Michael Brown was Killed Because He Didn’t Prostrate Himself to Police Authority
Even if you don't think this killing was racist, it's hard not to agree with the premise of this article.
A white Jewish friend of mine was jogging in Santa Monica, and saw a motorcycle cop down the street, and figured he had time to cross before the cop was even close.
Instead, the cop sped up, cut my friend off, and asked him why he crossed when he saw the cop coming.
My friend didn't think much of it and told the cop the truth, he thought he could cross before the cop got there, but he sped up. Figure their business was done, my friend went on his way, only to find the cop waiting at the NEXT corner.
"Let me ask you again, why did you cross when you saw me coming?"
My friend figured the cop wouldn't leave him alone until he groveled, so he looked at the ground mumbled his apologies and said it wouldn't happen again.
It's not hard to imagine that to the nth degree if the person stopped is black and in a former Jim Crow state to boot.
Whats wrong Ferguson Police Officer Darren Wilsons killing of the unarmed 18-year-old black teenager, Michael Brown, and with a Grand Jury decision not to indict him for that outrageous slaying, is what is wrong with American law enforcement and American justice in general.
Both actions were permeated not only with racism, which clearly played a huge rule in both the verdict rendered by a Grand Jury composed of nine whites and only three blacks, and in this tragic police killing by a white cop of a black child, but also by a mentality on the part of police and apparently by at least a majority of the citizen jurors on a panel evaluating Wilsons actions that cops are authorities who must be obeyed without question, on pain of death.
Lets recall the most crucial evidence in this killing: According to the New York Times it was two shots into the top of the head by Officer Wilson that killed Brown shots that multiple witnesses confirm were fired after the unarmed Brown was on his knees, already seriously wounded by four other apparently non-lethal shots to arm, neck and upper right chest, with his hands raised and pleading Dont shoot. The Times also reports that those shots, apparently fired when Browns head was leaning forward, or from a position above him, appeared to have been fired not from close range, a determination based upon an absence of gun powder residue around the area of the entry wounds.
It should not matter in the slightest whether or not Brown had first struck Officer Wilson inside his squad car during a scuffle, as claimed by the cop, or even that the officer, as he testified in an unusual appearance before jurors, felt terrified at that time. Nor does it matter, beyond being evidence of an inherent racism, that Wilson says he thought that Brown, approaching him at his car initially, looked like a demon. If the non-lethal shots that first hit Brown in arm, neck and upper chest had been fired at that early point, perhaps Wilson would have been justified in firing them in self defense, but its what happened after Brown tried to leave the scene that matter.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/11/27/michael-brown-was-killed-because-he-didnt-prostrate-himself-to-police-authority/
LakeVermilion
(1,046 posts)I agree 100%. Think of how some police rough up a detained person. Police seem to think that its their job to administer a little pre-punishment before the person reaches jail. Even in jail people are intimidated by rough treatment. Consider Rambo, First Blood. Its not so far fetched.
If you ever get police friends to share information, the stories will include a lot of extras.
My thought is that the police should be neutral when arresting someone. Community policing is pretty rare.
INdemo
(6,994 posts)in fact indited,tried and convicted. Then lets assume his case is appealed all the way to the SCOTUS. With the current Republican conservative majority. I believe there is no doubt his conviction would have been overturned by the Supreme Court Justices.
The supreme court doesn't deal with issues of innocence or guilt, only constitutional issues.
The case as you laid it out would never reach the SCOTUS.
INdemo
(6,994 posts)I disagree. They would have found a reason to overturn his conviction.
Just like this Grand Jury ...All they needed was an excuse or anything that could be used to send a smoke screen to the public that Wilson was within his rights as an officer of the law and it worked.
Every Republican that has a channel for their view to be expressed has agreed with the Grand Jury..Like O'reilly,Hannity etc.
So why wouldn't the supreme court with the corporatist Republican Justices not overturn verdict had there been one?
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)Tank the grand jury and lie? What the hell kind of logic is that?