The Latest Potentially-Explosive Racially-Charged Murder

[Zarathustra]

In a summer marked by instability in the Middle East and Eastern Europe, I know the world also took notice of the small American city of Ferguson, Missouri."

Took notice for what reason? A made up one.

Exactly. Holder and Obama contributed to the impression that Wilson was guilty, and supported the would-be cop killer thug. And they supported the idea that Brown's killing was racially motivated, giving justification for the mob's anger. This is one of the most irresponsible things I've ever seen a President do. Now that two investigations have exonerated Wilson, the President needs to apologize for his actions in supporting a thug, stoking a mob, and convicting an innocent man in the court of public opinion. They've destroyed Wilson's life, and he did nothing wrong. He risked his life to do his job, and almost lost it. Perhaps the New York protests would not have gone as far (including the deaths of two cops) if the country didnt' feel justified in their anger ... based on a lie. The First Black PresidentTM has set race relations back decades. His admin has acted (in his words in yet another race blunder) "stupidly."

They owe Wilson a public apology. They owe Ferguson a public apology. They owe the country a public apology. They need to come out and say it was wrong to assume racial motivation.

[SoulBiter]

Death isn't the "penalty" for noncompliance, it's the consequence. A penalty is punishment. A consequence is the effect of a cause. The man caused his own death. That's different from saying he deserved it. Like Michael Brown, he thought he could ignore the fact that an officer had a gun pulled on him and was yelling at him not to move. In a situation like that, the officer is perfectly justified in assuming that the perp has ill intent, and means him bodily harm. After all, this same guy was in prison for 13 years for shooting a cop. The arresting officer in that case is the same one who shot him his time. Maybe he recognized him and knew what he was capable of, and therefore his assumption of deadly intent (in disobeying a cop with a pulled gun) was even more accurate.

We don't yet have all the facts. But if he didn't have a gun, how deadly was he, with two officers armed, with their guns out, and a third officer is seen on the camera just as the shooting happens? Also more police show up less than 30 seconds later.

The other thing the officer failed to do was to give warning "If you step out of that car I will shoot you".

Black parents who are not teaching respect for authority--particularly law enforcement's authority--are setting their children up for 'suicide by cop.'

I agree that people need to teach their children respect for authority. Not just black parents. ALL parents.

I tried to find it, but there is commercial out, where a kid is by a pool, looks at the lifeguard, then has this day dream about cannonballing and then the swat team shows up, they throw the book at him.. etc etc, he then comes out of the day dream and cannonballs into the pool as the lifeguard jumps up.... the commercial then goes to him standing in front of his mom at the car and she says "Did it again didnt you? he nods smiling and she smiles, runs a hand across his hair and they get in the car.

So what does that teach kids? That its OK and even fun and a proud moment to disregard authority.

[SerScot]

Cybr,

My problem with Ferguson is less the original shooting and more the incredible over reaction by police (including arresting reporters for sitting in McDonalds).

Here's the article:

www.washingtonpost.com/politics/in-ferg ... story.html

From the article:

An officer with a large weapon came up to me and said, “Stop recording.”

I said, “Officer, do I not have the right to record you?”

He backed off but told me to hurry up. So I gathered my notebook and pens with one hand while recording him with the other hand.

As I exited, I saw Ryan to my left, having a similar argument with two officers. I recorded him, too, and that angered the officer. As I made my way toward the door, the officers gave me conflicting information.

One instructed me to exit to my left. As I turned left, another officer emerged, blocking my path.

“Go another way,” he said.

As I turned, my backpack, which was slung over one shoulder, began to slip. I said, “Officers, let me just gather my bag.” As I did, one of them said, “Okay, let’s take him.”

Multiple officers grabbed me. I tried to turn my back to them to assist them in arresting me. I dropped the things from my hands.

“My hands are behind my back,” I said. “I’m not resisting. I’m not resisting.” At which point one officer said: “You’re resisting. Stop resisting.”

That was when I was most afraid — more afraid than of the tear gas and rubber bullets.

As they took me into custody, the officers slammed me into a soda machine, at one point setting off the Coke dispenser. They put plastic cuffs on me, then they led me out the door.

How the hell can these arrests be justified? Further I can't find anything regarding what happened, if anything, to the officers who arrested the two reporters.

[SerScot]

Soulbiter,

The other thing the officer failed to do was to give warning "If you step out of that car I will shoot you".

No, the officer said "If you move I'll shoot you... If you move you're gonna be dead."

Stepping out of the car is pretty clearly "movement".

[Cybrweez]

Z, don't worry, that apology will be coming very soon...

SS, those may be legit concerns, but I haven't heard about them in all the months of Ferguson coverage. That's not Obama's nor Holder's issue, nor any protester. It was a non-issue. Ferguson became nationally known b/c people who are influential made up a narrative.

Made it up. Meaning, created an impression, a story, w/o evidence. That's what making stuff up is. It's good to know when our President and DoJ are in that habit. That's real hope and change there.

[SerScot]

Here's more about the tactics used by police during the Ferguson protests with regard to reporters:

www.theroot.com/blogs/journalisms/2014/ ... _slow.html

From the article:

"Osterreicher met with two-dozen photojournalists, including NPPA member Pearl Gabel, a New York Daily News photographer. In an account for her newspaper, Gabel described how around 1 a.m. on August 16, a police officer pointed a rifle in her face, shouted for her to get on the ground, and told her she was under arrest for curfew violation.


"After the officer handcuffed her, 'He took my equipment and my cell phone as tear gas swirled around me, rain poured down, and two other people were similarly detained,' wrote Gabel. A short time later, he returned her belongings and let her go.


"Osterreicher describes this technique as 'catch and release.'


" 'The police don't care about making charges that stick. They just want to stop the journalists from doing the job, which creates a chilling effect,' says the lawyer who has conducted training in First Amendment rights for police departments throughout the country.


"Some police policies appeared out of thin air. The ACLU sought an emergency order from a judge to stop police from arresting protesters who stood in place for more than five seconds. The judge refused.


"The 'keep moving mandate' remained in place, 'criminalizing constitutionally protected activity and placing a dangerous barrier on the ability of the media to bring us stories from this city under siege,' the ACLU said in a press release. . . ."

...


"That same day, Canadian television journalist Tom Walters was arrested for asking a question of Capt. Ron Johnson, the Missouri Highway patrolman who had become the face of law enforcement in Ferguson. The exchange took place when police ordered media to leave an area while protesters still were on the scene. A cameraman caught it on video.


Walters asks, 'What's the reason for ordering the media out?'


Johnson responds, 'Arrest him, arrest him.' 'I just asked a question!' says Walters as police approach.


"Johnson can be heard to say, 'Take him.'


"Police held Walters until the next morning when they released him without charges. . . ."

These seem to be clearly targeting reporters to try to chill the reporters efforts to report on what's going on. I can't believe more people aren't talking about this.

[Zarathustra]

We don't yet have all the facts. But if he didn't have a gun, how deadly was he, with two officers armed, with their guns out, and a third officer is seen on the camera just as the shooting happens? Also more police show up less than 30 seconds later.

The thing cops worry about more than anything else--besides a perp having a gun--is a perp taking the gun from the officer and killing him with his own gun (which is what Brown tried to do, remember). How deadly was he? Deadly is deadly. I didn't realize there's a scale.

I agree that people need to teach their children respect for authority. Not just black parents. ALL parents.

This thread is called "racially charged murders," not random murders. Sure, we all need to teach our children to respect authority, but the ones who are teaching it the least seem to be black parents (you know, the ones who abandon their children at higher rates than any other group). Black people need this advice more than any other, because they're committing crimes at higher rates than any other, which shows they respect law/authority less than any other.

[SoulBiter]

Soulbiter,

The other thing the officer failed to do was to give warning "If you step out of that car I will shoot you".

No, the officer said "If you move I'll shoot you... If you move you're gonna be dead."

Stepping out of the car is pretty clearly "movement".

I just rewatched. He was told, if you reach for something you are dead.

"Dont move, dont you move". "If you reach for something you are dead, I will shoot you. You will be f'ing dead. Hey Jerome, if you reach for something you are fing dead, he is reachin, he is reaching.

The guy says, "Bro, I aint got no reason to be reaching"

"Show me your f'ing hands. keep your 'fing' hands right there."

The guy clearly says: "Im going to get out and get on the ground"

The cop says, "No you're not no you're not", "dont you move, dont you F'ing move" and is backing up the entire time he is saying that

The guy gets out, hands are being raised flat out and immediately 6 shots ring out.

[SerScot]

Soulbiter,

"No you're not no you're not", "dont you move, dont you F'ing move"

Isn't that a clear instruction to stay put, to not get out of the car?

I'm still not saying the shooting is justified but the guy did exactly what he was told not to do.

[SoulBiter]

I can get on either side of this with equal conviction. Its easy for me to sit here after watching a video (hindsight) and say what should or should not have happened. It seems the guy was unarmed.

But I also realize that in real time, its not that easy.. I saw a video recently where a cop got shot and killed because he was didn't realize the guy was taking a gun out until too late.

So in this situation there are many things that play into the cops decision to shoot

Its NJ where guns are illegal so a felony has been committed.
He recognizes the guy (obviously he knows him and his history)
Its dark outside and dark in the car. It would be real easy to miss something.
Tensions are incredibly high. Adrenaline is flowing.
The issue escalates very quickly.
The officer has little time to react as the guy is stepping out of the car.

Hypothetically, if the guy stepped out and was bringing his hand up to shoot, the motion of lifting your hands is very similar. If the cop doesn't fire immediately in that situation, he dies. So the cop reacts in a 'worse case scenario" and shoots immediately.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

I can understand the situation from the police point of view. They deal with criminals on a daily basis, some of whom don't mind the street cred they will get for taking down a cop if they can, so from that point of view they are correct for shooting first and asking questions later.

On the other hand, and this consideration is far more important than the first one, is that officers are making life-and-death judgement calls without all the facts--they are violating both the letter and the spirit of the entire justice system they are sworn to uphold and protect. At that point they are no longer law enforcement professionals but vigilantes. Messages like this are not aimed at the current victim, especially since he is dead, but are instead aimed at the rest of us and that message is this: you had damned sure better do what we say when we say it regardless of its constitutionality or irrationality because if you don't we'll just gun you down where you stand. Is that the sort of law enforcement we want? Is that the sort of country we want?

Thugs are bad. Thugs with badges are worse.

[Vraith]

Thugs are bad. Thugs with badges are worse.

That's so, I think almost everyone agrees with that.
[[though we don't all agree on if, and how often, and to whom the badged ones are being thuggish]]
But there is a methodological/psychological problem with the whole thing that hardly ever gets commented on:
Pointing guns and screaming/shouting orders...especially from more than one person/direction...is absolutely guaranteed to produce a certain amount of chaos and confusion. The exact opposite of the "obedience" the cops want.
The guy's actions are not uncommon...and often not "disobedience."
A more common one is cover/cower, and cops count on that [though sometimes that also can get you shot for 'disobeying' cuz it might be "going for a gun."].

You know that common "new recruit" scene in lots of military films...where the drill sarges comes into the place in the middle of the night shouting orders all over the place, and all the trainees leap out of bed, and pretty much every one of them does some totally wrong thing? That's kinda real. Basic training spends a fair amount of time teaching you NOT to do the natural, but wrong and dangerous, things.

I'd bet almost everyone has seen a kid in their care heading into a hazard, shouted out at them---and watched them do exactly the wrong thing.
Peeps don't outgrow that as much as might be assumed.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

New development in the Tamir Rice case out of Cleveland (he was the 12-year-old shot by police mere seconds after arriving at the scene where he had been playing with a toy gun; someone had called 911 freaking out about it): the City of Cleveland is basically saying "it was Tamir's fault he got killed". You may browse the actual text of the city's answer they filed in court, making certain to skip down to page 38 to see it for yourself.

213. Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint fails to state a claim upon which may be granted against this Defendant.
214. Some or all of the Plaintiffs lack standing to bring this cause of action.
215. Plaintiffs’ decedent’s injuries, losses, and damages complained of, were directly and proximately caused by the failure of Plaintiffs’
decedent to exercise due care to avoid injury.
216. Plaintiffs’ decedent’s injuries, losses, and damages complained of, were directly and proximately caused by the acts of Plaintiffs’
decedent, not this Defendant.
217. Plaintiffs’ injuries, losses, and damages complained of, were directly and proximately caused by the ir own acts, not this Defendant.
218. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the legal doctrines of comparative and contributory negligence.
219. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the legal do ctrine of assumption of risk.
220. The intervening acts, including negligence, of persons other than this Defendant directly and proximately caused Plaintiffs’
decedent’s injuries, losses, and damages.

Going back to the story itself.

Walter Madison, one of the Rice family lawyers, called the city's defense “unbelievable.”

“What they said is incredulous at best," Madison told The Washington Post on Monday. "There are a number of things that we in society don't allow 12-year-olds to do. We don't allow them to vote, we don’t allow them to drink. In court we don't try them as adults. They don't have the capacity to understand the consequences of their actions."

Cleveland Mayor Frank Jackson apologized to the Rice family and the city at a news conference on Monday afternoon, when he said that "in an attempt to protect all of our defenses, we used words and we phrased things in such a way that was very insensitive."

Jackson also said that the city's law department would be filing an amended response to the Rice family's lawsuit that "will deal with the insensitivity of the language," but also "preserve the [city's] defense."

Cleveland police said that Garmback and Loehmann were responding to a 911 call about an individual who possibly was carrying a gun at a city playground. They said Tamir did not respond to commands from the officers, as they approached in their police cruiser, to show them his hands before Loehmann opened fire.

Surveillance footage released by police showed Tamir, who had been holding an airsoft gun that shoots nonlethal plastic pellets, being shot less than two seconds after the officers' car stopped near him.

In December, the Department of Justice completed a civil rights investigation into the practices of the Cleveland Police Department, unrelated to Tamir’s case. The DoJ probe concluded that the Cleveland Police Department "engages in a pattern or practice of the use of excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution."

"We have determined that structural and systemic deficiencies and practices — including insufficient accountability, inadequate training, ineffective policies, and inadequate engagement with the community — contribute to the use of unreasonable force," the DoJ report (PDF) said.

In other words, the city is claiming that because Tamir did not comply within a few seconds of officers arriving on the scene that he caused his own death. He wouldn't have had to time to process the information that a) police have shown up at his location with lights flashing, b) they are shouting at someone to put the gun down, and c) that they are there shouting at him all in the space of a few seconds.

The DoJ investigation the story mentions might not be directly related to the Tamir Rice case but the two are definitely linked because they have the same source: an out-of-control police department that shoots first and asks questions later.

[Zarathustra]

So now even the DOJ's own investigation has found that Brown didn't have his hands up, that Wilson's story was credible, that Brown was approaching Wilson while he ordered him to stop--after attacking him once already--and that the witnesses who claimed Brown had his hands up weren't credible and contradicted the physical evidence. [Edit: the report also shows that the lying witnesses intimidated those who were telling the truth, trying to silence them.]

So ... the Attorney General and the President sided with a would-be cop killer thug, ruined the reputation and career of an innocence cop, and even their own investigation shows they chose the wrong side. I think they share direct responsibility for whipping up the mob in Ferguson, not to mention ruining Wilson's life. They sure as hell did NOTHING to stop it or calm the situation down. They implied that getting "justice" meant finding Wilson guilty.

Despicable. This is the most racially motivated administration we've ever seen. It cares nothing for justice.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Two police officers shot at a protest outside Ferguson police headquarters. There is no information available about the shooter(s) at this time.

No one died but this isn't going to improve the situation at all, especially given that the recent DoJ reports concludes that the Ferguson PD does indeed have a history of racial profiling in its arrest patterns.

[Zarathustra]

...the recent DoJ reports concludes that the Ferguson PD does indeed have a history of racial profiling in its arrest patterns.

That may be what the report concludes, but that's not what it proves. If a higher percentage of crime is being committed in the black community, it's going to see more arrest. The report also mention traffic tickets as if this is proof of racism. But if the officers are being called to that area more often (responding to the crime), then being in that area means that's where they're going to write the most tickets.

Did the Ferguson police break some law? Is it illegal to write a certain percentage of tickets for certain races? Assuming that it's not (no one is being charged with a crime here), I wonder why it's not illegal? Could it possibly be because there's no way to prove racism from such a percentage, and there could be legitimate reasons to explain those numbers? Can anyone look at the black reaction in Ferguson (including intimidating the witnesses who backed up Wilson's account and exposed the lie of "hands up, don't shoot") and assert that white people in this community probably commit crimes or traffic violations at an equal rate??

Did anyone at these protests ever claim that they were pissed about a certain percentage of traffic tickets being written? Is that what the protests were about? Are we seriously witnessing a city fall apart based on disproportionate traffic tickets?!?

Is that why black members of Congress raised their hands and said, "Hands up, don't shoot"??? I must have missed that in all the violence, looting, attempted murder, etc. No, this was all a fabrication based on a lie, spread and covered up by the very people who are the most outraged.

Jesus, our President needs to take a good look at what his admin has done by rushing to judgment here. This is the third time he has taken the wrong side on a racial issue, and each time the response is getting worse as he feeds the flames of righteous indignation over myths, lies, and mistakes.

Freakin traffic tickets! Get a grip, people.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

I didn't read the DoJ report so I don't know precisely what it says or what its findings are; I was busy last weekend.

In the meantime, a suspect has been arrested in connection with the latest Ferguson shooting.

A suspect has been arrested in last week’s shooting of two police officers in Ferguson, Missouri. The attack occurred outside the Ferguson police headquarters as protesters marked the ouster of Police Chief Tom Jackson following months of activism. The suspect has been identified as 20-year-old Jeffrey Williams. St. Louis County Prosecutor Robert McCulloch said he may not have deliberately targeted police, but instead someone in the crowd with whom he had a dispute.

Robert McCulloch: "Essentially what we’ve charged him with is firing shots. It’s possible at this point that he was firing shots at someone other than the police, but struck the police officers. So the charge is still assault in the first degree, and they’re class-A felonies for striking those two officers. There was a weapon recovered, which has been tied to the shell casings that were recovered there, the weapon recovered from him, and he has acknowledged his participation in firing the shots or his — that in fact he did fire the shots that struck the two officers."

Williams was identified with public help. McCulloch described him as a protester, but several Ferguson activists say he did not take part in the demonstrations.

[Cail]

‘Hands up, don’t shoot’ was built on a lie

In those early hours and early days, there was more unknown than known. But this month, the Justice Department released two must-read investigations connected to the killing of Brown that filled in blanks, corrected the record and brought sunlight to dark places by revealing ugly practices that institutionalized racism and hardship. They have also forced me to deal with two uncomfortable truths: Brown never surrendered with his hands up, and Wilson was justified in shooting Brown.

This is a tremendously classy article, and is something we don't see much. A reporter was wrong, and he very clearly corrects himself. It's a shame that more people don't have this sort of humility.

[Vraith]

This is a tremendously classy article, and is something we don't see much. A reporter was wrong, and he very clearly corrects himself. It's a shame that more people don't have this sort of humility.

I've wondered aloud somewhere around here before on why it is that the incidents that get picked up as media waves/symbols so often end up being mistaken/bad choices/counterproductive, since true, good choice, accurate, productive incidents exist in abundance.

But, given that, don't you think you're still at least somewhat obligated---given the fact that you can take me to task---to deal with Z's claim that it's all about peeps freaking out over parking tickets?

[Hashi Lebwohl]

The author states in the article that the shooting in and of itself served as a catalyst to release the frustration with a police department that has for years padded the city coffers from the pockets of the community. That is only part of it, though, as I suspect the great majority of the protests were about the perception that there is a war against black people being waged by police. I am no fan of police, given my statements in the threads about militarization, but logic and FBI statistics prove that such a war is simply not happening, therefore all the protests were indeed based on lies being perpetuated by people who are supposed to be acting in the best interest of black communities.

If black lives matter so much, and they do, then quit glorifying a lifestyle which leads to young black men preying upon other young black men.