get to you too you know. If further(Ha! I kid. I mean actual) investigation reveals that the particulars of this specific case don't actually support the narrative then as sure as a step to the right follows a jump to the left when doing The Time Warp start braying about Larger Truths and how it was never really about Mike Brown or Jackie's Gang Rape Fantasy or whatnot. Social Justice ruins everything. Probably because once you add any descriptive modifier to it, it's not really Justice anymore.

 

[jimbob]

I said before that based on what I've read, Wilson probably isn't guilty. However police in many other countries have to deal with large, drugged up people and usually manage without lethal force. I think the protocols or training in the FPD seem to be inadequate.

That's the way it works in the USA too. Do you think every such incident ends up with the police shooting?


Pretend this is a skeptic's board.

I know that nobody was fatally shot by UK police in 2014. The UK police did deal with violent people in this time, there is plenty of video evidence that US police are too quick to resort to lethal force, for whatever reason.


I do know how many times the police shot people in the UK, and how many times they used tasers: (10,380 in 2013, of which tasers were fired 1,733 times and used in drive stun 287 times) (taser use from https://www.ipcc.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Documents/guidelines_reports/Taser_report_final_2014.pdf )

Meanwhile in 2013-2014 there were:
( from https://www.ipcc.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Documents/research_stats/Deaths_Report_1314.pdf )
• 12 road traffic fatalities
• No fatal police shootings
• 11 deaths in or following police custody
• 68 apparent suicides following police custody
• 39 other deaths following police contact (IPCC
independent investigations only)

I don't have the data for 2013 firearms use but do for 2012, when firearms were authorised 12,550 times and fired 5 times.

( https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...ce_Firearms_stats_Commons_-_2013_7_11__3_.pdf )

Nobody has any idea what the situation is in the US.

 

[WildCat]

I know that nobody was fatally shot by UK police in 2014. The UK police did deal with violent people in this time, there is plenty of video evidence that US police are too quick to resort to lethal force, for whatever reason.

How often do UK police encounter armed suspects who attempt to shoot them?

Chicago police find over 7,000 guns on criminals every year. How many times does that happen in London, which is 3 times the size?

 

[jimbob]

How often do US police shoot suspects, either armed or unarmed?

We don't know.

 

[Monketi Ghost]

How often do US police shoot suspects, either armed or unarmed?

We don't know.

Do we know that the differences between policing needs in both countries make simpleminded comparisons irrelevant?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally posted by Skeptic Ginger

This is the second iteration of this forum. That must mean everyone that came to ISF from JREF were skeptics.

I don't know what you are talking about.

Wilson's first job was in a documented racist department. His second job was in a documented racist department.

So he learned on the job in a racist department and has been in one since.

Do you think it's more likely he took on the racist attitudes of his coworkers? Or do you think it's more likely he remained 'different' from the cops he worked with his entire career?

Because I think the former is not only more likely, there's plenty of evidence people are heavily influenced by the attitudes of their coworkers.

What isn't a skeptical position is always assuming the default position that must be disproved is, 'not racist'.

 

[WildCat]

How often do US police shoot suspects, either armed or unarmed?

We don't know.

We do know that last year Chicago police confiscated over 7,000 guns and shot 45 people, 17 of them fatally.

So even assuming all of those shot had guns that's just a 0.64% shooting rate of a suspect armed with a firearm. 99.36% of the time nobody is shot, even when the suspect is armed.

How many times a year do London police encounter suspects armed with a firearm?

 

[theprestige]

I don't know what you are talking about.

Wilson's first job was in a documented racist department. His second job was in a documented racist department.

So he learned on the job in a racist department and has been in one since.

Do you think it's more likely he took on the racist attitudes of his coworkers? Or do you think it's more likely he remained 'different' from the cops he worked with his entire career?

Because I think the former is not only more likely, there's plenty of evidence people are heavily influenced by the attitudes of their coworkers.

What isn't a skeptical position is always assuming the default position that must be disproved is, 'not racist'.

Actually the default position in the context of this thread--the Michael Brown shooting--is "not racist".

That is, regardless of Wilson's background or personal opinions about race, he did not shoot Michael Brown because of his race. And indeed, two separate investigations, one by a Grand Jury and another by the Department of Justice, found that Brown's shooting was amply explained and sufficiently justified by factors other than his race.

So unless you're going to argue that Wilson shot Brown because he was a racist, and you're going to present supporting evidence for this, that was overlooked by the Grand Jury and the Justice Department, Wilson's associations are off-topic here.

 

[jimbob]

We do know that last year Chicago police confiscated over 7,000 guns and shot 45 people, 17 of them fatally.

So even assuming all of those shot had guns that's just a 0.64% shooting rate of a suspect armed with a firearm. 99.36% of the time nobody is shot, even when the suspect is armed.

How many times a year do London police encounter suspects armed with a firearm?

Far fewer than US police - however many US police seem to have problems dealing with people who don't have firearms.

 

[WildCat]

Far fewer than US police - however many US police seem to have problems dealing with people who don't have firearms.

Is it? Or is that just a perception brought on by what is reported in the news media?

Remember the "summer of the shark"?

 

[jimbob]

Far fewer than US police - however many US police seem to have problems dealing with people who don't have firearms.

Is it? Or is that just a perception brought on by what is reported in the news media?

Remember the "summer of the shark"?

Too many police do. Statistics are woeful in the US, so I have no idea about trends, but with the increase in phones with video, a lot of stories are now coming out that would otherwise have remained unreported.

On the question of lack of training, there is little reason to suppose Ferguson is not typical of many similar forces. The inadequate training there is mentioned as one problem there and one that leads to excessive use of force.


The UK is far from perfect (the Ian Tomlinson case was an example where someone should never have been re-employed by the Met) and too few police officers are found guilty even when there are cases of unlawful killing, however we do know how many people die after contact with the police.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Actually the default position in the context of this thread--the Michael Brown shooting--is "not racist".

Why? Because you declare it so?

That is, regardless of Wilson's background or personal opinions about race, he did not shoot Michael Brown because of his race. And indeed, two separate investigations, one by a Grand Jury and another by the Department of Justice, found that Brown's shooting was amply explained and sufficiently justified by factors other than his race.

So unless you're going to argue that Wilson shot Brown because he was a racist, and you're going to present supporting evidence for this, that was overlooked by the Grand Jury and the Justice Department, Wilson's associations are off-topic here.

The GJ investigation was as biased in favor of Wilson as they come. It's ludicrous to claim that had meaning.

As for the DoJ, they found Ferguson police had a history of racism. You can pretend Wilson was exempt from that finding. It ignores the evidence it was more likely he was affected than not.

 

[tyr_13]

Leaving aside if there is sufficient (or even decent) evidence to conclude that Wilson is racist or not, and I don't believe that there is, that is not evidence the shooting was racially motivated.

More simply, Wilson could be a racist and the shooting still be justified. Having circumstantial evidence that he is more likely to be racist or give racists a pass isn't evidence the shooting was unjustified.