The Neverending Thread for Political Shit

[John A Arkansawyer]

This thread should be put on hold for thanksgiving. Give it a rest until tomorrow, everyone.

I just saved a draft. Can we bat this one around in the meantime?

Stones > Beatles

[Flea]

This thread should be put on hold for thanksgiving. Give it a rest until tomorrow, everyone.

I just saved a draft. Can we bat this one around in the meantime?

Stones > Beatles

[oilpiers]

I don't watch any TV news. After witnessing a major news story in person in 2008, and seeing how ALL of the networks coverage not only skewed the facts based on what I observed, but basically made up stories that did not even happen, I can't stomach any of it. From FOX to MSNBC, it is all part of an agenda driven propaganda machine, designed to give the illusion that there is true choice. ( I admit, I did watch FOX last presidential election night for kicks.)
I read some articles by Ezra Klein. I have heard of him, but not really familiar with him. He has taken the grand jury testimony of Officer Wilson, and contrasts and compares it with the testimony of Dorian Johnson, the other person involved in this incident. The one who did not get shot. There are consistencies, and tremendous divergence of perceptions of what happened over what was only a few minutes. Since there is limited forensic evidence, much of what we know is from eyewitness testimony, which is actually the least reliable type of evidence. Ironically it carries the most legal weight. No one in this scenario comes out looking great. There is no definitive conclusion made, but by the headline, you can tell Ezra does not have a lot of faith in Wilson's account. He gives some rational justification for his headline. I am pleased that this sight has the least amount of racial assumptions and insults of any other internet discussion I have read regarding this subject. I strongly recommend watching the video that follows both stories. It kind of sums up the bottom line to most police shootings, and why the officers are almost never found in the wrong.
http://www.vox.com/2014/11/25/7281165/darren-wilsons-story-side/in/7041840
http://www.vox.com/2014/11/25/7287443/dorian-johnson-story

[lotusamerica]

Some interesting posts, thanks.

I think the whole GJ process was flawed by using a local prosecutor who regularly works with the local police to prosecute criminals. This introduces not only his conscious motives, but his unconscious bias, into the mix, something that should have never happened, no matter how good of a prosecutor he may be. Add to the mix that his own father, a white policeman, was shot and killed by a black criminal when he was 12 and there is even more reason for him to have recused himself, somewhere, anywhere, along the timeline between arrest and lack of indictment. He chose to take an almost unheard of approach to indictment, not simply putting in front of a grand jury a simple case for prosecution, but instead put reams and reams of data in front of them, brought in the suspect in this case to offer testimony, did not vigorously cross-examine the suspect (actually not at all since he did not even directly prosecute the case but left that to assistants), and provided the grand jury with questionable instructions that essentially suggested that they must consider the suspect guilty in order to indict him (which is not the purpose of the grand jury). In short, the process can be seen as a secret sham trial, with the prosecutor serving partly in the role of a defense attorney, with no judge to monitor the process, and a burden put on a grand jury that distinctly did not reflect the demographics of the community, and did reflect a jury that would be expected to side with a white police officer in opposition to a black alleged criminal. The forensic evidence was limited and quite possibly biased, the eyewitness accounts were inconsistent, and aspects of the suspect's testimony were inexplicable.

Should the suspect have been charged and tried? It's difficult to determine as the evidence that was used to determine the outcome was suspect, the process was flawed, and the motives and impartiality of the prosecutor remain questionable. The timing of the news conference, questioned slightly but largely just as a WTF? kind of question, certainly could be seen as an possibly intentional choice to flair up violence in response to the lack of indictment. To assume good intentions and just a kind of happenstance or incompetence on the part of the prosecutor, who knew full well that riots had previously occurred and were likely to occur in response to a lack of indictment, is to ignore much of the history of the community, the state and region of the country it is in, and the long history between white and black people not only in the region but in large swaths of the country.

Should Officer Wilson have been charged? I have no idea. I do think, however, that if his acts were consistent with those presented in the prosecutor's summary during the press conference, he was done a significant disservice by the prosecutor not removing himself from the case and allowing a grand jury process that could have been perceived as much more impartial than this was is by many people. The community and the nation could also have been better served by removing the local connections, and securing a special prosecutor whose impartiality could not be as easily questioned as this one.

[beantownbubba]

Exactly, lotus.

I wrote my first term paper in 7th grade. It was supposed to be 5 to 7 pages long. One girl turned in something like a 25 page paper. Of course the rest of the class was aghast and nervous. I don't remember the grade she got but I'll never forget the teacher's comment: "You could have turned in the telephone book [yes, this was a long time ago] and received the same grade." Or as Mark Twain put it in another context: "I'm sorry that this letter is so long, but I don't have time to make it shorter."

This same idea is known in the legal trade as "bury 'em in bullshit." IOW, if you don't have a case, just bury the other side in so much documentation and so much irrelevant data that the entire process gets sidetracked and the truth disappears in the muck. It takes time, effort and thought to craft and present a cogent, focused case. Simply pointing to the amount of "evidence" that was presented to the grand jury is entirely beside the point and in fact illustrates how deeply flawed the process was, not how thorough or fair it was.

[Penny Lane]

I agree that it would have helped the appearance (not necessarily the process or changed the outcome) had they brought in an outside prosecutor. Over time, it seems like the grand jury process has expanded past just submitting enough evidence to get an indictment. However, given the (mostly inconsistent) witness testimony the defense brought in, the prosecution probably felt it necessary to push as much evidence as they could the other way to save this man a trial.

[John A Arkansawyer]

I agree that it would have helped the appearance (not necessarily the process or changed the outcome) had they brought in an outside prosecutor. Over time, it seems like the grand jury process has expanded past just submitting enough evidence to get an indictment. However, given the (mostly inconsistent) witness testimony the defense brought in, the prosecution probably felt it necessary to push as much evidence as they could the other way to save this man a trial.

It's nice to read a comment by someone who understands just what went on: The prosecutor rigged the process because he sided with the killer and not the victim.

To prevent this sort of rampant pigdickery, I have a Modest Proposal to make: Whenever anyone is killed violently, the killer should face a trial. No exceptions. And when the accused is a cop, then the prosecution should be contracted out. Let the local criminal defense firms bid on the chance to prosecute a killer cop. Fuck this "poor little policeman, with your gun and your club and your Kevlar vest and your radio backup, how frightened you are, bless your heart" horseshit. I want to see every cop who kills someone face the full fucking force of law as represented by a prosecutor who aches to see him roast in the electric chair. Let the Hand of Law get its own fingers broken a few times and see how that goes over.

[Barely_Oakely]

I agree that it would have helped the appearance (not necessarily the process or changed the outcome) had they brought in an outside prosecutor. Over time, it seems like the grand jury process has expanded past just submitting enough evidence to get an indictment. However, given the (mostly inconsistent) witness testimony the defense brought in, the prosecution probably felt it necessary to push as much evidence as they could the other way to save this man a trial.

It's nice to read a comment by someone who understands just what went on: The prosecutor rigged the process because he sided with the killer and not the victim.

To prevent this sort of rampant pigdickery, I have a Modest Proposal to make: Whenever anyone is killed violently, the killer should face a trial. No exceptions. And when the accused is a cop, then the prosecution should be contracted out. Let the local criminal defense firms bid on the chance to prosecute a killer cop. Fuck this "poor little policeman, with your gun and your club and your Kevlar vest and your radio backup, how frightened you are, bless your heart" horseshit. I want to see every cop who kills someone face the full fucking force of law as represented by a prosecutor who aches to see him roast in the electric chair. Let the Hand of Law get its own fingers broken a few times and see how that goes over.

Man, I try to say off the topic of politics, but I can't leave talking about which hunts for cops go unanswered. Regardless of the Mike Brown shit, what kind of message do you send to cops if you say that you'll throw them under the bus every time they have the unfortunate experience of using their service weapon? Mentalities like that would leave us with cops who are afraid to act for fear of their lives and the lives of their children. You can't tell me that every cop who has to use his weapon should be tried as a criminal, that's lunacy. What's next? Should we have hangings for our troops overseas when they have had to kill someone? Come on. You can't re-write the system when an outlier occurs. How many cops go to work every day, do a damn good job and never use their weapon, but are trained to? When anyone kills anyone it's a terrible thing and that burden is something that they will have to keep with them their entire lives, but telling every good honest hard working police officer in this nation that if they kill someone they'll get dragged through the mud is one of the most unjust things that I have ever heard. You might want to tie the hands of the people who protect us, but I don't. Terrible shit happens sometimes, but I'd like cops who aren't afraid to act when it does.

What happened in Ferguson wasn't the KKK stringing up a school kid, it was a panicked cop shooting someone who was assaulting him. I feel bad for everyone involved.

[John A Arkansawyer]

A cop isn't a soldier. A soldier's job is, ultimately, to kill people and destroy things in order to impose the will of that soldier's country. A cop's job is supposed to be to keep the peace. Protect and serve, right?

That's the theory. The sad fact is many police forces--and these small town governments around St. Louis and their armed forces sure qualify, if you ask me--are no better than shakedown squads who target poor people for arrest and prosecution in order to fund government without taxes. It's a brutal, thieving system designed to oppress those who most need the protection of the law in favor of those who can buy their own security. I believe in rule of law but that requires the law not be corrupt. When thugs control the law, it's just another club for the powerful to use on the weak. I say fuck that shit.

A cop who kills is not going to become a victim in a witch hunt. They'll still have their fellow cops, their union, and the prosecutors on their side, as well as the vast majority of the public. (Don't get me started on the cop fired for lying about other cops who is now the spokesman for St. Louis area cops.) But when they tell bullshit stories--like the one Darren Wilson told about Michael Brown--I think they should face actual, you know, prosecutors, who have at least a minimal interest in justice, who aren't beholden to the storyteller's fellow cops for delivering a steady revenue stream to their desks and who might actually question them with some degree of skepticism. Like ordinary citizens.

Or not. We can have a special class of uber-citizens who can kill with impunity. Why not? It seems to be working out so far:

[Barely_Oakely]

I'll say that I don't know the social situation in the St. Louis area, but, if even a small fraction of what you've described is correct it's appalling. I'm not from there, and, god willing, I never will be.

Maybe I've lead a sheltered existence, but I've never known police to be a special class of uber-citizens who kill with impunity. The cops I know are good people who just want to protect and serve and go home to their kids at the end of their shifts.

It's completely possible that in St. Louis the cops are all corrupt individuals who enjoy shaking down poor people for funding. It doesn't seem all that profitable, but then again, I don't know. What I'd like to think is that the law in Ferguson is trying to make the best out of a shitty situation just like the law in the rest of the nation is trying to do their jobs. If you've got reason to not trust the law, then that's your prerogative, I won't try to dissuade you. I'll just continue to hope that the guys with badges are the good guys.

[Iowan]

A cop isn't a soldier. A soldier's job is, ultimately, to kill people and destroy things in order to impose the will of that soldier's country. A cop's job is supposed to be to keep the peace. Protect and serve, right?

That's the theory. The sad fact is many police forces--and these small town governments around St. Louis and their armed forces sure qualify, if you ask me--are no better than shakedown squads who target poor people for arrest and prosecution in order to fund government without taxes. It's a brutal, thieving system designed to oppress those who most need the protection of the law in favor of those who can buy their own security. I believe in rule of law but that requires the law not be corrupt. When thugs control the law, it's just another club for the powerful to use on the weak. I say fuck that shit.

A cop who kills is not going to become a victim in a witch hunt. They'll still have their fellow cops, their union, and the prosecutors on their side, as well as the vast majority of the public. (Don't get me started on the cop fired for lying about other cops who is now the spokesman for St. Louis area cops.) B[b]ut when they tell bullshit stories--like the one Darren Wilson told about Michael Brown--I think they should face actual, you know, prosecutors, who have at least a minimal interest in justice, who aren't beholden to the storyteller's fellow cops for delivering a steady revenue stream to their desks and who might actually question them with some degree of skepticism. Like ordinary citizens.[/b]

Or not. We can have a special class of uber-citizens who can kill with impunity. Why not? It seems to be working out so far:

1. This is laughable, at least where I'm at. Do you know how often these poor folks (and make no mistake, poor people do get arrested more) actually pay any fine money whatsoever? At least where I'm at, the government isn't making shit off of fining people who don't have anything. Blood from a turnip and all that.

2. The autopsy seemed to confirm a lot of what Darren Wilson said. It wasn't a bullshit story.

3. If you can't see how antithetical this is to the entire concept of what justice is supposed to mean in this country, I can't help you. This is essentially a presumption of guilt, and the unintended consequences of this could be far worse than the current reality. What we need is a better system in place for investigating and prosecuting police deaths. I'm usually opposed to Federal government expansion, but perhaps an agency whose sole mission it was to investigate and prosecute these cases, nation-wide, would be a start. They wouldn't be beholden to any other law enforcement agency, so the amount of unconscious bias would be drastically reduced. You also would eliminate the use of grand juries. There would be officers who investigate, and file initial charges in Federal court with a judge. Then the prosecutor would make the decision to go forward with a formal indictment or not. You would ensure an above-board investigation into these matters without cops thinking "Do I want to save my life or the life of another person, or face a murder trial?" in high pressure situations. I guarantee that the people who advocate this idea have very little professional experience dealing with law enforcement officers and view them in the same way you assume they view minorities (and to be clear, there are law enforcement officers who do this - not saying they're all saints).

What's really unfortunate to me about the Ferguson situation is that's being used as an example of a very real problem in America that needs to be dealt with, but it's a fucking terrible example of said problem. If I started punching a cop through the window of his car, I'd probably get shot too. Especially if I was a 300lb pound guy. I don't think Michael Brown died because he was black. I think he died because he attacked a cop.

But there are just tons of situations where African-Americans are mistreated, profiled, and in the case of Trayvon Martin, unjustly killed in this country, and there are laws and institutions that allow it to happen. That has to change if this country is going to get to where it needs to be.

[Barely_Oakely]

Thank you. The presence of someone who actually knows the legal system is always appreciated.

[John A Arkansawyer]

Man, I'm sorry to tee off on you, but this is a subject on which I'm somewhat passionate. Give this a good read and tell me what you think: How municipalities in St. Louis County, Mo., profit from poverty

I don't think it's the cops. I don't think it's people who are bigoted. I think it's long-displaced chickens coming home to roost. The story of American migration in the first half of the twentieth century was black people coming north in search of the protection of the law; the story of the second half is white people moving as far away from them as practical and scorching the earth between. This is one of the many consequences: Law enforcement as fundraising. Good guys and bad guys and cops and klansmen and all that, yeah, I'm sure there are a few of each, but mostly its just poor schmucks stepping on their own dicks while fat rich fucks bet on who'll take the first fall. I got lotsa sympathy for them all.

But at some point, cops have to be held accountable. Don't care for this case? How about the black guy who'd picked up a pellet gun in that Ohio Wal-Mart, who the police shot down like a dog earlier this fall? No charges. That twelve-year-old kid shot over the weekend for having a pellet gun? I bet no charges. How about that seven-year-old girl in Detroit, killed during a no-knock raid, the one whose granny supposedly bumped a cop's gun and scared him half to death and who must really be the person at fault for hosing down a little girl till her torso looked like a soup tureen? No charges. The baby who had a flash-bang grenade thrown in her crib? Must I go on? No one is EVER held accountable.

At some point, when you are used for ignoble ends, the ignobility rubs off on you. God knows it's hard to find the line. I look for it every day and fear I passed it so long ago I can only dream of finding it again. But at some point, those who serve power have to face up to the consequences of their choices, too. Accountability isn't just for the little people.

[Iowan]

Man, I'm sorry to tee off on you, but this is a subject on which I'm somewhat passionate. Give this a good read and tell me what you think: How municipalities in St. Louis County, Mo., profit from poverty

I don't think it's the cops. I don't think it's people who are bigoted. I think it's long-displaced chickens coming home to roost. The story of American migration in the first half of the twentieth century was black people coming north in search of the protection of the law; the story of the second half is white people moving as far away from them as practical and scorching the earth between. This is one of the many consequences: Law enforcement as fundraising. Good guys and bad guys and cops and klansmen and all that, yeah, I'm sure there are a few of each, but mostly its just poor schmucks stepping on their own dicks while fat rich fucks bet on who'll take the first fall. I got lotsa sympathy for them all.

But at some point, cops have to be held accountable. Don't care for this case? How about the black guy who'd picked up a pellet gun in that Ohio Wal-Mart, who the police shot down like a dog earlier this fall? No charges. That twelve-year-old kid shot over the weekend for having a pellet gun? I bet no charges. How about that seven-year-old girl in Detroit, killed during a no-knock raid, the one whose granny supposedly bumped a cop's gun and scared him half to death and who must really be the person at fault for hosing down a little girl till her torso looked like a soup tureen? No charges. The baby who had a flash-bang grenade thrown in her crib? Must I go on? No one is EVER held accountable.

At some point, when you are used for ignoble ends, the ignobility rubs off on you. God knows it's hard to find the line. I look for it every day and fear I passed it so long ago I can only dream of finding it again. But at some point, those who serve power have to face up to the consequences of their choices, too. Accountability isn't just for the little people.

I'm not in a position to sit down and read that link, right now, but if it's about civil forfeiture, then you and I are on the same side. That's legalized robbery, and thankfully it's really only ever used in instances where someone is actually convicted and the property involved was actually a crucial part of said crime in my neck of the woods. It definitely gets abused around the country.

In regards to the bolded, I actually agree with you. Which is why I proposed an organization that isn't tied to any individual law enforcement agency investigate every single instance of police killing someone. I would guarantee you that in some of the situations described, there would be charges, and there would be convictions and consequences for officers who used illegal force. But the idea of automatically putting them on trial is just completely incompatible with the underlying ideals of the American justice system.

[Iowan]

Ok... I started reading that article.

When people don't show up for court appearances, they get notices which tell them that if they keep failing to show up they will be arrested. What did they think would happen when they just keep blowing it off. This woman at the start of the story buried her problems, didn't confront them, and they snowballed. And I'm supposed to take this is an example of injustice? They offer payment plans.

I'm a pretty liberal guy who recognizes that there is systemic injustice in this country, but how am I supposed to be excessively sympathetic for people who break the law, get cited for it, and then blow it off because they can't afford the advertised consequence of their own choices?

Those municipalities would all prefer that the people cited just pay their damn fines without causing all the backlog in the justice system that arises when people don't show up for court, and don't pay their fines, and fight losing battles against laws they clearly broke. Traffic offense are far more "black and white" than most indictable crimes.

If officers start ignoring traffic crime, as is so often suggested, then we're basically creating martial law on the road, which tangibly increases dangers to many people. If we stop requiring people to pay fines, show up for court, etc, then we're basically removing all rules from the highway. No accountability means the system falls apart and if people don't have to pay fines, show up for court, then they don't have any incentive to drive within the boundaries of the law.

[John A Arkansawyer]

2. The autopsy seemed to confirm a lot of what Darren Wilson said. It wasn't a bullshit story.

I think he believed that story and I think it had elements of truth in it and I sure don't believe it's the whole nothing but. I'd say it's a pretty good example of a statement for which the truth-value is irrelevant. That's as pure a form of bullshit as there is. There's a definition of "humbug" that's considered a source for Harry Frankfurt's definition of "bullshit" (I shoulda gone into philosophy. I coulda been a contendah), by a man named Max Black: "deceptive misrepresentation, short of lying, especially by pretentious word or deed, of somebody's own thoughts, feelings, or attitude". I think Darren Wilson's statement qualifies. I don't think he consciously lied; I think he told a the story he thought to be true.

This here is good advice:

I read some articles by Ezra Klein...He has taken the grand jury testimony of Officer Wilson, and contrasts and compares it with the testimony of Dorian Johnson, the other person involved in this incident. The one who did not get shot. There are consistencies, and tremendous divergence of perceptions of what happened over what was only a few minutes. Since there is limited forensic evidence, much of what we know is from eyewitness testimony, which is actually the least reliable type of evidence. Ironically it carries the most legal weight. No one in this scenario comes out looking great. There is no definitive conclusion made, but by the headline, you can tell Ezra does not have a lot of faith in Wilson's account. He gives some rational justification for his headline...
http://www.vox.com/2014/11/25/7281165/d ... in/7041840
http://www.vox.com/2014/11/25/7287443/d ... nson-story

This reconstruction may be wrong, but, unlike Wilson's "testimony" (where I come from, we've got this cross-examination thing that helps keep witnesses in line. Without that, it's not so much testimony as storytelling. I recommend it to all the small failed nation-states of North America as they rebuild), it's plausible.

3. If you can't see how antithetical this is to the entire concept of what justice is supposed to mean in this country, I can't help you.

Modest Proposals are often like that.

But I will add I think this should be done for all homicides. Not just cops. Every killing should be investigated and prosecuted in the same general manner. Self-defense, too. People say they'd rather be judged by twelve than carried by six. I say they have the right attitude and let's send them to trial when they kill.

Man, I'm sorry to tee off on you, but this is a subject on which I'm somewhat passionate. Give this a good read and tell me what you think: How municipalities in St. Louis County, Mo., profit from poverty

I'm not in a position to sit down and read that link, right now, but if it's about civil forfeiture, then you and I are on the same side. That's legalized robbery, and thankfully it's really only ever used in instances where someone is actually convicted and the property involved was actually a crucial part of said crime in my neck of the woods. It definitely gets abused around the country.

When I read the story about the agencies that had want lists of the sorts of property they wanted seized, even I boggled. I mean, what's next? Screening traffic stops with the the Kelley Blue Book? But no, this isn't about civil forfeiture. It's about using the court system as a primary revenue source and how that evolved in St. Louis County over time. I do sympathize with those who look at these poor folks and say, "Don't they have the sense to come to their court dates?" I also remember what a hellish experience that's always been for me and I've always been confident I was walking out a free man when I was done. There is no worse stink of human misery in America than in a misdemeanor court.

[Iowan]

I'd even be against it for all homocides for the same reasons.

The thing about these people bailing on court because they can't pay is that they set up the very instance that gets them behind bars. You can only be fined for standard traffic offenses in Iowa; not jailed. The only way you get jailed is through warrants.

[Cole Younger]

Now, with the fear of those who are armed and in a position of authority violating that trust and becoming thugs with a license to kill, is it a little easier to understand why some of us feel the way we do about the Second Amendmant?

[Zip City]

Now, with the fear of those who are armed and in a position of authority violating that trust and becoming thugs with a license to kill, is it a little easier to understand why some of us feel the way we do about the Second Amendmant?

Sort of? I mean, I guess I understand the impulse to protect yourself, but drawing a gun against a cop in any situation is an instant death sentence

[Iowan]

Now, with the fear of those who are armed and in a position of authority violating that trust and becoming thugs with a license to kill, is it a little easier to understand why some of us feel the way we do about the Second Amendmant?

Not really. The Second Amendment isn't going to stop a government (or it's agents) truly bent on taking down it's people.

FWIW, I'm not anti-gun. I just think the Second Amendment just doesn't carry the same level of importance, protection, or necessity as it did when it was written. As long as it's part of the Constitution, it deserves to be protected, and I'm not in favor of repealing it as guns are a cat which left it's bag in the rear-view more years ago in this country. Making guns limited or illegal will create more problems than it solves.

[Wolf]

drawing a gun against a cop in any situation is an instant death sentence

as it should be

[Zip City]

drawing a gun against a cop in any situation is an instant death sentence

as it should be

yet, it isn't, is it?

[Cole Younger]

Now, with the fear of those who are armed and in a position of authority violating that trust and becoming thugs with a license to kill, is it a little easier to understand why some of us feel the way we do about the Second Amendmant?

Sort of? I mean, I guess I understand the impulse to protect yourself, but drawing a gun against a cop in any situation is an instant death sentence

Under normal circumstances it definitely is. But, if cops get as heavy handed as some fear they are becoming, and it continues to get worse...I'm just saying. It sure beats just being a target. I don't think we are headed for that at all. Just food for thought as I know I'm in the minority on my second amendment views.

Not trying to high jack the discussion. I'm done with that. For now.

[John A Arkansawyer]

Now, with the fear of those who are armed and in a position of authority violating that trust and becoming thugs with a license to kill, is it a little easier to understand why some of us feel the way we do about the Second Amendmant?

Not really. The Second Amendment isn't going to stop a government (or it's agents) truly bent on taking down it's people.

True but not the whole truth. Small arms and IEDs* certainly kept the United States from establishing its rule in Iraq. They won't win an insurgency for you but they will help make it expensive to put down. And there are a lot of black families in the United States who kept weapons around during the night rider period of Klan activity. One good thing about the Klan (there aren't many. I'm not sure I can think of another) was that it was paralegal and thus you didn't necessarily go to jail just for shooting one of the SOBs. A fair number of people and their families lived instead of died because they had guns around the house when they needed them.

FWIW, I'm not anti-gun. I just think the Second Amendment just doesn't carry the same level of importance, protection, or necessity as it did when it was written. As long as it's part of the Constitution, it deserves to be protected, and I'm not in favor of repealing it as guns are a cat which left it's bag in the rear-view more years ago in this country. Making guns limited or illegal will create more problems than it solves.

I think you're right about that last. There are enough guns around now that even limiting them would be difficult.

*Small arms but hint what demolitions say.

[lotusamerica]

Late night woke up quick comments...

I like it here. A much better discussion than I've found most anywhere on this topic. Thanks all...

Penny and Iowan, what specifically leads you to believe that the Brown guy assaulted the officer other than the officer's story, contradicted by the witness story that it was the officer who assaulted the dead guy and that guy was defending himself? I have no way to know except that I've seen the police pull the power play at least as often as I've seen a kind of hey guys, would you mind stepping over onto the sidewalk, pretty please? Take away this piece of the situation, replace it with an officer who, rightfully or wrongfully, tries to strong arm someone who ends up being bigger and undeterred and the rest of the situation looks not quite the same to my eyes.

Arkansawyer, that's some crazy shit there in some of your posts. Having worked in and around the drug war and seeing a variety of injustices, though, I can see where the passion comes from. Unlike what Iowan says he's seen, I've seen a fair amount of seizing of innocent people's property by those running the law. To be fair, lots of drug dealers running around in high end cars clearly bought from drug crimes, sometimes and maybe often armed to the teeth to protect their enterprise from the law. It's not simple at all. For myself, the resolution is to decriminalize almost all drug criminal laws, legalizing a few things along the way. But I have some similar concerns as Iowan, I do want the police to be able to step up to handle situations that need to be handled with force (though that is never people smoking pot, doing other drugs for fun, or sharing with their friends and friends of friends for joy and a bit of side cash, I mean come on, if there isn't coercion or misrepresentation involved it's as old school conservative as it comes to leave people alone to do what they feel like doing when it's not directly hurting others).

Police need to become much more sensitive to issues around different and minority cultures. I don't think it's so innocent that a community that' s 2/3 black has a police force that's 9/10 white. Officer Wilson was afraid, he says. But of what precisely? Was he really only afraid of the particular man in front of him in the moment, who may have swiped some swishers and put on an attitude (or maybe worse) or was he also afraid of the mythological powerful primitive black man that white people have been subtly, implicitly been taught to fear since way before any of us came on the scene? I have no way of knowing, he seems like a kind of nice, kind of culturally ignorant, blue collar white guy to me. I don't ascribe evil intent to him, and if I understand correctly, in several years of service this is the first time he's used a weapon, which surely argues against him being one of the power mongers who are out there on police forces everywhere, at least here and there. I've worked for some years on the fringes of efforts to help police officers learn how to understand minority cultures and learn to de-escalate volatile situations in ways that don't make them weak, and this, more than toppling power, seems like the way to go to me. It's working with PO's, it's working in prisons, and the place to try to get it to work next is in these kinds of unpredictable idiosyncratic street situations. Allow the officer to have as much control as possible while also thinking "how can I de-escalate" before thinking "am I authorized to kill him?"

And there's always more...

[John A Arkansawyer]

I'd even be against it for all homicides for the same reasons.

What happens, then, is that questions of life and death are answered by cops and prosecutors when they should be settled by judges and juries. That's why an inflexible rule of prosecute every homicide--like automatic appeals of death sentences--is required. There's too much ability to cut slack for the people who run the system. Consider how Darren Wilson was processed as opposed to other shooting suspects. Consider how the crime scene was investigated. This is the detail that put me back on my heels when I first read it. (Then I thought how poorly the prosecution was prepared for an actual defense in the OJ case and how competent lawyers took them apart like the petulant children they were.)

And the medical examiner did not take photographs—because his camera’s battery was dead—nor measurements at the scene of the crime—because what had happened was “self-explanatory.”

I have a little saying for my profession: The data never speaks for itself. It's just data. It has to be interpreted to give meaning. And when someone answers a question by saying the answer is obvious or self-explanatory or some other excuse, I tend to press harder, because someone is very possibly trying to bullshit me.

The thing about these people bailing on court because they can't pay is that they set up the very instance that gets them behind bars. You can only be fined for standard traffic offenses in Iowa; not jailed. The only way you get jailed is through warrants.

Well, yes, in part. But if you read further into that story and get to the guy trying to run the auto repair shop, or the woman stopped leaving the court where she'd just paid her fine for no license to be cited again for having no license, you see how hard it is to climb out of the hole. It's one more weight on people who already have enough weight on them.

(I see the other side, too. There's a good argument for not letting people be scofflaws. I just happen not to be on it in this case and figure some sort of general amnesty declared in some of these towns would be a big step forward. The state has the power to order that, if my old state and local government class taught me right.)

There are laws--the one about registering the people who live in your house? Creepy!--that would never be applied to richer neighborhoods in some of those towns. There are other laws that don't get enforced equally. I don't think police cars cruise the nicer neighborhoods looking for citizens with a beer mowing their front lawns.*

This troubles me immensely because over the years I've come to a great respect for the idea of rule by law. (Yes, I know.) It's been a long and twisty journey. This shit doesn't help.

Arkansawyer, that's some crazy shit there in some of your posts. Having worked in and around the drug war and seeing a variety of injustices, though, I can see where the passion comes from.

It's not really the drug war that drives me on this issue. The drug question is very complicated, especially since the least harmful of the illegal drugs took the greatest brunt (in my opinion) of the war. Accordingly, there are a lot of people reasoning about all drugs as though they were marijuana, and they aren't. Still, it seems insane to tell someone we don't allow you to put your own mind into a certain mental state because you do it with chemicals we don't approve of, so what the role of the law is there is something I struggle with. And I still struggle with it, because drug use is a much freer choice than skin color or economic class. What does drive me is more like this:

Police need to become much more sensitive to issues around different and minority cultures. I don't think it's so innocent that a community that' s 2/3 black has a police force that's 9/10 white. Officer Wilson was afraid, he says. But of what precisely? Was he really only afraid of the particular man in front of him in the moment, who may have swiped some swishers and put on an attitude (or maybe worse) or was he also afraid of the mythological powerful primitive black man that white people have been subtly, implicitly been taught to fear since way before any of us came on the scene? I have no way of knowing, he seems like a kind of nice, kind of culturally ignorant, blue collar white guy to me. I don't ascribe evil intent to him, and if I understand correctly, in several years of service this is the first time he's used a weapon, which surely argues against him being one of the power mongers who are out there on police forces everywhere, at least here and there. I've worked for some years on the fringes of efforts to help police officers learn how to understand minority cultures and learn to de-escalate volatile situations in ways that don't make them weak, and this, more than toppling power, seems like the way to go to me. It's working with PO's, it's working in prisons, and the place to try to get it to work next is in these kinds of unpredictable idiosyncratic street situations. Allow the officer to have as much control as possible while also thinking "how can I de-escalate" before thinking "am I authorized to kill him?"

Most especially I don't think Darren Wilson is evil. I have some level of sympathy for him. There was a guy up in Rogers who had a bad breakup with his fiancee and went out drinking for the first time and ended up killing a stranger (or was it two? That seems right) by driving drunk. It's been about a decade so I've forgotten some of the details, but I seem to recall he got Judge Keith, the most humane of the judges in that dreadful place. I know the judge, whoever he was, was troubled by the case, or at least said as much. This guy was about as blameless as a drunk driver could be. I sympathized with him, too. He still got prison time--two, three years. I forget--and I can't say that I argued with it.

The people up the food chain from Darren Wilson? Once you get into the people who own the property and get the money and make the decisions? Yeah, there's evil there at some point. As Hunter S. Thompson liked to point out, The Scum Also Rises. If possible, I'd prefer to avoid the guillotine this time around. Constructive suggestions are welcomed.

*Personal example seen by my own eyes. On the other hand, in the rich neighborhoods, you have to look out for private security. Our local bond daddies at Stephens Incorporeal have the neighborhoods where they live patrolled by their own security. A high-ranking member of our state's civil service was a bit tipsy and went outside to ask this stranger in a nondescript car why he'd been parked in front of his house for an extended period of time and was he hacking his wifi and some other stuff excusable in a man tipsy in his own home. Hilarity ensued. Fortunately, none of it stuck and the civil servant kept his job.

[Iowan]

Penny and Iowan, what specifically leads you to believe that the Brown guy assaulted the officer other than the officer's story, contradicted by the witness story that it was the officer who assaulted the dead guy and that guy was defending himself?

The officers track record, and the autopsy results lend credibility to parts of his story.

Well, yes, in part. But if you read further into that story and get to the guy trying to run the auto repair shop, or the woman stopped leaving the court where she'd just paid her fine for no license to be cited again for having no license, you see how hard it is to climb out of the hole. It's one more weight on people who already have enough weight on them.

John, I know full well the weight of this and how this system works. I was a prosecutor for 2.5 years, and hated many aspects of the job (mostly the excessive punishments and waste of money from the war on drugs and low test OWIs that resulted from minor traffic violations that only occur in the wee hours of the morning), and saw this cycle of poverty and how traffic tickets lead to a loss of license which lead to difficulties in finding work, and would try and work with people to come up with solutions that put the ball in their court in terms of having time to pay fines, or holding off on no-license prosecutions in order to get their license back in order. At least 75% of the time, the people involved didn't follow through and kept breaking the law and racking up more fines and more violations.

I guess what I'm getting at is that in most cases I've seen, this cycle, while unfortunate, is self-inflicted. The government didn't make them speed. The government didn't make them blow off court. The government didn't make them not pay their fines. I just don't see a solid logical reason for amnesty. All it would provide is short term relief, as the people who get themselves into these cycles will more often than not view it as a "get out of jail free card" and start the cycle anew.

[John A Arkansawyer]

John, I know full well the weight of this and how this system works. I was a prosecutor for 2.5 years, and hated many aspects of the job (mostly the excessive punishments and waste of money from the war on drugs and low test OWIs that resulted from minor traffic violations that only occur in the wee hours of the morning), and saw this cycle of poverty and how traffic tickets lead to a loss of license which lead to difficulties in finding work, and would try and work with people to come up with solutions that put the ball in their court in terms of having time to pay fines, or holding off on no-license prosecutions in order to get their license back in order. At least 75% of the time, the people involved didn't follow through and kept breaking the law and racking up more fines and more violations.

I guess what I'm getting at is that in most cases I've seen, this cycle, while unfortunate, is self-inflicted. The government didn't make them speed. The government didn't make them blow off court. The government didn't make them not pay their fines. I just don't see a solid logical reason for amnesty. All it would provide is short term relief, as the people who get themselves into these cycles will more often than not view it as a "get out of jail free card" and start the cycle anew.

Brother, I hear you. I'm right now fretting over my crazy friend who has, against all advice and the law to boot, moved back into his condemned house. We've about all gotten tired of dealing with his shit and are wondering if we're going to have to let him go to jail to get him out of the way long enough to put his home back into liveable shape for him (and which he will undoubtedly hate us for doing). But there has to be a better way than this for him and there has to be a better way for them.*

I've watched judges and prosecutors work with defendants, too. I remember one guy who showed up in a cast, with his wife and all three kids. He was clearly trying but not succeeding, or at least not fast enough. You could tell they were trying to decide whether he was worth their limited resources. That's the sort of decision that must be hell on people making it. I don't doubt that a bit. But we seem to be producing more and more people who are in those positions due to less and less fault of their own, and those decisions are even more hellish on them.

*Life's full of sad songs, a penny for a wish, and wishing won't make it so.

[tinnitus photography]

Ok... I started reading that article.

When people don't show up for court appearances, they get notices which tell them that if they keep failing to show up they will be arrested. What did they think would happen when they just keep blowing it off. This woman at the start of the story buried her problems, didn't confront them, and they snowballed. And I'm supposed to take this is an example of injustice? They offer payment plans.

I'm a pretty liberal guy who recognizes that there is systemic injustice in this country, but how am I supposed to be excessively sympathetic for people who break the law, get cited for it, and then blow it off because they can't afford the advertised consequence of their own choices?

Those municipalities would all prefer that the people cited just pay their damn fines without causing all the backlog in the justice system that arises when people don't show up for court, and don't pay their fines, and fight losing battles against laws they clearly broke. Traffic offense are far more "black and white" than most indictable crimes.

If officers start ignoring traffic crime, as is so often suggested, then we're basically creating martial law on the road, which tangibly increases dangers to many people. If we stop requiring people to pay fines, show up for court, etc, then we're basically removing all rules from the highway. No accountability means the system falls apart and if people don't have to pay fines, show up for court, then they don't have any incentive to drive within the boundaries of the law.

@ "traffic crime"

that article had nothing to do w/ public safety.

[Iowan]

Ok... I started reading that article.

When people don't show up for court appearances, they get notices which tell them that if they keep failing to show up they will be arrested. What did they think would happen when they just keep blowing it off. This woman at the start of the story buried her problems, didn't confront them, and they snowballed. And I'm supposed to take this is an example of injustice? They offer payment plans.

I'm a pretty liberal guy who recognizes that there is systemic injustice in this country, but how am I supposed to be excessively sympathetic for people who break the law, get cited for it, and then blow it off because they can't afford the advertised consequence of their own choices?

Those municipalities would all prefer that the people cited just pay their damn fines without causing all the backlog in the justice system that arises when people don't show up for court, and don't pay their fines, and fight losing battles against laws they clearly broke. Traffic offense are far more "black and white" than most indictable crimes.

If officers start ignoring traffic crime, as is so often suggested, then we're basically creating martial law on the road, which tangibly increases dangers to many people. If we stop requiring people to pay fines, show up for court, etc, then we're basically removing all rules from the highway. No accountability means the system falls apart and if people don't have to pay fines, show up for court, then they don't have any incentive to drive within the boundaries of the law.

@ "traffic crime"

that article had nothing to do w/ public safety.

You're right.

I'm talking about the idea that there should be some sort of amnesty for those who commit traffic offenses should be able to just blow the system off, and what results from it.

The article is about how the cycle created by not paying fines, which leads to license suspensions or failure to appear warrants places an additional burden on people who don't need it, thus keeping them trapped in poverty.