or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › WTF over-zealous police?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

WTF over-zealous police? - Page 76

post #1126 of 6073
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

Here's another recent fatal shooting of an unarmed kid by a cop:

So why are there Federal investigations of the Trayvon Martin case and the Mike Brown case, and not of this case.

Because these type of cases are 98% about politics, the narrative, and what there is to gain. They are not about justice.
post #1127 of 6073
Quote:
Originally Posted by AldenPyle View Post

Why all the focus on Ferguson relative to Staten Island by the Justice Department and the NY media and NY activists like Al Sharpton

Four theories
1. The organized Ferguson protest movement and the attention of their allies in the media were part of the Democratic party's midterm election campaign. Their goal was to turnout African-American voters in Red states. A white cop shooting a kid in an inner ring suburb of St.Louis has more resonance for the target demo than broken windows policing going bad in Staten Island. Extra turnout in the urban NE has zero electoral value.
2. NYC has recently elected a far left mayor. He needs to consolidate power before he is ready to take on the NYPD. If DiBlasio can win a second term, watch out.
3. Most internet SJW's live in marginal parts of NYC, DC, and LA. They observe the police harassment of local minorities on a day-to-day basis which disturbs their sensibilities. However, the last thing they actually want is a lightening of the police presence in their own gentrifying neighborhoods. Much safer and more culturally satisfying to blame some redneck cop in flyover country.
4. Eric Garner was actually a peaceful guy while Michael Brown was a wannabe gangster with a lot of violent friends who destroyed stuff and attacked people when he got killed. Most of the protest movement basically consists of sick thrillseekers who enjoy being around violence and potential violence.

These seem to boil to down something close to conspiracy theories--an attempt to pin down a complex confluence of events onto a set of individuals pulling the strings. My sense is that it's more important to think of the reasons behind & effects of the way Ferguson erupted as an event and is now framing the Garner case. My take is that the Brown-Wilson case was so incendiary precisely because of the uncertainty involved. There was a demand that our reactions to it divide us up (maybe even serve as a shibboleth), in such a way that the seemingly bland claim that we don't really know what happened (or, after the evidence was presented, that it seems like the trial would've gone in Wilson's favor) is immediately politicized. In other words, that case was incendiary precisely because it insisted on a politics of belief/conviction rather than of knowledge. (Would we believe the aggrieved minority community who were saying that the justice system doesn't work for them, that the police are hostile to them, etc.).

I've thought of this turn to a divisive politics of belief as being unhelpful, and I had also thought that if the attention had been focused on Garner all along, we would've been more collectively galvanized against police violence & accountability in general. But there are (from the viewpoint of the protestors and of us left-leaning folks or whatever) some tactical advantages to this kind of politics. If Garner is co-opted too easily in a generalizable political narrative of police violence, then there's a fear that the focus on minority communities would disappear. Best-case scenario of the narrative being primarily about the Garner case: less attention to race/poverty, some improvements across the board (body cameras for all police, whatever), poor/minority neighborhoods lag behind when it comes feeling the impact of those improvements.

Obv, most people participating in this thread would probably prefer any politics not to be about race, but that's one of the key dividing lines of disagreement. I still think the attention to Garner's case can be useful and beneficial for all of American political discourse.
Edited by erictheobscure - 12/3/14 at 4:10pm
post #1128 of 6073
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

Here's another recent fatal shooting of an unarmed kid by a cop:

http://www.sltrib.com/news/1842489-155/killings-by-utah-police-outpacing-gang
Quote:
Killings by Utah police outpacing gang, drug, child-abuse homicides

In the past five years, more Utahns have been killed by police than by gang members.

Or drug dealers. Or from child abuse.

And so far this year, deadly force by police has claimed more lives — 13, including a Saturday shooting in South Jordan — than has violence between spouses and dating partners.

As the tally of fatal police shootings rises, law enforcement watchdogs say it is time to treat deadly force as a potentially serious public safety problem.

"The numbers reflect that there could be an issue, and it’s going to take a deeper understanding of these shootings," said Chris Gebhardt, a former police lieutenant and sergeant who served in Washington, D.C., and in Utah, including six years on SWAT teams and several training duties. "It definitely can’t be written off as citizen groups being upset with law enforcement."

Through October, 45 people had been killed by law enforcement officers in Utah since 2010, accounting for 15 percent of all homicides during that period.

A Salt Lake Tribune review of nearly 300 homicides, using media reports, state crime statistics, medical-examiner records and court records, shows that use of force by police is the second-most common circumstance under which Utahns kill each other, surpassed only by intimate partner violence.

The reasoning behind the militarization of police is that they need these weapons, training, and lax use of force guidelines to deal with violent criminals. But what happens when cops are more dangerous than the criminals?
post #1129 of 6073
Quote:
Originally Posted by erictheobscure View Post

These seem to boil to down something close to conspiracy theories--an attempt to pin down a complex confluence of events onto a set of individuals pulling the strings. My sense is that it's more important to think of the reasons behind & effects of the way Ferguson erupted as an event and is now framing the Garner case.

Theory 1 & 2 are indeed conspiracy theory. Political parties are conspiracies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erictheobscure View Post

There was a demand that our reactions to it divide us up (maybe even serve as a shibboleth), in a way that the seemingly bland claim that we don't really know what happened (or, after the evidence was presented, that it seems like the trial would've gone in Wilson's favor) is immediately politicized. In other words, that case was incendiary precisely because it insisted on a politics of belief/conviction rather than of knowledge. (Would we believe the aggrieved minority community who were saying that the justice system doesn't work for them, that the police are hostile to them, etc.).

I agree with this and mostly the rest of your post.
post #1130 of 6073
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nil View Post

http://www.sltrib.com/news/1842489-155/killings-by-utah-police-outpacing-gang
The reasoning behind the militarization of police is that they need these weapons, training, and lax use of force guidelines to deal with violent criminals. But what happens when cops are more dangerous than the criminals?

So why, with 13 deaths, do Al, Jesse and the usual suspects stay out of Utah?
post #1131 of 6073
Quote:
Originally Posted by rnoldh View Post

So why, with 13 deaths, do Al, Jesse and the usual suspects stay out of Utah?

You have a very strange obsession with Sharpton and Jackson.
post #1132 of 6073
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

That's a pretty good illustration of how fucked up "justified" shootings can be. Cop got a report that "gangbangers" in the area had a gun. Cop shows up, sees Taylor, identifies him as a possible suspect apparently solely on looking like a gangbanger. Taylor doesn't immediately comply, could possibly have a gun in his pocket where his hands are. Gets shot. Doesn't have a gun. Officer's fear ruled justified anyway.

In other words, cop is told someone has a gun and has been waving it around. Taylor looks like the person described and is in the place the person was supposed to be. Taylor acts like he has a gun, too, and he hides his hands. He makes a movement like he's drawing a gun and he's shot.
Quote:
I mean, what's the take home message here?

The message here is that you can't possibly know what cause the cops have when they are investigating you. Even if you're completely innocent they might still have good reason to suspect you. So when the cops give you an order you should obey it. If it was unlawful you can sort that out later. Being an obstinate ass is dangerous.
post #1133 of 6073
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nil View Post

You have a very strange obsession with Sharpton and Jackson.

They are for recent years and certainly for this administration the "point men" on racial matters ( as these events are ).

If you have a suggestion of a better source when these things erupt, please let me know who they are.

If they are good enough for Bill Clinton, Valerie Jarret, and Barack Obama they are good enough for me.

I respect Sharpton as much as I do Obama.
post #1134 of 6073
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

In other words, cop is told someone has a gun and has been waving it around. Taylor looks like the person described and is in the place the person was supposed to be. Taylor acts like he has a gun, too, and he hides his hands. He makes a movement like he's drawing a gun and he's shot.
Reports don't indicate there was a description beyond "a gangbanger," so pretty much every "urban" looking person in the area looked like the suspect. Anyone in the area fitting that vague description with their hands in their pocket can now be reasonably considered a lethal threat and shot if they don't comply within seconds of a command by an officer?
Quote:
The message here is that you can't possibly know what cause the cops have when they are investigating you. Even if you're completely innocent they might still have good reason to suspect you. So when the cops give you an order you should obey it. If it was unlawful you can sort that out later. Being an obstinate ass is dangerous.

I don't think society should concede to that attitude. It's certainly the practical day-to-day solution to avoid negative encounters with the police, but it's a shit way to run a society. Being an obstinate ass shouldn't get you killed, especially in the span of five seconds. The onus ought to be on the state to only use their monopoly of violence when necessary. Civilians shouldn't have to bow and scrape to avoid getting killed by those in power.


Breaking down the situation, there was a vague description of a suspect who had flashed a gun, but wasn't threatening anybody beyond that. Cop shows up, sees the three men who fit that vague description, gets out of the car with his gun already drawn. Immediately engages with the suspects at close range, despite them not threatening anybody (and not actually being threats since they didn't have any guns, as it turned out). Taylor doesn't immediately comply, makes some motion that could be construed as reaching for a gun (any motion near the pockets or waistband could be construed as such). Pop pop pop, he's dead.

It can be reasonably assumed that the cop felt threatened, but there was no need to create the situation where he would have to make that decision. He put himself into a situation where he might feel threatened, then the onus is on innocent people to immediately comply or get shot. That's not right. The procedures and the laws should be changed to discourage these situations from happening.
post #1135 of 6073
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

I don't think society should concede to that attitude.

I don't think so either.

This case seems much more egregious than the Brown and Garner cases. This victim was seemingly just guilty of being in the wrong place at the wrong time, unlike Brown and Garner.

Why do you think this case ( and the others in Utah ) did not resonate nationally?
post #1136 of 6073
Quote:
Originally Posted by rnoldh View Post

I don't think so either.

This case seems much more egregious than the Brown and Garner cases. This victim was seemingly just guilty of being in the wrong place at the wrong time, unlike Brown and Garner.

Why do you think this case ( and the others in Utah ) did not resonate nationally?

Because no one gives a fuck what happens in Mormon-land unless it's a scandal about polygamy.
post #1137 of 6073
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

Because no one gives a fuck what happens in Mormon-land unless it's a scandal about polygamy.

And you really think that people give a fuck what happens in a poor black St Louis suburb?

Ferguson was a triumph of brilliant marketing ( Hands Up, Don't Shoot, and No Justice No Peace ) and agitation by outsiders I shall not name.

I guess none of the Utah cases were good candidates for "this type of narrative".

It's tragic when anyone dies, certainly by accident as happened in your posted video. But the victim and the circumstances are never as important as the narrative these days.
post #1138 of 6073
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

Reports don't indicate there was a description beyond "a gangbanger," so pretty much every "urban" looking person in the area looked like the suspect.

You mean every young male dressed up like a gangbanger. That narrows it down a lot, actually. Besides, it's a moot point here since the guy who was shot immediately turns his back to the cops so his face can't be seen.
Quote:
Anyone in the area fitting that vague description with their hands in their pocket

The attention focuses on that guy because he responds suspiciously--the police drive up and he walks away, not looking back, ignoring commands. Hiding his hands. Going for his waistband. Pulling his hand out suddenly.
Quote:
The onus ought to be on the state to only use their monopoly of violence when necessary.

You mean like if someone was waiving a gun around at a convenience store? It's the proper role of the government to pay people's cell phone bills but not to respond to people waiving guns around in public?

Honestly, that kid's behavior is so bizarre and threatening, under the circumstances, that no one should be surprised he was shot.

You keep hearing about how black people have to have the "talk" with their kids about how to act around cops, but it really applies to everyone.
post #1139 of 6073
While I have a big problem with the way cops are acting these days I will say if a cop pointed his gun at me I would comply in a most careful fashion. No idea why people people are being this defiant and stupid but it can reasonably be predicted a certain number of unwarranted deaths will occur from this behaviour.
post #1140 of 6073
Yeah, it's still a bit hard to imagine that Mike Brown turned around and charged an armed cop ( who had already shot him ).

But that's what the evidence and witnesses say. Must have been some Primo shit that Brown had in his Swishers.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › WTF over-zealous police?