You've seen the news. White cops are cleared or are in modified job duties while on pending investigations and their victims are lying dead.

The last incident was a young black male coming down a dark staircase which startled a rookie cop to discharging his weapon killing the young man.

If you're a black person, you'll gotta be careful these days as these cops seem to be getting away with it or in some cases a light slap on the wrist.

On a similar note the grand jury decided not to indict Darren Wilson, the Ferguson, Missouri police officer involved in the shooting death of Michael Brown.

No f**kin' surprised to me! Because this is what is usually expected from cases like this.

I think it has a lot less to do with race than they say on the news. This Ferguson scandal is mostly so cops can justify their use of military equipment, IMO. There have been plenty of white people and people of other races shot dead by cops for nothing at all "startling" etc. I also don't see how more violence and death solves the problem.

I opine that "the news is basically there to sell advertising." Things are literally reduced to "black and white." But in the real world of law enforcement, nothing is really that simple. I can't ... and won't ... accept the premise of this post at face value.

For instance ... "if you are coming down any 'dark staircase,' make lots of noise!" Or, "don't give your kids toy guns to play with."

Of genuine concern to me .. and completely ignored in the so-called "news" .. is the war-like paramilitarization of the police force. I remember one veteran making the comment to the effect that "we went into battle with less than this!" Indeed. This is, among other things, a flagrant squander of public money. It escalates events just by being what it is, and it gives people cannon-like firepower when they just might not know what to do with it.

I'm a Southern boy. I grew up white under Jim Crow. I knew folks who proudly boasted of their memberships in the KKK.

metaschima, I'm sorry to have to disagree, but race has everything to do with it. It may not be the only thing in play, but, when the details are stripped aside, a black kid was shot for being.

If Michael Dunn (or Trayvon Martin or many others) had been white in America, he would--they all would--be at college right now, or married with children, or making scientific discoveries, or perhaps even wasting their lives, but they would have lived to have the choice.

That American police forces are out of control is a separate but related issue.

DON"T RESIST ARREST! The odds of getting beaten or killed by a cop is higher if you resist arrest. These cops will use excessive force at will.

Not referring to the youth in the stair case issue, but in other situations where suspects fight or resist arrest.

Police exist to do one of two opposing jobs

1) Arrest offenders

2) Protect and help "good" citizens

So it is always wise to trigger the latter one and save any fighting for court, since it is extremely common, especially in low profile cases, that the police will not be thorough, accurate, or within the law themselves. Ideally be friendly and respectful and do everything they say except answer any questions.... respectfully decline.

Here is a video from a Law lecture including a professor of Law and an ex-cop detailing why you should NEVER talk to the police even if you are innocent and think you can prove it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

The most outrageous is that the policeman shots him 6 or 7 times.
Is it was really neccessary? He fell after the first shot. Why did policeman shoted him 6 times when he was defeated already?
It was absolutely enough to shot his leg once to neutralize him.
Seems cop panicked and in a fit of terror emptied a full clip.

you forgot their main job:

3) Defend authorities.

Certainly, part of the problem was that .. so to speak .. he had "a full clip." Hell, he had an entire army. If you go into a situation with, and as, a de facto army patrol, then a war is going to break out real fast. Remember, the rules of war is that you are going in to face an enemy, who will shoot to kill unless you shoot first. You can ask questions later if you survive the firefight. If the police use the "special weapons and tactics" of warfare, they'll throw a flash-grenade ... into a baby's crib. No, they didn't mean to maim the baby. They had a grenade, and that's where the troubles began.

I "grew up white in the old South," too, and in fact I still live there. Hatred, and poverty, don't actually care how much melanin is in your epidermis. Many black people (and, an increasing number of white ones) are dirt poor, even today. It's hard to look up in the world when you can't get enough food to eat. People, black and white, become trapped in this. They know that they are trapped.

There is a "color line" in America, but the same is true in all countries. It's a vast over-simplification, though, to suggest that "white" cops are using "black" people indiscriminately for target-practice.

Please read this whole article: http://rt.com/usa/208871-darren-wils...erguson-brown/

Forensic evidence backs up his story. He was freed by a jury. What do you expect when you beat up a police officer and try to take his gun?

Trayvon Martin was also a violent criminal (and George Zimmerman was also acquitted).

Trayvon Martin was 17 years old. How convenient that Darren Wilson had his two way walkie talkie switched and so there is no independent record of the incident.

OK

Actually, I didn't forget that. I left it out because it has little bearing on people who are not perceived as a threat, especially an organized threat, to The State. This thread seems to be about individual citizens faced with the dilemna of how to react when confronted by police, either as a perpetrator or often even as a witness. As much as we like to dump on Lawyers, this is why they exist. Even if you are an amateur lawyer, well versed in the law and thoroughly know your rights, in almost every case it can ONLY do harm to resist the police in a confrontational manner. They are enforcers in that context and not interpreters. Many have little understanding of the laws they are supposed to enforce and even if they did, most "street level" police are "lip service" men in this regard and believe "I can't define it but I know it when I see it" rules.

This is nothing new and isn't even remotely confined to the US, although our history is not as pristine as many would like to believe. As soon as resistance is no longer just an individual or a relatively small gang, any government will barely hesitate to bring in levels above that of local forces, from the National Guard on up to full Armed Forces retaliation. While the specifics of the movie "Gangs of New York" may be fictional, the general details are true and in fact didn't go far enough to show just how much government force was applied to "squelch the riot".

Far better documented is the story of the Bonus Army. For those who cannot be bothered to click links and read much further, the so-called Bonus Army, was a ragtag group of several thousand destitute WWI veterans protesting to get the bonus pay they were promised for fighting in WWI. No less than Generals Patton, MacArthur, and Eisenhower were called upon by then president Herbert Hoover to disperse the crowd, which MacArthur apparently saw as that era's version of a sweet photo op so he pressed his best trousers and rolled several 7 ton tanks down Pennsylvania Avenue to confront veterans (one of whom had saved Patton's life during the war) who barely had clothing.

For a fuller story see this - BONUS ARMY -

All governmental institutions consider it Job #1 to be able to defend itself against any perceived aggression from within or without, even if only as a perceived deterrent to attempting to change government by force. The two biggest problems with that are that what's "on the books" is often very different from what's "on the street" resulting in The Blue Wall and officers who see themselves as judge, jury and executioner given the slightest provocation. Secondly, because of the Lobby System, over time that government will grow to reflect the wishes of the very rich if it wasn't from day one. The more things change the more they stay the same, overall.

Summary - the advice in the video of lawmakers, law interpreters and ex-law enforcement that I linked is to properly choose the battlefield most beneficial to you and avoid getting "tagged" as an offender to be dealt with harshly and don't offer any information you don't absolutely have to. Even the most innocuous statements can be used against you. Just say, "I'm truly sorry, Officer, but being as ignorant as I am in this situation, I must remain silent until I speak with an Attorney" and don't fall for that ridiculous tome "If you're as innocent as you say, you should have nothing to hide". Stand politely firm. However smart you may be or think you are, these guys are trained and you, likely, are not.

PS - That article is one of the better demonstrations of the fact that Benjamin Franklin noted that Freedom of Speech is THE most basic right and all others are rendered diminished or non-existent without that basic freedom. Witness that someone as revered (and hated, but mostly regarded as a hero) as Douglas MacArthur threatened to have a citizen (who was not involved in the incident other than to express his dismay and confused disbelief as his world turned upside-down at seeing US soldiers gassing and firing upon US veterans both carrying American Flags who were rightfully owed money to keep their families alive).. arrested for yelling at MacArthur's Staff Car, "The American flag means nothing to me after this". I think it is understandable that he felt that way at that moment and it certainly was not seditious nor a threat. MacArthur just didn't like it and feared it would diminish his power play if it got in the news. Thankfully, it did.

It's been documented that 93% of black homicide victims from 1980-2008 are killed by other blacks and very few are outraged.
I don't see Al Sharpton saying anything about 'that'.

One 'white' police officer doing his job kills a black man and they riot?

Seems a little out of proportion to me.

That is the last race topic I will ever reply to on this forum.

Yeah, it must be an evil conspiracy to kill an innocent citizen who was doing nothing wrong, because police officers often do that when they are bored.

I actually know people who work in law enforcement and I find your allegation absurd and appalling.

What should Wilson have done differently when he was being beaten up by an enormous thug who tried to grab his gun? Should he have given him the gun? It's easy to criticize when you are in the backseat but I think anyone with survival instinct would have acted the same way.

My

The person who has been shot should have just cooperated in the first place. If he indeed did try to reach for the policeman's firearm, then at that point it was his own fault for getting shot. I'm not trying to take all the blame away from the cop, but at the same time it does matter what the deceased person did in the first place to get himself killed. It is unfortunate though that there is no video evidence, so it is essentially the cops word against the deceased.

If lets say the cop was/is crooked, he should have not given the cop any reason to reach for his own firearm since thats just plain stupidity. Plus the only 'video evidence' of the deceased was at the store where he supposedly stole and harassed the clerk. If he was being questioned because of that and he did try to resist arrest, or if the cop was merely questioning him he should have cooperated.

Again if assuming that the cop is crooked then thats the very reason to try to just cooperate, and not give him any reason to reach for his firearm, if however he reached for his firearm in the first place without any provocation from the deceased individual, he shouldn't have tried to do anything at that point. It is again unfortunate that there is no real video evidence of that so again, we are forced to draw conclusions based on the cop's testimony, though still I find it hard to believe nobody saw the confrontation to either refute or back up his claims that he was trying to get his gun therefore he fired in 'self defense.'