Police Issues and Racial Profiling Protest Discussion

[Willy Wonka 4]

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.

 

 

 

 

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.

1. It should be counted against him because, as he states in the court documents, there is usually a taser available and he usually elects to not take it because it's uncomfortable to carry. He regularly chooses to pass over the non-lethal weapon. Why lethal weapons are obligatory and non-lethal weapons are optional will never make sense to me.

 

2. "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" <- This is not how the rest of the world is viewing it at all. Michael Brown isn't seen as a violent criminal. 

 

3. They absolutely don't factor into the legal case, but the military tactics absolutely factor into how the rest of the world views this entire conflict. 

 

4. You're really going to characterize running towards someone as planning to kill them? Really? Even then, even if Wilson didn't have a taser, the logical and appropriate response would be to incapacitate him in some manner. At this time, Wilson was now out of his car and had access to both mace and his baton. But apparently, an unarmed citizen is deemed life-threatening enough to justify only utilizing a gun.

 

5. That poor explanation still doesn't excuse your hypocrisy regarding "manipulative wording".

[Saint Sebastian 0]

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.

 

Thanks! This sounds like either part could be right or wrong... God only knows what happened but I pray that the right amount of justice is served to each side.

[drinkmytears 2,332]

Not other artists doing absolutely nothing but tweeting about this or not even tweeting about this. :sweep:

Not you criticizing him for doing something while you do nothing about it. :sweep:

How do you know what I was doing? Who says I wasn't at that same protest in Seattle? I hate Macklemore for taking a stance on things without actually doing anything genuinely, he does this all the time. He can't do anything good without a camera crew.

[uo111 5,282]

1. It should be counted against him because, as he states in the court documents, there is usually a taser available and he usually elects to not take it because it's uncomfortable to carry. He regularly chooses to pass over the non-lethal weapon. Why lethal weapons are obligatory and non-lethal weapons are optional will never make sense to me.

 

2. "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" <- This is not how the rest of the world is viewing it at all. Michael Brown isn't seen as a violent criminal. 

 

3. They absolutely don't factor into the legal case, but the military tactics absolutely factor into how the rest of the world views this entire conflict. 

 

4. You're really going to characterize running towards someone as planning to kill them? Really? Even then, even if Wilson didn't have a taser, the logical and appropriate response would be to incapacitate him in some manner. At this time, Wilson was now out of his car and had access to both mace and his baton. But apparently, an unarmed citizen is deemed life-threatening enough to justify only utilizing a gun.

 

5. That poor explanation still doesn't excuse your hypocrisy regarding "manipulative wording".

1. It doesn't make sense to me etiher but it is the case so it's not the officers fault (legally). If that's your problem then you have a problem with the law, not the officer who followed the law.

 

2. Not everyone agrees with that... I don't know how else to put it. A lot of people view him as a criminal, if you aren't seeing it then you simply haven't looked. This view is on reddit and imgur among others. Not everyone thinks an injustice was done, not everyone thinks Michael Brown was harmless and/or innocent.

 

3. I'm fine with that. I am speaking only about the initial confrontation between Wilson and Brown.

 

4. There is that unarmed word again. He could kill him with his bare hands if he wanted to. He made no inclination that he didn't want to. He had already assaulted him. I don't know why the decision too shoot is so hard to understand. A baton? Mace? A taser would've stopped him but neither of those things would've and again, he didn't have a taser nor is he required to carry one by law. If you don't like the law, seek to change it, not to prosecute people who follow it.

 

5. Even if you are right and I'm a hypocrite, it doesn't change the fact that manipulative wording makes whoever uses it look bad. Using the word unarmed as a way to argue that Wilson shouldn't have felt threatened is manipulative and falls apart under any scrutiny.

 

If Michael Brown's intent wasn't to kill, it was at least to cause bodily harm. Next time I'll make my speculation more clearly stated as such.

[MahoganySnitch 67]

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 **** off." That isn't the stance to take. 

But that's the thing, people with privilege will have a harder time understanding as they can put themselves in another's shoes, but yet still be able to take them off. But I don't think that quote of yours is the stance to take either, as you yourself said that minority voices tend to get drowned out so majority/privileged support is necessary. But emphasis should be on bolstering said minority voices, not taking over them. 

 

And linguistically, that comment you originally quoted talked about white people in the suburbs specifically. Subject and object are linked here, and doesn't seem to be labeling all white people as suburban, mac-owners. God knows that isn't true. Rather, it commented on the affluent/middle-class white community in suburbia in which people can (not will, but can) detach from what's going on as inconsequential, or at its WORST, write all this off as behavior of animals/savages. Rapunxel seems to be commenting on the privilege of it all (darker men deemed suspicious already, etc.). 

[Tropico 4,145]

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 ****ing 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 **** off." That isn't the stance to take.

Your right. I'm sorry. :( What I said was completely out of rage due to previous comments. I don't mean to segregate anyone and I know I may sound like the biggest hypocrite of all time but I totally hate people who did what I just did. I'm aware that not every white person lives in the suburbs, not every white person has a mac book and not every white person is priviledged. I just thought that people were looking at this pretty one sided. The whole "protesting is pointless" "I want these people off my TL. They made a verdict. End of story." Stuff had me so upset. Like, why would you say such a narrow minded inconsiderate thing?

Also, I was addressing the people who didn't even understand the protest to begin with. I was generalizing which was messed up but I can understand why I did it (much like how I can expect people to at least understand the reason for protest).

[Willy Wonka 4]

1. It doesn't make sense to me etiher but it is the case so it's not the officers fault. If that's your problem then you have a problem with the law, not the officer who followed the law.

 

2. Not everyone agrees with that... I don't know how else to put it. A lot of people view him as a criminal, if you aren't seeing it then you simply haven't looked. This view is on reddit and imgur among others. Not everyone thinks an injustice was done, not everyone thinks Michael Brown was harmless and/or innocent.

 

3. I'm fine with that. I am speaking only about the initial confrontation between Wilson and Brown.

 

4. There is that unarmed word again. He could kill him with his bare hands if he wanted to. He made no inclination that he didn't want to. He had already assaulted him. I don't know why the decision too shoot is so hard to understand. A baton? Mace? A taser would've stopped him but neither of those things would've and again, he didn't have a taser nor is he required to carry one by law. If you don't like the law, seek to change it, not to prosecute people who follow it.

 

5. Even if you are right and I'm a hypocrite, it doesn't change the fact that manipulative wording makes whoever uses it look bad. Using the word unarmed as a way to argue that Wilson shouldn't have felt threatened is manipulative and falls apart under any scrutiny.

If Michael Brown's intent wasn't to kill, it was at least to cause bodily harm. Next time I'll make my speculation more clearly stated as such.

 

1. No. If he had the option to carry a taser that day (and any other day) and passed on it, that's on him. The law should absolutely be changed so that it's mandatory, but he exercised his free will and limited his options, thus forcing him to use a gun in response to Michael Brown. Wilson has free will and exercised it. I hold him just as much at fault for not carrying a taser as I do the law.

 

2. This is a whole other issue in and of itself. When will we stop implying that the only lives worth anything are those who are innocent and untouched by crime? He could be a serial murderer and he still has rights. Besides that, the fact is he committed petty theft and allegedly had a verbal and physical altercation with a police officer (something that many witnesses have disputed). Okay? So? It's okay to shoot him then? It's just that he died? What a bull**** kind of sentiment. Have we really come to a point in America where you can expect to get shot and killed if you punch a police officer? How funny that this kind of physical altercation happens in other countries and the police don't pull a gun out and shoot the civilian. Gun violence is so normalized in America that pulling a gun out is seen as a rational and defensible reaction to a punch. A punch. Whether or not Michael Brown was guilty or not, an injustice was done. 

 

The implication that "if you've ever done anything bad, your death is justified" is just disgusting.

 

3. Still relevant about the global perspective on this issue, but whatever.

 

4.

 

 

un·armed

ˌənˈärmd/Submit

adjective

not equipped with or carrying weapons.

"he was shooting unarmed civilians"

synonyms: defenseless, weaponless; More

Now unarmed is a manipulative word? Michael Brown did not have a weapon on him. That's literally the definition of unarmed.

 

Anyone can kill anyone at any time with their bare hands. I can. That doesn't mean that I'm a life-threatening presence at all times and it's justified if you shoot me. Michael Brown didn't have as significant of a size advantage as most people try to portray (and certainly not as large as what Officer Wilson has tried to imply). Other than size, Officer Wilson had literally every other advantage going into this. He had a vehicle, a gun, mace and a baton, in addition to the ability to call for backup. Michael Brown had his hands. Guess what? Officer Wilson has hands too. And this isn't even touching on the actual laughable "injuries" that Officer Wilson sustained.

 

And seriously? "He made no inclination he didn't want to." This is a new low. Officer Wilson also made no "inclination" (pretty sure you're not using this word right) that he didn't just want to kill a black kid. So he should be charged with a hate crime then, yes? You can make any allegation you want using this logic. This kind of baseless, weak hypothetical speculation has no place in an attempt to justify a shooting. 

 

5. Once again, Michael Brown was unarmed. You can try to claim that that's manipulative wording as many times as you want, but that doesn't change that it's a fact. It's no more manipulative to refer to Michael Brown as unarmed as it is to refer to Wilson as an officer. The title "officer" holds a certain level of legitimacy and trustworthiness. It absolutely manipulates the perception of him, because it's automatically assumed that he upholds the law and is a force of justice. But it's a fact, so he's called Officer Wilson. Michael Brown was unarmed. It's a fact. Get over it.

 

We don't know if Michael Brown ever even touched the gun as Officer Wilson claims. Why? No one ever even checked the gun for fingerprints. This shoddy ass investigation is so full of errors, it's embarrassing.

 

And still, your biased, manipulative language is unceasing.

[brizoda 4,177]

we really don't know if the resolution is fair, but we do know that the situation has been mismanaged by the jurors and the police

[craig 680]

we really don't know if the resolution is fair, but we do know that the situation has been mismanaged by the jurors and the police

 

I think the biggest problem is that social media established a narrative before we knew many facts, that narrative was "white cop shot good black kid in the back when he ran away when accused of jaywalking." Witnesses who were friends of Mike Brown or who hated the police give stories first and were the only story for awhile. And once people are engaged, they want to cling to the narrative, especially as they have broader issues about police bullying and abuse of power.

[Golden Gangsta 49]

Your right. I'm sorry. :( What I said was completely out of rage due to previous comments. I don't mean to segregate anyone and I know I may sound like the biggest hypocrite of all time but I totally hate people who did what I just did. I'm aware that not every white person lives in the suburbs, not every white person has a mac book and not every white person is priviledged. I just thought that people were looking at this pretty one sided. The whole "protesting is pointless" "I want these people off my TL. They made a verdict. End of story." Stuff had me so upset. Like, why would you say such a narrow minded inconsiderate thing?

Also, I was addressing the people who didn't even understand the protest to begin with. I was generalizing which was messed up but I can understand why I did it (much like how I can expect people to at least understand the reason for protest).

 

A mess. I'm not gonna lie -- until these mentally ill Ferguson residents get off the streets, stop destroying their own damn town, and start acting civilised + humane, I have no interest in showing my support. These rioters need to be locked up! There are other ways of demonstration that do not include looting, vandalism & arson.

 

I'm not racist at all. I believe in full equality between the races. But these protests are simply making the racial divide worse.  

[DrewStevens 5,249]

How do you know what I was doing? Who says I wasn't at that same protest in Seattle? I hate Macklemore for taking a stance on things without actually doing anything genuinely, he does this all the time. He can't do anything good without a camera crew.

There wasn't a camera crew and he refused to give an interview.

[Willy Wonka 4]

A mess. I'm not gonna lie -- until these mentally ill Ferguson residents get off the streets, stop destroying their own damn town, and start acting civilised + humane, I have no interest in showing my support. These rioters need to be locked up! There are other ways of demonstration that do not include looting, vandalism & arson.

I'm not racist at all. I believe in full equality between the races. But these protests are simply making the racial divide worse.

You don't sound like you're getting a very well rounded understanding of these protests.

But once again, I have to bring this up: http://mic.com/articles/105198/9-photos-of-white-people-rioting-put-the-ferguson-demonstrations-in-perspective

[Golden Gangsta 49]

You don't sound like you're getting a very well rounded understanding of these protests.

But once again, I have to bring this up: http://mic.com/articles/105198/9-photos-of-white-people-rioting-put-the-ferguson-demonstrations-in-perspective

 

I don't see how these pictures of "white people" rioting are relevant. Their actions are no more justified or appropriate than that of the Ferguson residents.  

[Willy Wonka 4]

I don't see how these pictures of "white people" rioting are relevant. Their actions are no more justified or appropriate than that of the Ferguson residents.

Because a lot of the language you use is loaded and has heavy history of racist connotations. (Not to mention the fact that the treatment of white riots is a joke compared to the treatment of black riots)

[MahoganySnitch 67]

Because a lot of the language you use is loaded and has heavy history of racist connotations. (Not to mention the fact that the treatment of white riots is a joke compared to the treatment of black riots)

This. You'll find a MUCH LESSENED National Guard presence and usage of thugs/savages/animals as a description.