rioting in the midwest

Originally posted by Toltec
Rules are rules Leveler the speed exceeds a certain amount the police are supose to back off, that is the regulation and that is the point.

I don't dispute that fact. The police were in the wrong.
Technically and legally - they are responsible.

But morally?

If they hadn't acted and an accident had occured, they would still have been held accountable in our minds.
We expect our police to be infallible and if they don't stop a crime we sometimes ignore the fact that we tied their hands and blame them.

I don't believe this is an uncommon perception either. There are a lot of people in the US who would say that although the police were technically at fault, the motorcyclists were more at fault because they were speeding in the first place and they chose to flee.

Outside the technicality of the law, most of us would see the motorcyclists as the criminals . Therefore the motorcyclists were the instigators of their own demise.

I believe most of the people rioting would not be blind to that fact either. They aren't that stupid. They know that if these guys had not been breaking the law in the first place and endangering lives, there would have been no chase. Morally, the rioters should not be using the death of the motorcyclist as the excuse for their cause.


They are blaming the police because it's the easy way out.
They should instead be blaming their own society and themselves for growing a young man who wasted his life in a needless accident that he was morally responsible for causing.

Had the police backed the alleged criminal would have had the option to slow down. The fact that the police were not chasing him is a factor with respect to anything that would have happened after they had stopped pursuit.

Even if you feel its a technicality the law states he is innocent until proven guilty, therefore how he is treated until a court of law deems him guilty is as an innocent man.

Our system of law is not perfect innocent people are convicted of crimes. Meaning, that if a person who is in fact innocent runs from the law, there is no reason to assume he is guilty. But rather, he could be running because he is innocent and is afraid of being convicted as guilty because of some cause (which has nothing to do with the crime he is accused of).


That is the point of the law and for the record morality favors it.

Take for instance those at those site who feel that the Cabal is everywhere and one day they are accused of a crime they did not commit. Is trying to run away from the police immaterial or is it evidence they in fact committed the crime?

That man despite his race, creed or color was at the time innocent of any crimes and should have been treated as such. treating him otherwise precludes any conclusions there was another reason for him to run.

In other words he could have been guilty of having gotten the police chiefs daughter pregnant but otherwise, could have been an innocent man.

He is dead now and because of that there is no way to tell and the reason he is dead is because the police did not follow the proper regulations, for all we know its because he did get the wrong girl pregnant. And such evidence would have been an issue in a
trial.

This type of stuff happens all over the world probably everyday. Here in Southern California car chases are like sunrises, they are bound to happen. The moral issue need not to be brought upon the man who died nor do it need to be brought upon the law and the enforcers of that law. The moral issue needs to be brought upon those rioting over this matter.

What we need to ask ourselves is this:

Are we going to let fools and criminals make us into fools and criminals???

Are we going to let our soceity fall into traps of death and destruction just because other people bring these traps upon themselves???

We shouldn't. If we did then L.A. and many other cities and countries will be torn apart by the daily rifts within the system. Yeah I know that this issue may differ from that of LA's because of the population factors, but it doesn't exlude our reasons for using rational and sensuality in handling these matters. At least it shouldn't. People need to learn to not allow simple issues like this to upset their world. This man was wrong and so were the officers. (in some sense)

That doesn't excuse the fact that the rest of this town was wrong as well. They are just as corrupt as any other party so as long as they continue this violence and mayhem. Now we are getting back into blame again, when we should be looking for solutions.

This issue is over. What we need now is a common agreement on saftey standards and ethical procedures. This blame will only lead to more dispute and unrest.

Let us find the answer not the questions.


Abraham

Originally posted by Toltec
That man despite his race, creed or color was at the time innocent of any crimes and should have been treated as such.

My understanding is that he was being stopped for speeding. That was the whole reason for the chase.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I didn't read anywhere that he was chased for any other reason.
My whole point rests on that fact. If they were stopping him for any other reason, then I apologise for not knowing that fact and it makes my point invalid.


But if they were trying to stop him because he was speeding, he was breaking the law.
Isn't speeding a crime that can be detected and judged immediately?

Police can give out tickets at the road side for speeding. You don't go through the whole legal system for a speeding fine. The police have the technology in their cars to prove you guilty immediately.

So doesn't that make the motorcyclist a criminal? Doesn't that morally make him the instigator of the accident?

The law is the law is the law. But it isn't always perfect. In fact at times it's a joke. It can't be applied 100%.

In this case it's a weighing up. The police are to blame for breaking the law and chasing the motorcyclist. The motorcyclist is to blame for speeding in the first place.

Then take each party out of the equation separately.

If you take the motorcyclist away the law isn't being broken. Nobody is speeding.
But put the motorcyclist back and take the police away and he is still speeding and the law is being broken.
The motorcyclist is the lawbreaker.

Legally and technically the police are responsible. But morally I think the motorcyclist was the one at fault.

I am not trying to say that the motorist committed a crime in fact he did, but there are laws which are clear with respect to high speed chases.

The issue of machines with respect to a court of law is that said machines have to be proven to have been properly calibrated. If that proof is not provided in court the accused is found innocent.

Leveler my point is they chased a person because he was for all intent and purpose committing a crime. He responded by eluding them and as a result the police engaged in an illegal high speed chase. Its probably the police responded on impulse but that does not change the fact a man is dead. If they had followed regulations things would be different but they did not.

I know it sounds like I am splitting hairs in presenting support for the rioters but it is because of alternatives to reasons why they were chasing him. Potential exist that that these alternatives reasons for why they were chasing him were the cause of him running, otherwise he would have pulled over.

Hence the purpose of the regulation which if the police had followed, could have avoided the mans death. the fact they did not follow policy brings up these other issues not matter how wrong it may be.

The point is that the law is made to protect the innocent despite the fact the as a result the guilty get away.

In this case the law was not followed and that is wrong

Originally posted by Toltec

The point is that the law is made to protect the innocent despite the fact the as a result the guilty get away.

My point is that the law lets the guilty get away but does not protect the innocent when it does so.

I guess I'll agree to disagree with you on this one dude
.

Originally posted by Lysergic
benton harbor must be a very boring place.

this is completely and utterly true.

this certainly blew up while i was away. have at it yall! good debates and stuff. um. don't molotov me yet. anyhow, i still think this is a bunch oh hoohah by angry people who want to yap politics. does anyone even care about the dude who hit a tree? no! damnit

Carring about the dude who hit the tree is my point and had the police done what they were supose to do, he would probably not be dead.

Hence the cause of a riot

Well, beyond fulfilling their statutory commitment to inexhaustible fresh drivel: the media will have only two motives on this one:
"Liberals" decrying the police exceeding their powers
"non-Liberals" urging that existing powers are inadequate and more should be bestowed.
Of course, one may be disguised as the other.
We shall see how this is run: expect more when Jeremy Morse faces the judge to-morrow in LA (rumours of Rodney King revisited, I shouldn't wonder) and see how
much is made of Project Islamic Hope.
Likewise with Jennifer Gratz's appeal on race and education which is now awaiting a Supreme court "decision" (as if!).
These are strange times in America.

who gives a flyin freak if he hit a tree, he did and that's what matters. it could've been avoided, it wasn't and they'll try not to in the future. if the guy runs from the law, for doing something he knew could get him arrested, then i say by god or by gun, the wrath of the law is unleashed upon his soul. there is nothing any of us could've done. get over it. unfortunately, it's over

Having grown up in the town right across the river, I know all too well of the goings on there.
(sorry bout bring up an old thread)

In the 60's this was the most growing city in the usa.
Heathkit, Whirlpool, Leco, and other companies were based there.

There were jobs available.

Yes it is a boring town, one reason I moved out of the area.

The seventies, things began to change, and by the eighties, things were established as they are now.
Benton Harbor is a Dying city, unless core things are changed.

Heathkit is gone now.(although it was technically in the other city.)

Most city commisioners have been involved in some type of conspiracy at one time or another. They have been getting cought in the cookie jar more than once.

There is much dislike of the sister city. The rich folks as they are perceived, is really all old money, and the town has been stable(stagnant) for as long.

The average income in BH is what, about ten grand a year, today!
The average age of the population is in the mid twenties. With 2-3 children.

There is a superfund site, right at the edge of town, where Ausco used to make car parts.

Years ago, there were many different interesting groups and figures there.

The house of david, a religous sect, was prominent, and reportedly tried to get babe ruth to join the pro ball team they owned. Babe took alot less money to join the yankees, instead.(smart move, he would have had to grow a beard)

Al Capone owned a river front house in St. Joseph. This house had a tunnel going to the river from his home.(Chicago is only 40 or so miles away by the lake)


Michigan Rep Fred Upton, was born and lived there. His father owned the majority of Whirlpool at the time I lived there.

Now, whirlpool is the key industrial figure in BH. Many folks are a bit tiffed at the company, when they decided to outsource and move out the manufacturing part from the community. Now it is just the administration and R&D location.

It has been said that whirlpool is controlling the local government, by being the biggest taxpayer in the city. They pay all the bills, and if somthing is not liked by them, they can influence change.

The riots, as they are called were largely reported by the media as being a race thing, due to poverty and such. The one and only Rev Jesse Jackson has had his hand in the middle of it since then.

So what is the problem.?!

My belief is that some major industry players would need to begin establishing themselves in the area (not gonna happen) This would dilute the power perception, and put more people to work, and in turn return some of the power to the voting public.

The feelings expressed during the riot are the same feelings that have existed for the last 20 or so years there. This will not change, untill the city changes. The voting public usually is (pardon) older folks, and mid life families. Not many 25 year olds bother to vote. They got parties to go to. They dont understand the political dynamics. They just dont vote. With the avarage age so young in the city, and the social dynamics in ruins for so long, it is no wonder that the city cannot pick itself up by the bootsraps and enact change.

It is a dying city. Cities die real slow.
Like a wounded elephant.