GameBanshee Forums

Hi all !

I just read the Story on CNN.COM -

Pt.1.) LOS ANGELES, California (CNN) -- Jeremy Morse, the Inglewood police officer seen on an amateur videotape violently arresting a teenager, pleaded innocent Thursday to an assault charge -learn more.


Pt.2.) LOS ANGELES, California (CNN) -- A man who videotaped Inglewood, California police roughing up an African-American teenager was taken into custody Thursday afternoon by plainclothes officers who drove him away as he screamed, "Help! Help! Help!" -learn more.


Since I'm from the other side of the world - could one of the U.S. - SYMians be so kind and explain how such things as police beatings and the arresting of the man who taped it are perceived by the U.S. public ?

It's not the first time that I've heard/read/seen articles about the police in the U.S. being somehow "overzealous" - and is backed by a government which tries to do the thinking for its citizens - in other words - how free do you think you are - as an American .

No worries,

Beldin

EDIT - Another "freedom" - related page:http://www.alternet.org/

I will answer in two parts

Originally posted by Beldin


Pt.1.) LOS ANGELES, California (CNN) -- Jeremy Morse, the Inglewood police officer seen on an amateur videotape violently arresting a teenager, pleaded innocent Thursday to an assault charge -learn more.

Jeremy Morse... according to the laws of the US is innocent till proven guilty. His plea of innocent is only so he can have a shot at trying to beat this. (I personally think he is guilty and will need jail time.....but I will not be on the jury)

Originally posted by Beldin

Pt.2.) LOS ANGELES, California (CNN) -- A man who videotaped Inglewood, California police roughing up an African-American teenager was taken into custody Thursday afternoon by plainclothes officers who drove him away as he screamed, "Help! Help! Help!" -learn more.

Mitchell Crooks ....the man who filmed this. Wanted on DUI ...decided to evade the time in jail and now will pay his dues. Instead of being smart and handing the tape off to some else who is not wanted by the law, he gets his 5 minutes of fame and heads off to do 7 months of time. IMHO ...a fool.



How free am I...or should it be...how smart am I?

I'm smart enough to know mouthing off at a person with a gun is bad news. Am also smart enough to know mouthing off at a person who can throw me in jail for not answering why my tag is bad is bad news. I would call it respect. Most of the time the cop is just doing his job and for someone to start mouthing at him/her is uncalled for. The US is a country of Laws.


(Disclaimer...not all cops deserve respect...Jeremy Morse. if found guilty is one of them that doesn't)

Pt.2.) LOS ANGELES, California (CNN) -- A man who videotaped Inglewood, California police roughing up an African-American teenager was taken into custody Thursday afternoon by plainclothes officers who drove him away as he screamed, "Help! Help! Help!" -learn more.

It's a bit ingenuous to accept this as a simple case of arresting a person to grab his goods; the LA Police have their problems, but they're not the KGB. The arrested man was already wanted for DUI (driving while drunk), so there were legitimate grounds for taking him in the first place. He was an idiot, too, for bringing such attention on himself and hanging around. There was a 100% chance the police were going to check his record. He should have sold the tape to a newspaper, and moved out of state for a while.

The US is a free country . . . but it's more free for some of its citizens than others.

There is a tremendous discrepency in the way law enforcement officers are perceived and the way law enforcement officers treat its citizens based on race. For instance, most white people in the United States have a generally positive attitude towards police officers. In sharp contrast, most blacks and hispanics have a negative attitude towards the police.

There was an incident in my town about a police officer who shot a black kid in the back. Supposedly, the kid was in an area of town that is known as being not so nice, and the police officer was looking for someone who this kid was known to hang out with. The officer told the kid he wanted to talk to him and the kid took off running. A chase ensued and it ended with the officer (who is white) saying that he thought he saw the kid pull a gun from his belt so he shot him (non-fatally). The officer was put on leave and an investigation is pending.

This shows us several revealing things about the way the law and (some of) its citizens interact. First of all, we see that blacks (in general) don't like to even talk to the police. This kid didn't know whether the police were after him or not, but didn't wait to see what they wanted before running. Second, it shows us that the police believe that folks are armed. I know a lot of police officers and I also know that the one thing they hate to do on their jobs is to be given cause to draw their weapon, because that means that either they or someone else are in danger. I don't know this particular officer, but since I know several officers in town, I am inclined to believe that he's not some trigger-happy Sergeant Riggs out to gun down anyone and everyone who gets in his way. Third, I believe that had this kid been white and taken off, the cop might have just chased him and not ended up shooting him.

There is a statistic from some years back (it may still be true) which said that 25% of black men age 18-25 were somehow "in process" in the criminal justice system; they are either incarcerated for committing a crime, on probation or the subject of an investigation or criminal prosecution.

It is also true that blacks are overrepresented in the prison population and on death row. That is, according to the CIA World Factbook, blacks make up 12.4% of the general population, but according to the group Human Rights Watch, blacks make up 30% of the prison population. In addition, according to the ACLU, 36% of death row inmates are black (it also happens that 82% of victims in crimes that result in a death sentence are white).

From these data, we can reach several possible conclusions. It appears that blacks commit a disproportionate amount of the crime in this country. However, these data could also be the result of disproportionate prosecution of crime. It could also mean that blacks are given harsher sentences for similar crimes.

Since criminal sociology is a very complex subject, I would argue that these results are the result of all of the above. There is a large disparity between blacks and white in terms of economic prosperity, and there is also a direct correlation between poverty and crime. It is logical to conclude that since poor people are more likely to commit crimes, and a disproportionate number of poor people are black, a larger percentage of blacks are criminals than whites.

At the same time, I think it is also fair to say that blacks are prosecuted and convicted more severely than whites. I don't have any concrete evidence at my fingertips, but I believe that criminologists would agree. The excessive number of blacks on death row would also suggest that blacks are given steeper sentences for capital crimes than other racial groups.

Now, back to the Morse police brutality case. What do we actually know about this case? We know that Morse picked the handcuffed kid up by the belt and the collar and slammed him down on the police cruiser. We know that Morse punched him at least twice while the kid was still on the back of the police car. We also know that this kid and his father were driving in a car with expired tags and that his father was driving with a suspended license.

We do not know what may have been said before the kid was handcuffed. We do not know what went on before the tape started rolling. The officer claims that the kid was trying to grab his groin and and at one point had also grabbed his shirt and refused to let go. We do not see this, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen.

We also cannot hear what exchange went on between all of the parties involved. As I've said before, I know a few police officers and when people treat them with basic human respect, they're nice people. After all, they're working a very dangerous job at a pittance salary to "protect and serve" the public. Still there are some "magic words" that you can use around them that will get them hot and on your case (just like there are some "magic words" that will get a baseball player instantly ejected from a game). We don't know if this kid and his father were talking back to Morse. We don't know if they called him a "pig" or something that rhymes with "cough sufferer" that may have resulted in the kid getting handcuffed.

It is my opinion that if you don't do anything wrong, you've got nothing to worry about; you're probably not going to be the object of a massive manhunt or police beating. Still, it's been known to happen, but I don't think that the police are out to arrest people just for the sake of arresting them. However, my perception of law enforcement officers is markedly different from others; in my example, if a police officer says that he wants to talk to me, I'm going to talk to him. I've got nothing to hide and I believe that buy running, it shows guilt, even if there is none.

I also believe that in the Morse case, if the kid and his father had been white, it never would have resulted in an altercation and someone being handcuffed with accusations of police brutality flying around. Does that mean that Morse and his partner necessarily acted inappropriately? Not at all, because I also believe that if they had been white, the kid and his dad would have reacted differently to the police and whatever was said that ended with an arrest would not have come up had all parties involved been white.

However, I think that the problems that pervade our society, particularly in terms of race, run deeper than an incident at a gas station in Inglewood, CA. After all, I believe that the police chief in Inglewood is black, and a fair number of police officers are black. That's probably a good subject for a different thread, but suffice to say that I think that America is the most open and free society in the world. For all of the incidents of abuse by law enforcement officers that occur, we don't have Stalags, mass graves or holding pens filled with political prisoners and dissidents. Sure our system is not perfect, but it is far and away better from the next best alternative.

From these data, we can reach several possible conclusions. It appears that blacks commit a disproportionate amount of the crime in this country. However, these data could also be the result of disproportionate prosecution of crime. It could also mean that blacks are given harsher sentences for similar crimes.

It might also be a case of economics rather than race, something that the US simply doesn't like to touch: class issues brings hives to the US government and American culture. But the questions still arise: has anybody looked at data across the lower class vs middle class to see who is in prison, rather than black vs white? Has anybody taken a look at quality of education, crime rates in poor areas, effectiveness of government, cutural indices on goals, values, religious attendance, entertainment sources, etc?

High Lord Dave

High Lord Dave. If I could have said it better I would but you did a good deed. Although the economic situation is important all you stated is beyond true in my book.

thug

Thanks, RandomThug; I'm trying to cut down the average length of my no spam posts to about 1/5 of their current length because some folks around here say I go on too long. I think I'm also going to ask Buck if he'll change the post count to a "character post count" that shows the number of characters a person posts instead of just their number of posts. I figure that with a couple more like that one, I should be far ahead of Mr Sleep, and just a little bit behind C Elegans, for the GameBanshee posting title.

@fable:
I think that there is no doubt that America is a society divided by class and that the importance of race in the class divisions has been ignored for decades. There is no doubt in my mind that there is a direct correllation between poverty, education and race that works to keep the majority of blacks, hispanics and "undesirables" under the heel of a largely white upper class.

We can see this in the way crimes are prosecuted and perpetrators are handled. For instance, if someone walks into a convenience store with a gun and robs the place, they will end up serving some hard time at a medium- or high-level security installation as a violent criminal. How many people have they affected or caused injury (assuming that only property is stolen and that the robber didn't shoot anyone)? At worst it is the clerk, anyone else who was in the store and the store's owner.

Contrast that to a guy like Ken Lay or Michael Milken who commits "white collar" crime and embezzles millions of dollars away from his company of the government. How many people were affected by Enron's collapse, which was certainly preventable and the direct result of illegal activities by its CEO and board of directors? Or how about the billions of dollars worth of junk bonds Milken peddled? Milken served 22 months in a country-club prison and was fined a fraction of his fortune on a 98 count indictment. Milken also cost taxpayers millions of dollars in bailing out failed savings & loan institutions.

Statistically, the perpetrator of the first cime is very likely to be black or hispanic, and is almost certainly of the lower socio-economic class. The perpetrator of the second crime is likely to be white, educated and wealthy. Yet we see that in crimes which are of comparatively small scale and aimed at property not personal injury, while not excusable and are technically of a violent nature (ie-armed robbery), the perpetrators are dealt with far more harshly than in instances of fraud or other non-violent crimes that are likely to result in the conviction of an upper-class educated person.

A number of groups harp on race as a singular factor, but I think you are right to say that it is often class-related. How many of the black youth in jail are there because of their class, race, or education? How many are in that position because they have chosen to be? How many are living out a self-fulfilled prophecy that they have been raised on?

I think there are too many factors to point to a mono-causal reason why blacks are over-represented in prisons and on death row. However, certainly the major reasons seem to be class and education. Whether it is self-perpetuating or they are being held down by a system that promotes education for white kids at the expense of black kids is up for debate, but the connections between race and prison are alarming.

I dont know. I just dont like the way the USA functions. I mean we get involved in certain situations that have nothing to do with us and it causes other countries to hate us. I mean what business did we have in Vietnam? In Korea? In Cambodia? In Kosovo? We give weapons to nations that are against are enimies, prompting a theory that the USA believes that an enemy of our enemy is our friend. This is what causes people like Suddam Hussein to gain power and People in Afghanistan to have nuclear weapons, along with Pakistan. I also dont feel that a war with Afghanistan is the way to deal with the problem. Im not sure what the answer is, but I believe that the war vs Afghanistan is thinking to act just for the sake of acting.

And what about the whole situation about Taiwan vs China? I dont think we should interfere. China wants Taiwan back, but Taiwan wants independance. We are guarding Taiwan, but secretly, so we can be friends with China. If China attacks Taiwan, then USA will defend Taiwan and China would then be our enemies and, thereby, creating a world war 3. And Taiwan WAS part of China relatively recently. And if the USA defends independance with every country that wants it-why arent we helping Tibet? Why didnt we help East Timor, where there was a genocide?

I dont know-I have more points to say, and its not like I hate the USA, I feel we do some things right. I just feel that other countries are doing more things right. Its times like these that I wished I lived in England or Canada.

BTW-Sorry if this is a bit off topic

Originally posted by Tybaltus
I dont know. I just dont like the way the USA functions. I mean we get involved in certain situations that have nothing to do with us and it causes other countries to hate us. I mean what business did we have in Vietnam? In Korea? In Cambodia? In Kosovo? We give weapons to nations that are against are enimies, prompting a theory that the USA believes that an enemy of our enemy is our friend. This is what causes people like Suddam Hussein to gain power and People in Afghanistan to have nuclear weapons, along with Pakistan. I also dont feel that a war with Afghanistan is the way to deal with the problem. Im not sure what the answer is, but I believe that the war vs Afghanistan is thinking to act just for the sake of acting.

And what about the whole situation about Taiwan vs China? I dont think we should interfere. China wants Taiwan back, but Taiwan wants independance. We are guarding Taiwan, but secretly, so we can be friends with China. If China attacks Taiwan, then USA will defend Taiwan and China would then be our enemies and, thereby, creating a world war 3. And Taiwan WAS part of China relatively recently. And if the USA defends independance with every country that wants it-why arent we helping Tibet? Why didnt we help East Timor, where there was a genocide?

I dont know-I have more points to say, and its not like I hate the USA, I feel we do some things right. I just feel that other countries are doing more things right. Its times like these that I wished I lived in England or Canada.

BTW-Sorry if this is a bit off topic

The truth...the US helps the countries that will help the US. Wrong...right....both.

Vietnam? *Helping an ally*
In Korea? *Stopping aggression*
In Cambodia? *Part of Vietnam conflict*
In Kosovo? *Europe...helping an ally*

Pakistan, I believe got the nuclear power from..France.
India, I believe from Russia. (these two could be backwards)
Afghanistan doesn't have any.

Tibet...in the beginning the US did send advisors..not enough, and too late.

Taiwan... If the US let China overrun it, what would any ally think of the US when it might need help? Would the US be willing to let them fall as well? If Taiwan decides to join back with China fine, but to force them too is wrong.

(I believe PRC has never had control of Taiwan...the ROC did have control...1896? I believe Japan forced the ROC to give it up, then in 1951 it was taken from them and occupied by the allies. Allies included the ROC, who have held it since.)

East Timor...handled by the UN..I believe by Australia....I also believe Australia handled it just as good (if not better) as the US could had.

Remember, if the US didn't get involved in these conflicts, there would be another side complaining the US didn't do something. The US is not big enough to patrol the whole world (even though Washington might think we are) and must first protect our interest, second protect our allys, then use what we have left to help the other countries of the world.

Lets get busy

Imagine for a moment if America never steped into anything. Imagine perhaps a world in which the greatest power just left everyone alone. You have to realize that America isn't this big nosey nieghbor who buts into stuff, as many times as they say they dont want us in thier business every other country expects us to interfere. America is the big brother, ever since ww2 we have become the force.

Sometimes mistakes are made (Not the war in vietnam but the way it was handled) sometimes issues of why we intervien are clouded (Desert Storm) but the fact of the matter is that we send out our sons and daughters to die for someone else's cause because it resembles our own in some fashion. America isn't perfect but god damn its the closest thing around. If you think that its better for us to butt out of other peoples stuff then your an isolationist, the fact is other people need us.

A lot of times we dont just send troops, we send aid.

America's foriegn policy is not one that benifits us at every turn, people need to know this. I mean look at our debt, look at the countries that use the media to bash America... on printing machines we gave them.

America has to meddle in the affairs of others, because as the world gets larger (and smaller int he same time) every incident becomes everyones problem. Look around the world... all the nuk's missing in russia, Isreal and Palistien going to kill each other off, india and pakistan... china and taiwan.... If we just let them go to thier own devices...

We are not the judge or the jury, we are the wiser older brother who comes in and tries to set things straight, sometimes we screw up, sometimes we help. America would not send in thier own children to die for someone elses cause if it was unimportant to our own security and saftey. As much as you would love to bash (everyone does it) the military, the fact is the Military is there to protect us, the civilians. And if a routine Marine Squad has to break into a jungle down in columbia to kill some drug lords who are trafficing large amounts of heroin to cuba. Well you know what Im glad they did it.

anyhow too much coffee not enough rest.

thug

p.s.

Weasel. We must start from the inside, slowly and slowly we will grow upon the leaders and use them like puppets.... you can rule the world, I just wanna start eliminating people via the Secret service.

First gordypoo

then the world


thug

@ RandomThug

In time all will be as it should...in time

Vietnam? *Helping an ally*
In Korea? *Stopping aggression*
In Cambodia? *Part of Vietnam conflict*
In Kosovo? *Europe...helping an ally*

Typically, large nations with enormous militaries engage in international "aid" of all sorts for a variety of reasons, good and bad. Our interference in Southeast Asia was largely because of a mistaken belief in the so-called Domino Theory: that if one nation like Vietnam "fell to Communism," other nations around it would. We were not only wrong, we turned down one of Vietnam's most important freedom fighters, Ho Chi-Minh, when he was looking for allies and help after WWII (because we didn't want to offend de Gaulle, who essentially said hands off Indochina). Ho turned around and got assistance, training and supplies from the Soviets, so we branded him as Evil, and used a series of trumped up, specious charges to throw troops in South Vietnam (a truly corrupt dictatorship if ever there was one) when Ho tried to reunite his country.

On the other hand, the US entered Korea *at the request of the UN for all the military aid it could get* once N Korea had chosen to invade, with the "People's Republic" of China's assistance. It may have been an ugly, senseless war, but the US effectively prevented a tin-pot dictator from reducing the southern half of the Korean peninsula to the kind of disaster area achieved since in the northern half.

But the places to really watch for foreign involvement aren't the wars. Look to the revolutions and sudden policy shifts of small governments, and you'll see, sometimes clearly, sometimes not, the economic and military clout of very large, powerful nations at work. For example, the US helped overthrow the elected regimes of Guatemala, Chile, and Argentina at various points in the 1950s and 60s to prevent governments viewed as hostile from taking over. Nor was the US alone in this. The problem is whether the interference is worth the effort, particularly when the heads making the choices are hardly the longest in an average drugstore, much less in the nation.

Aw cr*p.

At least the guy is allowed to buy and own a camcorder.

How often does this happen? How big is the population of the US?

We don't even hear about the stuff that goes on in other countries. I suppose people are just eyeing the US, greedily hoping Freedom will fail.

Damn, its easy to point the finger and criticise.

Maybe I just feel that way because Im naturally passive. No, I understand. I just feel that so many other countries dont like us, and I always want to feel liked. I want to point out or atleast think of ways that some countries dont like us. I always want to see all the points of view, but thats really hard to do, especially since Ive lived my entire life in the states.

My examples probably werent the best, but I think you all got the point.

You are probably right, Gruntboy. Radicals probably just want freedom and democracy to fail.

I hope I havent made any enemies in my few posts on this thread, because I certainly didnt mean that.

BTW-I am impressed with the historical knowledge that everyone has. you guys sound like you know your stuff

Originally posted by Tybaltus


I hope I havent made any enemies in my few posts on this thread, because I certainly didnt mean that.

I really don't believe anyone would call you an enemy for stating your opinion.

As to being liked in the world....if will never happen because at one point or another sides will have to be taken on any issue. What is good for Spain, might not be good for France. If it's in the benefit of the US to go along with Spain, you can bet there will be some French who will not like the US because of this.

@ Weasel

But thier french. Who cares.

Anyhow no bad blood.

thug

Re: @ RT

Don't get me started on the French!

I wouldnt think I would make enemies from my post, but if you realize-its one of my first opinion posts-so its basically a first impression.

Besides, other than Random Thug, I have the least posts among everyone here. And, Weasel, your picture intimidates me.

Originally posted by Gruntboy
We don't even hear about the stuff that goes on in other countries. I suppose people are just eyeing the US, greedily hoping Freedom will fail.

Blame it on all images of flag-waving American politicians assuring the rest of the world that they will never match up to the standards of freedom (or anything else) found in the US. Say that often enough, criticize what everybody else says or thinks often enough, and eventually people are going to take delight in however you fail. Reminds me of an old Dutch proverb, to the effect that "The person who climbs highest on the ladder always has more of a chance to show that their ass is uncovered."