Got this from the internet:
Before I begin, I'd like to say that the Mike Brown situation is tragic. Regardless of how it all turns out, regardless of whether or not the shooting was justified, the death of a human being is nothing to take lightly, saying nothing of the families and friends that are affected by the tragedy. The issue I have, is the response of the urban community to this situation. Rather than show patience and wait for the facts to unravel before making a move, the urban community made a very hasty emotional response to the situation. Before ya'll start hating and saying stupid sh*t, just no I ain't no cop lover, and I ain't white, I'm black and I'm from Stockton Ca, one of the realest cities out there. I'm here stating facts:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rc3mgKLntNs
I find this video interesting because the first half of it clearly depicts the issues I have with the urban communities response to the Mike Brown situation. As soon as the video starts, JP (the man on the left) starts talking about Eric Garner and mentions that how It's not ok to choke someone selling single cigarettes and Sho Baraka (the man on the right, henceforth Sho) chimes in and explains that cops should've talked to Garner to get him to stop and choking someone out should be the last resort. Both of these statements and opinions are correct, but both JP and Sho don't seem to be aware of what really happened with the Gardner situation. Lets watch the video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJf8GNTBUA4
Disclaimer: I have a bit of an issue with the video because it appears to be edited. At 1:18 seconds, the video cuts from a side view of the white officer standing next to a woman, to a back view of the same officer minus the woman. How much time passed? How long were they talking to him? The video cuts again at 1:45. At about 2:19 seconds, the white officer is standing there calmly and suddenly, at 2:20 seconds, the video cuts to Garner getting arrested. This raises a question. Why was the video edited? What did they leave out?
JP says the officers should talk to him. Well, according to the video above and the videos around the internet, we see just that. The officers are calmly talking to Garner from 1:22 to 2:19, and, in actuality, it looks like Garner is doing the majority of the talking, so the officers are simply listening. Either way, it depicts something entirely different than JP and Sho's insinuation that the cops did not talk to Garner and choked him to death. Judging from Garners own words, he has been talked to MULTIPLE TIMES (he was also arrested previously for a similar offense). Why else would Garner say "I told you the last time, please just leave me alone?" If they weren't constantly talking to him, why would Garner accuse the police of constantly harassing him. So the facts clearly show that Garner was talked to before.
The white cop goes up to Garner and they initially start trying to arrest him with no violence. All Garner had to do was put his hands behind his back, turn around, and let them place the cuffs on him and if there was a misunderstanding or an issue, clear it up in court. Instead, he resisted arrest and the cop applies a choke hold. Now, let's put our thinking caps on. Did the cop know Garner had asthma? No, how could he? So we can safely assume (unless there is something that indicates otherwise) that the cop did not know Garner had asthma, and as a result, we can also safely assume that the cop applied the choke hold because Garner was resisting arrest, not because he knew Garner had asthma and was trying to kill him. As they all went to the ground Garner said "I can't breathe I cant breathe." If you listen carefully, around 2:37, you hear Garner say in a strangled voice, "I can't breathe," at which point it looks like the cop releases the choke hold, and places his hand on Garners head. It seems like, if someone looks at the video and watches it with a critical eye, the cops are doing everything that JP and Sho suggests a cop should do. They talk to Garner, they listen to Garner, they try to arrest Garner without violence, Garner resists, so the cops apply a choke hold, Garner says I can't breathe, and the cop releases the choke hold. Unfortunately, Garner died. Tragic indeed, but were the cops fault? No. Additionally, from a law enforcement perspective, should cops stop arresting everyone that says they can't breathe? People getting arrested usually, for the most part, will say or do anything they can to avoid being arrested, so as cops, what should be done? Take the handcuffs off? Stop attempting to subdue the individual? and allow them to gain an advantage, potentially retrieve a weapon. It's not an easy situation, but generally, to be effective at law enforcement, someone simply saying "I can't breathe" should not be a 'get out of handcuffs or stop arresting' card. JP brings up a point about not breathing in the video, but bringing up the point is not the same thing as addressing the point or refuting it.
Conclusion: JP and Sho are wrong about what happened to Garner. Not just a little bit wrong either, but spectacularly wrong. The cops spent a good amount of time talking and listening to Garner, (Ya know, because we should be faster to listen than speak) despite JP and Sho's insinuation (joking or otherwise) that the cops didn't try and talk to Garner before arresting him. The cops didn't "Choke slam the dude" either, they applied a choke hold after Garner resisted arrest and released it once he said he couldn't breathe. I'm just assuming here, but I am going to guess that JP and Sho are wrong because they didn't do the research before jumping on the black man victimization outrage bandwagon. It's really sad that amongst black people there is no discussion about how Garner himself could've prevented this situation by either not committing a crime in the first place, or simply cooperating with the cops. IMO, this is why our community is a mess, because we do not hold each other accountable for our actions, and its perpetuated by everyone, from the top to the bottom. It's always everyone else's fault. No different than Adam blaming Eve and Eve blaming the snake. This type of finger pointing combined with the lack of intelligent research and conversation is why our community is at the state it's in. Whether JP or Sho were joking or adding entertainment value to their points is irrelevant, because neither did the proper research before giving their opinions and it's this type of disregard for wisdom (wisdom would be doing adequate research, then giving your opinion) that's hurting our community. Furthermore, they don't seem to be able to look at any situation from a law enforcement perspective.
At 1:47, JP says the police treat black neighborhoods different than other neighborhoods. Does JP not realize that black neighborhoods have more crime than white neighborhoods? Does JP not realize that the majority of the people in black neighborhoods have different (aggressive) attitudes towards cops than people in white neighborhoods? Or does JP think the multiple statistics, the anecdotal and observable evidence, that show black people commit the most crimes and are very aggressive when to comes to cops is somehow racist evidence? Or those stats don't matter? A fact is a fact. The most common response to that is 'Black communities are hostile to cops because cops have a history of being brutal to black communities.' This is true, but its irrelevant. Does that fact somehow negate the fact that black communities commit a lot of crime and are hostile to cops? No it does not. The existence of one fact does not negate the existence of the other. Both facts can be in existence at the same time. So it is true that the cops have a history of brutality when it comes to black communities, it is also true that black communities commit the most violent crime and are hostile to cops. In regards to the statistics, the exact number may not be accurate, but the basic premise is true. Black people commit violent crimes at a much higher rate than white people, which is why cops will treat black people differently than white people. In the suburbs, you don't really have to worry about the person you're talking to has a gun or a squad of people ready to fire on you if something goes wrong. Keep in mind, the exception does not disprove the rule. Just because you can find a report or two of a crime or gun violence in the suburbs doesn't disprove the fact, the reality, that in predominately white neighborhoods (aka the suburbs), there is a very low amount of violent crime, and in black communities, there is a very high amount of violent crime.
At 2:12 Sho talks about how antagonizing it is because he didn't hear anything about the shooting of an unarmed teen, instead he just heard that there were mobs gathering in STL. First of all, I heard about the shooting of an unarmed teen before I heard about the "mobs." If it's antagonizing because Sho heard about the mobs before he heard about the shooting, does that make it not antagonizing when I heard about the shooting before I heard about the mobs? Furthermore, Sho went on to say the media did not describe people protesting the world bank as a mob (I'm assuming he was talking about operation wall street), or how people turning over and burning cars aren't described as mobs. First off, the difference between OWS and Ferguson was OWS wasn't looting, destroying buildings, destroying cars etc. etc. Sho said, "even when they turn over cars and burn them up, they're not mobs." This is wrong. A quick google search showed different media outlets describing the Lakers fans as mobs after the 2010 Victory.
https://www.google.com/search?q=laker+fans+mob+&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=sb
An additional speedy google search showed media outlets describing the people that participated in the 08 Philadelphia riot as a mob.
https://www.google.com/search?q=laker+fans+mob+&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=sb#channel=sb&q=08+philadelphia+riots+mob&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&spell=1
If a quick google search shows that Sho is wrong, imagine what a thorough one would reveal.
At around 3:10, Sho says there are reports of police taunting the crowd. Are these reports accurate?
At around 4:07, Sho calls this stuff an epidemic. This hardly qualifies as an epidemic. No matter how strongly you or anyone else may feel (key word feel), it is far from an epidemic.
Dictionary.com describes epidemic as follows:
1.Also, epidemical. (of a disease) affecting many persons at the same time, and spreading from person to person in a locality where the disease is not permanently prevalent.
2.extremely prevalent; widespread.
3.a temporary prevalence of a disease.
4.a rapid spread or increase in the occurrence of something:
"an epidemic of riots."
If three instances of 'police killing unarmed black men' in a month is an epidemic, then what else is considered an epidemic because it happens three times a month? Why only apply it to cops killing unarmed black men? why not anything else? why the double starndard? This is bad logic.
At around 4:20 Sho talks about Viper threat management. Sho is horribly horribly misinformed about the Viper Threat Management group (henceforth VTMG). Sho seems to think that VTMG 'approach with love rhetoric' should be applied to all police everywhere, and all police need to do is 'talk it out' and if you approach someone with love then everything would be so happy with rainbows and kittens (that was exaggeration to illustrate a point). What Sho doesn't seem to understand (most likely because the depth of his research was that one youtube video and the VTMG website) is VTMG is a protective services company that does protective service work. They only do one aspect of law enforcement. They have no arrest record because their job isn't to arrest people. They can't! They're a private company; they have no real authority to arrest. They don't have to use guns because they aren't running operations to raid people distributing drugs from their house. VTMG will have an easier time deescalating problems and lowering violent encounters because the main thing that makes criminals violent in the first place (in the context of encounters with the police) is the threat of going to jail. Since VTMG cannot take anyone to jail, criminals don't feel the need to be violent when they interact with them. VTMG's job is protection. How many drug dealers did they get off the street? How many in progress robberies have they stopped with their 'approach with love rhetoric.' Sho seems to be very uninformed when it very simple concepts of law enforcement.
Around 5:47, JP and Sho are talking about all police aren't bad and Sho hasn't had any good contact with the police. That's the personal opinion of JP and Sho, so theres no way one can verify if he's being accurate, but based upon how badly misinformed they both seem to be, one wonders if Sho's problems with police aren't the result of his own attitude. Perhaps he should sit down with one of his friends in the force and really get educated about the role of law enforcement, what types of jobs they preform, and how they go about doing their duties and make sure the cop doesn't blow you off as 'just another black man that doesn't understand cops.' Make sure he really explains to you how things work from his perspective.
Around 6:13, JP brings up conspiracy theories about cops allowing crime to exist because if it didn't, they would be out of a job. This is simply more finger pointing and blaming. What evidence does JP have, real evidence, not conspiracy theories, but real evidence? Most importantly, not a single hint of accountability within the black community. JP says nothing about people in black communities not committing crimes in the first place. Sho says something about how cops don't have a passion for people and they don't to serve and protect. Sho is demonstrating classic tunnel vision here. He's too focused on the black community and he refuses to look outside of it. Getting rid of the drug dealer protects people. Getting rid of bad guys protects citizens, so cops protect and serve. Killing innocent people, neither protects or serves anyone, but JP and Sho have yet to give a legitimate example of cops killing an innocent person (not saying it hasn't happened, because it has, but in the context of this video they have not). Sho's attempts to blanket an entire race of people as 'the least of us' doesn't make them all innocent.
Sho brings up how every time an authority figure kills an innocent black person, people point out that black people kill each other every day. Sho calls it misdirection and depending on the context, he may be right, but it depends on the context. I find it interesting that one "innocent" black male is killed and the city of STL starts rioting and solidarity is shown everywhere, but when an innocent little girl dies from gang violence, the solidarity and riots are nowhere to be found, and while that doesn't deal with the issue of authorities killing innocents, it does point out the black community's lack of accountability and responsibility. Rioting and solidarity is only shown when a white cop does it. When it comes to the issue of authorities killing innocents, there's no excuse for that, but again, in regards to this video, JP and Sho have not shown any innocents being killed by the police. They're just assuming the cops killed another innocent black male because, for some reason, everything the black community says is true and should be taken at face value.
At around 7:27 Sho blames the government. More finger pointing. Brown was in this predicament because he robbed a convenience store and thought he was going to go to jail when the cop car rolled up on him. He probably fought the cop, reached for his gun, the cop shoved him off, brown charged, and the cop shot him. The whole mike brown incident, to include JP and Shos response, shows exactly what is wrong with our community and culture. Brown is shot by the cops and Browns friend, says Brown had his hands up in surrender and the cop shot him execution style. That seems to be all JP, Sho and the black community need to jump on the injustice bandwagon. No need to do any research, no need to be wise and wait for further info, no question on the veracity of the witness, nothing. Then, later it comes out that brown was involved in a robbery (which Browns friend neglected to mention). Finally, the autopsy came out and it completely contradicts Browns friends statement. No shots in the back, a shot in the top of the head and in the arm. Is there a single mention of any of this? No. Is there a single mention that Brown friend lied? No. The black community continues on as if none of this matters, because they're past the point of no return. They're fully invested and for anyone to admit they're wrong and they rushed into it to fast would be too humbling, because when it comes to the injustice band wagon, there's no room for be humble, there's no room for wisdom, there's no room for accountability. If that cop shot an innocent mike brown, then he should be held accountable, but wait until you have all of the facts before opening your mouth.
Sho makes a great point about not expecting the government to care about the inner city and how black people need to come in, own business, and make relationships. I completely agree. This is a great point and we won't see a change until this happens, but his whole 'develop a relationship' rhetoric is really naïve. Sho seems to think that all you have to do is 'develop a relationship' and people won't commit crimes. At some point, someone is going to have to go to jail, and that is where the potential for violence comes from and no amount of talking and relationships is going to make that any easier.
From 9 minutes on, Sho finally makes a lot of sense and starts talking about communities coming together and helping themselves and not relying on government. The only issue I have is the people in black neighborhoods don't want anything to do with educated black people. We are called white washed, uncle toms, etc. etc. and usually shunned, but I do agree, that we need to find a better way to help our people, but the sort of poor logic based off of bad information and poor research displayed in the initial part of the video only perpetuates the problem.
