Jump to content
Merus

Ferguson

Recommended Posts

While I don't disagree with the point you're making, both of those quotes are aiming for the same thing, "it's not what you think" journalism. Try and get views by subverting expectations.

Granted, if the running narrative is "madman who killed people", it's provocative to paint him in a positive light. If the prevailing narrative is "innocent teen killed", it's provocative to paint him in a more negative light.

 

That being said,

1) there's already more than enough negativity around Brown (the convenience store video alone provided more than enough of that) to the extent that the NY Times piece comes across as either character assassination or just straight up racism.

2) any character assassination of Brown at this point will inevitably be interpreted as post-hoc justification for his shooting, which the Times could not possibly be unaware of..

3) Anybody who cites anything done by a 5 year old as thought it has any bearing whatsoever on a person's character or personality is either an idiot or straight up trolling. To the extent that it makes me want to read the entire thing as an Onion article.

 

It looks like the NY Times piece was trying for a kind of internal point-counterpoint, to present positive and negative things in alternating patterns and use that juxtaposition for dramatic effect. It was, however, pretty poorly executed in that regard, and just comes across as tone-deaf.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Almost 6 months after a young black man died from a gunshot wound in the back of a police car in Louisiana, the number and names of all the officers involved have not been released.  The coroner's report was just released, and affirms the original police findings that it was a suicide, that the young man managed to shoot himself in the right side of his chest even while his hands were handcuffed behind him.  The coroner affirmed the death as a suicide because the gunshot wound would have been physiologically possible to self-inflict.  Officials say he was able to retrieve a hidden gun, even though he had already been searched twice, and the searches had resulted in finding small amounts of marijuana and cocaine.  But not a handgun. No other information about the incident has been released, due to a "pending" investigation that has lasted 6 months (an investigation that only involves a handful of people, a very small crime scene and most of the people involved are easy to talk to, since they're cops). 

 

That's one thing that is not getting enough press on this, is how little information there is available about many police shootings.  Documents, videos, and reports that would normally be available within weeks or a few months are never released, or released long, long, long after most investigations would have been wrapped up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every so often, I get reminded that I should probably read The Toast more diligently. This is one of those times. Seriously, I was wondering whether or not this would be worth posting here, because of the title if nothing else, but the final two paragraphs, especially the explication of the parable, are so powerful and so real that I can't help it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every so often, I get reminded that I should probably read The Toast more diligently. This is one of those times. Seriously, I was wondering whether or not this would be worth posting here, because of the title if nothing else, but the final two paragraphs, especially the explication of the parable, are so powerful and so real that I can't help it.

 

Thanks for linking that, it is the most powerful thing I've read since Ferguson started. 

 

Edited to add: I wish I had something intelligent to say about it.  I don't. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought he was smart.

 

Hahaha nooooooooo.

 

Ben Stein once made an anti-evolution documentary that included, among other highlights, a sequence in which a passage from Charles Darwin's "The Descent of Man" was read aloud with most of the text omitted to make it sound like the literal exact opposite of what Darwin intended, accompanied by footage of Nazi imagery.

 

Ben Stein is an idiot scumbag and the reason I can't watch Ferris Bueller anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ben Stein is arguing that Mike Brown being a particular height, weight, and "on marijuana" meant that he was armed and dangerous.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/08/28/1325419/-Ben-Stein-has-to-be-one-of-the-dumbest-MFers-on-the-Planet#

 

I thought he was smart.

 

Miss the days when "Nixon staffer and son of a Nixon staffer" was a weird throwaway fact about him, rather than a painful, defining clue to his psyche.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm seeing on the net that the people in Ferguson have a lawsuit filed in against the police department, which is a start for reparations, but it's only one part of the bigger puzzle. But on top of that, litigation takes so damn long that this issue may come to rest for a year and a half now until it is settled. And by then, it will have been forgotten. Which would be the worst because we'll effectively be back to square one with all this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every so often, I get reminded that I should probably read The Toast more diligently. This is one of those times. Seriously, I was wondering whether or not this would be worth posting here, because of the title if nothing else, but the final two paragraphs, especially the explication of the parable, are so powerful and so real that I can't help it.

The arc of the moral universe does not lead anywhere in particular, not in this life. If it bends towards justice, it is only because it is pulled that way by our constant effort, by our unceasing straining and sweating and shouting.

 

Recently I've been thinking about how people will sometimes throw out "Things have been getting better and they'll continue to do so" as some sort of point when discussing issues of justice. Specifically, how much of a bullshit thing it is to say because it ignores the hard work done by those who changed it. It was good to read it in such clear way. Incredible piece overall as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whoah. Hopefully this is effective rather than something they can physically cover, game or claim was "malfunctioning" when it suits them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Accounts of police officers firing too-large numbers of bullets at people aren't uncommon.

 

Honestly, while it's quite upsetting, I don't see how firing 11 times is really worse than firing once. Firing once establishes the intent to kill the suspect. Police are trained to fire until they are satisfied the perceived threat that prompted the lethal force is neutralized (whether or not it actually merited lethal force in this case, which it clearly didn't).

 

In this particular case, fewer bullets would probably have meant fewer deaths, but a single bullet _can_ kill somebody. From a general police behavior perspective, I _want_the officer to assume that every time he pulls the trigger, somebody is already dead.

 

I feel I'm not explaining this well. There was only one decision made: the decision to use the gun at all. The problem existed at the point where he chose to pull the trigger the first time. Everything after that is just following through the course of action that had already been started. Even the 3 second pause there, while it may seem damning, probably wasn't enough time for his to change his mind, particularly in the heat of the moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand what you're trying to say, and I agree to an extent, but... If the only goal of firing a gun is to neutralize the threat, yes, killing someone is a good way to guarantee said neutralization. But there were three points at which that situation went to shit, assuming the first shot was justified. Let's assume Michael Brown WAS a real threat to start with, before the first shot. Let's also assume the above report is completely accurate.

 

So Brown is shot the first time. He then tries to flee. There's reasonable concern that a fleeing dangerous man could still be a threat, as he might go somewhere else and act dangerously. So the cop shoots again. I can accept that.

 

SO! Brown was grazed in the arm as he was running away. Then he put his hands up in plain view and turned around. No longer a threat. But maybe maybe he was doing something threatening in that three seconds of silence... It's possible!

 

He got shot again, and stumbled. The stumbling, in an adrenaline-infused situation, might be construed as threatening, trying to tackle the officer or something, if said stumbling is in the direction of the officer, as that report suggests. Okay, that's fair. Again, it's possible! He falls to the ground and is shot twice more.

 

Now he's dead.

 

So there were three choices. 1) Shoot a fleeing man. 2) Shoot a surrendered man who had his hands up. 3) Shoot a collapsing man curled up in pain and fear. It's not impossible, but I do think it's incredibly unlikely that someone would continue to appear threatening, by himself, unarmed, after being shot twice. And then twice more. I think it's even more unlikely, given the history of racial tension in Ferguson.

 

Well, to be more clear: I think it's actually VERY likely the cop thought Brown was a threat because Brown is a black man and the cop is probably a racist piece of shit and thinks all black people are a threat.

 

Where I do agree with you most is that the choice to fire even once is the most important decision. But I think if a cop is trained to always kill the target they're shooting at, then they're being trained incorrectly. I don't think there's anything wrong with TRYING to kill your target on the first shot (assuming it's justified), but if they're actively surrendering, you don't shoot them again.

 

...

 

Completely tangentially. Man, I remember reading stories about cops accidentally killing people when I was younger, and them being mortified and retiring of their own volition because they felt so guilty. I don't know if it's just because I'm older and more cynical, but I feel like I only ever see THIS kind of shooting now, and not the kind I saw as a kid. Maybe it was just buttered up better as people back then still assumed cops were always the good guys. Ugh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Completely tangentially. Man, I remember reading stories about cops accidentally killing people when I was younger, and them being mortified and retiring of their own volition because they felt so guilty. I don't know if it's just because I'm older and more cynical, but I feel like I only ever see THIS kind of shooting now, and not the kind I saw as a kid. Maybe it was just buttered up better as people back then still assumed cops were always the good guys. Ugh.

Wouldn't it be great if we had access to both current and historical data regarding police shootings? Too bad that there have been absolutely no gains made technologically over the last 30 years in data gathering and dissemination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn't it be great if we had access to both current and historical data regarding police shootings? Too bad that there have been absolutely no gains made technologically over the last 30 years in data gathering and dissention.

D:

 

are you sarcasming at me

 

D:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

/sarcasm

 

 

also, now a terrible autocorrect is immortalized in your quote. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

/sarcasm

 

 

also, now a terrible autocorrect is immortalized in your quote. 

 

Well, there really haven't been that many gains in dissent over the past thirty years. We're a little better at organizing it, but our methods are still the same, and the authorities have gotten a lot better at putting it down, or maybe just more inclined.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So there were three choices. 1) Shoot a fleeing man. 2) Shoot a surrendered man who had his hands up. 3) Shoot a collapsing man curled up in pain and fear. It's not impossible, but I do think it's incredibly unlikely that someone would continue to appear threatening, by himself, unarmed, after being shot twice. And then twice more. I think it's even more unlikely, given the history of racial tension in Ferguson.

I guess what I was trying to get at is that those choices very likely didn't actually exist (in a conscious way). The choice was "I am going to shoot this man until he is dead", and he did that, it just took him a while. I don't think Wilson re-evaluated at any point during that entire exchange.

 

Should he have re-evaluated? Probably. But I have no idea how realistic that is. I completely agree with you that the reason he made the decision initially has a lot to do with the racial tensions present. But I don't think, even to himself, Wilson thought "Now I am going to shoot this guy in the back". He simply thought "I have not finished with the shooting yet."

 

I just think the decision tree was much, much smaller than you're supposing. The only transition was "Is he dead yet?"->No->Keep Shooting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I knew it was sarcasm I just wasn't sure if you were aiming it at me or at the shitty situation. I got scared I made a huge mistake somehow. D:

 

 

I guess what I was trying to get at is that those choices very likely didn't actually exist (in a conscious way). The choice was "I am going to shoot this man until he is dead", and he did that, it just took him a while. I don't think Wilson re-evaluated at any point during that entire exchange.

 

Should he have re-evaluated? Probably. But I have no idea how realistic that is. I completely agree with you that the reason he made the decision initially has a lot to do with the racial tensions present. But I don't think, even to himself, Wilson thought "Now I am going to shoot this guy in the back". He simply thought "I have not finished with the shooting yet."

 

I just think the decision tree was much, much smaller than you're supposing. The only transition was "Is he dead yet?"->No->Keep Shooting.

 
Yeah I guess I'm in no position to really objectively analyze that kind of situation. I've never held a gun outside a shooting range before, and I've certainly never felt threatened or felt I needed to hurt someone in any capacity. But it makes me feel sick regardless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×