MO - Grief and protests follow shooting of teen Michael Brown
- Thread starter Blue_Dolphin308
- Start date
- Status
That's a great idea. You stay on the public sidewalks, not disrupting the flow of traffic, and you can stay there as long as you want.
Brilliant.
Actually, it reminds me of a teacher in middle school who was tired of kids drawing all over their desks so he made a big project out of drawing on your desk, including beginning prep work with sanding, and rough drafts of the artwork. haha. Suddenly no one wanted to draw on their desk anymore.
well thats weird - their reaction according to many is necessary, measured, and completely appropriate, why would they change anything?
It is for me, when they're agendized and young. And yes, the witnesses i've seen appear to have a specific agenda. It would have been nice if a mail truck or pizza delivery guy happened to be driving through the area at the time.
I will say, I do fully believe the accounts that he was shot multiple times trying to escape with his hands up. But I fully believe he was wrestling the cop for his gun before that happened.
Just like with anything else. You can be doing something that seems like the right thing to do, and then when it doesn't work you switch tactics and take a different approach. If you notice that ticketing people doesn't seem to be slowing them down on a specific street, you can put up "traffic calming devices" and road humps. Both approaches are sound, but the one just wasn't working.
nightwatch
Active Member
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2011
- Messages
- 1,346
- Reaction score
- 10
IMO the Governor should call the national guard in as a neutral party, take the local police off the streets in an effort to get tensions to calm down.
I must say seeing regular police or swat members dressed in gear we send our soldiers to war in is concerning. I do understand the need to protect themselves. IMO civil unrest seems to start out for one cause then turns to being about all the years of struggle again and again. Just simmering below the surface will it always be this way... Jmo
ciao
I must say seeing regular police or swat members dressed in gear we send our soldiers to war in is concerning. I do understand the need to protect themselves. IMO civil unrest seems to start out for one cause then turns to being about all the years of struggle again and again. Just simmering below the surface will it always be this way... Jmo
ciao
wendiesan
Active Member
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2013
- Messages
- 3,362
- Reaction score
- 10
I'm confused by your remark. Just what are you laughing at in that sentence?
ETA Should have included the sentence
interesting thanx for your reply , can you tell me more about why you feel these witnesses are "agendized".
So from your comments I take it if the witnesses were a local business owner, a pastor, and a little old lady you would be inclined to believe them?
And that is just because they are young? and seem to have an agenda?
Im lost as to how they appeared to have an agenda, to me they appeared to be intelligent and honest and trying their best to explain what they saw.
I would really appreciate it if you could explain further your opinion. thanx .
Sonya610
Former Member
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2011
- Messages
- 7,174
- Reaction score
- 48
ahhh yeah, so hopefully they are going step things up a notch tonight as opposed to backing off or showing more restraint (my opinion, my words).
LiveLaughLuv
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2008
- Messages
- 4,720
- Reaction score
- 17
So an unarmed man, with hands raised above his head, going down on his knees, while the officer empties his revolver isn't pause for concern? That's not undo force? That's not abuse of authority/power?
Why didn't he just place him under arrest if he did indeed get assaulted? I happen to believe his own actions of flinging the vehicle door open, causing it to fling back on the officer, hitting him in his face is what got him enraged. I don't for one second believe he was assaulted by Mike Brown. The tussle the one witness describes as arm wrestling through the window of the vehicle, as Mike Brown broke free, started to run, he was fired upon in his back. that's when Mike Brown attempted to surrender and was executed for doing so..
Something smells funky to me..
Yes, rogue cop, could be what Mike Brown encountered...SMH
Of course the officers account will not add up to the witnesses, which his why the ME's autopsy report will be crucial here..If Mike Brown was indeed shot in the back, that means there was no threat to the officer at that time, since Mike Brown was running away...it would have been best if he approached Mike Brown on his knees and arrested him not executed him...
Why didn't he just place him under arrest if he did indeed get assaulted? I happen to believe his own actions of flinging the vehicle door open, causing it to fling back on the officer, hitting him in his face is what got him enraged. I don't for one second believe he was assaulted by Mike Brown. The tussle the one witness describes as arm wrestling through the window of the vehicle, as Mike Brown broke free, started to run, he was fired upon in his back. that's when Mike Brown attempted to surrender and was executed for doing so..
Something smells funky to me..
Yes, rogue cop, could be what Mike Brown encountered...SMH
Of course the officers account will not add up to the witnesses, which his why the ME's autopsy report will be crucial here..If Mike Brown was indeed shot in the back, that means there was no threat to the officer at that time, since Mike Brown was running away...it would have been best if he approached Mike Brown on his knees and arrested him not executed him...
I have typed this and deleted it many times before, figuring I shouldn't put it out there and it's all meaningless anyways. I found myself typing this again, so hopefully I hit post this time.
Some background to put my thoughts and feelings in context. In a past life, I worked with people who were responsible for representing cops in any officer involved shootings. The people I worked with were called to every scene whenever such an incident took place. They were the faces you'd see on TV if it wasn't the chief or public information officer. I have a very small understanding from a little bit of an inside perspective of what officers go through in such incidents and I also have a little bit of a perspective of how responses, statements and "version of events" are put together.
I have also for several years had contact with and dealt with citizens in the Ferguson and surrounding areas. I am no psychologist. I am no expert. I know nothing more about people than anyone else. I do feel like I have a pretty good feel for the particular culture and feelings of many in that community.
To give you an idea of what these people deal with on an almost daily basis, I'll relate a story that is unrelated to either of the above. Not Ferguson, but a very similar community not far from there, I have a good friend (though we don't talk much now and you'll see why) whose husband is a detective for this community. In talking with them, they have told me of various stories with almost pride. One occasion involved a kid that the husband didn't approve of dating his daughter. He pulled the kid over, cuffed him and took him to the station. With pride, I was told how he turned off his dash cam, made sure the cameras in the interview room and elsewhere were turned off, brought the kid into the interview room and proceeded to beat the hell out of him. It was clearly and proudly told how the kid would never even be able to establish that he was ever in the station. In fact, with no cameras and several officers who would say he wasn't there, it was more likely to be proven he was never there than that he was. Not the only story, but one that gives an idea of what is and has been going on way too routinely in communities in north county. I'm sure this stuff goes on elsewhere, but it's my experience that it is more common in the poorer north county with a higher minority population than it is in west county with it's higher incomes and more white population. If that can be done over who your daughter is dating, is it done when you have a defiant person who is challenging your authority even if otherwise doing nothing illegal? That is why the story told by the reporter of how he was handled on his arrest ring so true. Now imagine if they actually were doing something illegal.
Police have an extremely difficult job. 99% of them are good people. The cops on the ground are only doing what they are instructed to do. They don't do it, they lose their job. A majority of the protesters (not bottle throwers) of the community really just want to be treated like humans, not animals. And I'm not talking about just these protests. It stems from before that. I am thoroughly convinced that if the decision makers chose to address this situation by treating the people with humanity instead of a show of force, 90% of what we've seen in the news would not have happened. Disagree with me, fine, but that is what my gut tells me from dealing with both sides of the issue here locally.
Now for the criticisms. There is plenty to criticize with what is going on. There is no question that those who are resorting to violence deserve and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent. I won't spend a whole lot discussing this because I think most are in agreement on that issue. My only hope for the sake of the city that I live in, is that some or most of those who are continuing to act out violently are those who have come in from outside the Ferguson area. Thus the reason for my question in an earlier post.
Now that I have conceded that all of the people that have resorted to violence are criminals and are contributing to cause the ongoing conflict, I don't think a blind eye can be turned on the decisions that have been made from the law enforcement side. There are so many ways to address those issues. One is simply tactically. Tactically, I think they have taken the wrong approach from the very beginning. There hasn't been any transparency. There hasn't been any direct reaching out to the community. In a situation such as this, a show of force is of course going to instigate people who are otherwise already prone to instigation. Others will disagree with me and I respect their opinion. I simply do not believe such militarization of the police force is always, if ever, the best answer.
Another aspect to consider are the legalities of the police actions.
No where in there does it say that the people's right to assemble is limited to the hours of 10 am to 6 pm. My county's decision to superimpose their will over the rights enumerated above is a gross violation of those rights. Any order made by my county's law enforcement that contradicts those rights is NOT a LAWFUL order. Further, telling media to stop recording or to leave an otherwise public area is a gross violation of those rights. Yet, in the face of those rights being trampled, we quibble about whether or not a McDonald's was open. Please stop. These were reporters. If McDonald's employees asked them to leave, they would have left.
Two aldermen were arrested for failing to obey a lawful order. We quibble about whether or not they were told this or they were told that. Please stop. These are aldermen. They posed no threat to anyone. They weren't part of the larger protest seen streaming. They weren't throwing bottles. They weren't lighting fires. All week they have respected any and all lawful requests from law enforcement. Their arrests under the pretense of failing to obey a lawful order are hollow.
Beyond the issue of those rights, I have seen pictures and videos of people, scared people, peering out their windows. Sitting outside. Not the protesters. Not the looters. Not the rioters. Regular citizens who likely want no part of anything that is going on. And what is thrust upon them because of the route law enforcement has decided to take? They are having their yards and homes being filled with tear gas. They are having rubber bullets that still do major damage coming dangerously close to hitting their kids or the grandparents. I fully expect people to say but but but the protesters. The rioters. It's their fault. They started it. My response...law enforcement is not only there to serve but to protect. There are other options available that don't put these people who are completely innocent in every sense of the word in harms way by what law enforcement is doing, pulling the trigger. In other words, someone goes into a movie theater shooting the place up, law enforcement doesn't go in arbitrarily shooting everyone. Last night, it was evident and obvious who threw a bottle or molatov cocktail. Arrest them. Don't fire and gas everyone. But you did. Ok. Now you want to continue to advance on them, pushing them into a residential area and continue to fire and gas not just them now, but those people scared to death to come outside. And I'd suggest to you, they are not scared to come outside because of the thugs. They are scared to death to come outside of their own damn home because of the fear of being shot by law enforcement. In my very humble opinion, therein lies the problem in that community.
Bottom line, there is a lot of wrong being done on both sides. Those that fail or refuse to acknowledge that are either not familiar with everything going on or have already come to the table with a predetermined set of beliefs. Even our Governor, agree or disagree with his politics, acknowledges the wrong on both sides.
I have given my thoughts and opinions on how the immediate situation could and should be handled, I also have thoughts on other changes that need to be made. And yes, I fully understand others will have contrary views and I would hope so. Without intelligent debate, society does not move forward. First, do I believe that a white cop saw a black kid and said you know what, I don't like black people, I'm going to shoot him? No. And not anything close to that. Do I think there are racial issues that need to be addressed? Obviously. To deny that there aren't such issues to this day is silly. That doesn't make either side bad or racist. It's just a matter of having to better understand each other. Along those lines, Ferguson has got to review their hiring policies. Having a a community that is nearly 70% black represented by one black male officer and 2 black female officers tells me there is something that needs to be changed. Not because anyone purposefully said they were going to stack the force with white cops. But because over time, the make up of the force simply got to the point that it doesn't reflect the community.
A more stringent course and training has to be implemented with our law enforcement agencies educating officers on how to interact with the community, the legal and constitutional rights of the citizenship, the dangers created by abusing one's power and an associated zero tolerance policy for it, stricter consequences for failing to timely report others abuse of power. I would also suggest that all officers and detectives and chiefs be required to be involved at community events on a monthly basis. I understand it's not reasonable to expect them all to live in the community they serve. But they can become a part of it. They can hold monthly events and rotate the officers each month so they don't have to do it each month and then a larger yearly event. I would have the officers attend the events OUT of uniform. Get to know and be one of the people. Make strides to eliminate those things create an us versus them mentality in both LE and the community and build relationships and make it "us".
From a legal perspective, first, our statute making Failure to Obey a Lawful Order needs to be revisited. It is a vague and amorphous statute that allows those very few bad cops to abuse the power they have been given by the citizens. Second, and I expect more criticism here, but I think the statutes granting sovereign immunity and the like need to be revisited or eliminated in whole. The phrase I heard often from my friends was something along the lines of "You can avoid the charges but you can't avoid the ride" meaning the charges might be trumped up and they may likely be dismissed by the court but you cannot avoid being arrested and going through the indignity of being cuffed, fingerprinted, strip searched and spending the night in jail. Eliminating or revising the immunity statutes will make law enforcement more accountable in the civil arena. And just as a citizen cannot avoid the ride, a police officer then cannot avoid the courts. They can go through the indignity of being named a defendant and the financial burdens associated with it just like a citizen can undergo the indignities I described above.
At the end of the day, I find myself still proud to be a St. Louisan and yet ashamed to be a St. Louisan, both because of the rioters and our law enforcement. I am not asking for it because it is what we do here at websleuths, but being somewhat loosely affected by what is transpiring, I can tell you that the debates about what Sharpton is or is not, what Crump is or is not just seem so trivial to the bigger picture. Regardless of who they are or what they've done, they are here. Now, how do we fix a broken community within that context. Again, I'm not asking and don't want anyone to stop debating those kind of issues. They're important too. They just seem so trivial to me personally is all.
So sorry for the long post. Just wanted to get some things out I guess. And yes, I fully admit my thoughts may be completely clouded and irrational because these things are happening in my city, so please feel free to fire away. My feelings will not be hurt.
As we so often say here, those are just some of my thoughts and opinions.
Some background to put my thoughts and feelings in context. In a past life, I worked with people who were responsible for representing cops in any officer involved shootings. The people I worked with were called to every scene whenever such an incident took place. They were the faces you'd see on TV if it wasn't the chief or public information officer. I have a very small understanding from a little bit of an inside perspective of what officers go through in such incidents and I also have a little bit of a perspective of how responses, statements and "version of events" are put together.
I have also for several years had contact with and dealt with citizens in the Ferguson and surrounding areas. I am no psychologist. I am no expert. I know nothing more about people than anyone else. I do feel like I have a pretty good feel for the particular culture and feelings of many in that community.
To give you an idea of what these people deal with on an almost daily basis, I'll relate a story that is unrelated to either of the above. Not Ferguson, but a very similar community not far from there, I have a good friend (though we don't talk much now and you'll see why) whose husband is a detective for this community. In talking with them, they have told me of various stories with almost pride. One occasion involved a kid that the husband didn't approve of dating his daughter. He pulled the kid over, cuffed him and took him to the station. With pride, I was told how he turned off his dash cam, made sure the cameras in the interview room and elsewhere were turned off, brought the kid into the interview room and proceeded to beat the hell out of him. It was clearly and proudly told how the kid would never even be able to establish that he was ever in the station. In fact, with no cameras and several officers who would say he wasn't there, it was more likely to be proven he was never there than that he was. Not the only story, but one that gives an idea of what is and has been going on way too routinely in communities in north county. I'm sure this stuff goes on elsewhere, but it's my experience that it is more common in the poorer north county with a higher minority population than it is in west county with it's higher incomes and more white population. If that can be done over who your daughter is dating, is it done when you have a defiant person who is challenging your authority even if otherwise doing nothing illegal? That is why the story told by the reporter of how he was handled on his arrest ring so true. Now imagine if they actually were doing something illegal.
Police have an extremely difficult job. 99% of them are good people. The cops on the ground are only doing what they are instructed to do. They don't do it, they lose their job. A majority of the protesters (not bottle throwers) of the community really just want to be treated like humans, not animals. And I'm not talking about just these protests. It stems from before that. I am thoroughly convinced that if the decision makers chose to address this situation by treating the people with humanity instead of a show of force, 90% of what we've seen in the news would not have happened. Disagree with me, fine, but that is what my gut tells me from dealing with both sides of the issue here locally.
Now for the criticisms. There is plenty to criticize with what is going on. There is no question that those who are resorting to violence deserve and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent. I won't spend a whole lot discussing this because I think most are in agreement on that issue. My only hope for the sake of the city that I live in, is that some or most of those who are continuing to act out violently are those who have come in from outside the Ferguson area. Thus the reason for my question in an earlier post.
Now that I have conceded that all of the people that have resorted to violence are criminals and are contributing to cause the ongoing conflict, I don't think a blind eye can be turned on the decisions that have been made from the law enforcement side. There are so many ways to address those issues. One is simply tactically. Tactically, I think they have taken the wrong approach from the very beginning. There hasn't been any transparency. There hasn't been any direct reaching out to the community. In a situation such as this, a show of force is of course going to instigate people who are otherwise already prone to instigation. Others will disagree with me and I respect their opinion. I simply do not believe such militarization of the police force is always, if ever, the best answer.
Another aspect to consider are the legalities of the police actions.
No where in there does it say that the people's right to assemble is limited to the hours of 10 am to 6 pm. My county's decision to superimpose their will over the rights enumerated above is a gross violation of those rights. Any order made by my county's law enforcement that contradicts those rights is NOT a LAWFUL order. Further, telling media to stop recording or to leave an otherwise public area is a gross violation of those rights. Yet, in the face of those rights being trampled, we quibble about whether or not a McDonald's was open. Please stop. These were reporters. If McDonald's employees asked them to leave, they would have left.
Two aldermen were arrested for failing to obey a lawful order. We quibble about whether or not they were told this or they were told that. Please stop. These are aldermen. They posed no threat to anyone. They weren't part of the larger protest seen streaming. They weren't throwing bottles. They weren't lighting fires. All week they have respected any and all lawful requests from law enforcement. Their arrests under the pretense of failing to obey a lawful order are hollow.
Beyond the issue of those rights, I have seen pictures and videos of people, scared people, peering out their windows. Sitting outside. Not the protesters. Not the looters. Not the rioters. Regular citizens who likely want no part of anything that is going on. And what is thrust upon them because of the route law enforcement has decided to take? They are having their yards and homes being filled with tear gas. They are having rubber bullets that still do major damage coming dangerously close to hitting their kids or the grandparents. I fully expect people to say but but but the protesters. The rioters. It's their fault. They started it. My response...law enforcement is not only there to serve but to protect. There are other options available that don't put these people who are completely innocent in every sense of the word in harms way by what law enforcement is doing, pulling the trigger. In other words, someone goes into a movie theater shooting the place up, law enforcement doesn't go in arbitrarily shooting everyone. Last night, it was evident and obvious who threw a bottle or molatov cocktail. Arrest them. Don't fire and gas everyone. But you did. Ok. Now you want to continue to advance on them, pushing them into a residential area and continue to fire and gas not just them now, but those people scared to death to come outside. And I'd suggest to you, they are not scared to come outside because of the thugs. They are scared to death to come outside of their own damn home because of the fear of being shot by law enforcement. In my very humble opinion, therein lies the problem in that community.
Bottom line, there is a lot of wrong being done on both sides. Those that fail or refuse to acknowledge that are either not familiar with everything going on or have already come to the table with a predetermined set of beliefs. Even our Governor, agree or disagree with his politics, acknowledges the wrong on both sides.
I have given my thoughts and opinions on how the immediate situation could and should be handled, I also have thoughts on other changes that need to be made. And yes, I fully understand others will have contrary views and I would hope so. Without intelligent debate, society does not move forward. First, do I believe that a white cop saw a black kid and said you know what, I don't like black people, I'm going to shoot him? No. And not anything close to that. Do I think there are racial issues that need to be addressed? Obviously. To deny that there aren't such issues to this day is silly. That doesn't make either side bad or racist. It's just a matter of having to better understand each other. Along those lines, Ferguson has got to review their hiring policies. Having a a community that is nearly 70% black represented by one black male officer and 2 black female officers tells me there is something that needs to be changed. Not because anyone purposefully said they were going to stack the force with white cops. But because over time, the make up of the force simply got to the point that it doesn't reflect the community.
A more stringent course and training has to be implemented with our law enforcement agencies educating officers on how to interact with the community, the legal and constitutional rights of the citizenship, the dangers created by abusing one's power and an associated zero tolerance policy for it, stricter consequences for failing to timely report others abuse of power. I would also suggest that all officers and detectives and chiefs be required to be involved at community events on a monthly basis. I understand it's not reasonable to expect them all to live in the community they serve. But they can become a part of it. They can hold monthly events and rotate the officers each month so they don't have to do it each month and then a larger yearly event. I would have the officers attend the events OUT of uniform. Get to know and be one of the people. Make strides to eliminate those things create an us versus them mentality in both LE and the community and build relationships and make it "us".
From a legal perspective, first, our statute making Failure to Obey a Lawful Order needs to be revisited. It is a vague and amorphous statute that allows those very few bad cops to abuse the power they have been given by the citizens. Second, and I expect more criticism here, but I think the statutes granting sovereign immunity and the like need to be revisited or eliminated in whole. The phrase I heard often from my friends was something along the lines of "You can avoid the charges but you can't avoid the ride" meaning the charges might be trumped up and they may likely be dismissed by the court but you cannot avoid being arrested and going through the indignity of being cuffed, fingerprinted, strip searched and spending the night in jail. Eliminating or revising the immunity statutes will make law enforcement more accountable in the civil arena. And just as a citizen cannot avoid the ride, a police officer then cannot avoid the courts. They can go through the indignity of being named a defendant and the financial burdens associated with it just like a citizen can undergo the indignities I described above.
At the end of the day, I find myself still proud to be a St. Louisan and yet ashamed to be a St. Louisan, both because of the rioters and our law enforcement. I am not asking for it because it is what we do here at websleuths, but being somewhat loosely affected by what is transpiring, I can tell you that the debates about what Sharpton is or is not, what Crump is or is not just seem so trivial to the bigger picture. Regardless of who they are or what they've done, they are here. Now, how do we fix a broken community within that context. Again, I'm not asking and don't want anyone to stop debating those kind of issues. They're important too. They just seem so trivial to me personally is all.
So sorry for the long post. Just wanted to get some things out I guess. And yes, I fully admit my thoughts may be completely clouded and irrational because these things are happening in my city, so please feel free to fire away. My feelings will not be hurt.
As we so often say here, those are just some of my thoughts and opinions.
Yes, I would rather the witness be business owners or otherwise successful individuals over the age of say, 40, regardless of gender or race. I think young teenagers are INCREDIBLY suggestable. I would be very inclined to believe them if they had immediately been asked for their description of what happened without any information whatsoever about what other witnesses stated, and any knowledge of protests, etc.
Additionally, the video tape of the two girls sitting together and the middle one talking? I don't believe what she is saying based on her mannerisms. She doesn't appear to be recalling anything, but rather trying to phrase her words with a specific agenda.
There is another point I haven't heard discussed. What were the two young men doing in the middle of the street? Were they just walking along, or did it appear they were purposely blocking the roadway so the cop couldn't proceed? It's a little hard to imagine the cop would yell at them for simply being in the road if they looked back, saw a car was approaching and were getting out of the way.
Gardenlady
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2010
- Messages
- 7,232
- Reaction score
- 69
very interesting opinions there, thanx for explaining further.
and you do present a compelling scenario - that in the middle of the day two teenagers decided to purposefully block the path of a police vehicle, when confronted about it one of them attacked the officer and forced him back into his vehicle, he then pursued him inside the vehicle and tried to take his gun from him.
an all too common occurrence, that probably is what happened.
Thanks. I saw that. But I don't know how to or if it's even possible to go back to that ustream and for me to look for that "interview" because I don't have a picture of the guy in the "interview" to compare to the picture you posted upthread. But thank you so much.
President Obama said he spoke with Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon to share his concern about recent violence in Ferguson after the shooting of unarmed teenager Michael Brown by a police officer.
"Now's the time for healing. Now's the time for peace and calm on the streets of Ferguson," Obama told reporters.
Nixon, for his part, said he would take steps to change the tone in the community. He said it was crucial to allow protesters to express their anger as long as they respect the rights of others.
Follow complete coverage of breaking news on CNN.com, CNN TV and CNN Mobile.
"Now's the time for healing. Now's the time for peace and calm on the streets of Ferguson," Obama told reporters.
Nixon, for his part, said he would take steps to change the tone in the community. He said it was crucial to allow protesters to express their anger as long as they respect the rights of others.
Follow complete coverage of breaking news on CNN.com, CNN TV and CNN Mobile.
- Status