Police Issues and Racial Profiling Protest Discussion

[garnite 8]

People are going to come into this thread…see this post…and make all kinds of really bad assumptions. 

lol

[uo111 5,282]

I'm not even from the USA but I want to know whats going on without reading all of this... can anyone fill me in?

There was a police shooting in the US with a white cop and an 18 year old black man (who was over 6 feet tall and over 200 pounds but was also unarmed).

 

No one really knew what happened exactly, but a lot of people decided to protest racism in the US in Ferguson. The protests became an excuse for some people to loot among other things, and so the police responded in an excessively militaristic fashion causing more people to protest racism in the US causing the police to respond even more harshly than before, but eventually backing down over the criticism they were receiving for it.

 

Then "details" started to come out about what happened. The victim (Michael Brown), had robbed a convenience store earlier and was walking in the street with his friend when the officer (Darren WIlson) was in his cop car and screamed at them to get out of the street. The police officer drove past them but then put his car in reverse and came back to them. There was a confrontation between Wilson and Brown with Browns hand on the gun (perhaps trying to push it away or possibly trying to take it) and the gun went off shooting Brown in the hand and Brown began to flee. The friend says that Wilson caused the confrontation, the officer claims that Brown caused the confrontation. If you were to believe either one, it would have to be racially biased because honestly no one really knows, both stories definitely have some fabricated bits thrown in.

 

Wilson chased him and Brown stopped and turned around. His friend said that Wilson fired shots at his back, but no bullets were recovered indicating that and there were no gun wounds on his back. Now this is where it really gets interesting. Some autopsy reports say that Brown was surrendering with his hands up when he was shot. Several eye witnesses for the prosecution collaborated this story, including the friend. The officer however, claims that when Michael Brown turned around, he rushed towards him and that's when he shoot him until Michael Brown finally fell to the ground.

 

You can read both sides of the story here.

 

http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2014/08/us/ferguson-brown-timeline/

 

The officer himself explaining his side of the story.

 

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/11/25/366654173/wilson-describes-confrontation-with-brown-in-abc-interview

 

Here is a video of another "eyewitness" who corroborates the officer's story. Be warned, the body is in this video. It's very blurry though and you can't see anything.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prrydnTAly0

 

Do keep in mind that we will likely never know what actually happened. All we know for sure is that at least 1/3 of the Grand Jury did not decide that the officer acted in an illegal manner.

 

Now protest in Ferguson are picking up again. Hopefully they will remain nonviolent.

[Tropico 4,145]

Michael Brown deserved a week or something in jail for theft. That is true.

But the fact that Wilson went to the extreme and decided to literally shoot the boy 6 times? That's f--king ridiculous. Michael ran awayor was it he surrended?? Yet the man decided to shoot him down. That's ridiculous and very uncalled for. He wasn't even armed. Isn't there some law which states that for a police to shoot, the offender needs to pull out a weapon first? Regardless, shooting was uncalled for.

And you know what? I get why the riotters are doing this. They have to deal with being brutally attacked a lot of the time and the law isn't doing s--t. And why? Because they're black. Then you white kids sitting behind your mac books in the suburbs act like these people have no right to do so.how exactly would you feel knowing that at any moment if you look even the least bit suspicious, you could be attacked and possibly murdered?

Wilson crossed the line. And these protestors would most likely not have done anything more if the cop had actually been indicted. But no, the grand jury didn't indict him. "No justice, no peace". What needs to be done for justice to be served? Michael didn't have to killed so it was murder. Anybody who commits murder, taking away another human's life, deserves to be inprisoned for a long long time. Now I'm not saying the violent riots are the right way to go but the people must be heard.

I'm absolutely disgusted by the fact that some of you expect the people to just be like "end of story". Good god it's disgusting.

[uo111 5,282]

Michael Brown deserved a week or something in jail for theft. That is true.

But the fact that Wilson went to the extreme and decided to literally shoot the boy 6 times? That's ****ing ridiculous. Michael ran awayor was it he surrended?? Yet the man decided to shoot him down. That's ridiculous and very uncalled for. He wasn't even armed. Isn't there some law which states that for a police to shoot, the offender needs to pull out a weapon first? Regardless, shooting was uncalled for.

And you know what? I get why the riotters are doing this. They have to deal with being brutally attacked a lot of the time and the law isn't doing ****. And why? Because they're black. Then you white kids sitting behind your mac books in the suburbs act like these people have no right to do so.how exactly would you feel knowing that at any moment if you look even the least bit suspicious, you could be attacked and possibly murdered?

Wilson crossed the line. And these protestors would most likely not have done anything more if the cop had actually been indicted. But no, the grand jury didn't indict him. "No justice, no peace". What needs to be done for justice to be served? Michael didn't have to killed so it was murder. Anybody who commits murder, taking away another human's life, deserves to be inprisoned for a long long time. Now I'm not saying the violent riots are the right way to go but the people must be heard.

I'm absolutely disgusted by the fact that some of you expect the people to just be like "end of story". Good god it's disgusting.

 

If the officers story is to be believed (which I personally do believe the evidence points to the truthfulness of his story), then he acted in accordance with the law. Michael Brown did assault him, he did have reason to fear for his life, and therefore he did have reason to shoot him.

 

The problem with the riots and looting, and even peaceful protests as I see it, is that people are rallying behind someone who the rest of the world views as a violent criminal who assaulted an officer and planned to kill him, and rallying against an officer who followed the protocols and had to make a tough decision to save his own life.

 

You can't just strip a person of their rights because they are white and were involved in the death of a black person (not murder, mind you). That's the exact same thing as taking away a black person's rights because they are black.

 

Also, people using the word unarmed to try to indicate that he was harmless make other people angry because everyone knows that Michael Brown was not harmless. Things like that really put people off. It's shocking that people don't understand how manipulative wording is actually harming their arguments.

[Batwings 12,957]

For those who are interested, here's a kickstarter campaign to save the business of Natalie Dubose, whose bakery was severely damaged in the Ferguson riots: http://www.gofundme.com/NataliesCakesnMore

 

Natalie's Cakes and More Fund

UPDATE #5
10 HOURS AGO
Thank you to actresses Patricia Heaton and Brandi Glanville for supporting me! I must have missed thousands of other tweets, and I'm so sorry I can't mention them all. The sweet lady who offered money from her social security check brought me to tears. The prayers.

 

I'm trying to check into social media and facebook to respond. But Twitter moves soooo fast.

Thank you to EVERYONE for the kind words, prayers, and emotional support.

I am so humbly blessed!

Hello, I'm Natalie Dubose of Ferguson, Missouri. I'm a small business owner with a cake shop and a bakery dream.

First, I would thank everyone for their warm wishes, empathy, and support during this crazy difficult time.

I would love to write more, and will try soon, but my business is so behind right now.

My shop, which had it's grand opening this summer was vandalized in the riots.

My main windows were smashed and bakery damaged. I'm beside myself, but with the holidays, can't stop working.

I'm very busy cleaning and trying to repair my business. I'm also trying to catchup on baking cakes for Thanksgiving!

I promise to update this later. I'm truly mixing batter right now. I began baking and selling cakes at local flea markets, slowly saving money to start my small business.

I LOVE TO BAKE !!!

It was my dream and I'm working hard to accomplish that dream.

The outpouring of support on Twitter, Facebook, and in the media has been amazing. I was in tears.

It was suggested that I start this account by a new friend and here it is. I do need help to rebuild and create a website, so any donations would be a huge assistance.

I'm not sure where to find the money to repair my little bakery. But, even if you just stopped by to say hello. Thank You !!!!

I've never felt such love.

 

Thank You !!!

Natalie

 

[Sparkly 2]

If the officers story is to be believed (which I personally do believe the evidence points to the truthfulness of his story), then he acted in accordance with the law. Michael Brown did assault him, he did have reason to fear for his life, and therefore he did have reason to shoot him.

 

The problem with the riots and looting, and even peaceful protests as I see it, is that people are rallying behind someone who the rest of the world views as a violent criminal who assaulted an officer and planned to kill him, and rallying against an officer who followed the protocols and had to make a tough decision to save his own life.

 

You can't just strip a person of their rights because they are white and were involved in the death of a black person (not murder, mind you). That's the exact same thing as taking away a black person's rights because they are black.

 

Also, people using the word unarmed to try to indicate that he was harmless make other people angry because everyone knows that Michael Brown was not harmless. Things like that really put people off. It's shocking that people don't understand how manipulative wording is actually harming their arguments.

 

Bull****. He was not armed. He could've used a taser or about anything BUT a gun. And shooting someone SIX TIMES is not self-defense. bye.

[Willy Wonka 4]

If the officers story is to be believed (which I personally do believe the evidence points to the truthfulness of his story), then he acted in accordance with the law. Michael Brown did assault him, he did have reason to fear for his life, and therefore he did have reason to shoot him.

 

The problem with the riots and looting, and even peaceful protests as I see it, is that people are rallying behind someone who the rest of the world views as a violent criminal who assaulted an officer and planned to kill him, and rallying against an officer who followed the protocols and had to make a tough decision to save his own life.

 

You can't just strip a person of their rights because they are white and were involved in the death of a black person (not murder, mind you). That's the exact same thing as taking away a black person's rights because they are black.

 

Also, people using the word unarmed to try to indicate that he was harmless make other people angry because everyone knows that Michael Brown was not harmless. Things like that really put people off. It's shocking that people don't understand how manipulative wording is actually harming their arguments.

I'm living in Spain and no one has ever said that he was a "dangerous criminal". From my parents to professors to conversations I've overheard, it's seen more as a confirmation of racial biases in the justice system in America and the millataristic style of the police. In the rest of the world, this reflects poorly on the justice system of the US, not on the protestors.

And for talking about manipulative wording, where has it ever been shown that Michael Brown " planned to kill him"?

[uo111 5,282]

Bull****. He was not armed. He could've used a taser or about anything BUT a gun. And shooting someone SIX TIMES is not self-defense. bye.

He wasn't carrying a taser. Until it's regulation that all police officers carry tasers, that argument means nothing against Wilson. I think using a taser would've been better as well but that's irrelevant in this particular case and should not be counted against the officer.

 

It's well agreed upon by actual experts in self defense that you should shoot someone until they fall because if they reach you with the intent to hurt you they can kill you. You should NEVER wait until they reach you to shoot them because by that point you are in serious danger and the outcome is much less likely to be in your favor.

 

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/01/robert-farago/self-defense-tip-make-the-first-shot-count/

 

The lack of gun education is also concerning and another reason why many people don't take this seriously. If you have no idea what you are talking about, and yet are drawing conclusions based on flat out wrong idea's, it doesn't look good for you.

 

 

 

I'm living in Spain and no one has ever said that he was a "dangerous criminal". From my parents to professors to conversations I've overheard, it's seen more as a confirmation of racial biases in the justice system in America and the millataristic style of the police. In the rest of the world, this reflects poorly on the justice system of the US, not on the protestors.

And for talking about manipulative wording, where has it ever been shown that Michael Brown " planned to kill him"?

 

When I say everyone else I mean people who don't automatically agree that Wilson deserves jail time.

 

The military tactics used by the police don't factor into the Wilson-Brown case.

 

Why else would he be running at him? Maybe he didn't plan to kill him, just take away his gun. But in that case one of them would've likely ended up dead regardless in the struggle.

[Prometheus 1,494]

Then you white kids sitting behind your mac books in the suburbs act like these people have no right to do so.how exactly would you feel knowing that at any moment if you look even the least bit suspicious, you could be attacked and possibly murdered?

You see, comments like this are what keep the privileged from wanting to help the marginalized. I am part of a marginalized group and allies (AKA the privileged who believe in the marginalized cause) are extremely important. If the minority states an issue then people are less likely to listen, but if both minority and majority come together it shows that the problem is seen by more than just those affected by it. And to turn white people away by saying we all own mac books and live in the suburbs is ignorant. Granted, around 12% of kids under 18 and are poor are white compared to 38% of African-American kids. However, to deem all white people to be middle/upper class citizens is ridiculous and racist itself. Now, I don't know what it is like to fear for my life because of the color of my skin, and I am so f--king upset that race is still an issue to this day. Regardless, do NOT group all white people together and turn them away from the cause. What you are doing is segregating people. You are saying, "Okay, we are marginalized so WE are validated by our skin. However, ALL OF YOU are privileged and thus you cannot understand, nor can you help us. So f--k off." That isn't the stance to take. 

[Sparkly 2]

He wasn't carrying a taser. Until it's regulation that all police officers carry tasers, that argument means nothing against Wilson. I think using a taser would've been better as well but that's irrelevant in this particular case and should not be counted against the officer.

 

It's well agreed upon by actual experts in self defense that you should shoot someone until they fall because if they reach you with the intent to hurt you they can kill you. You should NEVER wait until they reach you to shoot them because by that point you are in serious danger and the outcome is much less likely to be in your favor.

 

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/01/robert-farago/self-defense-tip-make-the-first-shot-count/

 

The lack of gun education is also concerning and another reason why many people don't take this seriously. If you have no idea what you are talking about, and yet are drawing conclusions based on flat out wrong idea's, it doesn't look good for you.

 

 

Yes. You're supposed to shoot and make sure that the person isn't able to attack you anymore - that means shoot them in their legs or parts of their bodies where they're incapable of hurting you but you aren't killing them. So he shot him in the hand and arm and then in his head. Shooting someone in the head - he clearly wasn't trying to make sure he can't hurt him anymore - he was making sure he was dead. That's it, his intentions were to murder him and he did it even after Brown surrendered.

[Morphine Prince 109,655]

For those who are interested, here's a kickstarter campaign to save the business of Natalie Dubose, whose bakery was severely damaged in the Ferguson riots: http://www.gofundme.com/NataliesCakesnMore

 

 

 

 

Wow, 89K already! 

[Prometheus 1,494]

Yes. You're supposed to shoot and make sure that the person isn't able to attack you anymore - that means shoot them in their legs or parts of their bodies where they're incapable of hurting you but you aren't killing them. So he shot him in the hand and arm and then in his head. Shooting someone in the head - he clearly wasn't trying to make sure he can't hurt him anymore - he was making sure he was dead. That's it, his intentions were to murder him and he did it even after Brown surrendered.

From the police friends I've talked to they told me they are instructed to shoot in the core.

[Sparkly 2]

From the police friends I've talked to they told me they are instructed to shoot in the core.

 

I guess it's different in other places

[Prometheus 1,494]

I guess it's different in other places

I'm in Missouri as well.

[uo111 5,282]

Yes. You're supposed to shoot and make sure that the person isn't able to attack you anymore - that means shoot them in their legs or parts of their bodies where they're incapable of hurting you but you aren't killing them. So he shot him in the hand and arm and then in his head. Shooting someone in the head - he clearly wasn't trying to make sure he can't hurt him anymore - he was making sure he was dead. That's it, his intentions were to murder him and he did it even after Brown surrendered.

That is literally exactly what you are not supposed to do.

 

You aim for center mass, that means the abdominal area.

 

You do that because you will likely miss if you try to aim for other parts of the body. And even if you do make contact, it's most likely not going to stop the target. Michael brown was shot in the head when he lowered his head down, blocking his chest. That is why he was shoot in the head, not because the officer was aiming for his head.

 

This isn't Call of Duty, aiming a gun is not as simple as most people think. I don't particularly like guns but I did take a course on them (at my parents request).