• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

F is for Fascism (Ferguson MO)

The cop probably didn't mean to kill Garner, but man, it's hard to believe someone who keeps choking who can't breathe didn't have some ill intent.

totally egregious. It is terrible. It is also pathetic when you look at what he was being arrested for. I don't think the intent was to kill but he was very negligent and should face some charges. You could argue he was resisting arrest and needed to be controlled but that would be weak at best. Also if you factor in the reason they were harassing him and the actions taking and the end result hard to imagine being able to justify that. I do not know if this is a case of racism etc but certainly feel horrible for Garner's family at this point.

This is definitely a case that needs to be looked at harder but I would not lump it in with the Ferguson case.

Hard to watch though for sure.
 
You didn't put any of the onus of simple brutality or the ultimate brutality of over-arresting and over-charging on the PD and DAs. If poor people, black people, Hispanics. etc., were given the same leniency and opportunities to avoid charges, jail and longer sentences that white people routinely get, many of the problems that exist wouldn't continue.

You should know the studies about arrests, charges, pleas and incarceration. These are the most evil forms of racism and classism that exist.
 
We will only have a post racial society when we stop thinking of people in racial terms. A man is a man and when he is killed it is a human tragedy. When we have set asides by race and every tragedy has to be quantified by race, things will never change. This country is more fixated on race than it was thirty years ago. In some ways, there have been great advances in race relations over the past thirty years, but that next step will NEVER happen until we get over this fixation on race.

White vs Black is concocted anyway. None of us are purely white or purely black or purely latino. Almost everyone in this country is a product of more than one race somewhere down the line.

Let's find away to curb police power and just treat people as men or women deserving of respect period.

Just thought I'd share a few thoughts on your comments about race, especially if you consider yourself a libertarian.

You say we will only be post-racial when we stop recognizing or talking about race, but that is illogical. Will you ever wake up and be anything other than your race, your ethnicity, your family, your biological sex? A black man in America will wake up tomorrow and be a black man in America.

Where we go from there with race is important. We took a crucial misstep in America with how we taught race in school starting in the 60s. I don't know when you were in school, but the concept of America as the "melting pot" was popularized a long time before I entered school and started taking history and social studies classes, so that's how I was taught. There are some good points and bad points of this message. It's nationalistic, but it's an ethos of togetherness. It connotes that people come or came to America, shed their identity, their culture, their personhood, and become a homogenized, melted, amalgamated American. To an extent, this is probably true for many Americans who have lost the language and culture of their immigrant ancestors. Think of the history, however, of black Americans. You can trace the history of most black Americans to slavery, or more recently to segregation, or more recently to some form of discrimination in America. It is devastatingly ingrained into the cultural history of black Americans, one cultural point among many that separates them from the descendants of European Americans or Asian Americans. It's a point of difference that should not be forgotten. There's a sense of "otherness" about being a black person in America today that still lingers, it exists outside the political, social, and cultural elite in spite of the progress made over recent decades.

So when I contend that race is still important I don't mean because we must view every issue through a lens of race, I only feel that there are differences between people that we code in different ways. Women are paid differently than men, homosexuals have fewer marital rights than heterosexual couples, black men face trials in modern America that white men do not. It is not important to recognize race only to see difference but as a way to see forward towards change and better times. To deny race exists or to lessen its importance is to recognize that there is a history of inequality and mistreatment of those who are different or other without recognizing why.

We should not and cannot be post-racial.
 
Fuck off with the condenscention. Seriously. We aren't talking about rocket surgery here. I understand your points fine. They are just wrong.

I know but PH is a brilliant intellect. He takes time to enlighten us and it frustrates us when we do not see his genius. He sometimes forgets we are not all as intelligent as him. You have to forgive him as internet education is a tough business.
 
totally egregious. It is terrible. It is also pathetic when you look at what he was being arrested for. I don't think the intent was to kill but he was very negligent and should face some charges. You could argue he was resisting arrest and needed to be controlled but that would be weak at best. Also if you factor in the reason they were harassing him and the actions taking and the end result hard to imagine being able to justify that. I do not know if this is a case of racism etc but certainly feel horrible for Garner's family at this point.

This is definitely a case that needs to be looked at harder but I would not lump it in with the Ferguson case.

Hard to watch though for sure.

Agreed. If they just wanted to arrest him they easily could have attempted the standard route of putting him against the wall. While I also don't think the officer had an intent to kill there is at the very least an assaultive intent.
 
I don't think your conclusion is correct. The fact that a justification statute might be unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment as applied to a civil claim of unreasonable seizure does not necessarily mean that it is unconstitutional as applied in a criminal case brought against the officer. Again, the state is not required to criminalize unconstitutional behavior. If, in response to Gardner, the Missouri legislature had repealed the statute (or that portion of it ruled unconstitutional as applied) I'd agree with you. But it didn't, thus evidencing that the Missouri legislature had no desire to criminalize the behavior permitted by the statue.

If the statute were found unconstitutional it would no longer be in force and Wilson's actions would be criminal. If the statute that provides his affirmative defense is unconstitutional then he no longer has an affirmative defense.

If that part of the statute were challenged, a Court with Tennessee v. Garner in front of it would have a very difficult time finding that it wasn't unconstitutional. Nothing in the Tennessee decision limits the holding solely to 4th Amendment civil cases.

Any statute which authorizes the use of deadly force on a fleeing suspect simply because the suspect might have committed a felony is unconstitutional. If that part of the statute was Wilson's only affirmative defense then he would no longer have that affirmative defense available.
 
Agreed. If they just wanted to arrest him they easily could have attempted the standard route of putting him against the wall. While I also don't think the officer had an intent to kill there is at the very least an assaultive intent.

When Garner screams ELEVEN times, "I can't breathe" and they don't stop intent can be created and inferred. Using a banned procedure also shows intent.

Mike, if I get in fist fight with you figuring you'll quit when you get a bloody nose. Then one of my punches knocks you to a curb which causes you to die, am I not charged with manslaughter or higher?
 
Last edited:
I have to say this again (I said it about 200 pages ago)--I am fed up with this being painted as a racial issue. It's not. It's a police overreaching issue that disproportionately impacts black people who, for reasons we can argue about until we are blue in the face, have more encounters with cops than white people.

In my view, and based only on what I have seen in the papers, Eric Garner was likely murdered, and the officer(s) involved should at least stand trial. But not because Gardner was black. Because he was likely murdered. When people try to turn this into a race war (and some of the posters on here are so guilty of this at every turn) consensus is lost and the real message--police brutality is a problem that needs desperately to be addressed--is lost in the shouting match that ensues.

So we shouldn't mention that race probably had something to do with it because then we will lose all of the racists who otherwise would TOTALLY be on board with solving police brutality?

jlaw-nod.gif
 
What is the obsession with moving beyond race? Racial and cultural identity are an important part of life for many minorities. We don't need to ignore or move past racial differences to treat everyone equally and fairly. Are black people asking for better treatment than Asians, Hispanics or White people? No.
 
Right. Just to flesh-out your point: If Wilson had shot (Brown but not killed him) solely for being a fleeing felon, if Wilson had gathered evidence against Brown as a result, and if, in the state's prosecution of Brown, a fact finder had concluded that Wilson's shooting violated the Fourth Amendment, the state could not have used the evidence in a criminal prosecution against Brown, even if the Missouri statute permitted Wilson's behavior. Likewise, if a civil fact finder concludes Wilson's actions violated the Fourth Amendment, Wilson will be held civilly liable to Brown's estate/family. But just because his actions violated the Fourth Amendment (by hypothesis), does not mean his actions violated the criminal law of Missouri.

Directly from the case:

"A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead. The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against such fleeing suspects."

"We hold that the statute is invalid insofar as it purported to give Hymon the authority to act as he did."

With those quotes in mind lets look at your last sentence.

You are correct that Missouri doesn't have to turn around and criminalize this behavior.

However, Missouri has already criminalized Wilson's behavior (it is illegal to murder someone). Wilson (or in this case the ADA) has raised an Affirmative Defense. That defense can be found in the statute authorizing Wilson's behavior. If part of that statute is unconstitutional, and the Wilson's defense relies solely on that part of the statute, then that defense is no longer available to him.
 
What is the obsession with moving beyond race? Racial and cultural identity are an important part of life for many minorities. We don't need to ignore or move past racial differences to treat everyone equally and fairly. Are black people asking for better treatment than Asians, Hispanics or White people? No.

Good thing jhmd isn't around or we would have an instantaneous derail on affirmative action.
 
Inside the Twisted Police Department That Kills Unarmed Citizens at the Highest Rate in the Country

Besides killing Alan Gomez, Wallace has shot two other unarmed people in his short career — one died — and terrorized an untold number of others. He was named in a federal lawsuit for ramming the car of a wanted man driving his family to school, then handcuffing the man’s children as their schoolmates watched in horror. Though his killing of Gomez cost Albuquerque $900,000, part of a whopping $26 million tab in settlements paid out to families of citizens killed by cops since 2010, Wallace has received nothing but rewards from his superiors. (The first time he killed an unarmed person, Wallace cost the city $235,000.)

Cost your employer over $1 million - still keep your job. (Likely because it is not the employer that pays.)
 
Just thought I'd share a few thoughts on your comments about race, especially if you consider yourself a libertarian.

You say we will only be post-racial when we stop recognizing or talking about race, but that is illogical. Will you ever wake up and be anything other than your race, your ethnicity, your family, your biological sex? A black man in America will wake up tomorrow and be a black man in America.

Where we go from there with race is important. We took a crucial misstep in America with how we taught race in school starting in the 60s. I don't know when you were in school, but the concept of America as the "melting pot" was popularized a long time before I entered school and started taking history and social studies classes, so that's how I was taught. There are some good points and bad points of this message. It's nationalistic, but it's an ethos of togetherness. It connotes that people come or came to America, shed their identity, their culture, their personhood, and become a homogenized, melted, amalgamated American. To an extent, this is probably true for many Americans who have lost the language and culture of their immigrant ancestors. Think of the history, however, of black Americans. You can trace the history of most black Americans to slavery, or more recently to segregation, or more recently to some form of discrimination in America. It is devastatingly ingrained into the cultural history of black Americans, one cultural point among many that separates them from the descendants of European Americans or Asian Americans. It's a point of difference that should not be forgotten. There's a sense of "otherness" about being a black person in America today that still lingers, it exists outside the political, social, and cultural elite in spite of the progress made over recent decades.

So when I contend that race is still important I don't mean because we must view every issue through a lens of race, I only feel that there are differences between people that we code in different ways. Women are paid differently than men, homosexuals have fewer marital rights than heterosexual couples, black men face trials in modern America that white men do not. It is not important to recognize race only to see difference but as a way to see forward towards change and better times. To deny race exists or to lessen its importance is to recognize that there is a history of inequality and mistreatment of those who are different or other without recognizing why.

We should not and cannot be post-racial.

I am not saying that we should deny race but I certainly think we should de-emphasize it. Everybody has their cross to bear and it is different for each person. If we continually divide ourselves and compete as to who has it tougher, then this continues indefinitely. Each person has many aspects of him or her that make them more alike or different than each other person. The amount of pigment in their skin seems less important than many things. When I meet a person, their race is one of several characteristics that I notice. Shortly thereafter, I do not continue to fixate on their race anymore than I would continue to fixate on their height or weight or manner of dress. Each person regardless of race has their own background and scars and lenses trough which they see life. To lump all black people into a certain category seems prejudicial in and of itself. Slavery and prejudice has a very intense past in this country. However, slavery and prejudice is not unique to this country or to the black race. Through out history, almost all peoples and races have been enslaved. It is a part of the human condition that we as the human race need to overcome.

At some point we have to look forward and try and get beyond where we are. Content of a persons character and not color of his skin.

We can stay stuck in the past or we can move to where we want to be.
 
I am not saying that we should deny race but I certainly think we should de-emphasize it. Everybody has their cross to bear and it is different for each person. If we continually divide ourselves and compete as to who has it tougher, then this continues indefinitely. Each person has many aspects of him or her that make them more alike or different than each other person. The amount of pigment in their skin seems less important than many things. When I meet a person, their race is one of several characteristics that I notice. Shortly thereafter, I do not continue to fixate on their race anymore than I would continue to fixate on their height or weight or manner of dress. Each person regardless of race has their own background and scars and lenses trough which they see life. To lump all black people into a certain category seems prejudicial in and of itself. Slavery and prejudice has a very intense past in this country. However, slavery and prejudice is not unique to this country or to the black race. Through out history, almost all peoples and races have been enslaved. It is a part of the human condition that we as the human race need to overcome.

At some point we have to look forward and try and get beyond where we are. Content of a persons character and not color of his skin.

We can stay stuck in the past or we can move to where we want to be.

It's not a competition really. Black people have it tougher. If you find that statement "divisive" that says more about you than it does the person making the statement.
 
It's not a competition really. Black people have it tougher. If you find that statement "divisive" that says more about you than it does the person making the statement.

Some black people have it tougher. Some white people have it tougher. We are individuals, not monolithic blocks.
 
Some black people have it tougher. Some white people have it tougher. We are individuals, not monolithic blocks.
You're right, we are all individuals, but our race affects our lives beyond our control.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5269255

Explaining White Privilege to a Broke White Person

Gina Crosley-Corcoran 05/08/14 12:57 PM ET

Years ago some feminist on the Internet told me I was "privileged."

"THE F&CK!?!?" I said.

I came from the kind of poor that people don't want to believe still exists in this country. Have you ever spent a frigid northern-Illinois winter without heat or running water? I have. At 12 years old were you making ramen noodles in a coffee maker with water you fetched from a public bathroom? I was. Have you ever lived in a camper year-round and used a random relative's apartment as your mailing address? We did. Did you attend so many different elementary schools that you can only remember a quarter of their names? Welcome to my childhood.

So when that feminist told me I had "white privilege," I told her that my white skin didn't do shit to prevent me from experiencing poverty. Then, like any good, educated feminist would, she directed me to Peggy McIntosh's now-famous 1988 piece "White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack."

After one reads McIntosh's powerful essay, it's impossible to deny that being born with white skin in America affords people certain unearned privileges in life that people of other skin colors simply are not afforded. For example:

"I can turn on the television or open to the front page of the paper and see people of my race widely represented."

"When I am told about our national heritage or about 'civilization,' I am shown that people of my color made it what it is."

"If a traffic cop pulls me over or if the IRS audits my tax return, I can be sure I haven't been singled out because of my race."

"I can if I wish arrange to be in the company of people of my race most of the time."

If you read through the rest of the list, you can see how white people and people of color experience the world in very different ways. But listen: This is not said to make white people feel guilty about their privilege. It's not your fault that you were born with white skin and experience these privileges. But whether you realize it or not, you do benefit from it, and it isyour fault if you don't maintain awareness of that fact.

I do understand that McIntosh's essay may rub some people the wrong way. There are several points on the list that I felt spoke more to the author's status as a middle-class person than to her status as a white person. For example:

"If I should need to move, I can be pretty sure of renting or purchasing housing in an area, which I can afford and in which I would want to live."

"I can be pretty sure that my neighbors in such a location will be neutral or pleasant to me."

"I can go shopping alone most of the time, pretty well assured that I will not be followed or harassed."

"If I want to, I can be pretty sure of finding a publisher for this piece on white privilege."

And there are so many more points in the essay where the word "class" could be substituted for the word "race," which would ultimately paint a very different picture. That is why I had such a hard time identifying with this essay for so long. When I first wrote about white privilege years ago, I demanded to know why this white woman felt that my experiences were the same as hers when, no, my family most certainly could not rent housing "in an area which we could afford and want to live," and no, I couldn't go shopping without fear in our low-income neighborhoods.

The idea that any ol' white person can find a publisher for a piece is most certainly a symptom of class privilege. Having come from a family of people who didn't even graduate from high school, who knew not a single academic or intellectual person, it would never occur to me to assume that I could be published. It is absolutely a freak anomaly that I'm in graduate school, considering that not one person on either side of my family has a college degree. And it took me until my 30s to ever believe that someone from my stock could achieve such a thing. Poverty colors nearly everything about your perspective on opportunities for advancement in life. Middle-class, educated people assume that anyone can achieve their goals if they work hard enough. Folks steeped in poverty rarely see a life past working at the gas station, making the rent on their trailer, and self-medicating with cigarettes and prescription drugs until they die of a heart attack. (I've just described one whole side of my family and the life I assumed I'd be living before I lucked out of it.)

I, maybe more than most people, can completely understand why broke white folks get pissed when the word "privilege" is thrown around. As a child I was constantly discriminated against because of my poverty, and those wounds still run very deep. But luckily my college education introduced me to a more nuanced concept of privilege: the term "intersectionality." The concept of intersectionality recognizes that people can be privileged in some ways and definitely not privileged in others. There are many different types of privilege, not just skin-color privilege, that impact the way people can move through the world or are discriminated against. These are all things you are born into, not things you earned, that afford you opportunities that others may not have. For example:

Citizenship: Simply being born in this country affords you certain privileges that non-citizens will never access.

Class: Being born into a financially stable family can help guarantee your health, happiness, safety, education, intelligence, and future opportunities.

Sexual orientation: If you were born straight, every state in this country affords you privileges that non-straight folks have to fight the Supreme Court for.

Sex: If you were born male, you can assume that you can walk through a parking garage without worrying that you'll be raped and then have to deal with a defense attorney blaming it on what you were wearing.

Ability: If you were born able-bodied, you probably don't have to plan your life around handicap access, braille, or other special needs.

Gender identity: If you were born cisgender (that is, your gender identity matches the sex you were assigned at birth), you don't have to worry that using the restroom or locker room will invoke public outrage.

As you can see, belonging to one or more category of privilege, especially being a straight, white, middle-class, able-bodied male, can be like winning a lottery you didn't even know you were playing. But this is not to imply that any form of privilege is exactly the same as another, or that people lacking in one area of privilege understand what it's like to be lacking in other areas. Race discrimination is not equal to sex discrimination and so forth.

And listen: Recognizing privilege doesn't mean suffering guilt or shame for your lot in life. Nobody's saying that straight, white, middle-class, able-bodied males are all a bunch of assholes who don't work hard for what they have. Recognizing privilege simply means being aware that some people have to work much harder just to experience the things you take for granted (if they ever can experience them at all).

I know now that I am privileged in many ways. I am privileged as a natural-born white citizen. I am privileged as a cisgender woman. I am privileged as an able-bodied person. I am privileged that my first language is also our national language, and that I was born with an intellect and ambition that pulled me out of the poverty that I was otherwise destined for. I was privileged to be able to marry my way "up" by partnering with a privileged, middle-class, educated male who fully expected me to earn a college degree.

There are a million ways I experience privilege, and some that I certainly don't. But thankfully, intersectionality allows us to examine these varying dimensions and degrees of discrimination while raising awareness of the results of multiple systems of oppression at work.

Tell me: Are you a white person who's felt uncomfortable with the term "white privilege"? Does a more nuanced approach help you see your own privilege more clearly?
 
Last edited:
Great article. Unpacking the knapsack is a must read for anyone interested in these issues IMO. Spent a lot of time on intersectionality as a lawyering fellow for three months working on transgender police interactions. It was really an eye opening experience.
 
Back
Top