Have you ever had a 292 lb man charging you? I assumed you have and you just stared him down said "sir please stop being aggressive towards me I am just doing my job" and you guys then proceeded to go out and have coffee together like civilized people. If so you are truly amazing and should be giving speeches at Universities for years to come on self control.
Modern Racism: Officer Wilson Walks
- Thread starter Magic Christmas Lights
- Start date
- Status
Have you ever had a 292 lb man charging you? I assumed you have and you just stared him down said "sir please stop being aggressive towards me I am just doing my job" and you guys then proceeded to go out and have coffee together like civilized people. If so you are truly amazing and should be giving speeches at Universities for years to come on self control.
- 3,509
- Posts
- 15
- Years
- Seen Nov 5, 2017
Right because the only options in that situation is A) murder B) unrealistic friendly scenario
I certainly wouldn't shoot him, because you know there's this thing called respect for life; not to mention the fact I wouldn't be carrying a firearm in the first place. What point are you trying to make?
what realistic option would you have taken?
- 3,509
- Posts
- 15
- Years
- Seen Nov 5, 2017
I would have run. I supposed you're going to say it was Darren's job to deal with the situation so he "couldn't have run". I have a funny feeling it doesn't matter what I say I would have done.
How many fights do you think occur every day, and how many of them do you think result in somebody dead? How many disputes with an unarmed man leave only option being a bullet to the head? Arguably, none. He wasn't armed, but that doesn't matter to some of you; you're trying to portray him as some sort of titanic super human that could kill a man with a single punch.
Yes, he could have ran and then another store clerk would get assaulted. That is actually an option and would have probably allowed Michael to live but does the next store clerk deserve the assault?
Now you will say assault is NOT death and of course it is not but innocent people should not be punished because someone refuses to follow the rules of society. Lets say he runs and gets back up, 1 of 3 things would happen. They never find him and he gets away with assault and theft, they find him and arrest him and he gets a month in jail for first offense assault and theft with good behavior or last and most likely he gets away with it and does it again to another old man in a convenience store.
Of course I guess assault is fine as long as no one dies. I mean it is not like the kid was innocent there is definitive video of him and the store clerk and as far as I am concerned going into someones place of business, threatening them and blatantly thieving from them is a crime that deserves harsh punishment. Death? No, definitly not but he waved that when he charged an officer.
If you want to be "realistic", lets be realistic and open minded. His best option was to call back up and tail them at a safe distance. This assures they DO NOT hit another store or assault another person before they get caught and yes i say "they" we forget that his buddy was right outside when he robbed that place. It also doesn't allow them to get away. But then again I wonder if they would throw stuff at the car or charge the car if he followed them. The sad thing is when someone knows a cop saw them they run and it can take weeks to track them down at times sometimes years or NEVER. More criminals get away then get caught that is a fact think of all the petty theft cases that never get caught...I mean go to a local store bathroom and you will see tons of packages open and stolen with the packages left on the floor. Sadly society is at this point whether you or any other person wants to admit it or not.
Anyways if we wanted to truly indict this man they should have focused on the obvious and given logical options he could have taken that insured Brown's and the communities safety until brown was caught but no one even discussed that they just made up lies and beat around the bush on BOTH sides of the court. Both sides had such insane and unbelievable testimony.
Keiran
[b]Rock Solid[/b]
- 2,455
- Posts
- 13
- Years
- Age 32
- New Jersey
- Seen May 25, 2023
People like to talk about Michael Browns size to demonize him, but conveniently gloss over the fact that Darren Wilson was also 6' 4"... with a gun. And the autopsy reports and eyewitness accounts corroborate with each other in that Mike Brown was on the ground with his hands up - never charging or attacking his murderer.
Corvus of the Black Night
Wild Duck Pokémon
- 3,416
- Posts
- 15
- Years
- Age 31
- With the Birds
- Seen Jan 9, 2015
You know, I think anyone would be pretty frightened if someone who was 289 lbs, regardless of height, would be frightened of that. Nyro puts it much better than I can.
Unless you were absolutely massive I highly doubt that you would have the rationality to make the correct decision. You simply cannot put yourself in that position; to assume so is a false idealism. We say so often to ourselves that "we would do things differently", but with that same knowledge and understanding do you actually know if you were going to make that correct decision?
Also, you should probably actually show the autopsy report instead of just making claims so that people can decide for themselves with the actual evidence whether or not he was actually moving or not.
Keiran, your lack of sources on such claims is a little frightening. You absolutely need to back up your sources, and no, dailymail and huffpost aren't sources, they're news outlets who have an obvious political leaning. Most of the news outlets reporting on the story do.
Anyways.
Shot #1 was at "the vertex of the scalp".
Shot #2 was on the central forehead. If Michael Brown was "on the ground with his hands up", this would not be possible unless he had his head up, especially with the prior injury. Also, the statement "on the ground with his hands up" doesn't really make sense unless he was kneeling. Please recall that witnesses are nowhere near as reliable as autopsy reports, as they can often mistaken information or even lie.
Based on the autopsy report, I would assume that Shot #2 occurred after Shot #1 with a minor difference in distance, due to the size of the abrasion marks, making me believe that Shot #2 was a shot that connected after the recoil. The shots must have been at least a few centimeters away from the point, although they were likely not long distance either (+15 meters). Again, I'm not a forensics expert so take it with a grain of salt.
It is however entirely possible that both of these shots could have occurred while the subject was running, first with a lowered head, and then rising his head upward out of recoil - this would also account for the distance between the shots. It is also possible that this injury could have been sustained while standing; again, recoil can explain the difference in distance between the shots, as well as the position of the shot. I'm not a forensics expert, so I believe that it's best for people to evaluate the evidence for themselves. However, I can conclude that logically his head was not at ground level when shot. Again, I do not know whether or not the man was shot while attacking or in a docile position. Therefore I cannot conclude innocence or guilt, and would rather leave that to an individual with a far more stable existence than what I have right now.
Overall, the situation is a tragedy, but perhaps what is even more tragic is that people are using this as an excuse to burn their city to the ground as opposed to actually criticizing the actual problem. Again, this rioting will do nothing but destroy people's lives, and it already has. Perhaps another tragedy oft forgotten here as well is the overemphasis on the idea of "race crime" - as if somehow a black man killed by a white cop makes it somehow worse than a white man killed by a white cop. I've always hated the idea of "race crime", because ultimately, a dead person is dead, and the reasons for that person's death, whether fueled in hatred for their race or simply anger, retaliation or vengeance, will not matter in the end. Ultimately, if you believe that "race crime" is right and just, then you end up shafting the murders of those who aren't victims of race crimes. Are their deaths somehow less important because of the motive of the killer? Are their deaths any less of a tragedy? Why are we putting so much emphasis on what the killer wanted when it's the victim who lost their life?
It's a crime. End of story.
Besides, if we're supposed to have an opinion on it (other than those situated in knee-jerk reactions on both sides), like the jurors did, we have to look at the same evidence, regardless of our level of expertise. Ultimately, what would help me produce a conclusion would be a forensic's expert's opinion on the velocity of the shot because that could ultimately determine whether or not the boy was charging. The approximates of this information could be provided by such an expert from those papers.
Logically, as stated in the post, the wounds could not have been inflicted while the head is on the ground, which some people are trying to claim. You don't need to be an autopsy expert to realize that being shot in the forehead is impossible in this position.
Unless you were absolutely massive I highly doubt that you would have the rationality to make the correct decision. You simply cannot put yourself in that position; to assume so is a false idealism. We say so often to ourselves that "we would do things differently", but with that same knowledge and understanding do you actually know if you were going to make that correct decision?
Also, you should probably actually show the autopsy report instead of just making claims so that people can decide for themselves with the actual evidence whether or not he was actually moving or not.
Keiran, your lack of sources on such claims is a little frightening. You absolutely need to back up your sources, and no, dailymail and huffpost aren't sources, they're news outlets who have an obvious political leaning. Most of the news outlets reporting on the story do.
Anyways.
Shot #1 was at "the vertex of the scalp".
Shot #2 was on the central forehead. If Michael Brown was "on the ground with his hands up", this would not be possible unless he had his head up, especially with the prior injury. Also, the statement "on the ground with his hands up" doesn't really make sense unless he was kneeling. Please recall that witnesses are nowhere near as reliable as autopsy reports, as they can often mistaken information or even lie.
Based on the autopsy report, I would assume that Shot #2 occurred after Shot #1 with a minor difference in distance, due to the size of the abrasion marks, making me believe that Shot #2 was a shot that connected after the recoil. The shots must have been at least a few centimeters away from the point, although they were likely not long distance either (+15 meters). Again, I'm not a forensics expert so take it with a grain of salt.
It is however entirely possible that both of these shots could have occurred while the subject was running, first with a lowered head, and then rising his head upward out of recoil - this would also account for the distance between the shots. It is also possible that this injury could have been sustained while standing; again, recoil can explain the difference in distance between the shots, as well as the position of the shot. I'm not a forensics expert, so I believe that it's best for people to evaluate the evidence for themselves. However, I can conclude that logically his head was not at ground level when shot. Again, I do not know whether or not the man was shot while attacking or in a docile position. Therefore I cannot conclude innocence or guilt, and would rather leave that to an individual with a far more stable existence than what I have right now.
Overall, the situation is a tragedy, but perhaps what is even more tragic is that people are using this as an excuse to burn their city to the ground as opposed to actually criticizing the actual problem. Again, this rioting will do nothing but destroy people's lives, and it already has. Perhaps another tragedy oft forgotten here as well is the overemphasis on the idea of "race crime" - as if somehow a black man killed by a white cop makes it somehow worse than a white man killed by a white cop. I've always hated the idea of "race crime", because ultimately, a dead person is dead, and the reasons for that person's death, whether fueled in hatred for their race or simply anger, retaliation or vengeance, will not matter in the end. Ultimately, if you believe that "race crime" is right and just, then you end up shafting the murders of those who aren't victims of race crimes. Are their deaths somehow less important because of the motive of the killer? Are their deaths any less of a tragedy? Why are we putting so much emphasis on what the killer wanted when it's the victim who lost their life?
It's a crime. End of story.
Because everyone else thinks that they can be one without even looking at the autopsy papers.
Besides, if we're supposed to have an opinion on it (other than those situated in knee-jerk reactions on both sides), like the jurors did, we have to look at the same evidence, regardless of our level of expertise. Ultimately, what would help me produce a conclusion would be a forensic's expert's opinion on the velocity of the shot because that could ultimately determine whether or not the boy was charging. The approximates of this information could be provided by such an expert from those papers.
Logically, as stated in the post, the wounds could not have been inflicted while the head is on the ground, which some people are trying to claim. You don't need to be an autopsy expert to realize that being shot in the forehead is impossible in this position.
Last edited:
This might be nit picky but weight is a lot more important than height. 290/210 is 38% more weight. I'm 160, and 38% more weight would be 220. I shudder at the thought of having to face someone that heavy in jiu jitsu.
I get heavier people on top of me all the time and it's scary because I know the longer the fight takes the more I'm at a disadvantage. That's why I try to go for a submission because the fact that I am lighter means that I cannot outlast a larger person. In my experience 20 pounds makes a big difference in a physical confrontation.
So why make a lengthy post trying to be one?...
Tbh I think the real factor in this 'shoot or flee' dilemma is the taser - which the policeman forewent carrying. Saying that, we could do this all day and it wouldn't change facts or give us a clearer incite into what has happened.
There are far too many opinions and not enough concrete facts. At this stage we'll probably never have a definite answer, short of time-travel.
RIP Michael Brown, may such incidents (no matter the cause) be avoided in the future.
- 15,974
- Posts
- 10
- Years
- Age 31
- she/her, they/them
- Seen today
Apparently Darren Wilson resigned last night:
https://www.aol.com/article/2014/11...d=maing-grid7|main5|dl1|sec1_lnk2&pLid=572732
https://www.aol.com/article/2014/11...d=maing-grid7|main5|dl1|sec1_lnk2&pLid=572732
Oryx
CoquettishCat
- 13,184
- Posts
- 13
- Years
- Age 31
- Seen Jan 30, 2015
It really sounds like you're arguing that killing him for robbing someone is the ideal option here.
Corvus of the Black Night
Wild Duck Pokémon
- 3,416
- Posts
- 15
- Years
- Age 31
- With the Birds
- Seen Jan 9, 2015
Where are you drawing that conclusion? Nyro does not suggest that at all.
Let's dismantle what Nyro actually said.
This I think we can all agree on. Since Brown did rob a store, it is very likely that simply fleeing the scene as a cop is not the ideal solution, regardless of whether or not you're good cop or bad cop. Nyro is right - if you are someone who legally can apprehend this individual and you flee, you open other people to more harm - which is the exact opposite of what a good cop should be doing. And Nyro's conclusion is right - by running or backing down, you put other people in danger. Your responsibility as an officer is to protect the public.
This is Nyro's analysis of possibilities if Wilson fled the supposed attack instead of engaging him. He leaves us the following possibilities:
- He gets away with assault and theft. but doesn't commit another crime (as suggested by the qualifier on his final statement).
- He is located later and serves some time or punishment.
- He is never caught, but unlike the first option, he commits the crime again. Considering he is a repeat offender, this is most likely.
The reason why it is a terrible idea to flee from a charging suspect is because if you do, you put people who are likely not armed and unable to deal with that suspect in complete danger. It would be like if I decided to shoot up a building, then charged at an officer with a machete or something - what makes you think that if I was doing that, that I wouldn't do it to someone else, especially someone unarmed? And even if he doesn't hurt another individual, he still gets away scott-free from a crime, which encourages him to try again.
Also, talk about cherry picking. Nyro said the following right after that statement.
It's very clear that Nyro thinks that the best possible option was to call for back up, but it's possible since the situation was tense that such a knee-jerk reaction is completely plausible - it is also plausible that Wilson perceived that he didn't have time to call for back up at that exact moment. This is all assuming that Michael Brown charged at the officer. In no way does he even suggest that death was the best option, he says that death is not a completely unreasonable and hate filled option and that it is possible that it was an act in self defense - and if he was charging, I would agree with that statement.
If you're going to criticize someone's opinion, it is imperative that you actually criticize their opinion.
- 15,974
- Posts
- 10
- Years
- Age 31
- she/her, they/them
- Seen today
So something I was wondering: who here actually read the entirety of the grand jury report? Because I'm looking at it right now and that thing is absurdly long.....the autopsy report is a much easier read.
Oryx
CoquettishCat
- 13,184
- Posts
- 13
- Years
- Age 31
- Seen Jan 30, 2015
I'm not going to respond to an entire worked-up post that doesn't really address my point, so I'm going to only respond to the point that does and suggest you calm yourself down a bit before you respond - when people get worked up they start writing pages and pages of posts and then people stop responding to them because who's going to fight with someone that will lecture you for a one-sentence post and then they think they've won through yelling other people down. When you're calm, you can cut your posts down to reasonable lengths and not repeat yourself and people respond to you as a reasonable debater.
The reality is that we're reading his posts differently: I read his third point as "he gets away with it" as in he does not get found guilty or is not caught at all, not simple a variation on point 1 as you seem to have read it. If he ignores the option that he's caught but there isn't enough evidence or the evidence isn't damning enough (e.g. video not clear enough, etc), then he's not listing all the options, thus I'm believing his assertion that he's listing all 3 things that could happen. In addition, a month is not a long time and to me the only reason why it would be pointed out that he would get a month in jail from a poster that has shown himself to be very against Michael Brown is to imply that it's not a big deal. He also claimed that assault on an officer is a crime deserving of death, so...there's that.
Corvus of the Black Night
Wild Duck Pokémon
- 3,416
- Posts
- 15
- Years
- Age 31
- With the Birds
- Seen Jan 9, 2015
I don't want to come off as rude, but how in any way was I being "worked-up"? [post in question for easy access]
I'm not really sure how a post is "worked up" when it points out your ignorance to other people's posts. You completely ignored half of Nyro's post and claimed something that was completely incorrect. Anyone has any right to point out your fallacy.
I dismantled the post in a polite manner because of the fact that it was blatantly incorrect. Your point was claiming that Nyro believed that death was the best option. I highlighted that this was not correct. How is this not addressing your point? It's clear that Nyro (as well as myself) agree that an attack is not the best option, although an understandable option, so why even make such a statement?
Please locate exactly where in the post I was being rude in any way, because I will kindly correct it. However, I feel that this seems to be in your own perception to the fact that perhaps your criticisms were uncalled for, and rely on a false representation of Nyro's beliefs. I have little emotional investment in this issue because local and personal events hold far higher priority in my life currently, and therefore I have no need to really get upset over this issue. It's also why I don't have much of an opinion on it, outside of it being a tragedy. However, perhaps more galling is the incredible intellectual dishonesty on both sides here. Your inability to acknowledge a respectful rebuttal to your claim is just among the many in this thread.
To be frank, your inability to call out my perfectly legitimate accusations of strawmanning his opinion kind of comes off like back-pedalling.
It's perfectly okay to disagree with your opponent, but please have the common courtesy to represent their opinion as accurately as possible.
No, this doesn't fly with me, at all. You ignored half of Nyro's post. You only quoted half of it. If you read the portion that I quoted directly underneath it you would realize that such an accusation is woefully incorrect. It is clear that Nyro believes the following:
- That running up and attacking an officer is something that is likely to cause your death.
- That Wilson's options were limited.
- That, if he was being attacked, Wilson's actions were not unjust and were a method of self defense.
- That other options were available but due to the circumstances, self defense was the quicker resolution to resolve a dangerous situation.
I'm sorry, but I'm not going to let you just claim that you were 100% innocent when your tactics are clearly manipulative. If you want to criticize someone else, it is imperative that you are at least honest about the representation of their opinion. Otherwise, you are strawmanning your opponent. If anything, your reliance on oversimplifying Nyro's opinion for the sake of your opinion, your refusal to apologize for such an obvious mistake, as well as refusing to acknowledge a rebuttal with valid criticisms of your claim against Nyro shows that you are not interested in honest debate tactics.
That's his own opinion. It does not imply that this was the best possible option. It has been suggested by many that charging an officer "deserves" death because of the relative foolishness of such an action. I don't necessarily agree with it but I would agree that charging a police officer is an incredibly stupid thing to do.
The concept of "deserving" isn't really a healthy one to throw in judicial debate, anyways. It leads to loaded questions, such as "well did he deserve to die?" and has nothing of value outside of emotional pleading. Of course nobody deserves to die. But sometimes, doing certain things makes you far more likely to die. The same could be said of someone who rushes across the train tracks while a train is approaching, or lights a match in a heavy gas leak.
Last edited:
I ignored the option of there not being enough evidence because there WAS enough evidence. WHICH set of crimes we have evidence for is the issue.
Was he guilty of Theft+Assault+Fleeing the police? This is the situation if the witnesses in Brown's favor told the truth. Lets analyze the facts IF this situation was the case:
*He was caught on video stealing from a convenience store. (THEFT)
* He ran from the store with the product and a buddy after being confronted (Fleeing the scene of a crime)
*He choked and pushed the store clerk ( assault )
* He was fleeing from the officer (Fleeing from the police)
(The last thing was proven wrong in the autopsy reports because the same witnesses that said he ran were confronted as to the trajectory of the bullets coming from the front when THEY said he was shot from behind. The the SAME witnesses stumbled and said "well his hands were up". The problem is when you lie once to a court a lawyer is going to point out you not being a credible witness)
THIS first set is the most POSITIVE situation that Brown could have possibly been charged with if he was captured instead and given the violent nature of the crimes and obvious attempts to run in this situation he would have probably got 5 years but being as the store clerk stated how terrified he was they may aim higher who knows.
Now lets look at the other POSSIBLE situation had he survived the encounter with Wilson and Wilson's story was still found to be true by the jury:
* Caught on video stealing from the store (Theft)
* Caught on Video choking and pushing the store clerk (assault)
* Caught leaving the store after committing the crime and being confronted ( fleeing from the scene of a crime)
* He assaulted Officer Wilson by punching him in the face (assaulting a police Officer)
* Refused to stop after a police officer told him to when he was charging ( failure to comply )
If these were right it would be at least 10 years but since the officer had to shoot it may be even more sadly.
The thing is you people forget the guy DID commit a crime, NO ONE can deny that he was caught on video. So no matter what he was NOT an innocent child. Not only did he commit a crime but but even if you do not agree he attacked the cop he still did assault the store clerk that is a FACT and on video THEREFOR he committed a VIOLENT crime. An innocent child does not commit a VIOLENT crime.
I do not understand why we can't just say this was a "misguided young man with no real role models ".
Oryx
CoquettishCat
- 13,184
- Posts
- 13
- Years
- Age 31
- Seen Jan 30, 2015
You're strawmanning. Please tell me where I said he was innocent of the crime - if you watch the video at the store, it's actually very grainy, which is what I pointed out. Proving something without a reasonable doubt is more difficult than you seem to think it is. Also, if you watch the video at the store, you see him reaching across the counter and that's it as far as assault goes. He never got a trial for that case so we'll never see all the evidence that could have come out and the arguments against that evidence. If you're against the court of public opinion for Darren Wilson, then you should be against the court of public opinion for Michael Brown. Declaring Brown guilty of robbery when he never stood trial while decrying the public declaring Wilson guilty of murder is pure hypocrisy.
I understand what you were trying to say now in your initial post though. I still don't necessarily agree with your overall points but knowing you left out that possibility entirely clears up your initial meaning which makes me retract my original post.
Ok, now I can't take you seriously. Come on "The store video is grainy" that creates reasonable doubt. I sit in courtrooms weekly and I HAVE NEVER seen that argument EVER. First off ALL surveillance systems are grainy for any business that IS NOT a multi million dollar corporation. These mom and pop shops are working on probably 20 year old technology. Also your comment shows you DID NOT watch the full videos because the store clerk obviously was "in front" of the counter and he pushed him into the rack and then proceeding to intimidate him backwards like a freaking bully.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkOfqIXkBRE
- 2,138
- Posts
- 11
- Years
- The States
- Seen Nov 6, 2016
The big issue with this case is the media misinformation and misdirection.
The media has racialized the case in respect to the white officer and black citizen.
Many people have made up their minds about the case with no or little regard to the evidence or legal provisions provided on either side.
When the media "informs", there is always an agenda, whether political or commercial.
Why was this case chosen? If it was indeed to open a productive dialogue about racism in America, did it succeed in doing so? Who is benefited from this coverage of the case, along with the manner it was covered? No one.
Race should not be ignored in this case, but for a different reason than one might suspect. Race should be addressed not in this particular case on the initial crime. Young poor black men are not inherently criminal, there is often a blaming of either "white" police force or the black men who engage in crimes. But why was the theft/assault/battery committed?
Is this idea of assigning blame to individuals in respect to a larger racial schema dangerous, as actors are held responsible for actions which are caused by structural deficiencies? While yes, we should hold those responsible, as a means of deterrence, does discussing this actually help with addressing the structural deficiencies? If not, why are we talking about his case and ignoring the root issues?
The issue with this case is that it addresses individual behaviors and specific circumstance, and as evident in the thread, we are not discussion modern racism or the issues I have presented in previous posts. If anything, these specific and racialized cases cause more harm to society, and distance us from discussing the actual causes of racial tension. No one cares why Brown decided to rob from and assault a store owner rather there is only concern over the aftermath, if we truly want to reduce these incidences from occurring in the future the first priority is to reduce crime rates among black men as well as aggression toward police officers (seeded in mistrust). During the upsurge of policing black neighborhoods from the 80's onward, we have had little success, that is why I propose other methods of addressing the issue through reciprocal assimilation.
Further, the identity of black men as criminals extends to welfare systems in which all things being equal blacks are distributed more penalties than whites. (read Joe Soss's "Disciplining the Poor") White bureaucrats subconsciously perceive blacks as less "reformable" under the system of neoliberal paternalism. Identity of blackness and defectiveness, become entangled over time. This only increases the perceived identity blacks ascribe to themselves, assuming the identity of a criminal/defective citizen.
Blacks are policed more severely, and there are greater proportions of black men being the receiving end of police brutality, though many white men do as well. The disparity in the proportion of brutality though is derived from identifying blacks as more defective as a precondition.
Riots paired with the misinformation, makes this case and it's media coverage more dangerous to racial tensions. Riots further the identity of blacks as defective or criminal, especially when the case being used as a mobilizer doesn't support their cause, and information is either unknown or false. Also, there is a "cry-wolf" effect, in that, though there is true racial bias in policing and laws, a concern of one single case, which likely doesn't have those elements makes the concern seem illegitimate. And thus, another block between achieving racial unity.
As heartless as it seems, I don't care that much, about either party involved in this case. I care about the effects this case and the media coverage of this case has on future cases and growing racial tension/divide being propagated among an entire society (even if unintentionally).
The discussion on here emulates the effects this case and its media portrayal (Fox, CNN, MSNBC or otherwise) have on the US constituency in regards to divisiveness and claims of absolutism about the case, and the unfounded generalizations about those claims. The actual structural issues related to race that cause this divide are ignored and dialogue is lost.
The media has racialized the case in respect to the white officer and black citizen.
Many people have made up their minds about the case with no or little regard to the evidence or legal provisions provided on either side.
When the media "informs", there is always an agenda, whether political or commercial.
Why was this case chosen? If it was indeed to open a productive dialogue about racism in America, did it succeed in doing so? Who is benefited from this coverage of the case, along with the manner it was covered? No one.
Race should not be ignored in this case, but for a different reason than one might suspect. Race should be addressed not in this particular case on the initial crime. Young poor black men are not inherently criminal, there is often a blaming of either "white" police force or the black men who engage in crimes. But why was the theft/assault/battery committed?
Is this idea of assigning blame to individuals in respect to a larger racial schema dangerous, as actors are held responsible for actions which are caused by structural deficiencies? While yes, we should hold those responsible, as a means of deterrence, does discussing this actually help with addressing the structural deficiencies? If not, why are we talking about his case and ignoring the root issues?
The issue with this case is that it addresses individual behaviors and specific circumstance, and as evident in the thread, we are not discussion modern racism or the issues I have presented in previous posts. If anything, these specific and racialized cases cause more harm to society, and distance us from discussing the actual causes of racial tension. No one cares why Brown decided to rob from and assault a store owner rather there is only concern over the aftermath, if we truly want to reduce these incidences from occurring in the future the first priority is to reduce crime rates among black men as well as aggression toward police officers (seeded in mistrust). During the upsurge of policing black neighborhoods from the 80's onward, we have had little success, that is why I propose other methods of addressing the issue through reciprocal assimilation.
Further, the identity of black men as criminals extends to welfare systems in which all things being equal blacks are distributed more penalties than whites. (read Joe Soss's "Disciplining the Poor") White bureaucrats subconsciously perceive blacks as less "reformable" under the system of neoliberal paternalism. Identity of blackness and defectiveness, become entangled over time. This only increases the perceived identity blacks ascribe to themselves, assuming the identity of a criminal/defective citizen.
Blacks are policed more severely, and there are greater proportions of black men being the receiving end of police brutality, though many white men do as well. The disparity in the proportion of brutality though is derived from identifying blacks as more defective as a precondition.
Riots paired with the misinformation, makes this case and it's media coverage more dangerous to racial tensions. Riots further the identity of blacks as defective or criminal, especially when the case being used as a mobilizer doesn't support their cause, and information is either unknown or false. Also, there is a "cry-wolf" effect, in that, though there is true racial bias in policing and laws, a concern of one single case, which likely doesn't have those elements makes the concern seem illegitimate. And thus, another block between achieving racial unity.
As heartless as it seems, I don't care that much, about either party involved in this case. I care about the effects this case and the media coverage of this case has on future cases and growing racial tension/divide being propagated among an entire society (even if unintentionally).
The discussion on here emulates the effects this case and its media portrayal (Fox, CNN, MSNBC or otherwise) have on the US constituency in regards to divisiveness and claims of absolutism about the case, and the unfounded generalizations about those claims. The actual structural issues related to race that cause this divide are ignored and dialogue is lost.
He didn't make that claim though.
- Status