Watch Capt. Ron Johnson’s amazing Michael Brown speech

[natina]

Watch Capt. Ron Johnson’s amazing Michael Brown speech

FERGUSON, MO (KTVI) – The new leader of the policing effort in Ferguson (http://fox2now.com/2014/08/14/missouri-highway-patrol-to-take-over-policing-in-ferguson/), Missouri Highway Patrol Captain Ron Johnson, opens the unity rally at Greater Grace Church with a rousing speech. It brought down the house.
He starts by talking to Michael Brown’s family. He says, “I am sorry. I wear this uniform and I should say that I am sorry.”
“This is my neighborhood. You are my family, friends. And I am you. I will stand to protect you. To protect your right to protest. I came in here today and saw people cheering and clapping. This is what the media needs to put on TV.” said Captain Ron Johnson.
He goes on to say, “The last 24 hours have been tough for me. I did an interview last night and the reporter said, something is wrong, your tone has changed. Are you tired or is something bothering you? I said my heart is heavy. Last night I met members of Michael Brown’s family. They brought tears to my eyes. “
He then talks about the story of Peter and Jesus in the Bible .”When this is over I’m going to go into my son’s room. My black son. Who wears his pants saggy, his hat cocked to the side, got tattoos on his arms. But, that is my baby. ” said Captain Ron Johnson.
He continues, “And we all ought to be thanking the Brown’s for Michael. Because Michael is going to make it better for our sons to be better black men. Better for our daughters to be better black women. Better for me so I can be a better black father. And, our mothers, so they can be even better than they are today. Lets continue to show the nation who we are. But, when these days are over and Michael’s family is still weeping, still on their knees praying. No matter what positive comes out, we still need to get on our knees and pray. We need to thank Mike for his life. We need to thank him for the change that he is going to make in America. I love you, I stand tall with you and I’ll see you out there.”
A loud, standing ovation filled the auditorium at Greater Grace Church.

http://fox2now.com/2014/08/17/watch-capt-ron-johnsons-amazing-michael-brown-speech/

[buttslinger]

Is this Natina or Bryant Gumbel?
This is different for me than Trayvon Martin, because Trayvon was just walking home bothering no-one, but it's pretty clear to me that Michael Brown was going down the road mad at the World and just waiting for someone to get in his way. Unfortunately, that someone was a Cop who gave him an order he didn't like. When a Black Father gives his Son "THE TALK" it's not about the birds and bees, it's about the Po-lice, right?

I am 100% White Bread, and I look at this case through The Law, which is hard to do, because the Ferguson Police Dept was in way over it's head on this one. It should be interesting to hear the cop's side of the story. It's telling that we haven't yet.

[notdrunk]

Is this Natina or Bryant Gumbel?
This is different for me than Trayvon Martin, because Trayvon was just walking home bothering no-one, but it's pretty clear to me that Michael Brown was going down the road mad at the World and just waiting for someone to get in his way. Unfortunately, that someone was a Cop who gave him an order he didn't like. When a Black Father gives his Son "THE TALK" it's not about the birds and bees, it's about the Po-lice, right?

I am 100% White Bread, and I look at this case through The Law, which is hard to do, because the Ferguson Police Dept was in way over it's head on this one. It should be interesting to hear the cop's side of the story. It's telling that we haven't yet.

Don't believe that "THE TALK" bullshit. There is no special talk between every black father and his child about the police. I got the feeling that Michael Brown thought he was caught because he did "allegedly" (it is on camera) committed a crime that used violence and intimidation before his interaction with the police officer. So, it won't be shocking that he might of acted in a hostile matter. It won't also be the first time that somebody decided to fight the police; however, this interaction rose to the level of deadly force.

The only true thing we know is Michael Brown wasn't shot in his back while running from the police officer.

[broncofan]

The problem is that in the George Zimmerman cases there were many possible factual reconstructions and some of them were helpful to Zimmerman and some of them harmful.

In this case, even if we can't pin down one version of what happened, I can't imagine anything that would help the officer. Brown was unarmed, he was not within arm's length when he was shot, he was shot six times....witnesses claim he was surrendering when he was shot.

If Zimmerman supporters want to look like they said they thought he was innocent out of genuine concern for due process and not animus for African-Americans, this would be a great opportunity to explain the difference in the facts between these cases (while acknowledging this officer looks guilty as hell at this point). Because unless some really powerful new information comes to light, I can't imagine this shooting falling within any of the variations of the doctrine known as self-defense.

[broncofan]

Another difference is that a whole variety of factual scenarios were pulled together in the Zimmerman case without eyewitness testimony. Here, the facts are more damning for the officer and are supported by several eyewitness accounts. They were not in an inside struggle when a single shot was fired.

I know there are preliminary claims at this point about another eyewitness version but so far nobody has come forward claiming Brown was bullrushing the officer (a friend of the officer regurgitated this dubious version as hearsay).

Anyhow, let's see if anything develops...because right now the eyewitness accounts look bad for the officer.

[notdrunk]

The problem is that in the George Zimmerman cases there were many possible factual reconstructions and some of them were helpful to Zimmerman and some of them harmful.

In this case, even if we can't pin down one version of what happened, I can't imagine anything that would help the officer. Brown was unarmed, he was not within arm's length when he was shot, he was shot six times....witnesses claim he was surrendering when he was shot.

If Zimmerman supporters want to look like they said they thought he was innocent out of genuine concern for due process and not animus for African-Americans, this would be a great opportunity to explain the difference in the facts between these cases (while acknowledging this officer looks guilty as hell at this point). Because unless some really powerful new information comes to light, I can't imagine this shooting falling within any of the variations of the doctrine known as self-defense.

One of the main witnesses that claimed Michael was surrendering is a friend of Michael and he was "involved" in the crime that Michael committed before the interaction. So, his credibility is out of the window. Witnesses are an awesome tool in investigations; however, they can be full of shit at times.

Again, the only true thing we know is he wasn't shot in his back. Michael was facing the police officer when he died. There are instances when deadly force can be used when a person is unarmed. Investigations help determine if the shooting was legal or illegal.

[broncofan]

One of the main witnesses that claimed Michael was surrendering is a friend of Michael and he was "involved" in the crime that Michael committed before the interaction. So, his credibility is out of the window. Witnesses are an awesome tool in investigations; however, they can be full of shit at times.

Again, the only true thing we know is he wasn't shot in his back. Michael was facing the police officer when he died. There are instances when deadly force can be used when a person is unarmed. Investigations help determine if the shooting was legal or illegal.
His friend's credibility can be questioned at trial but his testimony is not disqualified. There were also two other witnesses and nobody has identified with the police officer's version (as told through a friend who was not present).

Deadly force can be used when a person is unarmed, but it would have to be a very unusual situation. The person would not just have to have a subjective belief that they were in imminent and life-threatening danger, it would also have to be reasonable (this is the objective component).

One of the possible scenarios in the Zimmerman case that in my view convinced the jurors that Zimmerman acted in proper self-defense was the image of a person being straddled and beaten on concrete pavement. If that is what happened, it is a compelling image and someone might have a reasonable belief in that scenario that if they don't act they will be killed. I think we've already heard from two witnesses they were not in close proximity to one another. There wasn't a struggle. There wasn't anything that looked like a gun that justified a mistake on the part of the officer or six bullets, one to the top of his head.

If the witnesses are to be believed (two non-parties I think), then I really think he's in trouble. And so far the witness's story sounds much more plausible than the police officer's.

[Ben in LA]

Don't believe that "THE TALK" bullshit. There is no special talk between every black father and his child about the police.
Unless you're black, speak for yourself. My parents game me that talk at an early age and reiterated it as I got older. They should know about racial problems since they were raised in the deep south during the 50s and 60s.


When a Black Father gives his Son "THE TALK" it's not about the birds and bees, it's about the Po-lice, right?
You'd better believe it.

[trish]

...this interaction rose to the level of deadly force.
It rose quickly and unilaterally to the level of deadly force, as only the police had the means to raise it to that level.

Btw: My father had That Talk with all of his children and most my friends report the same.

[Stavros]

Deadly force can be used when a person is unarmed, but it would have to be a very unusual situation. The person would not just have to have a subjective belief that they were in imminent and life-threatening danger, it would also have to be reasonable (this is the objective component).


To me this is an argument in jurisprudence that has no connection to real life. It has happened so many times before in the USA and also in the UK where the policemen allowed to carry guns have to have special training before they are allowed to go on a mission.

It seems that no matter how many armed policemen are confronting one man, in too many situations over the years they are unable to use their training to disable the person but must instead kill him, and not with one shot, but multiple shots, often with one entering the head. From where I am sitting, this was quite simply murder, and it is not good enough to say a policeman 'panicked' when policemen are trained not to panic in dangerous situations. Armed police in London managed to shoot, disable and arrest the two men who murdered Lee Rigby and they were armed with knives and guns, were determined to kill as many as they could and did indeed run toward the police with that intention, so it is not impossible in the most critical of confrontations to make an arrest.

[broncofan]

To me this is an argument in jurisprudence that has no connection to real life. It has happened so many times before in the USA and also in the UK where the policemen allowed to carry guns have to have special training before they are allowed to go on a mission.

It seems that no matter how many armed policemen are confronting one man, in too many situations over the years they are unable to use their training to disable the person but must instead kill him, and not with one shot, but multiple shots, often with one entering the head. From where I am sitting, this was quite simply murder, and it is not good enough to say a policeman 'panicked' when policemen are trained not to panic in dangerous situations.
I agree. I think it was murder too. What's interesting is that when people construct stories, they intuitively know what they would have to argue in order to convince people violence is necessary. So, the police officer's version is that Michael Brown was trying to get his gun. But this doesn't explain why he was shot six times at range and not close distance. If a police officer shoots someone who doesn't have a gun they have to have a very compelling reason...for instance that the gun went off while they were both wrestling for it.

[buttslinger]

The Police are trained to unload their guns on somebody when they shoot. If you're shooting to kill, which is your only possible reason for shooting, then throw every bullet you've got at the guy. It's not a sporting event.

The cop is going to say that an enraged huge furious Michael Brown turned and raised his hands intent to charge the officer.

[notdrunk]

It rose quickly and unilaterally to the level of deadly force, as only the police had the means to raise it to that level.

Btw: My father had That Talk with all of his children and most my friends report the same.

So? So what if the police officer had the means to raise it to that level? Society affords them under certain circumstances to use deadly force. We give them "trust" that they know when to use it or not. When they break that trust, we are supposedly to allow the justice system to handle the police officer. That is why a grand jury is investigating if the shooting was legal or not.

I said every black father. Every black father doesn't give that talk.

[trish]

I said every black father. Every black father doesn't give that talk.Wow! What bravado! you really went out on a limb there. I'm not contending that my father's example was sufficient to prove a universal proposition; I would contend it's not an atypical example.


So? So what if the police officer had the means to raise it to that level? Society affords them under certain circumstances to use deadly force. We give them "trust" that they know when to use it or not. When they break that trust, we are supposedly to allow the justice system to handle the police officer. That is why a grand jury is investigating if the shooting was legal or not.
You missed the point which is that in this case it was ONLY the police, not Michael Brown, who had the means to raise the confrontation to the level of deadly force.

[notdrunk]

Wow! What bravado! you really went out on a limb there. I'm not contending that my father's example was sufficient to prove a universal proposition; I would contend it's not an atypical example.

You missed the point which is that in this case it was ONLY the police, not Michael Brown, who had the means to raise the confrontation to the level of deadly force.

Some people grapes but do all eat people grapes? No.

And, my point is so what? If the encounter turned violent, deadly force might of been needed. Michael Brown wasn't some 4 year old kid weighing 40 pounds. That is why a grand jury is deciding if deadly force was necessary.

[broncofan]

I think the so what is that most state laws don't provide police officers with the right to use more force than any other citizen under the circumstances. Yet the way people think about this situation, somehow his status as a police officer gives him a right to use more force than Michael Brown would facing an equivalent threat.

The officer was not acting on the suspicion that Michael Brown had committed a robbery. They've admitted that. In order for something to justify self-defense the actor has to be aware of it.

He could have been 6'8 and 400 pounds, if he has surrendered like the only two non-party eyewitnesses say he did, then why was he shot? More will come out if a trial approaches but I don't really understand what the basis of your defense of the police officer is.

[broncofan]

Some people grapes but do all eat people grapes? No.

I think you conceded the main point in exchange for a quibble.

[notdrunk]

I think you conceded the main point in exchange for a quibble.

I made a simple comment to something. And, a couple of individuals (including her) decided to make anecdotal statements about it. It doesn't make my original statement false.

[trish]

I made a simple comment Agreed.

[Ben in LA]

This is how Black parents talk to their sons about the police (http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/08/21/this-is-how-black-parents-talk-to-their-sons-about-the-police/). Every black person (not just males) I know have had this talk an have received it from their parents. So fuck that myth shit.

[notdrunk]

This is how Black parents talk to their sons about the police (http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/08/21/this-is-how-black-parents-talk-to-their-sons-about-the-police/). Every black person (not just males) I know have had this talk an have received it from their parents. So fuck that myth shit.

Thanks for more anecdotal evidence...:banana:

[trish]

Thanks for more anecdotal evidence...While you are demanding scientific evidence of others, you have conspicuously neglected to provide any peer reviewed and published documentation for your own claim, namely that not every African/American father talks with his son about the peculiar, troubled and often lethal relationship between the police and young black men. Just one documented, peer reviewed counterexample in a scientific journal would suffice to establish your claim. Until then it’s just your belief, which btw lacks even anecdotal evidence.

While I’m with you, regarding the veracity of that silly, simple minded claim (after all, there’s gotta be at least one irresponsible black father, right?) we both know that your initial meaning went beyond the literal interpretation. It was, after all, intended to confute the claim in Gawker (as referenced in Buttslinger's post), which everyone who read it knows wasn’t a claim about every single black man and his son. It’s clear to any speaker of the English language that universal quantification is only one interpretation of the word “every” or the word “any” or the word “everyone”.

The fallacy you made is known as equivocation. That you made it deliberately, does not speak well of your intellectual integrity nor your honesty more generally.

It’s really laughable that you now cower behind the trivial misconstrual after having pretended to the larger claim that the whole idea of the this long standing African/American ritual was mere myth. As bronco said, you have effectively conceded the larger point by choosing to divert attention upon the trivial.

[Prospero]

..........

[notdrunk]

While you are demanding scientific evidence of others, you have conspicuously neglected to provide any peer reviewed and published documentation for your own claim, namely that not every African/American father talks with his son about the peculiar, troubled and often lethal relationship between the police and young black men. Just one documented, peer reviewed counterexample in a scientific journal would suffice to establish your claim. Until then it’s just your belief, which btw lacks even anecdotal evidence.

While I’m with you, regarding the veracity of that silly, simple minded claim (after all, there’s gotta be at least one irresponsible black father, right?) we both know that your initial meaning went beyond the literal interpretation. It was, after all, intended to confute the claim in Gawker (as referenced in Buttslinger's post), which everyone who read it knows wasn’t a claim about every single black man and his son. It’s clear to any speaker of the English language that universal quantification is only one interpretation of the word “every” or the word “any” or the word “everyone”.

The fallacy you made is known as equivocation. That you made it deliberately, does not speak well of your intellectual integrity nor your honesty more generally.

It’s really laughable that you now cower behind the trivial misconstrual after having pretended to the larger claim that the whole idea of the this long standing African/American ritual was mere myth. As bronco said, you have effectively conceded the larger point by choosing to divert attention upon the trivial.

I simply know that every black father doesn't give a special talk about the police. Why would I make that claim?

The insinuation is that when a black father gives his son "THE TALK" it is not about the birds and bees, it is about the police. The assertion is false. Not all black fathers do that. Some black fathers do it. It was an insinuation that every black father does it. Nowhere in his original post he mentioned a Gawker article.

I called it bullshit, I didn't call it a myth.

[trish]

The insinuation is that when a black father gives his son "THE TALK" it is not about the birds and bees, it is about the police. That's just an idiotic presumption on your part and once again a willful misconstrual of the claim. There no insinuation that the police talk substitutes for the sex talk, but rather it is as typical among African/American families as the sex talk.


I simply knowBullshit. You don't even have anecdotal evidence. Let's see the scientific proof in a peer reviewed journal. You're asking no less of others.

[notdrunk]

That's just an idiotic presumption on your part and once again a willful misconstrual of the claim. There no insinuation that the police talk substitutes for the sex talk, but rather it is as typical among African/American families as the sex talk.

Bullshit. You don't even have anecdotal evidence. Let's see the scientific proof in a peer reviewed journal. You're asking no less of others.

When did I say it replaced the sex talk? Nowhere. I simply replied to a condescending question. Here is the "smart" question, again:



When a Black Father gives his Son "THE TALK" it's not about the birds and bees, it's about the Po-lice, right?

Here is my original reply:



Don't believe that "THE TALK" bullshit. There is no special talk between every black father and his child about the police.

Where did I say that it replaced the sex talk or that it is a myth? I knew what he was talking about. I absolutely know that every black father doesn't give bring that subject up to his son(s). I can't help you got all defensive for some unknown reason.

:banana:

[trish]

In post #24:
The insinuation is that when a black father gives his son "THE TALK" it is not about the birds and bees, it is about the police. Maybe you just have trouble expressing yourself, but that's describes the substitution of kind of talk for another.


I absolutely knowNo you don't ABSOLUTELY know. You insist on interpreting “every” in the strict sense of Predicate Logic, then it’s only reasonable to apply that same mathematical rigor to your interpretation of the phrase, “I absolutely know.”

Were you anyone else I might accept an anecdotal counterexample as sufficient proof of your claim, but you have already demonstrated your lack of honesty and willingness to deceive. If our use of anecdotal evidence doesn’t persuade you, why should we accept anecdotal evidence from a proven liar? Why should we accept the baseless assertion, "I absolutely know"?

[notdrunk]

In post #24:Maybe you just have trouble expressing yourself, but that's describes the substitution of kind of talk for another.

No you don't ABSOLUTELY know. You insist on interpreting “every” in the strict sense of Predicate Logic, then it’s only reasonable to apply that same mathematical rigor to your interpretation of the phrase, “I absolutely know.”

Were you anyone else I might accept an anecdotal counterexample as sufficient proof of your claim, but you have already demonstrated your lack of honesty and willingness to deceive. If our use of anecdotal evidence doesn’t persuade you, why should we accept anecdotal evidence from a proven liar? Why should we accept the baseless assertion, "I absolutely know"?

THE TALK as the major talk given by a father to his son. That is why "THE TALK" is capitalized. The assertion was the major talk given by a black father to his son was about the police and the criminal justice system. While the major talk given by the white father to his son was about sex. I challenged that assertion. It doesn't mean the sex talk goes away for the black family. The black father still gives the sex talk to his son. You are trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.

It is odd that you know over 44 million people. Apparently, those 44 million people are the same on this issue. If somehow they don't follow your belief on this issue, there is something odd with them. By the way, did I ever mention my ethnic background in this thread? :banana:

My original statement still stands: Not all black fathers give a special talk about the police to their sons. This thread has been derailed because of you for no reason. I find it strange that my statement seems shocking enough that it elicits a lot of negative vibes from you.

[trish]

The assertion was the major talk given by a black father to his son was about the police and the criminal justice system. While the major talk given by the white father to his son was about sex. I challenged that assertion. Finally you make a substantial claim (assuming you no longer insist on the strict interpretation of the quantifier) and you make it with good manners. Thank you. Can you substantiate it with anything other than anecdotal evidence?

[notdrunk]

Finally you make a substantial claim (assuming you no longer insist on the strict interpretation of the quantifier) and you make it with good manners. Thank you. Can you substantiate it with anything other than anecdotal evidence?

I can feel the love in your post...:cheers:

Anecdotal evidence is sufficient enough to support my claim because the assertion makes a generalization that black fathers have sort of talk about the police with their sons. It is a fallacy. The assertion is false because I didn't receive this so-called talk from my father. I am pretty sure I am not the only one. Actually, it is kinda of impossible. And, by the way, my father wasn't irresponsible by not talking to me about the police. Why? So far, I never had an issues with the police and the criminal justice system. I wonder why...

Then again, I did have to sit in the jury room from early morning until late afternoon doing nothing. I guess I can complain that the criminal justice system made my butt sore from sitting in a chair.

[trish]

I see you choose to continue this discussion.

Of course you could’ve ended this particular line of discourse back on page one simply by asserting something like...

“You make the assertion that the major talk given by a black father to his son is about the police and the criminal justice system, while the major talk given by the white father to his son was about sex. Your evidence is anecdotal. I’m a black man and my father never gave me The Police Talk but I did get The Sex Talk and that can be taken as anecdotal evidence for the negation your claim.”

This whole circuitous route was about you wanting to call bullshit but not wanting to admit that your evidence was also no better than anecdotal.

Now let's review your current claim.

The assertion was the major talk given by a black father to his son was about the police and the criminal justice system. While the major talk given by the white father to his son was about sex. I challenged that assertion.
This asserts The Sex talk is still the "major" talk given even in African/American families. It's difficult to see how anecdotal evidence or anything short of a survey can settle this question one way or the other.

[notdrunk]

I see you choose to continue this discussion.

Of course you could’ve ended this particular line of discourse back on page one simply by asserting something like...

“You make the assertion that the major talk given by a black father to his son is about the police and the criminal justice system, while the major talk given by the white father to his son was about sex. Your evidence is anecdotal. I’m a black man and my father never gave me The Police Talk but I did get The Sex Talk and that can be taken as anecdotal evidence for the negation your claim.”

This whole circuitous route was about you wanting to call bullshit but not wanting to admit that your evidence was also no better than anecdotal.

Now let's review your current claim.

This asserts The Sex talk is still the "major" talk given even in African/American families. It's difficult to see how anecdotal evidence or anything short of a survey can settle this question one way or the other.

I called it "bullshit" because it is my personal opinion on that talk. I consider the so-called talk to be non-sense. Non-sense as in hypocritical in my opinion. I followed it by stating that not every black father does that talk. Which is correct. You over-analyzed my statement. You took my statement as something extreme; however, it wasn't an extreme statement.

[trish]

Don't believe that "THE TALK" bullshit. There is no special talk between every black father and his child about the police. ...


I called it "bullshit" because it is my personal opinion on that talk. I consider the so-called talk to be non-sense. Non-sense as in hypocritical in my opinion. ...

With this we move from the meta-discussion about how typical or how atypical “the talk” (about encounters with law enforcement) is to concerns about whether or not the talk itself amounts to nonsense, or is useful advice, or necessary advice or just “bullshit.”

It seems to me that a lot of what people say about “the talk” (look up the Gawker article) is good advice for everyone regardless of race. When stopped by law enforcement, keep your hands in sight at all times. Don’t make any sudden moves. Ask permission to retrieve your license or registration card from the glove box. Don’t get out of the car unless you’re told. Don’t mouth off, get cute, smart alecky or sassy. Pretty much common sense stuff which given the statistics seems like it would be especially good advice for young African/American males.

Like most semi-formal talks between parent and teen, it can be a pretty uncomfortable talk. It’s hilarious to hear my brothers recount Dad’s version of the birds and bees talk. I don’t think its particularly “hypocritical” unless the parent giving the advice never follows it. I think it’s a charge perhaps more easily leveled at a parent delivering the standard “sex talk.” But regardless of whether the deliverer or not is a hypocrite, the advice delivered can be sound.

Should every African/American parent have a sit down with their teen and discuss how one should behave during encounters with law enforcement? It’s not a bad idea. It’s utility may depend on where you live. I grew up in rural southern Pennsylvania. We didn’t get “the police talk” until we decided to spend a week in Baltimore visiting two of my Dad’s brothers. Turns out we didn’t need it, but it did keep us on our best behavior.

http://gawker.com/what-black-parents-tell-their-sons-about-the-police-1624412625

[fred41]

With this we move from the meta-discussion about how typical or how atypical “the talk” (about encounters with law enforcement) is to concerns about whether or not the talk itself amounts to nonsense, or is useful advice, or necessary advice or just “bullshit.”

It seems to me that a lot of what people say about “the talk” (look up the Gawker article) is good advice for everyone regardless of race. When stopped by law enforcement, keep your hands in sight at all times. Don’t make any sudden moves. Ask permission to retrieve your license or registration card from the glove box. Don’t get out of the car unless you’re told. Don’t mouth off, get cute, smart alecky or sassy. Pretty much common sense stuff which given the statistics seems like it would be especially good advice for young African/American males.

Like most semi-formal talks between parent and teen, it can be a pretty uncomfortable talk. It’s hilarious to hear my brothers recount Dad’s version of the birds and bees talk. I don’t think its particularly “hypocritical” unless the parent giving the advice never follows it. I think it’s a charge perhaps more easily leveled at a parent delivering the standard “sex talk.” But regardless of whether the deliverer or not is a hypocrite, the advice delivered can be sound.

Should every African/American parent have a sit down with their teen and discuss how one should behave during encounters with law enforcement? It’s not a bad idea. It’s utility may depend on where you live. I grew up in rural southern Pennsylvania. We didn’t get “the police talk” until we decided to spend a week in Baltimore visiting two of my Dad’s brothers. Turns out we didn’t need it, but it did keep us on our best behavior.

http://gawker.com/what-black-parents-tell-their-sons-about-the-police-1624412625

A parent's role should be instructing their children on all important aspects of life...especially where safety is concerned. A parent should explain what their child should do in a possible interaction with the police at some point in their life...not only what they should do, but also why the parent feels that way. Because most of us , if we drive or are a passenger in a car, will at the very least, get caught up in a traffic stop, at some point in our lives.

That being said...I got my instructions on what to do during a traffic stop in my teens, by the son of a police officer - hands in sight...on the wheel or dash...pretty much everything Trish said in her second paragraph...and you would think it's common sense...but far too many people lack it.

[trish]

http://nyti.ms/1mAexeT

http://nyti.ms/1mAuT79

[Turlington]

..........

[Silcc69]

This is how Black parents talk to their sons about the police (http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/08/21/this-is-how-black-parents-talk-to-their-sons-about-the-police/). Every black person (not just males) I know have had this talk an have received it from their parents. So fuck that myth shit.

Unless you were raised in a religious, conservative, republican household such as myself. :whistle::whistle::whistle::whistle::whistle:

[broncofan]

Some people are reluctant to admit it but white privilege exists. Except I think the privilege is not dealing with systematic disadvantage or being treated as alien in your own country.

I read a study one time that said that discussion of racism or mistreatment of a minority group results in physiological signs of anger in a majority group member hearing about it. It might be a feeling of futility that you are not directly responsible for the circumstances that brought about that condition and are powerless to do anything about it. But what you can do is acknowledge it as true. Put aside the feelings of mis-placed guilt, or anger, or frustration, and analyze it soberly and speak truthfully.

What is so amazing is that even with white privilege or any sort of privilege life is still not easy (this might be a ready source of the denial). But any time there's a systematic disadvantage, such as harassment by police, poor health care, inequality at every stage of the criminal justice system, it's only right to admit it.

[fred41]

I read a study one time that said that discussion of racism or mistreatment of a minority group results in physiological signs of anger in a majority group member hearing about it. It might be a feeling of futility that you are not directly responsible for the circumstances that brought about that condition and are powerless to do anything about it. But what you can do is acknowledge it as true. Put aside the feelings of mis-placed guilt, or anger, or frustration, and analyze it soberly and speak truthfully.

What is so amazing is that even with white privilege or any sort of privilege life is still not easy (this might be a ready source of the denial). But any time there's a systematic disadvantage, such as harassment by police, poor health care, inequality at every stage of the criminal justice system, it's only right to admit it.

I think you nailed it with what I put in bold.
Someone else mentioned a variation of this sentence in another thread.
White privilege exists,...no doubt.
But while many of us either started out with or worked our way up to a level of comfort where we actually have the leisure time to enter into a discussion about that, on a site such as this...and have the ability to reflect on a fact such as this...
the white blue collar worker who is scraping by working several menial, backbreaking jobs...who perhaps never got to college because he or she couldn't afford it...or just missed being able to get the marks, or maybe never even got through high school cause he had to work in a factory very early in life (like my dad), or may have did jail time for BS drug arrests, or might have got his or her ass kicked and robbed or just beat up for shits and giggles by walking through the wrong neighborhood at the wrong time...just like people of other races...or lives a hollow dead end existence in a shitty town or city or rural area that was abandoned of any jobs or prosperity a long long time ago...
people like that may recognize that white privilege exists, but they never really had any reason to appreciate that fact.
...and so they really don't want to hear about it.
When you're miserable...you really don't want to hear about an advantage you're supposed to have.


(edit...BTW, I think it was Buttslinger that said something like that somewhere...)

[broncofan]

When I thought of that line I did think I hit on something (even if you now tell me Buttslinger said something like it first:)). My aesthetic objection to "white privilege" is that I've been a beneficiary of it and life is tough and I've experienced only the most moderate and sporadic successes in life. Does being a beneficiary of white privilege qualify as one more life failure, or put in a new light those other failures I've experienced despite it?

But I can think of several times in my life where things would have been difficult without it. I got in trouble as a youth. My penance was academic suspension and one extra essay for college. I can almost guarantee you there would be no "boys will be boys" or "growing pains" excuses otherwise.

But yes I recognize that the privilege can be hard to identify in the sense that it's a relative privilege...it may be better thought of as white privilege to African Americans and the lack of systematic disadvantage to white people.

[fred41]

conversely...the black guy who gets stopped by law enforcement for no reason...or gets caught up in a buy and bust because he was talking to drug dealers (because he happens to live in that neighborhood, can't get to a better one at this point...and those were his friends growing up)...or the latino dude who puts up with "wet back" BS...when he was born here...or is puerto rican (but white idiots still don't realize that this means they're citizens..lol)...or he is, in fact, undocumented...but he's busy working really tough jobs for little money and sending most of it home while living in a cramped room somewhere...
...people like that don't want to hear how things are getting better.

[fred41]

But yes I recognize that the privilege can be hard to identify in the sense that it's a relative privilege...it may be better thought of as white privilege to African Americans and the lack of systematic disadvantage to white people.

Yes, exactly. I agree completely.



Throughout most of my life, I can't always see (or appreciate) how my skin color was an advantage to me.
But I can certainly see how it wasn't a disadvantage either.

[Silcc69]

UPDATE: Police considering charges (http://www.mlive.com/news/kalamazoo/index.ssf/2014/05/police_considering_charges_aga.html#incart_river_d efault)
KALAMAZOO, MI — A man who was acting strangely while openly carrying a rifle on the sidewalk prompted a large police response in Kalamazoo (http://topics.mlive.com/tag/Kalamazoo/index.html) Sunday afternoon.
Kalamazoo Public Safety Lt. Stacey Geik said officers were called to Cork Street Coin Laundry, 823 E. Cork St., at 4:05 p.m. on a report of a man who appeared to be intoxicated openly carrying a rifle outside of the laundromat and across the street at an Auto Zone.
Geik said police believed the man was an open carry advocate who was attempting to demonstrate his Second Amendment rights, but the possibility of the man being intoxicated prompted an officer to be dispatched to the scene to try to speak with the man.
"(The officer) asked the guy if he could talk to him and the guy went into an (expletive)-laden tirade, 'the revolution's coming, I don't have to talk to you, etcetera, etcetera,'" Geik said.
Geik said that while the man wasn't brandishing the rifle, he noted that the gun did not have a strap, which caused the man to hold the weapon in both hands and continue to "fidget" with it.
Tunji Ademodi, who works at the laundromat, said he couldn't believe when he heard the man shout obscenities at officers.
"He's just sitting there calling them all kind of pigs and F-U and this and that and grabbing himself," Ademodi said. "It was unreal."
Officers eventually convinced the man to set down his gun, upon which time it was seized. Geik said the man was informed he would have his weapon returned to him if he would agree to submit to a breathalyzer test, which he repeatedly refused.
"He was given the option to keep his rifle if he submitted to the PBT," Geik said. "He refused and basically told us to jam it.
He did not receive a citation, but Geik said he would be speaking further with the man tomorrow.

Geik said it was unfortunate that the man's actions led to such a large police response, but noted that there are open carry advocates throughout the country who demonstrate their Second Amendment rights without acting hostile towards police.
"We got the original 911 call of a guy saying he might be drunk. You got a guy armed with a rifle it's not in a sling, it's not in a holster, he's handling it; he's completely hostile and over the top with his profanity toward police officers; and then it turned into this."

Alex Mitchell covers county government and taxes for the Kalamazoo Gazette. Email him at amitche5@mlive.com (https://blog.advance.net/mt-static/html/amitche5@mlive.com) or follow him on Twitter (https://twitter.com/Alex_Mitchell67).

http://www.mlive.com/news/kalamazoo/index.ssf/2014/05/police_considering_charges_aga.html#incart_river_d efault

Let's see a black man try that.