the Michael Brown thread

olivianewtonjohn · Aug 19, 2014

Caligula said:
That's all well and good, but it says nothing about actual crime reduction... which there was a lot of. I never said it was perfect or even ethical, I'm merely stating the fact that violent crimes in NYC dropped after the S & F policy was initiated.

@olivianewtonjohn very good points and I don't think anyone would argue that disparity. I invite you to look into murder rates and gun crimes before and after the S & F policy went into effect though.

"Myth #1: Stop-and-Frisk reduces crime and keeps people safer.

“[Stop-and-Frisk] is a program that is effective… you used to not be able to walk down the streets of this city safely and today you can walk every neighborhood during the day and most neighborhoods at night. .” – Ray Kelly

FACT: No research has ever proven the effectiveness of New York City’s stop-and-frisk regime, and the small number of arrests, summonses, and guns recovered demonstrates that the practice is ineffective. Crime data also do not support the claim that New York City is safer because of the practice. While violent crimes fell 29 percent in New York City from 2001 to 2010, other large cities experienced larger violent crime declines without relying on stop and frisk abuses: 59 percent in Los Angeles, 56 percent in New Orleans, 49 percent in Dallas, and 37 percent in Baltimore."

http://www.nyclu.org/node/1598

I havent really looked at it enough but this was on the first page of google. Honestly even if what you claim is true it still wouldnt matter. If S&F reduced crime great (obviously there is some controversy if this is even happening), but since it leads to such racial disparity you have to wonder if S&F the only way to lower crime? Couldnt there be a better alternative?

Madcap79 · Aug 19, 2014

Caligula said:
That's all well and good, but it says nothing about actual crime reduction... which there was a lot of. I never said it was perfect or even ethical, I'm merely stating the fact that violent crimes in NYC dropped after the S & F policy was initiated.

@olivianewtonjohn very good points and I don't think anyone would argue that disparity. I invite you to look into murder rates and gun crimes before and after the S & F policy went into effect though.

I was only pointing out the racial disparity. Glad it's working.

2clicker · Aug 19, 2014

no american should back anything like the S&F... ever

then again we did steal "our" country so why would we assume things should be fair?

Caligula · Aug 19, 2014

2clicker said:
i realize it was a quote, but thought you we
trying to prove a point by posting it...?

My point was to bring balanced reporting to the thread. If you noticed, almost every report posted was of perceived police misconduct. As you may have determined by now, I'm inclined to look at the bigger picture and try to get both sides of the story.

I felt that sharing an article from a liberal media outlet which speaks to a more balanced perspective of the situation was a good way of doing this. Getting pushback for that is somewhat interesting to me though.

On a related note, looks like some dude committed suicide by cop by coming at them with a knife while asking to be shot.

olivianewtonjohn · Aug 19, 2014

Caligula said:
My point was to bring balanced reporting to the thread. If you noticed, almost every report posted was of perceived police misconduct. As you may have determined by now, I'm inclined to look at the bigger picture and try to get both sides of the story.

I felt that sharing an article from a liberal media outlet which speaks to a more balanced perspective of the situation was a good way of doing this. Getting pushback for that is somewhat interesting to me though.

On a related note, looks like some dude committed suicide by cop by coming at them with a knife while asking to be shot.

I think what you are doing is good. Its always good to try to look at the other side and/or find a balanced view. Its just I dont think every issue has a balanced view and from what I have seen in your posts in this thread and other threads your default mode is balanced view.

My :2c:

Caligula · Aug 19, 2014

It's a dangerous thing to have blind faith, regardless of what it's for.

EVERY issue has multiple sides to it. I can't think of a single situation where having an understanding of all of them, would be worse than having an understanding of only one.

olivianewtonjohn · Aug 19, 2014

Caligula said:
It's a dangerous thing to have blind faith, regardless of what it's for.

I can't think of a single situation where having an understanding of both sides of an argument would be worse than having an understanding of only one.

Thats not what I was claiming. Of course blind faith is dangerous. But there comes a point where the excuses and "both sides of the story" really just becomes nonsense and not part of reality. It really dilutes the issue. In my mind MB robbing the liquor store does not matter. If he went for the gun again does not matter. After watching video evidence and live feed I dont feel like arguing autopsy reports matter. Watching the actions of this police department is NUTS. Im all for getting the facts straight and applaud your efforts.

After watching this video, im shocked more people arnet outraged:
http://fuckcombustion.com/threads/the-michael-brown-thread.15275/page-11#post-648909

I frequently try to look into the opposing viewpoints but sometimes you run into things that no amount of explaining or anything the other side says could make morally right.

The crack cocaine disparity and S&F are two great examples.

Caligula · Aug 19, 2014

If you wabt to get technical, the specific statistics you are referencing are highly influenced by sentencing for crack versus powdered coke. These laws are awesome pieces of legislation left over from the Regan Era war on drugs, and not a result of S&F.

In either case, I never said S&F was morally right (in fact I alludes to the fact that it wasnt). I was merely stating that there are solid numbers showing a reduction in violent crimes after it was enacted.

Regardless, I've yet to see anything here which makes having an open mind, and a balanced view, "nonsense". Perhaps you can elaborate on that point to help clarify?

2clicker · Aug 19, 2014

Caligula said:
My point was to bring balanced reporting to the thread. If you noticed, almost every report posted was of perceived police misconduct. As you may have determined by now, I'm inclined to look at the bigger picture and try to get both sides of the story.

I felt that sharing an article from a liberal media outlet which speaks to a more balanced perspective of the situation was a good way of doing this. Getting pushback for that is somewhat interesting to me though.

perceived misconduct? its not hard to find video of the cops disregarding the constitution and tackling, gassing, shooting (rubber), and not letting protestors peacefully protest. this cannot be argued.

that IMO is misconduct. not sure if your definition of misconduct is different...?

olivianewtonjohn · Aug 19, 2014

Caligula said:
If you wabt to get technical, the specific statistics you are referencing are highly influenced by sentencing for crack versus powdered coke. These laws are awesome pieces of legislation left over from the Regan Era war on drugs, and not a result of S&F.

In either case, I never said S&F was morally right (in fact I alludes to the fact that it wasnt). I was merely stating that there are solid numbers showing a reduction in violent crimes after it was enacted.

Regardless, I've yet to see anything here which makes having an open mind, and a balanced view, "nonsense". Perhaps you can elaborate on that point to help clarify?

When did I say S&F and crack sentencing are the same? Clearly you misinterpreted what I said. You wanted to talk about "whole picture" so thats what im talking about.

Please explain "specific statistics you are referencing are highly influenced by sentencing for crack versus powdered coke."

If both whites and blacks use crack cocane at roughly the same amounts yet one group makes up almost 80% of the convictions you dont think this is an issue?

"Nonsense" is talking about "perceived misconduct" when there are clear eyewitness's including reporters and actual video evidence. Are your eyes lying to you? Is there a reason why freedom of the press should be ignored? Should reporters be directly tear gased (multiple reports of this from more than one event). Should they be confined to a reporting only section for "credentialed press"? If they leave this area should they be arrested? There is alot of evidence for all of this but using language like yours only muddies the waters and doesnt help anyone. It used to be peoples word vs cops but now we have video. I dont know what else would convince you of this "perceived misconduct".

Farid · Aug 19, 2014

Caligula said:
If you wabt to get technical, the specific statistics you are referencing are highly influenced by sentencing for crack versus powdered coke. These laws are awesome pieces of legislation left over from the Regan Era war on drugs, and not a result of S&F.

Yes, but I'd be willing to bet a black man in that era with cocaine was more likely to get a crack charge than a whtie man with actual crack.

Caligula said:
At which point does this become arguing over pointless semantics?.

You're the one who's been most concerned with arguing over semantics, though...

Chill Dude · Aug 19, 2014

Farid said:
Yes, but I'd be willing to bet a black man in that era with cocaine was more likely to get a crack charge than a whtie man with actual crack.

Absolutely, I'd bet my left nut on that one!

Madcap79 · Aug 19, 2014

Caligula said:
My point was to bring balanced reporting to the thread. If you noticed, almost every report posted was of perceived police misconduct. As you may have determined by now, I'm inclined to look at the bigger picture and try to get both sides of the story.

I felt that sharing an article from a liberal media outlet which speaks to a more balanced perspective of the situation was a good way of doing this. Getting pushback for that is somewhat interesting to me though.

On a related note, looks like some dude committed suicide by cop by coming at them with a knife while asking to be shot.

At least he had a weapon........

2clicker · Aug 19, 2014

olivianewtonjohn said:
"Nonsense" is talking about "perceived misconduct" when there are clear eyewitness's including reporters and actual video evidence. Are your eyes lying to you? Is there a reason why freedom of the press should be ignored? Should reporters be directly tear gased (multiple reports of this from more than one event). Should they be confined to a reporting only section for "credentialed press"? If they leave this area should they be arrested? There is alot of evidence for all of this but using language like yours only muddies the waters and doesnt help anyone. It used to be peoples word vs cops but now we have video. I dont know what else would convince you of this "perceived misconduct".

yep. i can post the video of the cops gassing media and shooting them with rubber bullets. then when the reporters/camera men flee the cops run in with gas masks on and dismantle their equipment. its all on video. and has happened every night of the protests.

im sure they have a good reason why tho... :tup:

tuk · Aug 19, 2014

List of incidents of civil unrest in the United States

It's telling how many of those riots were started by law enforcement being heavy handed with non-whites mainly African Americans.

I analysed the page at the link above for the Top #10 most popular words, "riot" is predictably Number #1, all the other words in the Top #10 are fairly neutral....except for "race" which is #9.

Many of the race related riots on that page don't have "race" in the title, you have to click on them to find out, for eg:

1906 - Atlanta Riots, Atlanta, Georgia

takes you to:

Atlanta Race Riot of 1906

So my word counter will miss that as it wont delve into the link, but still, it gives a fairly accurate sense of how long this has been going on & what the causes are....variations on a common theme you might say.

----------------------

I think this video showing a routine traffic stop(doing 71 in a 55) escalates into the cops firing guns at unarmed children....is a good example of how quickly nothing turns into something when the wrong people are given uniforms and guns.

Don't fast forward watch it in real time:

Gonzo · Aug 19, 2014

tuk said:
List of incidents of civil unrest in the United States

It's telling how many of those riots were started by law enforcement being heavy handed with non-whites mainly African Americans.

I analysed the page at the link above for the Top #10 most popular words, "riot" is predictably Number #1, all the other words in the Top #10 are fairly neutral....except for "race" which is #9.

Many of the race related riots on that page don't have "race" in the title, you have to click on them to find out, for eg:

1906 - Atlanta Riots, Atlanta, Georgia

takes you to:

Atlanta Race Riot of 1906

So my word counter will miss that as it wont delve into the link, but still, it gives a fairly accurate sense of how long this has been going on & what the causes are....variations on a common theme you might say.

----------------------

I think this video showing a routine traffic stop(doing 71 in a 55) escalates into the cops firing guns at unarmed children....is a good example of how quickly nothing turns into something when the wrong people are given uniforms and guns.

Don't fast forward watch it in real time:

You don't seriously blame what happened in that video on the officer do you? If so I must have watched a different video.

olivianewtonjohn · Aug 19, 2014

Gonzo said:
You don't seriously blame what happened in that video on the officer do you? If so I must have watched a different video.

Im in the same boat. I can see how firing at the van full of kids was wrong given it was for a fucking speeding ticket. BUT almost everything that woman did in that video was wrong.

She turned a $150 speeding ticket into a possible felony when she drove off. Then the second time she speeds off. I feel sorry for her kids more than anything

Gonzo · Aug 19, 2014

The original officer didn't fire as far as I saw. That was one of the officer's that arrived for backup. I agree that officer should not have fired without knowing more info, but in no way is that the fault of the original officer.

tuk · Aug 19, 2014

Gonzo said:
You don't seriously blame what happened in that video on the officer do you? If so I must have watched a different video.

Cops firing guns at an unarmed family? Do I blame the cops for that...damn right I do.

That situation could have been handled a thousand other ways without a shot being fired....let alone shots being fired at unarmed children.

Gonzo said:
You don't seriously blame what happened in that video on the officer do you? If so I must have watched a different video.

....but in no way is that the fault of the original officer.

Not only watching the wrong video but maybe also reading the wrong post as no particular officer was mentioned....slowly step away from the strawman argument.

olivianewtonjohn said:
Im in the same boat. I can see how firing at the van full of kids was wrong given it was for a fucking speeding ticket. BUT almost everything that woman did in that video was wrong.

Being a pain in the ass doesn't even remotely compare nor justify cops firing guns at a van load of kids.

Gonzo · Aug 19, 2014

tuk said:
Cops firing guns at an unarmed family? Do I blame the cops for that...damn right I do.

You present a very bias side of the argument and leave out very crucial details. Particularly what appeared to me to be a adult size person attacking a officer performing his duties and conducting an arrest.

Edit*

Also the woman was not unarmed. She was armed with a few thousand pound vehicle capable of high speeds that kills thousand ever year.

RUDE BOY · Aug 19, 2014

I sure Hope that woman is still in jail.

Caligula · Aug 19, 2014

olivianewtonjohn said:
Im in the same boat. I can see how firing at the van full of kids was wrong given it was for a fucking speeding ticket. BUT almost everything that woman did in that video was wrong.

She turned a $150 speeding ticket into a possible felony when she drove off. Then the second time she speeds off. I feel sorry for her kids more than anything

You know, I wasn't going to comment because I din't want to watch 18 minutes of video nor did I want to say something without watching it in its entirety. Your post got me to actually watch it... and all I can say is WTF?

The officer that pulled the van over was EXCEEDINGLY nice to the lady when she was pulled over the first time. In fact he kept his professional attitude for the entire 5 minutes before she committed a felony by speeding off. Hell, he even stated he wasn't going to cite her for her DL being expired (fuck, I didn't get that break last time I was pulled over with a 1 month expired registration tag).

After she pulled over the second time, she once again refuses to listen to a single one of the over 30 (that I was able to count) verbal commands/warnings. To top it off, you then have another male adult getting out of the car, approaching the officer (who was still there by himself mind you), slamming the door on him, and again not obeying a single command.

But does it stop there? Of course not. The woman decided it would be best to DRIVE AWAY YET AGAIN.

By the end, I counted over 40 verbal commands that were given and ignored by the officers, most of which happened before the 3 shots were at a vehicle fleeing its SECOND felony stop.

Honestly, it sucks children were in the car but unless the point of posting this video is to highlight what a shit parent that woman is, I'm at a loss.

tuk · Aug 19, 2014

Gonzo said:
You present a very bias side of the argument and leave out very crucial details.

By posting a real time video of the entire event with precise instructions not to fast-forward?

Would it make any difference to know that women was given the wrong medication after a mixup at the pharmacy...which caused her erratic behaviour?

Or is it still ok for cops to fire guns at children...when their "COMMANDS" are "DISOBEYED"?

olivianewtonjohn · Aug 19, 2014

tuk said:
Cops firing guns at an unarmed family? Do I blame the cops for that...damn right I do.

That situation could have been handled a thousand other ways without a shot being fired....let alone shots being fired at unarmed children.

Not only watching the wrong video but maybe also reading the wrong post as no particular officer was mentioned....slowly step away from the strawman argument.

Being a pain in the ass doesn't even remotely compare nor justify cops firing guns at a van load of kids.

Speeding and weaving in and out of traffic put her family at risk. Acting like a crazy person, which im sure hyped up her children put them at risk too when they got in a physical altercation with the officer. What she did was more than being a pain in the ass. You cant fight the police even if you disagree you verbalize it and then deal with it later. Again I feel sorry for her kids.

tuk said:
Would it make any difference to know that women was given the wrong medication after a mixup at the pharmacy...which led to that event?

Or is it still ok for cops to fire guns at children?

What medications? I find it hard to believe that her medications made her do all of this. Must be some strong stuff.

Gonzo · Aug 19, 2014

tuk said:
By posting the video with instructions not to fast forward?

No by stating this.

tuk said:
Cops firing guns at an unarmed family? Do I blame the cops for that...damn right I do.

The woman was armed with her car which could be very dangerous in her apparent state of mind.

the Michael Brown thread

Well-Known Member

Jack of all trades, master of none.

Observer

Maximus

Well-Known Member

Maximus

Well-Known Member

Maximus

Observer

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Jack of all trades, master of none.

Observer

Well-Known Member

Slightly Stoopid

Well-Known Member

Slightly Stoopid

Well-Known Member

Slightly Stoopid

Space is the Place

Maximus

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Slightly Stoopid