They were doing their job in Ferguson. Michael Brown first attacked a store owner and then attacked an officer. Instead of supporting the officer they burned the city down and drove him out of a job.
There’s your Ferguson effect. If you don’t understand the dynamics of BLM’s actions then I don’t know what to say.
The Ferguson PD had a terrible relationship with the residents of Ferguson, due the abuses detailed in the DOJ report. “Supporting the officer” wasn’t a realistic expectation.
In response to Michael Brown, Officer Wilson was doing his job. If you want to protest something, pick an event that’s relevant. Or burn your city to the ground and watch the murder rate rise. There is a choice here.
It’s a big, big group, and there are lots of injustices. Some people are going to get some of them wrong – there will always be mistakes to point at, if you want. These mistakes are nothing compared to the actual injustices.
Yes, it’s a big, big group. You still don’t seem to understanding that if you go after an officer doing his job then the result will be other officers playing it safe. If you disrupt people and businesses that were not involved then you alienate support and harm people at the lower end of the pay scale.
In short, BLM is it’s own worst enemy.
“Don’t be such angry black people.”
“Go ahead and protest, as long as you don’t inconvenience me in any way, shape, or form, or give me any reason to pay any attention to you.”
To some extent, depending on whom you believe. If he initiated the encounter by screaming at Brown and his friend to get out of the road, then pulling his cruiser onto the sidewalk while nearby running the pair over, then he wasn’t doing his job.
It isn’t the events that are important, they’re just rallying points. The underlying issues are the problem. If it turned out that Emmett Till committed suicide instead of being murdered, that doesn’t by itself mean that there was no lynching problem.
I will no longer try to reason with a person who is not outraged about dead bodies in the street, but is over the top outraged over a store entrance being blocked. It isn’t at all difficult to understand what the concept of privelege means.
If “playing it safe” results in fewer dead black people, then that sounds like a good trade. I have yet to see any evidence that short-term increases in crime were caused by any actions from BLM.
So Civil Rights protesters in the 60s were wrong to do this? When they disrupted traffic, that harmed their cause?
And this is the EXACT same argument being used by those who blindly support the police. In other words, the people you don’t like.
“It’s a big, big group of criminals and there are lots of crimes. Some cops will get things wrong - there will always be mistakes to point at, if you want. These mistakes are nothing compared to the actual crimes”
Quit justifying the bad behavior of people on your side if you want to be taken seriously.
Their argument is wrong, because the “mistakes” that result in dead people (or beaten people) by cops are every bit as bad as actual crimes. They are and should be treated as crimes (and are treated as crimes in a small number of cases). Very different than any mistakes by BLM. BLM doesn’t kill people.
Saying “this protest is wrong because the cop they’re protesting didn’t do anything wrong” is very, very different than saying “this entire protest movement is wrong because the cop a single group protested didn’t do anything wrong”.
Maybe this one time. But for years beforehand? Have you spent any time looking into the conditions in Ferguson? It was not pretty. There was a massive racial disparity, with the police performing what really can only reasonably be called a shakedown, with massive racial disparities.
And yeah, pick your battles and whatnot. Guess what: the situation in Ferguson merited fighting over. Do you think anyone would have heard about this otherwise?
And by the time the truth came out, the riots had already been going on for quite some time. Yes, Wilson acted in self-defense. He also shot the guy 12 freakin’ times, because, yanno, there’s apparently no such thing as “shoot to injure”; maybe try to respond with non-lethal force or something. The conditions of this at the time were unclear. The protesters did not know that it was self-defense.
I understand the hypothesis here. I have no idea whether or not it’s true (there’s absolutely no hard data to back it up, beyond loose correlations in a very complex system), but, as previously pointed out, this reflects, above all, poorly on the police.
And I dunno if you noticed, but the cases people are protesting about? They’re usually cases where someone died. Usually someone who was unarmed. Usually where the issue of whether or not it was self-defense from the police was questionable. Usually where it did not go to trial. If the cops are worried that they can’t do their jobs without killing unarmed people… What the fuck is wrong with the police in your country? Stop giving the people we trust to enforce our laws such ridiculously low standards.
Not to mention that, especially given said conditions, you should be able to easily see why many people didn’t (and even today, don’t) trust the evidence that the criminal justice system revealed that cleared Wilson.
Wilson shot Brown 12 times because shooting him 8 times didn’t work. Wilson shot Brown 8 times because shooting him 2 times didn’t work. Shooting to injure didn’t work, because Brown kept running towards Wilson even after being repeatedly wounded by gunfire. If Brown had surrendered after he got shot while reaching into a police vehicle, or had surrendered after getting shot another six times running towards a cop he had already antagonised with his attempt to steal the cop’s gun, he would still be alive. But he didn’t, because he was a fucking stupid bastard.
They should have at least suspected it might be self-defense, because Michael Brown literally hadn’t gone ten minutes since the last time he’d done the exact same thing. If some asshole uses his size to try to strong-arm someone confronting him about his petty robbery, and then he gets shot while allegedly trying to strong-arm someone confronting him about his petty robbery, only a bigoted idiot does not at least suspect that the second guy might actually be telling the truth.
The shooting was on August 9th. Demonstrations and unrest began that same day. The report and video of the robbery weren’t released until August 15th.
No, they shouldn’t have.
Actually there isn’t any such thing as shoot to wound. There should be IMO. I believe I mentioned that other countries have this codified.
Well I gave multiple cites showing this was a concern by the FBI. And they also fired the Boston Chief of Police.
Let me get this straight, you’re from another country?
yes, every single protest since Jesus turned over the tables of the money changers was wrong.
Does that help your sleep at night knowing your all-or-nothing windmill exists or do you want to have a discussion?
If you want to be taken seriously then keep your message on target and don’t fuck with people who have nothing to do with it. It’s alienating.
…Are you serious? Three arrest warrants per household per year, and they shouldn’t have protested? If anything, they should have protested ages ago.
Yes, and they have no data to back it up. The fact that the director of the FBI says it’s an issue does not necessarily imply that there’s actually anything to that. The data certainly isn’t firmly behind it, and it still doesn’t matter because this means the problem is not police being protested but police being chickenshit.
I didn’t see anything in that citation about the “Ferguson effect”.
Yes. I don’t live in the only country in the world where this problem exists. I feel it gives me a nice outsider perspective on what could be, and allows me to judge certain things more fairly, and not allow for ABSURDLY low standard for law enforcement officers.
So there’s a grey area, then. Which is what I thought – so we just disagree about the characteristics and motivations of the BLM protests. No big deal – I see it as closer to previous Civil Rights protests, and you don’t, therefore I think disruptive tactics might be effective and appropriate, and you don’t.
And that is precisely why those people can be written off as partisan imbeciles. That case was looked at with a microscope, not the least of which be a justice department who wanted to find something that would punish Wilson an exonerate the Brown.