Freedomain Posted August 18, 2014 Posted August 18, 2014 Ferguson, Missouri has been engulfed in rioting and looting following the death of 18-year-old black teenager Michael Brown. Officer Darren Wilson, a white policeman, shot and killed Brown on the streets of Ferguson - a tragic incident that became the catalyst for a wave of civil unrest in the local community.Brown died shortly after robbing a convenience store with his friend Dorian Johnson. This information wasn't confirmed until Johnson's attorney, Freeman Bosley, admitted that his client took part in the crime.What happened? Who is responsible? What is the truth about Michael Brown and the Ferguson Riots? Mike Brown EyeWitness Crime Scene Video Ferguson, MOhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdL9dqkyjhMJosie On The Dana Show 8-15-14https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzBdY6WXeRESURVEILLANCE VIDEO: Police say Michael Brown was suspect in Ferguson store robberyhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkOfqIXkBRE Lawyer: Store didn't call cops on Michael Brownhttp://www.ksdk.com/story/news/local/2014/08/15/lawyer-store-didnt-call-cops-on-ferguson-teen-michael-brown/14138121Attorney: Dorian Johnson confirms he was with Brown at store robberyhttp://www.ksdk.com/story/news/local/2014/08/15/attorney-dorian-johnson-michael-brown-robbery/14118769"Isn't that lying by omission?" – Don Lemon asks why Dorian Johnson didn't initially mention the convenience store robberyhttp://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2014/08/15/isnt-that-lying-by-omission-don-lemon-asks-why-dorrian-johnson-didnt-initially-mention-the-convenience-store-robberyLooters reportedly broke into local businesses in Ferguson last night including one from which Michael Brown reported stole a box of cigarshttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2726609/Stores-looted-including-one-slain-teen-Michael-Brown-allegedly-stole-cigars-sixth-night-confrontation-Ferguson-St-Louis-police-ordered-stand-Highway-Patrol.htmlSoundCloud profile:https://soundcloud.com/bigmike-jr-brownFacebook profile:https://www.facebook.com/Mikestlboii"Bloods" gang sign:http://www.wikihow.com/images/6/67/Form-the-Word-%22Blood%22-with-Your-Fingers-Step-6.jpgMichael Brown making a part of it:https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xfa1/v/t1.0-9/376598_521739727845078_1047447257_n.jpg?oh=a3b6bc117dc11ddefffe63238f24978d&oe=5479D3A8&__gda__=1417770785_0dffb3400b2d9b38e47a765a00cff280How To Roll Swisher Sweet Blunthttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-d9Uxq2iTfMhttp://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=swisherBreakdown of Entire Eventhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2725917/Ferguson-police-Officer-Darren-Wilson-cop-shot-dead-unarmed-teenager-Michael-Brown.htmlListen to Mike Brown’s VERY Explicit Rap Songs Featuring Drugs, Drinking and Murderhttp://soopermexican.com/2014/08/15/listen-to-mike-browns-very-explicit-rap-songs-featuring-drugs-drinking-and-murderIt's not just Ferguson: America's criminal justice system is racisthttp://www.vox.com/2014/8/14/6002175/its-not-just-ferguson-americas-criminal-justice-system-is-racistWas it legal for Darren Wilson to shoot Michael Brown?http://www.vox.com/2014/8/13/5994305/michael-brown-case-investigation-legal-police-kill-force-murder"intended to assassinate the character of their son," hhttp://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/ferguson-police-name-michael-brownJohnson Wanted in 2011 Casehttp://www.wnd.com/2014/08/ferguson-shooting-witness-wanted-in-2011-caseFerguson teen's rap lyrics link to drug usehttp://www.wnd.com/2014/08/ferguson-teens-rap-lyrics-link-to-marijuanaFerguson protests reignite as photo of cop surfaceshttp://nypost.com/2014/08/16/ferguson-protests-reignite-with-looting-as-police-hold-backLooters in Ferguson, Mo., were met with little police resistance Friday night and store owners say they were forced to protect their businesses with their own guns, Fox2Now.com reported.http://nation.foxnews.com/2014/08/16/there-are-no-police-ferguson-store-owners-forced-fend-lootersJosie's story matches the less-detailed statements by St. Louis County Police Chief Joe Belmar and Ferguson Police Chief Thomas Jackson.http://www.ksdk.com/story/news/crime/2014/08/10/ferguson-police-news-conference-michael-brown/13860601http://www.nationaljournal.com/domesticpolicy/ferguson-police-say-michael-brown-was-stopped-for-blocking-traffic-20140815http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2726609/Stores-looted-including-one-slain-teen-Michael-Brown-allegedly-stole-cigars-sixth-night-confrontation-Ferguson-St-Louis-police-ordered-stand-Highway-Patrol.html#ixzz3AcOMvrPhhttp://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/08/13/ferguson-protests-continue/13989945http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/08/14/michael-brown-ferguson-missouri-timeline/14051827/http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2014/08/16/the-timeline-of-events-and-scenes-in-ferguson-mo-since-the-shooting-of-michael-brown/http://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatesthis/ferguson-timelinehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/15/tom-jackson-michael-brown_n_5682762.htmlHow are the Riots Affecting Business Ownershttp://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/08/14/michael-brown-ferguson-missouri-timeline/14051827/http://video.foxnews.com/v/3733845699001/protesters-loot-store-allegedly-robbed-by-shooting-victim/#sp=show-clipshttp://www.newrepublic.com/article/80316/relationship-poverty-crime-rates-economic-conditions 2
JohnH. Posted August 18, 2014 Posted August 18, 2014 Sadly, I assumed all of those things about Brown from the get-go. When Stef describes Wilson as a 7-year, recently decorated veteran with no history of complaints, I immediately asked myself, "Yeah, but how many people has he locked up in rape-cages for committing victimless crimes?" I couldn't find an answer; I'm not sure if that type of information is easily accessible. If the government is inherently immoral, and the government is in part made up of the police (the enforcers), aren't we justified in resisting the police? Legally, Brown was probably in the wrong, but morally, is it possible to put Wilson on the high ground?
Soren Posted August 18, 2014 Posted August 18, 2014 Sadly, I assumed all of those things about Brown from the get-go. When Stef describes Wilson as a 7-year, recently decorated veteran with no history of complaints, I immediately asked myself, "Yeah, but how many people has he locked up in rape-cages for committing victimless crimes?" I couldn't find an answer; I'm not sure if that type of information is easily accessible. If the government is inherently immoral, and the government is in part made up of the police (the enforcers), aren't we justified in resisting the police? Legally, Brown was probably in the wrong, but morally, is it possible to put Wilson on the high ground? He stole and assulted people how would you place him on the high ground? Also aren't you effectivly saying that its okay to beat up any person which is employed by a goverment?
J-William Posted August 18, 2014 Posted August 18, 2014 Haven't watched yet, but I can always count on Stef for a video that will piss people off. I heard his parents talking about how he's just a boy and he was going to college... rang hollow to me if he was also committing crimes, he's hardly an innocent little boy.
Psychophant Posted August 18, 2014 Posted August 18, 2014 Proportionate violence is characterzied by force which is necessary to stop an attacker, but you have to take into account the threat itself, e. g. someon smacks you in the face or someone punches you in the face. The former is more likely an indicator for someone short tempered is acting out and the latter is more likely someone who is charging on you.
Pelafina Posted August 18, 2014 Posted August 18, 2014 If the government is inherently immoral, and the government is in part made up of the police (the enforcers), aren't we justified in resisting the police? Legally, Brown was probably in the wrong, but morally, is it possible to put Wilson on the high ground? Police are criminals, they have less "rights" than non-criminals. When a person violates the NAP, they are giving up some of their rights to be free from aggression, therefore Mike Brown had the right to attack and/or resist the policeman/criminal. 1
labmath2 Posted August 18, 2014 Posted August 18, 2014 The problem i have with this, very much like the problem i have with the Trayvon Martin incident, is that history is used to decide what happened in a particular incident. Just because someone is Al Capone does not mean they cannot be the victim of a crime. This is why the most important evidence are evidence at the crime scene. If those are inadequate to tell the whole story, then history becomes relevant. So while i understand the videos are about the people, and not necessarily what is likely to have happened, i find it disconcerting. P.S I am pretty sure they claim that the officer was not aware that Michael Brown was a suspect in the robbery.
JohnH. Posted August 18, 2014 Posted August 18, 2014 He stole and assulted people how would you place him on the high ground? Also aren't you effectivly saying that its okay to beat up any person which is employed by a goverment? I never mentioned putting Brown on the moral high ground based on the robbery he was a part of. I'm talking about the encounter with Wilson and Wilson's function as a cop. We know Wilson confronted Brown. If an armed enforcer of a street gang responsible for locking millions away in rape-cages for nonviolent offences confronts you, are you justified in attacking them? At what point would you be justified in attacking them? 1 1
shirgall Posted August 18, 2014 Posted August 18, 2014 Police are criminals, they have less "rights" than non-criminals. When a person violates the NAP, they are giving up some of their rights to be free from aggression, therefore Mike Brown had the right to attack and/or resist the policeman/criminal. This is a critical point. Rights are universal. Not only are they supposed to apply to every citizen, but also to every non-citizen, no matter their authority or criminal status. This basic fact frustrates the heck out of me when I talk to people about NSA stuff, or immigration, etc. etc. and they think the rest of world has no rights.
Alan C. Posted August 18, 2014 Posted August 18, 2014 Photos of property destruction in Ferguson The legacy of left-liberalism is a legacy of destruction. Everything left-liberalism touches leaves a smoldering heap of wreckage in its wake. Meanwhile, hundreds of Blacks are murdered in Chicago annually, but don't expect race hustlers Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton to show up and stoke the fires. There are no political points to score there. Looting Decimates Small Businesses in Ferguson Looters and vandals have smashed windows of store fronts, spray painted graffiti, stolen property, and burned down businesses. Some stores re-opened with plywood plugging up their smashed windows. The words “open for business” are often spray painted on the plywood, but many customers are too afraid to even come. . . . “Our patients are canceling left and right because they don’t want to come on our street,” the owner of a medical facility told Breitbart News. “It’s affecting our bottom line for the past week. We’re going on the 8th day now.” The same business owner was concerned about releasing her businesses name for fear of retribution by protesters who may burn down the facility like she says they had already done to a friend’s place of business. Additionally, the shop owners are concerned the damages done may not be covered by their insurance. 1
Sal9000 Posted August 18, 2014 Posted August 18, 2014 This article http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/15/the-day-ferguson-cops-were-caught-in-a-bloody-lie.html sheds a new light on the cops behaviour in this city.
JohnH. Posted August 18, 2014 Posted August 18, 2014 This article http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/15/the-day-ferguson-cops-were-caught-in-a-bloody-lie.html sheds a new light on the cops behaviour in this city. According to a Reason article, "In 2010 they [the cops involved in the Davis incident] were among a few dozen officers who got commendations from the mayor and city council (PDF)."
Mike Fleming Posted August 18, 2014 Posted August 18, 2014 I never mentioned putting Brown on the moral high ground based on the robbery he was a part of. I'm talking about the encounter with Wilson and Wilson's function as a cop. We know Wilson confronted Brown. If an armed enforcer of a street gang responsible for locking millions away in rape-cages for nonviolent offences confronts you, are you justified in attacking them? At what point would you be justified in attacking them? Thanks for mentioning this. I guess we have 2 criminals, although one at least thinks they are doing the right thing and probably does do a lot of good (not justifying it, just mentioning the reality), but probably also some what we consider bad (but he thinks it is probably good). The other (Brown) I think was under no delusion and was not attacking the cop because the cop was a "criminal", but because he knew that he was the one in the wrong and was trying to avoid having to be held accountable. This is why it's so messed up at the moment. Personally, I find it difficult to reason my way out of one of these situations. If we assume the cop is on the side of the law then it's fairly easy, but if you assume he is working for a gang of thugs (govt) and work from there it becomes virtually impossible to reason out. For me anyway. I don't have an answer to your question, but thought it deserved to be addressed and even fleshed out a bit. It's why I tend to avoid commenting on these situations for the most part. As for attacking cops, it is somewhat justified and people have wrote articles in this regard. I have no intention of doing so myself, and I don't think it's a good idea for anyone to in the current climate (ie. most people statists). But if we get to a certain point and you get in a certain situation where it can be regarded as legitimate self-defence then... 1
Jeremi Posted August 18, 2014 Posted August 18, 2014 Good video but I felt it needed more focus on the militarization of police in America as that is another poignant issue that this shooting has brought the foreground.
Brentb Posted August 18, 2014 Posted August 18, 2014 I don't understand why so many people are opposed to self-defense among cops, but are okay with self defense among everyone else. Sure, the justice system as it stands is fundamentally unjust since it is funded with stolen money and is (ab)used to fill the whims of legislators and judges, however that does not mean that every action performed by someone in the "justice" system is unjust. From what I heard in this video, the cop behaved in that same manner that a responsible concerned citizen or private security guard would act. So why jump to conclusions and vilify him?
Soren Posted August 18, 2014 Posted August 18, 2014 I never mentioned putting Brown on the moral high ground based on the robbery he was a part of. I'm talking about the encounter with Wilson and Wilson's function as a cop. We know Wilson confronted Brown. If an armed enforcer of a street gang responsible for locking millions away in rape-cages for nonviolent offences confronts you, are you justified in attacking them? At what point would you be justified in attacking them? Well the cop in this case was protecting the property of another, which Brown had stolen thereby breaking the NAP. So the cop was acting in self defence on behalf of the shop owner. In what way does he confront you? If you are not in immediate danger then I don't think you can be justified in attacking them.
JohnH. Posted August 18, 2014 Posted August 18, 2014 I don't understand why so many people are opposed to self-defense among cops, but are okay with self defense among everyone else. Sure, the justice system as it stands is fundamentally unjust since it is funded with stolen money and is (ab)used to fill the whims of legislators and judges, however that does not mean that every action performed by someone in the "justice" system is unjust. From what I heard in this video, the cop behaved in that same manner that a responsible concerned citizen or private security guard would act. So why jump to conclusions and vilify him? I don't understand why so many people are opposed to self-defense among occupying soldiers, but are okay with self defense among everyone else. Sure, the occupying force as it stands is fundamentally unjust since it is funded with stolen money and is (ab)used to fill the whims of legislators and judges, however that does not mean that every action performed by someone in the "occupying force" is unjust. If the job of a cop is fundamentally unjust and immoral, based on the duties performed, the funding system, and the fact that every command issued by a cop is backed by a gun, how can a cop possibly claim the moral high ground? No one is jumping to conclusions to vilify him. He's a cop. He voluntarily chose to be a cop. He voluntarily chose to take a job where enforcing unjust "laws" is a regular part of the job. He voluntarily chose to become an enforcer of the state. What about these facts do you consider "jumping to conclusions" or which of these facts do you dispute? If he weren't a cop I wouldn't be asking the question. In fact, my question would make no sense if he weren't a cop as the cop part is the integral part of the question. Well the cop in this case was protecting the property of another, which Brown had stolen thereby breaking the NAP. So the cop was acting in self defence on behalf of the shop owner. In what way does he confront you? If you are not in immediate danger then I don't think you can be justified in attacking them. Everyone already understands that Brown violated the NAP, that's not the issue I'm confused about. If the government is inherently immoral, as argued by Stef in this debate, and the government is in part made up of the police (the enforcers), are we or are we not justified in resisting the police? I'm not concerned about whether or not it's a good idea–I think it's a stupid idea–but I do wonder about whether or not it's morally justifiable. I suppose a few good questions to be answered are: 1) Can it be considered a threat when a cop confronts you? 2) Can it be considered a threat when an armed street thug confronts you? 3) Can it be considered a threat when an occupying soldier confronts you? What would have happened if Brown did not attack Wilson? He would have been arrested and locked in a cage. Had Brown surrendered to the shop owner, would the shop owner have been justified in locking Brown in a cage? If not, what gives Wilson special moral privileges not provided to the shop owner? These, as well as all the questions I've asked, aren't rhetorical; I genuinely do not know what the correct stance on this issue it. Edit: I just found an article that mentions Brown may have had his arms up when he was shot, which would support eye-witness Dorian Johnson and supposed eye-witness Tiffany Mitchell. From the article: "...a bullet wound to his right arm that may indicate his hands were up or his back was turned, a pathologist hired by his family said Monday... a bullet grazed Brown's right arm. He said the wound indicates Brown may have had his back to the shooter, or he could have been facing the shooter with his hands above his head or in a defensive position across his chest or face." If Brown was shot while running away or while surrendering (assuming raising your arms is a sign of surrender) does Wilson's claim to self-defense (ignoring the issue I've raised about self-defense of cops) still stand?
Mike Fleming Posted August 19, 2014 Posted August 19, 2014 Everyone already understands that Brown violated the NAP, that's not the issue I'm confused about. If the government is inherently immoral, as argued by Stef in this debate, and the government is in part made up of the police (the enforcers), are we or are we not justified in resisting the police? I'm not concerned about whether or not it's a good idea–I think it's a stupid idea–but I do wonder about whether or not it's morally justifiable. Yes, it is morally justifiable. They have no right to do what they do and so you are morally justified in resisting them (with force if necessary). As you say, it's a stupid idea, but being stupid or not says nothing about whether it's moral or not. As an aside I don't think it's mentioned in the above video because the video is designed to appeal to the general public. A certain percentage who watch the video will then explore the more radical ideas on the channel.
Soren Posted August 19, 2014 Posted August 19, 2014 I don't understand why so many people are opposed to self-defense among occupying soldiers, but are okay with self defense among everyone else. Sure, the occupying force as it stands is fundamentally unjust since it is funded with stolen money and is (ab)used to fill the whims of legislators and judges, however that does not mean that every action performed by someone in the "occupying force" is unjust. If the job of a cop is fundamentally unjust and immoral, based on the duties performed, the funding system, and the fact that every command issued by a cop is backed by a gun, how can a cop possibly claim the moral high ground? No one is jumping to conclusions to vilify him. He's a cop. He voluntarily chose to be a cop. He voluntarily chose to take a job where enforcing unjust "laws" is a regular part of the job. He voluntarily chose to become an enforcer of the state. What about these facts do you consider "jumping to conclusions" or which of these facts do you dispute? If he weren't a cop I wouldn't be asking the question. In fact, my question would make no sense if he weren't a cop as the cop part is the integral part of the question. Everyone already understands that Brown violated the NAP, that's not the issue I'm confused about. If the government is inherently immoral, as argued by Stef in this debate, and the government is in part made up of the police (the enforcers), are we or are we not justified in resisting the police? I'm not concerned about whether or not it's a good idea–I think it's a stupid idea–but I do wonder about whether or not it's morally justifiable. I suppose a few good questions to be answered are: 1) Can it be considered a threat when a cop confronts you? 2) Can it be considered a threat when an armed street thug confronts you? 3) Can it be considered a threat when an occupying soldier confronts you? What would have happened if Brown did not attack Wilson? He would have been arrested and locked in a cage. Had Brown surrendered to the shop owner, would the shop owner have been justified in locking Brown in a cage? If not, what gives Wilson special moral privileges not provided to the shop owner? These, as well as all the questions I've asked, aren't rhetorical; I genuinely do not know what the correct stance on this issue it. Edit: I just found an article that mentions Brown may have had his arms up when he was shot, which would support eye-witness Dorian Johnson and supposed eye-witness Tiffany Mitchell. From the article: "...a bullet wound to his right arm that may indicate his hands were up or his back was turned, a pathologist hired by his family said Monday... a bullet grazed Brown's right arm. He said the wound indicates Brown may have had his back to the shooter, or he could have been facing the shooter with his hands above his head or in a defensive position across his chest or face." If Brown was shot while running away or while surrendering (assuming raising your arms is a sign of surrender) does Wilson's claim to self-defense (ignoring the issue I've raised about self-defense of cops) still stand? Here is my thinking(not sure if its also stefs argument, but he has said something akin to it), In the modern state we are all part of the goverment whether we like it or not, the responsibility is spread out smearing everybody. On top of that we are all propagandized to the extreme. So we all start out in a roughly equal immoral state. So what counts are our actions afterwards, as I see it you can't just pick up a gun and go on a moral genocide, because the government is immoral. You are part of the government and you are no better in the outset. You have to judge the actions of the individual, as we know the cop uniform is just a costume. A cop confronting you is not an aggression more than any other person confronting you is an aggression, if you say its because he has a gun then you could equally well retaliate violently against a guy on the local shooting range who confronts you. If the cop points a gun at your or tries to arrest you and you have not committed any NAP violation that would validate this, you would be moral in defending yourself. Hope this makes sense All the 3 questions you first ask are really the same "can a guy with a gun be considered a treat if he confronts you". But as your questions point out you have to make a judgment yourself based on the situation and the nature of the confrontation. Any human who confronts you is a potential threat if they have weapons or not, as they are all "armed". To the next questions: Well I don't know what would have happened had he not attacked. The shop owner would be justified demanding restitution and compensation.
JohnH. Posted August 19, 2014 Posted August 19, 2014 Here is my thinking(not sure if its also stefs argument, but he has said something akin to it), In the modern state we are all part of the goverment whether we like it or not, the responsibility is spread out smearing everybody. On top of that we are all propagandized to the extreme. So we all start out in a roughly equal immoral state. So what counts are our actions afterwards, as I see it you can't just pick up a gun and go on a moral genocide, because the government is immoral. You are part of the government and you are no better in the outset. You have to judge the actions of the individual, as we know the cop uniform is just a costume. A cop confronting you is not an aggression more than any other person confronting you is an aggression, if you say its because he has a gun then you could equally well retaliate violently against a guy on the local shooting range who confronts you. If the cop points a gun at your or tries to arrest you and you have not committed any NAP violation that would validate this, you would be moral in defending yourself. Hope this makes sense All the 3 questions you first ask are really the same "can a guy with a gun be considered a treat if he confronts you". But as your questions point out you have to make a judgment yourself based on the situation and the nature of the confrontation. Any human who confronts you is a potential threat if they have weapons or not, as they are all "armed". To the next questions: Well I don't know what would have happened had he not attacked. The shop owner would be justified demanding restitution and compensation. If we use Max Weber's definition of government, which I think is the best and most commonly used definition, and say that government is a group of people who claim to have a monopoly on the initiation of violence within a given geographical area, how do you come to the conclusion that everyone is "a part of the government". Do you claim to have, support, or enforce the powers claimed by government? Please explain your reasoning behind that assertion and what it means to "start out in a roughly equal immoral state". That sounds a lot like original sin and I'm not quite sure where you're coming from. Having money taken from you by force that is then used to support the government's actions does not make you an accomplice. If I say it's because he had a gun? I've already stated that the dilemma I'm having is over the inherently immoral nature of the government, of which the police play a significant and active role in enforcing and maintaining through their threats of violence. The gun is only mentioned to show that there's a power disparity in the confrontation. I've said this at least three times now. If I'm being unclear, please let me know. There's a specific reason I asked the same question three different ways: to discern potential biases. For instance, some people think it's okay to resist the occupying army and the street gang, but think it's wrong to resist the police. Let's say I show up to your house one day and tell you that from now on you can continue to go about your regular routine, I will provide you with security from the other neighborhood thugs, and I will tell you about the dangers of drugs, but in return, I will lock you in a cage if you do anything I disagree with. The "anything" can be whatever I arbitrarily decide and I've demonstrated my resolve by locking thousands of your neighbors up in the past, mostly for doing peaceful things that I just so happened to disagree with. Even though I let you go about your daily routine and do some nice things for you, does the fact that I have stated that you will be locked in a cage if you do anything I disagree with give you the morally justifiable recourse of attacking me any time I confront you when you do anything I disagree with? Your answer to the three questions makes it sound as though you think morality is subjective, which I doubt is the case, so can you elaborate? What does personal judgment have to do with the morality of an action? Any and every action could be considered moral if personal judgement was a deciding factor. Again, I'm not asking if you should do it; I'm only asking if you are justified in doing it. Of course we can't know with 100% certainty what would have happened if Brown didn't attack Wilson, but based on Brown recently being involved in a robbery, and robbery being a class B felony in Missouri which is punishable by "a term of years not less than five years and not to exceed fifteen years", we can reasonably conclude that Wilson would have arrested Brown and locked him in a cage. You said the shop owner would be justified in receiving restitution and compensation, but didn't answer the question I asked. If Brown had not attacked Wilson, Brown would have been arrested for the robbery he committed earlier in the day and thrown in a cage–potentially for 5 to 15 years. On the other hand, had Brown surrendered to the shop owner, would the shop owner have been justified in locking Brown in a cage for 5 to 15 years? If not, what gives Wilson special moral privileges not provided to the shop owner?
Soren Posted August 19, 2014 Posted August 19, 2014 If we use Max Weber's definition of government, which I think is the best and most commonly used definition, and say that government is a group of people who claim to have a monopoly on the initiation of violence within a given geographical area, how do you come to the conclusion that everyone is "a part of the government". Do you claim to have, support, or enforce the powers claimed by government? Please explain your reasoning behind that assertion and what it means to "start out in a roughly equal immoral state". That sounds a lot like original sin and I'm not quite sure where you're coming from. Having money taken from you by force that is then used to support the government's actions does not make you an accomplice. If I say it's because he had a gun? I've already stated that the dilemma I'm having is over the inherently immoral nature of the government, of which the police play a significant and active role in enforcing and maintaining through their threats of violence. The gun is only mentioned to show that there's a power disparity in the confrontation. I've said this at least three times now. If I'm being unclear, please let me know. There's a specific reason I asked the same question three different ways: to discern potential biases. For instance, some people think it's okay to resist the occupying army and the street gang, but think it's wrong to resist the police. Let's say I show up to your house one day and tell you that from now on you can continue to go about your regular routine, I will provide you with security from the other neighborhood thugs, and I will tell you about the dangers of drugs, but in return, I will lock you in a cage if you do anything I disagree with. Even though I let you go about your daily routine and do some nice things for you, does the fact that I have stated that you will be locked in a cage if you do anything I disagree with give you the morally justifiable recourse of attacking me any time I confront you when you do something I disagree with? Your answer to the three questions makes it sound as though you think morality is subjective, which I doubt is the case, so can you elaborate? What does personal judgment have to do with the morality of an action? Any and every action could be considered moral if personal judgement was a deciding factor. Again, I'm not asking if you should do it; I'm only asking if you are justified in doing it. Of course we can't know with 100% certainty what would have happened if Brown didn't attack Wilson, but based on Brown recently being involved in a robbery, and robbery being a class B felony in Missouri which is punishable by "a term of years not less than five years and not to exceed fifteen years", we can reasonably conclude that Wilson would have arrested Brown and locked him in a cage. You said the shop owner would be justified in receiving restitution and compensation, but didn't answer the question I asked. If Brown had not attacked Wilson, Brown would have been arrested for the robbery he committed earlier in the day and thrown in a cage–potentially for 5 to 15 years. On the other hand, had Brown surrendered to the shop owner, would the shop owner have been justified in locking Brown in a cage for 5 to 15 years? If not, what gives Wilson special moral privileges not provided to the shop owner? You are right by that definition we are not part of the government. My thinking was that we all support the government if we live in a modern state. I pay taxes. I used to vote, I use the government infrastructure and so on. Most of us have done things which in one way or another supports the government. I haven't really done anything observable to resist government other than typing so you can't prove that I don't support the government. Maybe I am just kinda scared that you would feel it was moral to shoot me if we meet and I confronted you about something. But okay I think I see what you mean, I don't think its morally wrong to attack the government. I didn't give more of an answer because I don't know and I don't want to spend time debating penalty right now.
Alan C. Posted August 19, 2014 Posted August 19, 2014 Ferguson protesters: The peaceful, the elders, the looters, and the ‘militants’ Ferguson police officials would not quantify how many looters have been arrested since the Brown shooting but presented a Washington Post reporter with a stack of roughly 50 arrest reports. While some of those arrested for stealing are from Ferguson, a large number have addresses listed in Illinois or in Texas.“It’s like looting tourism,” an officer commented as he showed the reports. He asked not to be named. “It’s like they are spending their gas money to come down here and steal.”DeAndre Smith, fresh from looting the QuikTrip on a recent night, told reporters: “I’m proud of us. We deserve this, and this is what’s supposed to happen when there’s injustice in your community. St. Louis — not going to take this anymore.” Ferguson is a sign of things to come. What is happening there is exactly what will happen in the event of a dollar collapse.
JohnH. Posted August 19, 2014 Posted August 19, 2014 Constitutional Rights Essentially Suspended in Ferguson as Police Raid Homes Door to Door "...police or National Guard troops are now sweeping houses door to door..." "Freedom of the press has now basically been revoked in Ferguson as well. A “free speech area” was set up by police where press “were allowed” to report from. However, this area has now been closed and all journalists have been forced to leave the area or face arrest." "...only “credentialed” journalists are allowed at the new press area being set up. The 1st amendment, however, makes no mention of freedom of the press requiring a license or credential, as it shouldn't." BJ Levin @BJLevin @VICE in #Ferguson #livestream @Timcast "Earlier tonight an officer ripped my Press patch from my vest in #Ferguson http://twitter.com/frenchamnesty/status/501598196939128832/photo/1pic.twitter.com/gGYIoK95VK ”
Alan C. Posted August 19, 2014 Posted August 19, 2014 Not sure if this is legit, or if the police are simply using reporters to spread propaganda. Over a Dozen Witnesses Corroborate Officer’s Story In The Death of Michael Brown Christine Byers, crime reporter for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, posted the following on Twitter late last night:Police sources tell me more than a dozen witnesses have corroborated cop’s version of events in shooting #FergusonThis comes just hours after autopsy reports reveal that Michael Brown was shot while facing the officer, refuting his friend’s claim that he was shot in the back, execution style.A video showing Michael Brown robbing a convenience store just minutes before his death has been circulating newsrooms and social media almost nonstop.This new information, coupled with that which we already know, is beginning to paint a much clearer picture of what really happened to Michael Brown, and calls into question the validity of the outrage displayed by the people of Ferguson.The involvement of Al Sharpton, as well as the family’s decision to retain Benjamin Crump, who previously served as the attorney for Trayvon Martin’s family, suggests that the people of Ferguson are not seeking justice at all, but instead are aiming to create a public spectacle for attention.. . .The citizens of Ferguson are not doing their community any favors. Somehow, the rest of the country understands that justice is attained in a courtroom with decorum, not by literally destroying one’s own community out in the streets.
Alan C. Posted August 20, 2014 Posted August 20, 2014 Again, who knows if this legit. Nobody knows who this "source" is. Even if this proves to be factual, it won't stop the race hustlers from inflaming tensions. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson have made careers convincing people that there are racist boogeymen hiding around every corner. Missouri cop was badly beaten before shooting Michael Brown, says source “The Assistant (Police) Chief took him to the hospital, his face all swollen on one side,” said the insider. “He was beaten very severely.” According to the well-placed source, Wilson was coming off another case in the neighborhood on Aug. 9 when he ordered Michael Brown and his friend Dorain Johnson to stop walking in the middle of the road because they were obstructing traffic. However, the confrontation quickly escalated into physical violence, the source said.. “They ignored him and the officer started to get out of the car to tell them to move," the source said. "They shoved him right back in, that’s when Michael Brown leans in and starts beating Officer Wilson in the head and the face.
Josh F Posted August 20, 2014 Posted August 20, 2014 How is this topic complete without discussing the history of racism by police? The black community does not want the state to manage crime and justice. The history of racism, from segregation to defacto segregation, is a battle between black communities and the state. Libertarians should be supporting the peaceful protestors in Ferguson. The black community is sucked into de-facto ghettos, funded by welfare, exploited by unfair drug laws, and targeted by the police. Attempts by black people to police their own communities, like the Nation of Islam and the Black Panthers, were infiltrated and destroyed violently by the FBI and government. Combined with a new tool to target black communities, the war on drugs, the destruction of the Black Panthers gave rise to criminal Street Gangs. Stef's video is irrelevant as long is it ignored the entire CONTEXT to these protests. And the consequence is going to turn off black people from the important messages of peaceful parenting, and state violence.
Stefan Molyneux Posted August 20, 2014 Posted August 20, 2014 Thanks, great points - could you point me to statistical studies showing racism by cops? Do you mean that cops arrest a black man when the victim complains about being assaulted by a white man, or something like that? Thanks!
shirgall Posted August 21, 2014 Posted August 21, 2014 Thanks, great points - could you point me to statistical studies showing racism by cops? The classic: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/aus9010.pdf 3 times as many men arrested as women. 3 times as many whites arrested as blacks (which is out of proportion to the number of each class in the population). 2 times as many whites arrested as blacks for violent crimes (skewing ever further from the distribution). There are of course many possible explanations for this, but they are not in that document.
Stefan Molyneux Posted August 21, 2014 Posted August 21, 2014 Well, arrests should be relative to crimes, no?
Josh F Posted August 21, 2014 Posted August 21, 2014 Thanks, great points - could you point me to statistical studies showing racism by cops? Do you mean that cops arrest a black man when the victim complains about being assaulted by a white man, or something like that? Thanks! I can identify the history of racism by the police and the entire criminal justice system. Statistics are hard to find, for example cops notoriously perform "stop and search" or "stop and frisk" on black youth, but the only record is of the arrests. So, lets say racially everyone is equally as likely to be carrying around a gram of weed. Black people, because they are stopped and searched more, will be shown to be more frequently guilty of the crime in the statistics. Here are some statistics to back up that claim: http://www.nyclu.org/content/stop-and-frisk-data In the first half of 2014, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 27,527 times.22,682 were totally innocent (82 percent). 14,549 were black (53 percent). 7,662 were Latino (28 percent). 3,363 were white (12 percent). The link shows statistics going back to 2002, all with similar results. Black people are about 25% of the population of New York City, but comprised over 50% of all the "stop and frisks" Some important history of police racism include: 1. Rampart Scandal The LAPD Rampart scandal refers to widespread corruption in the Community Resources Against Street Hoodlums (or C*R*A*S*H) anti-gang unit of the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD)Rampart Division in the late 1990s. More than 70 police officers either assigned to or associated with the Rampart CRASH unit were implicated in some form of misconduct, making it one of the most widespread cases of documented police misconduct in United States history. The convicted offenses include unprovoked shootings, unprovoked beatings, planting of false evidence, framing of suspects, stealing and dealing narcotics, bank robbery, perjury, and the covering up of evidence of these activities. 2. CIA and DEA fund and assisted Contra drug smugglers who introduced crack Released on April 13, 1989 the Kerry Committee report concluded that members of the U.S. State Department "who provided support for the Contras were involved in drug trafficking... and elements of the Contras themselves knowingly received financial and material assistance from drug traffickers." In 1996 Gary Webb wrote a series of articles published in the San Jose Mercury News, which investigated Nicaraguans linked to the CIA-backed Contras who had smuggled cocaine into the U.S. which was then distributed as crack cocaine into Los Angeles and funneled profits to the Contras. The CIA was aware of the cocaine transactions and the large shipments of drugs into the U.S. by the Contra personnel and directly aided drug dealers to raise money for the Contras.[citation needed] Although he strongly implied CIA involvement, Webb never claimed to have made a direct link between the CIA and the Contras.[citation needed] Moreover, Webb's articles were heavily attacked by many media outlets who questioned the validity of his claims, although the unusual response led some to question if the CIA was involved.[citation needed] Webb turned the articles into a book called, Dark Alliance: The CIA, the Contras, and the Crack Cocaine Explosion." On December 10, 2004, Webb reportedly committed suicide, albeit under strange circumstances (two gunshot wounds to the head).[7] In 1996, CIA Director John M. Deutch went to Los Angeles to attempt to refute the allegations raised by the Webb articles, and was famously confronted by former Los Angeles Police Departmentofficer Michael Ruppert, who testified that he had witnessed it occurring.[8] 3. The targeting of Black Panthers as part of COINTELPRO, Hover's programs designed to disrupt and intimidate black activism. Fred Hampton. FBI records show that 85% of COINTELPRO resources targeted groups and individuals that the FBI deemed "subversive",[11] including communist andsocialist organizations; organizations and individuals associated with the Civil Rights Movement, including Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and others associated with the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, and the Congress of Racial Equality and other civil rights organizations; black nationalist groups; the American Indian Movement.......... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Panther_Party http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hampton http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Aoki There is also the theory that the drug laws are racist, making drugs popular in black communities (crack) a heavier sentence to similarly dangerous drugs in the white community. So let me make the full historical case.... Now of course on a far enough time line, everyone is going to acknowledge the racism of the state and the roll of the police in maintaining it. Slavery ended about 150 years ago, unquestionably racist. Jim Crow laws were only ended 50 years ago, also unquestionably racist. Enter: The War on Drugs.Literally as Jim Crow left, the drug laws were introduce. After the Civil Rights Act, the police all kept their jobs. The policy continued: to criminalize non-violent black behavior and to disrupt any attempts at self policing or political organization. In other words, the policy went from targeting Black people explicitly, to implicitly targeting black behavior. I could probably go on for days about this topic if you have any questions. Its missing from understanding the entire aftermath. While I don't really know or even care too much about the Brown trial in particular, I am sympathetic to the protestors. I'm going to end this with a quote which also stuck in my mind as a kid who grew up in Los Angeles during the Rodney King riots: They said it was for the black man, they said it was for the mexican, and not for the white man. But if you look at the streets it wasn't about Rodney King, It's bout this fucked up situation and these fucked up police. Analogously, the prosecution of Edward Snowden is related and important to discuss, but the issue is the NSA survellance. For these protestors, who may have prematurely or incorrectly judged the particular facts of the case (most of which they did not have when the protests began), but the issue is about the state's continued attempt to manage, police, regulate and destroy Black America. This is a GREAT place to discuss welfare, public housing, and how those tools are also used by the state to control black people... I think thats the angle of importance here, in my opinion There is another thing to be said as well. The drug policies which disproportionally victimize black people are federal. I think that there is a topic worth discussing, in terms of Obama being supported by the black community in huge numbers, yet he has done nothing to change those policies. What these protestors know, now more than ever, is that there are no political solutions to these political problems. And historically, violent and peaceful protests have been the only thing to move any of these policies forward for the Black community. That is to say, segregation wouldn't have ended without the riots and protests that proceeded it. That the rampart police department wouldn't have been investigated if it wasn't for the LA Riots. I also happen to think the police are far far far far less racist than they were in the past, that the looters are opportunists destroying their own community, that the shooting it self was not racially motivated, and that the media are a bunch of race pimps.
shirgall Posted August 21, 2014 Posted August 21, 2014 Well, arrests should be relative to crimes, no? Sure, it should be, but this does not speak to any propensity to arrest blacks more because they might be racists. It's the facts I had handy though. It could either be that blacks commit more crimes or that blacks are more likely to be arrested if there's (unreasonable due to racist biases) suspicion that they committed a crime. Statistics are hard to find, for example cops notoriously perform "stop and search" or "stop and frisk" on black youth, but the only record is of the arrests... Here are some statistics to back up that claim: http://www.nyclu.org/content/stop-and-frisk-data Yeah, stop and frisk is ripe for abuse. Gang unit stats are tough, though, because the gangs themselves have an aspect of racial purity to them, which is going to skew your arrest data. I suspect a mafia unit is going to have a racial bias to its arrest data too.
Josh F Posted August 21, 2014 Posted August 21, 2014 Gang unit stats are tough, though, because the gangs themselves have an aspect of racial purity to them, which is going to skew your arrest data. I suspect a mafia unit is going to have a racial bias to its arrest data too. The history of gangs themselves are a byproduct of the state. Namely the war on drugs, the welfare state, and the FBI, DEA, and CIA's disruption of the Black Panther Party, the Civil Rights movement, and other attempts by black people in America to police themselves and manage their own governance.
yagami Posted August 21, 2014 Posted August 21, 2014 I can identify the history of racism by the police and the entire criminal justice system. Statistics are hard to find, for example cops notoriously perform "stop and search" or "stop and frisk" on black youth, but the only record is of the arrests. So, lets say racially everyone is equally as likely to be carrying around a gram of weed. Black people, because they are stopped and searched more, will be shown to be more frequently guilty of the crime in the statistics. Here are some statistics to back up that claim: http://www.nyclu.org/content/stop-and-frisk-data The link shows statistics going back to 2002, all with similar results. Black people are about 25% of the population of New York City, but comprised over 50% of all the "stop and frisks" Some important history of police racism include: 1. Rampart Scandal 2. CIA and DEA fund and assisted Contra drug smugglers who introduced crack 3. The targeting of Black Panthers as part of COINTELPRO, Hover's programs designed to disrupt and intimidate black activism. Fred Hampton. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Panther_Party http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hampton http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Aoki There is also the theory that the drug laws are racist, making drugs popular in black communities (crack) a heavier sentence to similarly dangerous drugs in the white community. So let me make the full historical case.... Now of course on a far enough time line, everyone is going to acknowledge the racism of the state and the roll of the police in maintaining it. Slavery ended about 150 years ago, unquestionably racist. Jim Crow laws were only ended 50 years ago, also unquestionably racist. Enter: The War on Drugs.Literally as Jim Crow left, the drug laws were introduce. After the Civil Rights Act, the police all kept their jobs. The policy continued: to criminalize non-violent black behavior and to disrupt any attempts at self policing or political organization. In other words, the policy went from targeting Black people explicitly, to implicitly targeting black behavior. I could probably go on for days about this topic if you have any questions. Its missing from understanding the entire aftermath. While I don't really know or even care too much about the Brown trial in particular, I am sympathetic to the protestors. I'm going to end this with a quote which also stuck in my mind as a kid who grew up in Los Angeles during the Rodney King riots: They said it was for the black man, they said it was for the mexican, and not for the white man. But if you look at the streets it wasn't about Rodney King, It's bout this fucked up situation and these fucked up police. Analogously, the prosecution of Edward Snowden is related and important to discuss, but the issue is the NSA survellance. For these protestors, who may have prematurely or incorrectly judged the particular facts of the case (most of which they did not have when the protests began), but the issue is about the state's continued attempt to manage, police, regulate and destroy Black America. This is a GREAT place to discuss welfare, public housing, and how those tools are also used by the state to control black people... I think thats the angle of importance here, in my opinion There is another thing to be said as well. The drug policies which disproportionally victimize black people are federal. I think that there is a topic worth discussing, in terms of Obama being supported by the black community in huge numbers, yet he has done nothing to change those policies. What these protestors know, now more than ever, is that there are no political solutions to these political problems. And historically, violent and peaceful protests have been the only thing to move any of these policies forward for the Black community. That is to say, segregation wouldn't have ended without the riots and protests that proceeded it. That the rampart police department wouldn't have been investigated if it wasn't for the LA Riots. I also happen to think the police are far far far far less racist than they were in the past, that the looters are opportunists destroying their own community, that the shooting it self was not racially motivated, and that the media are a bunch of race pimps. How many times on the show have we all seen when Steph ask a simple question and instead of just answering the question the caller floods Steph with a ton of information. This seems to me to be a defensive tactic. in your response the first thing you do is rewrite the question. The question is "could you point me to statistical studies showing racism by cops". You say "I can identify the history of racism by the police and the entire criminal justice system." and lets be honest no one is really going to go through all that information you posted and I think you know that. At the very least you should realize that going through all of that would take probably more time than Stephan has. If you cant answer the question than dont answer the question. But please dont reword the question then shoot out a bunch of information. Not trying to be harsh but it just seems like you really cant answer the question directly as I dont see any links to any studies.
JohnH. Posted August 21, 2014 Posted August 21, 2014 How many times on the show have we all seen when Steph ask a simple question and instead of just answering the question the caller floods Steph with a ton of information. This seems to me to be a defensive tactic. in your response the first thing you do is rewrite the question. The question is "could you point me to statistical studies showing racism by cops". You say "I can identify the history of racism by the police and the entire criminal justice system." and lets be honest no one is really going to go through all that information you posted and I think you know that. At the very least you should realize that going through all of that would take probably more time than Stephan has. If you cant answer the question than dont answer the question. But please dont reword the question then shoot out a bunch of information. Not trying to be harsh but it just seems like you really cant answer the question directly as I dont see any links to any studies. Okay, let's be honest: you're projecting. I admit that I didn't read every single word in the links he provided, but you don't have to. I read enough to understand his point and how he came to it.
Recommended Posts