whywontgodhealamputees.com

Main Discussion Zone => Religion In The News => Topic started by: Quesi on August 20, 2012, 01:09:50 PM

Title: Chavis Carter
Post by: Quesi on August 20, 2012, 01:09:50 PM
So 21 year old Chavis Carter is in a car with two friends, when they get pulled over after a report that there was a "suspicious car" in the neighborhood.  The three people get searched, they find a tiny bag of pot on Chavis,  handcuff him and run a background check on him.  They find out he has an outstanding warrant for possession in another state, so they unhandcuff him, search him again, re-handcuff him, and put him in the back of the police car.  They let the other two people go. 

At some point the young man calls his girlfriend to tell her that he was going to be late, and that he would see her when he got out of the police station.

And then, he changes his mind, produces a loaded gun that he had successfully hidden from police during his two body searches, and with his hands handcuffed behind his back, seated in the back of a police car, he decides to commit suicide with his hidden gun, and still handcuffed, the left handed Carter successfully shoots himself in the right temple. 

And the police didn't even notice.  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/20/chavis-carter-autopsy_n_1812233.html

I know that this is not a religious issue.  But I can't help but feel that it requires a real act of faith to buy this story.

I was SHOCKED to see the headlines declaring that the autopsy confirms suicide.   

The medical examiners report is online right now, with the words "Do Not Copy" written all over it.  So it might not be on the internet for long. 

And just in case you are going to defer to the medical professionals and their opinion about the cause of death, please read the closing opinion - which basically said he died of a gunshot wound and the police said it was suicide. 

OPINION:
In consideration of the circumstances of death and after autopsy of the body, it is our opinion that
Chavis Carter, a 21-year-old black male, died of a gunshot wound of the head. The agencies
responsible for the investigation of his death were the Jonesboro Police Department and the
Craighead County Coroner's Office. They reported that he was detained during a traffic stop.
He was cuffed and placed into a police car, where apparently he produced a weapon, and despite
being handcuffed, shot himself in the head.

At autopsy, the cause of death was a perforating gunshot wound of the head. At the time of
discharge, the muzzle of the gun was placed against the right temporal scalp. The bullet
perforated the cranial cavity, causing brain injuries, skull fractures, and death. The bullet exited
the left side of the head. The manner of death is based on both autopsy findings and the
investigative conclusions of the Jonesboro Police Department.
MANNER OF DEATH: Suicide

http://www.kait8.com/story/19321242/medical-examiners-report-into-the-chavis-carter-shooting

Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: nogodsforme on August 20, 2012, 01:27:00 PM
The handgun was just standing its ground.

Where the eff did that gun come from? Until they come up with an explanation for that, I am not going to buy the story that a young guy who was handcuffed in a car after being searched, managed to shoot himself in the head.

Why was I not at all surprised to learn that he was black? Reminds me of Steve Biko's death in South Africa. The police there said he beat himself to death with a chair while handcuffed.

Young black men in police custody perform more amazing stunts than Cirque du Soleil.  >:(
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: none on August 20, 2012, 01:29:20 PM
the police released a video of a a guy performing the act of shooting one's self as they have said.
they didn't release a video of a uniformed officer performing the act of execution...
I wonder why...
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: naemhni on August 20, 2012, 01:31:39 PM
And then, he changes his mind, produces a loaded gun that he had successfully hidden from police during his two body searches, and with his hands handcuffed behind his back, seated in the back of a police car, he decides to commit suicide with his hidden gun, and still handcuffed, the left handed Carter successfully shoots himself in the right temple.

To say that this is suspicious is putting it mildly.  For a cop to miss a handgun in a patdown -- twice -- is nearly inconceivable.  It's also nearly inconceivable that one could commit suicide in such a fashion while cuffed, or that this man would choose to kill himself over what would probably have been a misdemeanor at most.

On the other hand, though... what possible motive could the arresting officers have for committing a murder and setting it up to look like a suicide?  After all, even if the inquiry officially says that their story is one hundred percent true, they're still going to be in extremely hot water.  They're likely to be facing dismissal from the force and possible civil and criminal proceedings as well.  Missing a handgun on a patdown is a mistake that even the greenest rookie shouldn't have made, and for the suspect to have subsequently killed himself with it is the kind of thing that police departments take very seriously.

I'm not sure what to think about this.
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: naemhni on August 20, 2012, 01:35:22 PM
the police released a video of a a guy performing the act of shooting one's self as they have said.

No, they didn't.

Quote
The autopsy report comes days after police released dashboard camera video recorded the night Carter was shot in Jonesboro, about 130 miles northeast of Little Rock. Part of the video showed Carter being patted down and ended before officers found Carter slumped over and bleeding in the back of a patrol car as was described in a police report. Police later released additional video they said was recorded after Carter was found.

Neither included the moment they say Carter shot himself, and the footage did little to resolve questions about how the shooting could have happened.

{bold mine}

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/20/chavis-carter-autopsy_n_1812233.html
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: none on August 20, 2012, 01:44:21 PM
yes, they released a "re-enactment"....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8pP49MEhh4
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: naemhni on August 20, 2012, 01:48:47 PM
yes, they released a "re-enactment"....

This is only a reenactment.  At most, it would resolve the question of whether it is possible to shoot yourself in the head while cuffed.  It would say nothing about whether it actually happened in this case.
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: none on August 20, 2012, 01:50:02 PM
yes, they released a "re-enactment"....

This is only a reenactment.  At most, it would resolve the question of whether it is possible to shoot yourself in the head while cuffed.  It would say nothing about whether it actually happened in this case.
yeah, but they didn't show a "re-enactment" of a uniformed officer shooting him in the head...
I wonder why....
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: naemhni on August 20, 2012, 01:51:24 PM
yeah, but they didn't show a "re-enactment" of a uniformed officer shooting him in the head...
I wonder why....

Do you really, or are you merely being rhetorical?
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: none on August 20, 2012, 01:53:04 PM
it would be fun to explore the answer.
did you see the video at about 5:00 minutes and later?
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: Nick on August 20, 2012, 02:16:45 PM
Well, the 2 kids released were white.  The kid arrested was black.  Can it be determined if the gun was one of the cops?  Very strange case.  It does not pay to be a minority and poor in this country.  Seems like the new program is just elimination.
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: Quesi on August 20, 2012, 02:20:38 PM
For a cop to miss a handgun in a patdown -- twice -- is nearly inconceivable.  It's also nearly inconceivable that one could commit suicide in such a fashion while cuffed, or that this man would choose to kill himself over what would probably have been a misdemeanor at most.

Yeah.  The cops missed the handgun (twice) but found a little baggie of pot.

The handgun was just standing its ground.

Where the eff did that gun come from? Until they come up with an explanation for that, I am not going to buy the story that a young guy who was handcuffed in a car after being searched, managed to shoot himself in the head.

Why was I not at all surprised to learn that he was black? Reminds me of Steve Biko's death in South Africa. The police there said he beat himself to death with a chair while handcuffed.

Young black men in police custody perform more amazing stunts than Cirque du Soleil.  >:(

Ummm.  If we accept that it is a suicide, we are not going to investigate where this amazingly hidden gun came from.

It is noteworthy that the medical examiners did not make any note of gun power residue on his hands.  They did, however, take the time to measure the length of his hair, write about the "unremarkable" status of his liver, respiratory system, pancreas, his thyroid, and small and large bowels. 

Now I just want to scream from the rooftops that the medical examiner did not provide any evidence that the cause of death was suicide, other than the fact that the police said it was suicide. 

This was NOT a scientific investigation. 

It was a rubber stamp on the police report. 


Thanks for sharing the video None.  I've been following this case for the past few weeks, and that was definitely worth watching. 
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: Nam on August 20, 2012, 02:33:59 PM
Sounds a bit hinky, to me.

-Nam
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: bosey926 on August 20, 2012, 03:55:06 PM
Well, the 2 kids released were white.  The kid arrested was black.  Can it be determined if the gun was one of the cops? Very strange case.  It does not pay to be a minority and poor in this country.  Seems like the new program is just elimination.

     Yes.  If the investigation were to go in that direction (as it seems to be the only available path via logic), then both officers weapons would be confiscated and tested as they are placed on either payed suspension or full suspension; respective to the commanding officer's feelings surrounding the event and more importantly, the evidence given on it. 
     If they found the bullet that exited the young man's head, and it was still in decent condition (enough that it can be examined under a microscope), they would test fire not only both of the officer's issued weapons, but this .380 that is supposedly the weapon in suspicion as well.  Then examine the vertical engravings that are made along every bullet that exits the barrel of every firearm, (immaterial to type or caliber) and compare them to the slug that exited the victim's skull (again if it exists).
     You see, police officers (in most every city I know of), are issued Glock .40 cal semi-automatic handguns as their standard sidearm.  That is, unless they prefer another weapon, and the city's armory has that respective weapon, or they choose to register their own.
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: Quesi on August 20, 2012, 05:31:54 PM
I keep wracking my brain about this case.  And as Pianodwarf pointed out, it is very odd.  What motivation would a cop have to kill a handcuffed young man?

Here is my theory.  It doesn't explain where the gun came from, or whether it was one of the cops' guns, or a gun found in the car or on the kid or on the street.

But I think that one of the cops was taunting the kid with a gun when he was handcuffed, and the gun went off. 

The cops made the decision to call it a suicide, rather than implicate the cop.

I really can't think of another explanation. 
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: Nick on August 20, 2012, 07:08:59 PM
That sounds reasonable.  I can't think of why a cop would do that on purpose after having the kid in cuffs.

That would be a hell of a thing to have to live with.
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: LoriPinkAngel on August 21, 2012, 02:06:44 PM
^^  Pulp Fiction.
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: Graybeard on August 21, 2012, 02:52:55 PM
I don't go with the conspiracy theory. I was dubious until I saw the re-enactment. A gun can be hidden from a superficial pat-down. The usual places are the small of the back and between the buttocks[1].

It seems to me that Carter made his move to hide the weapon when he realised that the cops would be searching him and the car - he couldn't leave it in the car because his prints were all over it. He was already wanted and was again in possession of drugs - he also had a handgun - he was probably looking at prison time.

The next questions are
(i) "Whom would the death benefit?" Certainly not the police who would look good bringing in a felon wanted in another state.
(ii) "If you did want to shoot him, why do it in the back of a police car and whilst he was wearing handcuffs?"

Were the police negligent in their search? "Yes."
Who is usually at risk in a badly performed search? "The police."
 1. Make sure the safety's on
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: Nick on August 21, 2012, 02:55:48 PM
I heard today that he had meth, oxicontin, etc. in his system.  So the part of making him a bad guy has started.
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: Quesi on August 21, 2012, 03:08:11 PM
I heard today that he had meth, oxicontin, etc. in his system.  So the part of making him a bad guy has started.

That was not part of the original medical examiner's report.  Which I just clicked on, and is now not available. Wish I had copied the whole thing while it was up. 
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: nogodsforme on August 21, 2012, 04:06:53 PM
I heard today that he had meth, oxicontin, etc. in his system.  So the part of making him a bad guy has started.

I told you that the gun was just standing its ground.
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: natlegend on August 22, 2012, 12:49:39 AM
Holy crap I don't even live in America and yet by the time I had finished reading the OP I knew the guy had to be black. Unbe-fucken-lieveable.

I keep wracking my brain about this case.  And as Pianodwarf pointed out, it is very odd.  What motivation would a cop have to kill a handcuffed young man?

Here is my theory.  It doesn't explain where the gun came from, or whether it was one of the cops' guns, or a gun found in the car or on the kid or on the street.

But I think that one of the cops was taunting the kid with a gun when he was handcuffed, and the gun went off. 

The cops made the decision to call it a suicide, rather than implicate the cop.

I really can't think of another explanation. 

Sounds plausable...
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: Graybeard on August 22, 2012, 03:02:41 PM
I find it disturbing that people are willing to think that the cops are the bad guys merely because the dead man is black.

Not all cops are bad, not all Blacks are good - we are just people.

Imagine that the report had been "a man shot himself whilst handcuffed". Would that have been cause to say there must have been a murder?

What about. "A white man shot himself whilst handcuffed and in the custody of Black police officers"? Who is to blame here? Did the Black police officers shot the man?

This speculation is simply copying the hysterical media by seeking sensationalist news and making wild assumptions without any data.

Best wait for some facts.
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: Quesi on August 22, 2012, 03:32:05 PM
Graybeard-

I certainly do not think that all cops are bad.  But I can say with a fair degree of certainty that there is evidence that a percentage of cops have behaved badly while on duty.  Being a cop is a stressful job.  I've done a significant amount of work with cops in my community, and what always strikes me is that they see "bad guys" everywhere.  And I guess that is their job.  While I look at my community, and feel a rush of joy and pride at the diversity of the residents, the gracious, pre-war architecture, the narrow, tree-lined residential streets, and the thriving business community.   The police see a bunch of people who don't speak the language they speak, have body language that they can't read effectively, roaming narrow one-way streets that make pursuit of a suspect a challenge, and 24 hour businesses that need constant surveillance. 

Data demonstrates that men of color are more likely to be stopped and frisked.  I put up a link on the topic a while back, and I can look for it again if you want.  In this case, they stopped a car with three young people in it, one of whom was black, and frisked all of them.  They found a little baggie of pot on the black guy, and also found an outstanding warrant for not showing up at a court appearance on a previous possession charge.  So they cuffed him and held him.

If the vehicle had contained all white kids, would they have been stopped and frisked?  We will never know.

But so far, the cops seem to be doing what it is that they are supposed to do.

But before they could get themselves back to the police station with their suspect, he was dead.  He called his girlfriend, and asked her to come and meet him at the police station so that someone would be there when he got out.  And then, he changed his mind about seeing his girlfriend, produced a loaded, hidden gun, and then, while handcuffed, managed to shoot himself in the right temple?  In spite of being left handed?

None of this strikes you as strange?

Now in terms of bad cops, well, there are some.  There are some racist cops too.  Coincidentally, the police chief overseeing the department that conducted the search, and ended up with a dead suspect, is one of those cops. 

Yates, who recently claimed it would have been “quite easy” for Carter to shoot himself with his hands double-locked behind his back, has a murky history in race relations. Yates came to the Jonesboro Police Department after his controversial resignation  as police chief in Americus, Georgia. The local NAACP chapter launched a campaign to get Yates fired after he conducted an illegal background check on the NAACP vice president, who publicly complained about Americus police brutality at city council meetings. Yates stepped down voluntarily in 2004.

But Yates continued to stir up controversy upon moving to Arkansas. He made headlines again during the “Obama Riot”  of 2008, an altercation between police and a predominantly black crowd of students celebrating Obama’s election at Arkansas State University. According to two female witnesses , about 30 officers arrested several of the 60 or 70 celebrating students, threw them to the ground, and repeatedly kicked one man in the stomach and head. Yates told a different version of events, in which there were 200-250 students who set fire to a fence, fired weapons and attacked officers.
  http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/08/14/687881/civil-rights-group-calls-for-jonesboro-police-chiefs-resignation/

Tensions between Chief Yates and communities of color lead to his resignation in another state, after the NAACP started a campaign to have him fired.  And he also oversaw the "Obama riot" in which a bunch of young people (mostly people of color) were out celebrating the election of President Obama.  Police brutality is widely reported among those whose celebrations were interrupted by the police that night. 

I don't think that this is a nice guy.  But he takes care of his own.  And in this case, I believe he took care of his subordinates. 

And what about the medical report?  I am certainly no forensic expert, and I have admittedly learned nearly everything I know about crime forensics from tv shows, but can anyone explain to me why there was no mention in the medical examiner's report of gun powder on the kid's hand?  If it were there, that would seem to suggest that he fired the gun.  But I read the report, and that fact was suspiciously absent from the data. 
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: nogodsforme on August 22, 2012, 06:16:41 PM
What is telling is the fact that people of color in the US assume that they will be treated unfairly by the police.

A fellow professer teaches criminal justice classes. I sat in while the students, aged 17-24,  discussed their interactions with the police. The young men of color had numerous stories of being followed, harrassed, searched, disrepected and arrested. One guy reported being followed by police and accused of committing a crime when he had just left church. The hurt and anger in his voice were so clear--how could he have done anything wrong in the 5 minutes between leaving his mother at church and getting home? 

On the other hand, the young white women reported only polite and helpful interactions with police. One girl had left a party drunk and underaged. She was picked up by police. Instead of ending up frisked, strip searched, arrested and in jail, she had been escorted home safely to her parents by the police. White students reported seeing their friends of color mistreated by police while they, presumably involved in the same suspicious activities, were let go. (Chavis Carter's white companions?)

Back in the 1980's there was a scandal when Chicago police were stopping black people with something wrong on their cars. And searching the cars, frisking, and even strip searching the people. No other cause than a broken tail light or expired license plates. Very few of these dozens of searches resulted in drugs or weapons or even an arrest. A complete waste of police time and major rift between the police and the community.

My mother was one of the people pulled over because she was driving with out-of-state plates. A schoolteacher in her 50's, when the police started talking about strip searching her, she began to cry, which reined them in. She lodged a complaint and was surprised to find that the was common in poor neighborhoods. But it only became a scandal when middle class women as well as poor men and women started to be treated the same way, and complained to the media.

It would be naive to think that race and class don't matter when the police look at people. And it does not always matter what race the police are. One study IIRC found that black police are more violent towards black suspects when white police are present. It seems that blue is more important than either black or white.
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: Gohavesomefun on August 22, 2012, 06:41:32 PM
Shaking my head in disbelief right now, such a frustrating and horrifying report.
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: Azdgari on August 22, 2012, 07:02:19 PM
I find it disturbing that people are willing to think that the cops are the bad guys merely because the dead man is black.

Not all cops are bad, not all Blacks are good - we are just people.

Imagine that the report had been "a man shot himself whilst handcuffed". Would that have been cause to say there must have been a murder?

What about. "A white man shot himself whilst handcuffed and in the custody of Black police officers"? Who is to blame here? Did the Black police officers shot the man?

This speculation is simply copying the hysterical media by seeking sensationalist news and making wild assumptions without any data.

Best wait for some facts.

Would speculation about racism be reasonable if the story had occurred in Apartheid South Africa?  Why or why not?
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: Nick on August 22, 2012, 09:12:39 PM
They have dash cam of before and after.  3 and a half minutes is missing.  Guess what that covers?  Also, no test on gun powder residue was taken on the kid or cops.
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: joebbowers on August 25, 2012, 02:28:27 AM
Well, the 2 kids released were white.  The kid arrested was black.  Can it be determined if the gun was one of the cops?  Very strange case.  It does not pay to be a minority and poor in this country.  Seems like the new program is just elimination.

Why were the white kids let go? They were not wanted on an outstanding warrant, nor were they in possession of an illegal substance. That's not racism.

For those of you that think the cops executed this kid, what possible reason do you have to suspect that? Because you find it incredible that he could have shot himself while handcuffed? Clearly possible, as the video demonstrates.

What's left that you STILL don't believe the cops? That they missed the gun in the pat-down twice? Entirely possible, if both pat downs checked the same places and missed the same places.

Also, don't you think the cops would have to be pretty damn stupid to murder a man in the back of their own squadcar while he was still handcuffed? Wouldn't it have been easier to uncuff him and make it look like he got shot trying to resist arrest? I mean, if they were going to make up a story, why would they make up one that they know many people wouldn't believe?

There is no conspiracy here. I know cops sometimes go too far, but this is clearly not one of those cases.

I heard today that he had meth, oxicontin, etc. in his system.  So the part of making him a bad guy has started.

Are you implying that the police made him take those drugs? Or that the medical examiner lied about the drug test? Otherwise, it looks to me like he made himself the bad guy.

They have dash cam of before and after.  3 and a half minutes is missing.  Guess what that covers?  Also, no test on gun powder residue was taken on the kid or cops.

Dash cams are tied in with the roof lights, they stop recording when you turn the lights off. With the suspect cuffed and secured, the lights were turned off.

No powder residue is left with a semi-automatic pistol, which almost entirely contains the blast. Only revolvers leave enough residue to run a trace test, as there is a gap between the chamber and the barrel where gas escapes out the sides of the gun when fired.
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: Graybeard on August 25, 2012, 04:42:09 AM
This speculation is simply copying the hysterical media by seeking sensationalist news and making wild assumptions without any data.

Best wait for some facts.

Quote
Would speculation about racism be reasonable if the story had occurred in Apartheid South Africa?  Why or why not?
The question you intended was  "If there are details we do not know, is speculation productive?"

It is not.

As an aside, (i) it did not happen in Apartheid South Africa. (ii) I suppose that you would agree that not every death (Black or White) in police custody in Apartheid South Africa was as a result of police action.

I am basically very disappointed by the lack of forensic thought in this topic - it seems to have been overtaken by liberal "right-on" political correctness, which is not at all helpful when a potential prison sentence is at stake; it sounds like hysterical mob rule.

Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: Azdgari on August 25, 2012, 06:17:53 AM
The question you intended was  "If there are details we do not know, is speculation productive?"

No, that is not the question I intended.  -1 for the really obvious and inexcusable lie.

As an aside, (i) it did not happen in Apartheid South Africa.

Duh.

(ii) I suppose that you would agree that not every death (Black or White) in police custody in Apartheid South Africa was as a result of police action.

Sure.  Now are you willing to answer the question I actually asked, or would that take too much honesty?  Stating that I meant to ask an entirely different question and then answering that one, isn't honest.  It's frankly beneath you.

I am basically very disappointed by the lack of forensic thought in this topic - it seems to have been overtaken by liberal "right-on" political correctness, which is not at all helpful when a potential prison sentence is at stake; it sounds like hysterical mob rule.

The idea that the police story is accurate is no less speculation than the idea that it is not.  In absense of data, speculating - but not concluding - is reasonable.
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: Ambassador Pony on August 25, 2012, 09:01:25 AM
No, that is not the question I intended.  -1 for the really obvious and inexcusable lie.

^ this.

Just tell Grey he misunderstood your question, and what you meant to express.

Keeps things productive and civil. If he's being obtuse, you can also opt out of the discussion. You've got a lot of options.

 





Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: Quesi on August 25, 2012, 09:45:37 AM
Greybeard -

I am trying to understand if you are dismissing concerns about this particular case as a "conspiracy theory" or if you are stating that you do not believe that a percentage of police officers target and often behave inappropriately towards people of color?

If you asserting that those of us who have concerns about this particular case are engaging in "conspiracy theories" I could point out even more examples of irregularities in this particular case.  As Nick pointed out, there is footage of the period immediately before the shooting, with a 3 1/2 minute gap, and then footage after the shooting.[1] What he failed to mention that there were two police cars, with two cameras.  Both of the cameras failed at the same time.  And why no test for gun powder residue?  Honestly, that might convince me that he did it.  And how did he go, in such a short period of time, to a call to his girlfriend telling her he would see her soon, to the decision to commit suicide?  Too many unanswered questions.

If you are asserting that there is not a tendency by a percentage of police officers, to target people of color, I could write many pages disputing that claim.  In a previous thread, I cited data on "stop and frisk" here in NYC.  Here is a glance:

Here is some stop and frisk data from NYC in recent years. 

•   In 2009, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 581,168 times.
510,742 were totally innocent (88 percent).
310,611 were black (55 percent).
180,055 were Latino (32 percent).
53,601 were white (10 percent).
289,602 were aged 14-24 (50 percent).

•   In 2010, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 601,285 times.
518,849 were totally innocent (86 percent).
315,083 were black (54 percent).
189,326 were Latino (33 percent).
54,810 were white (9 percent).

295,902 were aged 14-24 (49 percent).
•   In 2011, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 685,724 times.
605,328 were totally innocent (88 percent).
350,743 were black (53 percent).
223,740 were Latino (34 percent).
61,805 were white (9 percent).
341,581 were aged 14-24 (51 percent).

•   In the first three months of 2012, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 203,500 times
181,457 were totally innocent (89 percent).
108,097 were black (54 percent).
69,043 were Latino (33 percent).
18,387 were white (9 percent).

Please note that about 17% of NYC residents are black, and about 18% are latino. Yet these two groups are a little bit overrepresented in the stop and frisk practices, and demonstrated by the above data.  White (non Hispanic) New Yorkers represent about 58% of the residents.
  http://www.nyclu.org/issues/racial-justice/stop-and-frisk-practices

I could also present data on incarceration rates of people of color vs both demographic information demonstrating the percentage of people of color in the general population, as well as data concerning average prison time served for comparable crimes committed by people of color vs white people.  But that has more to do with institutionalized racism rather than police action. 

I'm trying to understand your skepticism on this particular issue. 
 1. They released 41 minutes of video
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: Graybeard on August 25, 2012, 10:46:42 AM
You are a little too free with your accusations of my lying, and to be frank, I don't like it.

Take some time and a dictionary and have a look at the meaning of lying, otherwise you may encounter other disappointed posters.

Your silly "Ooo what would happen if it were in South Africa?" Is not on topic and is neither here nor there.

Sure.  Now are you willing to answer the question I actually asked, or would that take too much honesty?
You really must concentrate on what honesty is - it apparently does not have the meaning you think.

To dismiss a question is neither to lie nor to be dishonest.


(Has someone been upsetting you?)

Quote
The idea that the police story is accurate is no less speculation than the idea that it is not.  In absense of data, speculating - but not concluding - is reasonable.
Were that what I was saying, it would be correct.
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: Graybeard on August 25, 2012, 10:58:07 AM
Greybeard -

I am trying to understand if you are dismissing concerns about this particular case as a "conspiracy theory" or if you are stating that you do not believe that a percentage of police officers target and often behave inappropriately towards people of color?

(http://i1088.photobucket.com/albums/i325/PaulQ86/Assaultdeaths.jpg)

and

(http://www.project.org/images/graphs/Inprisonment_Rates.jpg)

The figures seem to bear out that the police would be correct in targeting Blacks. In UK, the largest success against illegal weapons was "Operation Trident" focussing on Black on Black crime.

[Statistics showing that Police powers used more often against Blacks omitted)
Quote
I'm trying to understand your skepticism on this particular issue.
My scepticism stems from what I believe about the comments that followed the report of the death. As I said, at first I thought it impossible to shoot yourself in the head whilst your hands were cuffed behind your back. My knee-jerk reaction was, "If it's a murder, it is a particularly stupid one. Surely he was not shot by police? It makes no sense."

And then the rest of the posters, to my surprise, suddenly decided that the highest possibility was that the police had shot the man... For saying that atheists are supposed to ask questions, I was really astonished.
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: Quesi on August 25, 2012, 11:46:36 AM
Graybeard-

I think that you and I are looking at the same pieces of data, and interpreting them differently.

I see your charts as evidence of institutionalized racism.  I'm almost afraid to ask what conclusions you draw when you look at those charts.   
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: Mr. Blackwell on August 25, 2012, 12:27:05 PM
Looking at raw numbers in America there are more white people in prison than any other race. However that is because there are more white people. If you look at percentages you see what Greybeard posted. There is a higher percentage by population of black people in prison than any other race.

You can look at the data one of two ways.

1. There is a higher percentage of black criminals

2. It's a result of institutional racism.


If one wants to determine the cause of these numbers one must conduct an exhaustive research to determine population and crime by location and income, factor in education and several other indicators of criminality.

You will most certainly find that in some areas minorities are overwhelmingly viewed with suspicion but which came first? The chicken or the egg?

In this specific case my first thought was negligent discharge and coverup. Doesn't excuse the accident if that is what happened. They SHOULD have and probably did admit that it was an accident to their boss, who then decided to protect them and made up this bullshit story about suicide.

But that raises another question...if it been a white boy they accidentally shot, would there be a cover up or would they just come out and admit to the public that they were trying to intimidate the boy and accidentally fired a round?

Tensions are always high when it comes to white on black violent crime...doubly so when it is white cop of black crime.

White on white = meh

Black on black = meh

Black on white = not generally reported but pointed at by some whites as justification whenever possible

White on black = grave injustice and moral outrage potentially leading to riots.

White on any other minority group = Racism

any other minority group on White = Not generally reported.

All this  ignores that fact that more than 80% of all violent crimes reported are committed by people against someone they know...in other words less than 20% of all  violent crimes involve strangers.

P.S.
I bring up violent crime because a boy was killed and the circumstances are dubious. It is a separate issue all together as to why they were pulled over in the first place. Which brings me to another question....where did his two friends go? Where they not witnesses to the events that unfolded? Not enough details in this story.


Edit to add:
After reading the story provided in the link I now know that the truck was being operated by a white boy so we can't say the police pulled them over for being black. However, it is my understanding that police have to have probable cause to search someone...especially passengers. Why did they pull the truck over? Why did they search all three? The black kid was detained because they found drugs in his possession. Why did they then let the other two go? They should have requested a K-9 unit to thoroughly search the truck.

All that aside...it is possible, however unlikely, that the kid did shoot himself.Especially if he was under the influence of certain chemicals and knew he was facing other charges. Some people make bad decisions while under the influence of drugs when faced with a harsh reality. So, is it a complete cover up?
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: Graybeard on August 25, 2012, 12:27:30 PM
Graybeard-

I think that you and I are looking at the same pieces of data, and interpreting them differently.

I see your charts as evidence of institutionalized racism.  I'm almost afraid to ask what conclusions you draw when you look at those charts.
No, we are looking at the same data, neither you nor I are saying that the police's job is to solve social inequality; they are there to pick up the pieces left as a result of governments through the centuries.

I am sure you are not saying that any significant proportion of those Blacks in prison are innocent, nor that crime amongst Blacks is not significantly higher than for other races.

I'm sure you have noted that the other non-white assault offenders are very low compared with Blacks.

I do have a difficulty with "victim mentality" or "Are you doing that because I'm Black?" when applied in the wrong places. Here, there is a specific case. In the case in question, it is common ground that the dead man was wanted in another State for an offence and was in possession of illegal drugs and he was black.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States#Race_and_ethnicity

gives a population division of
White or European American   223,553,265   72.4 %
Black or African American   38,929,319   12.6 %

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/table-43/10tbl43a.xls

Crimes for 2010:
TOTAL by Whites 7,066,154   69.4%
Total by Blacks 2,846,862   28.0%

It would appear that there is twice the propensity of Blacks to commit crime if Whites are taken as the norm.

This is not racism, institutionalise or otherwise, this is published data.

Are you now still happy with your interpretation of the data you quoted if we accept that the job of the police is to seek out crime and to arrest perpetrators?
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: nogodsforme on August 25, 2012, 03:02:48 PM
I am not sure what Graybeard is on about. Why the hostility? A suspect (who happens to be a black kid) is shot dead under strange circumstances involving the police. And some of us are suspicious that race and/or police misconduct may figure in the case. How often are unarmed middle class white youths shot dead while involved with the police?[1]

The data you showed in your chart does not show that black people commit several times more crimes than white people. It shows that black people are arrested and convicted several times more often after committing crimes, or after being accused of committing crimes. (Witnesses do make mistakes and lie sometimes.) That is what you might expect if black people are watched, followed, searched and harrassed by authorities more often. White people who commit crimes might just get away with it more often, because they are not being watched as much.

I also found some interesting things in the breakdowns of types of crimes that different racial groups end up arrested for. The 69W-28B divide was pretty stable across all kinds of crimes, except for a select few. Blacks are far more likely to be arrested for: robbery and gambling. Whites are far more likely to be arrested for: arson, vandalism, liquor violations, drunkeness and DUI. 

Black robbers may be less competent at covering their tracks than the white ones-- maybe blacks should watch more CSI shows. And rob people who don't know you. Now the gambling made me think. Lots of whites gamble, but legally in licensed bars and casinos. Blacks might gamble more at house parties or unlicensed private clubs that are technically illegal although not much different from a casino. We can argue about whether or not this should even count as "crime".

It was alcohol related stuff that really made me wonder. Black folks drink and get drunk, drive drunk, etc. So why are the white rates so much higher than the "usual" 69% baseline? Is it because those are activities that come to the attention of the authorities because being in public drunk is part of the crime?

Same with arson and vandalism--public acts that are more likely to be seen and reported, regardless of race.

So I wonder how much of the perceived lawlessness of black people is due to being assumed to be up to no good, watched more, and therefore caught more, as opposed to whites who are assumed to be lawful unless seen doing something obviously wrong? If there was a Big Brother God camera on everyone all the time, catching people doing crimes in secret, which rates do you think would shoot up? Blacks or whites? Men or women? I think there would be a skyrocketing of the crime rate among elderly Asian females! :o

It reminds me that Palestinians are constantly searched at checkpoints in Israel, while Israelis are waved through. Amazingly, there are more Palestinians caught doing illegal things at checkpoints. (Which came first, the chicken or the egg?) If I wanted to smuggle stuff into Israel, I would pay an Israeli to drive it in. Cause the Palestinian checkpoint violation rate is so much higher than the Israeli one, despite there being fewer Palestinians..... &)
 1. According to Mr Blackwell, probably everyday but nobody reports it. White families just bury Junior in the back yard and get back to being oppressed by the world's minority groups. Meh. &)
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: Azdgari on August 25, 2012, 03:33:41 PM
You are a little too free with your accusations of my lying, and to be frank, I don't like it.

Take some time and a dictionary and have a look at the meaning of lying, otherwise you may encounter other disappointed posters.

Well, let's see.  I asked a question.  You stated outright that I did not mean to ask the question that I very clearly asked.  I am the one who gets to determine what I meant to ask.  You surely realize this, hence your disingenuous claim was a lie.  Or do you really think that I mistyped?

Your silly "Ooo what would happen if it were in South Africa?" Is not on topic and is neither here nor there.

Sure it is.  That you do not wish to go down that line of reasoning is understandable, as it damages your case.  I asked about how reasonable it might be to suspect racism if a case like this happens under a famously racist regime.  To many, America (or parts of it) comprises a famously racist regime.  See how that relates?

You really must concentrate on what honesty is - it apparently does not have the meaning you think.

Confronting difficult lines of thought that risk one's position is honest.  Lying by boldly claiming that others meant to say things other than what they very clearly meant to say is dishonest.  Right?

To dismiss a question is neither to lie nor to be dishonest.

To dodge a question with a bald-faced lie of your own is dishonest.  Which, for the record, is what you did.

Quote
The idea that the police story is accurate is no less speculation than the idea that it is not.  In absense of data, speculating - but not concluding - is reasonable.
Were that what I was saying, it would be correct.
Were which part what you were saying?  There are multiple subjects to which you could be referring here.
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: Azdgari on August 25, 2012, 03:37:55 PM
Just tell Grey he misunderstood your question, and what you meant to express.

How?  He doesn't seem to have misunderstood my question at all.  Indeed, he merely dismissed it and stated that I meant to say something different.  How does one reason with someone who does that?  He can simply claim, with regard to anything I say, that I meant to say something else.  And apparently, it is unreasonable to call him out on that.

Keeps things productive and civil. If he's being obtuse, you can also opt out of the discussion. You've got a lot of options.

True, one can always opt out.  I'd rather not, so how would you suggest dealing with Graybeard's dishonesty?
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: Mr. Blackwell on August 25, 2012, 04:03:26 PM
[1]
 1. According to Mr Blackwell, probably everyday but nobody reports it. White families just bury Junior in the back yard and get back to being oppressed by the world's minority groups. Meh. &)

Surely you understood that by "report" I meant "reported in the news" didn't you? If not then I apologize for not stating that to be perfectly clear. For the record most shootings, be it by police or civilians, don't get reported[2] at all. It's just the ones involving white cops and black suspects[3] that get national attention, why is that?

I tried to find a breakdown of victims of police shootings or "officer involved shootings" but apparently there is no mandate to collect that data. However a couple of Police Departments collect that data voluntarily. Here is the report for San Diego

http://www.sdcda.org/office/ois_review_rpt.pdf

spoiler alert

The vast majority of OIS's involve white cops and black/unknown victims.



 2. in the media
 3. Or mass shootings
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: Quesi on August 25, 2012, 05:18:15 PM

This is not racism, institutionalise or otherwise, this is published data.


I would like to start out by saying that I spend a significant number of hours every week examining data concerning issues impacting on the lives of low income people.  Some of it is published data.  Some of it is data collected by my staff. 

Data is not simply data.  It is a portrait of a reality. 

Data demonstrates that low income communities have higher crime rates than high income communities.  There are a lot of reasons for this.  Low income people are more likely to commit the sorts of economic crimes that they will get caught doing, such as robbery.  Low income people are more likely to have poor nutritional levels, and people with lower nutritional levels are less likely to handle stress effectively.   Low income people are more likely to have undiagnosed/untreated illnesses, including mental illness.  And low income people tend to have lower educational levels, and more likely to not have education relative to their innate skills or intelligence.  People who understand that they are not living up to their potentials are often frustrated, and frustration often results in poor choices.  All of these factors contribute to crime levels. 

Data also demonstrates that in the US (and in many other parts of the world) the lowest income brackets are disproportionately populated by people of color.  So yes.  There are more people of color living with the effects of poverty, and poverty impacts on crime, and therefore, there are more crimes committed by people of color. 

Now if the economic marginalization of a significant percentage people of color is not in itself a symptom of institutionalized racism, let’s look at some of the factors that perpetuate that economic marginalization.  And there are a LOT of factors.  But let’s just pick a few.

There are volumes of data which demonstrate that lower educational levels are tied to lower lifetime earnings.  So for most people, education is the key to the journey out of poverty.  However, in the US, school systems are supported (almost universally) by the real estate tax money from the community that the school system serves.  (There is a base of federal funding, but not enough to really support a school.)  So low income communities live in lower cost property, and subsequently pay lower real estate taxes, so there is less money to support the schools.  So the kids attending the zoned schools tend to be in larger classrooms, with fewer educational supplies, and often (though not always) with less experienced/dedicated teachers.  There are fewer extracurricular activities.  Hell, there is less toilet paper.  These schools are less likely to have guidance counselors who sit the kids down and talk about prepping for college entrance exams and applying for financial aid, and parents who have not been through the college application process themselves are less likely to even know the steps that kids should take to get on a college tract.  And quite frankly, the colleges are less impressed with transcripts from these schools. 

I cannot think of a more vivid example of an institutionalized problem that plagues low income communities, generation after generation, and subsequently impacts on the disproportionally high percentage of people of color who live in those communities. 

Let’s take a quick look at incarceration itself as a self-perpetuating cycle.  But before we do, I think it is really important to point out that in the US, incarceration is an industry.  Publically traded, for profit corporations draw down federal funds for each incarcerated person.  Stock holders in some industries hope for increased sales, and lobbyists for those industries work to promote laws designed to increase sales.  Stock holders in the incarceration industry hope for increased incarceration rates, and lobbyists for that industry work to promote laws to increase arrests and length of sentences, in order to increase profits. 

Now there is the old meme about more young black men in prison than in college, and I don’t really know the data or numbers concerning whether that is still true.  I do know that there was an exponential increase in the incarceration of latinos during the post 9/11 period, both in prisons and in detention centers.  And remember, each incarceration means more profit for the industry.  To Obama’s credit, he closed down the “family” detention centers.  (Yeah, in the US we used to keep a lot of children in jail.  But we don’t talk about that. ) He also used his executive privilege to change some internal procedures within USCIS to decrease the incarceration rate of undocumented non-criminals. 

So what is the impact on a family when a father, mother, or both, are in prison?  Decreased income.  Lack of positive role models.  Lack of support.  Being shuffled around among relatives.  Growing up in foster care. While there are certainly children of incarcerated parents who grow up to be successful, well-adjusted human beings, there is little question that these kids are starting out with significant disadvantages compared to the general population.

Finally, let’s take a look at perception.  There have been blind studies of employers looking at resumes with equivalent educational levels and previous experience (I can look for these studies later if you like) that demonstrate that people with “black names” are less likely to be interviewed.  So if your name is Keisha or LaShawn, you are less likely to be interviewed than a person whose name is Susan or John, regardless of what else is on your resume. 

I do not see how you can look at these combined factors (and I certainly did not cite all of the factors) and NOT see a pattern of institutionalized racism. 

So let’s get to cops.  I cited the statistics concerning stop and search in NYC.  There is no doubt that a disproportionate number of those stopped and searched are people of color.   And if you are stopped because you fit the profile of someone who just robbed the bodega down the street, even if you had nothing to do with it, if you’ve got a joint in your pocket, you are getting arrested.  I’ve never been stopped and searched.  And during my youth, there were more than several occasions that I had a joint in my pocket.  But the chances of me getting caught were significantly lower than the chances of a person of color, especially a (young) man of color being caught.  But in NYC, cops don’t need probable cause for a stop and search.  They don’t even need to be looking for a suspect in a crime.  They can just stop random people on the street and search them.  And they mostly stop young black and Hispanic men. 

The stop and search itself is such an invasive process, that many hormonally charged young men take offense, and either say things or do things that end up leading them to jail even if they had previously been doing nothing wrong.  I’ve watched more stop and searches than I care to count, and I am always awed by the young people who are able to maintain their composure during this humiliating process.  But some aren’t. 

Finally, we have many well-documented cases of police brutality against people of color.  A GROUP of police officers sodomized Abner Louima with a plunger for a minor offence.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abner_Louima  Why on earth would a GROUP of police officers sodomize a suspect with a plunger?

Rodney King’s brutal assault was videotaped. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodney_King  There were riots, but not a revolution, when the police officers who beat him were acquitted.
Amadou Diallo was unarmed and shot 41 times at close range.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amadou_Diallo_shooting

In my boro, Sean Bell was shot 50 times and killed the night before his wedding after getting drunk at his bachelor’s party.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_Bell_shooting_incident 

I’m pretty sure that out of all of these cases, only one cop went to prison. 

Cops KNOW that they don’t suffer serious consequences when they take their frustrations out on young black men.  Even when they sodomize them.  Even when they kill them.

Recently, here in NYC, a well-loved city council member, Jumaame Williams, and a senior aid to another elected official, were brutally thrown to the ground and handcuffed AFTER having shown the police their official identification in an attempt to get through a street that was barricaded off to facilitate the passage of elected officials going to a VIP brunch.  Why would the police do that?  Would you like to see the video tape of that assault?

I know Councilmember Jumaame Williams.  I’ve worked with him.   I know a lot of people who have been assaulted by police.  He is the first elected official I know who has been assaulted by police.

I’ve also worked with the police.  On multiple issues.  About 15 years ago, when livery cab drivers (mostly latinos, some Pakistani/Bangladeshi/Indian) represented the largest occupational homicide rate in NYC, I was part of a campaign to protect these drivers.  I went to roll calls at police stations to talk about the hazards that these workers face in their jobs, facing away from their assailants, often, with limited English proficiency, having trouble understanding the instructions of their assailants while a gun is held to their heads, or a knife to their throats.  I was shocked by these roll call meetings.  Over and over again, rather than expressing concern about ways to protect these workers, I listened to cops, over and over again, tell me that the drivers were “dirty.”  That they urinated in soda bottles, and threw garbage out of their cab windows.  Dirty.  These men, who risked their lives every night to earn a minor living were, in the views of many police officers, dirty.

Some cops are wonderful human beings.  They also risk their lives every day.  But most of the beat cops in my neighborhood stop and smile at my daughter.  We have cops on horseback now, (due to narrow, one way streets) and they often let my little girl pet their horses.  A friend of mine was robbed last year, at knifepoint, with a baby and a 4 year old in her care.  The cops who responded were great. 

I think that conscious efforts by the NYPD to recruit people of color (especially bilingual/multilingual people of color) to the police force has had a really positive impact on both the ways that the cops perceive the communities that they serve, and the ways in which the communities perceive the cops. 

But I continue to suspect police gross misconduct in the death of Chavis Carter. 
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: Graybeard on August 25, 2012, 05:36:01 PM

This is not racism, institutionalized or otherwise, this is published data.


I would like to start out by saying that I spend a significant number of hours every week examining data concerning issues impacting on the lives of low income people.  Some of it is published data.  Some of it is data collected by my staff. 

Data is not simply data.  It is a portrait of a reality. 

Data demonstrates that low income communities have higher crime rates than high income communities.  There are a lot of reasons for this.  Low income people are more likely to commit the sorts of economic crimes that they will get caught doing, such as robbery.  Low income people are more likely to have poor nutritional levels, and people with lower nutritional levels are less likely to handle stress effectively.   Low income people are more likely to have undiagnosed/untreated illnesses, including mental illness.  And low income people tend to have lower educational levels, and more likely to not have education relative to their innate skills or intelligence.  People who understand that they are not living up to their potentials are often frustrated, and frustration often results in poor choices.  All of these factors contribute to crime levels.
Had you asked, I could have told you that. Poverty, ignorance and poor social skills go hand in hand. You very rarely see statistics on the legitimately wealthy imprisoned for committing crime, and when they do it is usually white-collar crime, not nasty crimes of violence.

However, you are confusing race and poverty. The normal distribution graph will tell you that poverty is evenly spread when taken by race.

This confusion makes you feel that blacks, to the exclusion of whites and other races, are solely the victims of poverty - this is institutionalized racism... it only happens to blacks. Your own work should show you that it doesn't. The essence is poverty not race, yet you ignore the poverty of other races - how fair is that?

The other point is that if the poor commit proportionally more crimes, then where should the police be looking, in the pleasant area or the run-down ones?

Quote
But I continue to suspect police gross misconduct in the death of Chavis Carter.
I'm glad that you can make such decisions on so little evidence - You're a theist aren't you? Nevertheless, there may have been misconduct - they could be negligent in not finding the gun.
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: Quesi on August 25, 2012, 05:50:25 PM

However, you are confusing race and poverty. The normal distribution graph will tell you that poverty is evenly spread when taken by race.

This confusion makes you feel that blacks, to the exclusion of whites and other races, are solely the victims of poverty - this is institutionalized racism... it only happens to blacks. Your own work should show you that it doesn't. The essence is poverty not race, yet you ignore the poverty of other races - how fair is that?


Not at all.  In fact, quite the contrary.  I think that I was very conscious about saying "people of color" when I meant people of color, and naming specific racial and ethnic groups when their circumstances were different from those of other communities. 

And poverty is most certainly not distributed evenly among different racial groups, proportionate to their representation in the population.  Perhaps it is in some individual countries - I couldn't say for sure.  But not in the US.  And not globally. 
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: Quesi on August 25, 2012, 06:00:04 PM

Children Under 18 Living in Poverty, 2010

Category

Number (in thousands)

Percent

All children under 18

16, 401

22.0

White only, non-Hispanic

5,002

12.4

Black

4,817

38.2

Hispanic

6,110

35.0

Asian

547

13.6
http://www.npc.umich.edu/poverty/
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: jaimehlers on August 25, 2012, 06:59:32 PM
I think this case needs to be investigated more thoroughly.  It's entirely possible that the cops are telling the truth, and indeed they should not be presumed guilty simply because the circumstances are unusual in this case.  On the other hand, some things don't seem to fit that story, and it's worthwhile checking them out, if only to clear the situation up.

I'd strongly recommend that nobody here make any speculative judgment calls based on the way things appear.  There's already going to be plenty of people reacting with their gut and emotions in this situation, and we don't need to do so here on the forum.  It doesn't matter what speculation would have been reasonable in apartheid South Africa, or in the American Jim Crow South for that matter, because while Arkansas is in the South, it is no longer the Jim Crow era.  What matters is what happened here, in this case.  It's perfectly reasonable to demand a more in-depth investigation into the facts of this case, but it is not reasonable in my opinion to jump to conclusions about what happened.

At the very least, they need to check the caliber of the bullet that killed him against the gun that he supposedly shot himself with.  It used a .380 caliber bullet, that should be easy to check, but I saw no mention of the bullet in the autopsy report.
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: Quesi on August 25, 2012, 07:14:10 PM
...but I saw no mention of the bullet in the autopsy report.

No mention of bullet.  No mention of trajectory.  No mention of gunpowder.  No mention of his hands or wrists.

But I learned a great deal about the length and style of his hair from the medical examiner's report.  And more than I would ever want to know about the relative health of his colon, pancreas, liver, and all sorts of things that had nothing to do with his death. 
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: nogodsforme on August 25, 2012, 07:36:11 PM
I still wanna know where the hell that gun came from. You would think the police would want to know, too. It's their lives in danger if a suspect that has been searched twice and handcuffed still manages to produce a loaded gun.  And I hope the police don't stop paying attention to a crime suspect just because he is in the police car.

That Chavis Carter sounds like the reincarnation of Houdini. Maybe he swallowed the gun while the cops had their backs turned, and then regurgitated it in the back seat of the squad car. Next, having demonstrated all this consummate skill at outsmarting the police, although out of his mind on drugs, accidentally shot himself in the head with his non-dominant hand. All while handcuffed behind his back.

Coulda happened. I think I saw Criss Angel do it on youtube.
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: Mr. Blackwell on August 25, 2012, 07:39:43 PM
There are plenty of details yet to be forthcoming. It is always a good idea to search other news sources when it comes to any national headline to see what information is left out and what new information has been added.

The huff story said nothing of this:

Also released were details from Carter's cell phone. Police say text messages on Carter's phone show he had stolen the gun in question from a woman or individual in Jonesboro. Police say other text messages show he had the gun on him to bring to another individual, Brandon Renald Baker. Baker is currently in the Greene County Jail on aggravated burglary charges, and admitted to police on Tuesday that he did request the gun from Carter.

Police also say that Carter's girlfriend told them he called her from the rear of the police car and told her that he loved her and that he had a gun on him in the rear of the police car and that he was scared.

Police also readily admit that Officer Marsh missed the gun on the initial pat-down of Carter. (http://www.ksla.com/story/19149968/arkansas-lab-didnt-perform-residue-test-on-chavis-carters-body)

and

For the autopsy, Arkansas' state crime lab says it didn't perform gunshot residue testing on a man fatally shot in the head while handcuffed in a patrol car because it doesn't do that kind of analysis on victims of homicides or suicides.

Jonesboro Police Chief Michael Yates told The Associated Press that the department had requested gunshot residue testing in the shooting death of 21-year-old Chavis Carter.

The lab's chief criminalist, Lisa Channell, told the AP that kind of the testing can indicate whether a person was in an environment with gunshot residue, but not whether he or she pulled the trigger of a gun. (http://www.ksla.com/story/19149968/arkansas-lab-didnt-perform-residue-test-on-chavis-carters-body)


These little revelations don't prove anything more than all the facts aren't in yet.

Is is shady? Yup. Is it a clear case of police brutality? Not yet. Is it racially motivated? Hard to tell really.
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: Mr. Blackwell on August 25, 2012, 07:43:58 PM
That Chavis Carter sounds like the reincarnation of Houdini. Maybe he swallowed the gun while the cops had their backs turned, and then regurgitated it in the back seat of the squad car. Next, having demonstrated all this consummate skill at outsmarting the police, although out of his mind on drugs, accidentally shot himself in the head with his non-dominant hand. All while handcuffed behind his back.

Or maybe they didn't search very thoroughly because they didn't perceive him as a threat in particular. The story I linked to in my previous post says they put him in the back of the car the first time without handcuffs after a preliminary search.

Later when they took him out of the car to handcuff him and arrest him they searched him again but by this point he had hidden the gun in the backseat, which they didn't bother to search.

If they thought he was a threat they probably would have handcuffed him the first time instead of just separating him from his buddies for questioning.

Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: Graybeard on August 26, 2012, 05:09:34 AM
I asked about how reasonable it might be to suspect racism if a case like this happens under a famously racist regime.  To many, America (or parts of it) comprises a famously racist regime.  See how that relates?
No. And neither does another poster.
I'd strongly recommend that nobody here make any speculative judgment calls based on the way things appear.  There's already going to be plenty of people reacting with their gut and emotions in this situation, and we don't need to do so here on the forum.  It doesn't matter what speculation would have been reasonable in apartheid South Africa, or in the American Jim Crow South for that matter, because while Arkansas is in the South, it is no longer the Jim Crow era.  What matters is what happened here, in this case.  It's perfectly reasonable to demand a more in-depth investigation into the facts of this case, but it is not reasonable in my opinion to jump to conclusions about what happened.

And here:

There are plenty of details yet to be forthcoming. It is always a good idea to search other news sources when it comes to any national headline to see what information is left out and what new information has been added.

The huff story said nothing of this:

Also released were details from Carter's cell phone. Police say text messages on Carter's phone show he had stolen the gun in question from a woman or individual in Jonesboro. Police say other text messages show he had the gun on him to bring to another individual, Brandon Renald Baker. Baker is currently in the Greene County Jail on aggravated burglary charges, and admitted to police on Tuesday that he did request the gun from Carter.

Police also say that Carter's girlfriend told them he called her from the rear of the police car and told her that he loved her and that he had a gun on him in the rear of the police car and that he was scared.

Police also readily admit that Officer Marsh missed the gun on the initial pat-down of Carter. (http://www.ksla.com/story/19149968/arkansas-lab-didnt-perform-residue-test-on-chavis-carters-body)

and

For the autopsy, Arkansas' state crime lab says it didn't perform gunshot residue testing on a man fatally shot in the head while handcuffed in a patrol car because it doesn't do that kind of analysis on victims of homicides or suicides.

Jonesboro Police Chief Michael Yates told The Associated Press that the department had requested gunshot residue testing in the shooting death of 21-year-old Chavis Carter.

The lab's chief criminalist, Lisa Channell, told the AP that kind of the testing can indicate whether a person was in an environment with gunshot residue, but not whether he or she pulled the trigger of a gun. (http://www.ksla.com/story/19149968/arkansas-lab-didnt-perform-residue-test-on-chavis-carters-body)


These little revelations don't prove anything more than all the facts aren't in yet.

Is is shady? Yup. Is it a clear case of police brutality? Not yet. Is it racially motivated? Hard to tell really.
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: Azdgari on August 26, 2012, 07:02:34 AM
That is not what jaimehlers said.  He said (basically) that since America does not comprise a famously racist regime, my comparison doesn't matter.  But what I'd said (and you just quoted) is that to those who disagree with that assessment, there is definitely a link.  It all depends on whether one views America as prevalently racist.  Jaimehlers disagrees that America has a racism problem.  Fine.  That's his opinion.  Do you share it?

Jay's new information does seem to quash the justification for any "racial motivation" speculation.  So be it.  Reasonable speculation is typically curtailed by new information.  That's how new information works.

EDIT:  By the way, you didn't mean to say "no" to my quoted question in your post.  You meant to say "yes".  If it's not dishonest for you to declare that I meant to say something different, then...well, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, right?
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: jaimehlers on August 26, 2012, 07:58:16 AM
What I meant, specifically, is that trying to compare this situation to one that would have happened in an apartheid society is not valid.  And yes, Jim Crow was essentially apartheid - racial segregation enforced through legislation.  That isn't the case in the Arkansas of today.

There is a big difference between a society which is known to have (or have had) problems with racism, and one that enshrines it into law.  At least in this country, people who are the victims of crimes based on racism have the recourse of the legal system to try to correct it, and can reasonably expect, and demand, an investigation into a situation like this.  In South Africa and the Jim Crow South, that not only wouldn't have happened, it's entirely likely that the law would have landed with both feet on anyone trying to get it - as, in fact, it did in the cases of the reformers who spent their lives trying to correct that horrendous injustice.

Martin Luther King Jr. and Nelson Mandela both spent time in jail - in Mandela's case, decades - in order to get people to pay attention to how awful the apartheid system was.  MLK ended up a martyr because of it.  But thanks to their efforts, a situation like this one, where a black person dies under rather unusual circumstances in the back of a patrol car, gets additional investigation until they've gotten to the bottom of it, rather than being quashed and suppressed by the authorities to the point where someone who even asked about it would have been risking a 'visit' from police.
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: nogodsforme on August 26, 2012, 11:13:14 AM
Okay. So there is evidence that he had a gun hidden on his person. Now what about the part about him shooting himself in the head? Was it an accident, the gun going off while he was trying to throw it out the window? Was he trying to shoot the police--seems pretty crazy, since he would end up suiciding by cop if he tried it.  Was he really trying to kill himself?

I guess we will never know that part, unless someone comes forward and testifies that he had been suicidal, had left a note for his mother, had called a suicide hotline, had given away all his possessions, etc.

It's a sad story any way you look at it.
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: Graybeard on August 26, 2012, 12:05:34 PM
EDIT:  By the way, you didn't mean to say "no" to my quoted question in your post.  You meant to say "yes".  If it's not dishonest for you to declare that I meant to say something different, then...well, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, right?
Yeah, whatever...
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: Azdgari on August 26, 2012, 12:53:47 PM
Good.  And Brakeman really meant to give me a +1 with the comment "Beautiful".  Wow, I love how it's not dishonest to say stuff like this.
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: Ambassador Pony on August 26, 2012, 01:16:51 PM
in-thread discussion of mod action

See my PM.

No more in-thread discussion.  
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: joebbowers on August 27, 2012, 06:11:45 AM
...Was he really trying to kill himself?

I guess we will never know that part, unless someone comes forward and testifies that he had been suicidal, had left a note for his mother, had called a suicide hotline, had given away all his possessions, etc.

It's a sad story any way you look at it.

There would be no note, as this was not a pre-meditated suicide. He wasn't expecting to get caught and arrested. When he realized that he was not going to get away, he probably thought "dey ain't takin' me alive!"

And I don't see this as a sad story, when dangerous criminals die I see it as natural selection at it's finest. I'm against the death penalty but if they want to kill themselves, I'll even pay for the bullet.
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: 12 Monkeys on August 27, 2012, 10:01:38 AM
I don't go with the conspiracy theory. I was dubious until I saw the re-enactment. A gun can be hidden from a superficial pat-down. The usual places are the small of the back and between the buttocks[1].

It seems to me that Carter made his move to hide the weapon when he realised that the cops would be searching him and the car - he couldn't leave it in the car because his prints were all over it. He was already wanted and was again in possession of drugs - he also had a handgun - he was probably looking at prison time.

The next questions are
(i) "Whom would the death benefit?" Certainly not the police who would look good bringing in a felon wanted in another state.
(ii) "If you did want to shoot him, why do it in the back of a police car and whilst he was wearing handcuffs?"

Were the police negligent in their search? "Yes."
Who is usually at risk in a badly performed search? "The police."
 1. Make sure the safety's on
but he would not put the baggy of pot in a place safe from searches?
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: Mr. Blackwell on August 27, 2012, 10:04:57 AM
I don't go with the conspiracy theory. I was dubious until I saw the re-enactment. A gun can be hidden from a superficial pat-down. The usual places are the small of the back and between the buttocks[1].

It seems to me that Carter made his move to hide the weapon when he realised that the cops would be searching him and the car - he couldn't leave it in the car because his prints were all over it. He was already wanted and was again in possession of drugs - he also had a handgun - he was probably looking at prison time.

The next questions are
(i) "Whom would the death benefit?" Certainly not the police who would look good bringing in a felon wanted in another state.
(ii) "If you did want to shoot him, why do it in the back of a police car and whilst he was wearing handcuffs?"

Were the police negligent in their search? "Yes."
Who is usually at risk in a badly performed search? "The police."
 1. Make sure the safety's on
but he would not put the baggy of pot in a place safe from searches?

Probably ran out of time trying to hide the gun.
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: 12 Monkeys on August 27, 2012, 10:13:43 AM
Where I live in British Columbia Canada there have been a few "police incidents" that if you believed the police story it would have been open and shut.....until video evidence emerged that showed the cops were liars
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6nx0Cx3uMk

There was also an incident where a kid was arrested for having an open beer in public and somehow during the struggle at the police station managed to get himself shot in the back of the head during a struggle.....oddly enough there was "no tape" in the stations recording devices that day
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Bush
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: nogodsforme on August 27, 2012, 05:32:35 PM
...Was he really trying to kill himself?

I guess we will never know that part, unless someone comes forward and testifies that he had been suicidal, had left a note for his mother, had called a suicide hotline, had given away all his possessions, etc.

It's a sad story any way you look at it.

There would be no note, as this was not a pre-meditated suicide. He wasn't expecting to get caught and arrested. When he realized that he was not going to get away, he probably thought "dey ain't takin' me alive!"

And I don't see this as a sad story, when dangerous criminals die I see it as natural selection at it's finest. I'm against the death penalty but if they want to kill themselves, I'll even pay for the bullet.

I realize that the criminal justice system in China is a bit different, but here in the US a suspect is supposed to be treated as innocent until convicted in a court of law. It is not correct to call him a "dangerous criminal" when as far as we know, he may have had some weed and he may have had a gun. Or the police planted it on him. Or they made a mistake. We don't know the facts because there has not been and will never be a trial.

But a young guy has been shot dead. And that is sad. Unless you believe that 21 year old guys who were not attacking or threatening anyone and have not been convicted of a capital crime should be shot dead or should shoot themselves in the head just because. Reduce the excess population or something.

I wonder why the pro-gun and pro-pot people are not championing Carter's firearm and marijuana rights.
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: Azdgari on August 27, 2012, 06:37:43 PM
What I meant, specifically, is that trying to compare this situation to one that would have happened in an apartheid society is not valid.  And yes, Jim Crow was essentially apartheid - racial segregation enforced through legislation.  That isn't the case in the Arkansas of today. ...

Yes, they are different.  How similar do they have to be, before questioning whether racism might have played a part in a suspicious death becomes reasonable?  That was where my question was leading, jaimehlers.  If we'd heard that a black man died in police custody in Apartheid South Africa, then it would have been reasonable to question whether the man's race was a factor.  Here, maybe such speculation was reasonable; maybe it wasn't.  But how racist does a system or society have to be, before that speculation becomes reasonable?
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: nogodsforme on August 28, 2012, 12:16:32 AM
I have relatives in Arkansas and I would not live there for a million dollars. I have been there. I have lived in the north too long to put up with the racial crap that my relatives think is normal. The big and little slights, the way some southern white people react if you look them in the eye and speak directly. The possibility of mysterious death in police custody. It is just not worth it. :(
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: joebbowers on August 29, 2012, 10:55:20 PM
I realize that the criminal justice system in China is a bit different, but here in the US a suspect is supposed to be treated as innocent until convicted in a court of law. It is not correct to call him a "dangerous criminal" when as far as we know, he may have had some weed and he may have had a gun. Or the police planted it on him. Or they made a mistake. We don't know the facts because there has not been and will never be a trial.

Cute, nice try. I believe the US also has something called freedom of speech, am I right? The court system can treat him as innocent until proven guilty, but I am not bound by those rules as I'm not a police officer, judge, or in any other way associated with the court. As an independent citizen, I can call it as I see it, and I see a guy with a gun being arrested on an outstanding warrant. Therefore, "dangerous criminal" is an entirely appropriate description.
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: Mr. Blackwell on August 29, 2012, 11:15:55 PM
I have relatives in Arkansas and I would not live there for a million dollars. I have been there. I have lived in the north too long to put up with the racial crap that my relatives think is normal. The big and little slights, the way some southern white people react if you look them in the eye and speak directly. The possibility of mysterious death in police custody. It is just not worth it. :(

Yeah, cause shit like that just don't happen anywhere else but the south.  &)

Lets try it this way

Quote
I have relatives in Chicago and I would not live there for a million dollars. I have been there. I have lived in the south too long to put up with the racial crap that my relatives think is normal. The big and little slights, the way some northern black people react if you look them in the eye and speak directly. The possibility of being shot in the street. It is just not worth it

You sound like a bigot. Do you teach this crap to your students?
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: Azdgari on August 29, 2012, 11:23:00 PM
Nothing like a white guy ridiculing and dismissing the racism experienced by a black woman.  Yeah.  She's the bigot.
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: Mr. Blackwell on August 29, 2012, 11:39:18 PM
Nothing like a white guy ridiculing and dismissing the racism experienced by a black woman.  Yeah.  She's the bigot.

Telling someone they SOUND like a bigot when they spew shit like that and actually claiming that they ARE a bigot are not the same thing. You of all people should know this.

Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: Azdgari on August 29, 2012, 11:41:59 PM
I'm sorry, Jay.  Is this better?

Nothing like a white guy ridiculing and dismissing the racism experienced by a black woman.  Yeah.  She's the one who sounds like a bigot.

I take the fact that your issue was with the distinction of "sounds like" vs "is", to mean acceptance that you were ridiculing an dismissing the racism experienced in the past by nogodsforme.
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: nogodsforme on August 30, 2012, 12:31:44 AM
I realize that the criminal justice system in China is a bit different, but here in the US a suspect is supposed to be treated as innocent until convicted in a court of law. It is not correct to call him a "dangerous criminal" when as far as we know, he may have had some weed and he may have had a gun. Or the police planted it on him. Or they made a mistake. We don't know the facts because there has not been and will never be a trial.

Cute, nice try. I believe the US also has something called freedom of speech, am I right? The court system can treat him as innocent until proven guilty, but I am not bound by those rules as I'm not a police officer, judge, or in any other way associated with the court. As an independent citizen, I can call it as I see it, and I see a guy with a gun being arrested on an outstanding warrant. Therefore, "dangerous criminal" is an entirely appropriate description.
I was not "trying" anything other than to suggest accuracy. Being arrested and accused of a crime does not a criminal make or I am an international drug dealer.[1]

Since we are not privy to all the facts, and this is just idle chitchat on a web site, I suppose you can call the guy an innocent bystander, a dangerous criminal, Beelzebub or Willie Wonka. But the facts we can swear to are 1) he was arrested and 2)now he is dead and 3) someone will miss him.
 1. Maybe someday I'll explain the details of that. :o
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: Nam on August 30, 2012, 12:42:51 AM
Racism happens everywhere. In parts of a country it may be more prevalent than in other parts. This does not mean that racism doesn't happen, to a degree, in those lesser parts. It's just not seen as often as it would be in other parts.

It reminds me of those people who say things like,  "I can't believe this happened in my neighborhood. It's such a nice neighborhood." Of course people who usually state things like that, tend to refer to certain types of people that they thought weren't in their neighborhood. Whether based on race, or other prejudiced factors.

Of course people from such places, I feel, have a better understanding of such occurences rather than those on the outside; whose opinion matters equally but may not hold such weight as those who experience such things on a regular basis.

-Nam
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: nogodsforme on August 30, 2012, 12:47:41 AM
I have relatives in Arkansas and I would not live there for a million dollars. I have been there. I have lived in the north too long to put up with the racial crap that my relatives think is normal. The big and little slights, the way some southern white people react if you look them in the eye and speak directly. The possibility of mysterious death in police custody. It is just not worth it. :(

Yeah, cause shit like that just don't happen anywhere else but the south.  &)

Lets try it this way

Quote
I have relatives in Chicago and I would not live there for a million dollars. I have been there. I have lived in the south too long to put up with the racial crap that my relatives think is normal. The big and little slights, the way some northern black people react if you look them in the eye and speak directly. The possibility of being shot in the street. It is just not worth it

You sound like a bigot. Do you teach this crap to your students?

I don't live in Chicago, either. My (white) husband and I experienced racial crap from both black and white people there. We did not want to go through that with a mixed race child. So, no Arkansas and no Chicago. We visit, but will not live there. Some places are just not worth it.

Yes, I am bigoted. I am bigoted toward jerks of any race who insult or threaten my family.

As far as my being bigoted towards white people, you will just have to ask my (white) husband, (white) mother in law, (white) brother in law, (white) sister in law and (white)nephew. And all of my (white) colleagues and (white) students.[1]

If I have racial prejudice towards white people, I guess I have a strange way of showing it. :angel:
 1. The weird thing about typing white so many times is that I do not think of my friends and relatives that way at all. I guess I am not a very good racist. &)
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: none on August 30, 2012, 12:49:21 AM
funny thing is there is a difference between being white and Caucasian.
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: Nam on August 30, 2012, 01:22:47 AM
Yeah! Casper is white. And, he only wishes he were caucasian.

:P

-Nam
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: Graybeard on August 30, 2012, 03:50:31 AM
I realize that the criminal justice system in China is a bit different, but here in the US a suspect is supposed to be treated as innocent until convicted in a court of law.
There is a lot of misunderstanding in this area. To make an arrest, a police officer has to have sufficient evidence to bring before a court. That evidence will indicate that a crime has been committed and that the suspect was responsible. It is therefore at the stage of arrest (see the prima facie evidence against Carter) that the person is assumed to have committed a crime.

The test is then before a court and it is only true at this stage that the accused is assumed to be innocent. The assumption of innocence is not really as it seems; what the phrase encapsulates is the idea that the onus of proof of showing that a crime has been committed by the accused is on the prosecution - and this is as it should be - you assert; you prove.

All too often you hear lawyers for the defendant say, "The jury returned a verdict of 'not guilty' and my client's innocence has been proven."  It has not.

All a not guilty verdict says is that "on the day and at the time, the jury were not convinced by the prosecution's argument." It says nothing about whether the accused committed the crime or not. This is why it is possible to have a verdict of "not guilty" but for the accused to be later successfully sued in civil proceedings for the results of the very same crime (see O.J. Simpson.)

Quote
It is not correct to call him a "dangerous criminal" when as far as we know, he may have had some weed and he may have had a gun.
But he certainly is a criminal.
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: Azdgari on August 30, 2012, 06:46:57 AM
Gotta go with Joe and GB here, nogodsforme.  Whether someone is a criminal depends on whether they've committed a crime.  Whether they've been convicted or not controls whether the state officially recognizes that they are a criminal.  But their status as a criminal is an objective one that is triggered the moment they commit a crime.
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: naemhni on August 30, 2012, 07:45:53 AM
I realize that the criminal justice system in China is a bit different, but here in the US a suspect is supposed to be treated as innocent until convicted in a court of law. It is not correct to call him a "dangerous criminal" when as far as we know, he may have had some weed and he may have had a gun. Or the police planted it on him. Or they made a mistake. We don't know the facts because there has not been and will never be a trial.

Cute, nice try. I believe the US also has something called freedom of speech, am I right? The court system can treat him as innocent until proven guilty, but I am not bound by those rules as I'm not a police officer, judge, or in any other way associated with the court. As an independent citizen, I can call it as I see it, and I see a guy with a gun being arrested on an outstanding warrant. Therefore, "dangerous criminal" is an entirely appropriate description.
I was not "trying" anything other than to suggest accuracy. Being arrested and accused of a crime does not a criminal make or I am an international drug dealer.[1]
 1. Maybe someday I'll explain the details of that. :o

Joe is right.  Presumption of innocence applies only to the criminal justice system.  Individual citizens are free to hold any opinion they want, and they're also free to express that opinion.  Back when OJ Simpson was first arrested, for example, Vincent Bugliosi (then as now a famous prosecutor in Los Angeles) was very vocal about his certainty that Simpson was guilty of the two murders.  When others attempted to chastise him for it, he said the same thing.  It's also noteworthy, by the way, that the bar never attempted to penalize him for it, either.
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: Quesi on August 30, 2012, 09:08:35 AM

There is a lot of misunderstanding in this area. To make an arrest, a police officer has to have sufficient evidence to bring before a court. That evidence will indicate that a crime has been committed and that the suspect was responsible. It is therefore at the stage of arrest (see the prima facie evidence against Carter) that the person is assumed to have committed a crime.


I agree.  And that is why stop and frisk is so controversial.

If I were a passenger in a vehicle, (which may or may not have had one or both headlights off or malfunctioning), and if that vehicle was subsequently stopped by the police, I can say with a fair degree of certainty that I, as a middle aged white woman, would probably not be taken out of the car and physically searched. 

If Chavis Carter had been a middle aged white lady with some pot and (maybe?) a gun, I'm pretty sure that no search would have taken place, no background check would have taken place, and the person would be alive. 

And I've said this before, but the thing about stop and search is that it is so invasive, and so humiliating, that someone who is completely innocent of ANYTHING becomes defensive, sometimes aggressive, sometimes combative, and ends up getting arrested and charged with resisting arrest when there was no reason to arrest the person in the first place.

The kid has pot on him.  Maybe a gun.  Maybe not.  Unlike Joe, I kind of think that the death penalty is pretty harsh. 

I've heard lawyers say that the best response to questions the police are not required to ask is "Am I free to go, officer?"  So if the cop says "What is your name?" the best response is "Am I free to go, officer?"  If the cop says to a passenger "Please step out of the car" the best response is "Am I free to go, officer?" 

If you are under arrest, they must tell you that you are under arrest.  If you are not under arrest, then you are free to go, or you are in that grey area known as "being detained."  If you are being detained, you do not need to answer any questions and you do not need to consent to a search.  The polices may pat down the OUTSIDE of your clothing.  The SOLE PURPOSE of a patdown of someone who is being detained is to determine if they are carrying any dangerous weapons. 

I've been to workshops with people who find it very empowering to learn that they are not required to answer questions that the police are not required to ask.  But I've never seen it work as smoothly as the civil rights lawyers say it should. 

I mean, it does for some folks.  Rand Paul, for example, didn't have it too bad when he refused a patdown by the TSA after setting off the metal detector. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/01/rand-paul-in-pat-down-standoff-with-tsa-in-nashville/ But some of us are more equal than others. 
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: jaimehlers on August 30, 2012, 09:39:04 AM
My personal feeling is that it's usually good to cooperate with the police.

But I'm not black.  I don't really have anything more than an intellectual idea of what it might be like to not be sure if the policeman is going to be a bigot who'll abuse his power to make himself feel big.
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: naemhni on August 30, 2012, 09:51:31 AM
My personal feeling is that it's usually good to cooperate with the police.

A friend of mine who just finished law school says that you should never talk to the police.  I think it's wise advice, although I'm not a lawyer myself.  This video (with a law school professor and a former defense attorney) gives a good overview of why you shouldn't talk to the police, even if you haven't done anything wrong.  It's long, but trust me, it's worth it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: 12 Monkeys on August 30, 2012, 10:12:51 AM
My personal feeling is that it's usually good to cooperate with the police.

But I'm not black.  I don't really have anything more than an intellectual idea of what it might be like to not be sure if the policeman is going to be a bigot who'll abuse his power to make himself feel big.
Try Driving off an Indian reservation at 1 A.M. Doesn't matter what colour you are if there is a cop around,you will likely get pulled over.

 Happens to me
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: Graybeard on August 30, 2012, 11:17:55 AM
I agree.  And that is why stop and frisk is so controversial.

If I were a passenger in a vehicle, (which may or may not have had one or both headlights off or malfunctioning), and if that vehicle was subsequently stopped by the police, I can say with a fair degree of certainty that I, as a middle aged white woman, would probably not be taken out of the car and physically searched.
And you know that this is because middle aged white women (I assume respectable and in a decent car) are massively under-represented in the jail population. And who are the police looking for?

Quote
If Chavis Carter had been a middle aged white lady with some pot and (maybe?) a gun, I'm pretty sure that no search would have taken place, no background check would have taken place, and the person would be alive.
See above. Also, women are statistically less likely to commit suicide by violent means.

Quote
And I've said this before, but the thing about stop and search is that it is so invasive, and so humiliating, that someone who is completely innocent of ANYTHING becomes defensive, sometimes aggressive, sometimes combative, and ends up getting arrested and charged with resisting arrest when there was no reason to arrest the person in the first place.
But you would not become defensive, sometimes aggressive, sometimes combative, would you?

Let me remind you that using yourself as an example is not very helpful. Carter was a wanted young black man with access to a gun and in possession of an illegal drug.

Quote
The kid has pot on him.  Maybe a gun.  Maybe not.  Unlike Joe, I kind of think that the death penalty is pretty harsh.
A person should be free to take his own life at any time. Yes, we should try to prevent it where consequences of not taking your own life are trivial.

Quote
I've been to workshops with people who find it very empowering to learn that they are not required to answer questions that the police are not required to ask.
A list would be useful.
Quote
But I've never seen it work as smoothly as the civil rights lawyers say it should.
Always best to have a lawyer with you. 
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: nogodsforme on August 30, 2012, 06:17:40 PM
I guess the best advice is, 1)don't ever break the law and 2)don't come under the scrutiny of the police, even if you have not broken the law. Especially if you are brown, male and between 15-30. 

So, if you are brown, male and between 15-30, stay home at all times. Work and shop from home and take classes online. Don't attend parties, movies, sports events or other social activities. Don't drive, or take public transport, esp. at night. Detain and frisk any relatives, friends or neighbors before they enter your house or car. Detain and frisk yourself as well.  You can't trust anyone these days. You are going to end up in some kind of trouble sooner or later.

Never assume that you have the right to go about your life without being put under surveillance and/or being suspected and/or being accused of wrongdoing. Consider your presence as a public service, helping to keep the police on their toes and warning other, more innocent appearing people to be cautious. When it is inevitable that you will be detained, arrested, accused or frisked, relax and enjoy it. Learn to like being tasered. Learn to love jail.

Do not be on seizure medication, be hearing impaired, mentally ill or developmentally delayed in any way, because unexpected actions, slurred speech or unusual behavior will be treated as signs of criminality. Any show of presumed disrespect, anger or hostility will be an admission of guilt of whatever you are suspected of.

Best bet is to become white, female and middle aged. Easy.

Or, go big. Become the criminal you are going to be treated as. But don't commit any petty crimes, like selling small amounts of drugs or snatching purses, or breaking into houses. That is high risk, low return penny ante crap that will put you in jail with low-lifes for many years. Go to business school and learn finance. Then you can steal millions, cause hundreds of people to lose their homes, lose their jobs, lose their retirement funds. Some of them will abuse alcohol or drugs, hurt their families, or commit suicide, but you will be filthy rich and be able to proudly vote Republican. If you get caught, you will be able to hire an expensive lawyer, go to a very nice jail for a few years, and later, retire to the Caymans.

If you can't manage all that and are picked up by the police anyway, be sure to shoot yourself in the head and save everyone the trouble of actually proving that you did anything wrong.

Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: Quesi on August 30, 2012, 08:04:23 PM

And you know that this is because middle aged white women (I assume respectable and in a decent car) are massively under-represented in the jail population. And who are the police looking for?

That is true.  White people (and women) are indeed under-represented in the prison population compared to the representation in the general population.   But the data seems to indicate that in spite of increasingly aggressive stop and frisk activities here in NYC, specifically targeting black and latino men, of those stopped, more than twice as many white people are found to have weapons on them. 

(http://htmlimg4.scribdassets.com/5mqko9vmtc1lcarw/images/10-2940c2a076.png)

Given that the purpose of a stop and search is to determine if someone has committed a crime, or is about to commit a crime OR to determine if the person is carrying a weapon, it seems like the NYC tactics aren't working too well.

Overall, the tactics have not proven too successful.

(http://htmlimg1.scribdassets.com/5mqko9vmtc1lcarw/images/13-3b5755d49d.jpg)

I think that we as a society really need to weigh the desire to find weapons and stop criminals with the human cost of more than a half a million people per year (in one city) being thrown against a brick wall with their hands over their heads and their arms spread while they are put through the humiliation of a random police search.  The psychological damage of being searched, or seeing a parent or older sibling degraded in this way needs to be addressed. 

Here in NYC, there is even a phone app to activate during a stop and search.  You can download it here.  http://www.nyclu.org/app

By the way - the police are only allowed to detain and search a person if that person is suspected of having committed a crime, or suspected of being about to commit a crime.  Unless the police decide to look for a weapon.  So why were the police searching Chavis Carter?  No media has reported that he was suspected of having committed a crime before he was detained.  So they were looking for a weapon?  Really, really incompetently looking for a weapon? 


Quote
A list would be useful.

"Am I free to go?"

"I'm going to remain silent."

"I don't consent to a search."

 
 You have rights during a traffic stop and when a police officer walks up to you on the street. Learn what your rights are and use them!
 1. Your Safety - You start with putting the police officer at ease, you know the one behind you with flashing lights. Pull over to a safe place, turn off your ignition, stay in the car and keep your hands on the steering wheel. At night turn on the interior lights. Keep your license, registration and proof of insurance close by like in the "sun visor."

 Be courteous, stay calm, smile and don't complain. Show respect and say things like "sir and no sir." Never bad-mouth a police officer, stay in control of your words, body language and your emotions. Keep your hands where the police officer can see them. Never touch a police officer and never run away!

 2. Never Talk To A Police Officer - The only questions you need to answer is your name, address, date of birth, sometimes your social security number but NOTHING else! Instead of telling the police officer who you are, give him your drivers license or your I.D. card. All the information the police officer needs to know about you, can be found on your i.d. card or drivers license. Don't volunteer any information to a police officer, if the cop ask you a question politely ask him "Am I free to go?" If he says yes then leave, if he says no then say I'm Going to Remain Silent.

 3. I'm Going to Remain Silence - The Supreme Court says you should never talk to a police officer without an attorney. The Supreme Court ruled you must speak up and SAY to the police officer "I'm going to remain silent" and then keep your mouth shut! How can you be falsely accused and charged with a crime, if you don't say anything? Never talk to a police officer, anything you say or do can and will be used against you at any time by the police.

 4. Just Say NO to Police Searches! - If a police officer didn't need your permission to search you, he wouldn't be asking you. Never give permission for a police officer to search you, your car or your home. If a police officer does search you, don't resist and keep saying "I don't consent to this search."

 5. Am I Free to Go? - As soon as the police officer ask you a question ask him, "Am I free to go?" You have to ask if you're "free to go," otherwise the police officer will think that you're voluntarily staying around to talk with him. If the police officer says that you're being detained or arrested tell the police officer, "I'm going to remain silent."

(http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/assets_c/2012/03/mural%20side%203-thumb-550x311.jpg)
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: jaimehlers on August 31, 2012, 12:00:17 AM
The police are supposed to read a person their Miranda Rights as well.  If memory serves, "You have the right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law; you have the right to an attorney, if you cannot afford one you will be appointed one by the court."

Anything I'm forgetting?
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: none on August 31, 2012, 12:03:37 AM
I don't think the police have to read you the miranda warning unless you are arrested...
I think the police can conduct an investigation without reading anybody any warning...
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: nogodsforme on August 31, 2012, 12:14:29 AM
Quesi,

These instructions should be on the news and in the papers--in various languages. Could save a few lives-- police and civilians alike-- and prevent unneccessary searches of innocent people.

If my parents could have taught your instructions to my dev. delayed older brother, it would have saved a lot of heartache and legal fees. We could have role-played it with him every day, so he would have something to say and do when the inevitable happened and he was stopped by the police.

He is in his mid-fifties now and has a mental age of 12-14. When confronted by police or security guards, he panics, stutters, lies, and tries to run away. Because in his mind he is 12-14. He has never been employable, and it is just as well that he had no real career aspirations, since he has a police record and has been locked up more than once.  Ironically, his behavior has not changed much over the years, but he has far fewer run-ins with the police nowadays.

He is just as "dangerous" now as he was 30 years ago. Meaning he is still black, male, shabby-looking, with erratic and unpredictable behavior, a stutter and a tendency to make things up on the spot, and a fear of authority figures. He still lacks a driver's license or other government ID, can't drive, can't operate a computer, and has a hard time remembering his phone number and address. 

In his teens and 20's it was a major stressfest when he was late coming home, or had disappeared from the house at odd hours. My mother would drive the streets all night, trying to find him. She was terrified that if gang members didn't kill him the police would.  Not anymore, because, age-wise, he no longer fits the "profile" of a rival thug or suspicious criminal. So, he can wander the streets fairly safely these days-- at least unless someone challenges him and decides to "stand their ground". &)
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: Quesi on August 31, 2012, 08:01:49 AM
Quesi,

These instructions should be on the news and in the papers--in various languages. Could save a few lives-- police and civilians alike-- and prevent unneccessary searches of innocent people.



You have no idea how good it makes me feel to hear you find this helpful.  I work with adult immigrants and refugees and displaced people, and we do lots of “Know Your Rights” workshops every year.  Know your rights as tenants.  Know your rights in the workplace.  Know your rights with the police. 

But sometimes I think that there is such a disconnect between the laws and the realities that the information we provide is not even relevant.  The person who earns $50 a day working for 11 hours may find minimum wage laws and overtime laws very interesting, but is not going to jeopardize her job by pointing them out to her employer.  The tenant whose landlord refuses to pay for an exterminator is not going to just get up and move.  Or take time off work to take the landlord to court.  The young man who says, in broken English, “I no consent the search,” gets searched anyway.  But we keep doing them. 

And the landlords and employers and police who break the law are not as likely to be identified as a “criminal,” as the day laborer who is sitting on a stoop drinking a miller light out of a bottle in a paper bag.   

There are all kinds of criminals.  Kids with a joint in their jeans pocket.  Mortgage bankers who engage in predatory practices.  Construction site supervisors who don’t provide proper safety gear to workers.  Enron VP’s.  Landlords who don’t put out the funds to replace a broken hot water heater.  Financial advisors who don’t disclose their fees for moving investments from one munie to another. 

But the vast majority of criminals don’t get thrown against a brick wall or the side of a car and humiliated. 

And the vast majority of people who get thrown against a brick wall or the side of a car and humiliated are not criminals.

There is something wrong with this system.   
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: Quesi on August 31, 2012, 09:05:21 AM
The police are supposed to read a person their Miranda Rights as well.  If memory serves, "You have the right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law; you have the right to an attorney, if you cannot afford one you will be appointed one by the court."

Anything I'm forgetting?

None is right.  There is a grey area during which a person is being "detained" but not arrested.  While a person is being detained, s/he has the same rights as a person who has been arrested, but the person is not told his/her rights until an arrest has been made.  Actually, a person who is being detained has more rights than a person under arrest.  A person who is being detained may be subjected to a "pat down" by police, but is not required to empty his/her pockets.  During the pat down, police may seize weapons, or anything they suspect has been or will be used to commit a crime. 

Again, this "pat down" can only be conducted if the police believe that a crime has been or will be committed, or if the police are searching for weapons.  In NYC, more than 50% of pat downs occur because the police claim to have witnessed the subject engaging in "furtive movement."  Go ahead and google it.  The second most common reason for stop and search is "fit the description" of someone suspected of committing a crime. 

I don't know how to embed this video, but it is worth watching. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/12/opinion/the-scars-of-stop-and-frisk.html
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: nogodsforme on August 31, 2012, 02:19:31 PM
My brother described above was Mr. Furtive Movement. When we were little we called him "Flinchy" when we wanted to be mean. He looked "suspicious" just standing still in front of our mother's house waiting for a ride. If he noticed anyone looking at him, he would get even more nervous and shifty-eyed, start to whisper to himself, fiddle with his pockets, keys, cap, whatever. Imagine how often he was brought to the attention of security guards and police in malls, stores, parks. Which made him even more nervous about going out and about. It was a vicious cycle.

I think I wrote here once about how he once ran out of a store with some batteries in his hand, after waiting patiently in line, his money out, to pay. Because he saw his bus coming across the street and knew that he would get yelled at if he got home late again. By trying to do what he thought was the right thing, he ended up in the hands of the police.... again.

Another time I was chatting with a friend who worked in a photography store, and a scruffy-looking suspicious character walked in. He walked slowly and aimlessly  through the store, hands in his coat pockets, looking at things a little too closely, nervously glancing around like Shaggy in Scooby Doo. My friend looked alarmed, whispered, "Oh my god," and reached under the counter to push the security signal. I quickly put my hand on his arm and said, "It's okay. He's not going to take anything. I know him."

It was my brother. My friend was gobsmacked because 1) he was sure he was about to get robbed at gunpoint, and 2) he was shocked to learn that I had a "retarded" brother. It was not the sort of thing you told your friends if you were trying to be a hip and cool 20-something.

That time, he did not get detained, arrested or roughed up. It was just a fluke that I was there. :-\

When threads like this come up, many folks, esp white folks go into denial.
Some deny the reality of racial profiling; "Oh, c'mon, black men don't get pulled over for no reason more often than any other group. If you don't do anything wrong, you don't have to worry."

Or they decide that we are exaggerating or lying about our experiences; "You folks are always crying racism-- you are really the bigots, the way you always suspect white people of racism. Black police pull over white people and we aren't complaining. The police are just doing their jobs." 

Or what is worse, they try to justify mistreatment by police. "Well, young brown-skinned men commit more crimes, so of course the police will target them. What do you expect the police to do? Pull over law-abiding white people?"

If you were the mother of a dev. disabled black kid like my brother, what would you do to keep him out of police custody? Lock him in the house 24-7? Pay someone white to escort him everywhere he goes?
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: nogodsforme on August 31, 2012, 02:36:20 PM
Let me add one last thing about my brother-- he did not understand race. He did not get that there were certain neighborhoods and stores where he would stand out and look even more suspicious. He liked to go to comic and gaming stores to hang out with his weird geeky buddies.[1] Those stores were in white neighborhoods. He thought that he had the right to get on the bus and go anywhere he wanted and visit who he wanted. Silly boy. He did not see himself as a threat to anyone-- because he wasn't. So he never understood why he was always in trouble when his equally goofy, dysfunctional geeky white friends were not.

I am sure that his unstable mental condition was worsened by the way he was so often treated as a "dangerous criminal". Being watched and suspected and searched all the time would wear down the most stable, intelligent, competent person. Ask the dissident intellectuals who survived totalitarian states like the Soviet Union.
 1. A store owner became friends of our family. He once wrote a letter to the court as a character witness, and it resulted in my brother being let go with a warning. (I am not sure what the warning was--stop being a weird black kid?) Maybe black people should carry a letter from a nice white person with them at all times?
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: writerstephen on August 31, 2012, 07:44:04 PM
In my opinion, to deny that there is institutionalized, deeply ingrained racism against people of color in America is pure lunacy. Given the overwhelming evidence in support of its existence, the only reason to argue against it is if one has a deep, if unadmitted, belief that the race in question is in fact inferior and worthy of special reproach.

Opinion again, but i had the same thought about the "intimidation and accidental discharge of the weapon" scenario as a previous poster.

for the record, i'm a white male aged between 35 and 45. And no, i'm not wracked by liberal white guilt. I am deeply saddened and highly frustrated by whites who refuse to acknowledge that we're a racist country collectively speaking.

Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: Quesi on August 31, 2012, 07:51:56 PM
Nogodsforme-

I think I owe you two apologies.

First of all, I want to clarify that I did not write the “know your rights with the police” piece.  We have people come in and do workshops.  I get info.  I pass it along.  And I did not properly cite it as being created by someone else.  And I’m not even sure who. 

Secondly, and more importantly, I’ve seen gobs of videos of kids and young men and (some young women) being interviewed about stop and search. 

I selected the link to that video because I thought it would be the most persuasive.  The young man is so articulate and attractive (with just a little bit of teenage awkwardness that you know is going to go away in a couple of years) and so charismatic, that anyone would be thrilled to have him as a son or a nephew or a student or a neighbor.  And then we find out the same thing is happening to his equally likeable high school teacher, and how can you help but throw your hands in the air in dismay? 

I’ve seen other videos.  Videos of kids who were clearly upset.  Frenzied.  Indignant.  Inarticulate.  Angry.  Arrogant.  Weird looking. 

I did not share those videos because I thought they did not “make the case” for the injustice of stop and search as effectively.

And then I think about your brother.  And I think that perhaps I am doing him (and people like him) a disservice by selecting testimony from this articulate young future lawyer.  Because even the inarticulate and the angry and the weird looking people, and the people who have inappropriate body language, they all deserve the same respect from the police as you or me or a VP from Exxon. 

Appealing people are more sympathetic.  But not more worthy of respect. 
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: nogodsforme on August 31, 2012, 10:32:37 PM
You don't owe me any apologies! &)

Way back in the day, on the Phil Donahue Show, there was a black guy, eccentric-looking, with dreadlocks, who liked to walk long distances across the city where he lived. You know where this is going. In certain neighborhoods, people called the police and he was stopped, frisked and harrassed.

Although he never committed any crime, not even jay-walking, or had anything illegal on him, the police actually told him to stay out of white neighborhoods. He was creating a nuisance and disturbing people, I guess by being black and male. He refused, asserting that as a law-abiding citizen he had the right to walk on any city street he wanted. He kept getting picked up and released, since there was no crime that he could be charged with. He turned out to have more stubborness than brains, because he kept right on walking.

Well, Phil Donahue's  studio audience of white suburban women was appalled. But not by the unconstitutional treatment of this innocent guy. They were horrified and frightened by the idea that a shaggy-haired black weirdo had the affrontery to walk through neighborhoods where, as one woman put it, "He had no business being" since he was not working there, living there or even visiting anyone. Whenever a lady stood up to express the fear that he might someday decide to rob or rape somone, the studio audience went wild with affirmative applause. When the guy or his attorney (IIRC) talked about how everyone has the right to walk on any public street, as long as they have not done anything illegal, they were booed. 

This was in the 1970's or early 80's and I still remember the show, because the situation was so much like my brother's. They showed a film of the guy ambling along, arms swinging, turning corners and walking down different streets. He was probably slightly mentally ill, and maybe walking helped to calm him down. Who knows? But he and his lawyer maintained that he "just liked to walk" and did not see why the police were always hassling him. Phil Donahue looked perplexed by the whole mess, maybe because he could not imagine people calling the police just because he walked down the street. Or maybe he could not imagine being afraid of being robbed or raped by a strange man.

At any rate, this was before the rise of the gated communities, where security guardposts keep the riffraff from entering unless they are there to clean up or do some landscaping. :P
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: joebbowers on September 01, 2012, 01:21:51 AM
By the way - the police are only allowed to detain and search a person if that person is suspected of having committed a crime, or suspected of being about to commit a crime.  Unless the police decide to look for a weapon.  So why were the police searching Chavis Carter?  No media has reported that he was suspected of having committed a crime before he was detained.  So they were looking for a weapon?  Really, really incompetently looking for a weapon? 

He was wanted on an outstanding warrant from another state. That validates the arrest, and the search.
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: joebbowers on September 01, 2012, 01:27:41 AM
In my opinion, to deny that there is institutionalized, deeply ingrained racism against people of color in America is pure lunacy. Given the overwhelming evidence in support of its existence, the only reason to argue against it is if one has a deep, if unadmitted, belief that the race in question is in fact inferior and worthy of special reproach.

The fact that blacks are arrested and imprisoned at a higher rate than other races suggests to me that blacks simply commit more crimes. It isn't evidence of racism unless you can demonstrate that black people are not committing crimes at a higher rate.
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: 12 Monkeys on September 01, 2012, 07:24:10 AM
In my opinion, to deny that there is institutionalized, deeply ingrained racism against people of color in America is pure lunacy. Given the overwhelming evidence in support of its existence, the only reason to argue against it is if one has a deep, if unadmitted, belief that the race in question is in fact inferior and worthy of special reproach.

The fact that blacks are arrested and imprisoned at a higher rate than other races suggests to me that blacks simply commit more crimes. It isn't evidence of racism unless you can demonstrate that black people are not committing crimes at a higher rate.
WOW just WOW.....you do know from slave ownership days up until the sixties WHITE lynch mobs hanged  African guys just for shits and giggles....no trail,no judge.

Ignorant statement....giving that it took weeks to charge Zimmerman ....WHY?
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: Quesi on September 01, 2012, 07:49:03 AM
In my opinion, to deny that there is institutionalized, deeply ingrained racism against people of color in America is pure lunacy. Given the overwhelming evidence in support of its existence, the only reason to argue against it is if one has a deep, if unadmitted, belief that the race in question is in fact inferior and worthy of special reproach.

The fact that blacks are arrested and imprisoned at a higher rate than other races suggests to me that blacks simply commit more crimes. It isn't evidence of racism unless you can demonstrate that black people are not committing crimes at a higher rate.
WOW just WOW.....you do know from slave ownership days up until the sixties WHITE lynch mobs hanged  African guys just for shits and giggles....no trail,no judge.

Ignorant statement....giving that it took weeks to charge Zimmerman ....WHY?

Slavery continues to exist today, in the form of human trafficking.  But that is a sensitive topic for Joe.  Best not to talk about it.  It makes Joe really mad when people point out the humanity of people who he prefers to disregard. 
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: Quesi on September 01, 2012, 07:50:08 AM
You’re right Joe.  Possession of marijuana is a dangerous crime, and so many lives are destroyed when someone has a joint in his pocket. 

The world would be a better place if everyone who has ever been in possession of marijuana would just commit suicide. 

It’s not as if it were a victimless crime.  Like, say kiddie porn.   

But seriously. 

Nogodsforme’s posts about her brother really made me examine my own reluctance to consider a developmentally delayed or mentally ill person as a representative of a larger community.  Last night I felt like I might be at a turning point. 

But then I look at your posts, and consider the possibility of you being a representative of the atheist community, and I am afraid that I have retreated to my previous reluctance. 
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: Ambassador Pony on September 01, 2012, 08:00:59 AM
There is some truth to what Joe is saying, I wish he would have explained his point better, rather than leave it like that knowing the issue gets people emotionally charged up.

Being a historically oppressed minority group can lead to societal ills within the present day community populated by that group. 12 Monkeys can tell you about the impoverished state of many of Canada's First Nations reserves (if he can't, he should move to northern Ontario and get back to me). Criminality is higher, and victimazimation is higher because of the legacy left by centuries of historical oppression . A cycle like that is hard to break, and it's a factor that has to be considered along side present day prejudice.

Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: Quesi on September 01, 2012, 10:15:07 AM
There is some truth to what Joe is saying, I wish he would have explained his point better, rather than leave it like that knowing the issue gets people emotionally charged up.

Being a historically oppressed minority group can lead to societal ills within the present day community populated by that group. 12 Monkeys can tell you about the impoverished state of many of Canada's First Nations reserves (if he can't, he should move to northern Ontario and get back to me). Criminality is higher, and victimazimation is higher because of the legacy left by centuries of historical oppression . A cycle like that is hard to break, and it's a factor that has to be considered along side present day prejudice.

Pony, if you are suggesting that Joe was alluding to the impact that poverty or marginalization or oppression have on communities, and that these factors have an impact on crime rates, I'm guessing you are mistaken.  I don't think that is what Joe was saying at all. 

Joe has made his views on this man's death clear here:


And I don't see this as a sad story, when dangerous criminals die I see it as natural selection at it's finest. I'm against the death penalty but if they want to kill themselves, I'll even pay for the bullet.

And he has made his opinions on most of humanity clear here. 

I know it won't happen, I am simply saying I wish it would. If I had the power, and all the blame would rest with me personally, I would destroy the middle east. And China and India for that matter, and most of Asia, Africa, South America, Mexico, big parts of the US, and most of Europe. Mostly to rid the world of religion, or cultures that I consider to be broken and unfixable. Good thing I'm not God, right?

By the way, I live in China, and I hate these people, haha. This is where most people ask me why I stay. Yellow fever baby, yellow fever. White chicks don't do it for me like a fine Asian lass.

I do not think he was making an astute social observation.  Nor do I not think he is your garden variety racist.  He is much more than that. 
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: 12 Monkeys on September 01, 2012, 12:24:20 PM
There is some truth to what Joe is saying, I wish he would have explained his point better, rather than leave it like that knowing the issue gets people emotionally charged up.

Being a historically oppressed minority group can lead to societal ills within the present day community populated by that group. 12 Monkeys can tell you about the impoverished state of many of Canada's First Nations reserves (if he can't, he should move to northern Ontario and get back to me). Criminality is higher, and victimazimation is higher because of the legacy left by centuries of historical oppression . A cycle like that is hard to break, and it's a factor that has to be considered along side present day prejudice.
And that is why I live "off the reservation"
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: nogodsforme on September 01, 2012, 01:09:40 PM
High arrest and imprisonment rates of a population do not mean that the population is some lessor variety of humanity, just naturally inclined to be dangerous. Or else we have to agree that the countries with the highest percentages of people arrested, imprisoned, and executed have reasonable laws, perfectly fair justice systems, where everyone has the same opportunities, but just have a whole lot of really bad people.

Funny how countries like Iran, Afghanistan, China, Former Soviet Union and apartheid era South Africa fit the category of very high arrest, imprisonment and execution rates. And of course are characterized by reasonable laws, fair justice systems and equal opportunities for all. Just a lot of really bad people, I guess.

Or maybe a lot of injustice, a lot of non-violent social behavior[1] considered criminal, and a lot of surveillance of the population. Like, maybe a lot of social problems are ignored or made worse by the government? And police are used more to control and oppress the population and less to prevent crime or to catch dangerous people?

And people in Japan, Sweden and France have the same exact kind of laws and justice systems, but are just a lot of happy campers, naturally able to resist the criminal impulse to read banned materials, practice the wrong religions, have sex or leave the house.
 1. like sex between consenting adults, practicing the wrong or no religion, reading anti-government political material, or leaving the house while female, or without the proper documents
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: jaimehlers on September 01, 2012, 03:07:58 PM
The fact that blacks are arrested and imprisoned at a higher rate than other races suggests to me that blacks simply commit more crimes. It isn't evidence of racism unless you can demonstrate that black people are not committing crimes at a higher rate.
When's the last time you ever saw someone prove a negative, Joe?  For that matter, when's the first time?

Things like the 14th Amendment[1] and the 24th Amendment[2] aren't passed in a vacuum, Joe.  The 24th Amendment wasn't even ratified 50 years ago.  Do you honestly believe that something as ubiquitous as racism could have been eradicated between then and now?  There are millions of people alive today who lived through the Jim Crow era, either as victims of it or as the ones who enacted it.  The repercussions of that period are still reverberating today.

EDIT:  For that matter, the Rodney King beating, where four police officers severely beat a black man named Rodney King in the course of apprehending him, happened in 1991.  Barely 20 years ago.  He was tazed, struck dozens of times with police batons, and kicked several times as well, Joe.  And this didn't happen in any of the states where Jim Crow had been legal; it happened in California.  Most incidents of this nature are simply not noticed; the only reason this one caught the attention of the nation is that a nearby resident, a white man named George Holliday, was awakened by the police sirens and managed to videotape the incident.  Yet he had to release the videotape to the news media for it to get any attention; the LAPD ignored him when he contacted them about it.

Are you still going to try to tell us that racism and its repercussions aren't a problem in the United States?  Are you still going to try to tell us that that the reason black people are arrested and imprisoned at a higher rate than other races is because they commit more crimes than other races?
 1. guaranteeing the right of suffrage regardless of race, color, or previous condition of servitude
 2. forbidding the use of poll taxes (and other taxes) to block someone from voting
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: joebbowers on September 01, 2012, 09:15:53 PM
WOW just WOW.....you do know from slave ownership days up until the sixties WHITE lynch mobs hanged  African guys just for shits and giggles....no trail,no judge.
Relevance to my statement?

Quote
Ignorant statement....giving that it took weeks to charge Zimmerman ....WHY?
Relevance to my statement?
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: joebbowers on September 01, 2012, 09:18:46 PM
You’re right Joe.  Possession of marijuana is a dangerous crime, and so many lives are destroyed when someone has a joint in his pocket. 

The world would be a better place if everyone who has ever been in possession of marijuana would just commit suicide. 

It’s not as if it were a victimless crime.  Like, say kiddie porn.   

But seriously. 

Nogodsforme’s posts about her brother really made me examine my own reluctance to consider a developmentally delayed or mentally ill person as a representative of a larger community.  Last night I felt like I might be at a turning point. 

But then I look at your posts, and consider the possibility of you being a representative of the atheist community, and I am afraid that I have retreated to my previous reluctance.

We'll just completely ignore the gun then? That would be inconvenient to your argument that he was an innocent cherub wouldn't it? I get it. No problem. I'll play along.
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: joebbowers on September 01, 2012, 09:50:33 PM
There are millions of people alive today who lived through the Jim Crow era, either as victims of it or as the ones who enacted it.  The repercussions of that period are still reverberating today.

Please explain how any of that demonstrates that black people do not commit more crime than other races.

EDIT:  For that matter, the Rodney King beating, where four police officers severely beat a black man named Rodney King in the course of apprehending him, happened in 1991.  Barely 20 years ago.  He was tazed, struck dozens of times with police batons, and kicked several times as well, Joe.  And this didn't happen in any of the states where Jim Crow had been legal; it happened in California.  Most incidents of this nature are simply not noticed; the only reason this one caught the attention of the nation is that a nearby resident, a white man named George Holliday, was awakened by the police sirens and managed to videotape the incident.  Yet he had to release the videotape to the news media for it to get any attention; the LAPD ignored him when he contacted them about it.

Yes, Rodney King is a great example to prove your point. A black man, and a twice-convicted felon (framed by the police, surely, both times, even though he pleaded no contest to beating his wife) leads police on a high-speed chase through a residential area (framed) with a blood-alcohol level of .19 (framed). He then refuses a police order to exit his vehicle and resists arrest (framed).

And then, if I remember correctly, because the victim was a black man and America is so racist, nobody cared that King was beaten during his arrest, right? Wait, no, actually the arresting officers stood trial for use of exessive force, and were found not guilty by a jury.

Then, I guess it was all over. Or did something happen after that?

Oh, right the LA Riots. Black people reacted so badly to the jury's decision that they peacefully protested rioted, killing 53 people and injuring thousands more. A truly apt reminder of black people being unjustly labeled as criminals.

Are you still going to try to tell us that racism and its repercussions aren't a problem in the United States?
Still? I never made that claim, so I couldn't be still making it. Of course racism is a problem.

Are you still going to try to tell us that that the reason black people are arrested and imprisoned at a higher rate than other races is because they commit more crimes than other races?

That is clearly what the arrest data suggests.
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: Ambassador Pony on September 01, 2012, 10:02:47 PM
Joe, I need for you to clear something up.

Make clear to everyone that you do not think that there is a genetic / biological origin to the crime statistics associated with black people in america. That is to say, their biological reality, being black, has no causal relationship with a disposition toward criminal activity.

I think you hold that opinion. But, I also think you're being more than coy about it and it is too close to trolling for me not to ask you to clarify.
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: jaimehlers on September 01, 2012, 11:03:59 PM
Please explain how any of that demonstrates that black people do not commit more crime than other races.
Please explain to me how you are not requiring me and others in this thread to prove a negative.  Given that you apparently think that black people commit more crimes than other races, the burden of proof is on you to show it.

Quesi posted (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,23590.msg529251.html#msg529251) statistics and figures earlier in this topic.  You seem to have missed them.

Quote from: joebbowers
Yes, Rodney King is a great example to prove your point. A black man, and a twice-convicted felon (framed by the police, surely, both times, even though he pleaded no contest to beating his wife) leads police on a high-speed chase through a residential area (framed) with a blood-alcohol level of .19 (framed). He then refuses a police order to exit his vehicle and resists arrest (framed).
Unless you are seriously suggesting that this justifies him being severely beaten by police officers in the process of arresting him when he did not attack even one of them, this is irrelevant.  The closest he came to physical resistance was pushing himself up off of the ground.

Also, your 'sarcasm' is way out of line.  I never said anything about him being framed for any of that, and I really don't appreciate your insinuations to the contrary.  If that's not what you were trying to get across, then you should clarify it.

Quote from: joebbowers
And then, if I remember correctly, because the victim was a black man and America is so racist, nobody cared that King was beaten during his arrest, right? Wait, no, actually the arresting officers stood trial for use of exessive force, and were found not guilty by a jury.
The officers were then tried in federal court for violation of King's civil rights, and two of them were found guilty.  You also apparently ignored the probability that there would have been no trial and no real knowledge of it had it not been for the fact that the beating was videotaped by someone who was in the position to do so.

Quote from: joebbowers
Then, I guess it was all over. Or did something happen after that?

Oh, right the LA Riots. Black people reacted so badly to the jury's decision that they peacefully protested rioted, killing 53 people and injuring thousands more. A truly apt reminder of black people being unjustly labeled as criminals.
Yes, black people reacted badly to the acquittals, because that there was videotape evidence of Rodney King being severely beaten.  He was struck 56 times with batons, Joe.  Fifty-six.  After being tased by one of the officers.  He had broken bones as a result of that beating.  And then the LA court system acquitted the officers of the charge of using excessive force.  I'm not justifying the riots because of that, but I can understand how people, who had severely suffered from institutional racism for more than two centuries, could draw the conclusion that the deck was stacked against them and react with fury.

White people have rioted before, and for far less justification.  For example, the [wiki]Tulsa race riot[/wiki] of 1921 resulted in the wealthiest African-American community in the United States being burned to the ground.  800 people were admitted to hospitals as a result of it, over 6,000 residents of that community were arrested (as near as I can tell, no whites were arrested even though much, if not most, of the rioting was the responsibility of white people; no white person except the chief of police was charged with any crime, and said chief was simply dismissed from his job), 10,000 black people were left homeless, and 35 city blocks (1,256 residences) were burned to the ground.  That's just the bare bones; the details are much worse.

I don't believe you can legitimately draw the conclusion that black people are inherently more likely to commit crimes just from arrest data.  A person can be arrested but never charged with a crime; they can be acquitted of the charges if they are, or vindicated of them if they are wrongfully convicted.

Quote from: joebbowers
Still? I never made that claim, so I couldn't be still making it. Of course racism is a problem.
Your attitude in this post and previous ones suggested otherwise.  However, I'll accept your clarification.

Quote from: joebbowers
That is clearly what the arrest data suggests.
No.  It is your conclusion from the arrest data.  The fact that other people disagree with you contradicts your assertion that it's a clear conclusion from the arrest data.  And, as I stated just above, arrest data by itself doesn't confirm that a person is a criminal.
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: joebbowers on September 01, 2012, 11:13:38 PM
There is some truth to what Joe is saying, I wish he would have explained his point better, rather than leave it like that knowing the issue gets people emotionally charged up.

Being a historically oppressed minority group can lead to societal ills within the present day community populated by that group. 12 Monkeys can tell you about the impoverished state of many of Canada's First Nations reserves (if he can't, he should move to northern Ontario and get back to me). Criminality is higher, and victimazimation is higher because of the legacy left by centuries of historical oppression . A cycle like that is hard to break, and it's a factor that has to be considered along side present day prejudice.

Yes that was exactly what I was saying. I could have gone into detail, but I prefer to make bold statements that provoke emotional reactions and then watch how people respond. It's amusing, and it separates the wheat from the chaff.

I do believe black people commit crime at a higher rate than other races, but I do not believe this is simply because they're black. I believe there are many social, cultural, economic, and historical causes behind it.

I also believe that there is a vicious cycle at work here. Some black people commit crime which causes whites to become weary of blacks in general and treat them like criminals, denying black people jobs and opportunities which causes them to lash out at society and commit crime.
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: jaimehlers on September 01, 2012, 11:27:37 PM
And if you'd just said that in the first place, I'd have had no problems at all with it.

As it is, it came across very much like trolling.  You were trying to provoke emotional responses for your own amusement.  I think you can separate the wheat from the chaff in a way that doesn't make you look like a troll, a bigot, or a jerk in the process.
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: none on September 01, 2012, 11:30:49 PM
...
White people have rioted before, and for far less justification.
...
pay particular attention to the guy in the sweater vest...
here is a gaggle of caucasians rioting because their football team won.
I suppose these caucasians would riot if their football team lost.
imagine if it had been a draw....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xK_T6Aqlu7s
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: joebbowers on September 02, 2012, 12:00:02 AM
Please explain to me how you are not requiring me and others in this thread to prove a negative.  Given that you apparently think that black people commit more crimes than other races, the burden of proof is on you to show it.

I think black people commit more crime than other races based on the fact that black people are arrested at a larger proportion than other races. I simply see no reason not to accept the data at face value.

Quesi posted (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,23590.msg529251.html#msg529251) statistics and figures earlier in this topic.  You seem to have missed them.
I found them irrelevant. While the data shows more whites found with guns, it does not demonstrate that fewer crimes are committed by blacks. So whites are found with guns at a higher proportion than blacks during a stop and frisk. That doesn't disprove my point. It only demonstrates that whites are found with guns at a higher proportion than blacks during a stop and frisk.

You may choose to interpret the data to mean that whites are more likely to use a gun in the commission of a crime, or that whites are more likely to carry a gun in self defense. The data makes neither claim, so it's open to interpretation.

Neither does the data report how many of those found with guns had permits to carry them, undoubtedly some did. Were a greater percentage of those legally carried weapons found on blacks or whites? We don't know.

Unless you are seriously suggesting that this justifies him being severely beaten by police officers in the process of arresting him when he did not attack even one of them, this is irrelevant.  The closest he came to physical resistance was pushing himself up off of the ground.

Officers claim that he repeatedly moved towards them despite their orders to stay down. Only at those moments did they resume their attempts to subdue him. At several points they stopped attacking, only to have King get up again, despite their orders, and make what they believed was an attempt to attack one of them.

Considering that this man had just led them on a high speed chase, and had a record of violent crime, they had no way of knowing whether or not he was armed and I think they were right in erring on the side of caution.

The fact that he was unable to attack any of them does not mean he didn't try, it simply means they were successful in preventing his attack.

Also, your 'sarcasm' is way out of line.  I never said anything about him being framed for any of that, and I really don't appreciate your insinuations to the contrary.  If that's not what you were trying to get across, then you should clarify it.

Not sure why you brought him up then. Rodney King is an example of a black man who was in fact a criminal, not someone who was falsely treated as a criminal simply for being black.

The officers were then tried in federal court for violation of King's civil rights, and two of them were found guilty.  You also apparently ignored the probability that there would have been no trial and no real knowledge of it had it not been for the fact that the beating was videotaped by someone who was in the position to do so.

King was taken to the hospital with broken bones, the police made no attempt to cover up his wounds or the incident even before the tape came out. The tape probably helped him, but I don't think you can make the claim that there would have been no trial without it.

Yes, black people reacted badly to the acquittals, because that there was videotape evidence of Rodney King being severely beaten.  He was struck 56 times with batons, Joe.  Fifty-six.  After being tased by one of the officers.  He had broken bones as a result of that beating.

Is that racism or the result of resisting arrest? The other two black men in the car with him were tased 0 times and beaten 0 times. How many times would he have been tased if he had gotten out of his vehicle as ordered? How many times would he have been beaten if he had gotten down on the ground as ordered? How many extra hits did he buy himself when he grabbed his ass in a lewd sexual gesture towards a female officer which was mistaken as a reach for a weapon?

And then the LA court system acquitted the officers of the charge of using excessive force.  I'm not justifying the riots because of that, but I can understand how people, who had severely suffered from institutional racism for more than two centuries, could draw the conclusion that the deck was stacked against them and react with fury.
I steal TVs when I'm angry too.

I don't believe you can legitimately draw the conclusion that black people are inherently more likely to commit crimes just from arrest data.  A person can be arrested but never charged with a crime; they can be acquitted of the charges if they are, or vindicated of them if they are wrongfully convicted.
That happens to people of all races.

The fact that other people disagree with you contradicts your assertion that it's a clear conclusion from the arrest data.

I'm simply suggesting the possibility that the data is actually accurate. I see no reason to believe otherwise.
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: joebbowers on September 02, 2012, 12:04:18 AM
pay particular attention to the guy in the sweater vest...
here is a gaggle of caucasians rioting because their football team won.
I suppose these caucasians would riot if their football team lost.
imagine if it had been a draw....

Yeah, these people are fucking stupid. They just want an excuse to riot, and not even a good or moral one. This is why I refuse to discuss soccer with my foreign friends, these shennanigans make a mockery of the whole sport.
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: none on September 02, 2012, 12:11:10 AM
pay particular attention to the guy in the sweater vest...
here is a gaggle of caucasians rioting because their football team won.
I suppose these caucasians would riot if their football team lost.
imagine if it had been a draw....

Yeah, these people are fucking stupid. They just want an excuse to riot, and not even a good or moral one. This is why I refuse to discuss soccer with my foreign friends, these shennanigans make a mockery of the whole sport.
"these people", clarify.
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: joebbowers on September 02, 2012, 12:15:14 AM
And if you'd just said that in the first place, I'd have had no problems at all with it.
But then I would not be able to see how different people interpreted it through their own personal filters.

As it is, it came across very much like trolling.  You were trying to provoke emotional responses for your own amusement.
Not purely for amusement. Your reactions tell me who you are and expose your thought processes. Sometimes those reactions are amusing.

I think you can separate the wheat from the chaff in a way that doesn't make you look like a troll, a bigot, or a jerk in the process.
You haven't figured out yet that I don't care what you think of me.
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: joebbowers on September 02, 2012, 12:17:51 AM
pay particular attention to the guy in the sweater vest...
here is a gaggle of caucasians rioting because their football team won.
I suppose these caucasians would riot if their football team lost.
imagine if it had been a draw....

Yeah, these people are fucking stupid. They just want an excuse to riot, and not even a good or moral one. This is why I refuse to discuss soccer with my foreign friends, these shennanigans make a mockery of the whole sport.
"these people", clarify.

It's quite obvious from the context, so I'm curious, who do you think I was referring to?
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: none on September 02, 2012, 12:22:07 AM
pay particular attention to the guy in the sweater vest...
here is a gaggle of caucasians rioting because their football team won.
I suppose these caucasians would riot if their football team lost.
imagine if it had been a draw....

Yeah, these people are fucking stupid. They just want an excuse to riot, and not even a good or moral one. This is why I refuse to discuss soccer with my foreign friends, these shennanigans make a mockery of the whole sport.
"these people", clarify.

It's quite obvious from the context, so I'm curious, who do you think I was referring to?
people who are interested in others who play with balls.
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: 12 Monkeys on September 02, 2012, 12:31:11 AM
WOW just WOW.....you do know from slave ownership days up until the sixties WHITE lynch mobs hanged  African guys just for shits and giggles....no trail,no judge.
Relevance to my statement?

Quote
Ignorant statement....giving that it took weeks to charge Zimmerman ....WHY?
Relevance to my statement?
Its easy to target someone who is a "lower class" than whitey....take it from an Indian....."random stops" by cops happen to me all the time.

 Why stop an Indian all the time for NO good reason....you tell me?
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: none on September 02, 2012, 12:33:26 AM
WOW just WOW.....you do know from slave ownership days up until the sixties WHITE lynch mobs hanged  African guys just for shits and giggles....no trail,no judge.
Relevance to my statement?

Quote
Ignorant statement....giving that it took weeks to charge Zimmerman ....WHY?
Relevance to my statement?
Its easy to target someone who is a "lower class" than whitey....take it from an Indian....."random stops" by cops happen to me all the time.

 Why stop an Indian all the time for NO good reason....you tell me?
red dot indian or Native American?
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: none on September 02, 2012, 06:56:53 AM
pay particular attention to the guy in the sweater vest...
here is a gaggle of caucasians rioting because their football team won.
I suppose these caucasians would riot if their football team lost.
imagine if it had been a draw....

Yeah, these people are fucking stupid. They just want an excuse to riot, and not even a good or moral one. This is why I refuse to discuss soccer with my foreign friends, these shennanigans make a mockery of the whole sport.
joebbowers, what would cause you to label the people in the video as criminals or dangerous?
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: jaimehlers on September 02, 2012, 07:24:10 AM
But then I would not be able to see how different people interpreted it through their own personal filters.
So?  I can see how people interpret things emotionally without having to act like an unintelligent bigot in the process.

Quote from: joebbowers
Not purely for amusement. Your reactions tell me who you are and expose your thought processes. Sometimes those reactions are amusing.
Amusement is one of the reasons you listed, yes.  But the fact that you do do it at least partially to amuse yourself makes it trolling behavior.

Quote from: joebbowers
You haven't figured out yet that I don't care what you think of me.
I don't particularly care what people think of me (aside from people I know personally), but you don't see me trolling them to provoke emotional responses.  It's because I care what I think of me.  Furthermore, most people carry grudges against those who provoke them emotionally, and so any future observations you might make from them are going to be skewed because of that.
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: jaimehlers on September 02, 2012, 08:52:41 AM
I think black people commit more crime than other races based on the fact that black people are arrested at a larger proportion than other races. I simply see no reason not to accept the data at face value.
Doesn't fly.  You simply cannot accurately judge criminal tendencies based on arrests; people are arrested without being charged.  Or they might be charged, and acquitted of the charges.  Or, if convicted, they might later be exonerated if new evidence comes up.

Quote from: joebbowers
I found them irrelevant. While the data shows more whites found with guns, it does not demonstrate that fewer crimes are committed by blacks. So whites are found with guns at a higher proportion than blacks during a stop and frisk. That doesn't disprove my point. It only demonstrates that whites are found with guns at a higher proportion than blacks during a stop and frisk.
And that is the point.  Data that shows more blacks arrested does not demonstrate that more crimes are committed by blacks, it only demonstrates that blacks are arrested at a higher rate than other races.

Quote from: joebbowers
You may choose to interpret the data to mean that whites are more likely to use a gun in the commission of a crime, or that whites are more likely to carry a gun in self defense. The data makes neither claim, so it's open to interpretation.
I did neither, as it would be inappropriate and irresponsible of me to jump to conclusions about the reasons why more whites were found with guns when they were stopped and frisked than blacks without having further information about it.  Just as it is inappropriate and irresponsible of you to jump to conclusions about the reasons why more blacks are arrested than whites without further information on the subject.

Quote from: joebbowers
Neither does the data report how many of those found with guns had permits to carry them, undoubtedly some did. Were a greater percentage of those legally carried weapons found on blacks or whites? We don't know.
Just as we don't know how many of those stopped and frisked were stopped and frisked because they were suspected of committing a crime, as opposed to because the officer judged they looked guilty of something.

Quote from: joebbowers
Officers claim that he repeatedly moved towards them despite their orders to stay down. Only at those moments did they resume their attempts to subdue him. At several points they stopped attacking, only to have King get up again, despite their orders, and make what they believed was an attempt to attack one of them.
I don't buy that; if he had actually attempted to strike or otherwise injure any of the police officers, that might work as a reason, but it sounds much more like they did the same thing you're doing now and assumed that he was a threat, and thus used more force than was necessary to subdue him.  Whether or not he was actually trying to assault one of the officers in that initial lunge is unknown, but even if that justified the use of force to subdue him, I do not consider it to justify dozens of blows.

Quote from: joebbowers
Considering that this man had just led them on a high speed chase, and had a record of violent crime, they had no way of knowing whether or not he was armed and I think they were right in erring on the side of caution.

The fact that he was unable to attack any of them does not mean he didn't try, it simply means they were successful in preventing his attack.
No, it does not mean that.  Unless you can actually show that he attempted to attack them, you should not jump to the conclusion that they were "successful in preventing his attacks".  I think they were right to be cautious about him as well, but you can be cautious without striking someone dozens of times and breaking bones.  Also, I do not think the police officers actually knew of his criminal record at the time they arrested him.  What they knew at the time is that he had led them on a high-speed chase, that he was acting in an unusual and bizarre manner, and that he was resisting arrest.  They also suspected some things that ended up not being true, such as him being under the influence of PCP.  All of that certainly suggests they were right to be cautious, but I cannot jive caution with striking him over five dozen times, counting the kicks he also suffered.

Quote from: joebbowers
Not sure why you brought him up then. Rodney King is an example of a black man who was in fact a criminal, not someone who was falsely treated as a criminal simply for being black.
Think about it.  Those police officers gave him a severe beating in the course of arresting him.  Police officers are supposed to use the minimum amount of force they can in order to apprehend a suspect, consequent with their own safety.  Some of this is hindsight on my part, and I'm aware that in an arrest situation, a police officer simply doesn't have the time and luxury to come up with the best possible solution.  But they did not know that he had a criminal record when they arrested him, they only knew he'd broken traffic laws and the other things I mentioned above.  Police officers are also supposed to be able to use their judgment in an arrest situation so as to avoid exactly the situation that arose - severely beating an unarmed suspect who apparently never even tried to strike a return blow in the course of arresting him.

Quote from: joebbowers
King was taken to the hospital with broken bones, the police made no attempt to cover up his wounds or the incident even before the tape came out. The tape probably helped him, but I don't think you can make the claim that there would have been no trial without it.
We'll never know for sure what would have happened in this case had there been no videotape.  However, there are some points which support my argument.  For example, the officers who brought King to the hospital openly joked and bragged about the number of times they struck him, according to the hospital nurses.  The federal civil rights trial covered the training of officers at the LAPD.  Neither of these inspire confidence that the officers involved would have faced any major consequences from their actions, or that there would have been a trial of said officers.  My point was not that there would certainly have been no trial, but that it did not seem likely there would be one.

Quote from: joebbowers
Is that racism or the result of resisting arrest? The other two black men in the car with him were tased 0 times and beaten 0 times. How many times would he have been tased if he had gotten out of his vehicle as ordered? How many times would he have been beaten if he had gotten down on the ground as ordered? How many extra hits did he buy himself when he grabbed his ass in a lewd sexual gesture towards a female officer which was mistaken as a reach for a weapon?
The very fact that you suggest that he might have "bought" extra hits for himself as a result of that undercuts your argument.  Police officers are not supposed to punish suspects for their actions towards the police.  Furthermore, LA at the time was a city where racial tension between police and the black community was already quite high.  You don't have to have a bigoted racist involved for racism to be a factor.

Your position here is coming across as that Rodney King deserved to be beaten because of his previous criminal record and because of his actions during the course of his arrest.  That is not the case.  Police officers were justified in using force on him to subdue him, but I do not consider dozens of strikes, many of which were delivered to him while he was on the ground and most of which were with police batons, to be a justified use of force.  It's entirely possible that if the officer who drew her gun and initially got King to comply with instructions to lie on the ground had continued to cover him with her firearm while another officer handcuffed him, that he would not have been tased or struck at all.

Quote from: joebbowers
I steal TVs when I'm angry too.
I highly doubt you have ever been involved in any riot, so what you, as an individual, would do when you got angry is far different from what a mob, any mob, would do.

Quote from: joebbowers
That happens to people of all races.
Indeed.  But you ignored the real point, which is that the arrest data does not itself say anything about whether black people are criminals.  It simply shows that more black people are arrested.

Quote from: joebbowers
I'm simply suggesting the possibility that the data is actually accurate. I see no reason to believe otherwise.
You've stated several times now that you see no reason to believe otherwise, yet I've pretty well shown by now that your reasoning is flawed in using arrest data alone to state that black people are more likely to commit crimes.  Furthermore, you are not "simply suggesting the possibility that the data is actually accurate".  You are also stating that your interpretation of the data is correct, that black people are more likely to commit crimes because black people are arrested more frequently, and that is what I'm contesting.

----

Also, no comments on the Tulsa race riot, Joe?  I think this, and the almost countless other examples of apartheid in the American South where virtually none of the perpetrators were ever even charged with a crime, rather dramatically undercuts your whole position.  You judged that black people are more likely to commit crimes because they're arrested more frequently, yet I showed a case where hundreds if not thousands of white people were involved in the commission of a major race-based crime and never even arrested.  The legacy of slavery, Jim Crow apartheid, and the pervasive racism that still inundates America today, is that if a black man and a white man are both suspected of a crime, the black man is frequently judged more likely to be guilty, regardless of any actual evidence (or lack thereof).  You may not have intended it as such, but your statement that blacks are more likely to commit crimes because blacks are arrested more frequently is symptomatic of this general attitude.

I personally think that if you treat a person like a criminal long enough, including presuming guilt without even the courtesy of considering the evidence, they're very likely to decide they might as well be hung for a sheep as for a lamb (or more accurately, if they're going to suffer the consequences of being considered a criminal regardless of what they do, they might as well get something out of it).  Regardless of their race.  Same thing applies to a group of people.  That's human nature, Joe.
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: Ambassador Pony on September 02, 2012, 09:41:23 AM
Yes that was exactly what I was saying. I could have gone into detail, but I prefer to make bold statements that provoke emotional reactions and then watch how people respond. It's amusing, and it separates the wheat from the chaff.

That's unproductive in this context. Warning for trolling.  

Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: nogodsforme on September 02, 2012, 12:28:13 PM
Joe has not commented on the many white people in the US who have committed hundreds of serious crimes without even being arrested, let alone charged and convicted.

I recall there were several instances of black soldiers being attacked, beaten and lynched in their military uniforms after WWI and WWII. The soldiers mistakenly thought that serving their country overseas meant that they could walk down the street, or live where they wanted to and be left alone.

I did master's research on early 20th century racial violence in the US and found that white newspapers had sensationalistic coverage when a black man (often described as "a burly Negro" since no small black person ever did anything wrong) was accused of a crime against a white person. But the white papers rarely even covered the deaths of black people by whites. Black journalists and newspapers did, in detail so graphic it sickened me. These newspapers also became targets of white mobs who attacked journalists and burned their offices.

Might the history of racially biased media have something to do with the perceptions that blacks are more likely to committ crimes?

Joe also seemed to ignore the stories about my "retarded" brother, who, because he was a young black man who acted and looked strange, got followed by security, picked up, arrested and harrassed by police numerous times. The only crime he ever committed, to my knowledge, was when he once ran out of a store to catch a bus with some batteries that he was prepared to pay for.[1]His mental age was and is about 12.

And he had strange-acting geeky immature white friends who were not always in conflict with the cops. Wonder why.
 1. According to what Joe has been saying, the police should not only have arrested my brother and taken him to jail for stealing the batteries, but they should have also beaten the crap out of him for acting weird. Because black guys are by definition dangerous criminals, strange acting black guys doubly so.
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: 12 Monkeys on September 02, 2012, 12:41:59 PM
WOW just WOW.....you do know from slave ownership days up until the sixties WHITE lynch mobs hanged  African guys just for shits and giggles....no trail,no judge.
Relevance to my statement?

Quote
Ignorant statement....giving that it took weeks to charge Zimmerman ....WHY?
Relevance to my statement?
Its easy to target someone who is a "lower class" than whitey....take it from an Indian....."random stops" by cops happen to me all the time.

 Why stop an Indian all the time for NO good reason....you tell me?
red dot indian or Native American?
Native
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: lotanddaughters on September 02, 2012, 12:51:33 PM
I am a male Caucasian.

I think this is on-topic enough, at least when it comes to exploring if something is "prejudice" or not.

When I think of someone conducting a car-jacking, I think of a black male. However, when I think of a sick, twisted person who kills children and eats them, I think of a white male[1]. Am I biased against males? Hell no. If anything, I find myself biased in favor of males.

In other words, I see no "prejudice" in my preconceived notions. It's just an honest cross-examination of what I've seen or heard about throughout my life.
 1. Or an atheist. ;D
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: jaimehlers on September 02, 2012, 01:34:17 PM
I've traced my family history back on my father's side to a German immigrant who moved here shortly after the Civil War.  It is staggering to think that most black Americans who trace their family histories back that far would find someone who had been held in chattel slavery.  Everyone who is an American citizen[1] is the son or daughter of immigrants.

However, black 'immigration' wasn't voluntary.  They were stolen from their homes, if they weren't already slaves, and shipped here, forced to work and beaten if they didn't do enough.  Sometimes even mutilated.  If they were beaten to death, it wasn't considered murder any more than beating a dog to death was considered murder.  If they ran away, they were hunted down by men with dogs, and dragged back in chains.  It was worse for any slave that dared raise a hand against a white person; very few were simply killed as a result.  More often, they suffered brutal tortures to serve as an object lesson to other slaves.

Black women were frequently raped, whether it was in a slave shed by an overseer, or between silk sheets by their master.  Children of such unions were automatically slaves at birth, as indeed any child of a black woman was automatically a slave at birth, even if the father was not black.  Families were frequently split apart as slaves were bought and sold; parents from children, husbands from wives (not that marriage was legal among slaves), brothers from sisters.  The lucky slaves were the ones who were held by kind masters, who felt that black people just needed the 'civilizing' influence of whites long enough to gentle their 'bestial' natures.

Yes, they were considered beasts and animals by white people.  It was a catch-22 with a vengeance; because they were born slaves, white people considered them to be the equivalent of talking animals, and justified owning them as chattel slaves because they were considered to be animals and thus property.  But they could not win or earn their freedom through anything they themselves did, and so the cycle continued on and on.

Just thinking about this sickens and disgusts me.  Writing it makes me want to scream in fury and break something, when it doesn't make me want to hide in a corner and weep.  But none of those will do anyone any good.  But writing about it, talking about it, trying to get through to people that these things are at the core of American prejudices about black people...that can do some good, assuming people are willing to listen.

I, too, am a male Caucasian, the son of German, Scottish, and English immigrants.  Yet I know what it is like to be tormented and harassed for something I had no control over, where fighting back or even challenging my tormenters made it worse; to be caught in the middle of my own personal catch-22.  If I had not broken the cycle...I don't know what would have happened, but it would not have been good.  Yet many black people in this country are caught in a catch-22 of their own.  As I stated earlier, if you treat a person like a criminal long enough, they are likely to decide that if they're going to suffer the consequences of something they never did no matter how hard they try to to get out from under it, they might as well be hung for a sheep as for a lamb.
 1. excepting Native Americans
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: lotanddaughters on September 02, 2012, 02:09:31 PM
I've traced my family history back on my father's side to a German immigrant who moved here shortly after the Civil War.

I've been doing that too! I traced one line all the way back to William the Conqueror, Charlemagne, and back further. I find it fun, even though there's always that possibility of a "back door man" in there, but it's the best you can do, besides digging up the remains and conducting DNA tests.

Quote
It is staggering to think that most black Americans who trace their family histories back that far would find someone who had been held in chattel slavery.  Everyone who is an American citizen[1] is the son or daughter of immigrants.
 1. excepting Native Americans

Yeah, and even the "Native" Americans migrated from somewhere.

Quote
However, black 'immigration' wasn't voluntary.  They were stolen from their homes, if they weren't already slaves, and shipped here, forced to work and beaten if they didn't do enough.  Sometimes even mutilated.  If they were beaten to death, it wasn't considered murder any more than beating a dog to death was considered murder.  If they ran away, they were hunted down by men with dogs, and dragged back in chains.  It was worse for any slave that dared raise a hand against a white person; very few were simply killed as a result.  More often, they suffered brutal tortures to serve as an object lesson to other slaves.

Black women were frequently raped, whether it was in a slave shed by an overseer, or between silk sheets by their master.  Children of such unions were automatically slaves at birth, as indeed any child of a black woman was automatically a slave at birth, even if the father was not black.  Families were frequently split apart as slaves were bought and sold; parents from children, husbands from wives (not that marriage was legal among slaves), brothers from sisters.  The lucky slaves were the ones who were held by kind masters, who felt that black people just needed the 'civilizing' influence of whites long enough to gentle their 'bestial' natures.

Yes, they were considered beasts and animals by white people.  It was a catch-22 with a vengeance; because they were born slaves, white people considered them to be the equivalent of talking animals, and justified owning them as chattel slaves because they were considered to be animals and thus property.  But they could not win or earn their freedom through anything they themselves did, and so the cycle continued on and on.

Just thinking about this sickens and disgusts me.  Writing it makes me want to scream in fury and break something, when it doesn't make me want to hide in a corner and weep.  But none of those will do anyone any good.  But writing about it, talking about it, trying to get through to people that these things are at the core of American prejudices about black people...that can do some good, assuming people are willing to listen.

I totally agree. It makes me sick. I prefer to look at the bright side, though. Victims of the African slave trade didn't free themselves. They had help. There were white people in charge who thought it was a good idea to enslave people. At the same time, there where white people who thought it was cruel. Maybe the anti-slavery whites where the majority to begin with, and just didn't have the authority or didn't speak loud enough or . . . where simply the minority. I don't know. Somehow, the voices of reason slowly came through. Now, racism is on a constant decline. Where will the decline bottom out? I know this about as much as I know where theism will bottom out, which is to say I don't really know.

Quote
I, too, am a male Caucasian, the son of German, Scottish, and English immigrants.

Kinda sounds like me. The closest I can get to the boat is my father's mother. She was from Scotland. But with all the German from my other 3 grandparents, I am like 57% German or something(barring those "back door men"). I have a little English in there too. My mother's father's line goes back to the 1600's in the 13 colonies. So, on one line, I'm only twice removed from the boat, but on the other line, only the "Native Americans" got me beat. ;D 

Quote
Yet I know what it is like to be tormented and harassed for something I had no control over, where fighting back or even challenging my tormenters made it worse; to be caught in the middle of my own personal catch-22.  If I had not broken the cycle...I don't know what would have happened, but it would not have been good.  Yet many black people in this country are caught in a catch-22 of their own.  As I stated earlier, if you treat a person like a criminal long enough, they are likely to decide that if they're going to suffer the consequences of something they never did no matter how hard they try to to get out from under it, they might as well be hung for a sheep as for a lamb.

These are killer points. +1!
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: nogodsforme on September 02, 2012, 02:51:54 PM
When I was in grade school, a black teacher once told us, in a very angry and cynical way, not to ever steal anything small.
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: 12 Monkeys on September 02, 2012, 03:37:04 PM
The "native" Americans may have migrated from somewhere....but we have been here 20,000 plus years.....If you wish to discuss it more I am open
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: lotanddaughters on September 02, 2012, 06:01:55 PM
The "native" Americans may have migrated from somewhere....but we have been here 20,000 plus years.....If you wish to discuss it more I am open

I'm open. Whether it's right for a Native American to think that their "right-to-occupy-land-ratio" is 20,000 to 400 when compared with someone whose ancestry in America goes back 400 years is subjective. It's just like it's subjective whether or not to think that encroaching on the Palestinians is right. It's also like me thinking that my right to be in America vs. a first generation "native American" is 330 to 20. To be honest, in my subjective case, I do feel those ratios when thinking about Native Americans and myself, or me and people whose parents are immigrants. Hey, I respect the Native American. I also wish for the various Native American cultures to thrive. I don't want to see any more Native American languages become extinct, either. What can you do? As far as I know, I am not Native American at all. Over all, I feel terrible about the white man's treatment of Native Americans. I wasn't there, but there is enough historical evidence to back this up. It's extremely possible that if we could go back in time and watch a point around 200 to 1000 years after your and my branches from the family tree diverged, we could see your ancestors treating my people unfavorably.
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: jaimehlers on September 02, 2012, 08:12:01 PM
What happened to the Native Americans can't be undone.  Just like we can't go back and undo slavery in the U.S.

However, we can strive to make sure that nothing like that ever happens again.
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: LoriPinkAngel on September 02, 2012, 08:19:44 PM
Joe has not commented on the many white people in the US who have committed hundreds of serious crimes without even being arrested, let alone charged and convicted.

This is by no means a serious crime but I (white female) drove my car around for over a month with an expired inspection and my boyfriend (black) got pulled over for DWB the 1st time he took my car out last time he was here to visit & got a ticket.  When he went to the court appearance to show that he got the inspection updated on my car they still gave him a bigass fine.
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: nogodsforme on September 02, 2012, 09:50:24 PM
Joe has not commented on the many white people in the US who have committed hundreds of serious crimes without even being arrested, let alone charged and convicted.

This is by no means a serious crime but I (white female) drove my car around for over a month with an expired inspection and my boyfriend (black) got pulled over for DWB the 1st time he took my car out last time he was here to visit & got a ticket.  When he went to the court appearance to show that he got the inspection updated on my car they still gave him a bigass fine.

A coworker had the same thing happen. She, white and middle aged, loaned her car to a neighbor's son. He was pulled over within a day for expired tabs. She had been driving for weeks with the expired tabs and had figured she would get around to renewing. She was horrified, because the young man was black and she later realized that he could have been beaten up or charged with stealing the car.

She said that was when she began to realize that she had "white privilege"--she had never been pulled over for the expiration all the time she had been driving. Her black neighbors told her it happened to them all the time, being ticketed for little things like a broken rear light or five miles over the speed limit, when the white woman would just get a warning.  And she had no distrust of the police for herself but started to see why black people did. The lady reported this at a campus workshop on racial attitudes.
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: 12 Monkeys on September 03, 2012, 12:46:07 AM
The "native" Americans may have migrated from somewhere....but we have been here 20,000 plus years.....If you wish to discuss it more I am open

I'm open. Whether it's right for a Native American to think that their "right-to-occupy-land-ratio" is 20,000 to 400 when compared with someone whose ancestry in America goes back 400 years is subjective. It's just like it's subjective whether or not to think that encroaching on the Palestinians is right. It's also like me thinking that my right to be in America vs. a first generation "native American" is 330 to 20. To be honest, in my subjective case, I do feel those ratios when thinking about Native Americans and myself, or me and people whose parents are immigrants. Hey, I respect the Native American. I also wish for the various Native American cultures to thrive. I don't want to see any more Native American languages become extinct, either. What can you do? As far as I know, I am not Native American at all. Over all, I feel terrible about the white man's treatment of Native Americans. I wasn't there, but there is enough historical evidence to back this up. It's extremely possible that if we could go back in time and watch a point around 200 to 1000 years after your and my branches from the family tree diverged, we could see your ancestors treating my people unfavorably.
Well here is where the history lesson begins....before 1492 there was an estimated 60-80 million aboriginals in America,Canada,,,and point south of USA....now I could not tell you how many...but its not 80 million

 My particular tribe was at about 12,000 and it was an isolated lot of communities along the north coast of Canada....so very hard to get to in the early days of America/Canada exploration......we did not see white/spanish explorers til the 1700's....they came for the fur and later gold.

 when we no longer felt like "playing the game" of letting them clearcut  everything they decided to kill us. By 1862 90% of the coastal population was dead. Murder and germ warfare cleared the way for further rape of the land and its animals. The 10% of the population they did not kill were put into residential schools where they were abused and murdered.

 The racism is ingrained in all colours,by violent action,greed,pride and a myriad of other devices used by men to kill and destroy.....the big difference here is White man has ALWAYS been the one holding the power. Through the view of their religion(they are superior to all other races,as God has told them) Greed and cultural difference.

 Tell me in your opinion in the time of England and Spain being the grand powers that be,has there ever been a time when the white man was suppressed and exploited?
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: LoriPinkAngel on September 03, 2012, 01:04:10 AM
Quote
the big difference here is White man has ALWAYS been the one holding the power. Through the view of their religion(they are superior to all other races,as God has told them)

Except he's not.  That would be the Jews. God's Chosen People.  And they have gotten pretty much screwed both in & out of the bible.
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: 12 Monkeys on September 03, 2012, 01:28:51 AM
Quote
the big difference here is White man has ALWAYS been the one holding the power. Through the view of their religion(they are superior to all other races,as God has told them)

Except he's not.  That would be the Jews. God's Chosen People.  And they have gotten pretty much screwed both in & out of the bible.
NOT since the coming of God as man,Jesus,remember him. If you fail to accept Jesus you are NOT in God's good graces. And 2000 years of history hardly beats the 12,000 years of Indians or the 6000 years of the Chinese. And the "stories of the Jews being oppressed are hardly true accounts of history,unless of course you BELIEVE the bible.
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: LoriPinkAngel on September 03, 2012, 01:39:35 AM
Quote
And the "stories of the Jews being oppressed are hardly true accounts of history

Dauchau, Buchenwald, Auschwitz, Bergen-Belsen, Mauthausen, Treblinka... oh wait those are resorts, just stay away from the showers...  >:(
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: LoriPinkAngel on September 03, 2012, 01:45:11 AM
Quote
the big difference here is White man has ALWAYS been the one holding the power. Through the view of their religion(they are superior to all other races,as God has told them)

Except he's not.  That would be the Jews. God's Chosen People.  And they have gotten pretty much screwed both in & out of the bible.

My point here was actually wondering where/when the white men grabbed the power if we are blaming religion for oppression because the Jews called themselves the chosen.  Noone in the Bible was really white unless you count the romans.
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: lotanddaughters on September 03, 2012, 08:24:55 AM
Tell me in your opinion in the time of England and Spain being the grand powers that be,has there ever been a time when the white man was suppressed and exploited?

In the time of England and Spain being the grand powers? No. I know that Spain was conquered by Muslims in the early 8th century, though. England has had its share of invaders, but that's mostly white-on-white action. :laugh:


12 Monkeys, are you 100% Native American?
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: joebbowers on September 03, 2012, 08:29:04 AM
What happened to the Native Americans can't be undone.  Just like we can't go back and undo slavery in the U.S.

However, we can strive to make sure that nothing like that ever happens again.

Let's not pretend that the natives were living in peace until white man came along. They were killing each other and taking each other's land long before those ships arrived.

I also think it's unfair to use slavery as an example of white cruelty. It was black men who sold them to us in the first place, and it was white men who eventualy set them free. Africa today still has slavery without white men having any hand in it.
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: none on September 03, 2012, 08:42:02 AM
What happened to the Native Americans can't be undone.  Just like we can't go back and undo slavery in the U.S.

However, we can strive to make sure that nothing like that ever happens again.

Let's not pretend that the natives were living in peace until white man came along. They were killing each other and taking each other's land long before those ships arrived.

I also think it's unfair to use slavery as an example of white cruelty. It was black men who sold them to us in the first place, and it was white men who eventualy set them free. Africa today still has slavery without white men having any hand in it.
is this your argument to say peoples are racist against themselves?
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: jaimehlers on September 03, 2012, 11:28:46 AM
Let's not pretend that the natives were living in peace until white man came along. They were killing each other and taking each other's land long before those ships arrived.
Did I say they were living in peace, or is this a strawman?

Also, read up on the [wiki]Spanish Requirement[/wiki] sometime, and what the Spanish did as part of the process of subjugating, exploiting, and violently conquering the natives.  Oh, let's not forget that it was also divinely mandated for them to do as they wanted.

Quote from: joebbowers
I also think it's unfair to use slavery as an example of white cruelty. It was black men who sold them to us in the first place, and it was white men who eventualy set them free. Africa today still has slavery without white men having any hand in it.
I don't think it's unfair.  But I've based my opinion on much more than "blacks started it, whites ended it, and African slavery still exists today".

I strongly, strongly suspect this is just more of your efforts to provoke people on emotionally-charged issues so you can observe their reactions.
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: nogodsforme on September 03, 2012, 01:01:16 PM
I think we can l all agree that slavery was a widespread practice in the past and still exists in some forms. Every society has had slaves of some sort, whether POW's, criminals, people from different tribes or religions, scapegoated groups. Every society has benefited from slave labor, every society figured out ways to justify it, and no major religion banned it. It is only in the past century that slavery has gradually become a crime everywhere, and most people in the world today think it is a bad thing.

However, the global history of slavery is not the point of this discussion. We are talking about the disproportionate targeting of certain groups, particularly young brown skinned males, as criminals, even when they have not committed any crime.

Chattel, hereditary slavery based on race, Jim Crow laws and de facto segregation are US phenomena that affect attitudes and behavior in the US today. There is a relationship between these historical factors and who gets arrested and for what today in the US. There is a history behind what is considered "suspicious" behavior and who is considered to be "dangerous" in the US.

One of my favorite quotations is from Anatole France: The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.

The mistaken interpretation is that the law is fair, because it is illegal to do these things regardless of who you are. But, who is going to, of necessity, do these things? Race and class affect what laws are passed and how they are enforced. There are some crimes that are virtually impossible for a middle clas white man to commit-- loitering, for example. Loitering is being somewere that better off people don't want you to be, especially if you are unkempt and dirty. That is a crime almost solely based on class, and to a large extent, race. Why would anyone stand on a street corner,  sit on a park bench or on steps of the library all day if he had somehwere nicer to go?

I wish Joe would address these connections in some way instead of throwing out stuff about who sold who when and injustices in Africa today. Or start a different thread and we can discuss Africa. I've done reasearch on the African slave trade and lived and worked in several African countries, so I am sure Joe has a lot of insights he can share with me.
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: 12 Monkeys on September 03, 2012, 02:06:03 PM
Quote
And the "stories of the Jews being oppressed are hardly true accounts of history

Dauchau, Buchenwald, Auschwitz, Bergen-Belsen, Mauthausen, Treblinka... oh wait those are resorts, just stay away from the showers...  >:(
So I see you ignored the part about 90% of the population being wiped out.....and Haida and Irish,,,,Dad,Haida,mom Irish
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: Quesi on September 03, 2012, 02:09:41 PM

One of my favorite quotations is from Anatole France: The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.



Sometimes that is the case.  And sometimes it is not.

In my neighborhood, a huge percentage of stop and frisks that I have witnessed, start with an open bottle of alcohol.  A group of day laborers, sitting on a stoop, passing around a bottle of Miller Light inside of a brown paper bag, will most likely have their bottle smashed on the sidewalk,[1] be thrown against a brick wall, searched, humiliated, intimidated, and then probably given a ticket, rather than being taken into custody.  Shockingly, I’ve seen the cops do the same thing to some guy sitting there drinking a malta,[2] because cops don’t seem to know what malta is, and they *think* the guy is drinking beer.

I’ve seen this scene so many times. 

But they are breaking the law.  I guess.

I live three blocks from the strip where day laborers sip beer after a long day of physical labor, and prostitutes of both genders, voluntary and involuntary, try to make a meager living.  I can walk safely down the strip because it is not a violent place.  For someone like me. 

My part of the neighborhood is enjoying gentrification.  It happened so slowly I didn’t recognize it initially.  First, the white gay men arrived,[3] buying up the gracious pre-war apartments and decorating them with art deco antiques.  Then the artists came.  Now the young families are arriving, and pushing McLaren strollers down the tree-lined narrow streets.

In front of my gracious pre-war building, on summer evenings, it is not uncommon to see a group of stylishly dressed gay men sitting on the stoop, sipping trendy cocktails out of long-stemmed glasses and stabbing nice hors d’oeurves with little multi-colored plastic swords.  The police pass by without stopping.

One late summer night a couple of years ago, I was sitting on the same stoop with another mom as our two pre-schoolers rode tricycles up and down the sidewalk.  She was holding her little baby in her arms, and we were each sipping a beer.  Two cops on horseback rode down the street, and the little kids jumped up and down excitedly.  I tried to discretely hide my beer behind a bag, but my friend walked right up to the cops on horseback, baby in own arm, beer in the other, and the friendly cops stopped and let the bigger kids touch the horses.  We made some pleasant chit chat with the cops as the kids squealed and giggled with delight, and then the cops waved goodbye and the kids blew kisses to the horses and then returned to their tricycles and the moms returned to our stoop to finish our beers.

In my neighborhood, there seem to be some problems in terms of administering this majestic equality equally.   
 1. not sure how smashing a glass bottle on the street improves the quality of life in the neighborhood
 2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malta_(soft_drink)
 3. gay latinos have been here for decades
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: 12 Monkeys on September 03, 2012, 02:13:01 PM
Tell me in your opinion in the time of England and Spain being the grand powers that be,has there ever been a time when the white man was suppressed and exploited?

In the time of England and Spain being the grand powers? No. I know that Spain was conquered by Muslims in the early 8th century, though. England has had its share of invaders, but that's mostly white-on-white action. :laugh:


12 Monkeys, are you 100% Native American?
White guys killing each other,Indians,Africans...they all kill each other...my point is England and Spain went looking for trouble,leaving bodies in their wake wherever they went....Did you ever notice that they left the other aggressive nations alone when they went around pillaging?
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: lotanddaughters on September 03, 2012, 02:46:24 PM
Did you ever notice that they left the other aggressive nations alone when they went around pillaging?

Of course.

What is your ancestry? Is your dad 100% Haida? Is your mom 100% Irish?
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: 12 Monkeys on September 03, 2012, 03:03:42 PM
Did you ever notice that they left the other aggressive nations alone when they went around pillaging?

Of course.

What is your ancestry? Is your dad 100% Haida? Is your mom 100% Irish?
yes and yes....makes me one damn good looking guy....and how is this relevant?
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: nogodsforme on September 03, 2012, 03:04:10 PM
One point I make when I teach about European colonialism is that people don't leave a place unless it sucks. Really bad. Because most people prefer to stay home. It has to be awful for people to take the risk of leaving the known for the unknown.

In Feudal Europe people were largely what we would call sharecroppers. There was no mobility, a few families owned everything and most were poor, landless and hungry. Options for the majority at the bottom were few. You could sell yourself into indenture. Or you could survive by doing things that got you into even more trouble. Being in debt, begging, prostitution etc were crimes punishable by imprisonment in workhouses, or being transported to a colony.

So 16th and 17th century Europe sucked for a lot of people, so those who could,  left. And those people were not the most civilized and privileged. When these explorers and mercenaries with not much to lose found other people and places, they raped and pillaged and burned and stole and enslaved. Leaving death and disease and destruction in their wake. The people who had it really good stayed home--and were later overthrown in a series of violent social revolutions.
 
Africa, Asia, the Pacific region and the Americas did not suck nearly as badly. These places were not paradises, but at least had enough resources to generally avoid hunger, and organized their societies so that extreme poverty, homelessness, begging and starvation were rare. One of the biggest threats to colonizing groups was that members would jump ship and "go native". In Hawaii, for example, they had to pass strict laws to prevent the white Christian sailors from disappearing forever into the heathen native populations.

If these places had been the impoverished, uncivilized hellholes Europeans later decided they were, there would have been no risk of "going native." In fact, they would never have been colonized. Because you don't colonize a place that has nothing to offer you.
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: 12 Monkeys on September 03, 2012, 03:15:05 PM
And the Europeans,came and did exactly the same thing that happened to them,became land Barons,exploited the land and its resources and its people for their benefit. How quickly they forgot where they were when they left. They used religion as a tool to justify their actions. North America would have been paradise for poor landless immigrants,it did not mean they had to act the way they did when they got here.

 In my neck of the woods there was peaceful interaction with the Caucasian and Spanish traders and the Aboriginals. Iron and cloth for for furs. When the fur supply began to dwindle is when the traders resorted to violence.
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: lotanddaughters on September 03, 2012, 04:00:15 PM
yes and yes....makes me one damn good looking guy....and how is this relevant?

I was wondering because there are people who are like 5% of something, and they totally affiliate themselves with that one ethnicity and forget the other(s) that they might actually be even more of. This is not you, however. I just wanted to confirm your legitimacy. :)
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: nogodsforme on September 04, 2012, 12:52:47 AM
yes and yes....makes me one damn good looking guy....and how is this relevant?

I was wondering because there are people who are like 5% of something, and they totally affiliate themselves with that one ethnicity and forget the other(s) that they might actually be even more of. This is not you, however. I just wanted to confirm your legitimacy. :)


Why does it matter what ethnicity someone claims? Unless you do DNA testing, everyone's background is based on social construction, ie stories, culture, history, politics and lies. I am "black" in the US because of hypodescent, but "mestiza" in Latin America because they see my (one/eighth) native heritage, and "white" or "colored"or "metisse" in Africa because people there acknowledge my European ancestry. All of those terms have a different history and meaning behind them. Which should I be?[1]

Most African Americans have European (and Native) ancestry. Many have more European ancestry than African, because the one-drop rule of hypodescent meant that any known African ancestry put you into the "black" category, meaning more slaves for the masters. (Yay!) If a person was 5% African and 95% European, they were black as far as the white society was concerned.

Some people who were "black" based on the "one drop" were able to pass as white and disappear into white society, at great psychological cost. They had to cut themselves off from the black side of their heritage completely, and there are stories of people doing things like walking past their grandmothers without speaking if whites were around.

This is the source of the "tragic mulatto" genre-- "what about the poor mixed children who are not accepted by blacks or whites"? Of course, those children had always been in the black community. (At family reunions, my sister and I liked to play "guess the race" with various relatives.) It was the white community that didn't know what to do with this obvious evidence that black and white DNA mixed just fine no matter what kind of segregation laws were passed. Many black people in the US have white relatives, and know it. But hardly any white people know or acknowledge their black relatives. Amazing, ain't it?

After decades of political and social struggle, some people are able to acknowledge all their ancestry-- but the larger society still tries to pigeonhole people into one category. Choose one (so I know whether or not to be prejudiced against you!) And if you do chooose one, what right does anyone else have to tell you that the one you chose was wrong?

When I was younger and stupider, I used to get wigged out when I met people I would characterize as black who identified as Italian or native or whatever. Nowadays I try to be cool with whatever people want to identify as. Because your identity is not your DNA or what other people see when they look at you. It is what you see when you look in the mirror, and where you grew up, and who raised you, and what language you speak, and how other people treat you.[2]
 
 1. My oldest brother looked fully African with very black skin. Same parents as me with my "mixed" appearance.
 2. One of the saddest examples of this was a woman I knew in college. She was from Chile and was white with blonde hair and blue eyes. It was not until she spoke in her heavy Spanish accent that you knew she wasn't Scandinavian. She had a nervous breakdown in the US, because she experienced so much racist crap about Latinos from people who did not know she was one. It just got too exhausting for her to always be defending herself and losing respect for employers and freinds, and having them try to backtrack and apologize with, "Well we didn't mean you when we said you people were all lazy, dirty, illegal bean eaters." White people were always asking her why she identified as Latino instead of white. I remember her telling me in tears of frustration, after yet another encounter with racism, "I am not white! I am not European! I am a Chilean and that means Latino!" She became very anti-white and militantly Latino after she recovered from her breakdown. She had no patience for white people and associated exclusively with Latinos. I don't blame her.
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: lotanddaughters on September 04, 2012, 06:51:49 AM
Why does it matter what ethnicity someone claims?

The truth of ethnicity matters to someone who wants to know the truth. The claim of ethnicity is sufficient to someone who only wants to know what the other is claiming.

Unless you do DNA testing, everyone's background is based on social construction, ie stories, culture, history, politics and lies.

I agree that without DNA testing, you can't tie it down 100%.

I am "black" in the US because of hypodescent, but "mestiza" in Latin America because they see my (one/eighth) native heritage, and "white" or "colored"or "metisse" in Africa because people there acknowledge my European ancestry. All of those terms have a different history and meaning behind them. Which should I be?[1]
 1. My oldest brother looked fully African with very black skin. Same parents as me with my "mixed" appearance.

Yeah, I've heard personal testimonies of people of mixed race. Sometimes they are never totally embraced by the "pure-bread" or seemingly pure-bread people around them. In some circles, you're not "black" enough. In other circles, you're not "white" enough. Or whatever. It's unfortunate. In the U.S., the population of mixed race people will keep increasing so that someday it will be the majority. This will take a few or more likely many generations before mixed race is the majority. But, with each generation, the acceptance of people of mixed race will always be ahead of the population of mixed race, so that is hopeful.

Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: 12 Monkeys on September 04, 2012, 10:07:46 AM
pretty soon we will all be grey
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: nogodsforme on September 04, 2012, 01:54:27 PM
pretty soon we will all be grey

Ashes to ashes, dust to dust.... ;)
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: nogodsforme on September 04, 2012, 02:11:24 PM
Why does it matter what ethnicity someone claims?

The truth of ethnicity matters to someone who wants to know the truth. The claim of ethnicity is sufficient to someone who only wants to know what the other is claiming.
What is this ethnic truth of which you speak? And why does it really matter to a stranger what ethnicity you claim? I think it is because people are prejudiced and what to know who they are dealing with, so they know how to behave around you. (Can I make that Polish joke? Make that stupid remark about Asians? Show my disrespect for Mexicans?) Like the white people who wanted my Chilean friend to be white instead of Latino so they could freely be racist against Latinos around her.

People who don't clearly fit one category upset the racial apple cart. Racial and ethnic categories are made up within historical contexts, which is why my race changes depending what country I am in. In reality, everyone is mixed and there is no such thing as a pure race.
 
People make up their ethnicity all the time, almost always trying to move into a group that would be better treated. Irish and Scottish became English on the boat over. Jewish became Russian when the pogroms started up.  German became "American" after WWI.  Nobody white-looking was native in 1870, because natives got treated like crap, and then everyone white suddenly discovered a Cherokee grandmother in the 1970's.

Unless you do DNA testing, everyone's background is based on social construction, ie stories, culture, history, politics and lies.

I agree that without DNA testing, you can't tie it down 100%.


And even DNA won't tell you anything important about understanding that person.....
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: Timo on September 07, 2012, 02:12:27 AM
I know I'm late.  But fuck it though.  My two cents.

I am a young (ish) black and Latino male.  I've been detained and subjected to searches more times than I can remember.  Some of them for good reason.  Some of them...not so much.  And not so much recently.  That's one of the nice things about getting older, I guess.  I've been arrested.  I was a juvenile offender.  I've been in a cell.  I was the sort of kid to whom our man joe would have gladly handed a bullet in a moment of depression.  But I was also the kind of kid that was very respectful towards law enforcement.  Everything was yes sir, no sir.  It had to be.  I think that might have kept me safe in a lot of otherwise bad situations.  I was deferential too.  We can talk all we want about what the law says or about crime data, but when you find yourself detained by a police, especially if it's late or there just aren't many people out, you very quickly realize that it's just you and him and whatever happens it's your word against his.  And so you put your hands over your head, you let him kick open your legs.  You sit on the curb, arms and legs stretched out and crossed.  You cooperate.  Yes sir.  No sir.

I didn't think that this was a particularly strange way to think about things until I went to college and spent more time around white people that were not the sort of white people that were comfortable in the sorts of places where I spent most of my time.  I had caught glimpses of this before though, DJing parties where drunk white kids would argue with police outside of suburban homes, red cup in hand, yelling "what's your badge number?!"  I found their behavior almost unfathomable.  And insufferable.  I often enjoyed watching the more obnoxious kids get ticketed for open containers.  Whether or not some police abuse their authority, the fact of the matter is that they do a difficult and vital job and they deserve to be treated with respect.  And it boggled my mind to learn that in some places, people grew up not understanding that the failure to show that respect might lead to physical violence.  This kind of behavior is forever contrasted in my mind with a scene outside of another party, one that my parents threw when I was a kid.  I remember my father and a very understanding police officer negotiating a solution to the parking problem that our little get together had caused on our block.  "Alright then, you folks have a fine evening."  Handshake.  No tickets.  No intimidation.  Just respect.  To me, that's the model.  That's how it's supposed to be.  On both sides.  And anything less than that kind of respect can result in some very bad outcomes.  And I've seen that unfold too.

So look, when I read a story like that of Mr. Carter my perspective is this.  I don't know what happened.  But I do know that police sometimes abuse people in their custody.  They sometimes even rape and kill people in their custody.  There are police that have gone to prison behind these offenses.  And there are police that are still walking around like that's okay.  But I've never heard of someone shooting themselves, whilst hand cuffed in the back of a squad car.  And having been subject to more than my fair share of searches, I find it hard to believe that the police could have missed a handgun after subjecting him to two pat downs.  I find it easier to believe that they shot him, even if I can't think of a reason why they might do this intentionally.  Call me biased. 

But I obviously realize that I am not in a position to say that with any degree of certainty.  I'm running off a hunch.  But I think that this warrents further investigation, preferrably by an outside agency.  The video posted demonstrates that it's entirely possible that the young man shot himself, even in that compromised position. 

The bottom line for me is this.  We give the state a monopoly on force.  Those who work on behalf of that state then, those trusted with the power to exercise that force, should be subject to as much scruitany as possible.  I think we can all agree on that.

Anyway, happy Friday!
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: nogodsforme on September 07, 2012, 11:04:09 AM
I have been waiting for your perspective, Timo. And it was worth the wait.
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: Timo on September 07, 2012, 05:16:12 PM
Why thank you.
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: Quesi on September 07, 2012, 06:33:10 PM

The bottom line for me is this.  We give the state a monopoly on force.  Those who work on behalf of that state then, those trusted with the power to exercise that force, should be subject to as much scruitany as possible.  I think we can all agree on that.

Anyway, happy Friday!

Yes. 

A few days ago I presented some personal anecdotes based on my observations of the different ways that people are treated in my neighborhood when the police see them with open alcohol.  I really think that open alcohol is an interesting “crime” to examine, because it is an activity that crosses the lines of race and class.  But the way the police respond to it varies, according to race and perceived class. 

If I had prayed, I could not have hoped that two days after sharing those anecdotes, a study of police ticketing practices in NYC would be published, along with an interactive map.  The ticketing practices, which usually follow a stop and search, are disproportionately centered in communities of color. 

My neighborhood had lots of open alcohol tickets, but we won the distinction of the most public urination tickets in the city.  We also scored high on things such as not following the instructions on park signs (such as no eating or smoking) and bicycles on sidewalks.  But we didn’t score nearly as high as Harlem and the South Bronx and Flatbush on the big ticket items such as disorderly conduct and trespass. 

Excellent article.  The interactive map is down towards the bottom of the page, and it is a lot of fun to click on.

http://www.thenewyorkworld.com/2012/09/05/nypd-improbable-cause/

Anyone familiar with NYC geography will be delighted to see that the residents who live on Central Park West, and Park Avenue (south of 100th Street) and the Financial District are much better behaved than those of us who live in more diverse communities. 
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: Quesi on October 04, 2012, 07:31:02 PM
This happened about a mile from my home. 

Unarmed national guardsman shot and killed by police during a traffic stop.  He was 22. 

It was 5 am.  There were two female passengers in the car.  One passenger said he did not stop immediately when he heard the sirens.  He said "i'm not doing anything wrong."  The same passenger said that when he pulled over, he had his hands on the steering wheel as the police approached.  The police said he was reaching under the seat.

But you know what the sad thing is? Do you know why this is even being investigated?  Well, the other passenger, who had been asleep, and who was awakened by the gunshot, she's a cop. 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/04/noel-polanco-national-guardsman_n_1940259.html?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D215798#slide=1603130

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/queens/one_person_shot_near_laguardia_airport_yUBwDtm1QVPEqmnpmPo5TM
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: Mr. Blackwell on October 04, 2012, 11:18:32 PM
He should have pulled over but....I guess cutting off "elite" NYPD officers warrents getting shot.

I find this testimony from the NY Post article particularly damning.

Quote
And then they had us with our hands on the vehicle telling us your friend shot himself.

Let this be a lesson to us all. We MUST fully SUBMIT to our local and federal governments at ALL times or risk being shot for noncompliance.
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: screwtape on October 05, 2012, 08:32:12 AM
I heard it reported on the radio this morning.  It was described as an act of road rage by the cop.  The Post article was very incomplete.
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: Quesi on October 05, 2012, 10:47:16 AM
I heard it reported on the radio this morning.  It was described as an act of road rage by the cop.  The Post article was very incomplete.

Interesting.  This is getting more press than I thought it would.

Interestingly, the police told the front seat passenger "Your friend shot himself."

There seems to be a lot of that going around lately. 
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: screwtape on October 05, 2012, 11:41:30 AM
Quote
“The police proceeded to try to chase us, sticking their middle finger at us and screaming obscenities at the car and trying to pull us over and trying to veer us into divider on left lane of Grand Central Parkway,” she said.
...
“Their cars were at no time marked and labeled police,” she said. ”I honestly thought it was an armored car and security for an armored car.”
...
DeFerrari said Polanco kept his hands on the steering wheel and never reached for anything or made a suspicious move.

Instead, she insists this is a case of road rage taken to extremes by police.

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/10/05/vigil-held-for-man-killed-in-police-involved-shooting-on-grand-central-parkway/

Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: Mr. Blackwell on October 05, 2012, 05:47:42 PM
Quote
Dorothy Garcia said Det. Hassan Hamdy was one of the officers who barged into her house five years ago and brutalized her grandson, Tyrell.

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/det-hamdy-named-earlier-brutality-lawsuit-article-1.1176119

Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: Nam on October 11, 2012, 04:23:40 PM
I have a friend who's a former Miami Police Officer. She pulled over a guy for doing 110 in a 70 MPH zone, and when he rolled down the window, he shot her 5 times in the chest. She was wearing a vest, luckily, that saved her life. She retired after that, married a Marine Officer, and moved to Hawaii.

-Nam
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: nogodsforme on October 12, 2012, 05:54:01 PM
I have a friend who's a former Miami Police Officer. She pulled over a guy for doing 110 in a 70 MPH zone, and when he rolled down the window, he shot her 5 times in the chest. She was wearing a vest, luckily, that saved her life. She retired after that, married a Marine Officer, and moved to Hawaii.

-Nam

I get nervous for their safety when I see lone patrol officers riding around. They should always have backup. Then, when an a$$hole tries something like that, the partner can jump in. I am afraid that with cutbacks, there are more lone officers out there. I don't blame her for retiring. they say that pullover stops are the most dangerous, which is why the police are so jumpy if you make a false move.
Title: Re: Chavis Carter
Post by: Nam on October 16, 2012, 10:08:38 PM
^you're assuming she didn't have back up. I didn't state she did or didn't. I don't know. I will have to ask her next time I speak to her.

-Nam