What's the biggest reason for Blacks not advancing

[BIGREDIOWAN]

 

<Some> witnesses said a struggle occurred inside or at the vehicle.

 

There was ONE that said a struggle didn't occur. You know as well as I do that witnesses testimonies aren't always the same. People perceive things differently, come on now, you know this.

[BIGREDIOWAN]

Also want to add:

 

 

Even if, giving complete benefit of the doubt to Wilson's innocence, he was 100% justified in what happened, even if justice was served here, you have to understand the contrasting double standard of how these things are viewed and approached and reported in regards to race:

 

 

 

When a white cop shoots and kills an unarmed black boy in the street, these are what we heard on major news over and over (worth being said, by all white people):

 

- "Why aren't we covering black on black crime?"

- "Why aren't african-americans protesting the 42 people shot and killed in Chicago?" (Hint: they were)

- "When I get pulled over and I am carrying, I will tell the officer and often even step out of the car and lift my shirt up to show the officer where the gun is."

- "Is the officer going to get a fair shake?"

- "I think it is playing the race card and is disgraceful"

 

 

But when two white high school kids are found guilty of raping a girl, you hear this:

 

- "Those poor boys' lives are ruined."

- "It was incredibly emotional — incredibly difficult even for an outsider like me to watch what happened as these two young men that had such promising futures, star football players, very good students, literally watched as they believe their life fell apart."

- "This is a lesson in how you record things on social media that are so prevalent today." Instead of a lesson to......not rape people.

- "Rape doesn't exist. Skimpy clothing is pretty much implied consent so they shouldn't dress like whores if they don't want to be treated like one."

- "The town is the real victim here.

 

 

 

You can't only look at Mike Brown. You have to juxtapose the narratives and the reactions to this against the same for high-profile cases with whites, and when you do you'll see that there is a gross double standard in our country, if not on the lega"l level then on the social level.

This was not a racial issue between Wilson and Brown, the media portrayed it that way and these riots are completely on the media. They fed the anger with their headlines "white officer shoots and kills unarmed black teenager" From there in spiraled into what it is now.......

[Creighton Duke]

 

I try to view people as doing their best to make rational decisions that try to maximize their own best interests. With this in mind, the outrage over the "no indictment" would imply that those who refused to indict (Grand Jury members, local and possibly state law enforcement, local government) are proclaiming that it is MORE rational to not indict and to watch the city burn, citizens to hurt others and themselves, to be under scrutiny from the world (I am out of the country and this is front page news), than it is to indict and let the legal process continue to run its course. This just doesn't make sense. For those who view the situation as primarily being about race, does it really seem as though all of the negatives that come from not indicting are worth sticking it to the Black community of Ferguson and the rest of America? This seems extremely far-fetched and FAR from rational.

I might be confused with my comment, but you don't indict someone because you fear how the citizens will respond. I'm not saying that a trial may have not cleared things up some in the long run, but it could also provide us with no further answers.

 

This is my point, to a degree, that all who think that there was "no indictment" based on racial factors is not taking into account all of the established rationale, yet alone the rational case that I mention in my post. However, I could see something happening the other way around i.e. a Grand Jury being pressured to produce a particular decision based on the expected response to it.

[GM_Tood]

Michael Brown's stepfather at rally: 'Burn this bitch down!'

[BIGREDIOWAN]

 

If he's continuing to charge the officer, after assaulting this officer, and attempting to disarm this officer, he may not "deserve" to die, but I think it can be argued it's justifiable to use deadly force.

That's true if your stated version of the events is accurate.

 

No, I don't need to think about it, everyone's pointing the finger at Wilson and no one wants to question as to why Brown didn't listen to commands. Question them both fairly and there is no issue..........

Completely disagree. Law enforcement is held to a higher standard than of an 18yo civilian (use your whatever term you prefer here). That comes with the territory. IMO, any officer who disagrees with that should hand in his badge.

 

I don't think that anyone here is saying that Brown acted intelligently, lawfully, or carefully. We agree (I think) that he did not.

 

Fair enough of your comment about the events.

 

Completely agree law enforcement is held to a higher standard, but Brown decided to "assault" the officer, I know we are debating this, Brown decided to try and take Wilson's weapon, according to Wilson and then refused to obey commands to stop after being shot at after attempting to take Wilson's weapon. I will agree that neither of us thinks that Brown acted intelligently, lawfully, or carefully.

 

Good discussion so far carlfense.

[carlfense]

 

 

Doesn't matter if it's in the holster or not, attempting to disarm a police officer immediately gives the officer discretion to use deadly force.

For how long?

 

Depends really, does Tennessee v Garner fall into this discussion? I don't have the answer to that, that would be something the court would have to consider. He attempted to disarm a police officer according to testimony from Wilson. This is a felony is Missouri so does the "fleeing felon rule" apply in this situation? Again, I don't know for sure, just putting that out there for discussion. I think both sides could argue for or against that honestly. Can the officer articulate that he was in fear for someone else's life because if Brown's willing to assault an officer, attempt to take his weapon, and flee, what else is he capable of?

 

In turn: Maybe. Maybe. And yes.

 

Personally, putting aside the godawful handling of the initial investigation and the grand jury, I don't think that there is enough evidence to convict Officer Wilson of any crime. I haven't read everything that is available yet (and I don't know if I will) but it looks weak to me.

 

I think that Wilson probably acted within the law and I understand and agree that it's different to analyze this sort of case after the fact than it is in the heat of the moment. That said, I also understand how an officer shooting an unarmed 18yo (who isn't fleeing) while he is half a football field away is upsetting to some people.

[BIGREDIOWAN]

Holy f@%!.

When announcing the results of the grand jury on Monday, McCulloch blamed the media, particularly social media, for skewing opinion about the case. But the grand jurors and prosecutors didn't mind when witnesses found out about leaks. . . .

 

Furthermore, on November 13th,an assistant prosecutor actually encouraged the jurors to bring in any outside information they thought would be helpful:

 

"I know that typically we tell jurors not to do any research on the case, but if there is a clip that you all think that you want the rest of the jurors to view, if you can just bring it to my attention, I can give you my email address and you can email me the link or something and I'll make sure I get it copied so we can show it to everybody."

http://www.vox.com/2014/11/25/7280989/darren-wilson-evidence

 

Okay, yeah I'll definitely agree that's a big no no...............

[TGHusker]

This writer tries to narrow the grand jury evidence down to 10 key items:

 

http://www.cnsnews.com/mrctv-blog/curtis-kalin/10-key-facts-ferguson-grand-jury-discovered

[Landlord]

We are taught as officers that you shoot to stop the threat, simple as that, if the threat is still a threat you keep shooting until it isn't a threat, they either give up or die.

 

 

Thanks for answering.

 

I guess this comes down to whether you can bridge the gap between 6 shots, which seems to be an extreme measure, and the reports of a struggle, that pictures and doctor's examinations show not to be too extreme.

 

I understand the teaching, but if you walk away with a scratch and a slightly swollen lip, was it really that much of a threat? I've been injured worse in tickle fights.

[BIGREDIOWAN]

 

 

 

Doesn't matter if it's in the holster or not, attempting to disarm a police officer immediately gives the officer discretion to use deadly force.

For how long?

 

Depends really, does Tennessee v Garner fall into this discussion? I don't have the answer to that, that would be something the court would have to consider. He attempted to disarm a police officer according to testimony from Wilson. This is a felony is Missouri so does the "fleeing felon rule" apply in this situation? Again, I don't know for sure, just putting that out there for discussion. I think both sides could argue for or against that honestly. Can the officer articulate that he was in fear for someone else's life because if Brown's willing to assault an officer, attempt to take his weapon, and flee, what else is he capable of?

 

In turn: Maybe. Maybe. And yes.

 

Personally, putting aside the godawful handling of the initial investigation and the grand jury, I don't think that there is enough evidence to convict Officer Wilson of any crime. I haven't read everything that is available yet (and I don't know if I will) but it looks weak to me.

 

I think that Wilson probably acted within the law and I understand and agree that it's different to analyze this sort of case after the fact than it is in the heat of the moment. That said, I also understand how an officer shooting an unarmed 18yo (who isn't fleeing) while he is half a football field away is upsetting to some people.

 

Nothing said he was half a football field away though, he simply died 153 feet away from the patrol car. I haven't seen exact distances though from Wilson to Brown as far as the final encounter unfolded.

[carlfense]

Completely agree law enforcement is held to a higher standard, but Brown decided to "assault" the officer, I know we are debating this, Brown decided to try and take Wilson's weapon, according to Wilson and then refused to obey commands to stop after being shot at after attempting to take Wilson's weapon.

I think that this compresses the timeline unfairly. My understanding of the events is something like this:

 

1. Ofc. Wilson asks Brown to approach his car and Brown does so.

2. Ofc. Wilson says (and some witnesses agree) that Brown reached into the car and assaulted him/tried to take his firearm.

3. Ofc. Wilson fires 2 or more shots from within the car with Brown at the window. (One into door, one grazes Brown's finger.)

4. Brown flees/runs/walks at least 153 feet away from the cruiser and eventually turns around. (There is conflicting evidence here about Brown's actions at this point. He either stands with his hands up, stands with his hands out, is walking towards the cruiser, is running towards the cruiser, or is charging the cruiser . . . again from ~150 feet away.)

5. Ofc. Wilson fires several more times, with the last shot probably entering the top of Brown's skull as he falls forward.

 

I think that if the fatal shots had been fired in the initial confrontation at the cruiser window that there is almost no question that it was justified. It's the time and distance between that confrontation and the additional shots that gives me pause. I don't think that anyone can claim that Brown was fleeing when he was facing the cruiser. I also have some trouble with the idea that Ofc. Wilson felt personally threatened by Brown when Brown was that far away.

 

Regardless, I just don't see any jury convicting on those facts. Who knows.

[carlfense]

Nothing said he was half a football field away though, he simply died 153 feet away from the patrol car. I haven't seen exact distances though from Wilson to Brown as far as the final encounter unfolded.

All of the rounds (I think) hit Brown from the front and (I think?) Ofc. Wilson testified that Brown was still stumbling towards his cruiser as he was being struck by the bullets . . . so I think that it's fair to conclude that he was more than 150 feet away when Ofc. Wilson started shooting.

[BIGREDIOWAN]

Wilson pursued after Brown so you're confused there or heard wrong. Wilson gave commands for Brown to stop while pursuing him and Brown stopped, turned around, and charged Wilson. This is when Wilson fired additional rounds, there was a pause, Brown continued to charge and Wilson fired the final shots. 153 feet, 51 yards, is a long way to have a successful shot with a pistol during a critical incident if not impossible. I think the final encounter happened within 20 or 30 feet?

[Landlord]

This was not a racial issue between Wilson and Brown, the media portrayed it that way and these riots are completely on the media. They fed the anger with their headlines "white officer shoots and kills unarmed black teenager" From there in spiraled into what it is now.......

 

 

 

There's no way to be able to say the bolded as a matter of any certainty. It was likely not racial in the sense of a conscious decision to confront and/or kill Brown because of his skin color, as if Wilson said to himself, "If he was white I would let him go!" No of course not. Nobody is saying that, even though there are reports of evidence forthcoming linking Wilson to the KKK.

 

It's racial because, first of all, Michael Brown was black. Our country has a history of disproportionate violence by police officers against black people than against whites. Regardless of if Wilson had any thought towards that, it's the reality of our country as a whole.

 

Further, it could also be racial in nature because studies have shown that there is a possibility that police officers may have implicit and subconscious bias against African-Americans, which makes sense, because our country in general has a bias against African-Americans (see Jon Stewart's example of his white producer dressed homeless and his black correspondent dressed in a tailored suit, walking into the same building to record an interview, with the black man being stopped).

 

It's racial because there is a compelling argument towards a possibility that Wilson, and other police officers, and other Americans in general, would act differently towards the same person in the same situation if the only changed was the other person's skin color, and it is racial because disregarding Wilson and Brown specifically, minorities in this country are persecuted socially and prosecuted legally to an amount that is higher than a fair representation.

 

 

 

http://www.colorlines.com/archives/2007/11/killed_by_the_cops.html

 

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/08/police-shootings-michael-brown-ferguson-black-men

 

http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=1798&issue_id=5200

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The geographic diversity of these tragedies suggest that the problem is not centralized to one area of the country, but rather a widespread issue of concern. In 2007, a joint effort by ColorLines and the Chicago Reporter examined police shootings in the 10 largest cities in the U.S., and in every city, African Americans comprised a disproportionately large percentage of those killed.

The cities with the greatest racial disparity in these shootings were New York, San Diego, and Las Vegas — in each of these cities, the percentage of black people killed was at least twice that of their percentage of the city’s population.

In Ferguson, where blacks outnumber whites two to one, they were arrested at a rate of eight to one during the first four months of this year. Nationally, African Americans are arrested three times more frequently than their white counterparts, although African Americans make up only 12 percent of the population.

"Since 2000, investigators in the Stereotyping and Prejudice Research Laboratory in the Psychology Department at the University of Chicago have been working to develop and refine a first-person-shooter video game, which presents a series of images of young men—some armed, some unarmed—set against realistic backgrounds such as parks or city streets.3 The player’s goal is to shoot any and all armed targets but not to shoot unarmed targets. Half of the targets are black, and half are white. The laboratory is using this game to investigate whether decisions to shoot at a potentially hostile target can be influenced by the target’s race.

This community study has been ongoing since 2000, and the participants are college students or residents in Illinois and Colorado. In the study, participants are instructed to press one of two buttons whenever a person appears on the screen. Participants are instructed that if the person, or target, is armed, they should press a button labeled “Shoot.” If the target is unarmed, they are told to press a button labeled “Don’t shoot.” In either case, participants are instructed to respond as quickly as possible. To increase participants’ attention during the task, and to motivate appropriate behavior, participants earned points for correct responses and lost points for errors.

The results of this ongoing community study show clear patterns of racial bias by college students and community residents. First, community participants showed bias in the speed with which they could respond correctly to the targets. Community participants were faster to press “Shoot” in response to an armed target if that target was black rather than white, whereas they were faster to press “Don’t shoot” in response to an unarmed target if that target was white rather than black. Second, community participants showed bias in the nature of the mistakes they made. In response to an armed target, community participants occasionally made a mistake by pressing “Don’t shoot.” They were more likely to make such a mistake if the armed target was white rather than black. By contrast, the community participants were more likely to mistakenly shoot an unarmed target if he was black rather than white. In essence, community participants were faster and more accurate when responding to targets that fit the kinds of stereotypes that the authors believe are prevalent in U.S. society (armed blacks and unarmed whites), but they were slower and more likely to make mistakes in response to targets that deviated from these stereotypes (unarmed blacks and armed whites)."

Reaction Time Index: The study found that all three groups—Denver police officers, national police officers, and members of the Denver community—showed significant bias in their reaction times, and the groups did not differ in terms of the magnitude of that bias. The groups were uniformly faster to shoot an armed black target, relative to an armed white target, and uniformly faster to press the “Don’t shoot” button for an unarmed white target, relative to an unarmed black target. Officers and community members alike, it seemed, responded more quickly to targets that conform to stereotypes.

Figure 2. The criterion to shoot white and black targets is depicted. Community

members showed significant bias: a lower, more lenient criterion

for black targets than for white targets. Police did not show significant bias:

they used statistically equivalent criteria for both whites and blacks.

Error Index: The second index of performance concerned the likelihood of an error. As with the reaction times, the frequency with which each participant made a mistake—either shooting an unarmed target or choosing not to shoot an armed target— was examined. An analytic technique called signal detection theory allowed researchers to calculate the criteria used in this study.6 Lower criteria suggest that participants are more willing to shoot (favoring the shoot response), whereas higher criteria suggest an unwillingness to shoot (favoring the don’t-shoot response). Figure 2 provides the results of this analysis.

The Denver community members showed pronounced racial bias: they set a much lower criterion for black targets than for whites. But critically, neither the Denver nor the national officers showed evidence of such a bias. The officers set statistically equivalent criteria for both white and black targets—they were no more likely to shoot a black target than a white target.

Follow-up Study

In a follow-up study (Denver study 2), which investigated only Denver community members and Denver police officers, the task of deciding whether to shoot was made more difficult by forcing participants to respond more quickly. In this study, participants had only 630 milliseconds (a bit over half a second) to react to the targets. This change was designed to reveal whether the police officers in the first study demonstrated an apparent lack of bias only because the video game was simply too easy for them.

By making the task sufficiently challenging, researchers hypothesized that police might show racial bias, just like the community. A group of 31 officers and a group of 45 community members were recruited to perform the computer task. Bias was assessed by examining the criterion for the decision to shoot. Interestingly, the second study yielded results similar to the first: although community members showed clear evidence of bias, setting a much lower criterion for black targets than for white targets, police showed no evidence of bias in their criteria to shoot.

Additional analyses, based on Denver studies 1 and 2, revealed that police outperformed community members in a variety of ways. First, police were faster to make correct decisions (shooting armed targets or choosing not to shoot unarmed targets). Second, they were more likely to make correct decisions. Third, police were generally more conservative in their decisions to shoot. Whereas community members were rather trigger-happy, police were relatively cautious.

[carlfense]

Wilson pursued after Brown so you're confused there or heard wrong. Wilson gave commands for Brown to stop while pursuing him and Brown stopped, turned around, and charged Wilson. This is when Wilson fired additional rounds, there was a pause, Brown continued to charge and Wilson fired the final shots. 153 feet, 51 yards, is a long way to have a successful shot with a pistol during a critical incident if not impossible. I think the final encounter happened within 20 or 30 feet?

I don't really know. If it's true that it was 20-30 feet that would certainly alter my opinion. (Should be able to mostly recreate where Wilson was firing from by looking at the distribution of the shell casings.)

 

And hell, despite what the fakes at the range will tell you, 51 yards is long range with a pistol even if you're calm.