Grand Juror in Michael Brown Case Asking Court For Gag Order Removed

[sonjay]

Respectfully snipped for focus.

I agree. Many were so incredulous at the "gentle giant" phrase that was so incongruous with the reality and truth of this man, that the term was widely mocked and used as parody and sarcasm.

As to the "black, unarmed teenager" meme, well, Jessica Lane Chambers is persistently being referred to as a "woman" in media articles. Contrast that with MB being portrayed over and over as a "teenager". They were the same age, both young adults, which is a more accurate term that is also neutral. But neutrality is seldom the goal in situations like these-- the "teenager" meme was deliberately chosen to represent MB as more "child like". There was never any reason at all for news reports to refer to the race of either MB or DW-- that was part of whipping up a false racist theme, too. "Unarmed" was chosen to push the unequal use of force theme, as though police must always be certain the ones they shoot at are indeed armed with guns, and that "equality" must exist between criminal suspects and police. This manner of writing and reporting is highly manipulative, and not even trying to be neutral. Sadly, lots of people buy into the bias and slant as truth and objectivity.


If that had been the correctly and responsibly reported story by the media, none of us would even know MB's name, nor Officer Wilson's, as it should be, IMO. The large scale riots, burning and looting probably wouldn't have happened. The DOJ wouldn't have inserted themselves inappropriately. And the whiny GJ'r Doe would not have been asked to agree to service and oaths he or she clearly didn't understand or desire.

BBM. Absolutely spot-on.

The repeated use of "teen" was a deliberate attempt to paint MB as an innocent youngster. That was compounded by all the interviews of family members referring to him as "boy" and "child" -- and yes, even "little boy" and "baby." In any other context, referring to an adult black man as a "boy" would be considered highly insulting, and rightly so.

The media very consciously and deliberately refrain from ever identifying race, on the grounds that it's not relevant. To the point where they don't identify the race of suspects on the loose that they're asking the public to help them find. Shockingly, there was recently an Amber Alert in my state for a missing little 5-week-old boy. He was this size and that weight and last seen wearing these clothes. But he wasn't any race at all. Well, yes, he was a race. Photographs revealed that he was black. But if you heard that report on the radio, you just might be on the look-out for a little 5-week-old white boy. That's how far the media go to avoid ever mentioning race. Except when it's a black criminal shot or killed by a white person, particularly a white police officer. Then race is the main relevant fact. There has never been a single shred of evidence produced to even suggest that the shooting of MB by OW was racially motivated, yet race was deemed relevant from the first moments after the shooting, and continues to be deemed relevant today.

It is definitely highly manipulative and clearly represents an agenda, as opposed to a desire to report the news objectively.

 

[K_Z]

I think every person would agree with you about not wanting any LE to hesitate if they have to use lethal force under the right circumstances. The problem that I think some are trying to work on are two fold. One, how to balance that with ensuring that lives aren't unnecessarily lost, even a robbery suspects. Two, the concern that those instances where it is unjustified will never be uncovered because of the system that is in place, which isn't an indictment on LE because that is outside of their control.

BBM, and respectfully snipped for focus.

Well, I kind of don't care anymore if others think I'm cold or callous for not "caring" about the lives of criminals lost in the course of them committing violent crimes against innocent people. I only have enough empathy left for their victims, and the families of the victims. A dead violent criminal isn't a victim, IMO. I could care less if their lives are lost while committing crimes, necessarily or unnecessarily, whether by a meteor falling on them, or a police officer's service weapon. Saves my tax dollars trying, convicting, and housing them for decades while they file appeal after appeal. Once someone chooses a path of violent crime against innocent people, I just don't perceive their lives as having a lot of value anymore. JMO.

And the more the media lies and tries to persuade me and the rest of the public that violent large, adult criminals (captured on surveillance video, of any race) are just tragically misunderstood, innocent child-like victims, being gunned down "in broad daylight" for "no reason", by racist, predatory policemen, the less I trust any media. And the less I listen to any of the "protestors" or rioters to see if what they have to "say" is valid or not. The truth of the violent crime committed invalidates anything there is to riot or protest about, IMO. But that's just me.

 

[reedus23]

BBM. Absolutely spot-on.

The repeated use of "teen" was a deliberate attempt to paint MB as an innocent youngster. That was compounded by all the interviews of family members referring to him as "boy" and "child" -- and yes, even "little boy" and "baby." In any other context, referring to an adult black man as a "boy" would be considered highly insulting, and rightly so.

The media very consciously and deliberately refrain from ever identifying race, on the grounds that it's not relevant. To the point where they don't identify the race of suspects on the loose that they're asking the public to help them find. Shockingly, there was recently an Amber Alert in my state for a missing little 5-week-old boy. He was this size and that weight and last seen wearing these clothes. But he wasn't any race at all. Well, yes, he was a race. Photographs revealed that he was black. But if you heard that report on the radio, you just might be on the look-out for a little 5-week-old white boy. That's how far the media go to avoid ever mentioning race. Except when it's a black criminal shot or killed by a white person, particularly a white police officer. Then race is the main relevant fact. There has never been a single shred of evidence produced to even suggest that the shooting of MB by OW was racially motivated, yet race was deemed relevant from the first moments after the shooting, and continues to be deemed relevant today.

It is definitely highly manipulative and clearly represents an agenda, as opposed to a desire to report the news objectively.

I guess I just view things differently. I view teens as ones more likely to get into trouble, more so than a 40 something year old. I don't automatically think of them as an innocent youngster, but I do see what you say. As for family members, my mom still refers to me as her boy or baby and more than twice the age of MB. I have no problem at all with the family using such terms. I would agree with KZ that news reports themselves probably would have been better served saying young adult, otherwise I think it's all just semantics for something that is just describing the age of MB.

As to your alerts, I would suggest they most certainly should reference race when someone is missing. How the heck are you supposed to know what to keep a lookout for otherwise. I don't think our local media here goes that far. Routinely, if there is a suspect at large, they will reference their race. In those circumstances, the identifying information is pretty darn important if you ask me and should be relayed by the media without the concern of backlash. Having said that, the MB situation is a bit different and there was no need to reference race (though we all would know it immediately) until there was some reason it becomes relevant.

So while I might disagree in certain respects about a reference to "teen", I do agree in certain respects to the reference to "black". And finally, no, there is hardly ever a news outlet that is just interested in reporting the news. Not locally. Definitely not Fox. Definitely not CNN or MSNBC. Probably the closest is the BBC but even they put some slant into their broadcasts. Heck, what little I watched of it, I thought even the Al Jezeera in America (or however you spell it) used less slant than Fox/CNN/MSNBC.

 

[reedus23]

BBM, and respectfully snipped for focus.

Well, I kind of don't care anymore if others think I'm cold or callous for not "caring" about the lives of criminals lost in the course of them committing violent crimes against innocent people. I only have enough empathy left for their victims, and the families of the victims. A dead violent criminal isn't a victim, IMO. I could care less if their lives are lost while committing crimes, necessarily or unnecessarily, whether by a meteor falling on them, or a police officer's service weapon. Saves my tax dollars trying, convicting, and housing them for decades while they file appeal after appeal. Once someone chooses a path of violent crime against innocent people, I just don't perceive their lives as having a lot of value anymore. JMO.

And the more the media lies and tries to persuade me and the rest of the public that violent large, adult criminals (captured on surveillance video, of any race) are just tragically misunderstood, innocent child-like victims, being gunned down "in broad daylight" for "no reason", by racist, predatory policemen, the less I trust any media. And the less I listen to any of the "protestors" or rioters to see if what they have to "say" is valid or not. The truth of the violent crime committed invalidates anything there is to riot or protest about, IMO. But that's just me.

And well that's how it should be, or at least. Your empathy should be for the victims and their families. Having said that, it's not the wild west and if a suspect can be arrested for that robbery, he should be and then tried, convicted and sentenced. I don't think it requires any empathy for the alleged robber to also agree that the first option, if possible, is that criminals should be arrested and not shot. That is my only point. If they are continuing to present a danger to themselves or others, the lethal force may be justified, but I'm not interested in LE using lethal force indiscriminantly(sp?) when it's not needed or justified.

Beyond that, that is all your feelings and beliefs and you're obviously entitled to have them.

 

[LonghornSpeakEasy]

I don't know if this is the right thread thread to post this or not but it seems to be the most active at the moment. The link below is a news report detailing a pastor/activist undergoing use of force scenarios in Arizona. As you will see, it gave him a chance to see a variety of encounters through the "eyes" of LE, especially the speed at which decisions must be made with limited information. He admits that the experience changed his views and I certainly admire his willingness to do so.

http://http://www.fox10phoenix.com/Clip/11014328/activist-critical-of-police-undergoes-use-of-force-scenarios#.VK4Ue2JL7Hk.facebook


Ultimately I think this type of experience, i.e., the willingness to listen to each other's viewpoints on BOTH sides, is crucial for any progress to be made towards a resolution of the current "situation." Unfortunately, I have a real doubts that this can happen to a significant enough degree to make a dent in the animosity that exists in large segments on both sides of the equation. There just seems to be too much anger and irritation that is being stoked by outside forces using the conflict for their own purposes.