It was the tactic of people trying to change the status quo. “Justice For Mike”, they said. “#JusticeForMikeBrown”, they wrote. They wore it on their shirts and held it up on their signs, and we looked long and hard at that case because they told us to.
Last year. quite a few athletes and celebrities were doing the “Hands up” display or wearing, “I can’t breathe” shirts.
I find it interesting that Stedman Bailey, a player for the St. Louis Rams, came onto the field for a game with his hands up last year. Last week, Bailey was shot in a car. Another racist cop? Nope, he was hanging around his drug dealing pals when another vehicle pulled up and opened fire. His football career is over.
He should have kept his hands up.
Regards,
Shodan
“They’re charging us with unconstitutional crimes like Failure to Comply, illegally searching our vehicles and persons, routinely using excessive force, arresting us without probable cause, and singling out black people for arrest and mistreatment”.
Just read the report. There’s nothing frivolous about what was going on in Ferguson, and trying to minimize it like this is disgusting.
As part of a larger narrative. It’s Black Lives Matter (the subject of the thread), not Mike Brown’s Life Mattered. Again, rallying point.
No, it’s both; there really were tons of Mike-Brown-centric rallying cries, just like there was plenty of Justice-For-Trayvon sloganeering and merchandise before that; people cry wolf about particular rallying-point cases because without ‘em a chant to the effect that Black Lives Matter evokes, like, Bernie Sanders’ original reply.
Perhaps your experience varies, but to me it’s always been clear that the individual cases are presented in the context of being an example of a larger problem, not the problem themselves.
Well, (a) surely the larger problem is just the individual cases put together, right? And (b) what am I supposed to do when an individual case is brought to my attention by people who loudly demand Justice For This Example? Am I to disregard each such example, instead immediately moving on to how there must be a context?
Or am I to say, when the signs and shirts and slogans and hashtags and rallies explicitly center on one individual, perhaps they figure this case is especially egregious, and cries out for – huh; no, on review, his treatment was kosher; if that’s the example that riled them up, how innocuous must the rest be?
By Bailey’s “drug dealing pals” I assume you mean his cousin, Antwan Reeves, plus Reeves’ young children ages five and 10.
Well, it would be nice if the individual cases that the BLM movement used were at least significantly better than Darwin award winners.
Right. If only those people did more “nice”.
Well, I shoulda said “smart” but one could at least hope for “nice” but even that is apparently a stretch.
What’s the opposite of “suicidal”?
Well, the police are sworn to protect the dumb and jerky citizens, too.
Not that poor Tamir Rice, shot within one second with his hands in his pockets, really had a chance to be anything in his encounter with Cleveland’s finest.
Yes, but single incidents are anecdotes. They only become data when compiled into a statistically significant sample.
No, by all means read up on the individual case to the extent you desire. Just don’t reduce the entire problem to that one case. I can read up on both at once, and I’m sure you can too.
I wouldn’t make that assumption. For one, the cases that blow up nationally aren’t necessarily chosen on merit - the news media has its own agenda, and other factors beyond the actual case (like large street protests and a subsequent crackdown) are important.
Further, it’s not as though there’s going to be a Rosa Parks of police violence. There’s no opportunity to pre-select a worthy candidate to go and get killed so as to motivate fence-sitters to care about the issue.
It’s not an ideal world. I’m sorry.
I don’t make that assumption. I could, of course – and it’s nice to play pretend, mulling that assumption instead of the one they keep jumping to – but no matter how many times they cry wolf, I strive to consider each incident on its own merits.
Again, I’m also urging you to look beyond just the headline-grabbing shooting deaths (plenty of which, I’m sure, are not “crying wolf” at all) to the bigger picture: things like the DoJ report on the Ferguson PD, drug war statistics, scholarly studies of racial bias in sentencing, and so forth. The massive institutional problem we’re discussing simply can’t be reduced to a few dozen individual incidents.
Bounkham Phonesavanh Jr.
If you want a poster child for why some police tactics need to be abolished and their users prosecuted, finding one is fucking easy, if you’re not Black Lives Matter. Compare:
On one side, you have a robber who assaulted a cop, got shot, ran at the cop, got shot, continued running at the cop and got shot again.
On the other, you have a baby injured when the police broke into some random house and threw a grenade into his crib.
traffic citations have always been a source of revenue for cities.
In my area there are traffic cameras all over the place. The city made 1.5 million a year with them until they were legislated into limbo.
I agree there is an institutional problem. That said, it is completely stupid marketing to highlight someone like Michael Brown as an innocent poster child of systemic police racisim and provides an easy out for any one looking for one.
Again, did the DoJ report highlight injustices with the specific Michael Brown case? (Not with the way the aftermath was handled, and let me go on record that I was fucking appaled that in small town America police had military grade weapons pointed at US citizens, nor in the system level of traffic fines targeting people of color in Ferguson, etc)
What end game is BLM trying to achieve? Get headlines or address the underlying issues?
As Gumman points out, there are incidents that should make any living person shudder in horror that could be better used.
Maybe you’re okay with the practice of placing a higher value on raising revenue than public safety for police departments, but I think it’s unacceptable, whether in Ferguson in which the exploitation is focused on black citizens, or elsewhere in which the exploitation might be drivers in general, or some other group.