Rash Judgment and Detraction on Phatmass

[Lilllabettt]

Lilla, I doubt I will convince you of anything but I'll trade you one diatribe for another.

Prejudice and bias goes both ways. I could accuse you of being biased in favor of the police, of the government etc and therefore more willing perhaps to turn a blind eye to the actual evil that they commit, and therefore willing to ignore the cries of a community of people (disenfranchised and disempowered as they are). I would say that's even more pernicious than what you're accusing others of. However, people are generally unwilling to confront their biases and see how they color the stances they take. We all have them anyway, and there are reasons, some legitimate and some not, that they exist.

But I will confess I have a bias against the police. When stories like these break I typically predict/guess that that a cop is guilty (do you assume that they are not?), while I'm also open to the possibility that he or she is not. However, I also have little faith that our justice system shows parity enough to convict cops when they are actually guilty. I was SHOCKED when the 6 cops in Baltimore were in indicted.

Let me explain the reason for my bias. I am not part of, but I try to listen to, the Black community. And what I hear from them is lots of pain, anger, and frustration from instances of racism from people and from police. I can either assume that they are being histrionic and overreacting OR I can assume that there are genuine reasons for feeling how they do. When one faces a system of habitual injustice and prejudice they are likely to develop an us vs. them mentality (can you blame them? I can't) so they MAY see racism when it genuinely isn't there in a particular instance, but I can understand the reaction and sensitivity whenever there is violence between races.

I think the Michael Brown case was not a strategic case to advance the awareness of police brutality--too many unknowns, the incriminating security footage of Brown prior--but that alone should tell you something. The ensuing violence was a reaction. Was it  reaction to one isolated case? No it was more like the straw that broke the camel's back.

You know, speaking of being safe at night in your quiet room in your warm bed, I will say it's very EASY to say "now let's just all calm down and be rational about this," when your community is not bearing the brunt of injustice. We are not purely rational creatures when we are involved in conflict. (You even give way to emotional appeal in your op when detailing the trials and tribulations of your boyfriend). So when people, including myself and others on phatmass, appear to you to be "calling for blood" you understand it as us "having an axe to grind," whereas I see it as standing with a community that is oppressed and victimized.

You know, it's not that it's fair for one innocent (which, I'm going to mince words and say that Brown's killer is not necessarily innocent, but the DOJ found him "not guilty" of a particular crime, in any case . . .) man be "lynched" to shed light on systematic racism it's when instances like these arise there are SWATHS of people who think we are living in a post-racial society and that there is no systematic issue of police brutality. To them, that the police did not act as a piece in a wider racialist system is a foregone conclusion because there IS no such thing as racism in the police force except for some few, isolated incidents. When people come in with that attitude it is very frustrating and that's part of the reason why people press the issue of systematic racism so much. )Let's not forget that hundreds of thousands of dollars IIRC were crowdfunded for Darren Wilson well before he was cleared and the KKK showed their implicit support of him). So when people are coming in with these assumptions it's not that I *know* this particular cop is guilty because he is white and the dead kid is black or that I *know* this particular cop is racist, it's that I KNOW there is an actual problem with racism and police brutality against black people in this country. I feel like I have to prove these things every time these debates come up (which is a fool's errand, I know) and I may use the particular incident as leverage in asserting my argument. Again, that doesn't mean I KNOW that particular cop is guilty. I'm aware how it may seem like that's the case. Do you see this distinction?

Furthermore I have distrust for the cops because they have always had a sordid history with black people, from COINTELPRO and the war on drugs, to the hoards of killings and beatings captured on video today. I don't know how people can ignore these things. It's very aggravating. Do people really think cops are all unequicovally the "good guys." Take a look at some declassified documents or youtube vids today. To believe in the "good guy" croutons is insane?

I also operate with the axiom that power corrupts and people tend to abuse power. Cops are given a huge amount of power. I have severe doubts that many people can handle that responsibly (think Stanford Prison experiments).

All these things lend to my bias. That I admit, because I'm so "self-aware." Now, I probably wasted an hour of my saturday night for nothing, but that's nothing new for me. Take care.

It's interesting to me that you bring up the Baltimore case - because that has the potential to be another attempted lynching. It remains to be seen but it started off on the wrong foot being overcharged. ( I don't know of any mainstream legal opinion on either side of the fence that thinks it wasn't overcharged.) we'll see. I don't assume the cops are innocent. i think the government, including police as an institution, naturally gain more and more power until they devour the people who fed them. 

I have worked in poor neighborhoods and served black and brown people my entire adult life. I see very well how the system ensnares poor people and how rich people (mostly white) have the resources to avoid these ensnarements or at least deal effectively with them. I see how black people get swept into the judicial system very oung. It is painfully evident to me on a daily basis what privileges I derive from the system as a white woman and how police acting in implicitly racist ways prop up this system that allows me to have those benefits.

Heres my thing:

"You people" think cops are guilty until proven innocent, just the way white people on a jury tend to think black men are guilty until proven innocent.

My sweetie has to go to deal every day with  "you people"  --- people who hate him, think he is either up to no good or is about to be up to no good. My sweetie never did nothing to nobody. "You people" don't care. And if he got into trouble "you people" would assume he is guilty, no matter what.

It's wrong. It's not Christian.

If you are aware of your bias, that's good. You should be actively resisting giving in to it when you hear about these incidents. Just the same as I actively resist the racist bias that has been beaten into my head by our racist society since I was young. 

 

 

 

 

 

[AccountDeleted]

Heres my thing:

"You people" think cops are guilty until proven innocent, just the way white people on a jury tend to think black men are guilty until proven innocent.

My sweetie has to go to deal every day with  "you people"  --- people who hate him, think he is either up to no good or is about to be up to no good. My sweetie never did nothing to nobody. "You people" don't care. And if he got into trouble "you people" would assume he is guilty, no matter what.

It's wrong. It's not Christian.

If you are aware of your bias, that's good. You should be actively resisting giving in to it when you hear about these incidents. Just the same as I actively resist the racist bias that has been beaten into my head by our racist society since I was young. 

 

 

 

 

 

"You people"? Now who's lumping individuals into groups?

[Lilllabettt]

Can someone please explain to me what is going on?

I can't fix anything if everything is worded in vague code. From my viewpoint, you are doing no better than those who you are complaining about.

Solution anybody?

I have no beef with management and I don't need any redress. I can handle myself. Near the bottom of this thread

http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/135290-best-complete-factual-account-of-what39s-happening-in-ferguson/?page=10

one of your Mediators of Meh made a political edit and then closed the thread. My personal view is that closing a thread is kind of a nuclear option. It's use in this circumstance was imo prissy and ... whiny and ... ick. And awfully hasty - who knows why so hasty.<---- conspiracy

But whatevs. Instead of reasoning with me, an attempt was made to shut me up. Those who are forced to mix with me usually know better than to make that mistake. I responded as I typically do by taking what was annoying and blowing it up bigger. Hence this thread. Happy Birthday, Merry Christmas, etc.

I feel like I have resolved the modding side of things to my satisfaction. My idea is why whine about it when I can just get what I want another way. My point has now gotten way more attention than it ever would have if the "best complete factual account" thread had been permitted to die a natural death. So I don't care.

Going forward I'm happy to focus on the content of this thread (the rash judgment in this community, reflective of the wider rash judgment of American society as a whole, where this police officer is concerned) rather than on the process which brought the thread into existence (prissy over-modding.)

"You people"? Now who's lumping individuals into groups?

It's ironic nunsense. Do you see the "" scare quotes. 

 

Good grief. 

Edited August 30, 2015 by Lilllabettt

[AccountDeleted]

 

It's ironic nunsense. Do you see the "" scare quotes. 

 

Good grief. 

You need to work on your irony skills, Lill, you just come across as aggressive and angry all the time - not ironic.

[Lilllabettt]

You need to work on your irony skills, Lill, you just come across as aggressive and angry all the time - not ironic.

you might need to work on social cues.

i am grouchy more often than not these days. point taken. but meh ---you can take me or leave me.

and call me Lilla please. Lill brings to mind my failed hip hop career. very traumatic.

[AccountDeleted]

you might need to work on social cues.

i am grouchy more often than not these days. point taken. but meh ---you can take me or leave me.

and call me Lilla please. Lill brings to mind my failed hip hop career. very traumatic.

Maybe I didn't get your oh so subtle intention there "Lilla", but it seems you are the one who has the problem with social cues. You criticize before you even acknowledge a point. A bit of counter-communication technique there?  Simply admitting to being grouchy doesn't change anything to irony. You still sound aggressive.

And the good news isthat I don't have to take you or leave you. I can just read what you post and choose to respond or not.You can react or not to what I post. We both have free will.

Sorry to hear about your trauma with the hip hop though. Hope you can recover in time. Sounds horrific.

[Peace]

Well this is an interesting thread. Let me weigh in as the current Negro-in-residence of Phatmass. And as one of the resident lawyers.

I can see where both sides are coming from. I wasn't pleased with Ferguson. The account seemed rather fictitious to me. I doubted that there should have been a conviction in that case. And as a practical matter for people who care about police misconduct, I found it to be a bit unwise that people would use this case as one to attempt to bring attention to the issue. I think the guy was on camera robbing a store about 10 minutes before his encounter with the police.

The problem is that when you have cases that seemingly should strike outrage and change - nobody seems to care. Take that Eric Garner case for example - a police ofificer kills someone on camera with a choke-hold for selling cigarettes - a jury sees no problem with it whatsoever - and the story gets a whole day and a half of media coverage? If the media decides to carry Furguson for whatever reason, it may not be a good case, but perhaps folks feel like they have to use whatever they can to bring attention to issues that are important to them.

The issue that Lillabett raised is an example of a general pattern that we see in the USA. For the most part I agree with her. Trials should be neutral and concerned with discovering whether there is sufficient evidence to impose a remedy prescribed by law. But for the general public they often become vehicles for addressing larger social issues while ignoring the specifics of the incident at hand.

For example, based on the evidence in the OJ Simpson trial, it is pretty clear that he should not have been convicted. There was no hard evidence against him. You have no eye-witnesses putting Simpson at the crime scene. You have no murder weapon. The first police officer on the scene and the prosecution's primary witness comitted purgury in front of the jury. The forensic investigation and subsequent handling of the chain of evidence was bungled beyond belief. "The glove didn't fit". And the legal burden of proof for a conviction in a criminal case is very high. But does anybody really care about any of that? Nope. Most black people were happy to see him go free because they saw it as vindicating their assertion of racism in the police force. I am not sure why most white people believe that he should have been convicted - but it certainly is not based on the evidence presented during the trial and legal standard used to convict. In the public-eye the trial was about racism in the police force, domestic violence, celebrity, inter-racial relationships and so forth . . . As a lawyer that is disconcerting, as it was with Furguson.

Why does that happen? Again - I think it happens because we live in a country that still has significant issues that need to be addressed (such as police misconduct or racism in the criminal justice system) and that have not been given the attention that they deserve. When blacks try to raise the issue of police misconduct in a legitimate forum the reaction by many whites seems to be "Police Misconduct? What police misconduct? Things look fine to me. Stop whining and trying to bring up the race-card."

So when issues that should be addressed in a legitimate way are ignored or downplayed, marginilized groups latch onto whatever they can in order to try to bring attention to the issues that they feel deserve attention. You can expect to continue to see things like that until the fundamental issues are addressed. Because is difficult for marginalized groups to effect needed change through institutions, while legitimate in most respects, that are biased againsed them, certain groups feel that their voices are not being heard and that the only way they can effect change is to boycott, riot, destroy, etc. You are destined to have chaos until you have a society in which there is fundamental justice at all levels. . .

So I would say that if you want a system where your husband will not be treated with automatic suspicion by certain groups, just keep doing your best to try to make the system just at all levels. When people no longer percieve the criminal justice system as being biased, the chances of that happening to your husband become less and less . . .

But, from a practical standpoint, I would not worry so much about your husband getting railroaded by the "lynch mob" if he should need to kill someone while on duty. That happens many hudrends of times per year in the USA, and it is extremely rare for a police officer to be even be prosecuted, let alone convicted. Out of the thousands of times that police officers have killed in the course of their duties, it seems that we get a Furgeson once every 5 or 10 years or so. Plenty of people might be suspicious about the police, or complain about them in the media, but rarely is there any concrete action taken against police officers. Perhaps that is part of the reason why when a case starts to get media attention, it tends to explode . . .

And so endeth my ramble. . .

Well this is an interesting thread. Let me weigh in as the current Negro-in-residence of Phatmass. And as one of the resident lawyers.

I can see where both sides are coming from. I wasn't pleased with Ferguson. The account seemed rather fictitious to me. I doubted that there should have been a conviction in that case. And as a practical matter for people who care about police misconduct, I found it to be a bit unwise that people would use this case as one to attempt to bring attention to the issue. I think the guy was on camera robbing a store about 10 minutes before his encounter with the police.

The problem is that when you have cases that seemingly should strike outrage and change - nobody seems to care. Take that Eric Garner case for example - a police ofificer kills someone on camera with a choke-hold for selling cigarettes - a jury sees no problem with it whatsoever - and the story gets a whole day and a half of media coverage? If the media decides to carry Furguson for whatever reason, it may not be a good case, but perhaps folks feel like they have to use whatever they can to bring attention to issues that are important to them.

The issue that Lillabett raised is an example of a general pattern that we see in the USA. For the most part I agree with her. Trials should be neutral and concerned with discovering whether there is sufficient evidence to impose a remedy prescribed by law. But for the general public they often become vehicles for addressing larger social issues while ignoring the specifics of the incident at hand.

For example, based on the evidence in the OJ Simpson trial, it is pretty clear that he should not have been convicted. There was no hard evidence against him. You have no eye-witnesses putting Simpson at the crime scene. You have no murder weapon. The first police officer on the scene and the prosecution's primary witness comitted purgury in front of the jury. The forensic investigation and subsequent handling of the chain of evidence was bungled beyond belief. "The glove didn't fit". And the legal burden of proof for a conviction in a criminal case is very high. But does anybody really care about any of that? Nope. Most black people were happy to see him go free because they saw it as vindicating their assertion of racism in the police force. I am not sure why most white people believe that he should have been convicted - but it certainly is not based on the evidence presented during the trial and legal standard used to convict. In the public-eye the trial was about racism in the police force, domestic violence, celebrity, inter-racial relationships and so forth . . . As a lawyer that is disconcerting, as it was with Furguson.

Why does that happen? Again - I think it happens because we live in a country that still has significant issues that need to be addressed (such as police misconduct or racism in the criminal justice system) and that have not been given the attention that they deserve. When blacks try to raise the issue of police misconduct in a legitimate forum the reaction by many whites seems to be "Police Misconduct? What police misconduct? Things look fine to me. Stop whining and trying to bring up the race-card."

So when issues that should be addressed in a legitimate way are ignored or downplayed, marginilized groups latch onto whatever they can in order to try to bring attention to the issues that they feel deserve attention. You can expect to continue to see things like that until the fundamental issues are addressed. Because is difficult for marginalized groups to effect needed change through institutions, while legitimate in most respects, that are biased against them, certain groups feel that their voices are not being heard and that the only way they can effect change is to boycott, riot, destroy, etc. You are destined to have chaos until you have a society in which there is fundamental justice at all levels. . .

So I would say that if you want a system where your husband will not be treated with automatic suspicion by certain groups, just keep doing your best to try to make the system just at all levels. When people no longer percieve the criminal justice system as being biased, the chances of that happening to your husband become less and less . . .

But, from a practical standpoint, I would not worry so much about your husband getting railroaded by the "lynch mob" if he should need to kill someone while on duty. That happens many hudrends of times per year in the USA, and it is extremely rare for a police officer to be even be prosecuted, let alone convicted. Out of the thousands of times that police officers have killed in the course of their duties, it seems that we get a Furgeson once every 5 or 10 years or so. Plenty of people might be suspicious about the police, or complain about them in the media, but rarely is there any concrete action taken against police officers. Perhaps that is part of the reason why when a case starts to get media attention, it tends to explode . . .

And so endeth my ramble. . .

LOL. How did I end up quoting myself? Read it twice please. It was that good.

[puellapaschalis]

Can someone please explain to me what is going on?

I can't fix anything if everything is worded in vague code. From my viewpoint, you are doing no better than those who you are complaining about.

Solution anybody?

The situation as I perceive it is that there is a core group of people - you, @dUst, and those who have been on Phatmass for a very long time. Some are Mediators of Meh and some are not (or are no longer). Your clique is so tight-knit that some in the group get a free pass on speaking charitably (which is the link I make with @Lilllabettt's OP) and on expression Catholic orthodoxy. That's what I mean by the Management Clique.

This is the second post I've made in the last few months in which I've tried to word this. When I PM'd you, about a separate issue relating to my profile and account, I received no reply at all.

So to tie in my concerns with those in the OP: rash judgement happens on Phatmass, and it gets overlooked because people know some of those doing it are 'important', long-standing members who are in with the boss.

[Ice_nine]

Good post Peace.

 

Heres my thing:

"You people" think cops are guilty until proven innocent, just the way white people on a jury tend to think black men are guilty until proven innocent.

My sweetie has to go to deal every day with  "you people"  --- people who hate him, think he is either up to no good or is about to be up to no good. My sweetie never did nothing to nobody. "You people" don't care. And if he got into trouble "you people" would assume he is guilty, no matter what.

It's wrong. It's not Christian.

 

I'm glad you understand privilege and worked with brown people yaddyadda that's all well and good.

Why does it matter if I think a cop is guilty? It's just what I think. It literally does not matter and has no effect on any actual outcome. The structural inequality does not care about a few thousand/million people whining on the internet. We're just talking, making guesses and assumptions. I don't think the DOJ gives one beaver dam about all of that. No institution does. I think you're blowing this way the hell out of proportion. Did anyone claim to actually know what happened that day? We're all just using the information we have, and yes you ARE allowed to factor in a history of police brutality against black people when you're trying to figure out what went on. It's part of the puzzle.

I don't know anything about your man. I question anyone though who chooses an occupation that is inherently violent and that permits you to use violence to enforce stupid, stupid laws and one that shows a stunning level of hypocrisy when it comes to enforcing laws amongst the populace vs. enforcing laws amongst their own. I'm allowed to do that, too even if you don't like it. Of course I concede that any given police officer may start out with noble intentions (maintaining those intentions in that environment is another story, but I'm sure it's possible), but I'm allowed to have my suspicions. Doesn't mean I'm 100% sure of anything. I deal with probabilities. Almost nothing is certain.

You have a horse in this race, I get it. But you should probably take it down a few notches if you want to call people out for being un-Christian. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Ash Wednesday]

 

[MarysLittleFlower]

Peace - I think what you said could be accurate but doesn't fighting injustice with aggression cause more injustice? I'd say that's not what should be, and its also wrong to ignore the problem too. I think some people only see those two options unfortunately. I mean on either side. Of course it's not everyone so I'm not generalising. The aggression group is also a minority. But still I think its not the solution. I get how it could be linked to the problem being ignored for a while though. 

As for the phorum situation... Sometimes it reminds one of high school? Power struggles, possible cliques, popular vs unpopular... I don't mean the management in particular but generally speaking. It can easily happen on any forum. Not sure how that could be improved. I'm not sure if its just my perception though or the reality... There just seems to be a lot of drama. 

Edited August 30, 2015 by MarysLittleFlower

[Peace]

Peace - I think what you said could be accurate but doesn't fighting injustice with aggression cause more injustice? I'd say that's not what should be, and its also wrong to ignore the problem too. I think some people only see those two options unfortunately. 

What did I write? LOL. I was buzzed when I wrote that . . .

I would not advocate for the use of violence to acheive just ends, except in extreme circumstances . . . just to clarify. Especially now after so much progress has already been made, I think people should continue to advocate for changes in the law that they think will help.

If anything good came out of that Furguson mess - perhaps it was that a lot of people are looking more seriously at putting body cameras on police officers. I think things like that should go a long way in reducing misconduct (and it should also help prevent false accusations too).

[Lilllabettt]

Good post Peace.

I'm glad you understand privilege and worked with brown people yaddyadda that's all well and good.

Why does it matter if I think a cop is guilty? It's just what I think. It literally does not matter and has no effect on any actual outcome. The structural inequality does not care about a few thousand/million people whining on the internet. We're just talking, making guesses and assumptions. I don't think the DOJ gives one beaver dam about all of that. No institution does.

This is what happens when people are sucked in to systems thinking. 

You honestly believe it does not matter that an innocent man's reputation was ruined on the internet.You honestly believe whether your prejudice does not matter, that it does not effect anything.

Nope! That's not Christian. Sin is not private. And that's what prejudice is - a sin, if you don't resist it. It's one of the ugliest things a person can become, is prejudiced. That's what gossip, rash judgment, and detraction are - sins. The devil do not care if your prejudice is against white black brown or blue. The devil do not care if your prejudice has a reason or not. The devil is happy either way.

I agree that being a cop is a stupid choice. Being a teacher is also a stupid thing to do; but I did that, so I can't judge. My sweetie knew he wanted to be the police from when he was a small child obsessed with archangels. Personally I am glad people are stupid enough to be police officers. Maybe your life is charmed enough you've never needed them - hope it stays that way. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Peace]

This is Eric Holder's DOJ - the AG who made prosecution of race-based civil rights violations the centerpiece of his administration.

Is that really correct though - or just a perception?

I cannot recall even a single race-based civil rights prosecution under the Holder administration. But maybe I just missed them in the news, or they were not covered in the news.

What prosecutions do you have in mind exactly that lead you to that conclusion?

[Maggyie]

Is that really correct though - or just a perception?

I cannot recall even a single race-based civil rights prosecution under the Holder administration. But maybe I just missed them in the news, or they were not covered in the news.

What prosecutions do you have in mind exactly that lead you to that conclusion?

racial justice was one of the AG's biggest priorities during his tenure, and he worked very hard on it, being particularly active with suing under the Civil Rights Act. His most significant success was in changing the conversation about incarceration rates for black men (an issue that now has bipartisan interest). He intends to continue his work by founding the "Eric Holder Insitute for Race and Justice."

Specific examples include US vs FDNY and US vs Austin, Tex.