Show Me.

[Winstonm]

The "show me" state of Missouri has shown me quite enough about their take on race relations, thank you. Any solutions?

[billw55]

Much depends on what the facts of the shooting turn out to be. Unfortunately we may never know, if we (perhaps wisely) treat the testimony of the involved parties as unreliable. Many police cars carry video recorders these days; I wonder if any part of this encounter was recorded.

 

Although, even if the policeman is 100% guilty, rioting and looting make the situation worse.

[Winstonm]

The act - whatever happened - is bad enough. None of us know what happened. The question now is what to do with the police bullying and arresting journalists and tossing tear gas into legal demonstrations?

[kenrexford]

The act - whatever happened - is bad enough. None of us know what happened. The question now is what to do with the police bullying and arresting journalists and tossing tear gas into legal demonstrations?

 

I am 100% against tossing tear gas into legal demonstrations. Have there been any recently?

[billw55]

The act - whatever happened - is bad enough. None of us know what happened. The question now is what to do with the police bullying and arresting journalists and tossing tear gas into legal demonstrations?

It is sort of a chicken or egg situation. Which came first - the gas from the police or the molotovs from the protestors? Obviously both versions are being claimed.

 

Not sure what to think about the reporters being arrested. That does sound fishy.

 

 

 

[kenberg]

Winston asks "Any solutions?" I think the answer might well be no.

 

Here are a couple of thoughts, I have no real certainty about what happened.

 

As I understand it, the town is about two thirds black. The police force is almost uniformly white (I heard 50 out of 53, but anyway almost completely).. Think about this. Roughly two-thirds of the encounters between cop and citizen will be white cop, black citizen. We are not post-racial, whoever thought we were was hopelessly naive. In any city, with any police force, some encounters between police and citizens get heated and sometimes violent. So sooner or later something bad is going to happen, and when it does it is, just on demographics alone, an excellent chance that the cop will be white, the citizen will be black. This is so if the cop ius a racist bully, it is also so if the cop is just doing his job as best he can. And with most cops, the truth is perhaps somewhere in between. My recollection is that cops pushed me around a bit when I was a teenager, I have no trouble believing that cops, some of them push black teens around more.

 

It would be really good if people could see this as a cop shooting an 18 year old rather than as a white cop shooting a black 18 year old. Lots of luck with that.

 

I imagine many encounters between black citizens and white cops end with the citizen thanking the cop for the assistance provided. And, no doubt, many end with one or both mumbling under their breath about the other person and quite possibly about the other's race. This one ended violently. It's right to investigate, it would be right to investigate whenever a cop shoots a citizen. But I am not inclined to leap to conclusions about just what happened. Yes cops hassled me when i was young. I was also, more than occasionally a pain in the butt when I was young. But I didn't get shot.

 

An investigation is fine.

 

PS As for the journalist, as I get it he treated McDonald's like his own private office. He wasn't management, he wasn't an employee, he wasn't a customer. he and other journalists just came in and set up shop. The cops were called and he got sassy. This leads to trouble (I remember this form my youth). Probably the cops were not adequately subtle. Cops often aren't. I am not shocked.

[Mbodell]

I am 100% against tossing tear gas into legal demonstrations. Have there been any recently?

 

I'm amazed at the question, if not sarcastic, in this thread.

 

Lots of coverage of this story everywhere today.

 

It has been trending in twitter and facebook for many people. Internationally people from Gaza were tweeting helpful instructions and support for dealing with tear gas. Obama has spoken about it. The governor is calling in the national guard to help take the police of the street.

 

I can sort of understand someone who doesn't follow the news or the internet not knowing about this. But a simple web search would give more information.

[blackshoe]

Yes cops hassled me when i was young. I was also, more than occasionally a pain in the butt when I was young. But I didn't get shot.

There's a big difference between then and now. Now, the cops are much more inclined to an "us vs. them" mentality than they were then.

 

When I heard about this, I thought of the Catholic Bishop who told the Crusader who asked how they were supposed to know the good Catholics from the heretics "Kill them all. The Lord will know his own."

 

I know a couple of cops, and some of my friends know (and are friends with) a lot more. Most cops are good sensible people. Some aren't. The latter are dangerous to all of us. Whether any of that is going on here, though, I don't know.

 

Were any journalists charged with anything? It sounds from the bit upthread about MacDonald's that they could have been deemed to be trespassing. I had first heard that they were on the public street. If that was the case, the police may have violated the first and fourth amendments. But it sounds like they were in a privately owned establishment, and if the manager of that MacDonald's asked them to leave, and then called the police because they would not do so, then I think there's a case for trespassing, and less of a case (or no case) for Constitutional violations. But IANAL, and I certainly don't have all the facts, so I'm just speculating. Be interested to see how it pans out.

[Winstonm]

I find it interesting (and a relief) that by trading the local police and their tactics for the highway patrol and St. Louis police that a night of peaceful demonstrations resulted.

[kenrexford]

Here's the thing in my opinion. The world is not black and white. There are nuances and blended realities. This is no exception.

 

Wanting the police to calm the heck down and stop acting like the military is a good idea. However, you don't have to pretend that the victims are pure to make that point. I win a ton of jury trials in assault cases for this reason. Prosecutors tend to treat their witness/victim as a pure soul who did nothing wrong. Life is rarely that way. The assault"victim" was usually a jerk.

 

Calling the protests peaceful in the context of looting and violence makes the sale subject to legitimate attack. Call the reaction by law enforcement excessive, while conceding the violence, and the point is legitimate.

 

The same oversell happens with the excessive force in the first instance. Most victims of police use of excessive force were not saints, but they are treated as if that were so. The oversell gives fodder for a debate. Concede the wrongdoing of the victim, and you will win the debate.

 

I win the self defense claims because my client concedes his or her wrongs.

 

I am not just a person who has a take. I am an attorney in a town where excessive force has resulted in the death of a client and where multiple lawsuits have gone against the police. I have actively and publicly acted against the excessive force here. But, I never would oversell to make a point.

[kenrexford]

Now that I have a moment, an example might be useful. A few years back, in Lima, Ohio, an officer in the midst of a raid shot and killed a client of mine while she was on her knees holding her child in her arms. The bullet also severed the child's finger. The outrage that obviously resulted ended up with two groups.

 

Group One is the "Drugs Bring Death" crowd. That phrase became and remains a logo in Lima. That group believes that the drug trafficking dad is responsible for the results of his conduct.

 

Group Two might be the "Stone to Cop" crowd. They fault the officer for shooting the lady and child.

 

My take. The officer shot the lady in the midst of an evening raid, with sound and light grenades, confusion, and an uncertainty as to whether she had a gun. This was unfortunate but possibly understandable. That said, my gripe is not with the specific officer. My gripe is with the tactics. Law enforcement had 8 controlled buys on the man. They never arrested him on scene. They specifically chose to execute a warrant at night, when kids would be known to be home. They used sound and light grenades, despite no known history of anyone shooting back at the police during a raid in this town (to my knowledge). The decision was part of a trend of using loud and shocking raids to scare the neighbors, who might also be up to something. A "shock and awe" type of raid, if you will. I had been warning that this type of action might lead to this sort of result before the result occurred, and this confirmed my warning.

 

I would never oversell the case, though. First, the specific officer was not as much at fault (IMO) as the general policy and philosophy of law enforcement generally in this town, inspired by a specific (former) prosecutor. Second, the dead lady was not blameless, as she (1) had a prior trafficking record herself and (2) knew what dad was up to, benefiting from it.

 

Claiming that the cop was a monster was wrong. Claiming that an innocent woman was killed was wrong.

 

Take, now, the situation in St. Louis. When you claim that "peaceful protests" were interrupted, you oversell. The situation is obviously chaotic, and law enforcement is responding to looting and violence. If you claim that law enforcement's reaction is overkill, possibly inducing some or even much of the (continuing) violence they seek to stop, while acknowledging the protests as having been hijacked by opportunistic looters and crazy people, you make a valid point.

 

 

 

[Winstonm]

Now that I have a moment, an example might be useful. A few years back, in Lima, Ohio, an officer in the midst of a raid shot and killed a client of mine while she was on her knees holding her child in her arms. The bullet also severed the child's finger. The outrage that obviously resulted ended up with two groups.

 

Group One is the "Drugs Bring Death" crowd. That phrase became and remains a logo in Lima. That group believes that the drug trafficking dad is responsible for the results of his conduct.

 

Group Two might be the "Stone to Cop" crowd. They fault the officer for shooting the lady and child.

 

My take. The officer shot the lady in the midst of an evening raid, with sound and light grenades, confusion, and an uncertainty as to whether she had a gun. This was unfortunate but possibly understandable. That said, my gripe is not with the specific officer. My gripe is with the tactics. Law enforcement had 8 controlled buys on the man. They never arrested him on scene. They specifically chose to execute a warrant at night, when kids would be known to be home. They used sound and light grenades, despite no known history of anyone shooting back at the police during a raid in this town (to my knowledge). The decision was part of a trend of using loud and shocking raids to scare the neighbors, who might also be up to something. A "shock and awe" type of raid, if you will. I had been warning that this type of action might lead to this sort of result before the result occurred, and this confirmed my warning.

 

I would never oversell the case, though. First, the specific officer was not as much at fault (IMO) as the general policy and philosophy of law enforcement generally in this town, inspired by a specific (former) prosecutor. Second, the dead lady was not blameless, as she (1) had a prior trafficking record herself and (2) knew what dad was up to, benefiting from it.

 

Claiming that the cop was a monster was wrong. Claiming that an innocent woman was killed was wrong.

 

Take, now, the situation in St. Louis. When you claim that "peaceful protests" were interrupted, you oversell. The situation is obviously chaotic, and law enforcement is responding to looting and violence. If you claim that law enforcement's reaction is overkill, possibly inducing some or even much of the (continuing) violence they seek to stop, while acknowledging the protests as having been hijacked by opportunistic looters and crazy people, you make a valid point.

 

Agree. But isn't it interesting how a change in police tactics restored peace? Of course, that the protesters were another day removed from the incident helped and perhaps some who might have protested did not based on a fear of the tear gas and rubber bullets.

[kenrexford]

Agree. But isn't it interesting how a change in police tactics restored peace? Of course, that the protesters were another day removed from the incident helped and perhaps some who might have protested did not based on a fear of the tear gas and rubber bullets.

 

I don't know that a change of police tactics actually restored the peace. That suggests that a lifetime of experience can be alleviated with one simple move. I think a combination of factors restored the peace and that this was one of those factors. You seem to agree with this nuanced perspective with your complete analysis. I merely underline that the simplistic "change the cops, all is well" statement at the beginning was too simplistic, leading potentially to the wrong conclusion.

 

The Civil Rights Act, for example, did not fix all things on the day it was passed.

 

 

 

[kenberg]

Now that I have a moment, an example might be useful. A few years back, in Lima, Ohio, an officer in the midst of a raid shot and killed a client of mine while she was on her knees holding her child in her arms. The bullet also severed the child's finger. The outrage that obviously resulted ended up with two groups.

 

Group One is the "Drugs Bring Death" crowd. That phrase became and remains a logo in Lima. That group believes that the drug trafficking dad is responsible for the results of his conduct.

 

Group Two might be the "Stone to Cop" crowd. They fault the officer for shooting the lady and child.

 

My take. The officer shot the lady in the midst of an evening raid, with sound and light grenades, confusion, and an uncertainty as to whether she had a gun. This was unfortunate but possibly understandable. That said, my gripe is not with the specific officer. My gripe is with the tactics. Law enforcement had 8 controlled buys on the man. They never arrested him on scene. They specifically chose to execute a warrant at night, when kids would be known to be home. They used sound and light grenades, despite no known history of anyone shooting back at the police during a raid in this town (to my knowledge). The decision was part of a trend of using loud and shocking raids to scare the neighbors, who might also be up to something. A "shock and awe" type of raid, if you will. I had been warning that this type of action might lead to this sort of result before the result occurred, and this confirmed my warning.

 

I would never oversell the case, though. First, the specific officer was not as much at fault (IMO) as the general policy and philosophy of law enforcement generally in this town, inspired by a specific (former) prosecutor. Second, the dead lady was not blameless, as she (1) had a prior trafficking record herself and (2) knew what dad was up to, benefiting from it.

 

Claiming that the cop was a monster was wrong. Claiming that an innocent woman was killed was wrong.

 

Take, now, the situation in St. Louis. When you claim that "peaceful protests" were interrupted, you oversell. The situation is obviously chaotic, and law enforcement is responding to looting and violence. If you claim that law enforcement's reaction is overkill, possibly inducing some or even much of the (continuing) violence they seek to stop, while acknowledging the protests as having been hijacked by opportunistic looters and crazy people, you make a valid point.

 

 

Thanks for this and the post above it. It fits into my general but mostly distant views. The headline in a cited article above notes that the young man was planning on going to college. This, imo, is along the lines of oversell. So what? Presumably no one thinks it would have been ok to shoot him if he was not going to go to college.So why mention it, or at least why headline it?

 

Long long ago I was in ythe street playing catch with my friend Stan. A police car approached, and I correctly guessed that some nosy neighbor felt it was her duty to call the cops. At that time cops would sometimes confiscate the ball so I pitched it over a couple of fences into a yard. If he wanted to confiscate it, he could go find it. He pulled up and gave us a stern lecture, after which I pointed put to him that he had crossed over to the wrong side of the street to park. He didn't have his emergency lights on, so he was not entitled to do this. Technically, I believe I was right. Technically. In the discussion that followed, even twelve year old Kenny was sharp enough to understand that if I did not want to be hauled downtown and have my parents come and get me, it would be best if I shut up. This was useful to me. In a confrontation, the first objective is to survive the confrontation.

 

Having a white police force in a majority black town is trouble waiting to happen. I really think people could do a useful thought experiment. Imagine the cop and the 18 year old were of the same race. Both black, both white, both Chinese, I don't care. Would we not then think "Maybe we should wait on the evidence of what really happened?". No one wants to see an eighteen year old shot, no one wants to see a mother shot, no one wants to see anyone shot. And if we were all good people, it wouldn't happen. IF.

 

To judge this, if we can and if we should, I guess I would like to know something about the history of the cop. Maybe he is a guy who should have been kicked off the force long ago. Or maybe he is a guy who has been a hardworking good cop.. Assuming that he has not shot someone before, then why now? He went nuts? Or there are some parts of the story that we haven't heard?

 

If I had to guess, I would guess that the cop could have done better, or could have been trained better, or something. He represents authority, and authority has responsibilities. But I don't know, and so I shouldn't guess. I wasn't there, Charlie. (old expression form my youth.)

 

 

Added: I just saw this report, below. What to make of it? To my mind the right thing to make of it is that we might all take a deep breath before announcing just who is to blame for what. i am sure no oe thinks someone should be shot for stealing some cigars. Of course not. Rather it is one indication that we do not know what happened. We do not know how the confrontation started and we do not know what happened at the confrontation. If, and of course skepticism is appropriate, the description of events is accurate, it would seem as if a police officer was doing his job, and the results turned violent. Maybe the officere went at this incompetently, maybe he did the best he could, maybe a lot of things. The claim is that he had no disciplinary action against him during his six years on the force. Perhaps we will learn more. No one gets an easy pass when he shoots someone, but a little patience would be good.

http://www.washingto...src=al_national

 

I imagine the cop's family is more than a little worried about their future right now. That's not ok by me. Time to start calming down.

[Winstonm]

I also just read that the officer who fired the fatal shots did not know Brown was a suspect but had stopped him for "impeding traffic". The question is simply this: what were the circumstances that led this officer to fire his pistol and kill this citizen. If the young man grappled with the officer for his pistol, the fatal shot is understandable. Or was he shot with his hands up, as at least one witness claims?

 

Who or what kind of person the victim was is irrelevant for the most part. What is relevant is what happened just before and during the moments that led to this man's death.

[mike777]

Agree, also if the reports are accurate this entire encounter took about 3 minutes from start until a second cop showed up and Brown was dead. Whether the victim was a brutal thug prone to violence is not an issue. Whether brown and his male buddy go around attacking and assaulting people is not the issue.

 

If the witness is to be believed this was a cold calculated murder over 3 minutes. A white cop with no justification gunned down a black man who had his hands up and was not resisting in cold murder.

 

The bigger issue is the fear of young black men and the oppression that so many blacks say they feel in this town.

[hrothgar]

I wish that the police were required to run multiple video cameras at all times.

[kenberg]

I also just read that the officer who fired the fatal shots did not know Brown was a suspect but had stopped him for "impeding traffic". The question is simply this: what were the circumstances that led this officer to fire his pistol and kill this citizen. If the young man grappled with the officer for his pistol, the fatal shot is understandable. Of was he shot with his hands up, as at least one witness claims?

 

Who or what kind of person the victim was is irrelevant for the most part. What is relevant is what happened just before and during the moments that led to this man's death.

 

If we speculate, we need to at least consider plausibility. Shooting a man who has in hands up, and so committing murder, in front of witnesses really seems pretty bizarre. Bizarre doesn't mean impossible, but it sounds unlikely.

 

I know the Springsteen lyric

You want to know why I did what I did

I guess there's just a meaness sir in this world.

 

But this couplet works because it is so horrible and because it is so inexplicable. And, of course, because it happened. I have never killed anyone, but if I someday choose to do so, I will not be shooting an unarmed man who has his hands up and doing this in front of witnesses. Anything is possible, but this is hardly plausible. Unless he had a psychotic break of some sort. Even without taking into account the ubiquity of cell phone cameras, it seems really stupid. Of course most violent deaths involve stupidity, so ...

 

Perhaps we will learn more.

[Winstonm]

Agree, also if the reports are accurate this entire encounter took about 3 minutes from start until a second cop showed up and Brown was dead. Whether the victim was a brutal thug prone to violence is not an issue. Whether brown and his male buddy go around attacking and assaulting people is not the issue.

 

If the witness is to be believed this was a cold calculated murder over 3 minutes. A white cop with no justification gunned down a black man who had his hands up and was not resisting in cold murder.

 

The bigger issue is the fear of young black men and the oppression that so many blacks say they feel in this town.

 

I think this is part of the Us versus Them mentality that seemingly develops in so many police officers - and when there is a disproportionate number of whites policing a mostly black area this us/them mentality may be stretched even tighter due to latent racial bias.

[barmar]

Thanks for this and the post above it. It fits into my general but mostly distant views. The headline in a cited article above notes that the young man was planning on going to college. This, imo, is along the lines of oversell. So what? Presumably no one thinks it would have been ok to shoot him if he was not going to go to college.So why mention it, or at least why headline it?

I think it's intended as a testament to his character. He wasn't a thug on a downward spiral, who was never likely to be a productive member of society. He was a relatively good kid, a successful student. While we obviously don't want to condone any unwarranted, excessive police actions, there's still a qualitative difference between one that kills someone with a future and the killing of a gang member.

[kenberg]

Some things are getting at least a little clearer, and I think Ken Rexford's earlier comments fit this very well

 

Apparently Brown took some cigarillos from a store without paying and quite forcefully assualted the manager or an employee who tried to block his way out.There are pictures, there is a witness, and a Mr. Johnson, who was with him, has acknowledged this to be true./ I think we can take that as fact.

 

This doesn't mean police get to shoot him.

 

It does mean that Brown was a young man with an attitude and some trouble with his impulses and his judgment. More or less everyone knows that there are video cameras in convenience stores, he just did it anyway.

 

 

Consider two story lines:

1. This cop sees a young man walking in the street, tells him to put up his hands, and then, when he does so, the cop shoots him dead.

2. A cop stops a young man, a man who has problems with impulse control, the young man does not accept being stopped, a struggle ensues, and the young man is shot.

 

Really, which strikes you as more likely? From the outset, story number 2 struck me as more likely. The episode at the convenience store certainly appears to support it. It by no means shows that the young man deserved to be shot, but it supplies some indication of how this may have come about.

 

Now why did the cop stop the young man? I list three possibilities:

a. The young man was walking in the street, blocking traffic.

b. The cop knew of the robbery and thought the young man was a credible suspect.

c. (I regard ths as the most likely). The cop had just learned of the very recent robbery and knew something about the suspects. He decided to stop the young man for blocking traffic, something that he was definitely doing, and then review the situation or maybe call in to see if the young man he has stopped for blocking traffic matched the description of the suspect from the convenience store.

 

At any rate, the cop was doing his job.

 

Why do I mention KenR?

A cop is supposed to be prepared to handle situations like this without anyone getting killed. Of course "supposed to" and "able to" are two very different things, and the facts of the individual case are crucial. If the cop did as he was trained to do, is that enough? I enjoy watching the tv cop show Rizzoli and Isles. They don't work in Ferguson.

 

 

Like most people, I had never heard of Ferguson. I gather it is what we might call basic living. They were all totally unprepared for the stuff that hit the fan. Winston asked "Is there a solution" and my first response was that I doubt it. I'll stick with that.

[Winstonm]

I think Ken's assessment is probably right. No doubt this was not a choirboy who got shot. Violence again last night. I do not see the justification for furthered violence unless the local police stepped back in - still no excuse but at least a reason as it seems this community has pent-up issues with their police.

 

I doubt this will change.

[kenberg]

Off and on this disturbing thought about how it all came to happen has occurred to me.

 

1. Officer Wilson, we have been told, was not thinking of Mr. Brown as a suspect in the business at the convenience store.

2. Mr, Brown was thoroughly aware of what had happened at the convenience store.

 

The result: Officer Wilson approaches Mr. Brown expecting to simply tell him to move out of the street so the cars can go by. Mr, Brow sees Officer Wilson approaching and expects to be arrested for the assault and theft at the convenience store. So two guys enter into a confrontation, each with very different ideas as to what it is about. The words and actions of each are totally out of sync with the expectations of the other. A confrontation always involves risk, with this sort of confusion the risk became the reality.

 

I am afraid that this possibility seems very real to me, it fits my views of how we all think and act. . If so, what a terrible consequence.

[barmar]

I think Ken's assessment is probably right. No doubt this was not a choirboy who got shot.

From what we've heard, it's still hard to tell what kind of person he was.

 

When I was in high school (late 70's), my crowd was mostly "science nerds". We were all A students, and went on to college and successful careers as doctors, lawyers, and computer professionals. We weren't violent, but we weren't perfect kids, either. We pulled teenage hijinks. We had fake IDs so we could get into bars and strip clubs, there was some pot smoking. I was a goodie-two-shoes and didn't drink or smoke (I still haven't), but I hung out with them. Occasionally someone would get drunk and rowdy.

 

My point is that even the best kids sometimes get involved in mischief, some of it illegal. That Brown stole some cigarillos and then got confrontational with the cop is not necessarily a reflection of his general character. I'd like to hear more about him.

 

And of course, none of this justifies excessive force. The specific circumstances of the encounter need to be examined to determine whether the cop's actions were appropriate. Although when there's an appearance of racial bias, sometime no amount of justification will be accepted by the community; any determination will be viewed as part of the general conspiracy.

[mike777]

Clearly there have been years and years of oppression felt by the local community, there is distrust of the police. This is clear from hundreds of comments on the news.

 

The video Fact of Brown being a thug, a person of violence does not justify his shooting in cold blood.

 

As Winston says there is evidence of years and years, of hundreds of years of bias against persons of color in the Ferguson region. Clearly they are victims.

 

I visited St. Louis a few time as a young man. There was a clear fear of young black men after dark in some situations in this area many years ago. Clearly white people would not go into areas of St. Louis after dark alone. This bias by many whites was clear. A bias against young black men.

 

Given this event lasted roughly 3 minutes if the timeline is correct says it all.