FBI Opens Investigation into Shooting of Michael Brown

[RainMaker]

Graphic for those who don't want to see blood poor out of an old man's ear. Police stated the man tripped and fell.

Just about an hour ago, police officers shove man in Niagara Square to the ground (WARNING: Graphic). Video from: @MikeDesmondWBFO pic.twitter.com/JBKQLvzfET

— WBFO (@WBFO) June 5, 2020

[Atocep]

I think the most striking part of that video is the cop whose initial reaction was to bend down to try to help or check on him but thought better of it. He didn't want to be the good egg so he moved along.

EDIT: and yes you can argue he was told to move along, but even that act is just dehumanizing. There's a man lying on the ground, possibly dying, and 20 cops casually march by while no one tends to him to transfer responsibility to the national guard medics.

[whomario]

Originally Posted by Butter

An interesting aside on this thread which appears to be mainly focused on one guy and his tiresome, BS rationalizations on police brutality that he must believe are Extraordinarily Important because he literally won't shut up.

But I've been doing a lot of reading and do think that poverty is a root cause. I'm curious what you would have the "Democrats" do, as we can probably agree that they are the only party interested in trying to fix this problem. The GOP literally can't stop fixating on minor fraud or abuse in any social programs that for some reason seem to invalidate all of the program, despite its just having given a half trillion handout to various companies with almost no oversight.

What do you recommend?

It is and not enough decisions are made with the goal to influence this either directly or at the very least reduce the Impact of poverty. Even aside from the obvious stuff (say healthcare or schools). Look at the neglect of Public Transport for example, which is be an important equalizer when good/extensive and affordable. Yet by and large people in power contort themselves to avoid doing anything to keep it from deteriorating (much less improving it), somehow getting people to buy into the notion that putting money into it equals "waste" or expecting it to be "economical".
The lobbying that is happening here to keep it in shambles is spectacular. And i am from a country where the car lobby has been king for centuries and they only wish they had that kind of power.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Atocep

I think the most striking part of that video is the cop whose initial reaction was to bend down to try to help or check on him but thought better of it. He didn't want to be the good egg so he moved along.

EDIT: and yes you can argue he was told to move along, but even that act is just dehumanizing. There's a man lying on the ground, possibly dying, and 20 cops casually march by while no one tends to him to transfer responsibility to the national guard medics.

Hope there is some follow up because a guy that age hitting the ground that hard and bleeding out the ear usually ends up real bad.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by Carman Bulldog

This includes an expectation that they are have expertise in the areas of law, use of force, solving crime...

Sooooo... Police are not supposed to have expertise in these areas?

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Atocep

I think the most striking part of that video is the cop whose initial reaction was to bend down to try to help or check on him but thought better of it. He didn't want to be the good egg so he moved along.

EDIT: and yes you can argue he was told to move along, but even that act is just dehumanizing. There's a man lying on the ground, possibly dying, and 20 cops casually march by while no one tends to him to transfer responsibility to the national guard medics.

came here to post exactly this

god dammit

[Butter]

I mean that guy was clearly reaching for his gun, but I need about 10 minutes more of contextual pre-video to determine if that was an appropriate use of force/ ignoring.

[RainMaker]

Are fitness tests not a thing anymore?

This is Philly around 5:30 today. There is just no defense for this behavior. At all. #BLUEFALL pic.twitter.com/jgeESpvZo3

— Joshua Potash (@JoshuaPotash) June 5, 2020

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Butter

I mean that guy was clearly reaching for his gun, but I need about 10 minutes more of contextual pre-video to determine if that was an appropriate use of force/ ignoring.

Nope. This clip showed a good stretch leading up to the incident so I do think this is a fair twitter clip that provided very good context.

I wish they were all like this.

[Butter]

THANK GOD YOU APPROVE.

I don't think i could've slept tonight

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Butter

THANK GOD YOU APPROVE.

I don't think i could've slept tonight

YW

[sterlingice]

Maybe not the time or place, but should we have a conversation over the legality of curfews? It's pretty clear that a significant reason why they are imposing them is to (and I'm not sure these are in correct order):

A) Keep the peace - though we're obviously having some real disagreemtns about how "peaceful" this peacekeeping is
B) Squelch and arrest the more hardcore protesters (lots of stories of taking phones and not returning them, etc, to prevent them from organizing)
C) Show of force and superiority - Protesters can't do anything about these laws

I'm more of a living Constitution guy, but I'd be curious to see what the more strict Constitutionalists think about creating a rule that has a primary purpose of restricting free speech. Yes, yes, there are limits to free speech in the "fire in a theater" type examples. But letting some 100 people shout "I can't breathe" in a public park until 4am hardly constitutes that.

And up to 3 months in prison for breaking curfew? That's patently insane and definitely not proportional response. I don't think you'll see me trotting out the old "what do you think Thomas Jefferson would say about this" line very often (ever?)* but what do you think the founders would say about this kind of restriction on free speech?

*I believe the response would be something mixed between "holy crap, you can fly in giant metal contraptions and have encyclopedias in the palm of your hand" and "how are you nincompoops still trying to take everything we said literally like we're some mythical religious text"

SI

[Carman Bulldog]

Originally Posted by Butter

Sooooo... Police are not supposed to have expertise in these areas?

You're quote conveniently omits other areas that I highlighted, including mental health and social work. I'll also add to that list the physiological effects of alcohol and drugs.

What I'm saying is, I'm not sure anyone can be cross-trained sufficiently in all of those areas and few people have the aptitude for it.

People generally get degress in most of these areas so that they have a sufficient expertise (law, social work, mental health/counselling, physiology of drugs).

Nor can you ignore certain areas (as your omission suggests) such as mental health as well as dealing with those under the influence of drugs because of how imtwined these are to the use of force.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Hope there is some follow up because a guy that age hitting the ground that hard and bleeding out the ear usually ends up real bad.

That was quick

Two Buffalo police officers suspended after incident in Niagara Square that left protester injured

Tonight, after a physical altercation between two separate groups of protesters participating in an illegal demonstration beyond the curfew, two Buffalo Police officers knocked down a 75-year-old man. The victim is in stable but serious condition at ECMC. I was deeply disturbed by the video, as was Buffalo Police Commissioner Byron Lockwood. He directed an immediate investigation into the matter, and the two officers have been suspended without pay. After days of peaceful protests and several meetings between myself, Police leadership and members of the community, tonight’s event is disheartening. I hope to continue to build on the progress we have achieved as we work together to address racial injustice and inequity in the City of Buffalo. My thoughts are with the victim tonight.
-Mayor Byron Brown

[JPhillips]

Carman, I think you're right. What happens, though, is that medical personal, social workers, mental health experts, etc. all get cut when budgets get tights. Police are essential, but these other do-gooders can go and the police can take over.

There are all sorts of effective programs around the country using a mix of law enforcement and other agencies, but they never scale up nationally because there's too little will to spend money on those types of programs.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I'm more of a living Constitution guy, but I'd be curious to see what the more strict Constitutionalists think about creating a rule that has a primary purpose of restricting free speech. Yes, yes, there are limits to free speech in the "fire in a theater" type examples. But letting some 100 people shout "I can't breathe" in a public park until 4am hardly constitutes that.

It's not a restriction on speech at all. Nobody's stopping anybody from going on any TV or radio show and blasting 'I can't breathe' till the cows come home. Or distributing pamphlets, organizing a letter-writing campaign, broadcasting it across the internet (like we are doing here), etc.

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I believe the response would be something mixed between "holy crap, you can fly in giant metal contraptions and have encyclopedias in the palm of your hand" and "how are you nincompoops still trying to take everything we said literally like we're some mythical religious text"

My response to this is basically that I'm not in favor of nine unelected lawyers making decisions granted to the people by the Constitution. We can amend the document any time we darned well please, but if you don't hold to what it actually says instead of what you'd like it to say until you do that, then you don't have rule of, by, and for the people. SCOTUS could wake up tomorrow and decide nobody has the right of free speech. The only reason that's not ok is the Constitution restricts them from doing that. Give that up and it's a free-for-all.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

My response to this is basically that I'm not in favor of nine unelected lawyers making decisions granted to the people by the Constitution.

Honetly, this unelected quip (which I've seen over and over again) is just so ridiculous that I'm surprised to see you using it. I mean, would you be in favor of it if they were elected? Why the fuck does it matter if they've been elected or not? That's how the Constitution sets it up.

And in the realm of free speech, I guarantee you free speech would be more restricted if SCOTUS justices were elected or if interpretation of it was left up to elected legislatures.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

It's not a restriction on speech at all. Nobody's stopping anybody from going on any TV or radio show and blasting 'I can't breathe' till the cows come home. Or distributing pamphlets, organizing a letter-writing campaign, broadcasting it across the internet (like we are doing here), etc.

Not to speak for SI, but I'm guessing he was using free speech as an all encompassing term for the first amendment. Curfews certain violate our freedom of assembly.

Based on the goal of protecting the public during flood, famine, riots, ect I do think the founding fathers would have been ok with curfews in very strict instances. Whether cities using them now would meet that bar would be up for discussion.

[kingfc22]

Originally Posted by Atocep

That was quick

Two Buffalo police officers suspended after incident in Niagara Square that left protester injured

That’s not change. Fire them.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Honetly, this unelected quip (which I've seen over and over again) is just so ridiculous that I'm surprised to see you using it. I mean, would you be in favor of it if they were elected? Why the fuck does it matter if they've been elected or not? That's how the Constitution sets it up.

I don't think it's ridiculous at all. SCOTUS was intended and designed to be by far the weakest of the three branches. The unelected part matters because the fact that they are lifetime appointments makes it more difficult for the people to change the composition as quickly as they can the legislative or executive branches if they step out of line, and therefore judicial over-reach, when it occurs, has a greater negative impact on the republic than when other branches do so.

Originally Posted by Atocep

I'm guessing he was using free speech as an all encompassing term for the first amendment. Curfews certain violate our freedom of assembly.

I don't think he was, but I also wouldn't say curfews inherently violate assembly. Certainly they don't do so to nearly the extent as, say, the COVID stay-at-home orders. It's not like people are being told they can't assemble at all, it's just for part of the day.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by kingfc22

That’s not change. Fire them.

I wouldn't be too surprised if state/union policy makes it literally impossible to fire them without following some sort of explicit process, for what little it's worth.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

It's not like people are being told they can't assemble at all, it's just for part of the day.

None of our other rights are limited by where the sun is at that particular moment.

COVID is covered by the Supreme Court case Massachusetts vs Jacobson and was used to protect the public. The Supreme Court hasn't ruled on curfews, which I'm guessing is what raised the question. It's a stretch to say every city is currently using curfews to protect the public and I can't see the founding fathers or anyone else being ok with a US citizen not being able to stand outside on the own property and we've seen that as part of the current curfews.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

My response to this is basically that I'm not in favor of nine unelected lawyers making decisions granted to the people by the Constitution. We can amend the document any time we darned well please, but if you don't hold to what it actually says instead of what you'd like it to say until you do that, then you don't have rule of, by, and for the people. SCOTUS could wake up tomorrow and decide nobody has the right of free speech. The only reason that's not ok is the Constitution restricts them from doing that. Give that up and it's a free-for-all.

Strict constructionist is a myth because the constitution is intentionally vague. What exactly does freedom of the press mean? How far does that right go? It's up to a court to decide.

And even the so called constructionists on the court know that. They aren't going to overturn Loving vs Virginia or Brown vs BoE (well maybe Thomas) despite it fitting their perceived stance.

They also change a great deal when it comes to domestic powers vs national security ones. They are strict constructionists on the former, but magically turn it into a living constitution to justify indefinite detention, the Patriot Act, and police powers. A strict constructionist will say you don't have a right to create obscene material because it is not a direct right given in the constitution. But they say owning an AR15 is despite it not being a direct right given either. Two amendments with different interpretations.

Regardless, they were all exposed in Bush vs Gore when they trampled on states rights and expanded the Equal Protection Clause to something it had never been used for. Essentially turning it into a "living constitution" they pretended to hate.

Now it has little meaning except as a dogwhistle to let people know they'll shut down rights for people they don't like and ensure those they do like maintain them.

This belongs in another thread. My point is that people don't really have a stance on the principle, they have a stance on the political when it comes to justices. Otherwise you'd see every conservative up in arms during Bush v Gore.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

I wouldn't be too surprised if state/union policy makes it literally impossible to fire them without following some sort of explicit process, for what little it's worth.

I can't fathom there is a policy that doesn't allow them to be charged with a crime. If they can't fire, charge them with the crime they commit. I have to imagine that being convicted of a crime is grounds for termination even in the most favorable of union terms.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

My point is that people don't really have a stance on the principle, they have a stance on the political when it comes to justices. Otherwise you'd see every conservative up in arms during Bush v Gore.

I'll leave the rest be to not derail it too far, but this is just plain not true. I've consistently held, and I'm far from the only one, that I was against the repeal of the 17th Amendment for example. It was done via the amendment process though and now it's part of the Constitution. The people spoke, and it's incumbent on every citizen to respect that decision.

This broad-brush stuff where one just assumes that everyone on one side of an issue doesn't actually believe what they say is pure, unadulterated nonsense.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I'll leave the rest be to not derail it too far, but this is just plain not true. I've consistently held, and I'm far from the only one, that I was against the repeal of the 17th Amendment for example. It was done via the amendment process though and now it's part of the Constitution. The people spoke, and it's incumbent on every citizen to respect that decision.

This broad-brush stuff where one just assumes that everyone on one side of an issue doesn't actually believe what they say is pure, unadulterated nonsense.

Strict constructionists took power away from the state in a election and then re-interpreted the 14th Amendment. Plain and simple judicial activism that they claim to abhor. It went against every principle they espouse.

Then ask yourself if you believe they'd be willing to overturn Loving v Virginia or Brown v BoE. Because if they were strict constructionists, they would. Yet justices like Scalia and Breyer have said they would not have and even been in the dissent during Plessy.

Scalia spent his career siding against the separation of Church vs State despite his proclaimed originalist interpretation of the constitution. He has even famously said that minority religions should not have the same rights as the majority religion.

Like I said, it's a myth they carry around as there are countless examples of these adherents to the original constitution making exceptions for their pet causes.

As for the broad-brush, I just posted numerous examples for you of them going against their beliefs. I can find one for every single person who claimed to be a strict constructionist.

[RainMaker]

I don't know the legality of the curfew but it seems to be doing more harm than good. It kind of gives justification to beat people and arrest them. It has caused massive confusion as essential workers have been assaulted by cops on their way to and from work which they are allowed to do.

I haven't seen a successful curfew yet.

[RainMaker]

Law Enforcement Seizes Masks Meant To Protect Anti-Racist Protesters From COVID-19

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by whomario

For a mere speeding violation or even any sort of non-violent crime (say a shoplifter), why not just get the plate number and serve a warrant. Or use modern technologies (like GPS Darts) and spend money on that rather than military equipment. Or not get the guy this time. Not every crime/arrest is justifying every response/risk: not to themselves, the suspect and especially not the general public.

Speeding is different IMO - for example if the car is stolen, these measures don’t work. The cops have to chase excessive speeders down otherwise there’s a green light for stealing a car and joyriding

[RainMaker]

This angle is worse because you can hear the this of his head on the concrete. Good lord.

He didn’t trip he was shoved by the police pic.twitter.com/AM34ltvnRz

— liam "TEXT 50A TO 50409" (@liamfish25) June 5, 2020

[Neon_Chaos]

Wow, just wow. Your police officers have no idea what they are doing.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Like I said, it's a myth they carry around as there are countless examples of these adherents to the original constitution making exceptions for their pet causes.

You can make the hypocrisy argument against literally anybody who is in a profession with as much voluminous documentation and numbers of cases that judges & justices preside over. It's hardly unique to originalists. I think some of your examples don't fit and are a misunderstanding of what their principles actually are/were, but a prolonged dive into the details of those would be very off-topic here.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Atocep

I can't see the founding fathers or anyone else being ok with a US citizen not being able to stand outside on the own property and we've seen that as part of the current curfews.

This I totally agree with, I think that's way over the line. As for limiting rights based on the time of day - I mean there's all kinds of limitations on assembly that have been upheld such as the need for permits. No right is absolute. But the main point is that if it's ok to ban all large gatherings for months to protect the public, it's illogical to say it's not ok to ban them during a much shorter period of time to do so.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Strict constructionists took power away from the state in a election and then re-interpreted the 14th Amendment. Plain and simple judicial activism that they claim to abhor. It went against every principle they espouse.

If there's one thing we've learned from the past several years, it is that the only principle they actually have is "obtaining and keeping power". All else is secondary. That doesn't apply to all people under this umbrella, but certainly most.

[Ben E Lou]

The only good thing about the Buffalo video is that it's already getting the attention of some white people who were callous/removed. That looks like their dad or granddad out there.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

The only good thing about the Buffalo video is that it's already getting the attention of some white people who were callous/removed. That looks like their dad or granddad out there.

Was just having this conversation... it was less disturbing to me than the multiple vids of cops just using their batons full force against people who are "in the way" or "mouthing off" and the like (to me, those are pure illustrations of systemic problems in police culture) but if the Buffalo vid is what it takes to get a wave of people engaged because of... yeah, because that looks like my grampa... then go for it, get pissed off, you do you.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I've consistently held, and I'm far from the only one, that I was against the repeal of the 17th Amendment for example.

Sorry, side issue, but... 17th (popular election of senators) or 18th (alcohol prohibition)?

Assuming the latter... interesting. Is that your view after contemplating the modern debate about cannabis/drug legalization? Or a more deeply held view about state/individual rights? Probably better in another thread. I just don't really know many (any?) modern abolitionists.

[JPhillips]

I'm sure he means the 17th. He's said it before.

[QuikSand]

I just don't really know many (any?) smoke filled room enthusiasts.

[bob]

I am really worried about this weekend. Tensions are high, cops have to be getting tired since stress and long hours wear anyone down, and I haven't seen any sort of steps towards addressing the legitimate concerns. In fact, the only national response I've seen is Justin Amash's bill to end qualified immunity, but I'm not sure how much of a chance that has (I assume little).

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Was just having this conversation... it was less disturbing to me than the multiple vids of cops just using their batons full force against people who are "in the way" or "mouthing off" and the like (to me, those are pure illustrations of systemic problems in police culture)

Agree 100%.

but if the Buffalo vid is what it takes to get a wave of people engaged because of... yeah, because that looks like my grampa... then go for it, get pissed off, you do you.

I posted in on FB. A co-worker from Michigan shared it. A comment on her share?

I saw this video earlier this morning, and I’m STILL pissed off about it!🤬
What if that was my Dad? Ugh"

"Wait, you mean this can happen to white people, too????" is a powerful force.

[JPhillips]

I don't understand the people that say, What if Floyd were white? I mean, that's awful, too. Cops shouldn't kill people, regardless of race.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I don't understand the people that say, What if Floyd were white? I mean, that's awful, too. Cops shouldn't kill people, regardless of race.

That's all well and good, but I've moved far past my youthful idealism of what "should" and "shouldn't" happen, and am more interested in how to win hearts and minds. And the reality is that for many people, "imagine if he was white," or seeing it happen to a white grandpa are more effective than seeing it happen to a 46-year-old poor black person in what looks like a poor part of town.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

That's all well and good, but I've moved far past my youthful idealism of what "should" and "shouldn't" happen, and am more interested in how to win hearts and minds. And the reality is that for many people, "imagine if he was white," or seeing it happen to a white grandpa are more effective than seeing it happen to a 46-year-old poor black person in what looks like a poor part of town.

+1

[JPhillips]

I get that, I just don't understand how some people see that as a killer comeback. As if people are arguing that police should only be less violent towards blacks, but should keep beating the shit out of everyone else.

[whomario]

That same logic aplies to locality as well. Stuff happening in your town/country has more of an affect than stuff happening far away and at the same time you can't imagine any of it applying/happening where you live (despite it actually happening)

Heck, german 'state/public TV' (not like NK, simply financed from public funds and the most watched channels) managed to plan a special programme on the events and fail to invite a single black person.
Then when they got reminded of that on Twitter they rushed out hours before the show and ended up grabbing the first uncontroversial candidate they presumably could find within walking distance (a professor of german at the american academy) and have her talk like 5 sentences.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I'm sure he means the 17th. He's said it before.

Originally Posted by Atocep

I think the most striking part of that video is the cop whose initial reaction was to bend down to try to help or check on him but thought better of it. He didn't want to be the good egg so he moved along.

EDIT: and yes you can argue he was told to move along, but even that act is just dehumanizing. There's a man lying on the ground, possibly dying, and 20 cops casually march by while no one tends to him to transfer responsibility to the national guard medics.

He bent down and made a joke that he was going to help the guy up. Like “psyche!~”. Dunno if that game was played elsewhere. But he had no intention of helping that guy up and looked like he was mocking him.

-my take

[whomario]

Originally Posted by stevew

He bent down and made a joke that he was going to help the guy up. Like “psyche!~”. Dunno if that game was played elsewhere. But he had no intention of helping that guy up and looked like he was mocking him.

-my take

I also got the impression his instinct was to sneer at the guy, the way he grips his baton with both hands seems a dead giveaway along with how sudden he moves.

[rjolley]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I get that, I just don't understand how some people see that as a killer comeback. As if people are arguing that police should only be less violent towards blacks, but should keep beating the shit out of everyone else.

Exactly. I have not once heard anyone with BLM say that the police reforms should only impact the way the police interact with Black people, but continue to harm everyone else. The reform is meant to help everyone.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Sorry, side issue, but... 17th (popular election of senators) or 18th (alcohol prohibition)?

Yep, 17th. It's my go-to example for these discussions as JPhillips noted (there are examples I could name as well, it's just a clear one that has lots of popular support for the not-me position). I'm not an alcohol abolitionist.