Jump to content
Ragitsu

[Police brutality] American injustice, yet again.

Recommended Posts

A huge part of the problems is that too many white people are utterly paranoid about other races and bring the police into the equation when they are clearly not needed (including many situations where no crime at all has occurred). It even happens at Yale, an Ivy League university where students should know better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Michael Hopcroft said:

A huge part of the problems is that too many white people are utterly paranoid about other races and bring the police into the equation when they are clearly not needed (including many situations where no crime at all has occurred). It even happens at Yale, an Ivy League university where students should know better.

There is a contingent of students and staff at ivy league colleges ESPECIALLY who live in communities so removed from most minorities that they have the least experience of any of us coexisting as equals.

 

https://www.fastcompany.com/40556164/a-new-kind-of-city-tour-shows-the-history-of-racist-housing-policy

 

I would say that all white towns, regardless of income level, are a huge source of this inability, whether they are all white by choice or by historical and systematic racism as seen in the link above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Portland was very heavily segregated in the pre-Civil Rights Movement era. In fact, the Constitution Oregon adopted when they reached statehood in 1859 prohibited black people (slave or free) from entering or living in the state at all. It was literally against the law to be black!

 

After the passage of the 14th Amendment that couldn't practically be enforced, but Oregonians did their darnedest to keep the state as white as they possibly could. A black community and black middle class did emerge, but it was heavily suppressed whenever possible. In the 1920s, the resurgent Ku Kux Klan included about half the elected officials of the state on its membership rolls. In the 1940s there was a large influx of shipyard workers, but the natives deliberately made them feel unwelcome. When the largely-black city of Vanport was destroyed by a flood in 1948, the city of Portland condemned the land and forbade the residents from rebuilding their homes.

 

It has taken a long time for those attitudes to change, and with much resistance.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Michael Hopcroft said:

Portland was very heavily segregated in the pre-Civil Rights Movement era. In fact, the Constitution Oregon adopted when they reached statehood in 1859 prohibited black people (slave or free) from entering or living in the state at all. It was literally against the law to be black!

 

After the passage of the 14th Amendment that couldn't practically be enforced, but Oregonians did their darnedest to keep the state as white as they possibly could. A black community and black middle class did emerge, but it was heavily suppressed whenever possible. In the 1920s, the resurgent Ku Kux Klan included about half the elected officials of the state on its membership rolls. In the 1940s there was a large influx of shipyard workers, but the natives deliberately made them feel unwelcome. When the largely-black city of Vanport was destroyed by a flood in 1948, the city of Portland condemned the land and forbade the residents from rebuilding their homes.

 

It has taken a long time for those attitudes to change, and with much resistance.

 

 

 

 

 

Is it Portland or Oregon overall that's still roughly 90% Caucasian/white? I keep forgetting, and i've lived here for most of my life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ragitsu said:

 

Is it Portland or Oregon overall that's still roughly 90% Caucasian/white? I keep forgetting, and i've lived here for most of my life.

I'll have to google that.


Done. the state as a whole reported as 87% white according to the 2010 census. Of those, 78% claimed they were neither Hispanic or Latino, African-Americans account for only about 2%.The highest concentration of African-Americans is naturally in Portland, but they still only account for under 6% of Portanders. By contrast, Portland itself is a little over 70% white.

 

I find those statistics rather alarming, actually. Populations that relatively small are virtually guaranteed to be socially and politically marginalized.  Not only is poverty chronic among marginalized populations, but a great deal of effort is being put into keeping them poor and marginalized. In Portland, for example, both the City Council and the County Commission are lily white,and the five City Councilors (including the Mayor) are all upper-middle-class from the prosperous West Side. Portland's charter mandates that all five members be elected At-Large as opposed to representing districts. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/23/2017 at 7:05 AM, Pattern Ghost said:

 

Most of the time people using a knife as a threat aren't quite ready to actually use it. This woman was mentally unstable, but I'd have taken the bet that since I hadn't been stabbed yet, that I had at least the option to extend the verbal phase a bit.

 

Interesting; I've heard the opposite though I can't remember if the friend telling me so was the smalltown police official or the self defense instructor. At any rate, I was told (in the context of threat levels of being mugged) that someone holding you up with a gun was most likely trying to achieve their goal without having to shoot you, whereas someone brandishing a knife had already gone through the process of stabbing you in their mind and was much likelier to make an actual attempt on your life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Matt the Bruins said:

Interesting; I've heard the opposite though I can't remember if the friend telling me so was the smalltown police official or the self defense instructor. At any rate, I was told (in the context of threat levels of being mugged) that someone holding you up with a gun was most likely trying to achieve their goal without having to shoot you, whereas someone brandishing a knife had already gone through the process of stabbing you in their mind and was much likelier to make an actual attempt on your life.

 

That isn't really the opposite of what Pattern Ghost was saying.  PG was referring to knife wielders in general whereas the person you spoke to previously was specifically referring to knife wielding muggers.  Muggers probably only make up a small percentage of knife wielders.  So, it is perfectly possible that most knife wielders aren't ready to use the knife, but muggers are not like most other knife wielders.  Also, PG is a member of law enforcement.  It seems likely that muggers with knives, as murderous as they may (or may not) be, don't get into confrontations with police.  After all, they know that the police officer has a gun, and probably also know the old adage about not bringing a knife to a gun fight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Ranxerox said:

Also, PG is a member of law enforcement. 

 

Former Military Police. Not nearly as rough as civilian side, to be honest.

 

1 hour ago, Matt the Bruins said:

At any rate, I was told (in the context of threat levels of being mugged) that someone holding you up with a gun was most likely trying to achieve their goal without having to shoot you, whereas someone brandishing a knife had already gone through the process of stabbing you in their mind and was much likelier to make an actual attempt on your life. 

 

It's quite possible this is correct,  though the situation is different. I'd say in general, a career criminal is more likely to stab you, as they're more likely to have experience stabbing someone. In the case of a mugging, the person has a premeditated goal, so it may well be true that they've decided that if you don't comply, they'll go ahead and force compliance with a bit of stabbing. It's also possible that the weapon choice reflects the willingness to use said weapon, in as much as a knife is much quieter than a gun if it comes down to using it. So, the statement makes a bit of sense if you think about it.

 

In the case we were discussing further back, it seemed like it presented as a more spontaneous threat, or if the officers were aware of the prior event, a premeditated suicide by cop attempt. Absent any prior knowledge, if someone started getting agitated and waving a knife around, I'd try to talk them down under the assumption they weren't quite worked up to stabbing yet. It's a risk, but I don't relish the thought of killing someone if I can avoid it. (So far, so good.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Michael Hopcroft said:

the state as a whole reported as 87% white according to the 2010 census. Of those, 78% claimed they were neither Hispanic or Latino, African-Americans account for only about 2%.The highest concentration of African-Americans is naturally in Portland, but they still only account for under 6% of Portanders. By contrast, Portland itself is a little over 70% white.

 

I find those statistics rather alarming, actually. Populations that relatively small are virtually guaranteed to be socially and politically marginalized.  Not only is poverty chronic among marginalized populations, but a great deal of effort is being put into keeping them poor and marginalized. In Portland, for example, both the City Council and the County Commission are lily white,and the five City Councilors (including the Mayor) are all upper-middle-class from the prosperous West Side. Portland's charter mandates that all five members be elected At-Large as opposed to representing districts. 

 

I love my city while hating the fact that it has a wide dark underbelly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a little annoyed they buried the detail that he had drunkenly pointed a gun at the officers and then didn't follow directions. Kinda makes him less sympathetic.

 

On the other hand, it says they found the gun in his back pocket after they shot him.  They shot him basically because he was shutting the garage door between them.  So, over a 3 hour standoff, he pointed a gun at a cop, and then put it in his back pocket.  Then he started the door closing, at which points officers had to decide, do they want to risk this guy going off to get more guns? finding a little peephole to shoot from? So they shot him before they lost sight of him.

 

My one qualm in the whole "he died for being drunk-stupid" argument is the compliance bit.  If the order was to drop the gun, then complying would be potentially lethal, since it would look just like he was going for his gun.  Almost any movement can be taken by a trigger happy cop as "he's going for a gun!" So I'll grant that 'sober compliance' is not a panacea, especially for people of color.

 

Still, a standoff that long doesn't seem to jive with a trigger-happy-racist cops story for me. I can imagine being a cop, seeing this drunk-stupid non-compliant guy try to leave my field of vision, so I'd have no idea what he was about to do, meaning do to me or my friends . . . and saying nope I'll shoot you first.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, but you see, he had the presence of mind to responsibly stow his unloaded firearm into his back pocket after a 9x19mm Parabellum round tickled his brain at supersonic speeds. By the way, I wasn't aware that being hammered in your own home is a crime...yet the local PD tried to frame Gregory Vaughn Hill Jr as unsympathetic by clarifying just how intoxicated he was prior to his death.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being drunk isn't a crime. Pointing guns at cops is a crime. Being drunk might make you stupid enough to point a gun at a cop.

 

And obviously, he put the gun away before he got shot. But he still didn't comply, and shut the door. At that point cops don't know if he pulled it back out or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Sociotard said:

And obviously, he put the gun away before he got shot. But he still didn't comply, and shut the door. At that point cops don't know if he pulled it back out or not.

 

You ought to re-read the sequence of events (note how long S.W.A.T. was engaging in a standoff with a dead man).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Sociotard said:

On the other hand, it says they found the gun in his back pocket after they shot him.  They shot him basically because he was shutting the garage door between them.  So, over a 3 hour standoff, he pointed a gun at a cop, and then put it in his back pocket.  Then he started the door closing, at which points officers had to decide, do they want to risk this guy going off to get more guns? finding a little peephole to shoot from? So they shot him before they lost sight of him.

 

To me, the hard part is the missing information. There must have been a suspicion of some specific crime to start with, otherwise the police officers wouldn't have been at that location. After all, without the foreknowledge of some criminal undertaking a police officer shooting someone because that person denied them entry into their home comes very close to a federal crime.

It is still illegal to violate someone's constitutional rights, isn't it? Perhaps the issue isn't really with the local law enforcement personnel being too gung ho violent, but with a generation of federal prosecutors that don't feel like doing their job. Perhaps we need a higher authority to police the police force. Perhaps I went through all of this just so I could ask who watches the watchmen?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The article linked doesn't mention the deceased raising his gun, just the police finding it in his back pocket.

 

A detailed account of the event on another news site mentions him raising his gun, but does not mention the gun ending up in his back pocket.

 

I didn't see an account that lists both things. If there is one, I'll point out that getting shot in the head is not the same as being shot in the brain. If you look at a head from the front, only about 20% of that area is an instant kill if hit, meaning if a shot hits anywhere in the other 80%, it's possible to keep moving. Being 5x over the limit, it's quite possible he didn't get stunned by the shot. I once watched an extremely drunk man step into traffic, get clipped by a semi, spin around a couple times and keep walking. Pain wouldn't be a factor.

 

So, we have FOUR scenarios:

 

1. Guy opens garage door, starts to close it. Cops shoot him. Cops find gun in back pocket.

2. Guy opens garage door, points gun at cops, starts closing garage door. Cops shoot him.

3. Guy opens garage door, points gun at cops, starts closing garage door. Cops shoot him. Head wound is non-incapacitating. He puts the gun in his pocket in a confused state, and bleeds out (either through torso hit or brain hemorrhage kicking in.)

4. Guy opens garage door, points gun at cops, starts closing garage door. Cops shoot him. Head wound is instantly lethal. He dies. Cops lie about finding gun in back pocket.

 

Which of these is most likely? What is number 5 scenario that I didn't think of? Beats me.

 

Here's a story from a local news outlet:

 

http://www.wpbf.com/article/greg-vaughn-hill-jr-suspect-who-died-during-swat-standoff-identified/1320458

 

This was published soon after the shooting, so wouldn't include details that may have come out in the lawsuit. It doesn't mention the gun in a back pocket.

 

Here's coverage of the verdict from the Miami Herald:

 

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/national/article212324564.html

 

It says: "Court documents allege Hill was found dead with an unloaded handgun in his back pocket."

 

Why use the word "allege" here? WTF? Either the police documented this or they didn't. If the police documented that they found the gun in his back pocket, then it should read "police reports allege" and if the allegation was brought up by the plaintiff, it should say "counsel for the plaintiffs alleged" . . . Crap reporting strikes again. "Court documents allege" is too vague to be useful, because in order to paint a clear picture, you need to know who said it.

 

So, now we're down to the Herald either using a grossly incompetent writer and editors, or trying to obfuscate the point.

 

This is exactly the kind of case and the kind of reporting that create backlash and detracts from legitimate concerns. (Including those of the family of the deceased in this case.)

 

But hey, click bait makes money these days

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, clnicholsusa said:

There must have been a suspicion of some specific crime to start with, otherwise the police officers wouldn't have been at that location.

 

They were called because of a complaint of excessively loud and profane music. It's in the article linked by Ragitsu.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It bothers me that the officer fired all his shots through the garage door. They then had a 2-hr standoff with a man that the coroner said was killed by the shot to the head whose dying act was to place his gun in his back pocket.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Grailknight said:

It bothers me that the officer fired all his shots through the garage door.

 

It's possible the officer decided to fire just before the door started coming down and the shots went through it because of reaction lag. That kind of thing happens fairly regularly, particularly with someone turning their back as someone raises a gun to shoot them, thus getting shot in the back even though they were the aggressor when the sequence leading to the shot was started. (It's also possible he was a yutz shooting through a door. I'm just saying it's not always cut and dry.)

 

10 minutes ago, Grailknight said:

the coroner said was killed by the shot to the head whose dying act was to place his gun in his back pocket.

 

Where did you get the information about the coroner's statement? All I could find were references to his BAC from the toxicology reports. Is there an actual detailed report of the trial for the lawsuit somewhere?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyhow . . . here's a Slate article discussing the screwed up award from the jury:

 

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/05/gregory-hill-shooting-how-could-a-jury-award-his-family-only-usd4.html?via=recirc_recent

 

It seems like the jurors may have been more than a bit confused about the guidelines for awarding damages. None of the jurors has spoken yet, according to that article.

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PDF link to some court documents (I haven't finished reading them yet):

 

https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/deputy.pdf

 

Edit: From this, it looks like the deputy shot the guy and got lucky finding (or "finding" even) a gun on him after the fact. The head shot was immediately incpacitating according to coroner testimony, and although it was the last of the shots fired, it's pretty unlikely the highly drunk victim got the gun in his back pocket in the time it took to dump four shots on him. So, the call of negligence from the jury seems correct at first blush.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/1/2018 at 10:34 PM, clnicholsusa said:

It is still illegal to violate someone's constitutional rights, isn't it?

 

On paper, of course it is. In practice . . . well, look around. It's becoming blatantly obvious that the people with power have decided that legal protections of ANY kind only apply to the powerful and their servants.

 

I just wish I had some idea of what to DO about it that didn't look like the French Revolution, and that the French Revolution wasn't starting to look reasonable.

 

Editing to add:

 

To clarify: I once swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, and I stand by that. I do not want a revolution to depose the government and put in a new one; I believe that our laws would give us a perfectly serviceable and just government if they were applied to everyone equally. That's what I want to see; the corrupt and powerful cast down, and a new batch of civil servants put in place, who know that they are there to serve the public and that the law will come after them with sharp, snippy teeth when they use their positions to do wrong to their fellow citizens.

 

I also want to see a society that disallows extreme inequality of income and wealth. Despite what my avatar might lead some to think, I do NOT advocate a society where the "rich" are brought down to the level of the poor. What I want to see is a society where a rising tide really DOES lift all boats; where the lucky and exceptional people of the world are still allowed to excel and profit, but they pull the wealth floor of society up WITH them as they climb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/2/2018 at 9:58 AM, Pattern Ghost said:

 

They were called because of a complaint of excessively loud and profane music. It's in the article linked by Ragitsu.

Which no doubt means music of black origin. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×