Ferguson

B-Man · November 27, 2014

FTA:

As many have noted, there are obvious parallels between the Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown cases. Both were young black men who were, as we were told countless times, unarmed. Both were shot by men portrayed as white authority figures–Darren Wilson, a police officer, and George Zimmerman, a “white Hispanic” who, as a neighborhood watch volunteer, was a sort of honorary policeman, just as he was an honorary white man.

Supporters of Martin and Brown would prefer to leave the similarities there. But there are more: Martin thought he was a tough guy, a martial arts aficionado, and had been kicked out of high school for burglary. Brown was high on marijuana and had just robbed a convenience store when he encountered Officer Wilson.

Martin attacked Zimmerman and was seen by an eyewitness sitting on top of Zimmerman and punching his face. The 300-pound Brown likewise attacked Officer Wilson, calling him a f****** p***y and apparently attempting to wrest his gun away. They both made the same mistake: they attacked

(unintentionally in Martin’s case, intentionally in Brown’s) a man with a gun. As a legal matter, both killings were rather obviously justified as self-defense, although my own opinion is that Wilson probably could have handled the situation better.

It is striking that the activists and race-baiters have chosen to raise two such weak cases to mythic status. In both instances, they were wrong on the facts.

They claimed that Zimmerman shot Martin “execution style,” when in fact Zimmerman was on his back, getting his head banged into the pavement by Martin and in fear for his life. They said that Brown was trying to surrender–”hands up, don’t shoot!”–when in fact, he attacked Wilson inside Wilson’s police vehicle and was advancing on him again when the fatal rounds were fired.

Why did activists bet so much on two such weak cases? Can no instances be found where African-Americans have been shot by whites when it was NOT in self-defense? That can’t possibly be true. But those whites probably weren’t policemen, or even neighborhood watch volunteers. Maybe the activists just didn’t have any better cases to politicize.

Beyond that, though, I wonder whether the activists are really disappointed that, once again, their campaign to imprison a white man has failed. In their world of perpetual grievance, failure is success. If there had been a strong case against George Zimmerman, he would have been convicted. If there had been a strong case against Darren Wilson, he would have been indicted. But those results would not have advanced the Left’s preferred narrative: America is still a racist country.

For leftist race-baiters, failure is success. When they press a weak case and it fails, they claim vindication.

Keeping African-Americans perpetually down is a core goal of the liberal movement and the Democratic Party. So Michael Brown and Trayvon Martin have to be victims, not aggressors.

Still, the truth is that they were victims. Not victims of a mythical white power structure–the concept is laughable as applied to either George Zimmerman or Darren Wilson. And certainly not victims of a racist judicial system. On the contrary, in both cases America’s court system rendered the right verdict under tremendous pressure to bend the truth to political expedience.

Rather, Martin and Brown were victims of an African-American culture in which the family has been pretty much destroyed, government checks have largely replaced employment, education is disparaged, criminality is respected, and racial animosity is a sign of authenticity. That culture has worked well for the Democratic Party, but it has been an utter disaster for millions of young black men like Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown.

.

Hapless Bills Fan · November 27, 2014

Hi, I usually don't do PPP. Blame Boyst, he encouraged me to come over and take a look. Since I've lived in St Louis for >30 yrs I have some perspective on this and a couple really good factual links to share. One cogent fact about St Louis is that it's actually chopped up into many tiny municipalities, most with their own police force and judicial system. Many of them derive their major income from fines, especially traffic fines. In the municipalities where the majority of the police force is white and the majority of the residents are black, it's a situation which lends itself to black people perceiving that they are constantly pulled over by white cops for minor infractions - because they are. The tiny communities to the south of St Louis do the same thing, but there the drivers and officers typically have the same skin tone.It's also a system that lends itself to corruption. If you have a corrupt Chief of Police, and a bunch of bad-apple officers, it's hard to fix. There are municipalities in the north of St Louis that are widely believed (by whites and blacks) to have nasty police. The overall skinny on the current Ferguson CoP is that he's a decent guy trying to run a clean shop, but he had a lot of work to do to get there. Jennings, where Wilson started his police career, was so corrupt it was dissolved and the County took over policing there. That's really what should happen in most of these communities IMO and would go a long way to fix a number of issues.

This is a Facebook post from the Mayor-Elect of Oakland. I know her, my neighbor works for her, I voted for her. But this is the dumbest thing she could have said and is getting lamb basted in the comments for it. I'm hoping that it was written by one of her dumbass handlers.

Why on earth would an elected government official pronounce something a "miscarriage of justice" from long distance, whilst totally ignorant of Missouri law and clearly not having time to thoroughly review the released GJ testimony? It seems irresponsible, at best.Here is a really good link to a careful article in the Washington Post, which goes point by point through Wilson's testimony and explains how it relates to self-defense under Missouri law.Basically, under MO law, once someone claims self-defense:"The state has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in lawful self-defense. Unless you find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in lawful self-defense, you must find the defendant not guilty." (there is additional leeway to uniformed police officers to use deadly force, as well)So the heart of what the GJ had to consider is, what is Officer Wilson's testimony about the situation? And is there probable cause for a reasonable person to doubt he was threatened and needed to defend himself? Two cogent pieces of physical evidence were that Brown had clearly been inside Wilson's car as shown by blood and DNA on the car, gun, and Wilson's clothing, and he appeared to have been shot once on the thumb at close range, and that Brown had bled on the street about 25 feet further away than his body was found, indicating that he had moved towards Wilson. Take that evidence and combine it with contradictory eyewitness testimony that sometimes did not match the physical evidence, and it's pretty clear the state could not meet the legal standard of proving Wilson did not feel threatened and feel the need to defend himself (lawful self defense).

The issue is many of the looters don't live there so they don't give a ****. The locals that joined in are just not very smart. Protest, yell, have sit-ins carry signs. When did looting help their cause at all. All this says is "see, this is why the police act the way they do sometimes."

Agree with the latter. In fact though, most of the looters and arsonists Mon night were local - from N St Louis only a stones throw away or from Ferguson and neighboring tiny municipalities. They are, IMO, self-interested but short sighted thugs seizing the opportunity to enrich themselves. They only care about themselves and what they can get, not about the community or their Aunt or Grandma's job. Per a St Louis City police officer: in August, whilst looting and riots were underway in Ferguson, the crime rate in St Louis plummeted.

Then why isn't black culture speaking out against this? Why are there no black leaders speaking out against this? Where is Jessee, Al, Obama, anyone just coming out over and over again saying stop this madness? Where is black culture doing anything to stop it?If black culture is not about this then they need to make sure they speak out against it. If you feel there is inequality in the world the last thing you want is to create further tension and further dissent in the public.

I did hear Al Sharpton saying distinctly "if you're out there looting and burning, you're not on Michael Brown's side, you're on your own side" and so forth. But there does seem to be a fairly widespread belief that torching the dreams of black minority business owners is somehow justifiable if you're angry, and saying otherwise is now called "respectability politics"

I remember during the Rodney King riots of the early 90s when Rodney King went on TV and pleaded "Can't we all just get along". Nobody's doing that this time.Instead we have Brown's stepfather encouraging protestors to "Burn this B*tch down"

Both Brown's mom and dad were widely quoted as saying "let's not just make noise, let's make a difference" and pleading for calm. It is true that Brown's stepdad said that, in the heat of the moment after learning the GJ decision.

Bull. They should have had every National Guard troop in Missouri on those streets with an adequate supply of flexi-cuffs and the ROE to use them. They should have started stacking those !@#$ers up like cord wood and sending the message that the second you step over the line, you're going into custody and getting a record. (...)The message should have been sent loudly and clearly that what happened in August wasn't happening again, under any circumstances. The "Hug-a-Thug" tactics opened them up to this mess and were started by the "leadership" of idiots like Jay Nixon and Claire McCaskill. They cut the police off at the knees and essentially declared open season on the citizenry of a town.

Whoa, Boy. First of all, as US senator from MO, McCaskill has no jurisdiction over MO state affairs or NG. Straw man there.Second, you have to realize that there was an extensive NG presence in the city that night. They were all DOWN IN CLAYTON, PROTECTING THE COUNTY AND STATE GOV"T BUILDINGS, because that's where politicians mistakenly believed the focus of protest would be (you know, if you're ticked about a county GJ decision, attack the county?). Businesses and schools closed in that area, businesses boarded up, and the governor/police/NG were determined not to show the seat of county government getting wrecked on national TV. And there were a bunch of protests there, led by religious and civil rights people from out of town - angry but reasonably peaceful.Nixon and law enforcement officials simply didn't expect the locals to destroy their own neighborhoods to an even greater degree. They expected the focus to be elsewhere this time.

Come on, NYT, man up … offer a bounty for the head. New York Times Publishes Darren Wilson’s Address Info As Ferguson...

Old news. Wilson's address was broadcast over the internet ~10 days after the shooting in August, then in news media as soon as his name was released, and Wilson hasn't been seen there since.

One of the better write-ups on all thishttp://www.theblaze....wanted-justice/

I really can't agree. "You brazenly disregard every piece of evidence, every witness statement, and the grand jury’s determination in order to propagate a falsehood. You say you want to know what happened, but you preemptively reject any explanation beyond the explanation you conjured up within 24 hours of the event itself.You brazenly disregard every piece of evidence, every witness statement, and the grand jury’s determination in order to propagate a falsehood. You say you want to know what happened, but you preemptively reject any explanation beyond the explanation you conjured up within 24 hours of the event itself."There are a lot of eyewitnesses who I think sincerely believe they saw certain events, and some spoke to the media, including the kid who was walking with Brown and might have been expected to know what happened. So it really wasn't conjured up, and they certainly aren't disregarding "every witness statement". In fact, Johnson's testimony and Wilson's agree on a number of points or could be reasonably seen as different perceptions of the same action. But there are key points where his testimony contradicts the physical evidence.It is a valid point that some people don't want to know what really happened. When they call for "justice" what they mean is, "we want Wilson tried and convicted of murder or manslaughter", but it's because well-publicized eyewitness stories like Dorian Johnson's lead them to believe they know what really happened, not because the group "conjured something up" and is disregarding all witnesses. They are regarding witnesses, just not all the witnesses.It is also a valid point that in part as a result of government policies, family has been destroyed in many impoverished communities and kids are raising themselves or being raised by grandparents who no longer have the energy to discipline in many communities. But to apply that to Martin and Brown with comments about government checks replacing employment etc seems like an agenda of a different kind. Like many people up and down the economic spectrum, both were kids of divorce but Trayvon Martin's family is essentially middle-class and Brown's is working class and solidly employed. (Brown's mom actually works in an upscale deli in Clayton near the county courthouse, leading to many local jokes about what might happen of McCulloch stopped in for a salad)OK, that's my foray into PPP, peops. Enjoy! I personally think there are discrepencies in Wilson's testimony but I think the GJ made the correct decision under Missouri law that there was not probable cause to disprove his claim of self defense so no true bill should be returned and in any case, they sat through 70 hrs of evidence and testimony and I'm sure they did their best.We live in a 100+ yr old, economically and racially very diverse community about 15-20 miles away from Ferguson. I walk along our main street which is filled with many small business owners I know personally and think how I would feel if it were all looted and burned. It makes me very angry to know that people just like those guys had to watch their dreams go up in smoke 15 miles away essentially because of a media that is looking for sensationalism and agendas and not promoting a fair hearing for all sides, is how I see it. Edited November 27, 2014 by Hopeful

Buftex · November 27, 2014

Let me tell you as someone who has had to deal with a very large, hopped up person - you wouldn't be so cavalier if you'd ever faced the same thing. Brown was on drugs and very likely on a dopamine high from his earlier shenanigans. A guy that big in that state is capable of plenty of mayhem that you couldn't imagine if you'd never seen it.

But keep up the narrative because it fits your politics and most likely the choice you made when you first heard all the for profit media "reporting."

Spoken like somebody whose narrative was re-inforced perfectly. :lol:

Alaska Darin · November 27, 2014

Spoken like somebody whose narrative was re-inforced perfectly.

You didn't need to change your original post.

My "narrative" is always the same: don't listen to the media and wait for the facts. If that makes me an "experienced" "tough guy" then I can live with that. I don't generally join the mob for any reason because large groups of people are rarely right about anything. Enjoy the fruits if you liberal labors. Ferguson is the shining example of what your politics brings.

Whoa, Boy. First of all, as US senator from MO, McCaskill has no jurisdiction over MO state affairs or NG. Straw man there.Second, you have to realize that there was an extensive NG presence in the city that night. They were all DOWN IN CLAYTON, PROTECTING THE COUNTY AND STATE GOV"T BUILDINGS, because that's where politicians mistakenly believed the focus of protest would be (you know, if you're ticked about a county GJ decision, attack the county?).

It has nothing to do with jurisdiction in McCaskill's case and everything to do with statements that each made in the immediate aftermath and decisions that the bumpkin governor made. All of these mistakes (and the decisions to "catch and release" protesters the first time around) have emboldened the protesters for this round and made it more dangerous for the citizens to live and work in the area.

Buftex · November 27, 2014

You didn't need to change your original post.

My "narrative" is always the same: don't listen to the media and wait for the facts. If that makes me an "experienced" "tough guy" then I can live with that. I don't generally join the mob for any reason because large groups of people are rarely right about anything. Enjoy the fruits if you liberal labors. Ferguson is the shining example of what your politics brings.

And I am guessing then, since you seem to have formed an opnion, you feel that you have heard all the facts?

BTW- I am in no way condoning, or in favor of looting and burning that went on in Ferguson. I understand where it comes from...the point you chose to argue with me over was really just a point I was making to another poster about the testimony being exaggerated by a witness. I was just pointing out that the defendant was prone to exaggeration as well... you have to ask yourself why that is so valid in Wilsons' case...he felt threatened, and Brown was big. Even if you believe for a second Wilsons narrative of what went down, was he really a "5 year old fighting the Incredible Hulk"? He was just a scared man.

Why is that so easy to accept, without any question, yet it is fine to dismiss the testimony (which the person I was responding to, did) of a witness who characterized Wilsons' demeanor with Brown as being less than respectful? A small scared white man, in fear of a large black man...reasonable. Why isn't it so reasonable that a large black man would feel threatened by a white cop, when, frankly, that rarely turns out with someone like him on the ">" side of the equaiton? So maybe that is how "hey fellas, you mind walking on the sidewalk?" turns into "get outta the !@#$ing street". Why does Wilsons' fear trump Browns' fear? Because one has a gun and a badge, the other doesn't?

Or maybe that is how a large black man turns into the Incredible Hulk, and a police officer turns into a shrieking violet. If you read Wilson's testimony, and visualize what he is saying, it sounds rediculous. Call that being cavalier if you want, but things just don't add up with his testimony. The fact that the prosecuter in this case had, seemingly, no intrerest in really doing his job, I think there is plenty of reason for people to be pissed off.

Edited November 27, 2014 by Buftex

Alaska Darin · November 27, 2014

And I am guessing then, since you seem to have formed an opnion, you feel that you have heard all the facts?

BTW- I am in no way condoning, or in favor of looting and burning that went on in Ferguson. I understand where it comes from...the point you chose to argue with me over was really just a point I was making to another poster about the testimony being exaggerated by a witness. I was just pointing out that the defendant was prone to exaggeration as well... you have to ask yourself why that is so valid in Wilsons' case...he felt threatened, and Brown was big. Even if you believe for a second Wilsons narrative of what went down, was he really a "5 year old fighting the Incredible Hulk"? He was just a scared man.

Why is that so easy to accept, without any question, yet it is fine to dismiss the testimony (which the person I was responding to, did) of a witness who characterized Wilsons' demeanor with Brown as being less than respectful? A small scared white man, in fear of a large black man...reasonable. Why isn't it so reasonable that a large black man would feel threatened by a white cop, when, frankly, that rarely turns out with someone like him on the ">" side of the equaiton? So maybe that is how "hey fellas, you mind walking on the sidewalk?" turns into "get outta the !@#$ing street". Why does Wilsons' fear trump Browns' fear? Because one has a gun and a badge, the other doesn't?

Or maybe that is how a large black man turns into the Incredible Hulk, and a police officer turns into a shrieking violet. If you read Wilson's testimony, and visualize what he is saying, it sounds rediculous.

Fact: Michael Brown had just committed an aggressive, strong armed robbery where he used his size to get what he wanted.

Fact: Wilson isn't small. He's 6'4" tall and 220 pounds.

Fact: Wilson was seated in a vehicle with limited range of motion which is a submissive position - unable to use his body's strongest muscle group with any effectiveness.

Fact: Brown was in the dominant and leveraged position, standing outside the vehicle with no limitation to his ability to move and the only limitation on his ability to project power was the size of the SUV's window.

If you're a wrestler or have been involved in any grappling sport of any kind, you'll understand that even a minor weight advantage in a dominant position is a huge advantage.

Fact: Brown is 25% heavier than Wilson, which significantly adds to the advantage he held in the dominant position.

Fact: There was one police officer and TWO subjects to be dealt with. One of which had just committed an aggressive strong-armed robbery, which the officer knew.

I don't care that Wilson was "disrespectful" to 2 idiots who don't have the sense not to walk down the middle of the !@#$ing street after committing a strong armed robbery. Poor them. Apparently in your world that's the rationale for the confrontation. Mean words "supposedly" spoken by a police officer versus the video of a strong armed robbery that had happened within the past hour. Yeah, that's logical. <_<

I won't even get into the debate that Dorian Johnson is a proven liar (his testimony more than shows that). Just about anything he says can be discounted - he's not the least bit credible.

Fact: the physical evidence doesn't at all support Dorian Johnson's (or any "Pro-Brown") version of the event. It does, however, support Officer Wilson's version of the event.

Fact: There were THREE autopsies performed. None of them support Dorian Johnson's ( or any "Pro-Brown") version of the event.

Have we heard "All the facts"? You know something no one else knows or are you holding out for the magic bullet because you desperately need it to fit the choices you've previously made? We've know pretty much what we're going to know and have to make a determination based on it. I'm sorry it didn't work out for you. You'll always have the "scared little man afraid of Hulk Hogan" thing and "It's reasonable to believe that Michael Brown was afraid of a cop who used mean language to get him out of the middle of the road so he engaged in a physical confrontation that didn't go well" to help make your politics seem less stupid.

By all means, keep trying. Concentrate on the "Hulk Hogan" comment as if it has any kind of merit. "If the gloves don't fit, you must acquit!" AMIRIGHT? <_<

Deranged Rhino · November 27, 2014

The Peace Train

boyst · November 27, 2014

The Peace Train

that's Thomas, but nice try.

He is blue. You're racist

B-Man · November 27, 2014

Fables from Ferguson :Events in Missouri were always too complicated for easy allegory.

by Jonah Goldberg

FTA:

As John McWhorter writes in Time magazine, “The key element in the Brown–Wilson encounter was not any specific action either man took — it was the preset hostility to the cops that Brown apparently harbored.” Officer Wilson made a legitimate request of Brown. Brown, in turn, saw no legitimacy in it and behaved recklessly.

In a community where cops are feared, resented, or reviled, it’s almost inevitable that bad things will happen when cops try to do their job, even if they do everything by the book. Moreover, to simply say that the resentment of the police is unwarranted does nothing to solve the problem. People forget that for a brief moment in August, the protests turned peaceful and law-abiding when Missouri Highway Patrol Captain Ron Johnson, an African-American from Ferguson with credibility in the neighborhood, was put in charge of policing the protests.

Eventually, thanks in large part to an influx of professional agitators, rabble-rousers, and opportunists — attracted to television cameras like ambulance chasers to a bus accident — the protests got out of hand again. But that moment was instructive.

Now, if you’ve been following the news lately — and by lately, I mean the last several years, or even decades — none of this is particularly shocking. Friction between police departments and minority communities has been part of the national conversation on race (that liberals insist hasn’t been going on) for as long as I can remember. The New York Times has been regularly covering that beat for at least half a century. It’s a major theme of movies and music. It’s a huge profit center for Al Sharpton, who doesn’t lack for influence or microphones.

But what’s left out of the narrative that drives so much of the national conversation are the other real experiences of other Americans. On MSNBC, particularly last August, the discussion of Michael Brown — much like Trayvon Martin before him — has been almost entirely abstract. Brown wasn’t a person who allegedly robbed a convenience store. He was a stand-in for racial injustice. That’s what was so powerful about Brown’s (probably mythological) “hands up” gesture.

The outrage that followed when the convenience store robbery video was released and details from the grand jury were leaked was at least in part fury at having the narrative muddied. No one likes to see fresh gospel fact-checked. No one wants to hear that their martyr was in fact no angel. And, in the case of Wilson, no one wants to see their demon humanized.

My point here isn’t to “blame the victim” — or even assign blame in this tragic nationalized game of Rashomon. It’s simply to note that there is a huge chasm between the way the talking heads and politicians talk about America and the way Americans actually live their lives. Most people aren’t lawyers or academic theorizers. The people we interact with on a daily basis aren’t abstractions, they’re normal human beings, which means they’re a mixed bag. In the nightly shouting match, for instance, we’re told immigration is all This or all That. But in our lives we see the good and the bad.

Sign In

Ferguson

Recommended Posts

B-Man

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Posted Images

Hapless Bills Fan

Buftex

Alaska Darin

Buftex

Alaska Darin

Deranged Rhino

boyst

B-Man

Deranged Rhino

Taro T

Deranged Rhino

boyst

Keukasmallies

meazza

Alaska Darin

4merper4mer

Maury Ballstein

B-Man

Deranged Rhino

Browse

Activity