What does it mean for us Europeans, who still have, for the moment, more lenient police? Should we expect that America uprises against their own police? Draw a Fergusson every 3 months? Becomes either less economically stable or more economically agressive? Should we expect that US' political influence requires us to step up our police, the same way France escalated an NSA-style law six months ago? It worries me that a friend country's police goes more totalitarian, but are there actual consequences on us?
It's an open question. For the last 6 years I've refused to set foot in US (and even declined free tickets to a very important tech conference in my field) because of your unpredictable trigger-friendly police [1] and your guantanamo-friendly interviews at border control [2]. I wonder it your unstability could reach me in Europe.
[1] Being a foreigner, I'm not protected by your constitution and the officers haven't sworn to protect and serve me.
[2] I do believe an intent to go to a conference could randomly be recategorized as seeking work, which is illegal, and using a false Facebook name could be recategorized as identity theft. I do believe it's therefore possible to be retained at your border for an undefined amount of time, with no record and no rights to a lawyer. I do believe I'd be upset in this situation and I could end up sentenced for life in your prisons.
For what it's worth, I feel the same way as you do about the US, and I'm a US citizen. I've told friends that I may return to the US "when the US becomes a democracy again."
Unchecked police brutality is just one of a complex of problems I see in the news: The private for-profit prison industry that lobbies for more and longer incarcerations, the bail-and-debt system, civil forfeitures, plea bargaining, the unabashed wiretapping and widespread weakening of 4th Amendment rights... if you describe the US system of "justice" to a neutral party, he will guess you're talking about Russia or maybe North Korea.
To answer your question, whether that state reaches Europe depends on whether the US' war of the rich on the poor spreads to Europe. The statesmen of the US are cheaply purchased pawns of various rich industries, and law & order are replaced by high-tech feudalism. If Europe finds itself ruled by corrupt evil clowns like the US is, then we'll see similar conditions here.
That said, I have no idea how it will go. I have no knack at all for predicting politics. I'm betting on kicking the bucket before shit hits the fan.
The next US response will be gradual de-escalation of its police aggressiveness.
The beginning of the end of the war on drugs, body cameras, attention being cast on asset seizures and minimum mandatory sentencing - it has become obvious to most of the population that over the last 30 years the policing system has gotten out of control. You know it's understood to be bad when the president is openly discussing how much worse imprisonment is in the US than other countries, and becomes the first sitting president to visit a federal prison.
Except that it is possible this will become politicized. If one party becomes identified as the party supporting prison and law enforcement reform then the other party will then by default have to be the party opposing that. Then when THEY get into office they will oppose reforms. I hope this politicization does not happen but I am worried it may.
Your reaction is extreme. Working professionals from rich countries that come to the US on short term Visas are not subjected to intense scrutiny. No one is prosecuted for the name on their Facebook account.
You need to be a bit more careful with sweeping generalizations like "no one." Here are two cases just off the top of my head that almost perfectly contradict what you wrote.
While those incidents are obviously outrageous, refusal at the border isn't the same as prosecution and certainly nobody was sentenced to life imprisonment.
I grant part of that. But now _you_ have to tell me: How do you claim to know that no one was arrested and suffered life imprisonment? The point you seem to be missing is that you have no way of knowing!
This is the "wonderful" thing about the Patriot Act: Even as an American citizen, you could be disappeared and shipped to a foreign country for torturing... and there's a good chance no one would find out, for years, maybe forever. I don't think you have an idea of how significant this is. America does not operate under the rule of law.
>The border guard then escorted him to his car and made sure he did a U-turn and went back to Canada.
>To their surprise, however, when they arrived at L.A. International, they were not only detained and questioned at length by U.S. authorities, but were swiftly -- after a night in the cells, naturally -- plonked back on a plane back to England, and barred from entering the United States again.
I'm not sure what you mean. They were each returned to their respective countries.
> For the last 6 years I've refused to set foot in US
I have never been to the US, and although a trip to California would be an obvious to-do in my profession, the main reason I don't consider it is the death penalty.
It sounds so unattractive to visit countries stuck with such laws. Despite all the nice things they have to offer.
It might be easier to understand from a European perspective. [1]
> I have never been to the US, and although a trip to California would be an obvious to-do in my profession, the main reason I don't consider it is the death penalty.
Don't kill anyone and you'll be good.
Or perhaps you're actually concerned about false conviction, which is a different problem and no less bad when someone spend the rest of his life in prison
> It's an open question. For the last 6 years I've refused to set foot in US (and even declined free tickets to a very important tech conference in my field) because of your unpredictable trigger-friendly police [1] and your guantanamo-friendly interviews at border control [2]. I wonder it your unstability could reach me in Europe.
This seems excessive to me, you're not going to run into the cops going to a tech conference. I've lived in the US for the past 5 years, and never had any issues with police or border control. In fact, I'd go as far as saying that the part of California I live in (Orange County) is safer than my home country in Europe.
In Europe you are more likely to have lightly if unarmed cops because its more acceptable to have troops with fully automatic weapons deployed. I still remember quite a few pictures of such at airports if not on the streets
The majority of what you have been told by your media are "narrative" stories that are removed of all actual facts and details (to fit the narrative). Its pure politics.
For example, in the Ferguson case, you where told that the police officer (Darren Wilson) saw Michael Brown, and for whatever reason, just murdered him on the spot, by shooting him through the back of his head - all while Michael Brown was doing nothing wrong, and holding his hands up.
I'm assuming the later was "modified" in the produced story by all the left-leaning news outlets because it was too stereotypical / and the narrative must be protected. If you don't believe it, check the crime seen photos and the court records - I did.
And that's about 5% of the falsehood story. I could go on and on.
> Should we expect that America uprises against their own police?
Cops kill a reported 500 or so people every year. Maybe twice that much in real numbers.
The majority of those people are violent criminals - some of which are firing at cops, using knifes to stab cops, garbing at cops' guns, using vehicles to run cops over, etc.
Why would anyone that is not delusional with the political media spin revolt against cops?
That newsmax.com article is fascinating. The first three facts in their list have no relevance to the legitimacy of the shooting. They are clearly trying to paint Michael Brown as a bad person who deserved to die, and they aren't even being subtle about it. The fact that he had just stolen something has absolutely no relevance to the question of whether Darren Wilson acted correctly when he fired his gun.
One thing I have never seen anyone bring up on either side is the question of why Officer Wilson, believing his life to be in danger while sitting in his car, did not simply drive down the street to eliminate the danger, then reassess the situation from safety.
Wilson may well have been in danger, even mortal danger. He still did the wrong thing by responding with lethal force when he could have removed himself from that danger. As a result, he ended up killing one of the people he was sworn to protect.
OK, so why aren't they trained that way? Unless a criminal represents an imminent threat to the public, the police should prioritize safety above getting their man.
> The fact that he had just stolen something has absolutely no relevance to the question of whether Darren Wilson acted correctly when he fired his gun.
The fact that his physical description, the event of the strong-armed robbery, and the report of the stolen item, was brought-cast - which led to the events that followed - is not relevant?
How is it relevant? The question is whether Darren Wilson was justified in using lethal force. The standards for the use of lethal force by police do not, to my knowledge, contain any mention of previous criminal activity by the suspect.
The typical standard in the US is that lethal force is only justified when the person represents an immediate danger to others. I personally think it should go a bit farther than this and also explicitly state that lethal force must be the last resort, i.e. that the person must not only present a danger to others, but that lethal force must be the only way to stop it. Either way, the fact that Michael Brown had just stolen stuff doesn't come into it.
The points in the article dispel the myth of the "Hands Up, Don't Shoot" story. It obviously did not go that way at all (e.g., such as not even being shot in the back of the head).
The earlier events might, or might not, be relevant to the use of deadly force in a court of law, but they are relevant to my point of the narrative, of the story told to the public - the original comment you are relying to.
And yes, garbing at a cop's gun, trying to wrestle it away from him, and then later charging at him like a bull - is justifiable use of deadly force. And the previous events can be used to show the mindset of the individuals.
These things happen quickly, and there is no restart of the game.
They may be relevant to your point of the narrative, but my point is that the key question is whether Wilson was justified in his use of deadly force, and the earlier events are not relative to that. That is why the portion of my comment which you quoted says "...has absolutely no relevance to the question of whether Darren Wilson acted correctly...." (Emphasis added.)
Grabbing at a cop's gun may justify deadly force, but it wouldn't have happened if Wilson hadn't drawn it in the first place. It is the drawing of the gun which is the key event here. If he had simply stomped on the gas pedal instead then this whole controversy would have stopped before it started.
> It is the drawing of the gun which is the key event here. If he had simply stomped on the gas pedal instead then this whole controversy would have stopped before it started.
5. Wilson said when he tried to open his car door, Brown slammed it back shut, then punched Wilson in the face.
6. Fearing another punch could knock him out, Wilson drew his gun, he told the grand jury, and Brown grabbed the gun, saying "you are too much of a pussy to shoot me."
Like I said, these things happen quickly, there is really not much time to think and analyze. When you feel that your life is in danger, you just respond. Some people get tunnel vision, others don't even form memories.
Some other things that would have prevented this - is every single action that Michael Brown took.
The fact that Brown could have prevented his death by changing any of his actions is true, but irrelevant.
Imagine you insult a person's mother, and in response he gets upset and shoots you. I say, if you hadn't mouthed off then you wouldn't have gotten killed. Is this true? Absolutely. Does it make your death justified? Not in the least.
The fact that these things happen quickly and that you "just respond" is not an excuse for using deadly force when it's not necessary. Police are supposed to be the ones protecting us, not the ones getting us killed. That he killed Michael Brown when he didn't need to is an abject failure on his part. Maybe it was a failure caused by a lack of time to think and a failure caused by an innate response, but it's still a failure. I also have to wonder why Wilson got so close when opening his door in the first place, to someone he knew might be dangerous. If he felt at a disadvantage because he was seated in his car, why not stop some distance away, get out, and confront the suspect on a better footing?
You don't get to engineer a dangerous situation, then use deadly force to eliminate the danger and call it good. The fact that the other person participated somewhat still doesn't justify it. If Wilson had taken more care before he was in the middle of a fight then he wouldn't have been in the position to "just respond" with deadly force in the first place.
> , and why it matters that it's soda and not ice tea.
It matters that it was a manufactured lie.
The "ice tea and skittles" was also mentioned every time the name Trayvon Martin was mentioned. Every. Single. Time.
So it must have also had a great importance to everything and everyone.
And the point was to show how these stories are manufactured by removing facts, and replacing them with the narrative... A young 12 year old kid just getting some ice tea and skittles on a bright sunny day - murdered by a white racist who had no injuries, was not arrested, was not handcuffed and taken-in, etc (all points proven false).
> Sorry but you're going to need to explain why having watermelon soda is a shoot-on-sight offense
Why would I have to explain it? What you just said is completely made up, and you are the one saying it. Trayvon was shot because he was beating Zimmerman's head into the pavement. They both made mistakes, it escalated. And everything that was reported was spun to the narrative.
I'm not familiar with the specific product pictured, so maybe it is a soda, but if you show a can with the Arizona Ice Tea trade dress to 100 people, 99 of them will describe it as "ice tea".
There's no grand conspiracy to make the world believe that it was ice tea and not soda, you have invented this. (I assume you really are passionately concerned with the difference between soda and tea and not just trying to talk about a black kid liking fruit soda and watermelon as a way to engage racist stereotypes to dehumanize him.)
Whether he was going to drink it or mix it with codeine is immaterial to the events that led to his death so why even bring it up?
edit: you are right, it is coming off looney. Ice tea, soda, watermelon flavored fruit punch or juice, ... the point has been made - a stereotypical-flavor juice drink is converted unanimously to "ice tea" by the media (by 10 out of 10 outlets) for the narrative's sake.
For the other 95% of the story, start with the 2nd link above, to see just how ridiculous Zimmerman's character was built-up.
Then check Trayvon's twitter screenshot for how he conversed and what drugs he liked (lean). Check the pictures found on his phone of him holding a gun and talking about selling it. Him being expelled from school. Burglary charges. See the conversations he had about being in some type of a fight club and making people bleed, etc...
Or how about the recording that was played for weeks non stop on CNN -
> Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black.
Which actually turned out to be -
> Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. Or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.
> Dispatcher: OK, and this guy — is he black, white or Hispanic?
> Zimmerman: He looks black.
The media did a number on that story. It wasn't a conspiracy, it was political spin. Which is what the media in the US does. They do not report facts anymore.
This constant editing of old comments is getting worrisome. There is a perfect threaded comment system available here, why not let us use it? This is just corny.
That Breitbart story was part of the first 5%, right? It wasn't very convincing either, especially not in an argument about media narratives... Anyway, as I recall it Mr Zimmerman's photo and his Peruvian heritage was reported early on in mainstream media.
It seems to me you don't have a lot of convincing arguments for your initial sweeping claims. It was an unfortunate event. An innocent man was killed. Let's just leave it at that, ok? None of your arguments have any bearing on this fact, no matter how much you try to smear Mr Martin (btw, you could easily forge such a narrative out of my life, as well).
> This constant editing of old comments is getting worrisome.
I've edited 1 comment to expand it.
I also correct spelling mistakes when I see them.
And sometimes, within the first 10 minutes, I might add a sentence to the current reply.
> It seems to me you don't have a lot of convincing arguments for your initial sweeping claims. It was an unfortunate event. ... None of your arguments have any bearing on this fact, no matter how much you try to smear Mr Martin.
Smearing Zimmerman by the national media is not worrying, but reporting the facts of the case is to you?
Zimmerman's racist character was fabricated. Trayvon's innocent character was fabricated.
Come on. You rewrote the comment totally, to the point where earlier replies don't make any sense. You did this with your other posts to, though not as aggressively, adding points, fleshing them out. It's weird. The discussion gets ever weirder. Oh, now you did it again - to concede the fact.
Anyway, on topic: There is a photo of me holding a gun. I have been reported to the police. I have used medicine recreationally. I have had trouble with teachers, being something of an unruly kid to them at times. It's easy to paint most anyone in such a light.
Why should I get shot close to my home? What is it that you're arguing, in fact?
Do you see how easy it is to get trivial details wrong? Now imagine if you were actually upset about the death of a human being; it would almost seem insignificant that it was juice instead of ice tea.
The majority of what you have been told by your media are "narrative" stories that are removed of all actual facts and details (to fit the narrative). Its pure politics.
What's the narrative? To what end?
And that's still leaving allot out.
You were there, I presume? I mean, obviously _any_ recollection of a complex course of events will leave out a lot, but the way you phrase it makes it sound like you know more about what happened. Care to shed some light upon this?
And a watermelon soda is an ice tea
Now this is getting interesting. Do you argue that there is a widespread media cover-up to hide the fact that Mr Martin bought a certain kind of soda that might be used with cough medicine? I can't even...
And that's about 5% of the falsehood story. I could go on and on.
Am I correct in my understanding that you claim to have knowledge of lots of errors in the reporting of the killing of Trayvon Martin, but you only tell us about the watermelon vs ice tea... thing? That's weird; why not give us something more substantial, something that's, you know, actually convincing (or at least, something that is... anything)?
Cops kill a reported 500 or so people every year. Maybe twice that much in real numbers.
Yeah, no. It's 500 reported killings during the first 6 months of 2015 already. Killings by police in the US are way up during the 2000s.
You're not convincing. If anything, it sounds like you are stuck in a narrative. Please provide something more substantial from your other 95% of truth.
I am not a US citizen, a supporter of the militarization of the police, or their unchecked use of power, but your third (numbered) point: "[1] Being a foreigner, I'm not protected by your constitution and the officers haven't sworn to protect and serve me." is incorrect. All persons on US soil are protected by the US constitution, whether citizens or not.
Your (confusingly) similarly enumerated point earlier "[1] and your guantanamo-friendly interviews at border control" is also flawed, as there is no possible way (of which I am aware) for US Customs and Immigration to send you to Guantanamo Bay without the assent of the country you are leaving. US C&I can turn you back, or temporarily detain you, and have a great deal of latitude with respect to questioning and searches, but you are always protected by the US constitution and possibly the laws of the country you are attempting to leave depending on where you are being questioned. The reason that people were allowed to be transported to Guantanamo Bay is that they were captured as unaffiliated combatants (who are allotted few rights in the Geneva Convention,) within the borders of a country whose sovereign granted the USA custody, and allowed deportation for detention without conditions.
It's an open question. For the last 6 years I've refused to set foot in US (and even declined free tickets to a very important tech conference in my field) because of your unpredictable trigger-friendly police [1] and your guantanamo-friendly interviews at border control [2]. I wonder it your unstability could reach me in Europe.
[1] Being a foreigner, I'm not protected by your constitution and the officers haven't sworn to protect and serve me.
[2] I do believe an intent to go to a conference could randomly be recategorized as seeking work, which is illegal, and using a false Facebook name could be recategorized as identity theft. I do believe it's therefore possible to be retained at your border for an undefined amount of time, with no record and no rights to a lawyer. I do believe I'd be upset in this situation and I could end up sentenced for life in your prisons.