[kenberg]

Some things are getting at least a little clearer, and I think Ken Rexford's earlier comments fit this very well

Apparently Brown took some cigarillos from a store without paying and quite forcefully assualted the manager or an employee who tried to block his way out.There are pictures, there is a witness, and a Mr. Johnson, who was with him, has acknowledged this to be true./ I think we can take that as fact.

This doesn't mean police get to shoot him.

It does mean that Brown was a young man with an attitude and some trouble with his impulses and his judgment. More or less everyone knows that there are video cameras in convenience stores, he just did it anyway.


Consider two story lines:
1. This cop sees a young man walking in the street, tells him to put up his hands, and then, when he does so, the cop shoots him dead.
2. A cop stops a young man, a man who has problems with impulse control, the young man does not accept being stopped, a struggle ensues, and the young man is shot.

Really, which strikes you as more likely? From the outset, story number 2 struck me as more likely. The episode at the convenience store certainly appears to support it. It by no means shows that the young man deserved to be shot, but it supplies some indication of how this may have come about.

Now why did the cop stop the young man? I list three possibilities:
a. The young man was walking in the street, blocking traffic.
b. The cop knew of the robbery and thought the young man was a credible suspect.
c. (I regard ths as the most likely). The cop had just learned of the very recent robbery and knew something about the suspects. He decided to stop the young man for blocking traffic, something that he was definitely doing, and then review the situation or maybe call in to see if the young man he has stopped for blocking traffic matched the description of the suspect from the convenience store.

At any rate, the cop was doing his job.

Why do I mention KenR?
A cop is supposed to be prepared to handle situations like this without anyone getting killed. Of course "supposed to" and "able to" are two very different things, and the facts of the individual case are crucial. If the cop did as he was trained to do, is that enough? I enjoy watching the tv cop show Rizzoli and Isles. They don't work in Ferguson.


Like most people, I had never heard of Ferguson. I gather it is what we might call basic living. They were all totally unprepared for the stuff that hit the fan. Winston asked "Is there a solution" and my first response was that I doubt it. I'll stick with that.

[Winstonm]

I think Ken's assessment is probably right. No doubt this was not a choirboy who got shot. Violence again last night. I do not see the justification for furthered violence unless the local police stepped back in - still no excuse but at least a reason as it seems this community has pent-up issues with their police.

I doubt this will change.

[kenberg]

Off and on this disturbing thought about how it all came to happen has occurred to me.

1. Officer Wilson, we have been told, was not thinking of Mr. Brown as a suspect in the business at the convenience store.
2. Mr, Brown was thoroughly aware of what had happened at the convenience store.

The result: Officer Wilson approaches Mr. Brown expecting to simply tell him to move out of the street so the cars can go by. Mr, Brow sees Officer Wilson approaching and expects to be arrested for the assault and theft at the convenience store. So two guys enter into a confrontation, each with very different ideas as to what it is about. The words and actions of each are totally out of sync with the expectations of the other. A confrontation always involves risk, with this sort of confusion the risk became the reality.

I am afraid that this possibility seems very real to me, it fits my views of how we all think and act. . If so, what a terrible consequence.

[barmar]

Winstonm, on 2014-August-16, 07:07, said:

I think Ken's assessment is probably right. No doubt this was not a choirboy who got shot.

From what we've heard, it's still hard to tell what kind of person he was.

When I was in high school (late 70's), my crowd was mostly "science nerds". We were all A students, and went on to college and successful careers as doctors, lawyers, and computer professionals. We weren't violent, but we weren't perfect kids, either. We pulled teenage hijinks. We had fake IDs so we could get into bars and strip clubs, there was some pot smoking. I was a goodie-two-shoes and didn't drink or smoke (I still haven't), but I hung out with them. Occasionally someone would get drunk and rowdy.

My point is that even the best kids sometimes get involved in mischief, some of it illegal. That Brown stole some cigarillos and then got confrontational with the cop is not necessarily a reflection of his general character. I'd like to hear more about him.

And of course, none of this justifies excessive force. The specific circumstances of the encounter need to be examined to determine whether the cop's actions were appropriate. Although when there's an appearance of racial bias, sometime no amount of justification will be accepted by the community; any determination will be viewed as part of the general conspiracy.

[mike777]

Clearly there have been years and years of oppression felt by the local community, there is distrust of the police. This is clear from hundreds of comments on the news.

The video Fact of Brown being a thug, a person of violence does not justify his shooting in cold blood.

As Winston says there is evidence of years and years, of hundreds of years of bias against persons of color in the Ferguson region. Clearly they are victims.

I visited St. Louis a few time as a young man. There was a clear fear of young black men after dark in some situations in this area many years ago. Clearly white people would not go into areas of St. Louis after dark alone. This bias by many whites was clear. A bias against young black men.

Given this event lasted roughly 3 minutes if the timeline is correct says it all.

[kenrexford]

I don't know that not going to some areas after dark s a "bias" rather than self preservation. A friend of mine in law school was so unwilling to violate his sense of conscience that he walked down a known dangerous street in D.C. in the very early morning. An older gentleman started laughing from his yard, yelling out to him that he was a stupid white man to be walking around alone. My friend took the advice. Was that bias? Maybe, but probably not bias by my friend.

[hrothgar]

kenrexford, on 2014-August-17, 04:52, said:

I don't know that not going to some areas after dark s a "bias" rather than self preservation. A friend of mine in law school was so unwilling to violate his sense of conscience that he walked down a known dangerous street in D.C. in the very early morning. An older gentleman started laughing from his yard, yelling out to him that he was a stupid white man to be walking around alone. My friend took the advice. Was that bias? Maybe, but probably not bias by my friend.

I had a similar incident happen when I was working down in DC.

I confused NE and NW and ended up in the wrong neighborhood.
Never been addressed as "Yo, white boy" before...

Happy to say that folks were very helpful, though more than a bit amused...

[Winstonm]

I think that the recent studies on brain makeup have some bearing on how this tragedy unfolded.

[kenberg]

barmar, on 2014-August-16, 21:22, said:

From what we've heard, it's still hard to tell what kind of person he was.

When I was in high school (late 70's), my crowd was mostly "science nerds". We were all A students, and went on to college and successful careers as doctors, lawyers, and computer professionals. We weren't violent, but we weren't perfect kids, either. We pulled teenage hijinks. We had fake IDs so we could get into bars and strip clubs, there was some pot smoking. I was a goodie-two-shoes and didn't drink or smoke (I still haven't), but I hung out with them. Occasionally someone would get drunk and rowdy.

My point is that even the best kids sometimes get involved in mischief, some of it illegal. That Brown stole some cigarillos and then got confrontational with the cop is not necessarily a reflection of his general character. I'd like to hear more about him.

And of course, none of this justifies excessive force. The specific circumstances of the encounter need to be examined to determine whether the cop's actions were appropriate. Although when there's an appearance of racial bias, sometime no amount of justification will be accepted by the community; any determination will be viewed as part of the general conspiracy.

I have often considered it something of a miracle that most kids make it through adolescence. And some don't. I had a student once who was in a wheelchair for life. He was on the roof of his house and, I guess to impress his girlfriend, he dove into the swimming pool below. This did not work well.

We learn a lot in our teenage years. I was a very different person at 18 than I was at 14. Some things are beyond forgiving no matter the age, but generally I approve of not holding the adult responsible for the stupidities of his youth.

With all of the being said, to me the main concusion from the convenience store episode is that it puts the lie to the early portrayal of Mr. Brown. He was described as an almost perfect young man. Never got in a fight, Never any trouble at all. Etc. In which case it must have been the officer's fault since it could not possibly have been the fault of this young angel. This is where the earlier comments of KenR strike me as so relevant. Don't portray the young Mr. Brown as an angel, just go with the obvious fact that the shooting was tragic, the officer was an authority figure with a gun, and we need to see what really happened.

A place where I (think I) disagree with KenR and porhaps with many is that I don't think it is reasonable to expect perfection from cops. Of course he cannot just go shoot someone, but that is not likely to be what happened. Rather there was a confrontation, it did not go well,there was a struggle, and the young man is dead. A perfect cop with perfect judgment perhaps could have handled it better. Perhaps, Or maybe not. But unpredictability is the nature of a struggle. There is a line, hard to pin down exactly, so that on one side I would say the cop was wrong, on the other side I would say he perhaps could have done better and maybe even he feels he could have done better, but the situation was tough, brutal and frightening, and he did the best he could at the time.

I was definitely not a perfect kid. I was being brought into a police station one time, walking with a cop walking beside me, and there was another kid being brought in much more forcefully. The cop had the kid's arm twisted up behind the kid's back, the kid was screaming, the cop was saying "Quit resisting or I am going to break it". This made an impression on seventeen year old me. Generally, if a cop tells you to get out of the street, it's a really good idea to get out of the street.

Unless a video surfaces, we may never know the details. But I do think that part of the problem was that the officer thought he was telling a young man to get out of the street, hardly something he expected to be a big deal, and the young man thought he was about to be arrested for theft and assault; which is apt to lead to a much different response than the officer expected. and things went to hell from there.

[Winstonm]

Two people can see the same face: one sees anger and a threat, the other sees confusion and need. Is either right? To themselves, yes. And that is the crux of it.

I listened the other day to an enlightening radio interview on NPR (cannot recall the person's name) about studying the brains of sociopaths - and it so happened in this study that the researcher himself found out that he had the same anomalies in his brain as did serial killers - that the only thing different between him and "them" was that he has not suffered severe abuse or neglect in childhood; however, he could find similarities in responsive thinking in himsself: for example, when faced with a decision of going to a close relative's funeral or attending a friend's party, he would choose the party and have no bad feelings about doing so.

He went on to say he was having to teach himself "normal" social conventions of this sort because he understood he could not rely on his own instinctual behavior.

A similar type problem may be occurring in situations like this one in Missouri - not actions of sociopaths but a reliance on personal instinctual behavior that is not trustworthy as valid.

[kenrexford]

Not sure how you disagree with me, Ken. I avoided placing blame on a specific cop who shot a client of mine dead, instead blaming the general tactics. We seem to agree completely.

[kenberg]

kenrexford, on 2014-August-17, 09:05, said:

Not sure how you disagree with me, Ken. I avoided placing blame on a specific cop who shot a client of mine dead, instead blaming the general tactics. We seem to agree completely.

Ah yes, I recall that. Actual agreement! A rarity on the forum.

[y66]

kenberg, on 2014-August-17, 07:59, said:

A place where I (think I) disagree with KenR and porhaps with many is that I don't think it is reasonable to expect perfection from cops. Of course he cannot just go shoot someone, but that is not likely to be what happened. Rather there was a confrontation, it did not go well,there was a struggle, and the young man is dead. A perfect cop with perfect judgment perhaps could have handled it better. Perhaps, Or maybe not. But unpredictability is the nature of a struggle. There is a line, hard to pin down exactly, so that on one side I would say the cop was wrong, on the other side I would say he perhaps could have done better and maybe even he feels he could have done better, but the situation was tough, brutal and frightening, and he did the best he could at the time.

Maybe we will find out something that makes it possible to understand why a professionally trained law officer used lethal force in a confrontation with a jaywalking teenager. For example, maybe he was having a bad day and a situation he normally would have handled competently just spiraled out of control or maybe he just missed the class that covered that situation. In the meantime, one obvious lesson is you just don't take chances with someone who has a gun and a non-zero probability of imperfect judgment about when it's ok to pull the trigger. This isn't just something every black parent in Ferguson Missouri needs to discuss with their kids either.

[kenberg]

Winstonm, on 2014-August-17, 08:41, said:

Two people can see the same face: one sees anger and a threat, the other sees confusion and need. Is either right? To themselves, yes. And that is the crux of it.

I listened the other day to an enlightening radio interview on NPR (cannot recall the person's name) about studying the brains of sociopaths - and it so happened in this study that the researcher himself found out that he had the same anomalies in his brain as did serial killers - that the only thing different between him and "them" was that he has not suffered severe abuse or neglect in childhood; however, he could find similarities in responsive thinking in himsself: for example, when faced with a decision of going to a close relative's funeral or attending a friend's party, he would choose the party and have no bad feelings about doing so.

He went on to say he was having to teach himself "normal" social conventions of this sort because he understood he could not rely on his own instinctual behavior.

A similar type problem may be occurring in situations like this one in Missouri - not actions of sociopaths but a reliance on personal instinctual behavior that is not trustworthy as valid.

This topic is relevant to the Missouri mess, and of wider interest as well. I have a friend who refuses to use the word "choice" in discussing human actions. In my opinion he is quite wrong.Of course we all have our internal wiring and we all have our experiences growing up, but we also all make choices every day. The fact that some of these choices can be explained and perhaps even predicted based on our brain waves and our psychology not not change the fact that they are choices. If you recall the day that this interview was on, I may look it up and give it a listen.

I seem to see many young people having difficulties with life these days. Often great difficulty. Memory is tricky but I think back to my childhood. A classmate was epileptic, severely so. That was a big problem to be sure. The rest of my classmates, by the standards of the time, were not thought of as troubled. My father had a stroke. That was a problem A classmate's father committed suicide, that was a problem. There was this girl whose hands were truly clammy, I never did know what was going on with that. But we were all on a path to growing up and I think that we all did. This business about the raw material that life gives you, and what you do with it, interests me a great deal. I have few really set opinions on it, except that I am against striking the word "choice" from out vocabulary. I do trust my instincts a lot, often more than I trust logical argument. I will probably read the book that mikeh recommended on another thread.

I often think that there is a bit of a paradox. The supposedly conformist 1950s were in some ways much more forgiving of various mistakes than we currently are. I wasn't on the honor roll in high school but, afaik, I am the only graduate of that high school who has a Ph.D. But others, many others, were successful and not all of them went to college.

About prejudice and "bad parts of town". In the mid 1960s I was a grad student going to a conference at the University of Chicago. My then girlfriend was with me and we were riding the el from downtown, talking of our destination. A black guy on the train came up and told us that we should get off at such and such a stop. We should take the route he outlined. We should not take a side path. We thanked him. Those who live this life recognize reality when they see it. No bias was implied, good choices were offered.

[kenberg]

y66, on 2014-August-17, 10:15, said:

Maybe we will find out something that makes it possible to understand why a professionally trained law officer used lethal force in a confrontation with a jaywalking teenager. For example, maybe he was having a bad day and a situation he normally would have handled competently just spiraled out of control or maybe he just missed the class that covered that situation. In the meantime, one obvious lesson is you just don't take chances with someone who has a gun and a non-zero probability of imperfect judgment about when it's ok to pull the trigger. This isn't just something every black parent in Ferguson Missouri needs to discuss with their kids either.

100% agreement, most especially with the last sentence.

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2014-August-17, 10:27, said:

This topic is relevant to the Missouri mess, and of wider interest as well. I have a friend who refuses to use the word "choice" in discussing human actions. In my opinion he is quite wrong.Of course we all have our internal wiring and we all have our experiences growing up, but we also all make choices every day. The fact that some of these choices can be explained and perhaps even predicted based on our brain waves and our psychology not not change the fact that they are choices. If you recall the day that this interview was on, I may look it up and give it a listen.

I seem to see many young people having difficulties with life these days. Often great difficulty. Memory is tricky but I think back to my childhood. A classmate was epileptic, severely so. That was a big problem to be sure. The rest of my classmates, by the standards of the time, were not thought of as troubled. My father had a stroke. That was a problem A classmate's father committed suicide, that was a problem. There was this girl whose hands were truly clammy, I never did know what was going on with that. But we were all on a path to growing up and I think that we all did. This business about the raw material that life gives you, and what you do with it, interests me a great deal. I have few really set opinions on it, except that I am against striking the word "choice" from out vocabulary. I do trust my instincts a lot, often more than I trust logical argument. I will probably read the book that mikeh recommended on another thread.

I often think that there is a bit of a paradox. The supposedly conformist 1950s were in some ways much more forgiving of various mistakes than we currently are. I wasn't on the honor roll in high school but, afaik, I am the only graduate of that high school who has a Ph.D. But others, many others, were successful and not all of them went to college.

About prejudice and "bad parts of town". In the mid 1960s I was a grad student going to a conference at the University of Chicago. My then girlfriend was with me and we were riding the el from downtown, talking of our destination. A black guy on the train came up and told us that we should get off at such and such a stop. We should take the route he outlined. We should not take a side path. We thanked him. Those who live this life recognize reality when they see it. No bias was implied, good choices were offered.

Ken, I'm sorry but I don't remember the date - I just had the car radio on and was only half-listening and then the discussion became interesting and I started to listen more closely. All I can say is that it must have been on during the daytime sometime in the past 7 days, before Aug. 16th.

Here is a link to an NPR article concerning this same man.

[kenberg]

Winstonm, on 2014-August-17, 10:54, said:

Ken, I'm sorry but I don't remember the date - I just had the car radio on and was only half-listening and then the discussion became interesting and I started to listen more closely. All I can say is that it must have been on during the daytime sometime in the past 7 days, before Aug. 16th.

Here is a link to an NPR article concerning this same man.

I read it, and I then listened to his TED talk at https://www.ted.com/...killer#t-333123

A disclaimer: I am not at all claiming that anything there bears at all on the events in Ferguson. The young man behaved badly (ok, an understatement) in the convenience store, that is not at all the sort of thing being talked about by Fallon.

I found it very interesting.

[Winstonm]

Ken,

I found this link to a transcript of the radio show I heard. By the date, it looks like I heard a rebroadcast.

[blackshoe]

kenrexford, on 2014-August-17, 04:52, said:

I don't know that not going to some areas after dark s a "bias" rather than self preservation. A friend of mine in law school was so unwilling to violate his sense of conscience that he walked down a known dangerous street in D.C. in the very early morning. An older gentleman started laughing from his yard, yelling out to him that he was a stupid white man to be walking around alone. My friend took the advice. Was that bias? Maybe, but probably not bias by my friend.

When I first moved to Rochester, my friend, who was a police dispatcher, gave me a map of the city with a bunch of red circles on it. "What's with the circles?" I asked. "Don't go there," he replied. I never have.

[y66]

OP, you asked about solutions. This guy has some thoughtful suggestions for tackling part of the problem.