<p>“Interesting that the same groups who are presently criticizing the Ferguson police for being over-armed, over-reactive and heavy-handed, are the same groups that derided the gun-rights people for being paranoid about the potential for an abusive State…”</p>
<p>That’s a very interesting and provocative point, but I don’t feel “better” that gun sales are apparently up in Missouri (from what I see on my news feed from my STL-based friends). </p>
<p>Some on here will never understand. I don’t know what the answer is. Maybe more screening for officers? It’s sad, pretty much all of my friends have been stopped for no reason. When you are Black you even have to think hard about car purchases. A nice car brings extra stops. Heaven forbid that you actually obtained the car with your hard work, it is assumed you must be doing something illegal. </p>
<p>The New Jersey Turnpike incident and the events in Ferguson, Missouri do have at least one thing in common; substantial mistrust of the police. In NJ the mistrust was absolutely justified, as it was revealed that the police lied like a rug and were only exposed when the pressure to keep the lie going became too much to contain. Like in Ferguson, the NJ troopers (a notorious group who more or less invented the crime "driving while black,"concocted a story to justify their gunfire, which was hard to believe from the get-go. And there was a cover-up orchestrated by police commanders. One big difference (thus far; no proof of lying yet, to be fair) between NJ and Ferguson is that in the NJ the victims lived to tell their side of the story.</p>
<p>Much as I disagree with awcntdb on most things political, he makes a fair point. I’m particularly disgusted by how the Brown family called the release of the store surveillance video “character assassination.” Uh, Brown assassinated his own character by trying to rip off a store owner. He’s no choir boy. That doesn’t excuse shooting, but it makes me a heck of a lot less sympathetic and it makes him a poor poster child for this kind of thing. </p>
<p>Saintfan, thanks for posting that Huffington Post OpEd, which I highly suspect many posters to this thread will never read. It occurred to me as I read it, however, just why I feel a visceral contempt whenever I see stories of hardcore 2nd Amendment Rights fanatics militantly displaying their guns (often, large, high calibre weapons) in stores, restaurants, public parks, and even houses of worship: it’s because these same people would be appalled and alarmed if black people began following their example. As has been shown time and again, black males in this country are too often seen as inherently dangerous, armed or not; that latent within the abundance of melanin itself, is criminality just waiting to be loosed upon society. </p>
<p>When they think of Americans’ right to bare arms, they envision people who look like themselves. You know, “real Americans.” Their worst nightmare is a black man with a gun, not a white one shooting up a movie theater…or elementary school…or work place. But just what would happen if groups of blacks began to openly exercise their 2nd Amendment rights in the same parks, restaurants, businesses. It’d be only then that “something would have to be done” about America’s gun problem.</p>
<p>So, it’s by this very mentality that we continue to see the automatic vilification of unarmed black men as “thugs” who brought their shootings at the hands of “real Americans” upon themselves. They had it coming, you see.</p>
<p>Poets heart is right as well, which is why I don’t think guns for everyone is the answer. I don’t need the low-life street thugs having guns either. </p>
<p>Can we stop with treating every comment from Ferguson residents like an edict from the Ten Commandments? Why toss contempt at the deceased’s parents? Sure, the dead man’s parents feel he was without sin. In this day and age I really don’t become surprised when I hear that emotion from relatives of the dead. But I nevertheless don’t let that prevent me from wanting to hear the truth and see any wrong righted. Michael Brown’s transgressions, if they had nothing to do with his death, are not part of my consideration of whether or not he or his parents deserve sympathy.</p>
<p>Deserving sympathy is not the issue. Of course, they deserve sympathy and they deserve justice. But that does not automatically mean the cop is a racist killer, either. </p>
<p>The problem I see, Pizzagirl, is that white boys don’t have to be choir boys to have their lives still held dear in the eyes of most Americans. If they have their periods of brief rebellion, hooliganism, “youthful exuberance”, well, they’ll probably grow out of it. They can “experiment with drugs”, shoplift cigarettes, vandalize a few neighborhood cars, and be redeemed down the road. Second Chances should probably be some of these kids’ middle name–or maybe it should be Rehab or Counseling. </p>
<p>Not so much kids like Trayvon Martin, or Michael Brown. Nope. Thug. That should be their middle name. Do not pass go. No sympathy if some Real American blows them away. They assassinated themselves, you see. </p>
<p>"Why toss contempt at the deceased’s parents? "</p>
<p>Because they are refusing to face reality that their son was a thug. A thug is someone who robs convenience stores. The appropriate response would be to acknowledge their son’s bad behavior, which doesn’t excuse what happened, but at least it would be an honest narrative. </p>
<p>They know. I think people are ignoring or perhaps unaware of the PR campaign that caused all of this misinformation in the first place. Those gentle giant choirboy stories didn’t just write themselves. </p>
<p>Why is thug always for black boys? Wouldn’t that kid in the UCSB be considered a thug? What about Affluenza kid? After all, HE KILLED FOUR PEOPLE.</p>
<p>The UCSB kid was considered a crazy psycho. And the affluenza kid was considered a spoiled brat. Thug has a street life connotation that probably wouldn’t apply so much to rich kids in fancy cars but I’m not sure it’s necessarily racist. There are white thugs.</p>
<p>“The problem I see, Pizzagirl, is that white boys don’t have to be choir boys to have their lives still held dear in the eyes of most Americans. If they have their periods of brief rebellion, hooliganism, “youthful exuberance”, well, they’ll probably grow out of it. They can “experiment with drugs”, shoplift cigarettes, vandalize a few neighborhood cars, and be redeemed down the road. Second Chances should probably be some of these kids’ middle name–or maybe it should be Rehab or Counseling.”</p>
<p>I agree it’s a double standard. Which is why Awntchb’s post is intriguing and made me stop and think. </p>
<p>Just holy freaking wow with some of the attitudes here. You pass quick judgment on others whom you feel pass quick judgment. Few facts are in. Someone else shouldn’t be knee-jerk, so you are? The info reaching our living rooms is incomplete. </p>
<p>There is a problem in the country and it starts with each and every one of us. </p>
<p>I don’t recall hearing the Browns say their son was a choir boy. I suspect the charge of character assassination has everything to do with the fact that the shooting apparently occurred completely independently of the cigar theft, and that the painting of their son as a hardened thug was an attempt by the Ferguson PD to justify the multiple gun shot death of their unarmed son by one of It’s officers. As far as we know, MB had never before had a run in with the law, has no prior criminal record, and was scheduled to start classes at a technical college the Monday following his shooting. Yes, he shoved the store clerk in the process of stealing the cigars. Yes, it was a bad decision. Absolutely illegal. But worst than the suburban teen who drives drunk, or steals merchandise from Forever 21, or sells his Mom’s Oxy to his buddies? Is MB a thug, but they “misguided” and momentarily lapsing in judgement? Have you ever felt sympathy for the parents of these otherwise “good kids”? </p>
<p>That’s the entire point here. Black means thug. Black means inherently criminal. Black means your parents have no right to be outraged if the police (or a “concerned citizen” plugs you full of holes, unless you never made a single error in judgement in your entire life, indeed, unless you are quite literally a choir boy.</p>
<p>Agreed, LF</p>
<p>What’s unfortunately happening here is that we are inaccurately stating that he was killed for stealing cigars. The fact is we still have no information about why the officer fired his weapon. That was likely not the reason, though. Something else happened.</p>
<p>“Yes, he shoved the store clerk in the process of stealing the cigars. Yes, it was a bad decision. Absolutely illegal. But worst than the suburban teen who drives drunk, or steals merchandise from Forever 21, or sells his Mom’s Oxy to his buddies? Is MB a thug, but they “misguided” and momentarily lapsing in judgement? Have you ever felt sympathy for the parents of these otherwise “good kids”?”</p>
<p>I feel sympathy for any good people whose kids have “gone bad” (for lack of a better term). I don’t think driving drunk or stealing from Forever 21 are “better” than stealing from a convenience store. </p>
<p>I recently read an article about a study that was done which I found fascinating and thought provoking. If this offends anyone, I apologize, but it really caught my attention. The study showed that when presented with images of young black males, I think from age11, people across the board perceived them to be on average of five years older than they were. This has huge implications for policing, education and all sorts of things. It didn’t have any answers of why, but I would love to hear thoughts on that. Anyone?</p>
<p>As I said earlier, aggressive policing like this has been a very big issue on the eight for years for exactly the reason that we don’t trust the government at all and think we need to be able to protect ourselves from encroachment t on our rights.</p>