Ferguson Riots

[Texsox]

I had an interesting discussion with some of my seniors yesterday. We are reading Antigone and discussing civil obedience vs civil disobedience and using Howard Zinn's 1970 essay "The Problem is Civil Obedience" as an entry to the topic. To get the discussion rolling I asked them to name an event in American history that was a classic act of civil disobedience. After a couple of false starts someone hit my target, the Boston Tea Party. That was basically a bunch of white people, wearing masks and costumes, looting a merchant ship, destroying the cargo, and breaking the law. Not much different than Ferguson.

 

Here is part of Zinn's essay and perhaps the most recognizable part.

That is not our problem.... Our problem is civil obedience. Our problem is the numbers of people all over the world who have obeyed the dictates of the leaders of their government and have gone to war, and millions have been killed because of this obedience. And our problem is that scene in All Quiet on the Western Front where the schoolboys march off dutifully in a line to war. Our problem is that people are obedient all over the world, in the face of poverty and starvation and stupidity, and war and cruelty. Our problem is that people are obedient while the jails are full of petty thieves, and all the while the grand thieves are running the country. That's our problem. We recognize this for Nazi Germany. We know that the problem there was obedience, that the people obeyed Hitler. People obeyed; that was wrong. They should have challenged, and they should have resisted; and if we were only there, we would have showed them. Even in Stalin's Russia we can understand that; people are obedient, all these herdlike people.

 

Great discussion.

[Jenksismyhero]

Being disobedient to a government you don't trust and burning down your neighborhood and destroying property of other people that have nothing to do with it, are not in the same stratosphere.

Edited December 3, 2014 by Jenksismybitch

[Texsox]

Destroying someones property (cargo of tea) seems like the same as destroying another person's property.

[Texsox]

hey look, another unarmed black person was killed by a white officer and no charges will be filed. What were the odds of that happening in the same millennium.

 

http://www.cnn.com/

"I can't breath!" choke hold case. But this person was suspected of selling cigarettes illegally.

 

So, what is the proper response? Quietly protesting? That will get stuff done.

[cabiness42]

Destroying someones property (cargo of tea) seems like the same as destroying another person's property.

 

Except that the cargo of tea belonged to a British company that was directly profiting from the unfair actions of the government.

 

The property destroyed in Ferguson belonged to private citizens who had nothing to do with the "unfair" actions of the government.

[Texsox]

Except that the cargo of tea belonged to a British company that was directly profiting from the unfair actions of the government.

 

The property destroyed in Ferguson belonged to private citizens who had nothing to do with the "unfair" actions of the government.

 

The British business was following the law, why should they be punished? It seems like we're trying to have it both ways.

[cabiness42]

The British business was following the law, why should they be punished? It seems like we're trying to have it both ways.

 

The British business was clearly on the government's side in the conflict. An analogous reaction in Ferguson would have been to go after government buildings, or property belonging to people who openly expressed support for the officer.

[StrangeSox]

Except that the cargo of tea belonged to a British company that was directly profiting from the unfair actions of the government.

 

The property destroyed in Ferguson belonged to private citizens who had nothing to do with the "unfair" actions of the government.

The East India Company was also a quasi-government entity. It wasn't directly controlled by the crown, but the crown had influence and East India ruled a lot of British colonies.

 

[StrangeSox]

hey look, another unarmed black person was killed by a white officer and no charges will be filed. What were the odds of that happening in the same millennium.

 

http://www.cnn.com/

"I can't breath!" choke hold case. But this person was suspected of selling cigarettes illegally.

 

So, what is the proper response? Quietly protesting? That will get stuff done.

The coroner ruled the death a homicide, and the officer used a choke hold, which is strictly against department policy. Still, no charges.

[ptatc]

The coroner ruled the death a homicide, and the officer used a choke hold, which is strictly against department policy. Still, no charges.

Was there any fighting between the officers and the the person. There isn't much info in the article or video. In the Brown case the officer was threatened. In this case, I haven't seen anything to make me think that. According to the anchor, the grand jury was asked to indict if there was malicious intent to kill. I highly doubt the officer intended to kill him so I'm not surprised there was no indictment.

[Texsox]

Back to Boston, do you think the British saw it that way? These were their citizens destroying valuable stuff and openly defying the government over money.

 

Ferguson people are defying over someone getting killed and not even being brought to court to answer the charges.

[Balta1701]

Was there any fighting between the officers and the the person. There isn't much info in the article or video. In the Brown case the officer was threatened. In this case, I haven't seen anything to make me think that. According to the anchor, the grand jury was asked to indict if there was malicious intent to kill. I highly doubt the officer intended to kill him so I'm not surprised there was no indictment.

There was absolutely no fighting, the whole thing was on video. He's agitated but he's also surrounded by police officers. They approach to arrest him, he pulls his hands away a couple times, turning back and forth to the different officers, one grabs him from behind around the neck, pushes him to the ground while he's saying he can't breathe.

 

[StrangeSox]

Was there any fighting between the officers and the the person. There isn't much info in the article or video. In the Brown case the officer was threatened. In this case, I haven't seen anything to make me think that. According to the anchor, the grand jury was asked to indict if there was malicious intent to kill. I highly doubt the officer intended to kill him so I'm not surprised there was no indictment.

That seems weird. I have to imagine that New York has an involuntary manslaughter statute.

 

New York 2nd Degree manslaughter code, part 1 seems to fit:

S 125.15 Manslaughter in the second degree.

A person is guilty of manslaughter in the second degree when:

1. He recklessly causes the death of another person; or

2. He commits upon a female an abortional act which causes her death,

unless such abortional act is justifiable pursuant to subdivision three

of section 125.05; or

3. He intentionally causes or aids another person to commit suicide.

Manslaughter in the second degree is a class C felony

.

 

This might also fit, but I don't know how they define criminal negligence:

S 125.10 Criminally negligent homicide.

A person is guilty of criminally negligent homicide when, with

criminal negligence, he causes the death of another person.

Criminally negligent homicide is a class E felony.

Edited December 3, 2014 by StrangeSox

[bmags]

Does a prosecutor request a certain charge, or do they ask a grand jury if any charges would apply?

 

I have to imagine this is manslaughter at least.

[Texsox]

If you think this was a miscarriage of justice be respectful, and peaceful, and don't bother anyone and it will change.

[StrangeSox]

This is why the NYPD changed their policy in 1985 to disallow chokeholds:

 

The policy in New York grew from concern about the rising number of deaths in police custody over the last eight years, including that of Federico Pereira, a 21-year-old Queens man who in 1991 died of what the medical examiners called "traumatic asphyxia." Five officers were charged, but the charges against four were dropped and the fifth was acquitted.

...

At a police promotion ceremony at One Police Plaza, Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly characterized the ban not as a new policy but as clarification of a 1985 order. That order said that “choke holds, which are potentially lethal and unnecessary, will not be routinely used.” An exception was when an officer’s life was in danger and the choke hold was the “least dangerous alternative method of restraint.” The new policy allows no exceptions.

 

Using methods known to unnecessarily increase the lethality of a situation should absolutely be illegal, but this guy killed someone and walks away free.

[bmags]

This is why the NYPD changed their policy in 1985 to disallow chokeholds:

 

 

 

Using methods known to unnecessarily increase the lethality of a situation should absolutely be illegal, but this guy killed someone and walks away free.

The policy in New York grew from concern about the rising number of deaths in police custody over the last eight years, including that of Federico Pereira, a 21-year-old Queens man who in 1991 died of what the medical examiners called "traumatic asphyxia." Five officers were charged, but the charges against four were dropped and the fifth was acquitted.

...

At a police promotion ceremony at One Police Plaza, Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly characterized the ban not as a new policy but as clarification of a 1985 order. That order said that “choke holds, which are potentially lethal and unnecessary, will not be routinely used.” An exception was when an officer’s life was in danger and the choke hold was the “least dangerous alternative method of restraint.” The new policy allows no exceptions.

 

Of course, they could just pull out their gun and shoot them in this case and would be perfectly fine. Funny that that language is even written.

[EvilMonkey]

Back to Boston, do you think the British saw it that way? These were their citizens destroying valuable stuff and openly defying the government over money.

 

Ferguson people are defying over someone getting killed and not even being brought to court to answer the charges.

But the Ferguson people weren't destroying the property of people they were mad at, they just destroyed for the sake of destroying. And looting.

[StrangeSox]

But the Ferguson people weren't destroying the property of people they were mad at, they just destroyed for the sake of destroying. And looting.

East India didn't impose those taxes, Parliament did.

[cabiness42]

This is why the NYPD changed their policy in 1985 to disallow chokeholds:

 

 

 

Using methods known to unnecessarily increase the lethality of a situation should absolutely be illegal, but this guy killed someone and walks away free.

 

This is a much better case to bring charges against the officer than in Ferguson.

[cabiness42]

Back to Boston, do you think the British saw it that way? These were their citizens destroying valuable stuff and openly defying the government over money.

 

Ferguson people are defying over someone getting killed and not even being brought to court to answer the charges.

 

It doesn't really matter how the British saw it, it's how the citizens saw it. If the Tea protestors burned down my neighbor's store, when my neighbor has nothing to do with the protest, than that makes me much less sympathetic to their cause.

 

But what the people in Ferguson did was took their anger out on the weak, small business owners who couldn't defend themselves. They didn't have the balls to go after the people they're really upset at.

[Jake]

The similarity to the Radio Raheem death in Spike Lee's Do the Right Thing is absolutely chilling

[EvilMonkey]

East India didn't impose those taxes, Parliament did.

EI was a quasi-governmental agency at heart. Now you are just nitpicking.

[Texsox]

But the Ferguson people weren't destroying the property of people they were mad at, they just destroyed for the sake of destroying. And looting.

 

Some were, no doubt. But for others it was a protest that would get attention. Frustration from people getting killed without a trial versus someone paying a few extra cents for their tea. Just sitting around discussing and acting nice isn't going to fix anything.

[farmteam]

The Eric Garner video was ridiculously damning. Ferguson, whichever way you came down on it, at least had arguments that could go both ways. I don't really see what someone could say in defense of the officer(s) here.

 

I read the prosecutor is trying to get the grand jury record released (there's a law that says you can't release grand jury documents, but he's trying to get it waived under a certain exception). That should shed more light on it.